Tag Archives: Chris Conrad

July 10, 2012 – Digest for s..s@a2c2.us – 16 Messages in 8 Topics

    Chris Kenoyer/OLP <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 10 07:24PM -0700  

       —– Forwarded Message —–
    Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:16 PM
     
     
    Good Day, Everyone!
     
    EDITOR'S NOTE: Should you ever decide that you wish to be removed from The OnlinePot.org Newsreports e-mail list, there is a clickable link on the very bottom of every news report e-mail, just click it and follow the directions to be removed from the OnlinePot.org Newsreports e-mail list. 🙂
     
    If you need to email us, use either s..s@a2c2.us 
    Or s..s@a2c2.us 
    NEW! Secure Email Server
     
    Follow Us Now On Twitter @ MedicalMMJMan
    https://twitter.com/MedicalMMJMan
     
    Sincerely Chris Kenoyer
     
    ———————————————————————————
    News Email List Advertising Sponser Needed Here!
    Contact Chris At s..s@a2c2.us
    http://www.onlinepot.org/misc/advertise.htm 
     
    Your Ad Posted At The Top Of Every Email News Report!
    —————————————————————————-
    What a drag, Israeli firm grows "highless" marijuana
     
    (Reuters) – They grow in a secret location in northern Israel. A tall fence, security cameras and an armed guard protect them from criminals. A hint of their sweet-scented blossom carries in the air: rows and rows of cannabis plants, as far as the eye can see.
     
    It is here, at a medical marijuana plantation atop the hills of the Galilee, where researchers say they have developed marijuana that can be used to ease the symptoms of some ailments without getting patients high.
     
    "Sometimes the high is not always what they need. Sometimes it is an unwanted side effect. For some of the people it's not even pleasant," said Zack Klein, head of development at Tikun Olam, the company that developed the plant.
     
    Cannabis has more than 60 constituents called cannabinoids. THC is perhaps the best known of those, less so for its medical benefits and more for its psychoactive properties that give people a "high" feeling.
     
    But cannabis also contains Cannabidiol, or CBD, a substance that some researchers say has anti-inflammatory benefits. Unlike THC, it hardly binds to the brain's receptors and can therefore work without getting patients stoned.
     
    "CBD plants are available in different forms all over the world," said Klein, adding that the company's plant is free of THC and very high in CBD.
     
    Tikun Olam began its research on CBD enhanced cannabis in 2009 and about six months ago they came up with Avidekel, Klein said, a cannabis strain that contains 15.8 percent CBD and only traces of THC, less than one percent.
     
    CANNABIS AS MEDICINE
     
    Marijuana is an illegal drug in Israel. Medicinal use of it was first permitted in 1993, according to the health ministry.
     
    Today cannabis is used in Israel to treat 9,000 people suffering from illnesses such as cancer, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease and post traumatic stress disorder, according to Israel's health ministry.
     
    Drug companies have also been interested in cannabis as a medicine. Britain's GW Pharmaceuticals, with Bayer and Almirall, sells an under-the-tongue spray called Sativex that is designed to minimise highs by manipulating ratios of active ingredients.
     
    Raphael Mechoulam, a professor of medicinal chemistry at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said Avidekel is thought to be the first CBD-enriched cannabis plant with no THC to have been developed in Israel.
     
    "It is possible that (Avidekel's) CBD to THC ratio is the highest among medical marijuana companies in the world, but the industry is not very organised, so one cannot keep exact track of what each company is doing," he explained.
     
    Although there have been no clinical trials in humans, Mechoulam, who is a leading researcher of cannabinoids, said that Avidekel showed promise as a potent anti-inflammatory.
     
    Ruth Gallily of the Hebrew University who works for the company and has been studying CBD for more than 12 years, said she has found that the substance has impressive anti-inflammatory qualities. She has been testing the effects of Tikun Olam's CBD-enhanced cannabis on mice and expects clinical trials to begin in a few months.
     
    Avidekel is a new strain of a plant that is already permitted for medical use so there is nothing stopping patients who are already being treated with marijuana from trying Avidekel. About 10 patients began using it in the past six months, Klein said.
     
    "The cannabis plant, enriched with CBD, can be used for treating diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, colitis, liver inflammation, heart disease and diabetes," she said, adding there are no side effects.
     
    "It's a huge advantage," said one 35-year-old patient who asked not to be identified, "I can smoke during the day, function with a lot less pain and still be focused, work and drive. It is a great gift."
     
    The woman began suffering chronic pains after a tumour was removed from her spine. She began treatment with regular THC-containing marijuana eight months ago. Two months ago she started smoking Avidekel.
     
    "The difference is huge. Before, I would only smoke at the end of the day and stay in pain." Now, she said, with the highless marijuana "my life is so much better."
     
    Despite Avidekel's highless benefit, Klein does not see regular marijuana disappearing any time soon. THC has its own unique effects that alleviate illness symptoms.
     
    "Don't worry, I think that cannabis with THC will still be (around)," he said. (Editing by Jeffrey Heller and Paul Casciato)
     
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/03/uk-israel-marijuana-idUSLNE8(phone#-removed)
    ———————————————–
     
    Stay Well & Stay Safe Everyone
     
    Sincerely
    Chris Kenoyer 
    Online News Journalist
     
    Follow Us Now On Twitter @ MedicalMMJMan
      https://twitter.com/MedicalMMJMan
     
    OnlinePot The Most Comprehensive
    Resource On Medical Marijuana & Cannabis 
    Everything That You Always Wanted To Know About Medical Marijuana! But Were Always Just To Afraid To Ask…
    http://www.onlinepot.org/
     
    The Reefer Madness Teaching Museum
    http://www.reefermadnessteachingmuseum.org/
     
    Maine Patients Coalition.org
    http://mainepatientscoalition.org/
     
    s..s@a2c2.us
    s..s@a2c2.us
    NEW! Secure Email Server
     
    God Made Medical Marijuana!
    & God Doesn't Make Mistakes!
     
    CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING! This electronic message contains information which may be privileged and/or confidential. This information is intended for the exclusive use of the individual(s), entity, or persons named or indicated above. Any unauthorized access, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any parts of the contents of this message/information is strictly prohibited by federal law. Any attempts to intercept this message are in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 2511(1) of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).All violators are subject to fines, imprisonment, civil damages, or both.
     
    To unsubscribe from this newsletter, click the link below:
    http:s..s@a2c2.us

     

    Mickey Martin <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 09 11:32PM -0700  

    I love this guy…a 46-year-old washed up computer tech who decided to jump in the weed game after his business collapsed….
     
    Here is a great site for you to get to know him better…..classy guy soliciting friends on the Internets: http://www.meetup.com/nightlife-434/members/8525031/
     
     You look sexy, bro…
     
     
    Dude said he is a "Senior Systems Analyst" which is apparently a fancy name for "Data Center Manager" for a whopping 13 years. Awesome career choice. No wonder you wanted to sell weed.
     
    I am sorry I have wasted so much time on this cat. I thought he might have been someone other than a call center manager who lost his job, tried to sell weed and failed at that, tried to open a school and failed that, and who has made a gang of weak websites for other failed cannabis companies. Super….NEXT. 
     
    I give you this info, so that you may be able to put a face to the lame, so should you see him out and about you can easily identify him.
     
    No wonder he hates tax and regulate so much…he owes the State of CA several thousand in back taxes. He sold out his struggling dispensary to some thuggish ruggish cats who he now distances himself from, likely to keep his fancy apartment in Downtown Sac at the Regatta…..WooHoo…..
     
    Looking for friends on the internet from your lonely ass apartment…..I am jealous, player. NOT….
     
    Mickey Martin
    T-Comp Consulting Director
    Author of Medical Marijuana 101
    www.cannabiswarrior.com
    www.tcompconsulting.com
    s..s@a2c2.us
    (phone#-removed)
    http://twitter.com/micKEYmarTIN
    http://twitter.com/CANNABISconsult
     
    ***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.***

     

    PeaceLove <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 10 09:43AM -0700  

    Mickey:
     
    A person's employment status and background don't reveal anyone anything
    about their effectiveness as an advocate for cannabis. Ad hominem attacks
    debase this email list without advancing your argument at all. Please
    address Mr. Colorado's arguments on their merits or restrain yourself from
    posting.
     
