- GET PAID to gather signatures in Sac County!!! [1 Update]
- To DAB or NOT TO DAB! THE "DANGERS" OF DABBING! [2 Updates]
- How to Understand the PACK decision… why it will stand. [1 Update]
- stadegy for making cannabis an issue in 2012 presidential race [2 Updates]
- 56% Favor Legalizing, Regulating Marijuana [1 Update]
- [SFmcdGroup] Three stories including SF Chronicle: Court upholds city's right to ban pot dispensaries [1 Update]
- Unity, Community, and/or Cooperation. Can it happen? [1 Update]
- Dhar Mann’s G-8 Dispensary permit RESCINDED in Oakland [1 Update]
- CSPARC Sacramento <s..[email protected]> May 22 04:10PM -0700
We are currently paying volunteers $1 per signature to circulate a petition
for medical cannabis. We need thousands of registered Sacramento County
voters to sign a petition to put a medical cannabis initiative on the
November ballot. Can you help us? We will pay you by the signature for your
help. Most people who work a full day can make between $100-$200. If you
are interested in helping with our campaign please email, or call
(phone#-removed). For info on the initiative visit www.RegulateSac.org. We have
until June 21st to get the job done. We look forward to your help. Thanks.
The Committee for Safe Patient Access to Regulated Cannabis
www.RegulateSac.org and www.CSPARC.org
Find Us on FB Here<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Csparc-Sacramento(phone#-removed)741>
Email: s..[email protected]
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by
the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may
contain confidential information and work product. If you are not the
intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of
the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY
- "Dr. David Bearman" <s..[email protected]> May 22 01:43AM -0400
palpable bull. I can smell it from here.
1) at 32 his friend is not the youngest patient to have open heart surgery. It's done on infants and I even think it has been done in-utero.
2)Well you could scrape a half ounce of oil off his shirt, or maybe his chest hairs.
bu,t assuming he smoked the cannabis, the smoke would go into the bronchi.
Certainly Dr. Tashkin,Emeritus Professor of Pulmonology at UCLA School of Medicine and recipient of frequent NIDA grants,would have seen in at least one person in his numerous lung studies on cannabis , a speck of this oil. He didn't,because it wasn't there and couldn't be there..
3)This story is preposterous. Assuming that this guy really believes something like this happened he has his "facts" upside down and backwards, to say the least.
4)i wouldn't be surprised if the story teller was drunk or in an altered state when he heard this story( that is if the whole thing ,besides being impossible is a fraud from beginning to end.-
- Chris Conrad <s..[email protected]> May 22 02:36PM -0700
I brought up this question at the Seventh Biennial Clinical Conference on
Cannabis Therapeutics and the panel of researchers agreed that this claim
makes no sense. They said that when you smoke it, the oils are burned and
released as vapor absorbed into the lungs. When you vaporize, the vapors are
absorbed in the lungs. In neither case do the cannabinoids condense in the
lungs. None of them gave this claim the least bit of credibility.
— Chris <s..[email protected]>(phone#-removed)
- Dave Hodges <s..[email protected]> May 22 02:35PM -0700
I have been very disappointed in people's understanding of this extremely
important case. Hopefully this email will help people understand why it
will likely stand, and how legislation such as AB2312 must be re-written to
comply with it.
The PACK decision effectively says: "A city can not issue (or charge lots
of $ for) a 'permit' or 'authorize' anyone to commit hate crimes (or any
other federally illegal crime, such as selling marijuana)"
What the city can do is "Register" a list of "sex offenders" and tell them
if they follow the rules, we won't lock them up again.
When you apply the PACK decision to any other federal crime, it's extremely
easy to understand.
You can read the full decision here:
The 2 most important parts are:
*"The question presented by this case is whether the City’s ordinance,
which permits and regulates medical marijuana collectives rather than
merely decriminalizing specific acts, is preempted by federal law. "
*"The conclusion is inescapable: the City’s permits are more than simply
an easy way to identify those collectives against whom the City has chosen
not to enforce its prohibition against collectives; the permits instead
authorize the operation of collectives by those which hold them. As such,
the permit provisions, including the substantial application fees and
renewal fees, and the lottery system, are federally preempted"
IMHO, it is one of the best, well written, cannabis decisions I have ever
read (and I've read most of them).
If you apply the Pack decision to any other federal crime “the conclusion
is inescapable”, the Pack case will stand… if the Pack case does NOT
stand (then AB2312 CAN be adopted).. then it wouldn't be long before cities
can start issuing “kill whitey" "permits", and the government "authorizes"
bank robberies to anyone who pays them $100,000.
This is how the law works…
One of the most disturbing things I learned from the unity conference was
that if the Pack decision stands, AB2312 will be "destroyed". This is
what ASA's Attorney James Anthony claimed, before brushing off the Pack
decision stating it was unlikely to be upheld. It is extremely unfortunate
that the opinions of attorney’s that have never successfully argued a
cannabis case would ever be relied on for this important of fact…
If we are going to pass legislation it needs to comply with the law, if it
is true AB2312 is not Pack compliant, it should never have been introduced
So is James correct? and if so, how did it happen that AB2312 is not Pack
- Susan Soares <s..[email protected]> May 22 12:47PM -0700
Are there any polls being done?
On May 22, 2012, at 12:55 AM, rose jeri wrote:
- Dave Hodges <s..[email protected]> May 22 11:06AM -0700
*56% Favor Legalizing, Regulating Marijuana*
Thursday, May 17, 2012
A solid majority of voters nationwide favor legalizing and regulating
marijuana similar to the way alcohol and tobacco cigarettes are currently
regulated. Most also don’t believe it should be a crime for people to smoke
marijuana in the privacy of their own homes.
A new national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 56% favor
legalizing and regulating marijuana in a similar manner to the way alcohol
and tobacco cigarettes are regulated. Thirty-six percent (36%) are opposed
to such a legalizing and regulating pot. (To see survey question wording, click
(Want a free daily e-mail
If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also
available on Twitter <http://twitter.com/RasmussenPoll>
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters nationwide was conducted on May 12, 2012
by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage
points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports
surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research,
Rasmussen subscribers can log in to read the rest of this
- Matthew Meyer <s..[email protected]> May 22 08:18AM -0700
As of May 18th the case is "fully briefed":
Unfortunately, the briefs are not easily found online. If anyone knows
where they can be found, I'm interested.
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur <
University of Virginia