I'm with Bill Panzer in preferring 'social' to 'recreational'.
 
Lee Berger, Portland, OR
on the road, Ivins, UT
 
On 12/22/2011 11:19 PM, Russ Belville wrote:

Activist terminology: I like "social" instead of "recreational", as distinguished from "medical" or "medicinal". Fine point, but words DO count at a time like this….*_*
 
<strong><font color="#00ffff">SWALLOW AIR TO INCREASE BUOYANCY</font></strong>
<strong><font color="#212143">   visit: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.survivalworkshop.com">www.survivalworkshop.com</a></font></strong>
 
 
 
>And people accept that!  Whether it is "illegal high" or "legal buzz", the concept is the same: using a substance merely to enjoy the altered state of consciousness.  What they won't accept is trying to say the "legal buzz" is primarily medical or the reason the person seeks the "legal buzz" is primarily medical.  Every year some news story touts the health benefits of the occasional glass of red wine, and that will never convince anybody that the guy sucking down tequila shots off the belly of a stripper is "medicating".
 
>You can do so and STILL support RMLW and STILL point out cannabis is medicine and those who are not lucky enough to live in places where there is a citizen's initiative process – 23 US States and most of Canada and the rest of the world – can still protect themselves with the "all use is medicinal use" argument. It's not either one or the other … you can vocally support the coffee bean model as an end goal and the medical and wine models as incremental steps forward – I do so all the time 
 
>I support all acts that work in any way to prevent putting fellow cannabis consumers in a cage.  I point out on a daily basis to a large audience every medical aspect of cannabis that is discovered.  But it is the half of the US without initiatives and the ones with who haven't passed medical marijuana that I am thinking of.  Like South Dakota, dropping from 48% support to 36% support in the span of four years.  Like Montana that pared down its medical marijuana law short of outright repeal. Like New Jersey, where no home grow, six dispensaries with three strains of <10% THC, and a doctor's registry were enacted precisely because of the "We don't want to be out of control like California" was the zeitgeist.  Like Oregon, which the public really supports its medical marijuana program, but defeated dispensaries by virtually the same percentage from 2004 to 2010, where the common refrains we hear from editorial pages and citizen town halls are
"there's far too much abuse of the program" and "quit trying to justify everything as 'medical' and just have the debate on legalization."
>I'm not a chain smoker… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects of tobacco for my unobstructed airway syndrome.
>I'm not hyper… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects of coffee for my lethargy.
 
>You're confusing "whether it has medical effects" with "whether people are using it medically".  While you may not see a difference, the public does.  What I've been trying to illustrate, apparently unsuccessfully or unconvincingly, is that medical marijuana paints you into this uncomfortable corner where you need to get the public to redefine their entire paradigm of "medicine".  You're stuck in a situation where every state after California has had to say "Legalization?!?  California?!?  Oh, no, no, this isn't that; this is for the cancer and AIDS and MS and pain patients who have no choice but to use cannabis."  Then you have to try to explain away obvious recreational uses that create the cognitive dissonance for the voter who thought he approved a very limited exception for the sickest of the sick but sees "Kush Doctor" bikini girls on Venice Beach hawking $45 doctor recs.  Then you ask me to go to that voter and say, "Yeah, the college
kids getting those Venice Beach recs… that's the medical marijuana you voted for; don't you know that all use is medical?"

> I think I can convince a voter smoking pot's like drinking beer, only
> less harmful, than to convince them that smoking pot is like taking your
> vitamins.
 
In California you can focus on the alcohol comparisons. If you like you can
look at the work I've already done in that area (I've made it easy for you,
and you have already identified yourself as someone who likes to take the
easy path):
 
 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/07/07/Crystal-Clear-Glasses-and-Unbleached-Rollies
 
But just because you choose to focus on the alcohol comparisons doesn't
mean you need to undermine the messaging in places like Canada who -
because of a lack of initiative process – need to adopt a different
approach.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> written "before anyone outside of San Francisco or obscure doctors unknown
> to the public writing in rarely-read medical journals and publishing houses
> was putting "medical" with "marijuana".
 
You didn't bother to read the books I suggested you read – or even click on
the links I suggested you click on. Beginning in 1976 Robert Randall was
featured in a story in the Washington Post, which then was picked up by UPI
… and then he was interviewed by CBS news. Thus began a fairly constant
assault on ignorance in the mass media with his group "Alliance for
Cannabis Therapeutics" (founded in 1981) that lasted through the 1980s and
into the 1990's – you can read about it in his book "Marijuana RX" – it
begins on page 87.
 
If you type "Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics" in quotes in Google it
comes up with about 84,400 results.
 
Irving Rosenfeld was a charter member – he's still doing interviews to this
day. Same with **Elvy Musikka (High Times freedom fighter of the year,
1992).
 
These people are not "obscure doctors", The Washington post and UPI
affiliated newspapers are not "rarely-read", and CBS news is nothing to
sneeze at either.
 
 
 
 
*
*
I'm not trying to say that people's growing awareness of medical use of
cannabis doesn't lead to increased medical marijuana support. We see the
polls rise from 24% in 1996 to 50% today and much of that has to be
attributed to medical marijuana and the "look at all the pot smoking and
the sky didn't fall" realization. What I'm trying to say is that medical
marijuana as a mind opener for the public only goes so far and that if we
want it treated like wine, we need to talk about it like wine.
 
 
We want to treat it like coffee, but even California isn't ready for that
model yet. We need to take incremental steps, and create a message that
will be consistent with all models – medical, wine and coffee. "All use is
medical and EVENTUALLY, WHEN SOCIETY IS READY FOR IT, all herbal medicines
will not involve doctors … or even age limits" is just such a message.
 
It might not be "easy" – but it's what is necessary.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> country. I would start with "Marijuana RX" by Robert Randall to begin with
> for a general overview, and then check out chapter 18 of "Reefer Madness"
> by Larry Sloman and then check out those other books I mentioned above.
 
Oh, benevolent master, thank you for the pearls of your tutelage!
 
I'm quite well educated on marijuana activism – medical and recreational -
in my country, frostback.
 
 
You were doing so well without the name-calling. Finally, I thought, a
debate partner who – unlike Mickey and Letitia – could keep it focused on
the argument itself. Alas, it could only last so long.
 
 
 
 
 
What I think you and others with the medical marijuana blinders on are
oblivious to is a growing public sentiment of feeling bamboozled,
hoodwinked, conned, double-talked, and bullshitted on the issue of
marijuana.
 
When they're getting the same "Imler-esque message" from the DEA AND some
cannabis activists, how do you expect the public to react?
 
 
 
 
 
 
Like I said. You live in a place where it's easy to launch a RMLW
> initiative. I live in a place where it's next to impossible. You should
> keep that in mind when you get all sanctimonious about the approaches other
> people take in their cannabis activism.
 
 
Damn that straw man behind me! *I am not saying "Don't fight for a medical
marijuana initiative in your state". I am saying "don't try to bullshit
people by saying 'all use is medical'" because it is eventually going to
backfire on you.
 
 
It's not bullshit. It's the truth. You just have a narrow, "medicine is
only handed to you by a guy in a lab coat" definition of medicine. And yet
you, Mickey and everyone else here is still unable to provide a meaningful
analysis of the difference between recreational cannabis use and preventive
herbal medicine. So until you actually do so in such a way as to explain
why one is not similar to if not the same as the other, quit calling it
"bullshit".
 
 
 
 
 
 
*
 
 
> Can't wait to see your initiative. In the mean time RMLW is getting the
> funding and the signatures it needs to make the ballot:
 
> … even without much help from NORML's Stash Blog.
 
WTF? All throughout 2010 I did extensive coverage of damn near every
initiative out there.
 
It's 2012 now.
 
 
 
 
This year, I've hosted on air debates between Alison Holcomb (WA I-502)
and Doug Hiatt (WA I-505). I've interviewed Don Skakie (WA I-505). I've
had proponents of three different Oregon initiatives on the air. I've
talked to Mason Tvert from one of the Colorado initiatives. I've covered
all the California initiatives, interviewed over one or two (forget which),
and that I haven't interviewed RMLW folks yet is just due to scheduling.
 
Ah yes. Scheduling.
 
Meanwhile, us Canadians have found the time to fit it into our busy
schedules while at the same time promoting activism in our own country:
 
http://www.celebstoner.com(phone#-removed)/blogs/misc/why-we-must-ban-gm-cannabis.html
 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/28992
 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/28713
 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/09/29/Battle-Marijuana-Bills-Why-Regulate-Better-Repeal
 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/09/29/Polls-Show-World-Difference-Between-Marijuana-Legalization-and-Regulation-Califor
 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/07/07/Crystal-Clear-Glasses-and-Unbleached-Rollies
 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/03/28/Regulate-Marijuana-Alcohol-California-Interview-Steve-Kubby
 
So when are you gonna pick up the slack?
 
 
 
 
Show Me Cannabis (Missouri) is booked for January. And those are just the
legalization measures, let's not forget medical measures in Idaho, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Alabama, Wisconsin, and New York where
I've interviewed either the activist or politician directing those efforts.
 
I applaud the work that you do. But RMLW is clearly the best initiative -
it bans GM and prevents monopoly, unlike other efforts – and enjoys the
most support of any initiative – 62%. So make some time, please, because
California serves as a model for the rest of the world more than any other
US State, and we need your help to make sure it's done properly.
 
 
 
 
 
So check yourself, Canuck, before you wreck yourself by implying I'm
anything less than a rabid and vocal proponent and promoter of marijuana
legalization. You opened by lumping me in with prohibitionists …
 
What's the difference between what you say and what the DEA endlessly quote
Imler saying?
 
 
 
 
 
and you closed with this, after an "oblivious" and a "sanctimonious" in
between? We agree on 99% of this issue, we just disagree about how to best
convince those who don't agree with us. I think it is easier to get them
to put "marijuana" in constructs they already understand: "medicine" and
"recreation". You think they won't accept "recreational",
 
That's not what I say. I accept there's a thing called "recreational
cannabis use" – I believe it involves smoke, fun, music, dancing, movie
watching among healthy people … and no doctor. I also believe that this
is a form of medicine – preventive medicine – every bit as legitimate as
palliative or curative or symptom-relief medicine – a medicine that keeps
healthy people healthy, and should be promoted and recognized as such.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
so we need to redefine the whole "medicine" construct. It's OK to
disagree about this and until we actually poll "Q: Do you believe all use
of marijuana is for medical purposes" we can't really know.
 
1) We may never see such a poll and should get our message straight
regardless.
 
2) To be fair, such a poll should actually say "Is there a difference
between recreational cannabis use and preventive herbal medicine, and if
so, what is that difference?"
 
3) We should shape our message based upon what we believe is the truth, not
based upon what ignorance the public is laboring under.

> OK, then…
 
> I'm not a bawling rambling drunk… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects
> of alcohol for my social anxiety disorder.
 
I'm not a chain smoker… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects of tobacco
> for my unobstructed airway syndrome.
> I'm not hyper… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects of coffee for my
> lethargy.
 
“No valid conclusion as to the use of a thing can be drawn from its abuse.”
Ancient Latin maxim, Stockdale v. Hansard, Lord Denman
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> You're confusing "whether it has medical effects" with "whether people are
> using it medically".
 
You are focusing on the abuse of drugs as an excuse to keep our community
divided.
 
I am focusing on the potential proper use of drugs as a method of keeping
our community united.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> While you may not see a difference, the public does.
 
"*They who have put out the people's eyes, reproach them for their blindness
*" – John Milton
 
 
 
 
 
 
> unconvincingly, is that medical marijuana paints you into this
> uncomfortable corner where you need to get the public to redefine their
> entire paradigm of "medicine".
 
I'm comfortable with it, considering the fact that if we do manage to do it
we stand united as a community, and if we don't manage to do it we loose -
not just cannabis – but ALL herbs to the doctors and pharmacists through
CODEX.
 
 
 
 
 
 
You're stuck in a situation where every state after California has had to
> say "Legalization?!? California?!? Oh, no, no, this isn't *that;* this
> is for the cancer and AIDS and MS and pain patients who *have no choice
> but to use cannabis*."
 
Not really. I'm an "all use is medicinal" activist who actively supports
the wine model and will continue to work towards the coffee bean model. I
just don't suffer from doctor-worship like some med pot activists do. My
definition of medicine includes "fun" and "smoke rings" and
"doctorlessness".
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> the cognitive dissonance for the voter who thought he approved a very
> limited exception for the sickest of the sick but sees "Kush Doctor" bikini
> girls on Venice Beach hawking $45 doctor recs.
 
As pot activists, we have to explain those things anyway. We can do so in
such a way as to allow ourselves to be divided – the "Imler way" … or we
can adopt an inclusive definition of medicine that includes all use of
herbal medicine despite immoral business ethics and improper use. The way
to deal with improper use is to provide lots of examples of proper use
rather than deem recreation as "not legitimate" as some med pot users have
done. The way to deal with immoral business ethics is to legislate against
them – across the board, involving all drugs (alcohol and caffeine and
pharmaceuticals, especially, considering all the immoral business practices
those industries are involved in) rather than say that because some people
abuse the system marijuana suddenly, magically, becomes "non-medicine" for
some.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> Then you ask me to go to that voter and say, "Yeah, the college kids
> getting those Venice Beach recs… that's the medical marijuana you voted
> for; don't you know that all use is medical?"
 
Nope. I would say we need to do a better job of educating people how to use
it properly and regulate how ALL drugs are advertized better than we
currently do.
 
For example, last year at the Vancouver Art Gallery's "cannabis farmer's
market" we created tips for users and rules for dealers – the media picked
up on it:
 
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xiblnr_vancouver-pot-rally-draws-in-thousands_news
 
It reduced the number of people passing out from excessive use from about 8
in 2010 to 1 this year. We will be doing that again next year.
 
 
 
 
 
> and the medical well is running dry with the public; the opinion and
> electoral polls are pointing in that direction. I'm saying voters react
> badly when they feel they're being bullshitted.
 
If the science doesn't support your "recreation has nothing to do with
medicine" myopic view, stop pushing that bullshit as if it was the truth,
and stop calling the inclusive activists "bullshiters" … maybe the public
will change it's mind again as a result. It can't hurt to try.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> Right! But "I'm using it medically" isn't necessary to convince the
> public the pot smoker is harmless, and in many cases will backfire because
> distrusting the pot smoker's motives makes them appear harmful.
 
California isn't the entire world – it's not even the entire USA.
California is California, and the RMLW initiative is right for California -
and arguably everywhere else that has 1) an initiative process, and 2) a
population comfortable with med pot. In some US states they're still at the
"activists trying to convince the public that sick people use cannabis as a
medicine" stage, while in other places (such as in Canada) we're at the
point that the only thing we can do now to keep everyone out of jail (a
goal I refuse to give up on) is to educate people about preventive herbal
medicine and alert people to the fact that there's no real difference
between that and recreational cannabis use. We need different strategies
for different situations, and the way we can avoid working at
cross-purposes is to adopt a message that doesn't undermine any efforts in
any place.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
>> marijuana makes them think it's safe!
 
> It IS safe. It's safer than the Coca-Cola they drink every day. It is the
> duty of every activist to point that out.
 
And I do. But any argument that begins, "Hey, it's a *good thing* that
more teenagers are smoking more pot…" is a hard one to win with parents.
 
"If the truth hurts, you'll be in pain. If the truth drives you crazy
you'll be insane." – Sista Souljah
 
 
 
 
 
 
While almost every parent I know says something like "I'd much rather my
kid was smoking reefer (aside from the getting busted part) than getting
drunk…", they would also likely say "I'd much rather my kid didn't smoke
pot or drink."
 
To which I reply: proper cannabis use is far less harmful than either a
criminal record or a jail cell – or the totalitarian conditions that would
be required to prevent them from having access to cannabis, given the fact
that they can still score some in a jail cell. You can no more prevent teen
cannabis use than teen sex or teen masturbation – it's best that they learn
to do it in ways that don't involve harm to themselves or others.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
>> medical marijuana!
 
> It's a good thing too – otherwise those hippies would just be on welfare.
> It is the duty of every activist to point that out.
 
Here we have to part company. The last thing I want in the home next to me
is unlicensed uninspected high-output electrical work and potential extra
attention from armed gangs (SWAT or rippers) attracted to profitable
plants, seizable assets.
 
 
Then it should be licensed and inspected. Surely you're not arguing that
nobody should be allowed to keep valuable property in their house, are you?
 
 
 
 
 
 
I also resent people living on untaxed income when I have to pay my share
to Uncle Sam.
 
 
Then it should be taxed. You should really be more vocal in your support of
RMLW – it addresses all that.
 
 
 
 
 
Growing a few plants for you and your friends' use is one thing, but
commercial farming operations need to be regulated, zoned, inspected, no
matter what you're growing.
 
 
Let me introduce you to what I've been working on for the past year:
 
http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/regulate-marijuana-like-wine-act-2012/
 
I would love to read your analysis of it. It would be a lot more helpful,
entertaining and informative than your "mis-understanding of DML's position
on medical marijuana" article.
 
 
 
 
 
 
> group that could provide educational counter-ads to the worst offenders
> would solve that problem. It is the duty of every activist to point that
> out.
 
Wait, earlier you're defending people getting their recs solely to prevent
their ass in a jail cell,
 
Where did I write "solely"?
 
 
 
 
 
 
claiming we need to paint the stoniest stoner's hotbox session as
"preventative herbal therapy" or some such weasel words, but it's the
advertising aimed at that you find irresponsible?
 
 
I find some advertizing irresponsible, yes. I think all drug advertizing -
be it cannabis, alcohol, caffeine, pharmaceutical or otherwise – should be
fact-heavy and (unless it's an aphrodisiac being sold as such)
breast-light. All drug advertizing should have realistic information on
side-effects and should note the key harm-reduction information that is
calculated to reduce whatever harms are associated with that particular
drug.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> and now Fukushima … nobody has to "fake" any anxiety … you just have to
> be paying attention to the news. It is the duty of every activist to point
> that out.
 
OK, so now we add "all people are anxious" to "all use is medical"?
 
If you're not anxious you're not paying attention.
 
 
 
 
 
Yeah, I'm "anxious" that 7 billion people on Earth is about 6 billion too
many,
 
That's a fallacy. We just need to switch to sustainable resources and learn
how to share them.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
but that anxiety has not left me dysfunctional. (I suppose it is because I
smoke weed every day.
 
