Monthly Archives: September 2014

Another classy move by the San Jose City Council

From: john – January 1, 1970

http:www.prisonplanet.comsan-jose-government-targets-cancer-patients-in-revenue-generation-bid.html — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us.

On October 1st, 7pm-8:30pm, BERKELEY town hall meeting…”Reefer Madness”

From: richard_muller – January 1, 1970

If you can make it and you live in Berkeley have issues that you want to discuss please do come. I plan on going…see you there. Richard Hi all On October 1st 7pm-8:30pm BERKELEY town hall meeting…”Reefer Madness” will take place at the Berkeley High School Library at 1980 Allston Milvia. Are you a parent teen or other community member who has something to say about marijuana use in Berkeley Do you feel the rules and regulations for marijuana use are fair Do adults and teens face same consequences for marijuana use Should they ALL ARE WELCOME BOTH opponents and supporters of the current marijuana culture in climate are welcome. AS marijuana has become increasingly de-stigmatized it’s important to create a space for an ongoing conversation about sanctions and permissions given to marijuana users as well as it’s prevalence amongst teens. For more information contact: Susan Craig at(phone#-removed) SusancraigBerkeley.net Karen Hughes(phone#-removed) KHughesBerkeley.net — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us.

Defending everyone’s rights

From: fred – January 1, 1970

Dr. Bearman was not on the scene in ’96 and knows nothing about the context and evolution of Dennis’s line. Fred Gardner On Sep 30 2014 at 9:52 AM Dr. David Bearman wrote: > i’m sorry but conflating recreational use and medicinal use does a disservice to each cause.We are more likely to reach our desired goal sooner and with less confusion and less opposition by approaching each issue separately. Dennis Peron was wrong all use is not medical. If a physician had said that they would probably be accused of trying to corner the market. These are two related but different issues. > WE are more likely to surceased by effectively .separately pursuing these issues rather than insisting that they are identical issues. > PEACE > dAVID bEARMANm.d. > > > —- Patrick Monk wrote: >> CANNABIS 201 >> https:www.facebook.comnotespatrick-monk-rncannabis(phone#-removed)34398468 >> >> On Sun Sep 28 2014 at 7:20 PM Starchild wrote: >> >>> Recreational use and medicinal use of cannabis are not >>> contradictory goals The safest and surest way to guarantee protection for >>> both is full legalization. As long as some cannabis use is criminalized >>> medical patients are at risk of finding themselves in situations where >>> their rights are infringed or denied. Look at what’s been happening for >>> years since the passage of Prop. 215 with providers legitimately serving >>> the medical community denied the ability to use that defense in court etc. >>> >>> This is a situation not unlike the one the GLBTQ community faced >>> with regard to including trans people under anti-discrimination legislation >>> (setting aside the issue that passing laws interfering with freedom of >>> association outside of government is wrong and just looking at the strategy >>> employed and how it was received by the community). While one big gay >>> rights group the Human Rights Campaign was initially willing to “throw >>> trans people under the bus” by not including them in ENDA so as to increase >>> the chances of passing a bill covering sexual orientation (but not gender >>> identity) this ultimately proved divisive and unpopular and the community >>> eventually reached a broad consensus that no one should be left behind (see >>> e.g. http:prospect.orgarticleuneasy-alliance ). >>> >>> Love & Liberty >>> ((( starchild ))) >>> >>> >>> On Sep 27 2014 at 10:50 PM the420testimony wrote: >>> >>>> SO it appears that the GENERAL CONSENSUS is that although recreational >>> use is coming to california in 2016 this group might not be the ones to >>> grapple with that huge task >>>> Maybe we should focus on Patient Rights Discrimination Issues in >>> housing insurance and parents rights for MEDICAL USERS. >>>> Lets STRENGTHEN PROP 215 so that if and when recreational use is >>> allowed the MEDICAL PATIENTS cant be screwed over. >>>> >>>> My Opinion >>>> 1. No courts shall remove a child from a home or parent or guardian >>> because that person is using growing concentrating cannabis in any way. >>>> and the parents should decide what is in the best interest for their >>> children NOT THE COURTS when it comes to cannabis as a medicine. >>>> >>>> 2. create a path to expungement of marijuana related records and delete >>> history of previous possession or cultivation crimes for non violent >>> medical patients including deletion of felonies based on concentrates or >>> hashish. >>>> >>>> 3. allow cannabis use in prisons for people dying who need relief a >>> prison vapor lounge for qualified patients per prop 215 >>>> >>>> 4. NO genetic engineering for medical pot EVER >>>> >>>> 5. Allow medical patients up to 99 plants at home mandatory local votes >>> before a BAN on outdoor growing can be instituted allow the use of SEEDS >>> in addition to CLONES the medicine is better if you grow a seed crop. >>> (allow right to medicinal breeding…) >>>> >>>> 6. mandatory labels and purity testing on all medical marijuana sold at >>> collectives or co-ops. >>>> >>>> 7. no discrimination against patients in health insurance housing or >>> organ transplant lists cannot be dropped because of cannabis use. >>>> >>>> 8. devise a way to UNSUBSCRIBE from collectives if a patient for any >>> reason wants their private information deleted moved died changed >>> membership…mostly for HIPPA Requirements and privacy identity theft >>> issues etc. >>>> >>>> 9. no loss of employment or drug testing for employment if a medical >>> user and not impaired at work. >>>> >>>> 10. allow medical users to do any kind of extraction remove the penalty >>> from the state law books for concentrates and hash buble hash RSO etc. >>>> >>>> can we FOCUS on BETTER set of regulations and ENHANCE the Prop 215 >>> existing scenario >>>> >>>> really we can do all the work this way and when the voters of >>> california decide recreational is OK then they will only require retail >>> consumer protections and business regulations as an attachment to our >>> ENHANCED expanded medical protections >>>> Lets make Prop 215 and SB 420 stronger better and foster an >>> environment of REAL MEDICAL INNOVATION. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday September 27 2014 4:18:43 PM UTC-7 Daniel Brubaker wrote: >>>> STARCHILD >>>> >>>> I apologize if I hit a nerve. You are taking what I say personally >>> because you have researched the plant and you know how to treat yourself. >>> You are responsible I don’t doubt but look at the rest of America. Obesity >>> due to big business fast food alcoholism by big distillers and breweries >>> narcotics and big pharma. etc. And stoned by purchasing an edible that had >>> too much THC. These are all problems in out society which big Cannabis >>> Companies could present recreationally. >>>> >>>> You didn’t read my correspondence because: >>>> I stated I’m not opposed to recreational and I think it should be >>> decriminalized. I am opposed to recreational because of medicinal use >>> outweighs recreational. Medicinal users are more responsible than >>> recreational (some recreational are responsible). I am generalizing. >>> Medicinal patients with children keep their children from knowing or teach >>> their children it is a medicine they cannot use. Recreational allow ready >>> access to children to try. Recreational persons have a conflict of interest >>> in that they want to exploit it. >>>> >>>> I reasonable ideas on how medicinal should be approached but I have not >>> seen and good solutions in recreational use. Colorado is having a lot >>> societal problems rom recreation use. Colorado’s solution to recreational >>> vs medicinal is tax recreational 25 (Like cigarettes) and medicinal 0 . >>> I don’t know how well that is working. Perhaps something like Aleve over >>> the counter and Naproxen prescribed by a physician. I think CA should wait >>> and see how things turn out with the other two States and then come up with >>> a better solution. >>>> >>>> I also stated the one should start with decriminalizing it educating >>> law enforcement allow patients to grow better regulate and standardize >>> product. Educate the public and politicians. The medical board has set up >>> regulations as to how cannabis should be handled by doctors. Those >>> mentioned above should be regulated . My opinion is if the medicinal side >>> were established recreational could come later. One thing at a time. >>>> >>>> Starchild I am sure you go to the doctor perhaps once a year or at >>> least you should for your health. If you came to me you would get an exam >>> lab work done chest x-ray mammogram and bone density depending on age >>> referral to GYN and a Cannabis recommendation. Now how hard is that and >>> you could teach me some things like some of my patients teach me about >>> Cannabis. >>>> >>>> Yes and male doctors are paternalistic. We like to preach to our >>> patients help them lose weight or stop smoking etc. We do tend to do that. >>>> >>>> Dr Brubaker >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> —–Original Message—– >>>> From: Starchild >>>> To: savecannabis >>>> Sent: Fri Sep 26 2014 8:00 am >>>> Subject: Re: Save Cannabis Doctors’ financial conflict of interest on >>> legalization Doctor-prescribed cannabis as gateway drug to dangerous >>> prescription meds >>>> >>>> Well Dr. Brubaker please try to see it from my perspective and >>> that of other >>>> marijuana users. >>>> >>>> I’ve been using the herb responsibly for years. I’m not hurting >>> anybody. And >>>> I’m not sure what education “on the medical side of cannabis” you think >>> you’re >>>> providing me or what it is supposed to accomplish. I’m aware that >>> people use it >>>> in many different ways for many different ailments and that different >>> strains >>>> with different chemical makeups work better to treat different >>> conditions. I >>>> probably know more about marijuana than many doctors do. If I were >>> providing >>>> marijuana to people for various conditions like you are I would >>> research those >>>> conditions and learn more about how cannabis treatments apply in >>> different >>>> cases but I’m not so I don’t have any present need for that >>> information. I >>>> know how to self-medicate and it works for me. >>>> >>>> Yet you’re sitting here and telling me that you think I should be >>> required to >>>> pay someone like you an annual fee and undergo the hassle of scheduling >>> and >>>> showing up for a special appointment somewhere (probably spending some >>> time >>>> sitting around in a waiting room until you’re ready to fit me into your >>>> schedule) then carry around a recommendation or a special ID card all >>> the time >>>> and if I don’t do these things then you want me to be criminalized and >>> subjected >>>> to citations and fines (in California) or worse (many other states) for >>> lighting >>>> up a joint. >>>> >>>> I’m sorry but that’s simply unacceptable to me and I resent your >>> paternalism >>>> and I don’t think there’s anything you can say to justify it to make me >>> feel >>>> otherwise. >>>> >>>> I think it’s great that you’ve discovered cannabis and have gotten >>> away from >>>> prescribing so many pills and I don’t have a problem with you making >>> money and >>>> charging a reasonable fee for your services but I do have a problem >>> with you >>>> seeking to perpetuate a messed-up arrangement whereby you make money at >>> the >>>> expense of people who don’t need those services but are forced to use >>> them just >>>> to avoid being criminalized. >>>> >>>> Love & Liberty >>>> ((( starchild ))) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 25 2014 at 10:52 AM ‘Daniel Brubaker’ via Save Cannabis wrote: >>>> >>>>> Starchild >>>>> >>>>> I just sent an email addressing Dr Bearman’s points of interest. >>>>> >>>>> I am concerned about doctors who overprescribe. I was one of those >>> until I >>>> discovered Cannabis. The problem in medicine is that medications is too >>> often >>>> the only convenient tool in the doctors toolbox to treat patients. Back >>> in the >>>> early 1900s morphine