    PeaceLove, Jonathan
     
     

     

 

 

    Dave Hodges <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 10 11:07AM -0700  

    SaveCannabis Members,
     
    I'm back! Sorry I've been MIA for the last month. As soon as I finish
    getting caught up on all the emails over the past month, I will
    address some of this insane bullshit.
     
    A few points worth addressing now:
    1) Yes, another person has been moderating SaveCannabis in my absence
    a. This person is someone I trust.
    b. They have no connection to anyone in the Cannabis industry.
    c. They are a medical cannabis patient who is new to the "movement".
    2) All emails being moderated violate the posting rules for
    SaveCannabis http://savecannabis.org/email/rules/
    3) An update to rules for the SaveCannabis group is in the works & I'm
    open to all suggestions.
    4) An overhaul of the SaveCannabis site is almost ready.
    5) Mickey Martin and Dan Rush/UFCW have no "control" over the
    SaveCannabis group.
    6) The goal of the SaveCannabis forum is to help the cannabis movement
    move forward with open dialog and accountability.
    7.10) Happy 7/10!
     
    What is 7/10?
    Think of 7:10 as you think of 4:20. Not only is it a time, but it is a
    date. This time/date stands for smoking cannabis OIL (aka:BHO, Wax,
    Budder, Honeycombe, “Errl”, etc..) . BHO/Wax has been around for a
    long time, but within the last couple years specific devices have been
    created to improve the way Wax is smoked. Along with these
    improvements came die-hard oil smokers. Some cannabis users completely
    switched over to the use of Wax. Wax is quick and to the point as far
    as medication goes! One or two hits and your as medicated as smoking a
    whole joint to your face! The people who have realized that this is
    “THE NEW WAY TO SMOKE CANNABIS” have formed a movement, The Errl
    Movement or The 7:10 Movement. Join the 7:10 Movement Facebook group
    here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/errl710/
     
    Best Regards,
    Dave Hodges
    Founder
    A2C2 – The All American Cannabis Club – a2c2.us
    SJCBC – The San Jose Cannabis Buyers Collective – sjcbc.org
    SVCC – The Silicon Valley Cannabis Coalition – svcannabis.com
    SaveCannabis – An open forum for the cannabis movement – savecannabis.org

     

    Matthew Meyer <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 10 12:57PM -0700  

    Hey, 710 spells "OIL" when you invert it! Neat.
     
     

    Matthew Meyer
    PhD Candidate
    Anthropology Department
    University of Virginia

     

    Chris Conrad <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 10 10:48AM -0700  

    You misunderstood what happened again, Terry.
     
    The problem is that nobody wants to read your crap or to have anything to do
    with you, and between you, Letiticia and Cain you've driven just about
    everyone off of these two lists. Nice work undermining the movement, but
    this time you unified us in agreement that you are a boring bully.
     
    — Chris <s..s@a2c2.us>(phone#-removed)
    _______________
     
     
     
     

     

    Letitia Pepper <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 10 11:01AM -0700  

            Well, It's been useful and interesting to see posts from the folks who want to push THC-free cannabis as medicinal — that's what I've been expecting would be next in the 1%'s efforts to prevent cannabis from being useful to the 99% as a cancer preventative and cure (not to mention THC's importance as a component in whole herbal cannabis for other ailments, e.g., nausea, pain, etc.)
         If you need to discuss something with me that is important to people who are working on pro-medicinal, pro-patient projects, please send e-mails to me with MY NAME in the subject line, e.g., "LETITIA, here's an e-mail about"
         Thank you.
         FYI, If anyone thinks that I'll be writing an article for Cannabis Culture, or participating in a debate with Mickey Martin and/or David Malmo Levine , don't hoild your brreathes.  I have never heard from David's editor, "Jeremiah" (or else his e-mail got lost in the masses of e-mails reently generated!) or from anyone with details of the when or where of a debate.

     

 

    Terry Colorado <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 10 10:03AM -0700  

    FYI: This email thread was highly censored on Save Cannabis last night;
    didn't make it out to the rest of the list … here is the full thread so
    you will understand how they censor on Save Cannabis.
     
     
    col0rado
    Herald at Arms
    of the Cannabis Nation
     
    marijuanahomepage.com
    ASAbook.org
    #opcannabis
    #sacstertweets
     
    Listserv:
    #OpCannabis
    s..s@a2c2.us
     
     
     
     

     

    David Malmo-Levine <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 10 12:25AM -0700  

    And further on this same concept:
     
    Corporations own your genes – Human Genome Patents

     
    Those of us who have long been describing the pharmaceutical industry as a
    “criminal racket” over the last few years have been *wholly vindicated* by
    recent news. Drug and vaccine manufacturer Merck was caught red-handed by
    two of its own scientists *faking vaccine efficacy data* by spiking blood
    samples with animal antibodies. GlaxoSmithKline has just been fined a
    whopping *$3 billion* for bribing doctors, lying to the FDA, hiding
    clinical trial data and fraudulent marketing. Pfizer, meanwhile has been
    sued by the nation’s pharmacy retailers for what is alleged as an
    “overarching anticompetitive scheme” to keep generic cholesterol drugs off
    the market and thereby boost its own profits.
     
    The picture that’s emerging is one of *a criminal drug industry that has
    turned to mafia tactics in the absence of any real science* that would
    prove their products to be safe or effective. The emergence of this
    extraordinary evidence of bribery, scientific fraud, lying to regulators
    and monopolistic practices that harm consumers is also making all those
    doctors and “skeptics” who defended Big Pharma and vaccines *eat their words
    *.
    http://worldtruth.tv/big-pharma-criminality-no-longer-a-conspiracy-theory-bribery-fraud-price-fixing-now-a-matter-of-public-record/
     
     
     
     
    On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:42 PM, David Malmo-Levine

     

 

 

    "andrew garret" <s..s@a2c2.us> Jul 09 08:07PM -0700  

    For those of you interested below is the museum's reply letter to the USP.
    ————-
     
     
    Att Mario Sindaco
     
    First thank you for your reply.
     
    I was advised by our lawyer (who is also helping the museum out with our
    FDA Grandfather clause petition for Medical Cannabis), that we should ask
    for an estimate of cost. I understand that your enclosed letter stated:
     
    “Costs cannot be effectively estimated in advance as they will not be
    known until the actual research and investigation of USP files is
    completed. “
     
    However, as you can tell by our main website: www.AntiqueCannabisBook.com
    – our museum operates on a shoe string and even at the lower rate of $80
    per hour (clerical time) we cannot afford too many such hours. However,
    the information that we have asked for is quite important and of interest
    to many, many individuals.
     
    ———————-
    1 – First (and most important of all), we seek to find out WHY the U.S.
    Pharmacopoeia de-listed Medical Cannabis from it’s official listing of
    approved medicines.
     
    It is generally perceived by members of this museum that it was NOT
    removed for medical or pharmaceutical reasons, BUT instead for POLITICAL
    REASONS. The U.S.P. was simply bullied into compliance by the then Bureau
    of Narcotics under the leadership of Harry Anslinger. This perception
    seems to be UNIVERSAL in nature — to our knowledge no one is saying
    anything other than.
     
    Mr. Sindaco, because old letters, memos, etc., will probably prove this to
    be the case, (at this point), let me be the first to state that there is
    no shame in this. It simply happened, many of us have been bullied into
    taking actions that we would normally not have taken. It simply
    happened, now it’s time to move on etc.
     
    If you cannot provide me with such a cost estimate, can you give me the
    contact information to the U.S.P. librarian’s office. I was told that
    they have the archival records at their disposal and thus I can ask them
    about the amount of time required to pull and look over the correct
    records for the given time period.
     
    ———————-
    2 – With regards to our second request for a copy of an existing Monograph
    – one that we can use as a template for our own filing petition with the
    U.S.P. We are quite taken aback by your response. These Monographs are
    spoken about, just about everywhere on your website, and seem to play an
    important role in any petition/request for re-listing. Yet, try as I may,
    I have not been able to find a single copy of one. Is there no way you
    can just email me a copy of an existing Monograph what we can look over?
    As we plan to just use it as a template, it is unimportant which
    drug/medicine it belongs to.
     