Bingo.
 
 
 
 
 
 
> wine and finally like coffee beans"? Why can't all herbal medicines
> eventually have nothing to do with doctors?
> *
 
Because the first clause is inaccurate.
 
 
So then explain to me then, what's the difference between recreational
cannabis use and preventive herbal medicine?
 
Mickey says that it's about "intent", "proper use" and "awareness of the
medicinal context" (which is sort of the same as intent). I agreed with him
and he stopped responding.
 
If "proper use" and "awareness of the medicinal context" is all that is
required to make recreational cannabis use qualify as preventive herbal
medicine, then an awareness campaign is all it takes to legitimize every
cannabis user – and awareness campaigns are the specialty of bloggers like
you and me.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I have no problem with the rest. But if you lock "cannabis" to "medical",
then to get to the "wine" and "coffee" levels, either wine and coffee have
to be "medical" or cannabis has to be "medical and recreational".
 
All drugs are medicines when used properly and poisons when misused -
regardless of how past governments have chosen to regulate them. When we
let the legal definitions shape our personal definitions we become unable
to evolve as a species or improve our regulatory policies.
 
 
 
 
 
 
I think it is just easier to say (and the public to hear) that cannabis is
both "medical" and "recreational", because that is what they already see
and think.
 
 
The easy way isn't always the best way. Imler chose the easy way and look
where it got him.

>> alcohol or caffeine to avoid being brutalized in jail?
 
> Hell, I know I would! So, are you making the point that "some use may be
> people saying or doing anything to avoid jail"?
 
Nope. I'm saying that "recreational cannabis use" is "preventive herbal
medicine", that statement is true, and that truth – if we stand united
behind it – can help keep everyone out of jail.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> I guess you can call that "medical" in the sense of harm reduction, but
> by that token, lying about one's income level to qualify for Food Stamps to
> avoid starvation is "medical".
 
By saying "cannabis helps me deal with stress and/or depression" you are
not lying.
 
 
 
 
 
 
> promoting the idea that "all alcohol use is medical" and fighting
> state-by-state for criminal exceptions to Volstead Act prosecutions based
> on statewide medical alcohol laws.
 
They didn't. They fought for repeal on a federal level. Unless Ron Paul
gets elected, that's not going to happen in the US – and we have Harper in
Canada for at least four years so it's not going to happen in Canada
either. So the reality of the situation is that we need to provide some
hope for those who live in places where the only possible way to stay out
of jail is a sympathetic judge (such as exist in Canada) or a pre-existing
med pot initiative (such as exists in 16 US states) – at least until RMLW
passes. But it's a long walk to Nov. 2012 – anything can happen – and we
should be on the attack rather than spouting prohibitionist messaging if we
want to survive until then.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> Yes. "WAS". Then in the late 19th century, doctors figured out
> anesthesia, water purification, antibiotics, and more, alleviating the need
> for the use of the crude and side-effect-laden alcohol for such uses.
 
Ah yes, antibiotics are so side-effect free. And I can just pop down to the
local drug store to get some anesthesia drugs, right? Alcohol is still a
medicine for people who hate doctors, for people who live too far away from
doctors to see them … and for people who wish to avoid them:
 
"Studies have since shown positive benefits of the phenolic
compound<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenolic_content_in_wine>
resveratrol <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol> with continued
research attempting to better understand its functions in wine and the body.
[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_wine#cite_note-Oxford_pg_341-342-2>
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_wine
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/moderate-wine-drinkers-live-longer-1676594.html
 
CDC Finds Moderate Wine Consumption Is HealthySpecifically, the study says
moderate alcohol is one of four low-risk lifestyle behaviors that together
can reduce mortality rates by 63 percent, compared to people who do not
partake in any of the behaviors. The other three behaviors are never
smoking, a healthy diet and sufficient exercise.
 
http://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/45622
 
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8707228/Moderate-wine-drinking-may-help-promote-weight-loss.html
 
http://wine.about.com/od/wineandhealth/Wine_and_Health.htm
 
http://www.winepros.org/wine101/wine-health.htm
 
http://www.beekmanwine.com/prevtopab.htm
 
http://io9.com/5859827/moderate-beer-drinking-could-have-the-same-health-benefits-as-wine
 
 
 
 
> And medical as it may have been, it was never seen primarily as that.
 
The wine sellers responsible for the above websites are trying to cure us
of our ignorance. I applaud them. It's those who sell alcohol as an
aphrodisiac on TV, and the alcohol prohibitionists such as Mormons who do
not believe in responsible use, who undermine the truth. Similarly, those
who seek to teach people about what cannabis actually does are to be
commended, and those who only reinforce people's ignorance are to be
derided – be they prohibitionist or "activist".
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> It has been seen as social recreational drug. Like marijuana, it is
> medical, yes, but it is more than that, and "all use is medical" tries to
> hide that.
 
Some med pot activists try to say there is no such thing as "recreation". I
don't – I say that recreation is a subset of medicine. It's a nuanced
point, anyone who wishes to understand it can understand it.
 
 
 
 
 
> people won't accept legalization of cannabis for whatever purpose the user
> chooses, unless the people are given a positive justification for users'
> choices.
 
Not "people", but "judges". I've met them personally. They sit at the
Supreme Court of Canada. A majority of Canadians have already accepted "for
whatever purpose" legalization, but the Courts have not. That's why we need
a different approach up here, and we don't need people such as yourself
making the argument that "if you take away the lab coat person and replace
it with a poll dancer the medicine stops being medicine". Setting is an
important factor in how the medicine works, but it's still a medicine
regardless of the setting.
 
In order for cannabis to reduce stress and depression, it's probably *better
* that it's smoked at a rock concert, or a burlesque show, or a movie
marathon, than in a sterile doctor's office with fluorescent light bulbs
and sick people surrounding you. The reason that people put "fun" in one
Venn diagram circle and "medicine" in another with no overlap is because
people such as yourself – opinion-shapers – refuse to do so, regardless of
the evidence, citing people's ignorance as a reason not to address their
ignorance. You're letting misinformed public opinion determine in which
direction to shape public opinion. You're being a follower of the status
quo rather than a leader, but you possess all the trappings of a leader, so
you become a reinforcer of the status quo.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> But people aren't accepting of coffee and alcohol because they think
> people are using those medically.
 
Popular opinion and reality differ. It is the job of activists to put
people in touch with reality rather than to reinforce ignorance.
 
 
 
 
 
 
> people using substances that we can all agree are demonstrably more harmful
> and less medical than cannabis, using them just because people like to use
> them.
 
But we don't all agree. Take, for example, these people here:
 
Surprisingly, the US National Cancer Institute, with an annual budget of
$500 million, has no active grants for research on radiation as a cause of
lung cancer.1
 
Winters, TH and Franza, JR. 'Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke,' New England
Journal of Medicine, 1982. 306(6): 364-365
 
http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Drugs/THC/Health/cancer.rad.html
 
 
Or take this fellow here:
 
 
 
Does Tobacco Cause Cancer? Yes and no.
 
How is it that such a powerful spiritual healing substance has become
public enemy number one in the ongoing war against cancer? Certainly, there
is a massive body of scientific research that shows the carcinogenic
potential of tobacco. People who smoke cigarettes, cigars, and pipes have,
respectively, 68 percent, 22 percent and 12 percent higher mortality rates
than non-smokers.
 
The conventional wisdom blames nicotine, but the culprit may be the way
tobacco is processed for commercial production and the attitude with which
it is used rather than the tobacco itself. From the Native American
viewpoint, there are three reasons why smoking tobacco MAY be hazardous to
health:
 
1. Overuse and addiction: People who smoke tobacco moderately, with prayer
and attentiveness, do not become addicts.
 
2. Absence of sacred intent: When you use tobacco or any plant according to
the Creator's plan, you recieve a blessing; when you ignore the creators
plan, you recieve a curse. Not praying when using this most sacred herb is
a sacrilege equivalent to stomping on a Bible. The payback may be cancer.
And as I said earlier, praying with tobacco is a good way to become
conscious of unconscious, habitual smoking, making it easier to stop.
 
3. Adulterated crops: Traditional Native Americans smoked only organic
tobacco* According to the Surgeon General's 1992 report Smoking and Health
in the Americas, the smoke-attributable lung cancer mortality rates
throughout Latin America are consistently lower than those in North
America. Mexico has about one-fifth the rate of the United States. *Central
and South American Indians, traditionally heavy smokers, have a lower
incidence of cancer.
 
Commercial tobacco, grow with pesticides and chemical fertilizers, is
carcinogenic. Cigarette tobacco contains approximately one hundred
carcinogenic compounds, including phenol, a poisonous, caustic acid that
gradually destroys the brochial tissue, and benzopyrene, an irritant found
in both coal and tobacco tars. *Though clearly harmful, scientists consider
these substances to be relatively weak carcinogens and not the major cause
of smoking-related lung cancer. Tars, for example, probably account for 1
percent of smoke-attributable cancers*. The chemical carcinogens in tobacco
do not CAUSE cancer, they ENCOURAGE it, making it more likely to occur by
weakening the lungs, damaging tissue, and making the cells more vulnerable
to infection. Instead, it is the unusually high levels of radioactivity
found in North American commercial tobacco that are the direct link between
smoking and cancer.
 
The amount of background radiation exposure from ordinary air, food and
water is small, about two hundred millirads per year, or five rads (five
thousand millirads) in twenty five years. By modest estimates, an average
cigarette smoker is exposed to a minimum of twenty rads per twenty-five
years, four times the normal background radiation.
 
John B. Little, M.D., et al., "Distribution of Polonium in Pulmonary
Tissues of Cigarette Smokers," New England Journal of Medicine 273
(December 16, 1965): 1350, and John B. Little and Edward P Radford Jr.,
"Polonium 210 in Bronchial Epithelium of Cigarette Smokers," Science 155
(February 3, 1967): 606.
 
 
– Radioactive Cigarettes -
 
For a comprehensive understanding of the biological dangers of tobacco
radioactivity, we need to take into account the combined effect of various
radioactive isotopes found in tobacco, the inefficient gaseous exchange in
smokers' lungs (causing smoke particles to linger in the tissues), and
radioactive "hot spots", such as the bifurcation of the bronchial tree,
where the concentration of radioactive elements may be one thousand times
greater than in the lungs. Considering all these factors, a person who
smokes one and a half packs of cigarettes daily may recieve as much as 60
millirads of radiation each day, 21.9 rads per year, and 547.5 rads in
twenty-five years: the equivalent of 547,000 chest x rays.
 
Marie Brady, R.T., "Radioactive Technologist Examines Radioactivity from
Cigarette Smoke," an interview with Gustave F. Kilthau, M.R.T., Nurse
Week/Health Week, June 1, 1996, p.2
 
 
Scientists have documented several reasons why tobacco produces dangerous
levels of radioactivity:
 
– The chemical fertilizers used to grow tobacco contain calcium. Naturally
occuring radium 226 is structurally similar to calcium and may fill its
chemical bond, making these fertilizers radioactive.
 
– Because of wind direction in the United States, the East Coast, where
most tobacco is grown, has high levels of airborne contaminants, including
radioactive isotopes. For instance, radon gas produced across the continent
blows east and is concentrated in the East Cost. Air and soil radioactivity
levels have also increased because of fallout from nuclear testing during
the 1950's and 1960's.
 
– Lead 210, a decay product or "daughter" of radium 226, has a strong
tendency to attach to the tips of the fine hairs on tobacco leaves. As the
tobacco leaves burn, lead 210 ladges in the lung tissue. Because lead 210
is not water-soluble, it does not wash quickly out of the smoker's body. as
it decays, it exposes the body to carcinogenic alpha particles.
 
-During its half life of 21.5 years, lead 210 further decays into another
toxic isotope, polonium 210.
 
*Tobaccos grown in less contaminated environments and without
high-phosphate fertilizers have a much lower polonium concentration.
Tobaccos grown in India, for example, have less than 20 percent the
polonium of American tobaccos. This may help explain why some tobaccos
cause less cancer.*
 
Polonium 210 becomes volatile and dangerous at temperatures above 500
degrees centigrade, well below the temperature of a burning cigarette. It
bonds strongly and rapidly to smoke particles. Polonium 210 has a half-life
of 138 days, ample time to shoot cancer-causing alpha radiation bullets at
and into the bronchi and lungs. Researchers have confirmed that low doses
of alpha radiation from polonium 210 can induce lung cancer in animals.
 
John B. Little, Ann R. Kennedy, and Robert B McGandy, "Lung Cancer Induced
in Hamsters by Low Doses of Alpha Radiation from Polonium 210," Science 188
(May 16, 1975): 737-38. Also see the same authors "Effect of Dose
Distribution on the Induction of Experimental Lung Cancer by Alpha
Radiation," Health Physics 35 (November 1978): 595-606.
 
– Not suprisingly, the lung tissue, lymph nodes, and tumors of smokers
contain unusual concentrations of the 210 radioisotopes.
 
*
The lung tissues of chain smokers are continuously bombarded with highly
carcinogenic alpha radiation particles. These particles are the most likely
direct cause of cancer in smokers,* working in synergy with chemical
carcinogens, viruses, genetic susceptibility, and emotional/spiritual
factors.
 
Given the extreme toxicity of radiation, if the radioisotopes found in
tobacco were delivering highly concentrated radiation doses to the lung
cells, they would kill the cells rather than cause cancer. Instead, levels
of radiation distributed throughout the lungs over an extended period of
time is far more harmful than short-term, concentrated doses. In other
words, contrary to what we might assume, radioactivity that is merely
"warm" is sometimes more dangerous than that which is "hot".
 
Scientists who have conducted research confirming the radioactive componets
of tobacco smoke include Dr. Edward P Radford Jr., former chairman of the
prestigious Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Committee (Beir) of
the National Academy of Sciences; Dr. Vilma R. Hunt of the Environmental
Protection Agency; Dr. Edward Martell, a senior radiochemist with the
National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Dr. John B. Little, chair of
cancer cell biology at Harvard School of Public Health. *Their evidence,
presented in the New England Journal of Medicine, Science, American
Scientist, and other publications, has never been refuted.
*
Scientists with whom I spoke at the National Academy of Sciences lamented
that the important link among tobacco, radioactivity and cancer has been
tragically "passed over". Some researchers *suggested a cover-up that might
be economically motivated. If the general public becomes aware of the risks
of low-dose radiation, the safe radiation exposure threshold might have to
be lowered. Smokers who have cancer would have concrete proof of the
mechanism that causes cancer, further establishing the tobacco industry's
culpability. In other words, both the nuclear and tobacco industies would
be more clearly liable for the damage to American health.** *
 
Additional evidence can be found in:
 
Edward P. Radford Jr. and Vilma R. Hunt, "Polonium-210: A Volatile
Radioelement in Cigarettes," Science 143 (Jan. 17, 1964): 247-49
 
Edward P. Radford Jr. and Vilma R. Hunt "Cigarettes and Polonium-210,"
Science 144 (April 24, 1964): 366-67
 
Edward P. Radford Jr. and Vilma R. Hunt and John B. Little,
"Carcinogenicity of Tobacco-Smoke

If I might interject: what this list should be discussing are not the insoluble issues raised as smoke screen by the opposition, but the incoherence and grotesque failure of their policy. Criminal prohibition as public policy has never had any credible successes; it always fails. Yet no one in the media even raises that as an issue and drug policy experts like Mark Kleiman and Peter Reuter claim to take it seriously. The silence of policy makers is grotesque. How can either the US or the Mexican government possibly defend the drug war they both support? How does the UN defend its commitment to such a silly policy? Obama is a poster boy for pot use; just like Steve Jobs
 
 
In the face of such jaw-dropping dishonesty does anyone believe the forces implementing that policy on a global basis are going to be impressed by any of the arguments that appear on this list today? Get a grip! My study, which is never discussed, raises several credible issues that have been glossed over by so-called "experts" in both the gov't and reform: what accounts for the sudden surge of adolescent interest in smoked "marijuana" that took place in the mid Sixties? How is that related to the Baby Boom? To the "beat Generation?" To psychedelic use? Why was there such a surge in the prison population immediately after the CSA passed in 1970? Is there ANY research basis for the assertions made in "Schedule 1?" If not, why has it been so impregnable?
 
 
The government, which has successfully blocked unbiased clinical research into drug use for 40 years, obviously doesn't understand its policy failures and thus has NO THEORY to explain them; all they can do is spout incoherent nonsense about had bad drug use is and why it has to be suppressed. What I discovered from taking careful histories from cannabis users is that most of them were themselves victims of childhood emotional trauma who were successfully treating a host of symptoms (and mitigating potentially troublesome use of other agents) with their use of marijuana. In contrast to the gov'ts incoherent screed, that explanation makes sense and comports very accurately with the drug war's time line. The gov't, on the other hand, doesn't have a clue as to why kids started trying pot in the Sixties and why initiation rates have been holding so steady since then and why the illegal pot market will never be " controlled". Of couse, most cops really don't care; they simply want to keep on taking their cut. Ditto the lawyers, judges, prison guards and the "treatment" industry… just like the growers who voted "no" on 19.
 
 
As far as the MJ high is concerned, what's the difference between the Head high and the Body high? Does the US federal government even understand it. Why is Marinol legal and all other forms of "marijuana" illegal?
 
 
The answers to all of the above add up to a stupid policy which has been imposed on the entire world by doctrinaire morons who have been able to protect ir because humans are so dishonest and divided themselves.
 
 
In Disgust,
 
 
Tom O'Connell
 
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 2:25:37 PM
 
 
 
 
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Russ Belville < s..[email protected] > wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
The core we're dancing around here is that marijuana can get you high – whether it's "relaxation", "recreation", "wellness", "stress relief", "enhancement", "medicated", "lifted", "stoned", the name we give it does not change what it is.
 
 
 
Getting "high" is the street term for "experiencing the medicinal effects." You're the only one dancing – I'm speaking the truth in a clear, concise manner.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
 
OK, then…
 
 
I'm not a bawling rambling drunk… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects of alcohol for my social anxiety disorder.
</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
 
 
I'm not a chain smoker… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects of tobacco for my unobstructed airway syndrome.
I'm not hyper… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects of coffee for my lethargy.
</blockquote>
 
 
“No valid conclusion as to the use of a thing can be drawn from its abuse.”
Ancient Latin maxim, Stockdale v. Hansard, Lord Denman
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
 
You're confusing "whether it has medical effects" with "whether people are using it medically".
</blockquote>
 
 
You are focusing on the abuse of drugs as an excuse to keep our community divided.
 