liniment and cocaine etc were the only tools for >>> doctors >>>> to use. I am a DO Doctor of Osteopathy and I have used manual therapy >>>> injections massage acupuncture etc for patients in lieu of drugs. In >>> fact on >>>> some Cannabis patients as well. My personal belief is that doctors >>> should use as >>>> many modalities to help patients and not only drugs. That is the reason >>> I added >>>> Cannabis to my tool box to help patients. >>>>> >>>>> My points are that we need to do the right thing for the right reason. >>> Bill >>>> Clinton made that statement last night on the CNN town hall meeting. >>> There is >>>> this image by the public and our government that Cannabis is likened to >>> the 60s. >>>> We still call it weed and pot etc and my point is we need to get away >>> from >>>> that image and be professional about it >>>>> >>>>> I am aware of interest groups as you mentioned and if I were >>> President (Joke) >>>> I would do away with lobbyists. >>>>> >>>>> I am trying to educate you on the medical side of Cannabis and you >>> can call >>>> it self interest if you want but the fact is I am doing it for the right >>>> reasons as I believe all physicians should but that is also not >>> reality. And >>>> yes I make money whether I see a Cannabis patient or Blue Cross patient >>> as I >>>> should as a professional. I am an advocate for Cannabis because I have >>> patients >>>> using it that have cancer and should not be living any more. I have >>> patient with >>>> phantom limb which is gone and on and on. My patients eat it rub it on >>> their >>>> bodies and do all sorts of innovative things to help their medical >>> condition.. >>>> And I help them with that. My biggest success is a documented >>> polyarteritis >>>> nodosa patient who used cannabis oil which cured her condition. She had >>> it for >>>> years and in pain on steroids and cannabis cured her. Amazing >>>>> >>>>> This is why I am a beliver of medical Cannabis. I hope you understand. >>>>> >>>>> Dr Brubaker >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> —–Original Message—– >>>>> From: Starchild < >>>> sfdr…earthlink.net >>>>> >>>>> To: savecannabis < >>>> saveca…a2c2.us >>>>> >>>>> Sent: Thu Sep 25 2014 8:33 am >>>>> Subject: Re: Save Cannabis Doctors’ financial conflict of interest on >>>> legalization Doctor-prescribed cannabis as gateway drug to dangerous >>>> prescription meds >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Brubaker >>>>> >>>>> I wasn’t trying to suggest that you don’t care about your patients >>> to whom >>>> you prescribe cannabis or that you are giving them any less than the >>> quality of >>>> care you offer other patients. Having a conflict of interest is not the >>> same >>>> thing as acting unethically. >>>>> >>>>> It may be that your preference to have cannabis legally available >>> only by >>>> doctor’s prescription for medical use is not influenced at all by the >>> fact that >>>> this arrangement allows you to make money charging patients a fee in >>> order to >>>> get legal access to cannabis. I can’t say that’s not true. But if you >>> were >>>> influenced by the prospect of being able to make money writing all those >>>> recommendations for which legalization would eliminate the demand there >>> would >>>> be no way for anyone else to be able to know for sure one way or the >>> other. >>>>> >>>>> That’s why it is problematic for people in your position to take a >>> stance in >>>> favor of medical cannabis but against full legalization — because the >>> evidence >>>> suggests that many people in society are influenced by such financial >>>> incentives. Do you think it’s a coincidence that prison guard unions >>> tend to >>>> favor building more prisons taxicab company owners tend to oppose >>> ride-sharing >>>> services trial lawyers tend to support making it easier for people to >>> sue and >>>> win higher damages etc. I don’t. Taking a political position in >>> support of an >>>> outcome from which one stands to make a nice sum of money tends to raise >>>> questions at the very least — if it is not simply assumed that the >>> size of >>>> one’s paycheck is the motive. >>>>> >>>>> Again I am not making any assumptions about your personal >>> motives however I >>>> can’t help noticing that you did not say anything in your reply about >>> either of >>>> these two points I raised: >>>>> >>>>> The fact that having to pay a doctor for a prescription means >>> increased >>>> costs to patients who do not have to pay such a fee where recreational >>>> marijuana use is legal — which begs the question of why you are not >>> concerned >>>> about these higher costs when the beneficiaries are doctors like >>> yourself when >>>> you are concerned about such costs when they result from DEA and FDA >>> control >>>>> >>>>> The fact that prescription drugs kill more people in the U.S. each >>> year than >>>> banned drugs meaning that if cannabis is a “gateway drug” at all it is >>> more >>>> of a “gateway drug” when prescribed medically given that doctors are >>> the access >>>> point for most dangerous prescription medications — which begs the >>> question of >>>> why you are not concerned about doctors being the gatekeepers for >>> accessing >>>> cannabis when you are concerned about the “gateway drug” issue >>>>> >>>>> Love & Liberty >>>>> ((( starchild ))) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sep 24 2014 at 9:24 AM ‘Daniel Brubaker’ via Save Cannabis wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Star Child >>>>>> >>>>>> I see cannabis patients the same as I see private insurance patient >>> as if I >>>> see an injured worker etc. Yes I do get paid but I get paid fee for >>> service >>>> and all of my patients have medical problems that cannabis helps. I have >>>> referred cannabis patients to orthopedic surgeons cardiologists etc. I >>> examine >>>> the patient in the same manner I examine an injured patient. You are >>> implying I >>>> merely hand out recommendations to make money. No I see the patient and >>> examine >>>> the patient to determine if cannabis would help their medical problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr Brubaker >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> —–Original Message—– >>>>>> From: Starchild < >>>> sfdr…earthlink.net >>>>> >>>>>> To: savecannabis < >>>> saveca…a2c2.us >>>>> >>>>>> Sent: Wed Sep 24 2014 8:56 am >>>>>> Subject: Re: Save Cannabis Doctors’ financial conflict of interest >>> on >>>> legalization Cannabis as gateway drug to dangerous prescription meds >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Brubaker >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that you as a doctor have a financial conflict of >>> interest on this >>>> issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> You express concern about “increased cost to the patient” if >>> cannabis is >>>> controlled by the DEA and FDA and I completely agree. But you yourself >>> charge >>>> people for these medical cannabis recommendations you’ve been doing >>> since 2006 >>>> right The going rate for a doctor’s cannabis recommendation seems to be >>> around >>>> 30 a pop or more — I’m guessing it’s still much higher than that in >>> some areas >>>> — and they’re typically only good for a year meaning that a patient >>> has to pay >>>> you that 30 or whatever it costs not just once but every year in >>> order to >>>> access their medicine. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand if it’s legal for people to just buy cannabis >>> over the >>>> counter they don’t have to pay you a dime So what about the “increased >>> cost to >>>> the patient” of having to get it through a doctor It makes me a bit >>> angry to >>>> see doctors who know the medical value of cannabis (if they’re willing >>> to write >>>> recommendations for it one assumes they are familiar with its health >>> benefits) >>>> opposing legalization because they are profiting from access being >>> controlled. >>>> I think folks like yourself should acknowledge this conflict of >>> interest and >>>> recuse yourselves from arguing against legal recreational use. >>>>>> >>>>>> “Cannabis has now become a gateway drug” because of accessibility >>> you say. >>>> Of course drug warriors have been making that claim about cannabis for >>> years >>>> but setting that issue aside what about cannabis being a gateway drug >>> when >>>> people get it from doctors >>>>>> >>>>>> After all prescription drugs now kill far more people in the U.S. >>> every >>>> year than government-banned drugs do (See e.g. >>>> >>> http:articles.mercola.comsitesarticlesarchive20111026prescription-drugs-number-one-cause-preventable-death-in-us.aspx >>>> >>>> ) and a patient who goes to a doctor to get a cannabis recommendation >>> might also >>>> end up getting a prescription for some other more dangerous drug Seeing >>> hisher >>>> doctor prescribing cannabis she might think “Well I’ve smoked pot >>> and it >>>> didn’t do me any harm so if this doctor recommends that maybe I can >>> trust him >>>> when he recommends I take Chantix” (see >>>> >>> http:www.lawyersandsettlements.comarticleschantixdrug-side-effects-medical-device-companies-dangerous-4-15787.html.VCLf2Cgsc1c >>>> >>>> 😉 >>>>>> >>>>>> Also when people take a drug recreationally they do so in a >>>> straightforward manner without any pretenses — they know they’re taking >>> it >>>> because it’s fun it makes them feel good. But if they see a drug as >>> medicine >>>> there’s a risk they might think “Great now I don’t need to worry so >>> much about >>>> exercising or eating right this drug will keep me healthy.” Therefore >>> cannabis >>>> should remain recreational not medical. >>>>>> >>>>>> Love & Liberty >>>>>> ((( starchild ))) >>>>>> >>>>>> Okay I’m being facetious on that last statement in order to >>> illustrate the >>>> point that it makes just as much sense to say this as to say that >>> cannabis use >>>> should be only medical and not recreational. Obviously it is both >>> recreational >>>> and medical (and spiritual many would say) and people are going to >>> continue >>>> using it for both purposes so trying to rope it off in only one >>> category or the >>>> other is both silly and futile imho. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 23 2014 at 10:28 AM ‘Daniel Brubaker’ via Save Cannabis >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I have been doing medical recommendations since 2006. I started >>> doing this >>>> because patients taking narcotics wanted to use cannabis instead. I >>> started it >>>> because I was inquisitive and wanted to learn more about cannabis. I have >>>> learned a lot. I have seen cures of Asthma pain controlled without >>> narcotics >>>> and on and on. The cannabis plant has the most medical uses than any >>> other plant >>>> in the plant world. Digitalis originated from the Foxglove plant but it >>> only >>>> has one use. Cannabis has many. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As a result of all of these medicinal qualities cannabis should >>> remain >>>> medical. The problems with recreational use have become the same as >>> those with >>>> alcohol. Washington and Colorado have gone down the wrong path because >>> cannabis >>>> has now become a gateway drug whereas alcohol and tobacco were gateway >>> drugs >>>> because of accessibility. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It appears that you all want to make cannabis like aspirin: over the >>> counter >>>> and prescription. I don’t believe this plant is designed for over the >>> counter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have been thinking about how cannabis can be regulated so that it >>> doesn’t >>>> become a part of pharma and big business. I definitely don’t want it >>> controlled >>>> by the DEA and FDA. This type of regulation causes increased cost to the >>>> patient. It also causes DEA to decide to change it to whatever schedule >>> they >>>> want to just like they have recently done with Norco and Tramadol. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most of my patients in the Central Valley do not have health >>> insurance and >>>> since cannabis covers so many medical problems they have learned what >>> strain to >>>> grow and how to process it. This is essentially the same as Traditional >>> Chinese >>>> Medicine. Perhaps the best idea is to create a class of its own for >>> Cannabis. I >>>> don’t have the answers but it appears most states are like California >>> and >>>> perhaps we should keep it status quo with better law for dispensaries >>> and >>>> growing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dr Brubaker >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —–Original Message—– >>>>>>> From: Dr. David Bearman < >>>> davidb…cox.net >>>>> >>>>>>> To: savecannabis < >>>> saveca…a2c2.us >>>>> >>>>>>> Cc: the420testimony < >>>> the420t…gmail.com >>>>> >>>>>>> Sent: Tue Sep 23 2014 9:25 am >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Save Cannabis Removing All Hemp and Cannabis from the >>> Cal. >>>> Controlled Sbst. Act (Pros and Cons) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> i’m a bit baffled as to what strategy you have in mind to move >>> from the >>>>>>> current schedule one to unscheduled status.. I understand that there >>> is a >>>> strong >>>>>>> argument to be made that cannabis is a plantan herb and a >>> vegetable and >>>>>>> should be treated that way. What we’ve seeneven in Washington and >>> Colorado >>>> is >>>>>>> that cannabis is not treated like other vegetables. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are really two issues that often get conflated-recreational >>> use and >>>>>>> medicinal use. So long as we recognize the medicinal use of >>> cannabisand it >>>>>>> definitely is a medicine we need to see where cannabis logically >>> belongs >>>> and >>>>>>> also recognize that it may belong in more than one category. Is >>> cannabis a >>>>>>> prescription drug Is it an OTC Is it a natural supplement Is it a >>> food >>>>>>> If it is a medicine and it isis it a folk medicine Should it be >>>> grandmothered >>>>>>> in to FDA approval per the Food Cosmetic and Drug Act of 1938 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dr. Lucido believes that soon after moving out of schedule one >>> insurance >>>>>>> companies will be clamoring to have cannabis changed to a non >>> prescription >>>> OTC. >>>>>>> Without being rescheduled I think it is hard to postulate that >>> cannabis >>>> moves >>>>>>> directly from schedule I to unscheduled or descheduled. >>>>>>> I’m not sure that railing about a medicine being embraced by >>> physicians and >>>>>>> pharmaceutical companies is necessarily a bad thing. >>>>>>> So my question is what is your strategy to move the medicinal use of >>>> cannabis >>>>>>> from Schedule I to descheduled >>>>>>> Peace >>>>>>> David BearmanM.D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —- the420testimony < >>>>>>> >>>> the420t…gmail.com >>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> So if we shoot for Schedule 4 or 5 that effectively means >>> doctors and >>>> big >>>>>>>> pharma can still regulate and profit from this natural medicine… >>>>>>>> where as if we remove completely well there’s no money in it >>> for the >>>>>>>> medical professions. >>>>>>>> Am i understanding this issue correctly from a medical standpoint >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Monday September 22 2014 9:43:34 AM UTC-7 Dr. David Bearman >>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> how about just rescheduling cannabis to a IV or V under >>> California law >>>>>>>>> peace >>>>>>>>> david bearman >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> —- the420testimony < >>>>>>> >>>> the420t…gmail.com >>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Wondering if anyone would support an initiative that removes >>>>>>>>>> all industrial hemp and all cannabis from the california >>> uniform >>>>>>>>>> controlled substances act in 2016 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. what impact would this have on Criminal Enterprise >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. what impact would this have on Medical Marijuana >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3. would we still need a recreational plant cultivation >>> maximum >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 4. what would the future of cannabis look like if california >>> leads the >>>> >>>>>>>>> way >>>>>>>>>> in this bold area of reform >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Personal Opinion I believe that there are examples of >>> products on the >>>> >>>>>>>>>> store shelves right now that fit this model >>>>>>>>>> can you think of any examples >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Coffee Ground Beef Apples >>>>>>>>>> these foods are regulated for purity standards some are >>>> taxed…anyway >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> model im suggesting is one that closely resembles a tomato >>> plant. >>>>>>>>>> we watch how much and what kind of pesticide is used we label >>> them if >>>> >>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>> are organic or not a harmless tomato plant. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and i am in agreement that controlling cannabis like alcohol >>> keeps it >>>> in >>>>>>>>>> the VICE category. Cannabis should not be considered a vice >>> because >>>> it >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> a superfood…if you want to make a salad and eat it good for >>> you. If >>>> >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> decide to dry your lettuce and smoke it well theres nothing i >>> need to >>>> >>>>>>>>> say >>>>>>>>>> do what you want at your own risk. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All im saying is that just because some methods of >>> administration of >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> neutraceutical are actually FUN doesnt mean we should >>> regulate it >>>> like >>>>>>>>>> alcohol. Thats why I oppose the ABC as a regulatory body. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe the solution is to back cross industrial hemp with >>> critical mass >>>> >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> other strains to develop a high CBD lower THC version of the >>> popular >>>>>>>>>> strains and make those available as products for the general >>> public >>>> at >>>>>>>>>> retail sales. >>>>>>>>>> Keeping the Medical Marijuana potent as it currently is and >>> still >>>>>>>>>> requiring a doctors recommendation a voluntary ID card or >>> letter >>>> from >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> Doc. as a way of getting the really strong types of cannabis. >>> Keep the >>>> >>>>>>>>>> existing dispensarys. Add retail sales of a weaker version so >>> we dont >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> consumers freaking out. >>>>>>>>>> this way they will buy more and sales tax revenue will >>> increase that >>>> >>>>>>>>>> should keep the government happy. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Think Safety First…. thats what i read on the back of a >>> truck on my >>>>>>>>> way >>>>>>>>>> in to work this morning and it got me thinking… >>>>>>>>>> Public Safety is a great issue to pass recreational laws with. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We still allow experts to grow their own at home… >>>>>>>>>> But what should the plant counts be >>>>>>>>>> and again…does it matter if we remove cannabis from the CSA >>>>>>>>>> thanks >>>>>>>>>> looking forward to the discussion. >>>>>>>>>> Joe Hemp >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> — >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are part of the >>> SaveCannabis >>>>>>>>> group. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To post to this group send email to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> saveca…a2c2.us >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> savecannabis…a2c2.us >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> View Archives at >>>>>>> >>>> http:SaveCannabis.org >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> — >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups >>>>>>> “Save Cannabis” group. >>>>>>>> For more options visit >>>>>>> >>>> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout >>>> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it >>> send an >>>>>>> email to >>>>>>> >>>> savecannabis…a2c2.us >>>> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> — >>>>>>> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis >>> group. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To post to this group send email to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> saveca…a2c2.us >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> savecannabis…a2c2.us >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> View Archives at >>>>>>> >>>> http:SaveCannabis.org >>>> >>>>> — >>>>> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis >>> group. >>>>> >>>>> To post to this group send email to >>>>> >>>> saveca…a2c2.us >>>> >>>>> >>>>> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>>>> >>>> savecannabis…a2c2.us >>>> >>>>> >>>>> View Archives at >>>> http:SaveCannabis.org >>>> >>>>> — >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups >>>> “Save Cannabis” group. >>>>> For more options visit >>>> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout >>>> . >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send >>> an >>>> email to >>>> savecannabis…a2c2.us >>>> . >>>>> >>>>> — >>>>> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis >>> group. >>>>> >>>>> To post to this group send email to >>>>> >>>> saveca…a2c2.us >>>> >>>>> >>>>> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>>>> >>>> savecannabis…a2c2.us >>>> >>>>> >>>>> View Archives at >>>> http:SaveCannabis.org >>>> >>>>> — >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups >>>> “Save Cannabis” group. >>>>> For more options visit >>>> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout >>>> . >>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send >>> an >>>> email to >>>> savecannabis…a2c2.us >>>> . >>>> >>>> — >>>> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. >>>> >>>> To post to this group send email to >>>> >>>> saveca…a2c2.us >>>> >>>> >>>> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>>> >>>> savecannabis…a2c2.us >>>> >>>> >>>> View Archives at >>>> http:SaveCannabis.org >>>> >>>> — >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups “Save >>>> Cannabis” group. >>>> For more options visit >>>> https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout >>>> . >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send >>> an email >>>> to >>>> savecannabis…a2c2.us >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> — >>>> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. >>>> >>>> To post to this group send email to >>>> savecannabisa2c2.us >>>> >>>> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>>> savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us >>>> >>>> View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org >>>> — >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups “Save Cannabis” group. >>>> For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send >>> an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. >>> >>> — >>> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. >>> >>> To post to this group send email to >>> savecannabisa2c2.us >>> >>> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >>> savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us >>> >>> View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org >>> — >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> “Save Cannabis” group. >>> For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. >>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an >>> email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. >>> >> >> — >> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. >> >> To post to this group send email to >> savecannabisa2c2.us >> >> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to >> savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us >> >> View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org >> — >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. >> For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. >> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. > > — > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. > > To post to this group send email to > savecannabisa2c2.us > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us > > View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org > — > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. > For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us.