    Hoping to hear back from you soon.
     
    Andrew Garret
    Museum Curator
    www.AntiqueCannabisBook.com
    www.ReeferMadnessMuseum.org
    s..s@a2c2.us
     
     
    PS Your given web address does not seem to be working – were there any
    errors in the address
    http://www.usp.org/aboutUSP/governance/policies/overviewStandardsSetting.html.
     
    Cc: "Theresa R. Laranang-Mutlu"
    Other interested parties
     
     
     
    —————————————–
    Sent via Catholic Online Webmail!
    Use Catholic Online Webmail to proclaim your faith to the world.
    http://webmail.catholic.org/

     

June 8, 2012 – Digest for s..s@a2c2.us – 25 Messages in 15 Topics

    "Dr. David Bearman" <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 06 10:12AM -0400  

    How can you argue with someone who lives in analternative universe. Even if you disagree with the most recent legislative effort of ASA you cannot ignor their years of productive efforts for reform ASA is out front and effective. hey but if you think you can do better start your own organization. Right now all this gratuitous carping is akin to forming a circular firing squad.
     
    We do not have the luxury of having signifigant internal disputes. As has been pointed out we are up against the big money anti hemp interests( that means the petro chemical industry,big oil ,the munitions industry). Medicinal and social cannabis use is just ancillary damage in the so far successful efforts to marginalize the hemp inustry in the United States.Now if you could figure out how to get the support of agribusiness for reform you might have something.
     
    If you want to turn your excess energy to something useful you might try getting behind the candidacy of Johnson/Gray.Last night Gov. Johnson , Libertarian candidate for president,was on the Jon Stewart show and as I have said attacked Romney from the right and Obama from the left. If you persist in throwing mud within the reform movement my assumption can only be that you are a dupe of the neo prohibitionists. Save your vitriol for them.
     
    If you want to get involved in the Johnson Gray campaign we are having a fund raising event in Santa Barbara on July 7. Thanks to those who have already responded that you wish to help with this event.Please let me know if any others will be attending or wish to assist in the organizing of this event.
    David Bearman,M.D.
     
     

     

 

 

    Terry Colorado <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 05 09:48PM -0700  

    Not so fast Kris Hermes; this list of whitewall is a todo list of
    accomplishments for dispensaries and collectives; and has little to do with
    patients. ASA is not a patient advocacy group.
     
    On Tuesday, June 5, 2012, Kris Hermes wrote:
     

     

    Terry Colorado <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 06 02:57PM -0700  

    Yes, thank you Donna Lambert; you are a consistant beacon of truth; holding
    Narco Warriors accountable for their lies and monumental
    misrepresentations; and also Rodolfo Reyes for shedding even more light on
    their unfair tactics.
     
    Together; Cannabis Warriors have the Narco Warriors on the run; they cannot
    hide from their malicious lies any longer; expose the hypocrisy and their
    agenda to limit competition.
     
    TRUE ACCESS Analysis: If any of these allegations were untrue; ASA would
    mass in force to slam the accuser, would they not? Keep up the pressure;
    continue to disregard failed leadership.
     
    col0rado
    marijuanahomepage.com
     
     
     
     
    On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Rodolfo rudy Reyes

     

 

    Terry Colorado <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 06 03:16PM -0700  

    Dr. David Bearman; with all due respect; you don't get it. Sir the point
    is; ASA is not our friend; and yes that is exactly what i would like you to
    do … "ignore" their years of misrepresentation and lies; pay attention to
    the issues they support and disregard their failed leadership.
     
    Dr Bearman; you are missing the point that we have more regulation and weed
    is still classified as a dangerous drug; why … because ASA has been
    working for restrictive regulation to limit competition under the guise of
    advocating for patients. lies!
     
    neo prohibitionists?? I dont' even know what that means … i had to look
    it up on internet; and when i did i realized i was looking at the EXACT
    DEFINITION OF AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS except weed instead of booze.
     
    Wiki said:
     
    *Neo-prohibitionism* (also spelled *neoprohibitionism* and *
    > policies which further restrict the sale and possession of alcohol in order
    > to reduce average per capita <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita> consumption
    > and change social norms to reduce its acceptability.
     
     
    Sir; if you cannot identify the "dupe" in the grand scheme; i respectfully
    submit that dupe is you. If you truly support free weed; then make a
    statement worth repeating; and personally confront ASA on their failed
    leadership.
     
    You and I can not count on ASA to deliver our message to the American
    citizen. We can not count on ASA to speak for the
    cannabis free-market community; because ASA's message is false and
    self-serving; and does nothing to free the weed or keep patients out of
    jail; Daisy Bram.
     
    P.S. Doc, PLEASE STOP ASA FROM TAKING PEOPLE TO JAIL FOR WEED
     
    col0rado
     
    marijuanahomepage.com
    #summerofbud
     
     
    On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Dr. David Bearman <s..s@a2c2.us>wrote:
     

     

    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 06 11:44PM -0700  

    Guys creating self serving policy but involved in criminal actvity
    that could include murder? Dont just wave that gun around so
    recklessly on a public forum . If thats true take it seriously and do
    what you need to do to protect yourself and others but each time you
    wave that gun around and dont complete your threats ? I take it less
    seriously and it helps ASA project that your just off your rocker. And
    the sad thing is ? Im sure your still in shock from your daughters
    death and some may also read and think your misdirecting some of your
    anger ? Please protect yrself and perhaps sit down with your legal
    team and get some input on what you should post . My advice? Separate
    policy concerns from allegded criminal actvivty . Violent criminal
    behavoiur is for your legal to track and take action on to protect
    you.
     
     

    Shona Gochenaur
    Executive Director
    Axis of Love SF
    http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
    http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

     

    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 06 11:33PM -0700  

    Interesting I didnt know it was norml that worked it out in Sd . One
    of the purposed items I had on my list when james anthony was helping
    me craft a rules of engagement when I was invited to a working group
    with vareity policy heads was putting credit where its due . Sharing
    it equaly on joint projects basicaly not attempting to be the one and
    only voice in media and goverment relations . Simple fact were not
    monolithic movement. And were stronger on a civil rights level if we
    have multi heads that are regenerative . I hate and shutter to think
    if what donna stating that now three women are being threatend or even
    "feel" seriously intimidated by anyone thats seen to represent us all.
    You all must be peaceful with eachother. I dont like reading I
    reporting you to authorties. I would hope we could self regulate . But
    honestly donna youve been threatening to report don duncan and egeune
    davidovich for abit now …it does get abit like ok enough already by
    all means if you have the proof that these are not only
     
     

    Shona Gochenaur
    Executive Director
    Axis of Love SF
    http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
    http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

     

    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 06 09:14PM -0700  

    with all due respect I did start my own organization thats focus is
    actually on patients rights. Locally . This bill could create an
    unfair federaly dangerous playing feild for growers as well. Can you
    reveiw from neutral perspective? And focusing all our efforts on a
    third party canodate in conservative california is realy missing the
    target for safe access. Patients and growers need protection now. And
    I always vote and support indi canidates but i certainly am not
    focused on that currently .
     
     

    Shona Gochenaur
    Executive Director
    Axis of Love SF
    http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
    http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

     

    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 07 01:31AM -0700  

    REuters/dan whitcomb "feds attack california medical mj trade- again"
    "Miltary veterans say pot eases PTSD" USA
    TODAY Tacoma
    Medical Cannabis Taskforce report-exit 133
     

    Shona Gochenaur
    Executive Director
    Axis of Love SF
    http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
    http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

     

    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 07 08:32PM -0700  

    GReat work Dege! Im so so glad that PAN gets that gentle or not ? No
    ban is in the interest of patients . Bans are puntive to safe access
    ofcourse this SHOULD? Go without saying but a few medical mj orgs? Or
    business assoc are surrending ? Perhaps in self preservation? Or self
    interest ? And supporting a -gentle ban? How gentle is a patient with
    wasting or cancer losing their collective? Even if its not your mj
    business. Cannabis is a social medicine someones contact w their
    comunity isnt being considered . Why would we surrender to ok just us?
    Not them? Everyones door should stay open . Unless ofcourse they have
    given federal testimony to be able to stay in business. Or their is
    some very problematic operator? I dont get it . But hats of to Dege
    for organize action to protect patients rights!
     