I am focusing on the potential proper use of drugs as a method of keeping our community united.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
While you may not see a difference, the public does.
</blockquote>
 
 
 
" They who have put out the people's eyes, reproach them for their blindness " – John Milton
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
What I've been trying to illustrate, apparently unsuccessfully or unconvincingly, is that medical marijuana paints you into this uncomfortable corner where you need to get the public to redefine their entire paradigm of "medicine".
</blockquote>
 
 
I'm comfortable with it, considering the fact that if we do manage to do it we stand united as a community, and if we don't manage to do it we loose – not just cannabis – but ALL herbs to the doctors and pharmacists through CODEX.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
You're stuck in a situation where every state after California has had to say "Legalization?!? California?!? Oh, no, no, this isn't that; this is for the cancer and AIDS and MS and pain patients who have no choice but to use cannabis ."
</blockquote>
 
 
 
Not really. I'm an "all use is medicinal" activist who actively supports the wine model and will continue to work towards the coffee bean model. I just don't suffer from doctor-worship like some med pot activists do. My definition of medicine includes "fun" and "smoke rings" and "doctorlessness".
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
Then you have to try to explain away obvious recreational uses that create the cognitive dissonance for the voter who thought he approved a very limited exception for the sickest of the sick but sees "Kush Doctor" bikini girls on Venice Beach hawking $45 doctor recs.
</blockquote>
 
 
 
As pot activists, we have to explain those things anyway. We can do so in such a way as to allow ourselves to be divided – the "Imler way" … or we can adopt an inclusive definition of medicine that includes all use of herbal medicine despite immoral business ethics and improper use. The way to deal with improper use is to provide lots of examples of proper use rather than deem recreation as "not legitimate" as some med pot users have done. The way to deal with immoral business ethics is to legislate against them – across the board, involving all drugs (alcohol and caffeine and pharmaceuticals, especially, considering all the immoral business practices those industries are involved in) rather than say that because some people abuse the system marijuana suddenly, magically, becomes "non-medicine" for some.
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
Then you ask me to go to that voter and say, "Yeah, the college kids getting those Venice Beach recs… that's the medical marijuana you voted for; don't you know that all use is medical?"
</blockquote>
 
 
Nope. I would say we need to do a better job of educating people how to use it properly and regulate how ALL drugs are advertized better than we currently do.
 
For example, last year at the Vancouver Art Gallery's "cannabis farmer's market" we created tips for users and rules for dealers – the media picked up on it:
 
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xiblnr_vancouver-pot-rally-draws-in-thousands_news
 
It reduced the number of people passing out from excessive use from about 8 in 2010 to 1 this year. We will be doing that again next year.
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
Now, WE KNOW there's more to fear from drunk teenagers and drivers on Oxycontin or cell phones, but those facts don't make folks feel any less scared of the marijuana. It's like saying, "Don't worry about your kid surfing in June – shark bite attacks are much more prevalent in August." Read some Drew Westen, some George Lakoff, even Frank Luntz or Karl Rove… people don't vote and think reasonably and rationally, they vote and think from fear and self-interest.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
If these arguments are enough to prevent us from endorsing the med pot model, they are enough to prevent us from endorsing any other legal model, and we should stop being activists. But I'm not stopping, and neither should you.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
 
Is there a straw man standing behind me? I completely endorse medical marijuana! I just refuse to erase the distinction between people who need to use cannabis medically and people who want to use cannabis recreationally. What I discourage is being anything less than forthright with the public about what we seek. I'm saying that it isn't 1996 anymore and the medical well is running dry with the public; the opinion and electoral polls are pointing in that direction. I'm saying voters react badly when they feel they're being bullshitted.
</blockquote>
 
 
If the science doesn't support your "recreation has nothing to do with medicine" myopic view, stop pushing that bullshit as if it was the truth, and stop calling the inclusive activists "bullshiters" … maybe the public will change it's mind again as a result. It can't hurt to try.
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
We played the self-interest card with medical marijuana. The voter was forced to decide whether he/she would allow cops to imprison sick people and let them suffer without pot. This was a self-interest factor greater than the "I gotta protect society / my kids from dope" self-interest factor.
</blockquote>
 
 
And if we're doing our job correctly, people will see the "locking up harmless people" factor as greater than the "protect out children" factor – especially if we begin to address the myths of inherent harm at the same time.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
 
Right! But "I'm using it medically" isn't necessary to convince the public the pot smoker is harmless, and in many cases will backfire because distrusting the pot smoker's motives makes them appear harmful.
</blockquote>
 
 
California isn't the entire world – it's not even the entire USA. California is California, and the RMLW initiative is right for California – and arguably everywhere else that has 1) an initiative process, and 2) a population comfortable with med pot. In some US states they're still at the "activists trying to convince the public that sick people use cannabis as a medicine" stage, while in other places (such as in Canada) we're at the point that the only thing we can do now to keep everyone out of jail (a goal I refuse to give up on) is to educate people about preventive herbal medicine and alert people to the fact that there's no real difference between that and recreational cannabis use. We need different strategies for different situations, and the way we can avoid working at cross-purposes is to adopt a message that doesn't undermine any efforts in any place.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
Your kids are smoking more pot than in thirty years because medical marijuana makes them think it's safe!
</blockquote>
 
 
It IS safe. It's safer than the Coca-Cola they drink every day. It is the duty of every activist to point that out.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
 
And I do. But any argument that begins, "Hey, it's a good thing that more teenagers are smoking more pot…" is a hard one to win with parents.
 
"If the truth hurts, you'll be in pain. If the truth drives you crazy you'll be insane." – Sista Souljah
 
 
 
 
 
 
While almost every parent I know says something like "I'd much rather my kid was smoking reefer (aside from the getting busted part) than getting drunk…", they would also likely say "I'd much rather my kid didn't smoke pot or drink."
 
To which I reply: proper cannabis use is far less harmful than either a criminal record or a jail cell – or the totalitarian conditions that would be required to prevent them from having access to cannabis, given the fact that they can still score some in a jail cell. You can no more prevent teen cannabis use than teen sex or teen masturbation – it's best that they learn to do it in ways that don't involve harm to themselves or others.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
Your neighbor is converting his house to a grow factory to profit from medical marijuana!
</blockquote>
 
 
It's a good thing too – otherwise those hippies would just be on welfare. It is the duty of every activist to point that out.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
 
Here we have to part company. The last thing I want in the home next to me is unlicensed uninspected high-output electrical work and potential extra attention from armed gangs (SWAT or rippers) attracted to profitable plants, seizable assets.
 
 
Then it should be licensed and inspected. Surely you're not arguing that nobody should be allowed to keep valuable property in their house, are you?
 
 
 
 
 
 
I also resent people living on untaxed income when I have to pay my share to Uncle Sam.
 
 
Then it should be taxed. You should really be more vocal in your support of RMLW – it addresses all that.
 
 
 
 
 
Growing a few plants for you and your friends' use is one thing, but commercial farming operations need to be regulated, zoned, inspected, no matter what you're growing.
 
 
Let me introduce you to what I've been working on for the past year:
 
http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/regulate-marijuana-like-wine-act-2012/
 
I would love to read your analysis of it. It would be a lot more helpful, entertaining and informative than your "mis-understanding of DML's position on medical marijuana" article.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
There's also a self-interest factor of the voter who feels he was bamboozled when he/she voted for medical marijuana every time he/she sees a "Get Your Card $45" placard or hears an ad for another medical marijuana expo featuring Kottonmouth Kings or Cheech & Chong.
</blockquote>
 
 
Irresponsible drug advertising is a problem – be it cannabis, alcohol, soda pop or pharmaceuticals. It's not a problem specific to cannabis, but rather a problem with most advertizing. Having greater media literacy combined with a progressive tax on advertizing earmarked to a watch-dog group that could provide educational counter-ads to the worst offenders would solve that problem. It is the duty of every activist to point that out.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
 
Wait, earlier you're defending people getting their recs solely to prevent their ass in a jail cell,
 
Where did I write "solely"?
 
 
 
 
 
 
claiming we need to paint the stoniest stoner's hotbox session as "preventative herbal therapy" or some such weasel words, but it's the advertising aimed at that you find irresponsible?
 
 
I find some advertizing irresponsible, yes. I think all drug advertizing – be it cannabis, alcohol, caffeine, pharmaceutical or otherwise – should be fact-heavy and (unless it's an aphrodisiac being sold as such) breast-light. All drug advertizing should have realistic information on side-effects and should note the key harm-reduction information that is calculated to reduce whatever harms are associated with that particular drug.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
Now is the time to get to the fear and self-interest that works in our favor. Until the voter fears the status quo of prohibition more than the mystery of a new legal substance, fear of medmj adding to the "drug problem" is going to keep us in a

Frank Lucido spoke of the health benefits of a vacation and it reminded me of much the airline ads of the 60s and 70s resembled the proponents steatements in support of psychoactive drugs Up,up and away;get away from it all ;the only way to fly and you had PSA, and TWA to go along with LSD and MDMA or was it the other way around.
Also we are all familiar with the postulates of the likes of Andy Weil, Thomas Szaz, and Norman Taylor that altered states(whether from drugs or other means) are healthfull,desireable and really necessary.
One last rambling thought. In the middle ages and certainly in early America most people,children included, had alcohol morning noon and night. This was because it was correctly seen as being healthier than water( you could get infectios diseases from water but not alcohol). Could it be that one of our problems today is that we're too sober and that as a society we are not taking enough mind altering substances.
Just a few random thoughts for you post festivus revelers.
peace
David Bearman

RMLW WOULD RETROACTIVELY DISMISS THESE CONVICTIONS!
 
If Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act passes next November and if this case is appealed and has not been fully resolved, their conviction will be dismissed.
 
Quoted from the RMLW Act:
 
"(8) All pending state court actions under said amended statutes which conflict with the provisions of this Act, shall be dismissed with prejudice.”
 
("dismissed with prejudice” means the dismissal is final and can’t be challenged)
 
http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/regulate-marijuana-like-wine-act-2012/

well I don't think we are that far apart.
 
I think losing a cannabis reform election, whether medical (in OR) or
legalization (in CA) emboldens the feds to take the kinds of actions
they've taken in Oregon and California.
 
I also think that setting up medical/legal fractiousness is bullshit,
and notwithstanding you, Allen and Keith stirring up that shit, I also
don't think its NORML.
 
at least I hope its not
 
Lee B.
 
On 12/23/2011 4:01 PM, Russ Belville wrote:

"Include", perhaps. But "solely due to", not by a long shot. And by this
reckoning, nobody should ever try to pass an initiative to keep me out of a
cage unless they are absolutely sure it will pass.
 
I would say the "consequences" of Prop 19 gaining the greatest ever support
in a statewide marijuana legalization initiative (46.5%) and the putting
forth of previous statewide initiatives that have only gained in support
over the years (CA 1972 33%, NV 2002 39%, AK 2004 44%, NV 2006 44%) have
been bringing legalization to the fore and reaping a 50% support in the
latest Gallup poll.
 
I'd say the "consequences" of Measure 74 is a public that's tired of
activists going to medical marijuana well a few too many times. Again,
it's not the 1990s anymore – elections have consequences, and Oregonians
saw the consequences of California, Colorado, and Montana elections that
put storefront weed shops on every corner and decided – twice – that wasn't
for them. (But we've gone and established those dispensaries anyway,
haven't we? I don't suppose those actions will have any "consequences",
huh? Just recently, the OMMC people up on Glisan opened up two new stores,
one in the Pearl District. That's just been shut down after the
neighborhood association pulled the NIMBY card for law enforcement and they
politely suggested the OMMC folks concentrate on their other two stores
that are in the not-so-erudite areas of town.)
 
Now, if the argument is "elections have consequences because we've shown
the feds how close we are to a state legalizing and so now they are pulling
out all the stops to shut down a nascent industry that is beginning
to wield enough political and financial capital to actually pull it off,"
then I'd begrudgingly agree. I guess that's only a bad thing if you don't
want to have that fight.
 
Russ Belville
NORML Outreach Coordinator
 
Social Networks: @RadicalRuss and @NORMLNet
Shipping: 4110 SE Hawthorne Blvd. #161 – Portland, OR 97214
Phone:(phone#-removed) – Fax:(phone#-removed)
 
*Keep fighting only for medical marijuana and marijuana will become medical
only.*
*Hemp’s not illegal because marijuana is a drug; marijuana’s illegal
because hemp is an oil.*
*The most amazing thing about cannabis is its ability to addle the brains
of those who do not use it.*
 
 
 

North Carolina – Cannabis prescriptions:
 
The new website on North Carolina and Cannabis is now up. It talks about
the Dr. Boone collection (over 200 pre-1937 prescriptions) for Medical
Cannabis that we were able to locate, as well as the Reefer Madness era
and a small section on Industrial Hemp.
 
http://antiquecannabisbook.com/chap04/NCarolina/NCMainPage.htm
 
For obvious reasons, it was impossible to show all 200+ prescriptions for
cannabis, also there was some heat over the fact that the patient names
are not listed. However, if anyone wants, adobe files showing all the
prescriptions can be emailed out to interested parties
 
NOTE – there probable are some mis-spell words up there, if anyone sees
any can you please let me know about them.—thanks.
 
 
Antique Andy
Museum Curator
s..[email protected]
www.AntiqueCannabisBook.com
www.ReeferMadnessMuseum.org
 
To add-remove yourself from the museum's mailing list:
http://drugsense.org/lists/listform.htm?antiquecannabismuseum–
 
 
 
 
 
—————————————–
Sent via Catholic Online Webmail!
Use Catholic Online Webmail to proclaim your faith to the world.
http://webmail.catholic.org/

I disagree, respectfully.
 
Elections have consequences and the failures in CA and OR last cycle
include these consequences.
 
Its not about blaming anybody. Its about acknowledging political realities.
 
Lee Berger
 
On 12/22/2011 7:57 PM, Russ Belville wrote:

Whoa there, Leland…
 
I also think that setting up medical/legal fractiousness is bullshit, and
> notwithstanding you, Allen and Keith stirring up that shit, I also don't
> think its NORML.
 
 
Who is setting that up? Every legalizer I know voted for every medical
marijuana initiative offered. Every healthy person I know willingly stood
in the back of the bus so we could "get the sick and dying off the
battlefield." Every NORML activist I meet has worked tirelessly for
medical marijuana and even defended some of the gray area activities of the
medicalizers we all knew would get us a terrible reprisal from state and
federal authorities (see: Jason Christ's Traveling Medical Marijuana
Caravan and Skype Evaluations for Pre-Signed Recommendations Road Show in
Montana; see: Kush Doctor's Recs for $45 Tent on Venice Beach; see:
insisting that the young men passing the blunt in the Prop 215 area of a
rock concert are "medicating".) For fifteen years now. And after fifteen
years, sixteen states, and 1.5 million patients who cannot be arrested,
marijuana arrests of healthy people keep going up, even in the medical
states!
 
But then when legalization initiatives are offered, it's some of the same
medicalizers we supported, the same ones who "gots theirs" and are no
longer facing the arrests we do, who are organizing to defeat them (see:
Corey Donahue crashing legalization meetings and Kathleen Chippi saying "we
will defeat it like Prop 19 with smiles on our faces" in Colorado; see: a
sizeable portion of California medical cannabis dispensaries and activists
vocally against Prop 19; see: Steven and Andrew "We do not support
legalization of recreational cannabis" DeAngelo). This reminds me of the 1%
claiming it's "class warfare" when the 99% protest… it's only "stirring
up that shit" when we do it.
 
I'll tell you what's "NORML" – an acronym with only one "M" in it, not two.
Do you know how many eager potential activists and NORML supporters I've
dealt with in medical states who tell me "Gee, I don't have my [medical]
card and my NORML chapter doesn't do anything for non-medical"? It's not
like, say, Oregon, doesn't have something non-medical it could rally
around, like being the only state with no misdemeanor possession level – we
go from a 28gram ticket to a 29gram felony. We tried Measure 57 (make a
Class C misdemeanor for low possession amounts) and got 33% support in
1998. But medical also passed in 1998, so we put all the activism into
medical, tried dispensaries twice and failed twice with the same result.
 
Even now, when we have an amazing lineup of backers, plenty of money, and
great public support to legalize marijuana in Washington State in 2012, we
have medicalizers and even legalizers who are personal friends of mine
lining up to defeat it, lest some patient who's so sick they have to
medicate so much so often that they can't pass a 5ng/ml cutoff for DUID*
that they would only get on the off chance they were actually driving
impaired enough to be noticed or unlucky enough to get in an accident. So
again, we have to stand in the back of the bus because some patient can't
be bothered to ride in one.
 
**Don't confuse that with support of I-502's 5ng/ml per se DUID. I think
it sucks, is unscientific, and will definitely lead to some innocent people
being punished. But right now, hundreds of thousands of innocent people
are being punished in Washington State. So after fifteen years of healthy
people fighting unwarranted possession charges and forfeiture actions,
perhaps a few sick people can fight an unwarranted DUID charge. The
headline "Washington State Legalizes Marijuana" is a national and world
game-changer. It outweighs a bad DUID provision and no home grow and
marijuana stores that may never be. As I wrote during Prop 19, once
marijuana is legal, in any amount for any adult, so much changes in the way
of probable cause, investigations, warrants, harassment, planting evidence,
corruption, etc. that it makes fighting all the other battles (drug
testing, home grow, commerce, religious use, medical use, hemp) far easier
because we're no longer fighting up from the pit of "illegal", but on the
level playing field of "legal".*
 
I am *personally *getting to the point where I'm fine with being ONLY about
marijuana legalization for all people. My position is inclusive of not
caging the people using marijuana who are sick. If people want to keep
focusing only on the sick subset of the cannabis oppressed and euphemize
adult marijuana use with "wellness", join ASA.
 