Defending everyone’s rights

From: patmonkrn – January 1, 1970

Of course there are no absolutes but even with our very limited understanding of the effects of cannabis I think that what we do know indicates that any use has potential benefits and is at least supportive of our endocannabinoid system. https:www.facebook.comnotespatrick-monk-rncannabis(phone#-removed)34398468 On Tue Sep 30 2014 at 10:12 AM Starchild wrote: > I’m not sure that question can ever be definitively answered Rob but I > tend to agree with Prop. 215 author Dennis Peron who said In a system > that prescribes Prozac for shy teenagers all marijuana use is medical. > > However I don’t think medical use means a doctor has to be involved any > more than I think recreational use means an entertainment professional has > to be involved or spiritual use means a priest has to be involved. > > Love & Liberty > ((( starchild ))) > > > On Sep 29 2014 at 7:31 AM Robert Ryan wrote: > > What fraction of Marijuana consumers are truly medical > > Rob > > On Sep 28 2014 10:20 PM “Starchild” wrote: > Recreational use and medicinal use of cannabis are not > contradictory goals The safest and surest way to guarantee protection for > both is full legalization. As long as some cannabis use is criminalized > medical patients are at risk of finding themselves in situations where > their rights are infringed or denied. Look at what’s been happening for > years since the passage of Prop. 215 with providers legitimately serving > the medical community denied the ability to use that defense in court etc. > > This is a situation not unlike the one the GLBTQ community faced > with regard to including trans people under anti-discrimination legislation > (setting aside the issue that passing laws interfering with freedom of > association outside of government is wrong and just looking at the strategy > employed and how it was received by the community). While one big gay > rights group the Human Rights Campaign was initially willing to “throw > trans people under the bus” by not including them in ENDA so as to increase > the chances of passing a bill covering sexual orientation (but not gender > identity) this ultimately proved divisive and unpopular and the community > eventually reached a broad consensus that no one should be left behind (see > e.g. http:prospect.orgarticleuneasy-alliance ). > > Love & Liberty > ((( starchild ))) > > > On Sep 27 2014 at 10:50 PM the420testimony wrote: > > > SO it appears that the GENERAL CONSENSUS is that although recreational > use is coming to california in 2016 this group might not be the ones to > grapple with that huge task > > Maybe we should focus on Patient Rights Discrimination Issues in > housing insurance and parents rights for MEDICAL USERS. > > Lets STRENGTHEN PROP 215 so that if and when recreational use is > allowed the MEDICAL PATIENTS cant be screwed over. > > > > My Opinion > > 1. No courts shall remove a child from a home or parent or guardian > because that person is using growing concentrating cannabis in any way. > > and the parents should decide what is in the best interest for their > children NOT THE COURTS when it comes to cannabis as a medicine. > > > > 2. create a path to expungement of marijuana related records and delete > history of previous possession or cultivation crimes for non violent > medical patients including deletion of felonies based on concentrates or > hashish. > > > > 3. allow cannabis use in prisons for people dying who need relief a > prison vapor lounge for qualified patients per prop 215 > > > > 4. NO genetic engineering for medical pot EVER > > > > 5. Allow medical patients up to 99 plants at home mandatory local votes > before a BAN on outdoor growing can be instituted allow the use of SEEDS > in addition to CLONES the medicine is better if you grow a seed crop. > (allow right to medicinal breeding…) > > > > 6. mandatory labels and purity testing on all medical marijuana sold at > collectives or co-ops. > > > > 7. no discrimination against patients in health insurance housing or > organ transplant lists cannot be dropped because of cannabis use. > > > > 8. devise a way to UNSUBSCRIBE from collectives if a patient for any > reason wants their private information deleted moved died changed > membership…mostly for HIPPA Requirements and privacy identity theft > issues etc. > > > > 9. no loss of employment or drug testing for employment if a medical > user and not impaired at work. > > > > 10. allow medical users to do any kind of extraction remove the penalty > from the state law books for concentrates and hash buble hash RSO etc. > > > > can we FOCUS on BETTER set of regulations and ENHANCE the Prop 215 > existing scenario > > > > really we can do all the work this way and when the voters of > california decide recreational is OK then they will only require retail > consumer protections and business regulations as an attachment to our > ENHANCED expanded medical protections > > Lets make Prop 215 and SB 420 stronger better and foster an > environment of REAL MEDICAL INNOVATION. > > > > > > On Saturday September 27 2014 4:18:43 PM UTC-7 Daniel Brubaker wrote: > > STARCHILD > > > > I apologize if I hit a nerve. You are taking what I say personally > because you have researched the plant and you know how to treat yourself. > You are responsible I don’t doubt but look at the rest of America. Obesity > due to big business fast food alcoholism by big distillers and breweries > narcotics and big pharma. etc. And stoned by purchasing an edible that > had too much THC. These are all problems in out society which big Cannabis > Companies could present recreationally. > > > > You didn’t read my correspondence because: > > I stated I’m not opposed to recreational and I think it should be > decriminalized. I am opposed to recreational because of medicinal use > outweighs recreational. Medicinal users are more responsible than > recreational (some recreational are responsible). I am generalizing. > Medicinal patients with children keep their children from knowing or teach > their children it is a medicine they cannot use. Recreational allow ready > access to children to try. Recreational persons have a conflict of interest > in that they want to exploit it. > > > > I reasonable ideas on how medicinal should be approached but I have not > seen and good solutions in recreational use. Colorado is having a lot > societal problems rom recreation use. Colorado’s solution to recreational > vs medicinal is tax recreational 25 (Like cigarettes) and medicinal 0 . > I don’t know how well that is working. Perhaps something like Aleve over > the counter and Naproxen prescribed by a physician. I think CA should wait > and see how things turn out with the other two States and then come up with > a better solution. > > > > I also stated the one should start with decriminalizing it educating > law enforcement allow patients to grow better regulate and standardize > product. Educate the public and politicians. The medical board has set up > regulations as to how cannabis should be handled by doctors. Those > mentioned above should be regulated . My opinion is if the medicinal side > were established recreational could come later. One thing at a time. > > > > Starchild I am sure you go to the doctor perhaps once a year or at > least you should for your health. If you came to me you would get an exam > lab work done chest x-ray mammogram and bone density depending on age > referral to GYN and a Cannabis recommendation. Now how hard is that and > you could teach me some things like some of my patients teach me about > Cannabis. > > > > Yes and male doctors are paternalistic. We like to preach to our > patients help them lose weight or stop smoking etc. We do tend to do that. > > > > Dr Brubaker > > > > > > > > > > > > > > —–Original Message—– > > From: Starchild > > To: savecannabis > > Sent: Fri Sep 26 2014 8:00 am > > Subject: Re: Save Cannabis Doctors’ financial conflict of interest on > legalization Doctor-prescribed cannabis as gateway drug to dangerous > prescription meds > > > > Well Dr. Brubaker please try to see it from my perspective and > that of other > > marijuana users. > > > > I’ve been using the herb responsibly for years. I’m not hurting > anybody. And > > I’m not sure what education “on the medical side of cannabis” you think > you’re > > providing me or what it is supposed to accomplish. I’m aware that > people use it > > in many different ways for many different ailments and that different > strains > > with different chemical makeups work better to treat different > conditions. I > > probably know more about marijuana than many doctors do. If I were > providing > > marijuana to people for various conditions like you are I would > research those > > conditions and learn more about how cannabis treatments apply in > different > > cases but I’m not so I don’t have any present need for that > information. I > > know how to self-medicate and it works for me. > > > > Yet you’re sitting here and telling me that you think I should be > required to > > pay someone like you an annual fee and undergo the hassle of scheduling > and > > showing up for a special appointment somewhere (probably spending some > time > > sitting around in a waiting room until you’re ready to fit me into your > > schedule) then carry around a recommendation or a special ID card all > the time > > and if I don’t do these things then you want me to be criminalized and > subjected > > to citations and fines (in California) or worse (many other states) for > lighting > > up a joint. > > > > I’m sorry but that’s simply unacceptable to me and I resent your > paternalism > > and I don’t think there’s anything you can say to justify it to make me > feel > > otherwise. > > > > I think it’s great that you’ve discovered cannabis and have gotten > away from > > prescribing so many pills and I don’t have a problem with you making > money and > > charging a reasonable fee for your services but I do have a problem > with you > > seeking to perpetuate a messed-up arrangement whereby you make money at > the > > expense of people who don’t need those services but are forced to use > them just > > to avoid being criminalized. > > > > Love & Liberty > > ((( starchild ))) > > > > > > On Sep 25 2014 at 10:52 AM ‘Daniel Brubaker’ via Save Cannabis wrote: > > > > > Starchild > > > > > > I just sent an email addressing Dr Bearman’s points of interest. > > > > > > I am concerned about doctors who overprescribe. I was one of those > until I > > discovered Cannabis. The problem in medicine is that medications is too > often > > the only convenient tool in the doctors toolbox to treat patients. Back > in the > > early 1900s morphine liniment and cocaine etc were the only tools for > doctors > > to use. I am a DO Doctor of Osteopathy and I have used manual therapy > > injections massage acupuncture etc for patients in lieu of drugs. In > fact on > > some Cannabis patients as well. My personal belief is that doctors > should use as > > many modalities to help patients and not only drugs. That is the reason > I added > > Cannabis to my tool box to help patients. > > > > > > My points are that we need to do the right thing for the right reason. > Bill > > Clinton made that statement last night on the CNN town hall meeting. > There is > > this image by the public and our government that