     
    Greetings LA Patient Advocates –
     
    PAN is inundated with calls and emails about LA's ban. See the attached
    link for details to patients questions about this Friday's hearing and
    beyond.
     
    http://panorg.blogspot.com/2012/06/patients-want-to-stop-ban-on-las.html
     
     
    Sincerely,
     
    Degé Coutee
    Executive & Program Director
    Patient Advocacy Network
     
    @PAN4Compassion
    www.CannabisSavesLives.org
    (323) 334-5282
     
    PAN is a charitable 501(c)(3) organization
     
     
     
     

    Shona Gochenaur
    Executive Director
    Axis of Love SF
    http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
    http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

     

    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 06 08:47PM -0700  

    and DEA has made more inquirys of sf coops to dph .
     
    Raids in Santa Fe Springs
     
    Marijuana Crackdown on 36 L.A. County Pot Shops by Feds
     
    By Dennis Romero
     
    Wed., Jun. 6 2012 at 12:12 PM
     
    http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/06/marijuana_crackdown_los_angeles_pot_shops.php
     
    Federal authorities today announced a crackdown on 36 medical marijuana
    dispensaries in Los Angeles County, including raids on two shops in Santa
    Fe Springs and warning letters to 34 businesses and property owners.
     
    Interestingly, the actions did not involve any pot shops in the city of Los
    Angeles.
     
    Rather, feds sought to shut out all of the known cannabis collectives in
    the following cities and communities:
     
    Santa Fe Springs, Whittier, South El Monte, La Mirada, Diamond Bar,
    Artesia, Paramount, South Gate, City of Commerce, Agoura Hills and Malibu.
     
    Search-warrant-enabled raids were conducted this morning at Tri-City
    Patient's Association and the Canna-America Collective (a.k.a. Organic Way
    Collective) on Rosecrans Avenue in Santa Fe Springs, according to a
    statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office in L.A.
     
    Those two shops were also hit with federal civil asset forfeiture lawsuits.
    In other words, Uncle Sam is taking their weed.
     
    A store on Telegraph road was told to shut down by the city as well, the
    feds noted.
     
    The 34 that received warning letters will have to abandon ship, according
    to the office:
     
    The warning letters give the operators and landlords 14 days to come
    into compliance with federal law or risk potential civil or criminal
    actions.
     
    In case you're wondering, yes, this is part of that federal crackdown on
    pot shops in California that has so far seen 220 dispensaries targeted in
    the U.S. Attorney's Central District of the state alone.
     
    The U.S. Attorney's Office says " … the majority of those stores are now
    closed … "
     
    [@dennisjromero / s..s@a2c2.us / @LAWeeklyNews]
     
    http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/06/marijuana_crackdown_los_angeles_pot_shops.php
     
    *********
     
    Degé Coutee
    Executive & Program Director
    Patient Advocacy Network
     
    @PAN4Compassion
    www.CannabisSavesLives.org
    (323) 334-5282
     
    PAN is a charitable 501(c)(3) organization
     
     
     
     

    Shona Gochenaur
    Executive Director
    Axis of Love SF
    http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
    http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

     

    Terry Colorado <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 06 01:37AM -0700  

    Thank you Shona; you make a good point; more crimes; as you say mandatory
    registration won't go over well with cultivators; kinda like sending the
    DEA your grow room address;
     
    On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur <

     

    Terry Colorado <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 06 12:41AM -0700  

    Yes, that's right collectives have legitimacy and rights!
     
    On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Michael Levinsohn

     

 

    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 05 11:00PM -0700  

    hey kris? Instead of having a flash war? Why not just answer the
    concerns I raised . Yes we can and should debate implementation within
    the entire comunity and try and meet these concerns with solid
    solutions that create win/win for all and then we walk into the state
    senate rules comittee shoulder to shoulder to able to encounter the
    "true enemys" with authenic unity . Giving us a list of past victorys
    isnt helping create a positive direction for everyone future .. When
    it doesnt answer even the most basic univerisal concern of all
    patients how much more will my medicine cost due to these permits of
    every stop in the chain of distrubtion requiring fees and hearings?
    And the second most basic what protections will be offered for
    mandatory register of growers? And becuase most growers wont take this
    risk ? We create more instead of arrests .."new crimes" very simply
    without an organizational attack or glory how is ASA who braught this
    forward? be a part of solutions ? Walk the walk . Practice unity

     

 

 

    Mickey Martin <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 06 09:04AM -0700  

    Furthermore….The current crackdown on medical marijuana has ZERO to do with whether or no marijuana is a medicine. In fact, during the "crackdown press conference" all four US attorneys agreed that there are medical uses for cannabis but stated the crackdown was based on the abuses in the system and the money being made. Here is an excerpt:
     
    Laura Duffy, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California told KPCC's Patt Morrison Friday that, overall, the effort aims to shut down retail pot dispensaries. "These are businesses that are, in large part, visited by healthy young people who have gone out and paid for doctor recommendations to obtain marijuana. These are a lot of youth and recreational drug users," she said.
    Duffy said the crackdown isn't aimed at people who have a legitimate need for medical marijuana. Her sentiment has been echoed by Birotte. He says all for-profit, commercial marijuana operations are illegal, no matter where the dispensary is located. “While California law permits collective cultivation of marijuana in limited circumstances, it does not allow commercial distribution through the storefront model we see across California,” he said.
    So what we are seeing is an effort to LIMIT the industry, or EXPAND PROHIBITION. Instead of us defending the honor and integrity of the cannabis user who may be fudging the seriousness of an illness to avoid jail for growing some weed, and condemning the bad laws that make it desirable for people to lie to a doctor, we agree with the Drug Warriors and decide to help them limit, regulate, and control what they consider to be out of control marijuana use and sales. IT IS NUTS!
     
    We are essentially saying, "The US Attorneys are right. We must do something to control this chaotic industry." Why? Why is that our message. Why are we not saying "Quit taking people to jail for weed?"
     
     
     
    Mickey Martin
    T-Comp Consulting Director
    Author of Medical Marijuana 101
    www.cannabiswarrior.com
    www.tcompconsulting.com
    s..s@a2c2.us
    (phone#-removed)
    http://twitter.com/micKEYmarTIN
    http://twitter.com/CANNABISconsult
     
    ***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.***
     
     
    ________________________________
    From: Mickey Martin <s..s@a2c2.us>
    Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 8:50 AM

     
    Hey Matt,
     
    Interesting logic, but I will simply disagree. The "do your own thing" philosophy is simply not working.
     
    The fact is that about 13% of the population uses weed. About 1-2% are qualified medical users. So it is clear to see that the amount of time and energy this "movement" spends on medicalization is far more that the maybe 15% of the cannabis population being represented. 
     
    My point is not that medical cannabis is not a part of the equation, but that we act as if it is the ONLY equation an awful lot because it is the only area where we have had even a small victory thus far. So we continue to double down and continue to work to convince people that everything happening in this industry is strictly medical, which frankly is bullshit.
     
    The straw man angle that you take regarding how focusing on cannabis reform is only a part of the bigger picture of ending the war on drugs is disappointing. First of all, this is the cannabis reform movement. National Organization for the Reform of MARIJUANA Laws and MARIJUANA Policy Project are two of the largest reform groups. But the BIGGEST issue is that MARIJUANA ARRESTS MAKE UP OVER HALF OF ALL ARRESTS FOR DRUGS. (From the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/persons-arrested). 
     
    So while using all of our time, energy and resources fighting for a very small segment of cannabis users is better than "doing nothing," it is an opportunity cost in that it does not even touch the core of the problem. Whereas ending marijuana prohibition would put an end to over half of the arrests in the drug war, a far more substancial piece of the pie. As we press for more regulations and more strict medial only access, we are actually expanding prohibition and making it so less people, not more, can use cannabis legally. By segregating our goals to only accommodate a small portion of the population we serve, we miss out on the opportunity to address the bigger picture.
     
    Just let me know when the last conference was that spent a majority of the time addressing strategies to end overall prohibition, and not just to work on expanding medicalization. I must have missed that. Drug Policy Alliance and LEAP are the only two organizations I see pushing that message at all, and even they are playing the medical card more times than not. 
     