Russ Belville
NORML Outreach Coordinator
 
Social Networks: @RadicalRuss and @NORMLNet
Shipping: 4110 SE Hawthorne Blvd. #161 – Portland, OR 97214
Phone:(phone#-removed) – Fax:(phone#-removed)
 
*Keep fighting only for medical marijuana and marijuana will become medical
only.*
*Hemp’s not illegal because marijuana is a drug; marijuana’s illegal
because hemp is an oil.*
*The most amazing thing about cannabis is its ability to addle the brains
of those who do not use it.*
 
 
 
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Lee Berger <s..[email protected]>wrote:
 

Thank you to those who have intro'ed yourselves.
 
If we were @ a convention meeting where we didn't know each other, say,
we were all in a circle in a room, don't the rest of you feel like you'd
offer your name & org connection? Or would you wear a mask & disguise
your voice? Or offer your name but not share what org you were
representing? Shouldn't we make the distinction between someone speaking
for an org or for themselves? If I'm aware you are speaking for an org,
I'm gonna listen differently which is not to say I don't hear an
individual speaking for herself. If I see your .org suffix, shall I
assume you are speaking for your group? If you don't have an .org
suffix, is it safe to assume you are just speaking for yourself?
 
This IS an open place and cause I wanna know who you are, where you are
coming from & how you relate to this movement, so I can put my own
thinking into YOUR words, doesn't make me feel like I'm prying or asking
too much of you. Assume the cops know about each & every one of us
anyway! What is there to hide?
 
This is far from labeling, it is sharing with people with whom we have
chosen to share concepts.
 
And, we should not assume, except perhaps for a couple names, that
everyone here is known to others.
 
I offer these thoughts with love & peace & am motivated by a desire to
keep moving this conversation forward.
 
I stand for the legalization of marijuana and the accessibility of MM. I
stand for community control, which is to say, CORPORATE NOT. I've almost
fifty adult years of activism (yeah, I'm old!) including arrests &
prison time as a GI during Vietnam and a pot felony conviction in this
decade. I am a co-founder of Veteran's Speakers Alliance of the SF Bay
Area, a chef & visual artist.
 
We all have many, many common interests here and there is an incredible
variety of strategies and tactics suggested in these conversations
providing many directions for continued forward momentum. We don't have
to agree on all of them but we must agree to be open and honest in our
conversations.
 
Thanks for listening. Have a wonderful warm & illuminating weekend.
 
Peace,
 
 
Hal Muskat
Veterans For Peace
"Sir, No Sir!"
 
"I think because I can't code. I'm an artist because I can't think enough."
 
 
 
 
 
On 12/23/11 8:56 AM, Letitia Pepper wrote:

Hi Letitia, and all,
Just to clarify, under RCPA, personal amounts under 3 lb are exempt from regulation by the CCC.
Specifically:
 
> 11421(a). The following statutes are hereby repealed from the Health and Safety Code: Section 11054(d)(13), Section 11054(d)(20), Section 11357, Section 11358, Section 11359, Section 11360, and Section 11361. Section 23222(b) of the California Vehicle Code is hereby repealed. Cannabis related activities are hereby removed from the prohibitions contained within Health and Safety Code Sections 11364.7, 11365, 11366, 11366.5, 11379.6 and 11570.
 
-REPEALS all criminal prohibitions and punishments on cannabis related conduct for adults 19 and over.
However, sales prohibition repeal is delayed 6 months, and 6 months only, as noted:
 
> (b). The repeal of Health and Safety Code section 11360, as related to sales only, will be effectuated within 180 days of passage of the Act in order to allow the California Cannabis Commission the opportunity to enact commercial cannabis regulations.
 
Sales prohibition repeal is delayed 6 months, to give the newly created California Cannabis Commission time to enact commercial cannabis regulations for amounts over 3 lb. They can still regulate anytime after that, but it automatically becomes "not illegal" after 6 months, even if they stall, and even if the Feds pre-empt CCC from doing anything.
 
The important things is that there is NO regulation of personal amounts below 3 lb. and 100 sq. ft. canopy whether CCC acts or not, and whether the Feds pre-empt or not.
 
Not Illegal. Period.
Under 3 lb: Not illegal, AND not regulated for adults.
 
And medical rights under 215 and SB420 are not affected.
 
Hope this clarifies any misunderstanding.
Frank
 
 
Frank H. Lucido MD
Family Practice since 1979
Medical Cannabis Consultation
Expert Witness
2300 Durant Avenue
Berkeley Ca 94704
(phone#-removed) (by appointment only)
www.DrFrankLucido.com
www.AIMLegal.org
www.DrFrankLucido.blogspot.com
Michigan office:(phone#-removed)
(24 hr message line)
 
Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012
 
Full text at:
http://drfranklucido.blogspot.com/2011/10/repeal-cannabis-prohibition-act-of-2012_16.html
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On Dec 23, 2011, at 8:56 AM, Letitia Pepper wrote:
 

We shall see.. i have been hearing this ever since the store fronts have been in place… 20 years is a very long time.. that i do know and appriciate.. but time will tell what happens next…Prop 19 did not pass.. now there is more initatives on the board.. still trying to put away with the medical marijuana laws to fit the needs of comeralized business… …. instead of the patients needs to medical use.. as i said.. we shall see what happens next.. this has been going on for years on end to get marijuana legalized … the only thing i can see is Rescheduling cannabis for medical purposes only.. not for everyone to utalizes… maybe we should make all drugs available and make them all legalized?… this has been going on for centruries.. since i can remember..
 
anyway.. good luck.. but if it interfeers with our medical use of cannabis.. all hell will break loose… and especially if we loose this all together for stupid iniatives that will ruin it for those whom benifit from the use of cannabis medically…
 
I am on a diffrent boat then most.. but i do not support legalization , but i do support the medical usse of cannabis.. and i do have my reasons.. and life experience behind me .. so.. what ever..
if you have not walked in our shoes of growing, to obtain,, what ever.. you have no ideal what we all have gone through in this issue… and most of us have paid the price and now more so then ever.. just because some people want to make tons of monies off of this plant that was started mainly for medical purposes…
 
If all can enjoy.. that is great.. but do not take it away from those whom want to grow their own or grow in an associated garden with others whom have medical needs.. just for personal gain of wealth.. if your going to change it.. change it where everyone can grow their own if they choose, and sell it to their members ,, either in a store front setting , or a mom and pop home business.. but i just can not see this reality come about until the Federal and State come together to find a solution to this situation.. i am sick of those whom just want it legalized so that they can make monies off of the citizens.. medical or not… and take it away from us.. whom benifit from it medically.. for our issues… just so that you can make thousands of dollars…
 
Comerialized business due to legalization of cannbis.. i can see the prices rising and those whom can not afford go without.. due to the high prices sold in the stores..
what is wrong with the laws that we have now…, not good for legalization at all.. or for anyone to participate in without a recomendation from a good doctor… and medical marijuana id card from our county… its not the laws that are not working.. its both our state county boad of supervisors, law enfocement, sheriffs department as well as those whom want to own cannabis business to sell … is this what this is about.. Selling Cannabis…. go for legalization for all to use..
maybe its the right direction to find peace within our government.. but i do not see this happening anytime soon..
 
REShedule it…. thats what i say…yes i agree.. but you can not have medical marijuana if the CSA continues … get rid of them.. and you have cannabis legal.. medical or non medical.. but do not take away what we are allow to do.. grow our own….
 
I support you.. but just not prices put out there .. lets just say.. until the changes come about.. all i can do right now is go by the laws we already have into effect..and leave the rest up to those whom really understand this issue..
 
I am just a medical marijuana patient.. whom benifits from the use of cannabis, as well as growing the cannabis plant.. and enjoying that i am able to so something with my life.. instead of just existing due to my medical issues.. and if the laws change for the better.. and not take my rights away concerning this issue.. then Power to the people… i am all in.. if not.. and the laws are taken away.. then i will be forced to go back to the dark pit i was once in.. and that is not an option for me… to even think about…
 
so.. do the right thing to benifit all of us in this issue .. of Cannabis….
 
 
— On Fri, 12/23/11, s..[email protected] <s..[email protected]> wrote:
 
 
Cc: "Lavonne Victor" <s..[email protected]>
 
 
 
#yi(phone#-removed) p {margin:0;}
 
 
I've been studying this issue for over 20 years now and I think the answer lies in cutting the beasts head off it's shoulders at the federal level.  CSA IS the Achilles Heal in ending Cannabis Prohibition.  The time for "medical marijuana" is over and the time for for legalization is upon us, now that over 50% of the American People support it.  What is really going on now is a desperate attempt by Obama to monopolize production and distribution to controlled corporations.  This cannot stand.
 
The MERP Strategy for Marijuana Re-Legalization in a Nutshell

 
Yours in Peace and Freedom,
 
Bruce W. Cain
 
 
 
Cc: "Lavonne Victor" <s..[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 3:59:12 AM
 
 
 
 
 
 
I am a patient and not an attorney.. but do know the laws of the use of cannabis.. you have to be educated when your utalizing cannabis, growing cannabis.. or even doing an association of patients.. but still no matter what it is still illegal to sell cannabis… so what ever …
 
I beleve we have a right to utalize cannabis.. for me i support medical use of cannabis while others support legalization of cannabis for all.. so.. what .. everyone has a diffrence of insite on this issue of which road you have walked on in your life time…
 
I used to work and make tons of monies and able to not just support myself but others as well. for i was a very independent woman.. and female shoveinistic.. and stand up for myself.. without fear on any issues comming at me.. but just because i have been forced to be out of work due to my illness what diffrence dose it make to label myself? To you or to anyone.. to say the least..
 
I would like to know how many people on this list is involved in the legalities behind this issue.. How many of you whom run a big organization like ASA and Norml have faced the court system behind this issue.. Most of you whom have provided the initiatives on this issue, whom have put it into law .. have you ever thought it would go comeralized for profit?… was this intended from the very start?.. I wonder what the truth really is behind this issue.. and how many people are teaching others lies on this issue of sales?  So many people 's lives have been torn apart and children torn from the security of their home and taken away from our younger families that thought that they were upholding the laws behind this issue and thought it was legal to sell cannabis by the ounce, or ect.. to those whom they have met or known.. if sales were really legal why is the state and federal getting involved with the store front issues.. now i have read the laws and
have researched the laws inside and out for over 10 years on this issue of sales.. and i am tired of those whom are making a killing from those whom are looking for treatment for their ailments.. but like any business.. Cannabis is Gold to many.. and the gold rush is here.. and geesh everyone wants a part of the pile of gold… even the cops..
 
My life has been turned upside down due to the stress of the courts behind this issue.. not once but twice.. from mostly 6 years of the 11 years i have been involved.. in the activism part of things, and now i am retired from it due to circumstance that surround me that is set as priority..
 
most on this list.. i don't know.. some i do know.. or what ever.. but the issue on hand is finding a good solution to solve this problem that we have behind this issue of cananbis… medically or not…
 
but in the mean time.. people whom are like me whom grow.. whom grow with others , in an association of patients are not making any kind of monies what so ever.. in fact i have spent over and above what others have invested in thier share of their garden.. we provided the expense of the mortgage on our property,, and all we ask is that you help with the expence in order to grown in unity.. but now.. no one whats to invest and partake in their own garden.. for they are used to going to a store and picking out their strains that they want.. pay for it and leave.. for that is what was educated to them that this is the only way to obtain.. some even hold classes to teach you how to grow indoor, how to open up your own store.. and much more.. so.. what is this telling us all whom are patients?? that the only way to achieve cannabis is to go to a store front and pay 25.00 for a gram? or better yet you can get two grams for 35.00 .. wow.. what a deal.. really..
what do these people behifit from two grams that they buy.. how dose it help these people?
I could not afford that price on the limited income i have been given due to my disability.. so how do you justify this issue… i read the laws.. and it states out of pocket expence.. but also states people joining together to obtain their cananbis..we have been debating this issue for over 10 years now.. with certain people.. And our Attorney whom has been really blunt with us.. about the laws.. and sales are not included.. so.. what ever…
 
I hear allot of complaints against store fronts from pateints that i have talked to .. and the complaints are manily about the prices and how much they charge.. now i am an orgaic outdoor grower.. and have ben for some time for myself.. and its diffrent looking then indoor, and it taste diffrently.. and you know what.. i perfer it clean and organic.. but most think outdoor is not as good as indoor pot.. because its not tight,, oh well. i rather have a bud that gives me what i need,, and able to utalize it as much as i need and as much as i need.. and store fronts can not supply me with what i need.. especially at their prices.. so how are you going to benifit those whom utalize cannabis for medical purposes only.. for i am one of them.. medical only.. for i am not utalizing cannabis just to get that high like most are looking for .. i am looking for comfort and relief from my challenges that i face with my illness.. and that is all..
 
I don't want the high.. i am not comfortable being high.. and having the room swam around me.. and feelig like i am ready to turn into liquid.. for my whole body feels like i am jellow.. for i can not move.. and i ate too many cookies.. eatables.. wow.. are strong .. for me.. so i have to make it myself for only i know what works for me.. and how much i utalize and what it takes to keep me even .. but there are many whom act like they know.. how something would affect that person.. when they know nothing about that person.. to tell them that its ok to eat that whole cookie.. when you have no ideal how that is going to affect them.. its not funny if your new to the whole ideal of utalizing cannabis for the first time.. and not knowing what to expect.. only we know how much we can handle or not handle.. and that happens with pharmacuticle drugs as well.. for the doctor dose not know anything unless you tell them how the drugs are affecting you..
 
But there are many concern issues behind this issue of cannabis.. and everyone has the right outside of this community to have concerns.. and especially when they have no knowlege of the use of cannabis unless they themselves have used it  
for really.. non medical use is totally diffrent from someone that utalizes it for medical reasons.. and allot of it .. that is needed in order to keep our illenss controled.. and not druged up from pharmacuticle drugs.. but then again do anyone really care .. or are they more concern about opening up a store and selling it then they are at meeting our needs.. concerning this issue…
I think not.. many people whom are dying of an illeness can not afford the high prices of store fronts.. and do not meet their needs.. A sick and terminal ill citizens whom utalizes cannabis needs more than 4 ounces a month to utalize.. and that means able to cook with it as well.. and that within itself takes allot.. well.. who helps these citizens whom are on limited income.. would you sell it for 100.00 an ounce no matter what strain it is our even for 25.00 an ounce .. no i don't think so.. so then why even ask the growers to provide for the store front owners ,, only pay indoor growers higher rages than they do outdoor growers? Yes i heard how much that they charge.. and its even tempting to say the least to other growers.. but some growers know that its illegal for them to do .. is to sell.. but we are allowed by law to gether together in unity and share in the out of pocket expence as well as growing to obtain safe access to our cannbis for our
medical needs.. and share in the harvest in order to achieve our cananbis.. but now.. things are changing big time.. and they don't like it to just be for medical use.. for then they can not open comerialized business and sell it as if its a regualar business selling a product.. and charging what ever that they want to charge and make a profit.. and pay taxes.. now the new intitative states that if passed we have to pay taxes on our cannabis.. what… what are you trying to do here?
Take the rights of the medical cannabis laws away from those whom benifit from the use of it for medical purpose only to fill your pockets with what ever monies we are able to give to receive what from you?.. i wonder.. sometimes about this… if i was able to sell cannabis instead of doing wht i am doing now with an association of patients and it was legal for me to do so.. i would be right by your side.. supporting you all the way.. BUT THAT IS NOT THE LAWS!!!!!!..
 
yes.. we need a change.. i agree.. but until then.. i will continue to be incompliance with the laws of this state. as much as possible.. no matter what people say on this issue.. read the laws.. and see it for yourself.. and if your going to lable someone .. on this list.. then go ahead.
 
I don't need to say what i do..but i will..
I am an American Citizen of the United States, A citizen of California, a voter, and a cannabis patient and housewife and grandmother of 6 beautiful grandchildren..
I have been growing my own for over 11 years and have faced the courts once.. but my
husband have faced the courts twice.. behind this issue..
We grow in an association of patents whom share equally investment of the garden
in compliance with the laws of the state..
 
So if this label is important to some of you.. this is my information.. but this should not change anything .. we all come from all walks of life .. and i am disabled . and not ashamed to say so.. but if a label makes me any diffrent to you.. well.. what ever.. we are all supporters of cananbis.. and i am one of those whom are on the other end of not being an store front owner… or an smart ass with a lable behind them.. i have accoplished allot in my life.. and i am happy to say.. i am alive again today… one more time..
 
so roll your self a dubbie or smoke your pipe.. and chill out on the labels … we are who we are .. no matter what life of a path we have walked on.. we all utalize cannabis… yeah..
 
Happy Holdidays!!!!!! hohohohoho…..
 
— On Thu, 12/22/11, Sjss <s..[email protected]> wrote:
 
 

Lee Berger, Portland, OR
 
I practice statewide in Oregon representing patients and their providers
in state court, and I also do criminal appeals and cannabis law impact
trial and appellate litigation.
 
Chair, NORML /Amicus /Committee
Member, ASA Board of Legal Advisers
Legal Counsel, American Alliance for Medical Cannabis
Sustaining Member, Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers' Association
 
Leland R. Berger
Attorney at Law
1631 NE Broadway, #523
Portland, OR 97232-1425
(phone#-removed)
(phone#-removed) – fax
 
s..[email protected]
 
On 12/22/2011 10:18 AM, Hal Muskat wrote:

This is the most inspiring short text that I have heard in years!
 
Sent from my iPhone
 

———- Forwarded message ———-
 
 
 
 
*RMLW WILL RETROACTIVELY DISMISS THESE CONVICTIONS!*
If Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act passes next November and if this case
is appealed and has not been fully resolved, their conviction will be
dismissed, "with prejudice,” which means the dismissal is final and can’t
be challenged:
 
 
(8) All pending state court actions under said amended statutes which
conflict with the provisions of this Act, shall be dismissed with prejudice.
****
 
*RMLW WILL ALSO MAKE THE CAUSE OF THESE TYPES OF TRIALS — COOPERATION AND
FUNDING BY THE FEDS — ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA*
 
(e) State, local, elected, appointed, hired employees, officers, and
officials shall not directly or indirectly cooperate with or assist
federal, state, local officers or officials, volunteers, or employees who
eradicate marijuana, act for seizure or forfeiture, or to defeat any
liberally construed purpose of this Act, nor may any state or local agency
contract to eradicate marijuana that is being grown, manufactured or stored
under the provisions of this Act.****
 
http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/regulate-marijuana-like-wine-act-2012/

I'm with Bill Panzer in preferring 'social' to 'recreational'.
 