Cannabis is likened to > the 60s. > > We still call it weed and pot etc and my point is we need to get away > from > > that image and be professional about it > > > > > > I am aware of interest groups as you mentioned and if I were > President (Joke) > > I would do away with lobbyists. > > > > > > I am trying to educate you on the medical side of Cannabis and you > can call > > it self interest if you want but the fact is I am doing it for the right > > reasons as I believe all physicians should but that is also not > reality. And > > yes I make money whether I see a Cannabis patient or Blue Cross patient > as I > > should as a professional. I am an advocate for Cannabis because I have > patients > > using it that have cancer and should not be living any more. I have > patient with > > phantom limb which is gone and on and on. My patients eat it rub it on > their > > bodies and do all sorts of innovative things to help their medical > condition.. > > And I help them with that. My biggest success is a documented > polyarteritis > > nodosa patient who used cannabis oil which cured her condition. She had > it for > > years and in pain on steroids and cannabis cured her. Amazing > > > > > > This is why I am a beliver of medical Cannabis. I hope you understand. > > > > > > Dr Brubaker > > > > > > > > > —–Original Message—– > > > From: Starchild < > > sfdr…earthlink.net > > > > > > To: savecannabis < > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > > > Sent: Thu Sep 25 2014 8:33 am > > > Subject: Re: Save Cannabis Doctors’ financial conflict of interest on > > legalization Doctor-prescribed cannabis as gateway drug to dangerous > > prescription meds > > > > > > Dr. Brubaker > > > > > > I wasn’t trying to suggest that you don’t care about your patients > to whom > > you prescribe cannabis or that you are giving them any less than the > quality of > > care you offer other patients. Having a conflict of interest is not the > same > > thing as acting unethically. > > > > > > It may be that your preference to have cannabis legally available > only by > > doctor’s prescription for medical use is not influenced at all by the > fact that > > this arrangement allows you to make money charging patients a fee in > order to > > get legal access to cannabis. I can’t say that’s not true. But if you > were > > influenced by the prospect of being able to make money writing all those > > recommendations for which legalization would eliminate the demand there > would > > be no way for anyone else to be able to know for sure one way or the > other. > > > > > > That’s why it is problematic for people in your position to take a > stance in > > favor of medical cannabis but against full legalization — because the > evidence > > suggests that many people in society are influenced by such financial > > incentives. Do you think it’s a coincidence that prison guard unions > tend to > > favor building more prisons taxicab company owners tend to oppose > ride-sharing > > services trial lawyers tend to support making it easier for people to > sue and > > win higher damages etc. I don’t. Taking a political position in > support of an > > outcome from which one stands to make a nice sum of money tends to raise > > questions at the very least — if it is not simply assumed that the > size of > > one’s paycheck is the motive. > > > > > > Again I am not making any assumptions about your personal > motives however I > > can’t help noticing that you did not say anything in your reply about > either of > > these two points I raised: > > > > > > The fact that having to pay a doctor for a prescription means > increased > > costs to patients who do not have to pay such a fee where recreational > > marijuana use is legal — which begs the question of why you are not > concerned > > about these higher costs when the beneficiaries are doctors like > yourself when > > you are concerned about such costs when they result from DEA and FDA > control > > > > > > The fact that prescription drugs kill more people in the U.S. each > year than > > banned drugs meaning that if cannabis is a “gateway drug” at all it is > more > > of a “gateway drug” when prescribed medically given that doctors are > the access > > point for most dangerous prescription medications — which begs the > question of > > why you are not concerned about doctors being the gatekeepers for > accessing > > cannabis when you are concerned about the “gateway drug” issue > > > > > > Love & Liberty > > > ((( starchild ))) > > > > > > > > > On Sep 24 2014 at 9:24 AM ‘Daniel Brubaker’ via Save Cannabis wrote: > > > > > >> Star Child > > >> > > >> I see cannabis patients the same as I see private insurance patient > as if I > > see an injured worker etc. Yes I do get paid but I get paid fee for > service > > and all of my patients have medical problems that cannabis helps. I have > > referred cannabis patients to orthopedic surgeons cardiologists etc. I > examine > > the patient in the same manner I examine an injured patient. You are > implying I > > merely hand out recommendations to make money. No I see the patient and > examine > > the patient to determine if cannabis would help their medical problem. > > >> > > >> Dr Brubaker > > >> > > >> > > >> —–Original Message—– > > >> From: Starchild < > > sfdr…earthlink.net > > > > > >> To: savecannabis < > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > > >> Sent: Wed Sep 24 2014 8:56 am > > >> Subject: Re: Save Cannabis Doctors’ financial conflict of interest > on > > legalization Cannabis as gateway drug to dangerous prescription meds > > >> > > >> Dr. Brubaker > > >> > > >> I believe that you as a doctor have a financial conflict of > interest on this > > issue. > > >> > > >> You express concern about “increased cost to the patient” if > cannabis is > > controlled by the DEA and FDA and I completely agree. But you yourself > charge > > people for these medical cannabis recommendations you’ve been doing > since 2006 > > right The going rate for a doctor’s cannabis recommendation seems to be > around > > 30 a pop or more — I’m guessing it’s still much higher than that in > some areas > > — and they’re typically only good for a year meaning that a patient > has to pay > > you that 30 or whatever it costs not just once but every year in > order to > > access their medicine. > > >> > > >> On the other hand if it’s legal for people to just buy cannabis > over the > > counter they don’t have to pay you a dime So what about the “increased > cost to > > the patient” of having to get it through a doctor It makes me a bit > angry to > > see doctors who know the medical value of cannabis (if they’re willing > to write > > recommendations for it one assumes they are familiar with its health > benefits) > > opposing legalization because they are profiting from access being > controlled. > > I think folks like yourself should acknowledge this conflict of > interest and > > recuse yourselves from arguing against legal recreational use. > > >> > > >> “Cannabis has now become a gateway drug” because of accessibility > you say. > > Of course drug warriors have been making that claim about cannabis for > years > > but setting that issue aside what about cannabis being a gateway drug > when > > people get it from doctors > > >> > > >> After all prescription drugs now kill far more people in the U.S. > every > > year than government-banned drugs do (See e.g. > > > http:articles.mercola.comsitesarticlesarchive20111026prescription-drugs-number-one-cause-preventable-death-in-us.aspx > > > > ) and a patient who goes to a doctor to get a cannabis recommendation > might also > > end up getting a prescription for some other more dangerous drug Seeing > hisher > > doctor prescribing cannabis she might think “Well I’ve smoked pot > and it > > didn’t do me any harm so if this doctor recommends that maybe I can > trust him > > when he recommends I take Chantix” (see > > > http:www.lawyersandsettlements.comarticleschantixdrug-side-effects-medical-device-companies-dangerous-4-15787.html.VCLf2Cgsc1c > > > > 😉 > > >> > > >> Also when people take a drug recreationally they do so in a > > straightforward manner without any pretenses — they know they’re taking > it > > because it’s fun it makes them feel good. But if they see a drug as > medicine > > there’s a risk they might think “Great now I don’t need to worry so > much about > > exercising or eating right this drug will keep me healthy.” Therefore > cannabis > > should remain recreational not medical. > > >> > > >> Love & Liberty > > >> ((( starchild ))) > > >> > > >> Okay I’m being facetious on that last statement in order to > illustrate the > > point that it makes just as much sense to say this as to say that > cannabis use > > should be only medical and not recreational. Obviously it is both > recreational > > and medical (and spiritual many would say) and people are going to > continue > > using it for both purposes so trying to rope it off in only one > category or the > > other is both silly and futile imho. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sep 23 2014 at 10:28 AM ‘Daniel Brubaker’ via Save Cannabis > wrote: > > >> > > >>> I have been doing medical recommendations since 2006. I started > doing this > > because patients taking narcotics wanted to use cannabis instead. I > started it > > because I was inquisitive and wanted to learn more about cannabis. I have > > learned a lot. I have seen cures of Asthma pain controlled without > narcotics > > and on and on. The cannabis plant has the most medical uses than any > other plant > > in the plant world. Digitalis originated from the Foxglove plant but it > only > > has one use. Cannabis has many. > > >>> > > >>> As a result of all of these medicinal qualities cannabis should > remain > > medical. The problems with recreational use have become the same as > those with > > alcohol. Washington and Colorado have gone down the wrong path because > cannabis > > has now become a gateway drug whereas alcohol and tobacco were gateway > drugs > > because of accessibility. > > >>> > > >>> It appears that you all want to make cannabis like aspirin: over the > counter > > and prescription. I don’t believe this plant is designed for over the > counter. > > >>> > > >>> I have been thinking about how cannabis can be regulated so that it > doesn’t > > become a part of pharma and big business. I definitely don’t want it > controlled > > by the DEA and FDA. This type of regulation causes increased cost to the > > patient. It also causes DEA to decide to change it to whatever schedule > they > > want to just like they have recently done with Norco and Tramadol. > > >>> > > >>> Most of my patients in the Central Valley do not have health > insurance and > > since cannabis covers so many medical problems they have learned what > strain to > > grow and how to process it. This is essentially the same as Traditional > Chinese > > Medicine. Perhaps the best idea is to create a class of its own for > Cannabis. I > > don’t have the answers but it appears most states are like California > and > > perhaps we should keep it status quo with better law for dispensaries > and > > growing. > > >>> > > >>> Dr Brubaker > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> —–Original Message—– > > >>> From: Dr. David Bearman < > > davidb…cox.net > > > > > >>> To: savecannabis < > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > > >>> Cc: the420testimony < > > the420t…gmail.com > > > > > >>> Sent: Tue Sep 23 2014 9:25 am > > >>> Subject: Re: Save Cannabis Removing All Hemp and Cannabis from the > Cal. > > Controlled Sbst. Act (Pros and Cons) > > >>> > > >>> i’m a bit baffled as to what strategy you have in mind to move > from the > > >>> current schedule one to unscheduled status.. I understand that there > is a > > strong > > >>> argument to be made that cannabis is a plantan herb and a > vegetable and > > >>> should be treated that way. What we’ve seeneven in Washington and > Colorado > > is > > >>> that cannabis is not treated like other vegetables. > > >>> > > >>> There are really two issues that often get conflated-recreational > use and > > >>> medicinal use. So long as we recognize the medicinal use of > cannabisand it > > >>> definitely is a medicine we need to see where cannabis logically > belongs > > and > > >>> also recognize that it may belong in more than one category. Is > cannabis a > > >>> prescription drug Is it an OTC Is it a natural supplement Is it a > food > > >>> If it is a medicine and it isis it a folk medicine Should it be > > grandmothered > > >>> in to FDA approval per the Food Cosmetic and Drug Act of 1938 > > >>> > > >>> Dr. Lucido believes that soon after moving out of schedule one > insurance > > >>> companies will be clamoring to have cannabis changed to a non > prescription > > OTC. > > >>> Without being rescheduled I think it is hard to postulate that > cannabis > > moves > > >>> directly from schedule I to unscheduled or descheduled. > > >>> I’m not sure that railing about a medicine being embraced by > physicians and > > >>> pharmaceutical companies is necessarily a bad thing. > > >>> So my question is what is your strategy to move the medicinal use of > > cannabis > > >>> from Schedule I to descheduled > > >>> Peace > > >>> David BearmanM.D. > > >>> > > >>> —- the420testimony < > > >>> > > the420t…gmail.com > > > > >>> > wrote: > > >>> > So if we shoot for Schedule 4 or 5 that effectively means > doctors and > > big > > >>> > pharma can still regulate and profit from this natural medicine… > > >>> > where as if we remove completely well there’s no money in it > for the > > >>> > medical professions. > > >>> > Am i understanding this issue correctly from a medical standpoint > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > On Monday September 22 2014 9:43:34 AM UTC-7 Dr. David Bearman > wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > how about just rescheduling cannabis to a IV or V under > California law > > >>> > > peace > > >>> > > david bearman > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > —- the420testimony < > > >>> > > the420t…gmail.com > > > > >>> > wrote: > > >>> > > > Wondering if anyone would support an initiative that removes > > >>> > > > all industrial hemp and all cannabis from the california > uniform > > >>> > > > controlled substances act in 2016 > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > 1. what impact would this have on Criminal Enterprise > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > 2. what impact would this have on Medical Marijuana > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > 3. would we still need a recreational plant cultivation > maximum > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > 4. what would the future of cannabis look like if california > leads the > > > > >>> > > way > > >>> > > > in this bold area of reform > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Personal Opinion I believe that there are examples of > products on the > > > > >>> > > > store shelves right now that fit this model > > >>> > > > can you think of any examples > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Coffee Ground Beef Apples > > >>> > > > these foods are regulated for purity standards some are > > taxed…anyway > > >>> > > the > > >>> > > > model im suggesting is one that closely resembles a tomato > plant. > > >>> > > > we watch how much and what kind of pesticide is used we label > them if > > > > >>> > > they > > >>> > > > are organic or not a harmless tomato plant. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > and i am in agreement that controlling cannabis like alcohol > keeps it > > in > > >>> > > > the VICE category. Cannabis should not be considered a vice > because > > it > > >>> > > is > > >>> > > > a superfood…if you want to make a salad and eat it good for > you. If > > > > >>> > > you > > >>> > > > decide to dry your lettuce and smoke it well theres nothing i > need to > > > > >>> > > say > > >>> > > > do what you want at your own risk. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > All im saying is that just because some methods of > administration of > > >>> > > this > > >>> > > > neutraceutical are actually FUN doesnt mean we should > regulate it > > like > > >>> > > > alcohol. Thats why I oppose the ABC as a regulatory body. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Maybe the solution is to back cross industrial hemp with > critical mass > > > > >>> > > and > > >>> > > > other strains to develop a high CBD lower THC version of the > popular > > >>> > > > strains and make those available as products for the general > public > > at > > >>> > > > retail sales. > > >>> > > > Keeping the Medical Marijuana potent as it currently is and > still > > >>> > > > requiring a doctors recommendation a voluntary ID card or > letter > > from > > >>> > > the > > >>> > > > Doc. as a way of getting the really strong types of cannabis. > Keep the > > > > >>> > > > existing dispensarys. Add retail sales of a weaker version so > we dont > > >>> > > have > > >>> > > > consumers freaking out. > > >>> > > > this way they will buy more and sales tax revenue will > increase that > > > > >>> > > > should keep the government happy. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Think Safety First…. thats what i read on the back of a > truck on my > > >>> > > way > > >>> > > > in to work this morning and it got me thinking… > > >>> > > > Public Safety is a great issue to pass recreational laws with. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > We still allow experts to grow their own at home… > > >>> > > > But what should the plant counts be > > >>> > > > and again…does it matter if we remove cannabis from the CSA > > >>> > > > thanks > > >>> > > > looking forward to the discussion. > > >>> > > > Joe Hemp > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > — > > >>> > > > You received this message because you are part of the > SaveCannabis > > >>> > > group. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > To post to this group send email to > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > View Archives at > > >>> > > http:SaveCannabis.org > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > — > > >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > >>> “Save Cannabis” group. > > >>> > For more options visit > > >>> > > https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout > > > > >>> . > > >>> > > > >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it > send an > > >>> email to > > >>> > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > > > >>> . > > >>> > > >>> — > > >>> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis > group. > > >>> > > >>> To post to this group send email to > > >>> > > >>> > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > > >>> > > >>> > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> View Archives at > > >>> > > http:SaveCannabis.org > > > > > — > > > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis > group. > > > > > > To post to this group send email to > > > > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > > > > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > > > > > > > View Archives at > > http:SaveCannabis.org > > > > > — > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > “Save Cannabis” group. > > > For more options visit > > https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout > > . > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send > an > > email to > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > . > > > > > > — > > > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis > group. > > > > > > To post to this group send email to > > > > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > > > > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > > > > > > > View Archives at > > http:SaveCannabis.org > > > > > — > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > “Save Cannabis” group. > > > For more options visit > > https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout > > . > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send > an > > email to > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > . > > > > — > > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. > > > > To post to this group send email to > > > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > > > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > > > > > View Archives at > > http:SaveCannabis.org > > > > — > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups “Save > > Cannabis” group. > > For more options visit > > https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout > > . > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send > an email > > to > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > . > > > > > > — > > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. > > > > To post to this group send email to > > savecannabisa2c2.us > > > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > > savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us > > > > View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org > > — > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups “Save Cannabis” group. > > For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send > an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. > > — > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. > > To post to this group send email to > savecannabisa2c2.us > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us > > View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org > — > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > “Save Cannabis” group. > For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an > email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. > > — > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. > > To post to this group send email to > savecannabisa2c2.us > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us > > View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org > — > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > “Save Cannabis” group. > For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an > email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. > > > — > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. > > To post to this group send email to > savecannabisa2c2.us > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us > > View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org > — > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > “Save Cannabis” group. > For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an > email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. > — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us.