    If it makes you feel good that this movement spends more time than not defending a very small portion of the cannabis population, then that is your decision to make. But here is a report showing that marijuana arrests on California are SKYROCKETING. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/12/california-marijuana-arrests-skyrocketing_n_1090276.html
     
    What does that tell you? That the very small fight we continue to throw all of our resources at is doing very little to stop the overall goal of "Quit Taking People To Jail for Weed." Now ask yourself, if we achieved the goal of Quit Taking People To Jail For Weed, would medical patients be better off? I think the answer is an absolute yes. More cannabis for lower prices. If this movement were for TRUE PATIENT ACCESS then legalization is a NO BRAINER. 
     
    I will agree with Dr. Lester Grinspoon in his assertion that until all cannabis is legal patients will never truly be safe. The same is not true if you look at it from the other side of the coin. If medical cannabis is legal, everyone else is obviously not safe. So what are we really trying to accomplish here?
     
     
     
    Mickey Martin
    T-Comp Consulting Director
    Author of Medical Marijuana 101
    www.cannabiswarrior.com
    www.tcompconsulting.com
    s..s@a2c2.us
    (phone#-removed)
    http://twitter.com/micKEYmarTIN
    http://twitter.com/CANNABISconsult
     
    ***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.***
     
     
    ________________________________
    From: Matt Elrod <s..s@a2c2.us>
    Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 12:31 AM

    > FTW True Access; Cannabis Warrior!
     
    >> http://cannabiswarrior.com/2012/06/05/opportunity-cost/
     
    >> OPPORTUNITY COST
     
    [snip]
     
    >> opportunity cost. While we are using our resources, time, and energy to
    >> fight for limited rights, or for one particular group's needs, we are
    >> losing the opportunity to fight for what we really want.
     
    This is like saying that effort spent on cannabis law reform detracts
    from the broader goal of ending the war on drugs. While there is a shred of truth to it, on balance, drug law reform has many
    goals
    and many fronts on which we can fight.  We fight best when we are
    the most passionate about advancing, and skilled in, whatever goal
    we seek in whatever manner we choose to do it.
     
    If, for example, you believe that cannabis should be legal on
    libertarian grounds, and it is those arguments that you find the
    most compelling, and those arguments with which you are the most
    comfortable and familiar, then have at it.  You might convert
    like-minded people
     
    If, on the other hand, you are into economics, or a member of LEAP,
    or a veteran with PTSD, or a parent, or a teacher, or a patient, or a doctor, or whatever, then your stake and expertise will be different, and you would be doing us all a great service by concentrating on
    what you do best.
     
    In my case, having surveyed the battlefield, I concluded my talents
    would be best employed in logistics and IT, rather than, for example,
    organizing
    rallies, crafting legislation or engaging in flame wars.
    Is that an opportunity cost or a wise and targeted application of
    human resources?
     
    Canada legalized industrial hemp in the late 1990s.  Surely no one
    would argue that the "particular group" who benefited from this reform
    should not have.  Now Americans can point to Canada as a society
    with legal hemp that hasn't collapsed. Same story with medicinal cannabis regimes.
     
    It *is* debatable whether or not such reforms are incremental progress toward the goal of convincing society to "quit taking people to jail
    for weed," (if that is your goal), or if instead our merely reducing
    the number of people who go to jail in the meantime postpones the
    glorious day when no one goes to jail.
     
    There are several arguments on both sides of the perpetual incrementalist vs absolutist debate within the cannabis law
    reform community, opportunity cost being just one
    of the arguments
    on the absolutist side.
     
    Public opinion polls tell us that society is increasingly of the
    opinion that cannabis should be legally regulated in a manner similar
    to alcohol and tobacco, which would see anyone willing to follow
    the rules spared from jail, and those who do not follow the rules
    facing some sanction, civil, criminal or both.
     
    Hemp and medicinal cannabis law reform, lowest enforcement priority
    initiatives and decriminalization have arguably, on balance, positively
    changed public attitudes toward broader cannabis law reform. I would
    be happy to elaborate with citations and specific examples if anyone
    is moved to contest this contention.
     
    OTOH, I am sympathetic to the argument that Dutch coffee shops, for
    example, have stalled progress in the Netherlands by ameliorating
    many of the problems of cannabis prohibition, thereby making
    prohibition more sustainable and making
    further reforms less imperative. This same argument can be made with respect to hemp
    and medicinal cannabis law reform, and decriminalization, insofar
    as we are playing our strongest cards first, leaving ourselves
    with a weaker hand.
     
    The same could be said with respect to cannabis law reform being
    detrimental to the broader goal of ending the war on drugs, however,
    I would consider it a waste of time and energy, an opportunity
    cost, not to mention divisive, to be forever criticizing cannabis
    law reformers, or medicinal cannabis law reformers, or industrial
    hemp law reformers for doing whatever they are moved to do.  It
    beats doing nothing or defending prohibition.
     
    Matt
     
    http://drugsense.org/me/

     

    Mickey Martin <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 06 08:50AM -0700  

    Hey Matt,
     
    Interesting logic, but I will simply disagree. The "do your own thing" philosophy is simply not working.
     
    The fact is that about 13% of the population uses weed. About 1-2% are qualified medical users. So it is clear to see that the amount of time and energy this "movement" spends on medicalization is far more that the maybe 15% of the cannabis population being represented. 
     
    My point is not that medical cannabis is not a part of the equation, but that we act as if it is the ONLY equation an awful lot because it is the only area where we have had even a small victory thus far. So we continue to double down and continue to work to convince people that everything happening in this industry is strictly medical, which frankly is bullshit.
     
    The straw man angle that you take regarding how focusing on cannabis reform is only a part of the bigger picture of ending the war on drugs is disappointing. First of all, this is the cannabis reform movement. National Organization for the Reform of MARIJUANA Laws and MARIJUANA Policy Project are two of the largest reform groups. But the BIGGEST issue is that MARIJUANA ARRESTS MAKE UP OVER HALF OF ALL ARRESTS FOR DRUGS. (From the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/persons-arrested). 
     
    So while using all of our time, energy and resources fighting for a very small segment of cannabis users is better than "doing nothing," it is an opportunity cost in that it does not even touch the core of the problem. Whereas ending marijuana prohibition would put an end to over half of the arrests in the drug war, a far more substancial piece of the pie. As we press for more regulations and more strict medial only access, we are actually expanding prohibition and making it so less people, not more, can use cannabis legally. By segregating our goals to only accommodate a small portion of the population we serve, we miss out on the opportunity to address the bigger picture.
     
    Just let me know when the last conference was that spent a majority of the time addressing strategies to end overall prohibition, and not just to work on expanding medicalization. I must have missed that. Drug Policy Alliance and LEAP are the only two organizations I see pushing that message at all, and even they are playing the medical card more times than not. 
     
    If it makes you feel good that this movement spends more time than not defending a very small portion of the cannabis population, then that is your decision to make. But here is a report showing that marijuana arrests on California are SKYROCKETING. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/12/california-marijuana-arrests-skyrocketing_n_1090276.html
     
    What does that tell you? That the very small fight we continue to throw all of our resources at is doing very little to stop the overall goal of "Quit Taking People To Jail for Weed." Now ask yourself, if we achieved the goal of Quit Taking People To Jail For Weed, would medical patients be better off? I think the answer is an absolute yes. More cannabis for lower prices. If this movement were for TRUE PATIENT ACCESS then legalization is a NO BRAINER. 
     
    I will agree with Dr. Lester Grinspoon in his assertion that until all cannabis is legal patients will never truly be safe. The same is not true if you look at it from the other side of the coin. If medical cannabis is legal, everyone else is obviously not safe. So what are we really trying to accomplish here?
     
     
     
    Mickey Martin
    T-Comp Consulting Director
    Author of Medical Marijuana 101
    www.cannabiswarrior.com
    www.tcompconsulting.com
    s..s@a2c2.us
    (phone#-removed)
    http://twitter.com/micKEYmarTIN
    http://twitter.com/CANNABISconsult
     
    ***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.***
     
     
    ________________________________
    From: Matt Elrod <s..s@a2c2.us>
    Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 12:31 AM

    > FTW True Access; Cannabis Warrior!
     