Lee Berger, Portland, OR
on the road, Ivins, UT
 
On 12/22/2011 11:19 PM, Russ Belville wrote:

Activist terminology: I like "social" instead of "recreational", as distinguished from "medical" or "medicinal". Fine point, but words DO count at a time like this….*_*
 
<strong><font color="#00ffff">SWALLOW AIR TO INCREASE BUOYANCY</font></strong>
<strong><font color="#212143">   visit: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.survivalworkshop.com">www.survivalworkshop.com</a></font></strong>
 
 
 
>And people accept that!  Whether it is "illegal high" or "legal buzz", the concept is the same: using a substance merely to enjoy the altered state of consciousness.  What they won't accept is trying to say the "legal buzz" is primarily medical or the reason the person seeks the "legal buzz" is primarily medical.  Every year some news story touts the health benefits of the occasional glass of red wine, and that will never convince anybody that the guy sucking down tequila shots off the belly of a stripper is "medicating".
 
>You can do so and STILL support RMLW and STILL point out cannabis is medicine and those who are not lucky enough to live in places where there is a citizen's initiative process – 23 US States and most of Canada and the rest of the world – can still protect themselves with the "all use is medicinal use" argument. It's not either one or the other … you can vocally support the coffee bean model as an end goal and the medical and wine models as incremental steps forward – I do so all the time 
 
>I support all acts that work in any way to prevent putting fellow cannabis consumers in a cage.  I point out on a daily basis to a large audience every medical aspect of cannabis that is discovered.  But it is the half of the US without initiatives and the ones with who haven't passed medical marijuana that I am thinking of.  Like South Dakota, dropping from 48% support to 36% support in the span of four years.  Like Montana that pared down its medical marijuana law short of outright repeal. Like New Jersey, where no home grow, six dispensaries with three strains of <10% THC, and a doctor's registry were enacted precisely because of the "We don't want to be out of control like California" was the zeitgeist.  Like Oregon, which the public really supports its medical marijuana program, but defeated dispensaries by virtually the same percentage from 2004 to 2010, where the common refrains we hear from editorial pages and citizen town halls are
"there's far too much abuse of the program" and "quit trying to justify everything as 'medical' and just have the debate on legalization."
>I'm not a chain smoker… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects of tobacco for my unobstructed airway syndrome.
>I'm not hyper… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects of coffee for my lethargy.
 
>You're confusing "whether it has medical effects" with "whether people are using it medically".  While you may not see a difference, the public does.  What I've been trying to illustrate, apparently unsuccessfully or unconvincingly, is that medical marijuana paints you into this uncomfortable corner where you need to get the public to redefine their entire paradigm of "medicine".  You're stuck in a situation where every state after California has had to say "Legalization?!?  California?!?  Oh, no, no, this isn't that; this is for the cancer and AIDS and MS and pain patients who have no choice but to use cannabis."  Then you have to try to explain away obvious recreational uses that create the cognitive dissonance for the voter who thought he approved a very limited exception for the sickest of the sick but sees "Kush Doctor" bikini girls on Venice Beach hawking $45 doctor recs.  Then you ask me to go to that voter and say, "Yeah, the college
kids getting those Venice Beach recs… that's the medical marijuana you voted for; don't you know that all use is medical?"

> I think I can convince a voter smoking pot's like drinking beer, only
> less harmful, than to convince them that smoking pot is like taking your
> vitamins.
 
In California you can focus on the alcohol comparisons. If you like you can
look at the work I've already done in that area (I've made it easy for you,
and you have already identified yourself as someone who likes to take the
easy path):
 
 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/07/07/Crystal-Clear-Glasses-and-Unbleached-Rollies
 
But just because you choose to focus on the alcohol comparisons doesn't
mean you need to undermine the messaging in places like Canada who -
because of a lack of initiative process – need to adopt a different
approach.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> written "before anyone outside of San Francisco or obscure doctors unknown
> to the public writing in rarely-read medical journals and publishing houses
> was putting "medical" with "marijuana".
 
You didn't bother to read the books I suggested you read – or even click on
the links I suggested you click on. Beginning in 1976 Robert Randall was
featured in a story in the Washington Post, which then was picked up by UPI
… and then he was interviewed by CBS news. Thus began a fairly constant
assault on ignorance in the mass media with his group "Alliance for
Cannabis Therapeutics" (founded in 1981) that lasted through the 1980s and
into the 1990's – you can read about it in his book "Marijuana RX" – it
begins on page 87.
 
If you type "Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics" in quotes in Google it
comes up with about 84,400 results.
 
Irving Rosenfeld was a charter member – he's still doing interviews to this
day. Same with **Elvy Musikka (High Times freedom fighter of the year,
1992).
 
These people are not "obscure doctors", The Washington post and UPI
affiliated newspapers are not "rarely-read", and CBS news is nothing to
sneeze at either.
 
 
 
 
*
*
I'm not trying to say that people's growing awareness of medical use of
cannabis doesn't lead to increased medical marijuana support. We see the
polls rise from 24% in 1996 to 50% today and much of that has to be
attributed to medical marijuana and the "look at all the pot smoking and
the sky didn't fall" realization. What I'm trying to say is that medical
marijuana as a mind opener for the public only goes so far and that if we
want it treated like wine, we need to talk about it like wine.
 
 
We want to treat it like coffee, but even California isn't ready for that
model yet. We need to take incremental steps, and create a message that
will be consistent with all models – medical, wine and coffee. "All use is
medical and EVENTUALLY, WHEN SOCIETY IS READY FOR IT, all herbal medicines
will not involve doctors … or even age limits" is just such a message.
 
It might not be "easy" – but it's what is necessary.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> country. I would start with "Marijuana RX" by Robert Randall to begin with
> for a general overview, and then check out chapter 18 of "Reefer Madness"
> by Larry Sloman and then check out those other books I mentioned above.
 
Oh, benevolent master, thank you for the pearls of your tutelage!
 
I'm quite well educated on marijuana activism – medical and recreational -
in my country, frostback.
 
 
You were doing so well without the name-calling. Finally, I thought, a
debate partner who – unlike Mickey and Letitia – could keep it focused on
the argument itself. Alas, it could only last so long.
 
 
 
 
 
What I think you and others with the medical marijuana blinders on are
oblivious to is a growing public sentiment of feeling bamboozled,
hoodwinked, conned, double-talked, and bullshitted on the issue of
marijuana.
 
When they're getting the same "Imler-esque message" from the DEA AND some
cannabis activists, how do you expect the public to react?
 
 
 
 
 
 
Like I said. You live in a place where it's easy to launch a RMLW
> initiative. I live in a place where it's next to impossible. You should
> keep that in mind when you get all sanctimonious about the approaches other
> people take in their cannabis activism.
 
 
Damn that straw man behind me! *I am not saying "Don't fight for a medical
marijuana initiative in your state". I am saying "don't try to bullshit
people by saying 'all use is medical'" because it is eventually going to
backfire on you.
 
 
It's not bullshit. It's the truth. You just have a narrow, "medicine is
only handed to you by a guy in a lab coat" definition of medicine. And yet
you, Mickey and everyone else here is still unable to provide a meaningful
analysis of the difference between recreational cannabis use and preventive
herbal medicine. So until you actually do so in such a way as to explain
why one is not similar to if not the same as the other, quit calling it
"bullshit".
 
 
 
 
 
 
*
 
 
> Can't wait to see your initiative. In the mean time RMLW is getting the
> funding and the signatures it needs to make the ballot:
 
> … even without much help from NORML's Stash Blog.
 
WTF? All throughout 2010 I did extensive coverage of damn near every
initiative out there.
 
It's 2012 now.
 
 
 
 
This year, I've hosted on air debates between Alison Holcomb (WA I-502)
and Doug Hiatt (WA I-505). I've interviewed Don Skakie (WA I-505). I've
had proponents of three different Oregon initiatives on the air. I've
talked to Mason Tvert from one of the Colorado initiatives. I've covered
all the California initiatives, interviewed over one or two (forget which),
and that I haven't interviewed RMLW folks yet is just due to scheduling.
 
Ah yes. Scheduling.
 
Meanwhile, us Canadians have found the time to fit it into our busy
schedules while at the same time promoting activism in our own country:
 
http://www.celebstoner.com(phone#-removed)/blogs/misc/why-we-must-ban-gm-cannabis.html
 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/28992
 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/28713
 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/09/29/Battle-Marijuana-Bills-Why-Regulate-Better-Repeal
 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/09/29/Polls-Show-World-Difference-Between-Marijuana-Legalization-and-Regulation-Califor
 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/07/07/Crystal-Clear-Glasses-and-Unbleached-Rollies
 
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2011/03/28/Regulate-Marijuana-Alcohol-California-Interview-Steve-Kubby
 
So when are you gonna pick up the slack?
 
 
 
 
Show Me Cannabis (Missouri) is booked for January. And those are just the
legalization measures, let's not forget medical measures in Idaho, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Alabama, Wisconsin, and New York where
I've interviewed either the activist or politician directing those efforts.
 
I applaud the work that you do. But RMLW is clearly the best initiative -
it bans GM and prevents monopoly, unlike other efforts – and enjoys the
most support of any initiative – 62%. So make some time, please, because
California serves as a model for the rest of the world more than any other
US State, and we need your help to make sure it's done properly.
 
 
 
 
 
So check yourself, Canuck, before you wreck yourself by implying I'm
anything less than a rabid and vocal proponent and promoter of marijuana
legalization. You opened by lumping me in with prohibitionists …
 
What's the difference between what you say and what the DEA endlessly quote
Imler saying?
 
 
 
 
 
and you closed with this, after an "oblivious" and a "sanctimonious" in
between? We agree on 99% of this issue, we just disagree about how to best
convince those who don't agree with us. I think it is easier to get them
to put "marijuana" in constructs they already understand: "medicine" and
"recreation". You think they won't accept "recreational",
 
That's not what I say. I accept there's a thing called "recreational
cannabis use" – I believe it involves smoke, fun, music, dancing, movie
watching among healthy people … and no doctor. I also believe that this
is a form of medicine – preventive medicine – every bit as legitimate as
palliative or curative or symptom-relief medicine – a medicine that keeps
healthy people healthy, and should be promoted and recognized as such.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
so we need to redefine the whole "medicine" construct. It's OK to
disagree about this and until we actually poll "Q: Do you believe all use
of marijuana is for medical purposes" we can't really know.
 
1) We may never see such a poll and should get our message straight
regardless.
 
2) To be fair, such a poll should actually say "Is there a difference
between recreational cannabis use and preventive herbal medicine, and if
so, what is that difference?"
 
3) We should shape our message based upon what we believe is the truth, not
based upon what ignorance the public is laboring under.

> OK, then…
 
> I'm not a bawling rambling drunk… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects
> of alcohol for my social anxiety disorder.
 
I'm not a chain smoker… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects of tobacco
> for my unobstructed airway syndrome.
> I'm not hyper… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects of coffee for my
> lethargy.
 
“No valid conclusion as to the use of a thing can be drawn from its abuse.”
Ancient Latin maxim, Stockdale v. Hansard, Lord Denman
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> You're confusing "whether it has medical effects" with "whether people are
> using it medically".
 
You are focusing on the abuse of drugs as an excuse to keep our community
divided.
 
I am focusing on the potential proper use of drugs as a method of keeping
our community united.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> While you may not see a difference, the public does.
 
"*They who have put out the people's eyes, reproach them for their blindness
*" – John Milton
 
 
 
 
 
 
> unconvincingly, is that medical marijuana paints you into this
> uncomfortable corner where you need to get the public to redefine their
> entire paradigm of "medicine".
 
I'm comfortable with it, considering the fact that if we do manage to do it
we stand united as a community, and if we don't manage to do it we loose -
not just cannabis – but ALL herbs to the doctors and pharmacists through
CODEX.
 
 
 
 
 
 
You're stuck in a situation where every state after California has had to
> say "Legalization?!? California?!? Oh, no, no, this isn't *that;* this
> is for the cancer and AIDS and MS and pain patients who *have no choice
> but to use cannabis*."
 
Not really. I'm an "all use is medicinal" activist who actively supports
the wine model and will continue to work towards the coffee bean model. I
just don't suffer from doctor-worship like some med pot activists do. My
definition of medicine includes "fun" and "smoke rings" and
"doctorlessness".
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> the cognitive dissonance for the voter who thought he approved a very
> limited exception for the sickest of the sick but sees "Kush Doctor" bikini
> girls on Venice Beach hawking $45 doctor recs.
 
As pot activists, we have to explain those things anyway. We can do so in
such a way as to allow ourselves to be divided – the "Imler way" … or we
can adopt an inclusive definition of medicine that includes all use of
herbal medicine despite immoral business ethics and improper use. The way
to deal with improper use is to provide lots of examples of proper use
rather than deem recreation as "not legitimate" as some med pot users have
done. The way to deal with immoral business ethics is to legislate against
them – across the board, involving all drugs (alcohol and caffeine and
pharmaceuticals, especially, considering all the immoral business practices
those industries are involved in) rather than say that because some people
abuse the system marijuana suddenly, magically, becomes "non-medicine" for
some.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> Then you ask me to go to that voter and say, "Yeah, the college kids
> getting those Venice Beach recs… that's the medical marijuana you voted
> for; don't you know that all use is medical?"
 
Nope. I would say we need to do a better job of educating people how to use
it properly and regulate how ALL drugs are advertized better than we
currently do.
 
For example, last year at the Vancouver Art Gallery's "cannabis farmer's
market" we created tips for users and rules for dealers – the media picked
up on it:
 
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xiblnr_vancouver-pot-rally-draws-in-thousands_news
 
It reduced the number of people passing out from excessive use from about 8
in 2010 to 1 this year. We will be doing that again next year.
 
 
 
 
 
> and the medical well is running dry with the public; the opinion and
> electoral polls are pointing in that direction. I'm saying voters react
> badly when they feel they're being bullshitted.
 
If the science doesn't support your "recreation has nothing to do with
medicine" myopic view, stop pushing that bullshit as if it was the truth,
and stop calling the inclusive activists "bullshiters" … maybe the public
will change it's mind again as a result. It can't hurt to try.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> Right! But "I'm using it medically" isn't necessary to convince the
> public the pot smoker is harmless, and in many cases will backfire because
> distrusting the pot smoker's motives makes them appear harmful.
 
California isn't the entire world – it's not even the entire USA.
California is California, and the RMLW initiative is right for California -
and arguably everywhere else that has 1) an initiative process, and 2) a
population comfortable with med pot. In some US states they're still at the
"activists trying to convince the public that sick people use cannabis as a
medicine" stage, while in other places (such as in Canada) we're at the
point that the only thing we can do now to keep everyone out of jail (a
goal I refuse to give up on) is to educate people about preventive herbal
medicine and alert people to the fact that there's no real difference
between that and recreational cannabis use. We need different strategies
for different situations, and the way we can avoid working at
cross-purposes is to adopt a message that doesn't undermine any efforts in
any place.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
>> marijuana makes them think it's safe!
 
> It IS safe. It's safer than the Coca-Cola they drink every day. It is the
> duty of every activist to point that out.
 
And I do. But any argument that begins, "Hey, it's a *good thing* that
more teenagers are smoking more pot…" is a hard one to win with parents.
 
"If the truth hurts, you'll be in pain. If the truth drives you crazy
you'll be insane." – Sista Souljah
 
 
 
 
 
 
While almost every parent I know says something like "I'd much rather my
kid was smoking reefer (aside from the getting busted part) than getting
drunk…", they would also likely say "I'd much rather my kid didn't smoke
pot or drink."
 
To which I reply: proper cannabis use is far less harmful than either a
criminal record or a jail cell – or the totalitarian conditions that would
be required to prevent them from having access to cannabis, given the fact
that they can still score some in a jail cell. You can no more prevent teen
cannabis use than teen sex or teen masturbation – it's best that they learn
to do it in ways that don't involve harm to themselves or others.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
>> medical marijuana!
 
> It's a good thing too – otherwise those hippies would just be on welfare.
> It is the duty of every activist to point that out.
 
Here we have to part company. The last thing I want in the home next to me
is unlicensed uninspected high-output electrical work and potential extra
attention from armed gangs (SWAT or rippers) attracted to profitable
plants, seizable assets.
 
 
Then it should be licensed and inspected. Surely you're not arguing that
nobody should be allowed to keep valuable property in their house, are you?
 
 
 
 
 
 
I also resent people living on untaxed income when I have to pay my share
to Uncle Sam.
 
 
Then it should be taxed. You should really be more vocal in your support of
RMLW – it addresses all that.
 
 
 
 
 
Growing a few plants for you and your friends' use is one thing, but
commercial farming operations need to be regulated, zoned, inspected, no
matter what you're growing.
 
 
Let me introduce you to what I've been working on for the past year:
 
http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/regulate-marijuana-like-wine-act-2012/
 
I would love to read your analysis of it. It would be a lot more helpful,
entertaining and informative than your "mis-understanding of DML's position
on medical marijuana" article.
 
 
 
 
 
 
> group that could provide educational counter-ads to the worst offenders
> would solve that problem. It is the duty of every activist to point that
> out.
 
Wait, earlier you're defending people getting their recs solely to prevent
their ass in a jail cell,
 
Where did I write "solely"?
 
 
 
 
 
 
claiming we need to paint the stoniest stoner's hotbox session as
"preventative herbal therapy" or some such weasel words, but it's the
advertising aimed at that you find irresponsible?
 
 
I find some advertizing irresponsible, yes. I think all drug advertizing -
be it cannabis, alcohol, caffeine, pharmaceutical or otherwise – should be
fact-heavy and (unless it's an aphrodisiac being sold as such)
breast-light. All drug advertizing should have realistic information on
side-effects and should note the key harm-reduction information that is
calculated to reduce whatever harms are associated with that particular
drug.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> and now Fukushima … nobody has to "fake" any anxiety … you just have to
> be paying attention to the news. It is the duty of every activist to point
> that out.
 
OK, so now we add "all people are anxious" to "all use is medical"?
 
If you're not anxious you're not paying attention.
 
 
 
 
 
Yeah, I'm "anxious" that 7 billion people on Earth is about 6 billion too
many,
 
That's a fallacy. We just need to switch to sustainable resources and learn
how to share them.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
but that anxiety has not left me dysfunctional. (I suppose it is because I
smoke weed every day.
 