Defending everyone’s rights

From: sfdreamer – January 1, 1970

I’m not sure that question can ever be definitively answered Rob but I tend to agree with Prop. 215 author Dennis Peron who said “In a system that prescribes Prozac for shy teenagers all marijuana use is medical.” However I don’t think medical use means a doctor has to be involved any more than I think recreational use means an entertainment professional has to be involved or spiritual use means a priest has to be involved. Love & Liberty ((( starchild ))) On Sep 29 2014 at 7:31 AM Robert Ryan wrote: > What fraction of Marijuana consumers are truly medical > > Rob > > On Sep 28 2014 10:20 PM “Starchild” wrote: > Recreational use and medicinal use of cannabis are not contradictory goals The safest and surest way to guarantee protection for both is full legalization. As long as some cannabis use is criminalized medical patients are at risk of finding themselves in situations where their rights are infringed or denied. Look at what’s been happening for years since the passage of Prop. 215 with providers legitimately serving the medical community denied the ability to use that defense in court etc. > > This is a situation not unlike the one the GLBTQ community faced with regard to including trans people under anti-discrimination legislation (setting aside the issue that passing laws interfering with freedom of association outside of government is wrong and just looking at the strategy employed and how it was received by the community). While one big gay rights group the Human Rights Campaign was initially willing to “throw trans people under the bus” by not including them in ENDA so as to increase the chances of passing a bill covering sexual orientation (but not gender identity) this ultimately proved divisive and unpopular and the community eventually reached a broad consensus that no one should be left behind (see e.g. http:prospect.orgarticleuneasy-alliance ). > > Love & Liberty > ((( starchild ))) > > > On Sep 27 2014 at 10:50 PM the420testimony wrote: > > > SO it appears that the GENERAL CONSENSUS is that although recreational use is coming to california in 2016 this group might not be the ones to grapple with that huge task > > Maybe we should focus on Patient Rights Discrimination Issues in housing insurance and parents rights for MEDICAL USERS. > > Lets STRENGTHEN PROP 215 so that if and when recreational use is allowed the MEDICAL PATIENTS cant be screwed over. > > > > My Opinion > > 1. No courts shall remove a child from a home or parent or guardian because that person is using growing concentrating cannabis in any way. > > and the parents should decide what is in the best interest for their children NOT THE COURTS when it comes to cannabis as a medicine. > > > > 2. create a path to expungement of marijuana related records and delete history of previous possession or cultivation crimes for non violent medical patients including deletion of felonies based on concentrates or hashish. > > > > 3. allow cannabis use in prisons for people dying who need relief a prison vapor lounge for qualified patients per prop 215 > > > > 4. NO genetic engineering for medical pot EVER > > > > 5. Allow medical patients up to 99 plants at home mandatory local votes before a BAN on outdoor growing can be instituted allow the use of SEEDS in addition to CLONES the medicine is better if you grow a seed crop. (allow right to medicinal breeding…) > > > > 6. mandatory labels and purity testing on all medical marijuana sold at collectives or co-ops. > > > > 7. no discrimination against patients in health insurance housing or organ transplant lists cannot be dropped because of cannabis use. > > > > 8. devise a way to UNSUBSCRIBE from collectives if a patient for any reason wants their private information deleted moved died changed membership…mostly for HIPPA Requirements and privacy identity theft issues etc. > > > > 9. no loss of employment or drug testing for employment if a medical user and not impaired at work. > > > > 10. allow medical users to do any kind of extraction remove the penalty from the state law books for concentrates and hash buble hash RSO etc. > > > > can we FOCUS on BETTER set of regulations and ENHANCE the Prop 215 existing scenario > > > > really we can do all the work this way and when the voters of california decide recreational is OK then they will only require retail consumer protections and business regulations as an attachment to our ENHANCED expanded medical protections > > Lets make Prop 215 and SB 420 stronger better and foster an environment of REAL MEDICAL INNOVATION. > > > > > > On Saturday September 27 2014 4:18:43 PM UTC-7 Daniel Brubaker wrote: > > STARCHILD > > > > I apologize if I hit a nerve. You are taking what I say personally because you have researched the plant and you know how to treat yourself. You are responsible I don’t doubt but look at the rest of America. Obesity due to big business fast food alcoholism by big distillers and breweries narcotics and big pharma. etc. And stoned by purchasing an edible that had too much THC. These are all problems in out society which big Cannabis Companies could present recreationally. > > > > You didn’t read my correspondence because: > > I stated I’m not opposed to recreational and I think it should be decriminalized. I am opposed to recreational because of medicinal use outweighs recreational. Medicinal users are more responsible than recreational (some recreational are responsible). I am generalizing. Medicinal patients with children keep their children from knowing or teach their children it is a medicine they cannot use. Recreational allow ready access to children to try. Recreational persons have a conflict of interest in that they want to exploit it. > > > > I reasonable ideas on how medicinal should be approached but I have not seen and good solutions in recreational use. Colorado is having a lot societal problems rom recreation use. Colorado’s solution to recreational vs medicinal is tax recreational 25 (Like cigarettes) and medicinal 0 . I don’t know how well that is working. Perhaps something like Aleve over the counter and Naproxen prescribed by a physician. I think CA should wait and see how things turn out with the other two States and then come up with a better solution. > > > > I also stated the one should start with decriminalizing it educating law enforcement allow patients to grow better regulate and standardize product. Educate the public and politicians. The medical board has set up regulations as to how cannabis should be handled by doctors. Those mentioned above should be regulated . My opinion is if the medicinal side were established recreational could come later. One thing at a time. > > > > Starchild I am sure you go to the doctor perhaps once a year or at least you should for your health. If you came to me you would get an exam lab work done chest x-ray mammogram and bone density depending on age referral to GYN and a Cannabis recommendation. Now how hard is that and you could teach me some things like some of my patients teach me about Cannabis. > > > > Yes and male doctors are paternalistic. We like to preach to our patients help them lose weight or stop smoking etc. We do tend to do that. > > > > Dr Brubaker > > > > > > > > > > > > > > —–Original Message—– > > From: Starchild > > To: savecannabis > > Sent: Fri Sep 26 2014 8:00 am > > Subject: Re: Save Cannabis Doctors’ financial conflict of interest on legalization Doctor-prescribed cannabis as gateway drug to dangerous prescription meds > > > > Well Dr. Brubaker please try to see it from my perspective and that of other > > marijuana users. > > > > I’ve been using the herb responsibly for years. I’m not hurting anybody. And > > I’m not sure what education “on the medical side of cannabis” you think you’re > > providing me or what it is supposed to accomplish. I’m aware that people use it > > in many different ways for many different ailments and that different strains > > with different chemical makeups work better to treat different conditions. I > > probably know more about marijuana than many doctors do. If I were providing > > marijuana to people for various conditions like you are I would research those > > conditions and learn more about how cannabis treatments apply in different > > cases but I’m not so I don’t have any present need for that information. I > > know how to self-medicate and it works for me. > > > > Yet you’re sitting here and telling me that you think I should be required to > > pay someone like you an annual fee and undergo the hassle of scheduling and > > showing up for a special appointment somewhere (probably spending some time > > sitting around in a waiting room until you’re ready to fit me into your > > schedule) then carry around a recommendation or a special ID card all the time > > and if I don’t do these things then you want me to be criminalized and subjected > > to citations and fines (in California) or worse (many other states) for lighting > > up a joint. > > > > I’m sorry but that’s simply unacceptable to me and I resent your paternalism > > and I don’t think there’s anything you can say to justify it to make me feel > > otherwise. > > > > I think it’s great that you’ve discovered cannabis and have gotten away from > > prescribing so many pills and I don’t have a problem with you making money and > > charging a reasonable fee for your services but I do have a problem with you > > seeking to perpetuate a messed-up arrangement whereby you make money at the > > expense of people who don’t need those services but are forced to use them just > > to avoid being criminalized. > > > > Love & Liberty > > ((( starchild ))) > > > > > > On Sep 25 2014 at 10:52 AM ‘Daniel Brubaker’ via Save Cannabis wrote: > > > > > Starchild > > > > > > I just sent an email addressing Dr Bearman’s points of interest. > > > > > > I am concerned about doctors who overprescribe. I was one of those until I > > discovered Cannabis. The problem in medicine is that medications is too often > > the only convenient tool in the doctors toolbox to treat patients. Back in the > > early 1900s morphine liniment and cocaine etc were the only tools for doctors > > to use. I am a DO Doctor of Osteopathy and I have used manual therapy > > injections massage acupuncture etc for patients in lieu of drugs. In fact on > > some Cannabis patients as well. My personal belief is that doctors should use as > > many modalities to help patients and not only drugs. That is the reason I added > > Cannabis to my tool box to help patients. > > > > > > My points are that we need to do the right thing for the right reason. Bill > > Clinton made that statement last night on the CNN town hall meeting. There is > > this image by the public and our government that Cannabis is likened to the 60s. > > We still call it weed and pot etc and my point is we need to get away from > > that image and be professional about it > > > > > > I am aware of interest groups as you mentioned and if I were President (Joke) > > I would do away with lobbyists. > > > > > > I am trying to educate you on the medical side of Cannabis and you can call > > it self interest if you want but the fact is I am doing it for the right > > reasons as I believe all physicians should but that is also not reality. And > > yes I make money whether I see a Cannabis patient or Blue Cross patient as I > > should as a professional. I am an advocate for Cannabis because I have patients > > using it that have cancer and should not be living any more. I have patient with > > phantom limb which is gone and on and on. My patients eat it rub it on their > > bodies and do all sorts of innovative things to help their medical condition.. > > And I help them with that. My biggest success is a documented polyarteritis > > nodosa patient who used cannabis oil which cured her condition. She had it for > > years and in pain on steroids and cannabis cured her. Amazing > > > > > > This is why I am a beliver of medical Cannabis. I hope you understand. > > > > > > Dr Brubaker > > > > > > > > > —–Original Message—– > > > From: Starchild < > > sfdr…earthlink.net > > > > > > To: savecannabis < > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > > > Sent: Thu Sep 25 2014 8:33 am > > > Subject: Re: Save Cannabis Doctors’ financial conflict of interest on > > legalization Doctor-prescribed cannabis as gateway drug to dangerous > > prescription meds > > > > > > Dr. Brubaker > > > > > > I wasn’t trying to suggest that you don’t care about your patients to whom > > you prescribe cannabis or that you are giving them any less than the quality of > > care you offer other patients. Having a conflict of interest is not the same > > thing as acting unethically. > > > > > > It may be that your preference to have cannabis legally available only by > > doctor’s prescription for medical use is not influenced at all by the fact that > > this arrangement allows you to make money charging patients a fee in order to > > get legal access to cannabis. I can’t say that’s not true. But if you were > > influenced by the prospect of being able to make money writing all those > > recommendations for which legalization would eliminate the demand there would > > be no way for anyone else to be able to know for sure one way or the other. > > > > > > That’s why it is problematic for people in your position to take a stance in > > favor of medical cannabis but against full legalization — because the evidence > > suggests that many people in society are influenced by such financial > > incentives. Do you think it’s a coincidence that prison guard unions tend to > > favor building more prisons taxicab company owners tend to oppose ride-sharing > > services trial lawyers tend to support making it easier for people to sue and > > win higher damages etc. I don’t. Taking a political position in support of an > > outcome from which one stands to make a nice sum of money tends to raise > > questions at the very least — if it is not simply assumed that the size of > > one’s paycheck is the motive. > > > > > > Again I am not making any assumptions about your personal motives however I > > can’t help noticing that you did not say anything in your reply about either of > > these two points I raised: > > > > > > The fact that having to pay a doctor for a prescription means increased > > costs to patients who do not have to pay such a fee where recreational > > marijuana use is legal — which begs the question of why you are not concerned > > about these higher costs when the beneficiaries are doctors like yourself when > > you are concerned about such costs when they result from DEA and FDA control > > > > > > The fact that prescription drugs kill more people in the U.S. each year than > > banned drugs meaning that if cannabis is a “gateway drug” at all it is more > > of a “gateway drug” when prescribed medically given that doctors are the access > > point for most dangerous prescription medications — which begs the question of > > why you are not concerned about doctors being the gatekeepers for accessing > > cannabis when you are concerned about the “gateway drug” issue > > > > > > Love & Liberty > > > ((( starchild ))) > > > > > > > > > On Sep 24 2014 at 9:24 AM ‘Daniel Brubaker’ via Save Cannabis wrote: > > > > > >> Star Child > > >> > > >> I see cannabis patients the same as I see private insurance patient as if I > > see an injured worker etc. Yes I do get paid but I get paid fee for service > > and all of my patients have medical problems that cannabis helps. I have > > referred cannabis patients to orthopedic surgeons cardiologists etc. I examine > > the patient in the same manner I examine an injured patient. You are implying I > > merely hand out recommendations to make money. No I see the patient and examine > > the patient to determine if cannabis would help their medical problem. > > >> > > >> Dr Brubaker > > >> > > >> > > >> —–Original Message—– > > >> From: Starchild < > > sfdr…earthlink.net > > > > > >> To: savecannabis < > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > > >> Sent: Wed Sep 24 2014 8:56 am > > >> Subject: Re: Save Cannabis Doctors’ financial conflict of interest on > > legalization Cannabis as gateway drug to dangerous prescription meds > > >> > > >> Dr. Brubaker > > >> > > >> I believe that you as a doctor have a financial conflict of interest on this > > issue. > > >> > > >> You express concern about “increased cost to the patient” if