    >> http://cannabiswarrior.com/2012/06/05/opportunity-cost/
     
    >> OPPORTUNITY COST
     
    [snip]
     
    >> opportunity cost. While we are using our resources, time, and energy to
    >> fight for limited rights, or for one particular group's needs, we are
    >> losing the opportunity to fight for what we really want.
     
    This is like saying that effort spent on cannabis law reform detracts
    from the broader goal of ending the war on drugs. While there is a shred of truth to it, on balance, drug law reform has many goals
    and many fronts on which we can fight.  We fight best when we are
    the most passionate about advancing, and skilled in, whatever goal
    we seek in whatever manner we choose to do it.
     
    If, for example, you believe that cannabis should be legal on
    libertarian grounds, and it is those arguments that you find the
    most compelling, and those arguments with which you are the most
    comfortable and familiar, then have at it.  You might convert
    like-minded people
     
    If, on the other hand, you are into economics, or a member of LEAP,
    or a veteran with PTSD, or a parent, or a teacher, or a patient, or a doctor, or whatever, then your stake and expertise will be different, and you would be doing us all a great service by concentrating on
    what you do best.
     
    In my case, having surveyed the battlefield, I concluded my talents
    would be best employed in logistics and IT, rather than, for example,
    organizing rallies, crafting legislation or engaging in flame wars.
    Is that an opportunity cost or a wise and targeted application of
    human resources?
     
    Canada legalized industrial hemp in the late 1990s.  Surely no one
    would argue that the "particular group" who benefited from this reform
    should not have.  Now Americans can point to Canada as a society
    with legal hemp that hasn't collapsed. Same story with medicinal cannabis regimes.
     
    It *is* debatable whether or not such reforms are incremental progress toward the goal of convincing society to "quit taking people to jail
    for weed," (if that is your goal), or if instead our merely reducing
    the number of people who go to jail in the meantime postpones the
    glorious day when no one goes to jail.
     
    There are several arguments on both sides of the perpetual incrementalist vs absolutist debate within the cannabis law
    reform community, opportunity cost being just one of the arguments
    on the absolutist side.
     
    Public opinion polls tell us that society is increasingly of the
    opinion that cannabis should be legally regulated in a manner similar
    to alcohol and tobacco, which would see anyone willing to follow
    the rules spared from jail, and those who do not follow the rules
    facing some sanction, civil, criminal or both.
     
    Hemp and medicinal cannabis law reform, lowest enforcement priority
    initiatives and decriminalization have arguably, on balance, positively
    changed public attitudes toward broader cannabis law reform. I would
    be happy to elaborate with citations and specific examples if anyone
    is moved to contest this contention.
     
    OTOH, I am sympathetic to the argument that Dutch coffee shops, for
    example, have stalled progress in the Netherlands by ameliorating
    many of the problems of cannabis prohibition, thereby making
    prohibition more sustainable and making further reforms less imperative. This same argument can be made with respect to hemp
    and medicinal cannabis law reform, and decriminalization, insofar
    as we are playing our strongest cards first, leaving ourselves
    with a weaker hand.
     
    The same could be said with respect to cannabis law reform being
    detrimental to the broader goal of ending the war on drugs, however,
    I would consider it a waste of time and energy, an opportunity
    cost, not to mention divisive, to be forever criticizing cannabis
    law reformers, or medicinal cannabis law reformers, or industrial
    hemp law reformers for doing whatever they are moved to do.  It
    beats doing nothing or defending prohibition.
     
    Matt
     
    http://drugsense.org/me/

     

    Chris Conrad <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 06 02:14PM -0700  

    It's a matter of whether you sell it as a business or not.
     
    It seems odd to me that certain people seem to be against pot becoming
    commercially regulated, considering that a lot of people seem to be making
    money on it like it is and opposing change.
     
    Kind of like the dealers are in the same league as the big corporations,
    against any rules that might reduce their immediate profits. When did the
    growers become "the man" fighting to keep everyone else under their thumb?
     
    Tokers, on the other hand, just want to be able to grow a little, share a
    little, and buy some whenever they want without risk of arrest. Most of the
    people I talk to like the idea of going to a local shop to buy it over the
    county and pay taxes like they do for their beer or wine. It's the narcs and
    dealers who like the status quo.
     
    That's okay, but people can be a little more up front about it.
     
    — Chris <s..s@a2c2.us>(phone#-removed)
    _______________
     
     
     
     

     

    Andrew Merkel <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 06 09:03AM -0700  

    The people of Butte County Win Measure A goes down in defeat!
     
    Power to the People
     
    45 to 55
     
    Hell Ya.
     
    Andrew Merkel
     
    Sent from my iPad

     

    Terry Colorado <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 06 01:05AM -0700  

    my understanding is that Colvin legitimizes collectives right to exist;
    cultivate collectively; all members do not have to participate in
    cultivation; and collectives may possess and transport in aggregate amounts
    according to membership; but i don't believe it address' compensation, or
    costs ..etc ..
     

     

    Starchild <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 06 03:50AM -0700  

    Mickey,
     
    Well said. Your point about the opportunity costs of fighting for limited rights applies to anything short of advocating the total freedom to use our bodies however we wish so long as we are not aggressing against others.
     
    Love & Liberty,
    ((( starchild )))
     
     
    On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:19 AM, Mickey Martin wrote:
     

     

June 4, 2012 – Digest for s..s@a2c2.us – 8 Messages in 6 Topics

    Chris Conrad <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 03 02:04PM -0700  

    Mike,
     
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, that $700 is more than anybody
    can afford to get a license to sell pot for $2500 a pound or that it is
    affordable? You seem to be contradicting yourself right and left here. Take
    a deep breath and try again.
     
    So the initiatives did not put together a funders' summit where people could
    come together to pay for an initiative ($20,000 each for 100 people to raise
    $2m) and they did not qualify any of them for the ballot. That proves that
    initiatives don't need money? No, it proves that people won't contribute to
    raise the money we need.
     
    And where do you live where marijuana a is s free as the daily news? Not on
    the street corners and parks of LA or SF or anyplace I know. All the dealers
    want money, all the dispensaries have to pay rent, utilities, staff, growers
    and lawyers who all want money. Who is giving it away free now but would
    stop if it was legal? So it costs too much now and you are against
    legalization because it will cost too much or too little or what?
     
    Lastly, you'll notice that the "free" daily news you are referring to is
    paid for by commercial advertising, and the newspapers are going belly up
    because it's not economically sustainable.
     
    Like I said, take a deep breath and try again because whatever your point
    was, you lost it somewhere after the exclamation point, and I'm curious as
    to what you were really trying to get at, since you seem to be attacking me
    because I pointed out that the number 750 is greater than the number one
    and the word "monopoly" means one specific person or enterprise is the only
    supplier of an item.
     
    I don't mind being attacked for every thing I post, but all I ask is that
    people use the English language correctly and try to be clear in conveying
    information rather than hysterical. It's not that hard to do.
     
    — Chris <s..s@a2c2.us>(phone#-removed)
    _______________
     
     
     
     

     

    Chris Conrad <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 03 02:09PM -0700  

    I don't need to do that Marty.
     
    911362.86. Individual patients and caregivers cultivating marijuana at their
    private residences in accordance with local zoning and building codes who do
    not sell or charge for the cultivation of marijuana are not considered
    medical marijuana are not considered medical marijuana facilities, and are
    exempt from mandatory registration
     
     
    That means if you grow and give it away, you don't need to follow their
    rules, but if you sell it you have to follow some rules. Like if you give
    away tomatoes there are no rules, but if you sell it to a grocery store,
    there are rules. If you're talking about pretending that you are not selling
    cannabis when you really are selling it, that's a different matter. All you
    have to do is give it away free, isn't that what you guys are always saying,
    marijuana should be free, nobody should make any money? There you have it,
    so be happy.
     
     
    — Chris <s..s@a2c2.us>(phone#-removed)
    _______________
     
     
     
     

     

    David Malmo-Levine <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 03 04:42AM -0700  

    > Allowing 1 dispensary per 50,000 people gives us 750 dispensaries for the
    > state. That was a minimum number in the last version I considered, not a
    > maximum.
     