Bingo.
 
 
 
 
 
 
> wine and finally like coffee beans"? Why can't all herbal medicines
> eventually have nothing to do with doctors?
> *
 
Because the first clause is inaccurate.
 
 
So then explain to me then, what's the difference between recreational
cannabis use and preventive herbal medicine?
 
Mickey says that it's about "intent", "proper use" and "awareness of the
medicinal context" (which is sort of the same as intent). I agreed with him
and he stopped responding.
 
If "proper use" and "awareness of the medicinal context" is all that is
required to make recreational cannabis use qualify as preventive herbal
medicine, then an awareness campaign is all it takes to legitimize every
cannabis user – and awareness campaigns are the specialty of bloggers like
you and me.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I have no problem with the rest. But if you lock "cannabis" to "medical",
then to get to the "wine" and "coffee" levels, either wine and coffee have
to be "medical" or cannabis has to be "medical and recreational".
 
All drugs are medicines when used properly and poisons when misused -
regardless of how past governments have chosen to regulate them. When we
let the legal definitions shape our personal definitions we become unable
to evolve as a species or improve our regulatory policies.
 
 
 
 
 
 
I think it is just easier to say (and the public to hear) that cannabis is
both "medical" and "recreational", because that is what they already see
and think.
 
 
The easy way isn't always the best way. Imler chose the easy way and look
where it got him.

>> alcohol or caffeine to avoid being brutalized in jail?
 
> Hell, I know I would! So, are you making the point that "some use may be
> people saying or doing anything to avoid jail"?
 
Nope. I'm saying that "recreational cannabis use" is "preventive herbal
medicine", that statement is true, and that truth – if we stand united
behind it – can help keep everyone out of jail.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> I guess you can call that "medical" in the sense of harm reduction, but
> by that token, lying about one's income level to qualify for Food Stamps to
> avoid starvation is "medical".
 
By saying "cannabis helps me deal with stress and/or depression" you are
not lying.
 
 
 
 
 
 
> promoting the idea that "all alcohol use is medical" and fighting
> state-by-state for criminal exceptions to Volstead Act prosecutions based
> on statewide medical alcohol laws.
 
They didn't. They fought for repeal on a federal level. Unless Ron Paul
gets elected, that's not going to happen in the US – and we have Harper in
Canada for at least four years so it's not going to happen in Canada
either. So the reality of the situation is that we need to provide some
hope for those who live in places where the only possible way to stay out
of jail is a sympathetic judge (such as exist in Canada) or a pre-existing
med pot initiative (such as exists in 16 US states) – at least until RMLW
passes. But it's a long walk to Nov. 2012 – anything can happen – and we
should be on the attack rather than spouting prohibitionist messaging if we
want to survive until then.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> Yes. "WAS". Then in the late 19th century, doctors figured out
> anesthesia, water purification, antibiotics, and more, alleviating the need
> for the use of the crude and side-effect-laden alcohol for such uses.
 
Ah yes, antibiotics are so side-effect free. And I can just pop down to the
local drug store to get some anesthesia drugs, right? Alcohol is still a
medicine for people who hate doctors, for people who live too far away from
doctors to see them … and for people who wish to avoid them:
 
"Studies have since shown positive benefits of the phenolic
compound<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenolic_content_in_wine>
resveratrol <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol> with continued
research attempting to better understand its functions in wine and the body.
[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_wine#cite_note-Oxford_pg_341-342-2>
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_wine
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/moderate-wine-drinkers-live-longer-1676594.html
 
CDC Finds Moderate Wine Consumption Is HealthySpecifically, the study says
moderate alcohol is one of four low-risk lifestyle behaviors that together
can reduce mortality rates by 63 percent, compared to people who do not
partake in any of the behaviors. The other three behaviors are never
smoking, a healthy diet and sufficient exercise.
 
http://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/45622
 
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8707228/Moderate-wine-drinking-may-help-promote-weight-loss.html
 
http://wine.about.com/od/wineandhealth/Wine_and_Health.htm
 
http://www.winepros.org/wine101/wine-health.htm
 
http://www.beekmanwine.com/prevtopab.htm
 
http://io9.com/5859827/moderate-beer-drinking-could-have-the-same-health-benefits-as-wine
 
 
 
 
> And medical as it may have been, it was never seen primarily as that.
 
The wine sellers responsible for the above websites are trying to cure us
of our ignorance. I applaud them. It's those who sell alcohol as an
aphrodisiac on TV, and the alcohol prohibitionists such as Mormons who do
not believe in responsible use, who undermine the truth. Similarly, those
who seek to teach people about what cannabis actually does are to be
commended, and those who only reinforce people's ignorance are to be
derided – be they prohibitionist or "activist".
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> It has been seen as social recreational drug. Like marijuana, it is
> medical, yes, but it is more than that, and "all use is medical" tries to
> hide that.
 
Some med pot activists try to say there is no such thing as "recreation". I
don't – I say that recreation is a subset of medicine. It's a nuanced
point, anyone who wishes to understand it can understand it.
 
 
 
 
 
> people won't accept legalization of cannabis for whatever purpose the user
> chooses, unless the people are given a positive justification for users'
> choices.
 
Not "people", but "judges". I've met them personally. They sit at the
Supreme Court of Canada. A majority of Canadians have already accepted "for
whatever purpose" legalization, but the Courts have not. That's why we need
a different approach up here, and we don't need people such as yourself
making the argument that "if you take away the lab coat person and replace
it with a poll dancer the medicine stops being medicine". Setting is an
important factor in how the medicine works, but it's still a medicine
regardless of the setting.
 
In order for cannabis to reduce stress and depression, it's probably *better
* that it's smoked at a rock concert, or a burlesque show, or a movie
marathon, than in a sterile doctor's office with fluorescent light bulbs
and sick people surrounding you. The reason that people put "fun" in one
Venn diagram circle and "medicine" in another with no overlap is because
people such as yourself – opinion-shapers – refuse to do so, regardless of
the evidence, citing people's ignorance as a reason not to address their
ignorance. You're letting misinformed public opinion determine in which
direction to shape public opinion. You're being a follower of the status
quo rather than a leader, but you possess all the trappings of a leader, so
you become a reinforcer of the status quo.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
> But people aren't accepting of coffee and alcohol because they think
> people are using those medically.
 
Popular opinion and reality differ. It is the job of activists to put
people in touch with reality rather than to reinforce ignorance.
 
 
 
 
 
 
> people using substances that we can all agree are demonstrably more harmful
> and less medical than cannabis, using them just because people like to use
> them.
 
But we don't all agree. Take, for example, these people here:
 
Surprisingly, the US National Cancer Institute, with an annual budget of
$500 million, has no active grants for research on radiation as a cause of
lung cancer.1
 
Winters, TH and Franza, JR. 'Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke,' New England
Journal of Medicine, 1982. 306(6): 364-365
 
http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Drugs/THC/Health/cancer.rad.html
 
 
Or take this fellow here:
 
 
 
Does Tobacco Cause Cancer? Yes and no.
 
How is it that such a powerful spiritual healing substance has become
public enemy number one in the ongoing war against cancer? Certainly, there
is a massive body of scientific research that shows the carcinogenic
potential of tobacco. People who smoke cigarettes, cigars, and pipes have,
respectively, 68 percent, 22 percent and 12 percent higher mortality rates
than non-smokers.
 
The conventional wisdom blames nicotine, but the culprit may be the way
tobacco is processed for commercial production and the attitude with which
it is used rather than the tobacco itself. From the Native American
viewpoint, there are three reasons why smoking tobacco MAY be hazardous to
health:
 
1. Overuse and addiction: People who smoke tobacco moderately, with prayer
and attentiveness, do not become addicts.
 
2. Absence of sacred intent: When you use tobacco or any plant according to
the Creator's plan, you recieve a blessing; when you ignore the creators
plan, you recieve a curse. Not praying when using this most sacred herb is
a sacrilege equivalent to stomping on a Bible. The payback may be cancer.
And as I said earlier, praying with tobacco is a good way to become
conscious of unconscious, habitual smoking, making it easier to stop.
 
3. Adulterated crops: Traditional Native Americans smoked only organic
tobacco* According to the Surgeon General's 1992 report Smoking and Health
in the Americas, the smoke-attributable lung cancer mortality rates
throughout Latin America are consistently lower than those in North
America. Mexico has about one-fifth the rate of the United States. *Central
and South American Indians, traditionally heavy smokers, have a lower
incidence of cancer.
 
Commercial tobacco, grow with pesticides and chemical fertilizers, is
carcinogenic. Cigarette tobacco contains approximately one hundred
carcinogenic compounds, including phenol, a poisonous, caustic acid that
gradually destroys the brochial tissue, and benzopyrene, an irritant found
in both coal and tobacco tars. *Though clearly harmful, scientists consider
these substances to be relatively weak carcinogens and not the major cause
of smoking-related lung cancer. Tars, for example, probably account for 1
percent of smoke-attributable cancers*. The chemical carcinogens in tobacco
do not CAUSE cancer, they ENCOURAGE it, making it more likely to occur by
weakening the lungs, damaging tissue, and making the cells more vulnerable
to infection. Instead, it is the unusually high levels of radioactivity
found in North American commercial tobacco that are the direct link between
smoking and cancer.
 
The amount of background radiation exposure from ordinary air, food and
water is small, about two hundred millirads per year, or five rads (five
thousand millirads) in twenty five years. By modest estimates, an average
cigarette smoker is exposed to a minimum of twenty rads per twenty-five
years, four times the normal background radiation.
 
John B. Little, M.D., et al., "Distribution of Polonium in Pulmonary
Tissues of Cigarette Smokers," New England Journal of Medicine 273
(December 16, 1965): 1350, and John B. Little and Edward P Radford Jr.,
"Polonium 210 in Bronchial Epithelium of Cigarette Smokers," Science 155
(February 3, 1967): 606.
 
 
– Radioactive Cigarettes -
 
For a comprehensive understanding of the biological dangers of tobacco
radioactivity, we need to take into account the combined effect of various
radioactive isotopes found in tobacco, the inefficient gaseous exchange in
smokers' lungs (causing smoke particles to linger in the tissues), and
radioactive "hot spots", such as the bifurcation of the bronchial tree,
where the concentration of radioactive elements may be one thousand times
greater than in the lungs. Considering all these factors, a person who
smokes one and a half packs of cigarettes daily may recieve as much as 60
millirads of radiation each day, 21.9 rads per year, and 547.5 rads in
twenty-five years: the equivalent of 547,000 chest x rays.
 
Marie Brady, R.T., "Radioactive Technologist Examines Radioactivity from
Cigarette Smoke," an interview with Gustave F. Kilthau, M.R.T., Nurse
Week/Health Week, June 1, 1996, p.2
 
 
Scientists have documented several reasons why tobacco produces dangerous
levels of radioactivity:
 
– The chemical fertilizers used to grow tobacco contain calcium. Naturally
occuring radium 226 is structurally similar to calcium and may fill its
chemical bond, making these fertilizers radioactive.
 
– Because of wind direction in the United States, the East Coast, where
most tobacco is grown, has high levels of airborne contaminants, including
radioactive isotopes. For instance, radon gas produced across the continent
blows east and is concentrated in the East Cost. Air and soil radioactivity
levels have also increased because of fallout from nuclear testing during
the 1950's and 1960's.
 
– Lead 210, a decay product or "daughter" of radium 226, has a strong
tendency to attach to the tips of the fine hairs on tobacco leaves. As the
tobacco leaves burn, lead 210 ladges in the lung tissue. Because lead 210
is not water-soluble, it does not wash quickly out of the smoker's body. as
it decays, it exposes the body to carcinogenic alpha particles.
 
-During its half life of 21.5 years, lead 210 further decays into another
toxic isotope, polonium 210.
 
*Tobaccos grown in less contaminated environments and without
high-phosphate fertilizers have a much lower polonium concentration.
Tobaccos grown in India, for example, have less than 20 percent the
polonium of American tobaccos. This may help explain why some tobaccos
cause less cancer.*
 
Polonium 210 becomes volatile and dangerous at temperatures above 500
degrees centigrade, well below the temperature of a burning cigarette. It
bonds strongly and rapidly to smoke particles. Polonium 210 has a half-life
of 138 days, ample time to shoot cancer-causing alpha radiation bullets at
and into the bronchi and lungs. Researchers have confirmed that low doses
of alpha radiation from polonium 210 can induce lung cancer in animals.
 
John B. Little, Ann R. Kennedy, and Robert B McGandy, "Lung Cancer Induced
in Hamsters by Low Doses of Alpha Radiation from Polonium 210," Science 188
(May 16, 1975): 737-38. Also see the same authors "Effect of Dose
Distribution on the Induction of Experimental Lung Cancer by Alpha
Radiation," Health Physics 35 (November 1978): 595-606.
 
– Not suprisingly, the lung tissue, lymph nodes, and tumors of smokers
contain unusual concentrations of the 210 radioisotopes.
 
*
The lung tissues of chain smokers are continuously bombarded with highly
carcinogenic alpha radiation particles. These particles are the most likely
direct cause of cancer in smokers,* working in synergy with chemical
carcinogens, viruses, genetic susceptibility, and emotional/spiritual
factors.
 
Given the extreme toxicity of radiation, if the radioisotopes found in
tobacco were delivering highly concentrated radiation doses to the lung
cells, they would kill the cells rather than cause cancer. Instead, levels
of radiation distributed throughout the lungs over an extended period of
time is far more harmful than short-term, concentrated doses. In other
words, contrary to what we might assume, radioactivity that is merely
"warm" is sometimes more dangerous than that which is "hot".
 
Scientists who have conducted research confirming the radioactive componets
of tobacco smoke include Dr. Edward P Radford Jr., former chairman of the
prestigious Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Committee (Beir) of
the National Academy of Sciences; Dr. Vilma R. Hunt of the Environmental
Protection Agency; Dr. Edward Martell, a senior radiochemist with the
National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Dr. John B. Little, chair of
cancer cell biology at Harvard School of Public Health. *Their evidence,
presented in the New England Journal of Medicine, Science, American
Scientist, and other publications, has never been refuted.
*
Scientists with whom I spoke at the National Academy of Sciences lamented
that the important link among tobacco, radioactivity and cancer has been
tragically "passed over". Some researchers *suggested a cover-up that might
be economically motivated. If the general public becomes aware of the risks
of low-dose radiation, the safe radiation exposure threshold might have to
be lowered. Smokers who have cancer would have concrete proof of the
mechanism that causes cancer, further establishing the tobacco industry's
culpability. In other words, both the nuclear and tobacco industies would
be more clearly liable for the damage to American health.** *
 
Additional evidence can be found in:
 
Edward P. Radford Jr. and Vilma R. Hunt, "Polonium-210: A Volatile
Radioelement in Cigarettes," Science 143 (Jan. 17, 1964): 247-49
 
Edward P. Radford Jr. and Vilma R. Hunt "Cigarettes and Polonium-210,"
Science 144 (April 24, 1964): 366-67
 
Edward P. Radford Jr. and Vilma R. Hunt and John B. Little,
"Carcinogenicity of Tobacco-Smoke

If I might interject: what this list should be discussing are not the insoluble issues raised as smoke screen by the opposition, but the incoherence and grotesque failure of their policy. Criminal prohibition as public policy has never had any credible successes; it always fails. Yet no one in the media even raises that as an issue and drug policy experts like Mark Kleiman and Peter Reuter claim to take it seriously. The silence of policy makers is grotesque. How can either the US or the Mexican government possibly defend the drug war they both support? How does the UN defend its commitment to such a silly policy? Obama is a poster boy for pot use; just like Steve Jobs
 
 
In the face of such jaw-dropping dishonesty does anyone believe the forces implementing that policy on a global basis are going to be impressed by any of the arguments that appear on this list today? Get a grip! My study, which is never discussed, raises several credible issues that have been glossed over by so-called "experts" in both the gov't and reform: what accounts for the sudden surge of adolescent interest in smoked "marijuana" that took place in the mid Sixties? How is that related to the Baby Boom? To the "beat Generation?" To psychedelic use? Why was there such a surge in the prison population immediately after the CSA passed in 1970? Is there ANY research basis for the assertions made in "Schedule 1?" If not, why has it been so impregnable?
 
 
The government, which has successfully blocked unbiased clinical research into drug use for 40 years, obviously doesn't understand its policy failures and thus has NO THEORY to explain them; all they can do is spout incoherent nonsense about had bad drug use is and why it has to be suppressed. What I discovered from taking careful histories from cannabis users is that most of them were themselves victims of childhood emotional trauma who were successfully treating a host of symptoms (and mitigating potentially troublesome use of other agents) with their use of marijuana. In contrast to the gov'ts incoherent screed, that explanation makes sense and comports very accurately with the drug war's time line. The gov't, on the other hand, doesn't have a clue as to why kids started trying pot in the Sixties and why initiation rates have been holding so steady since then and why the illegal pot market will never be " controlled". Of couse, most cops really don't care; they simply want to keep on taking their cut. Ditto the lawyers, judges, prison guards and the "treatment" industry… just like the growers who voted "no" on 19.
 
 
As far as the MJ high is concerned, what's the difference between the Head high and the Body high? Does the US federal government even understand it. Why is Marinol legal and all other forms of "marijuana" illegal?
 
 
The answers to all of the above add up to a stupid policy which has been imposed on the entire world by doctrinaire morons who have been able to protect ir because humans are so dishonest and divided themselves.
 
 
In Disgust,
 
 
Tom O'Connell
 
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 2:25:37 PM
 
 
 
 
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Russ Belville < s..[email protected] > wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
The core we're dancing around here is that marijuana can get you high – whether it's "relaxation", "recreation", "wellness", "stress relief", "enhancement", "medicated", "lifted", "stoned", the name we give it does not change what it is.
 
 
 
Getting "high" is the street term for "experiencing the medicinal effects." You're the only one dancing – I'm speaking the truth in a clear, concise manner.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
 
OK, then…
 
 
I'm not a bawling rambling drunk… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects of alcohol for my social anxiety disorder.
</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
 
 
I'm not a chain smoker… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects of tobacco for my unobstructed airway syndrome.
I'm not hyper… I'm experiencing the medicinal effects of coffee for my lethargy.
</blockquote>
 
 
“No valid conclusion as to the use of a thing can be drawn from its abuse.”
Ancient Latin maxim, Stockdale v. Hansard, Lord Denman
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
 
You're confusing "whether it has medical effects" with "whether people are using it medically".
</blockquote>
 
 
You are focusing on the abuse of drugs as an excuse to keep our community divided.
 