cannabis is > > controlled by the DEA and FDA and I completely agree. But you yourself charge > > people for these medical cannabis recommendations you’ve been doing since 2006 > > right The going rate for a doctor’s cannabis recommendation seems to be around > > 30 a pop or more — I’m guessing it’s still much higher than that in some areas > > — and they’re typically only good for a year meaning that a patient has to pay > > you that 30 or whatever it costs not just once but every year in order to > > access their medicine. > > >> > > >> On the other hand if it’s legal for people to just buy cannabis over the > > counter they don’t have to pay you a dime So what about the “increased cost to > > the patient” of having to get it through a doctor It makes me a bit angry to > > see doctors who know the medical value of cannabis (if they’re willing to write > > recommendations for it one assumes they are familiar with its health benefits) > > opposing legalization because they are profiting from access being controlled. > > I think folks like yourself should acknowledge this conflict of interest and > > recuse yourselves from arguing against legal recreational use. > > >> > > >> “Cannabis has now become a gateway drug” because of accessibility you say. > > Of course drug warriors have been making that claim about cannabis for years > > but setting that issue aside what about cannabis being a gateway drug when > > people get it from doctors > > >> > > >> After all prescription drugs now kill far more people in the U.S. every > > year than government-banned drugs do (See e.g. > > http:articles.mercola.comsitesarticlesarchive20111026prescription-drugs-number-one-cause-preventable-death-in-us.aspx > > > > ) and a patient who goes to a doctor to get a cannabis recommendation might also > > end up getting a prescription for some other more dangerous drug Seeing hisher > > doctor prescribing cannabis she might think “Well I’ve smoked pot and it > > didn’t do me any harm so if this doctor recommends that maybe I can trust him > > when he recommends I take Chantix” (see > > http:www.lawyersandsettlements.comarticleschantixdrug-side-effects-medical-device-companies-dangerous-4-15787.html.VCLf2Cgsc1c > > > > 😉 > > >> > > >> Also when people take a drug recreationally they do so in a > > straightforward manner without any pretenses — they know they’re taking it > > because it’s fun it makes them feel good. But if they see a drug as medicine > > there’s a risk they might think “Great now I don’t need to worry so much about > > exercising or eating right this drug will keep me healthy.” Therefore cannabis > > should remain recreational not medical. > > >> > > >> Love & Liberty > > >> ((( starchild ))) > > >> > > >> Okay I’m being facetious on that last statement in order to illustrate the > > point that it makes just as much sense to say this as to say that cannabis use > > should be only medical and not recreational. Obviously it is both recreational > > and medical (and spiritual many would say) and people are going to continue > > using it for both purposes so trying to rope it off in only one category or the > > other is both silly and futile imho. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sep 23 2014 at 10:28 AM ‘Daniel Brubaker’ via Save Cannabis wrote: > > >> > > >>> I have been doing medical recommendations since 2006. I started doing this > > because patients taking narcotics wanted to use cannabis instead. I started it > > because I was inquisitive and wanted to learn more about cannabis. I have > > learned a lot. I have seen cures of Asthma pain controlled without narcotics > > and on and on. The cannabis plant has the most medical uses than any other plant > > in the plant world. Digitalis originated from the Foxglove plant but it only > > has one use. Cannabis has many. > > >>> > > >>> As a result of all of these medicinal qualities cannabis should remain > > medical. The problems with recreational use have become the same as those with > > alcohol. Washington and Colorado have gone down the wrong path because cannabis > > has now become a gateway drug whereas alcohol and tobacco were gateway drugs > > because of accessibility. > > >>> > > >>> It appears that you all want to make cannabis like aspirin: over the counter > > and prescription. I don’t believe this plant is designed for over the counter. > > >>> > > >>> I have been thinking about how cannabis can be regulated so that it doesn’t > > become a part of pharma and big business. I definitely don’t want it controlled > > by the DEA and FDA. This type of regulation causes increased cost to the > > patient. It also causes DEA to decide to change it to whatever schedule they > > want to just like they have recently done with Norco and Tramadol. > > >>> > > >>> Most of my patients in the Central Valley do not have health insurance and > > since cannabis covers so many medical problems they have learned what strain to > > grow and how to process it. This is essentially the same as Traditional Chinese > > Medicine. Perhaps the best idea is to create a class of its own for Cannabis. I > > don’t have the answers but it appears most states are like California and > > perhaps we should keep it status quo with better law for dispensaries and > > growing. > > >>> > > >>> Dr Brubaker > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> —–Original Message—– > > >>> From: Dr. David Bearman < > > davidb…cox.net > > > > > >>> To: savecannabis < > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > > >>> Cc: the420testimony < > > the420t…gmail.com > > > > > >>> Sent: Tue Sep 23 2014 9:25 am > > >>> Subject: Re: Save Cannabis Removing All Hemp and Cannabis from the Cal. > > Controlled Sbst. Act (Pros and Cons) > > >>> > > >>> i’m a bit baffled as to what strategy you have in mind to move from the > > >>> current schedule one to unscheduled status.. I understand that there is a > > strong > > >>> argument to be made that cannabis is a plantan herb and a vegetable and > > >>> should be treated that way. What we’ve seeneven in Washington and Colorado > > is > > >>> that cannabis is not treated like other vegetables. > > >>> > > >>> There are really two issues that often get conflated-recreational use and > > >>> medicinal use. So long as we recognize the medicinal use of cannabisand it > > >>> definitely is a medicine we need to see where cannabis logically belongs > > and > > >>> also recognize that it may belong in more than one category. Is cannabis a > > >>> prescription drug Is it an OTC Is it a natural supplement Is it a food > > >>> If it is a medicine and it isis it a folk medicine Should it be > > grandmothered > > >>> in to FDA approval per the Food Cosmetic and Drug Act of 1938 > > >>> > > >>> Dr. Lucido believes that soon after moving out of schedule one insurance > > >>> companies will be clamoring to have cannabis changed to a non prescription > > OTC. > > >>> Without being rescheduled I think it is hard to postulate that cannabis > > moves > > >>> directly from schedule I to unscheduled or descheduled. > > >>> I’m not sure that railing about a medicine being embraced by physicians and > > >>> pharmaceutical companies is necessarily a bad thing. > > >>> So my question is what is your strategy to move the medicinal use of > > cannabis > > >>> from Schedule I to descheduled > > >>> Peace > > >>> David BearmanM.D. > > >>> > > >>> —- the420testimony < > > >>> > > the420t…gmail.com > > > > >>> > wrote: > > >>> > So if we shoot for Schedule 4 or 5 that effectively means doctors and > > big > > >>> > pharma can still regulate and profit from this natural medicine… > > >>> > where as if we remove completely well there’s no money in it for the > > >>> > medical professions. > > >>> > Am i understanding this issue correctly from a medical standpoint > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > On Monday September 22 2014 9:43:34 AM UTC-7 Dr. David Bearman wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > how about just rescheduling cannabis to a IV or V under California law > > >>> > > peace > > >>> > > david bearman > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > —- the420testimony < > > >>> > > the420t…gmail.com > > > > >>> > wrote: > > >>> > > > Wondering if anyone would support an initiative that removes > > >>> > > > all industrial hemp and all cannabis from the california uniform > > >>> > > > controlled substances act in 2016 > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > 1. what impact would this have on Criminal Enterprise > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > 2. what impact would this have on Medical Marijuana > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > 3. would we still need a recreational plant cultivation maximum > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > 4. what would the future of cannabis look like if california leads the > > > > >>> > > way > > >>> > > > in this bold area of reform > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Personal Opinion I believe that there are examples of products on the > > > > >>> > > > store shelves right now that fit this model > > >>> > > > can you think of any examples > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Coffee Ground Beef Apples > > >>> > > > these foods are regulated for purity standards some are > > taxed…anyway > > >>> > > the > > >>> > > > model im suggesting is one that closely resembles a tomato plant. > > >>> > > > we watch how much and what kind of pesticide is used we label them if > > > > >>> > > they > > >>> > > > are organic or not a harmless tomato plant. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > and i am in agreement that controlling cannabis like alcohol keeps it > > in > > >>> > > > the VICE category. Cannabis should not be considered a vice because > > it > > >>> > > is > > >>> > > > a superfood…if you want to make a salad and eat it good for you. If > > > > >>> > > you > > >>> > > > decide to dry your lettuce and smoke it well theres nothing i need to > > > > >>> > > say > > >>> > > > do what you want at your own risk. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > All im saying is that just because some methods of administration of > > >>> > > this > > >>> > > > neutraceutical are actually FUN doesnt mean we should regulate it > > like > > >>> > > > alcohol. Thats why I oppose the ABC as a regulatory body. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Maybe the solution is to back cross industrial hemp with critical mass > > > > >>> > > and > > >>> > > > other strains to develop a high CBD lower THC version of the popular > > >>> > > > strains and make those available as products for the general public > > at > > >>> > > > retail sales. > > >>> > > > Keeping the Medical Marijuana potent as it currently is and still > > >>> > > > requiring a doctors recommendation a voluntary ID card or letter > > from > > >>> > > the > > >>> > > > Doc. as a way of getting the really strong types of cannabis. Keep the > > > > >>> > > > existing dispensarys. Add retail sales of a weaker version so we dont > > >>> > > have > > >>> > > > consumers freaking out. > > >>> > > > this way they will buy more and sales tax revenue will increase that > > > > >>> > > > should keep the government happy. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > Think Safety First…. thats what i read on the back of a truck on my > > >>> > > way > > >>> > > > in to work this morning and it got me thinking… > > >>> > > > Public Safety is a great issue to pass recreational laws with. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > We still allow experts to grow their own at home… > > >>> > > > But what should the plant counts be > > >>> > > > and again…does it matter if we remove cannabis from the CSA > > >>> > > > thanks > > >>> > > > looking forward to the discussion. > > >>> > > > Joe Hemp > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > — > > >>> > > > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis > > >>> > > group. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > To post to this group send email to > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > View Archives at > > >>> > > http:SaveCannabis.org > > > > >>> > > >>> > > > — > > >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > >>> “Save Cannabis” group. > > >>> > For more options visit > > >>> > > https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout > > > > >>> . > > >>> > > > >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an > > >>> email to > > >>> > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > > > >>> . > > >>> > > >>> — > > >>> You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. > > >>> > > >>> To post to this group send email to > > >>> > > >>> > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > > >>> > > >>> > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> View Archives at > > >>> > > http:SaveCannabis.org > > > > > — > > > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. > > > > > > To post to this group send email to > > > > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > > > > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > > > > > > > View Archives at > > http:SaveCannabis.org > > > > > — > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > “Save Cannabis” group. > > > For more options visit > > https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout > > . > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an > > email to > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > . > > > > > > — > > > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. > > > > > > To post to this group send email to > > > > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > > > > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > > > > > > > View Archives at > > http:SaveCannabis.org > > > > > — > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > “Save Cannabis” group. > > > For more options visit > > https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout > > . > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an > > email to > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > . > > > > — > > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. > > > > To post to this group send email to > > > > saveca…a2c2.us > > > > > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > > > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > > > > > View Archives at > > http:SaveCannabis.org > > > > — > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save > > Cannabis” group. > > For more options visit > > https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout > > . > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email > > to > > savecannabis…a2c2.us > > . > > > > > > — > > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. > > > > To post to this group send email to > > savecannabisa2c2.us > > > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > > savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us > > > > View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org > > — > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. > > For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. > > — > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. > > To post to this group send email to > savecannabisa2c2.us > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us > > View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org > — > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. > For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. > > — > You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. > > To post to this group send email to > savecannabisa2c2.us > > To Unsubscribe from this group send email to > savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us > > View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org > — > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. > For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us. — You received this message because you are part of the SaveCannabis group. To post to this group send email to savecannabisa2c2.us To Unsubscribe from this group send email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us View Archives at http:SaveCannabis.org — You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Save Cannabis” group. For more options visit https:groups.google.comaa2c2.usdoptout. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to savecannabis unsubscribea2c2.us.