    750 sounds like a big number when you compare it with, say, zero or one.
    But when you compare it with the "800 to 1000" dispensaries that existed in
    just LA at one time:
     
    "No one is exactly sure how many pot clinics there are in Los Angeles — the
    best estimate is somewhere between 800 and 1,000 —"
     
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35074137/ns/health-health_care/#.T8p1fD5Yuzo
     
    Or when you compare it with the tens of thousands of outlets for wine and
    beer … or the tens of thousands of current illegal pot dealers today in
    California, it seems like quite the consolidation of the marketplace.
     
    Look at it from another angle. The market is supposed to be about 17
    billion dollars in California:
     
    "Based on the quantity of marijuana authorities seized last year, the crop
    alone was worth an estimated $17 billion or more, dwarfing any other sector
    of the state's agricultural economy."
     
    750 goes into 17 billion 22.6 million times. Rather than have 750 people be
    millionaires, I think it makes more sense to divide 17 billion by a large
    number, say 20,000 or so – which is like 850,000 for each of the 20,000
    dealers. I figure you can survive on 850 grand per year. When you factor in
    how much the industry will grow post legalization (from the transfer of
    money from big pharma in the "lets start seriously researching the medical
    effects of cannabis era" the number of people who can earn a decent living
    from cannabis will grow significantly. Fuck those people who would rather
    see the number of millionaires increase instead – the "minimum of 750" is
    too damn small for those of us who give a shit about poverty, about the
    abuses of power that come with concentrations of wealth, and about the tens
    of thousands of dealers who currently exist in the black market today.
     
    As for "monopoly" being the wrong word to use … I suppose "cartel" is
    more accurate … unless ASA manages to determine who gets to stay in
    business and who doesn't by controlling or manipulating those who are in
    positions of power in this AB2312 power structure. Then it's an ASA
    monopoly, isn't it?
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    > "Legalization for all" means you can grow your own and share with friends,
    > not that if you go into business in California you shouldn't need to get a
    > business license."
     
    I'm not against licenses – I was, in fact, in favor of the type of license
    you can get under the Herer or Wine Model initiatives … not the type of
    license that can be limited to a few millionaire dealers with connections
    to the powerful … the type of license that the tens of thousands of beer
    and wine merchants can get today. Your false dilemma: "you are either in
    favor of a cartel or zero regulation – no in-between" – is insulting to
    anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
     
     
     
     
     
     
    > "Personal freedom and regulated commerce are not necessarily mutually
    > exclusive."
     
    This is the same slimy straw man arguments you used on people who opposed
    Prop 19. How do you look at yourself in the mirror? I used to respect you
    so much.
     
    I was in favor of the Herer and Wine Model initiatives, so attempting to
    paint me as "anti-regulation" won't work. Try something else.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

     

    Jacob Secret <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 03 02:39AM -0700  

    Bravo! This is precisely what this new-age "underground railroad" is all about.
     
    Some within our government still continue to undermine our voter approved initiative and legislator passed medical cannabis bill. These individuals attempt to destroy the lives of medicine providers thus crippling the patients accessibility to their medication.
     
    There was a time when it was illegal for blacks and all women to vote.
     
    Their was also a time when individuals were prosecuted for helping slaves achieve their freedom.
     
    There are many moments in our history that we should feel ashamed of. Not long from now the vast majority of society will feel the same way about the blemish that exists because of cannabis prohibition. The 10's of millions who have suffered because of big business, incompetent legislators and bigots.
     
    I commend you Mr. Nick. I believe that you will do everything within your power to free Mr. Grumbine from the restraints of blind justice.
     
    You stand in good company with admirable people from the past and those in the present who would do such a reputable deed.
     
    Thank you and please keep up the noble work.
     
    Jonathan Lustig
    Social Crusader
     
    Sent from Earth using Android technology

     

    Steve Kubby <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 03 08:01AM -0700  

    Warning:
    This email and everything you post to the Web has been collected and stored by the NSA.
    All phone calls and emails by cannabis activists are similarly intercepted and stored.
    If you think this is an exaggeration, please read this extraordinary report by Wired Magazine.
     
     
    The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
     
     
    BRIEF SUMMARY:
     
    Once it’s operational, the Utah Data Center will become, in effect, the NSA’s cloud. The center will be fed data collected by the agency’s eavesdropping satellites, overseas listening posts, and secret monitoring rooms in telecom facilities throughout the US. All that data will then be accessible to the NSA’s code breakers, data-miners, China analysts, counterterrorism specialists, and others working at its Fort Meade headquarters and around the world.
    Analysts here will access material stored at Bluffdale to prepare reports and recommendations that are sent to policymakers. To handle the increased data load, the NSA is also building an $896 million supercomputer center here.
     
    The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013. Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.”
     
    Before yottabytes of data from the deep web and elsewhere can begin piling up inside the servers of the NSA’s new center, they must be collected. To better accomplish that, the agency has undergone the largest building boom in its history, including installing secret electronic monitoring rooms in major US telecom facilities. Controlled by the NSA, these highly secured spaces are where the agency taps into the US communications networks, a practice that came to light during the Bush years but was never acknowledged by the agency. The broad outlines of the so-called warrantless-wiretapping program have long been exposed—how the NSA secretly and illegally bypassed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was supposed to oversee and authorize highly targeted domestic eavesdropping; how the program allowed wholesale monitoring of millions of American phone calls and email. In the wake of the program’s exposure, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which largely made the practices legal. Telecoms that had agreed to participate in the illegal activity were granted immunity from prosecution and lawsuits. What wasn’t revealed until now, however, was the enormity of this ongoing domestic spying program.
     
    READ THIS DETAILED REPORT BY WIRED MAGAZINE AND SEE FOR YOURSELF:
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1

     

    "Bill McPike" <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 03 10:38AM -0700  

    I doubt if this triple hearsay is accurate. Even if no Dr. Rx, less than
     
    1 oz would be an infraction, and a fine of $100.00.
     
    The transporting in a car (for storage) came up in Peo v Waylan, where the
    guy
     
    didn't want to offend his Mother by (storing) keeping it in her home. On the
    POST site, the
     
    Judge who wrote the Waylan decision explains his reasoning.
     
    Sounds like the urban legend email on the guy who had resin scraped from his
    heart or lungs.
     
    Bill McPike
     

     
     
    On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Susan Soares <s..s@a2c2.us>
    wrote:
     
    A friend of a friend was in traffic court in Pasadena on Wednesday. He said
    that a guy got stopped for some unknown reason by PD and agreed to be
    searched. He had under an ounce on him. He had his rec and he even had his
    State Health Dept. card. The judge told him that he could have it and use it
    but it couldn't ever be in his car. The judge fined him $750 for the weed.
    What?
     

     
    Susan Soares
     
    (phone#-removed)
     
    s..s@a2c2.us

     

 

    Bud <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 03 01:25PM -0700  

    Some of the comments about AB 2312 are centered around the mistaken notion
    that it will impinge upon our patient rights under Prop. 215. Although the
    details differ, Prop. 19 was subjected to the same criticism. But you can't
    curtail rights that don't exist in the first place.
     
    As a political statement, Prop. 215 was a game-changer. As a vehicle for
    instituting and protecting patient rights, it was fatally flawed from the
    beginning. (Great ideas often have rocky starts.) In court-speak, the "CUA
    provided solely a defense to specifically listed state criminal violations
    relating to use and transportation of medical marijuana." In other words,
    the right to defend yourself in court, not the right to avoid arrest, and
    no rights at all pertaining to other marijuana-related criminal statutes.
     
    The MMPA, SB 420, expanded the number of criminal statutes that patients
    were exempt from, but limited immunity from prosecution for a designated
    handful of state laws falls well short of a "right" as most people
    understand that term. Just like Prop. 215, SB 420 does nothing to stop
    police and local officials from applying other laws and passing new ones,
    such as the new wave of cultivation zoning ordinances sprouting up around
    the state. When they do so, of course it offends us as patients and gives
    rise to thoughts that our rights are being trampled upon. But in truth of
    fact, and also of California case law, our legal rights as patients are
    very limited in scope. We don't even have the right to avoid a
    pre-employment pee test, so let's keep it real when we start talking about
    patient rights.
     