I am focusing on the potential proper use of drugs as a method of keeping our community united.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
While you may not see a difference, the public does.
</blockquote>
 
 
 
" They who have put out the people's eyes, reproach them for their blindness " – John Milton
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
What I've been trying to illustrate, apparently unsuccessfully or unconvincingly, is that medical marijuana paints you into this uncomfortable corner where you need to get the public to redefine their entire paradigm of "medicine".
</blockquote>
 
 
I'm comfortable with it, considering the fact that if we do manage to do it we stand united as a community, and if we don't manage to do it we loose – not just cannabis – but ALL herbs to the doctors and pharmacists through CODEX.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
You're stuck in a situation where every state after California has had to say "Legalization?!? California?!? Oh, no, no, this isn't that; this is for the cancer and AIDS and MS and pain patients who have no choice but to use cannabis ."
</blockquote>
 
 
 
Not really. I'm an "all use is medicinal" activist who actively supports the wine model and will continue to work towards the coffee bean model. I just don't suffer from doctor-worship like some med pot activists do. My definition of medicine includes "fun" and "smoke rings" and "doctorlessness".
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
Then you have to try to explain away obvious recreational uses that create the cognitive dissonance for the voter who thought he approved a very limited exception for the sickest of the sick but sees "Kush Doctor" bikini girls on Venice Beach hawking $45 doctor recs.
</blockquote>
 
 
 
As pot activists, we have to explain those things anyway. We can do so in such a way as to allow ourselves to be divided – the "Imler way" … or we can adopt an inclusive definition of medicine that includes all use of herbal medicine despite immoral business ethics and improper use. The way to deal with improper use is to provide lots of examples of proper use rather than deem recreation as "not legitimate" as some med pot users have done. The way to deal with immoral business ethics is to legislate against them – across the board, involving all drugs (alcohol and caffeine and pharmaceuticals, especially, considering all the immoral business practices those industries are involved in) rather than say that because some people abuse the system marijuana suddenly, magically, becomes "non-medicine" for some.
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
Then you ask me to go to that voter and say, "Yeah, the college kids getting those Venice Beach recs… that's the medical marijuana you voted for; don't you know that all use is medical?"
</blockquote>
 
 
Nope. I would say we need to do a better job of educating people how to use it properly and regulate how ALL drugs are advertized better than we currently do.
 
For example, last year at the Vancouver Art Gallery's "cannabis farmer's market" we created tips for users and rules for dealers – the media picked up on it:
 
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xiblnr_vancouver-pot-rally-draws-in-thousands_news
 
It reduced the number of people passing out from excessive use from about 8 in 2010 to 1 this year. We will be doing that again next year.
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
Now, WE KNOW there's more to fear from drunk teenagers and drivers on Oxycontin or cell phones, but those facts don't make folks feel any less scared of the marijuana. It's like saying, "Don't worry about your kid surfing in June – shark bite attacks are much more prevalent in August." Read some Drew Westen, some George Lakoff, even Frank Luntz or Karl Rove… people don't vote and think reasonably and rationally, they vote and think from fear and self-interest.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
If these arguments are enough to prevent us from endorsing the med pot model, they are enough to prevent us from endorsing any other legal model, and we should stop being activists. But I'm not stopping, and neither should you.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
 
Is there a straw man standing behind me? I completely endorse medical marijuana! I just refuse to erase the distinction between people who need to use cannabis medically and people who want to use cannabis recreationally. What I discourage is being anything less than forthright with the public about what we seek. I'm saying that it isn't 1996 anymore and the medical well is running dry with the public; the opinion and electoral polls are pointing in that direction. I'm saying voters react badly when they feel they're being bullshitted.
</blockquote>
 
 
If the science doesn't support your "recreation has nothing to do with medicine" myopic view, stop pushing that bullshit as if it was the truth, and stop calling the inclusive activists "bullshiters" … maybe the public will change it's mind again as a result. It can't hurt to try.
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
We played the self-interest card with medical marijuana. The voter was forced to decide whether he/she would allow cops to imprison sick people and let them suffer without pot. This was a self-interest factor greater than the "I gotta protect society / my kids from dope" self-interest factor.
</blockquote>
 
 
And if we're doing our job correctly, people will see the "locking up harmless people" factor as greater than the "protect out children" factor – especially if we begin to address the myths of inherent harm at the same time.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
 
Right! But "I'm using it medically" isn't necessary to convince the public the pot smoker is harmless, and in many cases will backfire because distrusting the pot smoker's motives makes them appear harmful.
</blockquote>
 
 
California isn't the entire world – it's not even the entire USA. California is California, and the RMLW initiative is right for California – and arguably everywhere else that has 1) an initiative process, and 2) a population comfortable with med pot. In some US states they're still at the "activists trying to convince the public that sick people use cannabis as a medicine" stage, while in other places (such as in Canada) we're at the point that the only thing we can do now to keep everyone out of jail (a goal I refuse to give up on) is to educate people about preventive herbal medicine and alert people to the fact that there's no real difference between that and recreational cannabis use. We need different strategies for different situations, and the way we can avoid working at cross-purposes is to adopt a message that doesn't undermine any efforts in any place.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
Your kids are smoking more pot than in thirty years because medical marijuana makes them think it's safe!
</blockquote>
 
 
It IS safe. It's safer than the Coca-Cola they drink every day. It is the duty of every activist to point that out.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
 
And I do. But any argument that begins, "Hey, it's a good thing that more teenagers are smoking more pot…" is a hard one to win with parents.
 
"If the truth hurts, you'll be in pain. If the truth drives you crazy you'll be insane." – Sista Souljah
 
 
 
 
 
 
While almost every parent I know says something like "I'd much rather my kid was smoking reefer (aside from the getting busted part) than getting drunk…", they would also likely say "I'd much rather my kid didn't smoke pot or drink."
 
To which I reply: proper cannabis use is far less harmful than either a criminal record or a jail cell – or the totalitarian conditions that would be required to prevent them from having access to cannabis, given the fact that they can still score some in a jail cell. You can no more prevent teen cannabis use than teen sex or teen masturbation – it's best that they learn to do it in ways that don't involve harm to themselves or others.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
Your neighbor is converting his house to a grow factory to profit from medical marijuana!
</blockquote>
 
 
It's a good thing too – otherwise those hippies would just be on welfare. It is the duty of every activist to point that out.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
 
Here we have to part company. The last thing I want in the home next to me is unlicensed uninspected high-output electrical work and potential extra attention from armed gangs (SWAT or rippers) attracted to profitable plants, seizable assets.
 
 
Then it should be licensed and inspected. Surely you're not arguing that nobody should be allowed to keep valuable property in their house, are you?
 
 
 
 
 
 
I also resent people living on untaxed income when I have to pay my share to Uncle Sam.
 
 
Then it should be taxed. You should really be more vocal in your support of RMLW – it addresses all that.
 
 
 
 
 
Growing a few plants for you and your friends' use is one thing, but commercial farming operations need to be regulated, zoned, inspected, no matter what you're growing.
 
 
Let me introduce you to what I've been working on for the past year:
 
http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/regulate-marijuana-like-wine-act-2012/
 
I would love to read your analysis of it. It would be a lot more helpful, entertaining and informative than your "mis-understanding of DML's position on medical marijuana" article.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
There's also a self-interest factor of the voter who feels he was bamboozled when he/she voted for medical marijuana every time he/she sees a "Get Your Card $45" placard or hears an ad for another medical marijuana expo featuring Kottonmouth Kings or Cheech & Chong.
</blockquote>
 
 
Irresponsible drug advertising is a problem – be it cannabis, alcohol, soda pop or pharmaceuticals. It's not a problem specific to cannabis, but rather a problem with most advertizing. Having greater media literacy combined with a progressive tax on advertizing earmarked to a watch-dog group that could provide educational counter-ads to the worst offenders would solve that problem. It is the duty of every activist to point that out.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
 
Wait, earlier you're defending people getting their recs solely to prevent their ass in a jail cell,
 
Where did I write "solely"?
 
 
 
 
 
 
claiming we need to paint the stoniest stoner's hotbox session as "preventative herbal therapy" or some such weasel words, but it's the advertising aimed at that you find irresponsible?
 
 
I find some advertizing irresponsible, yes. I think all drug advertizing – be it cannabis, alcohol, caffeine, pharmaceutical or otherwise – should be fact-heavy and (unless it's an aphrodisiac being sold as such) breast-light. All drug advertizing should have realistic information on side-effects and should note the key harm-reduction information that is calculated to reduce whatever harms are associated with that particular drug.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
 
<blockquote>
 
 
Now is the time to get to the fear and self-interest that works in our favor. Until the voter fears the status quo of prohibition more than the mystery of a new legal substance, fear of medmj adding to the "drug problem" is going to keep us in a

Frank Lucido spoke of the health benefits of a vacation and it reminded me of much the airline ads of the 60s and 70s resembled the proponents steatements in support of psychoactive drugs Up,up and away;get away from it all ;the only way to fly and you had PSA, and TWA to go along with LSD and MDMA or was it the other way around.
Also we are all familiar with the postulates of the likes of Andy Weil, Thomas Szaz, and Norman Taylor that altered states(whether from drugs or other means) are healthfull,desireable and really necessary.
One last rambling thought. In the middle ages and certainly in early America most people,children included, had alcohol morning noon and night. This was because it was correctly seen as being healthier than water( you could get infectios diseases from water but not alcohol). Could it be that one of our problems today is that we're too sober and that as a society we are not taking enough mind altering substances.
Just a few random thoughts for you post festivus revelers.
peace
David Bearman

RMLW WOULD RETROACTIVELY DISMISS THESE CONVICTIONS!
 
If Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act passes next November and if this case is appealed and has not been fully resolved, their conviction will be dismissed.
 
Quoted from the RMLW Act:
 
"(8) All pending state court actions under said amended statutes which conflict with the provisions of this Act, shall be dismissed with prejudice.”
 
("dismissed with prejudice” means the dismissal is final and can’t be challenged)
 
http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/regulate-marijuana-like-wine-act-2012/

well I don't think we are that far apart.
 
I think losing a cannabis reform election, whether medical (in OR) or
legalization (in CA) emboldens the feds to take the kinds of actions
they've taken in Oregon and California.
 
I also think that setting up medical/legal fractiousness is bullshit,
and notwithstanding you, Allen and Keith stirring up that shit, I also
don't think its NORML.
 
at least I hope its not
 
Lee B.
 
On 12/23/2011 4:01 PM, Russ Belville wrote:

"Include", perhaps. But "solely due to", not by a long shot. And by this
reckoning, nobody should ever try to pass an initiative to keep me out of a
cage unless they are absolutely sure it will pass.
 
I would say the "consequences" of Prop 19 gaining the greatest ever support
in a statewide marijuana legalization initiative (46.5%) and the putting
forth of previous statewide initiatives that have only gained in support
over the years (CA 1972 33%, NV 2002 39%, AK 2004 44%, NV 2006 44%) have
been bringing legalization to the fore and reaping a 50% support in the
latest Gallup poll.
 
I'd say the "consequences" of Measure 74 is a public that's tired of
activists going to medical marijuana well a few too many times. Again,
it's not the 1990s anymore – elections have consequences, and Oregonians
saw the consequences of California, Colorado, and Montana elections that
put storefront weed shops on every corner and decided – twice – that wasn't
for them. (But we've gone and established those dispensaries anyway,
haven't we? I don't suppose those actions will have any "consequences",
huh? Just recently, the OMMC people up on Glisan opened up two new stores,
one in the Pearl District. That's just been shut down after the
neighborhood association pulled the NIMBY card for law enforcement and they
politely suggested the OMMC folks concentrate on their other two stores
that are in the not-so-erudite areas of town.)
 
Now, if the argument is "elections have consequences because we've shown
the feds how close we are to a state legalizing and so now they are pulling
out all the stops to shut down a nascent industry that is beginning
to wield enough political and financial capital to actually pull it off,"
then I'd begrudgingly agree. I guess that's only a bad thing if you don't
want to have that fight.
 
Russ Belville
NORML Outreach Coordinator
 
Social Networks: @RadicalRuss and @NORMLNet
Shipping: 4110 SE Hawthorne Blvd. #161 – Portland, OR 97214
Phone:(phone#-removed) – Fax:(phone#-removed)
 
*Keep fighting only for medical marijuana and marijuana will become medical
only.*
*Hemp’s not illegal because marijuana is a drug; marijuana’s illegal
because hemp is an oil.*
*The most amazing thing about cannabis is its ability to addle the brains
of those who do not use it.*
 
 
 

North Carolina – Cannabis prescriptions:
 
The new website on North Carolina and Cannabis is now up. It talks about
the Dr. Boone collection (over 200 pre-1937 prescriptions) for Medical
Cannabis that we were able to locate, as well as the Reefer Madness era
and a small section on Industrial Hemp.
 
http://antiquecannabisbook.com/chap04/NCarolina/NCMainPage.htm
 
For obvious reasons, it was impossible to show all 200+ prescriptions for
cannabis, also there was some heat over the fact that the patient names
are not listed. However, if anyone wants, adobe files showing all the
prescriptions can be emailed out to interested parties
 
NOTE – there probable are some mis-spell words up there, if anyone sees
any can you please let me know about them.—thanks.
 
 
Antique Andy
Museum Curator
s..[email protected]
www.AntiqueCannabisBook.com
www.ReeferMadnessMuseum.org
 
To add-remove yourself from the museum's mailing list:
http://drugsense.org/lists/listform.htm?antiquecannabismuseum–
 
 
 
 
 
—————————————–
Sent via Catholic Online Webmail!
Use Catholic Online Webmail to proclaim your faith to the world.
http://webmail.catholic.org/

I disagree, respectfully.
 
Elections have consequences and the failures in CA and OR last cycle
include these consequences.
 
Its not about blaming anybody. Its about acknowledging political realities.
 
Lee Berger
 
On 12/22/2011 7:57 PM, Russ Belville wrote:

Whoa there, Leland…
 
I also think that setting up medical/legal fractiousness is bullshit, and
> notwithstanding you, Allen and Keith stirring up that shit, I also don't
> think its NORML.
 
 
Who is setting that up? Every legalizer I know voted for every medical
marijuana initiative offered. Every healthy person I know willingly stood
in the back of the bus so we could "get the sick and dying off the
battlefield." Every NORML activist I meet has worked tirelessly for
medical marijuana and even defended some of the gray area activities of the
medicalizers we all knew would get us a terrible reprisal from state and
federal authorities (see: Jason Christ's Traveling Medical Marijuana
Caravan and Skype Evaluations for Pre-Signed Recommendations Road Show in
Montana; see: Kush Doctor's Recs for $45 Tent on Venice Beach; see:
insisting that the young men passing the blunt in the Prop 215 area of a
rock concert are "medicating".) For fifteen years now. And after fifteen
years, sixteen states, and 1.5 million patients who cannot be arrested,
marijuana arrests of healthy people keep going up, even in the medical
states!
 
But then when legalization initiatives are offered, it's some of the same
medicalizers we supported, the same ones who "gots theirs" and are no
longer facing the arrests we do, who are organizing to defeat them (see:
Corey Donahue crashing legalization meetings and Kathleen Chippi saying "we
will defeat it like Prop 19 with smiles on our faces" in Colorado; see: a
sizeable portion of California medical cannabis dispensaries and activists
vocally against Prop 19; see: Steven and Andrew "We do not support
legalization of recreational cannabis" DeAngelo). This reminds me of the 1%
claiming it's "class warfare" when the 99% protest… it's only "stirring
up that shit" when we do it.
 
I'll tell you what's "NORML" – an acronym with only one "M" in it, not two.
Do you know how many eager potential activists and NORML supporters I've
dealt with in medical states who tell me "Gee, I don't have my [medical]
card and my NORML chapter doesn't do anything for non-medical"? It's not
like, say, Oregon, doesn't have something non-medical it could rally
around, like being the only state with no misdemeanor possession level – we
go from a 28gram ticket to a 29gram felony. We tried Measure 57 (make a
Class C misdemeanor for low possession amounts) and got 33% support in
1998. But medical also passed in 1998, so we put all the activism into
medical, tried dispensaries twice and failed twice with the same result.
 
Even now, when we have an amazing lineup of backers, plenty of money, and
great public support to legalize marijuana in Washington State in 2012, we
have medicalizers and even legalizers who are personal friends of mine
lining up to defeat it, lest some patient who's so sick they have to
medicate so much so often that they can't pass a 5ng/ml cutoff for DUID*
that they would only get on the off chance they were actually driving
impaired enough to be noticed or unlucky enough to get in an accident. So
again, we have to stand in the back of the bus because some patient can't
be bothered to ride in one.
 
**Don't confuse that with support of I-502's 5ng/ml per se DUID. I think
it sucks, is unscientific, and will definitely lead to some innocent people
being punished. But right now, hundreds of thousands of innocent people
are being punished in Washington State. So after fifteen years of healthy
people fighting unwarranted possession charges and forfeiture actions,
perhaps a few sick people can fight an unwarranted DUID charge. The
headline "Washington State Legalizes Marijuana" is a national and world
game-changer. It outweighs a bad DUID provision and no home grow and
marijuana stores that may never be. As I wrote during Prop 19, once
marijuana is legal, in any amount for any adult, so much changes in the way
of probable cause, investigations, warrants, harassment, planting evidence,
corruption, etc. that it makes fighting all the other battles (drug
testing, home grow, commerce, religious use, medical use, hemp) far easier
because we're no longer fighting up from the pit of "illegal", but on the
level playing field of "legal".*
 
I am *personally *getting to the point where I'm fine with being ONLY about
marijuana legalization for all people. My position is inclusive of not
caging the people using marijuana who are sick. If people want to keep
focusing only on the sick subset of the cannabis oppressed and euphemize
adult marijuana use with "wellness", join ASA.
 
Russ Belville
NORML Outreach Coordinator
 
Social Networks: @RadicalRuss and @NORMLNet
Shipping: 4110 SE Hawthorne Blvd. #161 – Portland, OR 97214
Phone:(phone#-removed) – Fax:(phone#-removed)
 
*Keep fighting only for medical marijuana and marijuana will become medical
only.*
*Hemp’s not illegal because marijuana is a drug; marijuana’s illegal
because hemp is an oil.*
*The most amazing thing about cannabis is its ability to addle the brains
of those who do not use it.*
 
 
 
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Lee Berger <s..[email protected]>wrote:
 

Thank you to those who have intro'ed yourselves.
 
If we were @ a convention meeting where we didn't know each other, say,
we were all in a circle in a room, don't the rest of you feel like you'd
offer your name & org connection? Or would you wear a mask & disguise
your voice? Or offer your name but not share what org you were
representing? Shouldn't we make the distinction between someone speaking
for an org or for themselves? If I'm aware you are speaking for an org,
I'm gonna listen differently which is not to say I don't hear an
individual speaking for herself. If I see your .org suffix, shall I
assume you are speaking for your group? If you don't have an .org
suffix, is it safe to assume you are just speaking for yourself?
 
This IS an open place and cause I wanna know who you are, where you are
coming from & how you relate to this movement, so I can put my own
thinking into YOUR words, doesn't make me feel like I'm prying or asking
too much of you. Assume the cops know about each & every one of us
anyway! What is there to hide?
 
This is far from labeling, it is sharing with people with whom we have
chosen to share concepts.
 
And, we should not assume, except perhaps for a couple names, that
everyone here is known to others.
 
I offer these thoughts with love & peace & am motivated by a desire to
keep moving this conversation forward.
 
I stand for the legalization of marijuana and the accessibility of MM. I
stand for community control, which is to say, CORPORATE NOT. I've almost
fifty adult years of activism (yeah, I'm old!) including arrests &
prison time as a GI during Vietnam and a pot felony conviction in this
decade. I am a co-founder of Veteran's Speakers Alliance of the SF Bay
Area, a chef & visual artist.
 
We all have many, many common interests here and there is an incredible
variety of strategies and tactics suggested in these conversations
providing many directions for continued forward momentum. We don't have
to agree on all of them but we must agree to be open and honest in our
conversations.
 
Thanks for listening. Have a wonderful warm & illuminating weekend.
 
Peace,
 
 
Hal Muskat
Veterans For Peace
"Sir, No Sir!"
 
"I think because I can't code. I'm an artist because I can't think enough."
 
 
 
 
 
On 12/23/11 8:56 AM, Letitia Pepper wrote:

Hi Letitia, and all,
Just to clarify, under RCPA, personal amounts under 3 lb are exempt from regulation by the CCC.
Specifically:
 
> 11421(a). The following statutes are hereby repealed from the Health and Safety Code: Section 11054(d)(13), Section 11054(d)(20), Section 11357, Section 11358, Section 11359, Section 11360, and Section 11361. Section 23222(b) of the California Vehicle Code is hereby repealed. Cannabis related activities are hereby removed from the prohibitions contained within Health and Safety Code Sections 11364.7, 11365, 11366, 11366.5, 11379.6 and 11570.
 
-REPEALS all criminal prohibitions and punishments on cannabis related conduct for adults 19 and over.
However, sales prohibition repeal is delayed 6 months, and 6 months only, as noted:
 
> (b). The repeal of Health and Safety Code section 11360, as related to sales only, will be effectuated within 180 days of passage of the Act in order to allow the California Cannabis Commission the opportunity to enact commercial cannabis regulations.
 
Sales prohibition repeal is delayed 6 months, to give the newly created California Cannabis Commission time to enact commercial cannabis regulations for amounts over 3 lb. They can still regulate anytime after that, but it automatically becomes "not illegal" after 6 months, even if they stall, and even if the Feds pre-empt CCC from doing anything.
 
The important things is that there is NO regulation of personal amounts below 3 lb. and 100 sq. ft. canopy whether CCC acts or not, and whether the Feds pre-empt or not.
 
Not Illegal. Period.
Under 3 lb: Not illegal, AND not regulated for adults.
 
And medical rights under 215 and SB420 are not affected.
 
Hope this clarifies any misunderstanding.
Frank
 
 
Frank H. Lucido MD
Family Practice since 1979
Medical Cannabis Consultation
Expert Witness
2300 Durant Avenue
Berkeley Ca 94704
(phone#-removed) (by appointment only)
www.DrFrankLucido.com
www.AIMLegal.org
www.DrFrankLucido.blogspot.com
Michigan office:(phone#-removed)
(24 hr message line)
 
Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012
 
Full text at:
http://drfranklucido.blogspot.com/2011/10/repeal-cannabis-prohibition-act-of-2012_16.html
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On Dec 23, 2011, at 8:56 AM, Letitia Pepper wrote:
 

We shall see.. i have been hearing this ever since the store fronts have been in place… 20 years is a very long time.. that i do know and appriciate.. but time will tell what happens next…Prop 19 did not pass.. now there is more initatives on the board.. still trying to put away with the medical marijuana laws to fit the needs of comeralized business… …. instead of the patients needs to medical use.. as i said.. we shall see what happens next.. this has been going on for years on end to get marijuana legalized … the only thing i can see is Rescheduling cannabis for medical purposes only.. not for everyone to utalizes… maybe we should make all drugs available and make them all legalized?… this has been going on for centruries.. since i can remember..
 
anyway.. good luck.. but if it interfeers with our medical use of cannabis.. all hell will break loose… and especially if we loose this all together for stupid iniatives that will ruin it for those whom benifit from the use of cannabis medically…
 
I am on a diffrent boat then most.. but i do not support legalization , but i do support the medical usse of cannabis.. and i do have my reasons.. and life experience behind me .. so.. what ever..
if you have not walked in our shoes of growing, to obtain,, what ever.. you have no ideal what we all have gone through in this issue… and most of us have paid the price and now more so then ever.. just because some people want to make tons of monies off of this plant that was started mainly for medical purposes…
 
If all can enjoy.. that is great.. but do not take it away from those whom want to grow their own or grow in an associated garden with others whom have medical needs.. just for personal gain of wealth.. if your going to change it.. change it where everyone can grow their own if they choose, and sell it to their members ,, either in a store front setting , or a mom and pop home business.. but i just can not see this reality come about until the Federal and State come together to find a solution to this situation.. i am sick of those whom just want it legalized so that they can make monies off of the citizens.. medical or not… and take it away from us.. whom benifit from it medically.. for our issues… just so that you can make thousands of dollars…
 
Comerialized business due to legalization of cannbis.. i can see the prices rising and those whom can not afford go without.. due to the high prices sold in the stores..
what is wrong with the laws that we have now…, not good for legalization at all.. or for anyone to participate in without a recomendation from a good doctor… and medical marijuana id card from our county… its not the laws that are not working.. its both our state county boad of supervisors, law enfocement, sheriffs department as well as those whom want to own cannabis business to sell … is this what this is about.. Selling Cannabis…. go for legalization for all to use..
maybe its the right direction to find peace within our government.. but i do not see this happening anytime soon..
 
REShedule it…. thats what i say…yes i agree.. but you can not have medical marijuana if the CSA continues … get rid of them.. and you have cannabis legal.. medical or non medical.. but do not take away what we are allow to do.. grow our own….
 
I support you.. but just not prices put out there .. lets just say.. until the changes come about.. all i can do right now is go by the laws we already have into effect..and leave the rest up to those whom really understand this issue..
 
I am just a medical marijuana patient.. whom benifits from the use of cannabis, as well as growing the cannabis plant.. and enjoying that i am able to so something with my life.. instead of just existing due to my medical issues.. and if the laws change for the better.. and not take my rights away concerning this issue.. then Power to the people… i am all in.. if not.. and the laws are taken away.. then i will be forced to go back to the dark pit i was once in.. and that is not an option for me… to even think about…
 
so.. do the right thing to benifit all of us in this issue .. of Cannabis….
 
 
— On Fri, 12/23/11, s..[email protected] <s..[email protected]> wrote:
 
 
Cc: "Lavonne Victor" <s..[email protected]>
 
 
 
#yi(phone#-removed) p {margin:0;}
 
 
I've been studying this issue for over 20 years now and I think the answer lies in cutting the beasts head off it's shoulders at the federal level.  CSA IS the Achilles Heal in ending Cannabis Prohibition.  The time for "medical marijuana" is over and the time for for legalization is upon us, now that over 50% of the American People support it.  What is really going on now is a desperate attempt by Obama to monopolize production and distribution to controlled corporations.  This cannot stand.
 
The MERP Strategy for Marijuana Re-Legalization in a Nutshell

 
Yours in Peace and Freedom,
 
Bruce W. Cain
 
 
 
Cc: "Lavonne Victor" <s..[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 3:59:12 AM
 
 
 
 
 
 
I am a patient and not an attorney.. but do know the laws of the use of cannabis.. you have to be educated when your utalizing cannabis, growing cannabis.. or even doing an association of patients.. but still no matter what it is still illegal to sell cannabis… so what ever …
 
I beleve we have a right to utalize cannabis.. for me i support medical use of cannabis while others support legalization of cannabis for all.. so.. what .. everyone has a diffrence of insite on this issue of which road you have walked on in your life time…
 
I used to work and make tons of monies and able to not just support myself but others as well. for i was a very independent woman.. and female shoveinistic.. and stand up for myself.. without fear on any issues comming at me.. but just because i have been forced to be out of work due to my illness what diffrence dose it make to label myself? To you or to anyone.. to say the least..
 
I would like to know how many people on this list is involved in the legalities behind this issue.. How many of you whom run a big organization like ASA and Norml have faced the court system behind this issue.. Most of you whom have provided the initiatives on this issue, whom have put it into law .. have you ever thought it would go comeralized for profit?… was this intended from the very start?.. I wonder what the truth really is behind this issue.. and how many people are teaching others lies on this issue of sales?  So many people 's lives have been torn apart and children torn from the security of their home and taken away from our younger families that thought that they were upholding the laws behind this issue and thought it was legal to sell cannabis by the ounce, or ect.. to those whom they have met or known.. if sales were really legal why is the state and federal getting involved with the store front issues.. now i have read the laws and
have researched the laws inside and out for over 10 years on this issue of sales.. and i am tired of those whom are making a killing from those whom are looking for treatment for their ailments.. but like any business.. Cannabis is Gold to many.. and the gold rush is here.. and geesh everyone wants a part of the pile of gold… even the cops..
 
My life has been turned upside down due to the stress of the courts behind this issue.. not once but twice.. from mostly 6 years of the 11 years i have been involved.. in the activism part of things, and now i am retired from it due to circumstance that surround me that is set as priority..
 
most on this list.. i don't know.. some i do know.. or what ever.. but the issue on hand is finding a good solution to solve this problem that we have behind this issue of cananbis… medically or not…
 
but in the mean time.. people whom are like me whom grow.. whom grow with others , in an association of patients are not making any kind of monies what so ever.. in fact i have spent over and above what others have invested in thier share of their garden.. we provided the expense of the mortgage on our property,, and all we ask is that you help with the expence in order to grown in unity.. but now.. no one whats to invest and partake in their own garden.. for they are used to going to a store and picking out their strains that they want.. pay for it and leave.. for that is what was educated to them that this is the only way to obtain.. some even hold classes to teach you how to grow indoor, how to open up your own store.. and much more.. so.. what is this telling us all whom are patients?? that the only way to achieve cannabis is to go to a store front and pay 25.00 for a gram? or better yet you can get two grams for 35.00 .. wow.. what a deal.. really..
what do these people behifit from two grams that they buy.. how dose it help these people?
I could not afford that price on the limited income i have been given due to my disability.. so how do you justify this issue… i read the laws.. and it states out of pocket expence.. but also states people joining together to obtain their cananbis..we have been debating this issue for over 10 years now.. with certain people.. And our Attorney whom has been really blunt with us.. about the laws.. and sales are not included.. so.. what ever…
 
I hear allot of complaints against store fronts from pateints that i have talked to .. and the complaints are manily about the prices and how much they charge.. now i am an orgaic outdoor grower.. and have ben for some time for myself.. and its diffrent looking then indoor, and it taste diffrently.. and you know what.. i perfer it clean and organic.. but most think outdoor is not as good as indoor pot.. because its not tight,, oh well. i rather have a bud that gives me what i need,, and able to utalize it as much as i need and as much as i need.. and store fronts can not supply me with what i need.. especially at their prices.. so how are you going to benifit those whom utalize cannabis for medical purposes only.. for i am one of them.. medical only.. for i am not utalizing cannabis just to get that high like most are looking for .. i am looking for comfort and relief from my challenges that i face with my illness.. and that is all..
 
I don't want the high.. i am not comfortable being high.. and having the room swam around me.. and feelig like i am ready to turn into liquid.. for my whole body feels like i am jellow.. for i can not move.. and i ate too many cookies.. eatables.. wow.. are strong .. for me.. so i have to make it myself for only i know what works for me.. and how much i utalize and what it takes to keep me even .. but there are many whom act like they know.. how something would affect that person.. when they know nothing about that person.. to tell them that its ok to eat that whole cookie.. when you have no ideal how that is going to affect them.. its not funny if your new to the whole ideal of utalizing cannabis for the first time.. and not knowing what to expect.. only we know how much we can handle or not handle.. and that happens with pharmacuticle drugs as well.. for the doctor dose not know anything unless you tell them how the drugs are affecting you..
 
But there are many concern issues behind this issue of cannabis.. and everyone has the right outside of this community to have concerns.. and especially when they have no knowlege of the use of cannabis unless they themselves have used it  
for really.. non medical use is totally diffrent from someone that utalizes it for medical reasons.. and allot of it .. that is needed in order to keep our illenss controled.. and not druged up from pharmacuticle drugs.. but then again do anyone really care .. or are they more concern about opening up a store and selling it then they are at meeting our needs.. concerning this issue…
I think not.. many people whom are dying of an illeness can not afford the high prices of store fronts.. and do not meet their needs.. A sick and terminal ill citizens whom utalizes cannabis needs more than 4 ounces a month to utalize.. and that means able to cook with it as well.. and that within itself takes allot.. well.. who helps these citizens whom are on limited income.. would you sell it for 100.00 an ounce no matter what strain it is our even for 25.00 an ounce .. no i don't think so.. so then why even ask the growers to provide for the store front owners ,, only pay indoor growers higher rages than they do outdoor growers? Yes i heard how much that they charge.. and its even tempting to say the least to other growers.. but some growers know that its illegal for them to do .. is to sell.. but we are allowed by law to gether together in unity and share in the out of pocket expence as well as growing to obtain safe access to our cannbis for our
medical needs.. and share in the harvest in order to achieve our cananbis.. but now.. things are changing big time.. and they don't like it to just be for medical use.. for then they can not open comerialized business and sell it as if its a regualar business selling a product.. and charging what ever that they want to charge and make a profit.. and pay taxes.. now the new intitative states that if passed we have to pay taxes on our cannabis.. what… what are you trying to do here?
Take the rights of the medical cannabis laws away from those whom benifit from the use of it for medical purpose only to fill your pockets with what ever monies we are able to give to receive what from you?.. i wonder.. sometimes about this… if i was able to sell cannabis instead of doing wht i am doing now with an association of patients and it was legal for me to do so.. i would be right by your side.. supporting you all the way.. BUT THAT IS NOT THE LAWS!!!!!!..
 
yes.. we need a change.. i agree.. but until then.. i will continue to be incompliance with the laws of this state. as much as possible.. no matter what people say on this issue.. read the laws.. and see it for yourself.. and if your going to lable someone .. on this list.. then go ahead.
 
I don't need to say what i do..but i will..
I am an American Citizen of the United States, A citizen of California, a voter, and a cannabis patient and housewife and grandmother of 6 beautiful grandchildren..
I have been growing my own for over 11 years and have faced the courts once.. but my
husband have faced the courts twice.. behind this issue..
We grow in an association of patents whom share equally investment of the garden
in compliance with the laws of the state..
 
So if this label is important to some of you.. this is my information.. but this should not change anything .. we all come from all walks of life .. and i am disabled . and not ashamed to say so.. but if a label makes me any diffrent to you.. well.. what ever.. we are all supporters of cananbis.. and i am one of those whom are on the other end of not being an store front owner… or an smart ass with a lable behind them.. i have accoplished allot in my life.. and i am happy to say.. i am alive again today… one more time..
 
so roll your self a dubbie or smoke your pipe.. and chill out on the labels … we are who we are .. no matter what life of a path we have walked on.. we all utalize cannabis… yeah..
 
Happy Holdidays!!!!!! hohohohoho…..
 
— On Thu, 12/22/11, Sjss <s..[email protected]> wrote:
 
 

Lee Berger, Portland, OR
 
I practice statewide in Oregon representing patients and their providers
in state court, and I also do criminal appeals and cannabis law impact
trial and appellate litigation.
 
Chair, NORML /Amicus /Committee
Member, ASA Board of Legal Advisers
Legal Counsel, American Alliance for Medical Cannabis
Sustaining Member, Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers' Association
 
Leland R. Berger
Attorney at Law
1631 NE Broadway, #523
Portland, OR 97232-1425
(phone#-removed)
(phone#-removed) – fax
 
s..[email protected]
 
On 12/22/2011 10:18 AM, Hal Muskat wrote:

This is the most inspiring short text that I have heard in years!
 
Sent from my iPhone
 

———- Forwarded message ———-
 
 
 
 
*RMLW WILL RETROACTIVELY DISMISS THESE CONVICTIONS!*
If Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act passes next November and if this case
is appealed and has not been fully resolved, their conviction will be
dismissed, "with prejudice,” which means the dismissal is final and can’t
be challenged:
 
 
(8) All pending state court actions under said amended statutes which
conflict with the provisions of this Act, shall be dismissed with prejudice.
****
 
*RMLW WILL ALSO MAKE THE CAUSE OF THESE TYPES OF TRIALS — COOPERATION AND
FUNDING BY THE FEDS — ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA*
 
(e) State, local, elected, appointed, hired employees, officers, and
officials shall not directly or indirectly cooperate with or assist
federal, state, local officers or officials, volunteers, or employees who
eradicate marijuana, act for seizure or forfeiture, or to defeat any
liberally construed purpose of this Act, nor may any state or local agency
contract to eradicate marijuana that is being grown, manufactured or stored
under the provisions of this Act.****
 
http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/regulate-marijuana-like-wine-act-2012/