    As for making "new law," we heard the same complaint with Prop. 19 as well.
    Ironically, in both cases we're not talking about new laws at all. Because
    adult use was limited to those 21 and up under Prop. 19, the EXISTING law
    prohibiting people from providing cannabis to minors 18 had to be extended
    to the 18-21 crowd, else Prop. 19 would have defaulted to an 18-and-up
    measure that its authors (rightly or wrongly) didn't choose to place before
    the voters. Under AB 2312, the "new" law is a logical and necessary
    extension of an EXISTING anti-fraud statute, not a statute that magically
    creates a "new" marijuana crime.
     
    "Existing law makes it a misdemeanor offense to, among other things,
    fraudulently use or obtain a medical marijuana identification card.
    "This bill also would make it a misdemeanor offense to knowingly produce,
    issue, utilize, or sell a falsified, forged, or fraudulent physician’s
    recommendation for medical marijuana."
     
    To oppose AB 2312 on those grounds requires supporting the production and
    sales of forged and fraudulent doctor's recommendations. Seriously? You
    think this little bit of legal housekeeping impinges on patient rights? No
    wonder people's heads start spinning whenever we talk about truly radical
    concepts like taxes, zoning regulations, building and electrical codes,
    product safety and labeling (Sherman
    Act<http://www.cdph.ca.gov/services/Documents/fdb%20Sher%20Law.pdf>anyone?)
    and business licenses. California is one of the most regulated
    places on the planet, and cannabis regulations are coming whether the cops
    and/or patients and/or politicians like it. What shape those regulations
    take depends on who's sitting at the table, and I don't know about you, but
    I'm willing to give an appointed state board the opportunity to do better
    than the local yokels have.
     
    Where do I draw the line? Cannabis for sale. Patients who grow their own
    are exempt from registration under AB 2312, so in that sense it poses no
    threat to small-scale personal cultivation (though the same can't be said
    of local zoning ordinances). But if you want to run a collective or be a
    patient-vendor who supplies a collective and receive reasonable
    compensation for your services, that requires financial and social
    accountability. Reporting income. Paying taxes. Dealing with city/county
    officials. Patient privacy. Food-handling standards and labeling on edibles
    that comply with the Sherman Act. The full Monty of sustainable,
    good-neighbor business practices.
     
    And if you don't want to do that, fine, whatever, grow your own or hit up
    your neighbor for a little sumpthin' sumpthin', just like it was before
    Prop. 215. (That seems to be the way the feds want it anyway.) Just don't
    set up a business enterprise that provides medical-grade cannabis to
    patients and then claim state laws don't apply. They do, and many more
    rules are on the way. AB 2312 puts that onus on a state board; whereas city
    and county elected officials will continue to run the circus for the next
    couple of years if it fails. Given the clown posse that's running the show
    where I live, a state board of non-elected officials sounds downright
    appealing.

     

June 3, 2012 – Digest for s..s@a2c2.us – 22 Messages in 14 Topics

    Chris Conrad <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 02 02:24AM -0700  

    Allowing 1 dispensary per 50,000 people gives us 750 dispensaries for the
    state. That was a minimum number in the last version I considered, not a
    maximum. That's not a monopoly, David. A monopoly means one, like the DEA
    marijuana monopoly is located at the University of Mississippi in Oxford MI.
     
    "Legalization for all" means you can grow your own and share with friends,
    not that if you go into business in California you shouldn't need to get a
    business license. Personal freedom and regulated commerce are not
    necessarily mutually exclusive.
     
    — Chris <s..s@a2c2.us>(phone#-removed)
    _______________
     
     
     
     

     

 

    Terry Colorado <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 02 01:31PM -0700  

    Monopoly or not; Chris; no city is mandated to allow any number of
    dispensaries; and neither is the Medical Marijuana ENFORCEMENT Board.
     
    AB2312 gives City Government and the State Government the absolute right to
    BAN dispensaries; … a right that doesn't currently exist; and the State
    State Supreme courts review in support of Prop 215 is likely to agree with
    that opinion … regardless of the circumstances. … this bill takes ALL
    control of medical cannabis away from the citizens of california WHICH PROP
    215 wisely gave the people control of; and GIFTS that very control to the
    politicians and everything this movement has worked since prohibition in
    the U.S.
     
    Anslinger started this bullshit … anyone like that guy? Use this guy as
    your motivation and inspiration. Disregard Pro-Tax; Pro-Regs Legislation.
     
    Chris Conrad said:
     
    Allowing 1 dispensary per 50,000 people gives us 750 dispensaries for the
    > state. That was a minimum number in the last version I considered, not a
    > maximum.
     
     
    Unfortunately Chris you are mistaken; the TRUE minimum is 0; ANY CITY MAY
    BAN ANY COLLECTIVES FROM FORMING WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES; the Medical
    Marijuana ENFORCEMENT board ALSO does not even have to allow one
    dispensary. IF ONLY ONE dispensary or two is allowed in any city … that
    my friend is not a monopoly … that is a OLIGOPOLY
     
    Wikipedia says:
     
    An *oligopoly* is a market form <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_form> in
    > influenced by, the decisions of other firms. Strategic planning<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_planning> by
    > oligopolists needs to take into account the likely responses of the other
    > market participants.
     
     
    Calling on all Cannabis Warriors; rise up and lead for your cause; now is
    the time. The fight has been joined. Stop AB2312.
     
    P.S. Come on Mickey; you know you want to.
     
    col0rado
     
    The Marijuana Homepage <http://maijuanahomepage.com>
     
     
     
    On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:13 AM, mike boutin <s..s@a2c2.us> wrote:
     

     

 

 

    Dale Sky Jones <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 02 10:26AM -0700  

    Trippet decision says bullshit
     
    Dale Sky Jones
     
    Executive Chancellor
    Oaksterdam University
     
    Chairwoman
    Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform
     
     

     

    Pebbles Trippet <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 02 01:13PM -0700  

    You are so right, Dale. At this point, lower courts are making things
    up.
    Susan Soares had a transportation case in which they said
    she had to have a dosage amount to make the recommendation valid.
    Total BS…
     
    "Reasonably related", not a dosage amount, is the standard.
    This bullshit will last only as long as we fail to resist.
    Forcing judges to look at legal paperwork,
    including Trippet and ASA against CHP, will get dismissals.
    After a few of those, they'll try to invent something else.
    If we pay the fines without a peep, it's the equivalent of ignoring 215
    and the "reasonably related to our medical condition" standard
    and all the subsequent caselaw in our favor, which is what the
    prosecutors are doing.
     
    If you lose, what have you lost? Just pay the fine, like you were
    going to do in the first place.
    Traffic court judges need to hear how the law is on our side. If we
    don't stand up for ourselves, who will?
    pebbles
     

     

 

    Terry Colorado <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 02 02:08AM -0700  

    I have inserted for you reading pleasure passages from AB2312; proving the
    so called 3 year exemption waiver is a BAIT AND SWITCH.
     
    You may have heard that one supposed benefit of AB2312; is that "…
    existing dispensaries get 3 year waiver." in fact this so called exemption
    may be the sole reason you support AB2312; i'll admit it was the one
    WORM-BAIT i briefly entertained.
     
    What? You mean to say that if AB2312 passes; my collective gets a 3 year
    reprieve before the Medical Marijuana ENFORCEMENT Board will shut me down?
    Hmm … tempting. Well hopefully you didn't spend a long time staring at
    that BAITED HOOK. Because all you have to do is read the
    following excerpt from AB2312 and it will explain that AB2312 establishes
    the mechanism for any city to BAN ANY COLLECTIVE; which is currently
    UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and AB2312 DOES NOT TREAT EVERY COLLECTIVE EQUALLY;
    FURTHERMORE THE EXEMPTION WAIVER ONLY APPLIES TO REGULATED PERSONS AT A
    CITIES DISCRETION.
     
    AB2312 SAYS:
     
    "… a city or county with existing medical marijuana regulations may
    > provide to the board a list of regulated persons that it finds to be in
    > good standing under its local medical marijuana regulations"
     
     
    AB2312 ALSO SAYS:
     
    " "Any person found to not be in good standing by the legislative body of
    > a city, county, or city and county pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not
    > automatically be deemed a successful mandatory registrant for purposes of
    > this article."
     
     
     
    TRUE ACCESS Analysis: AB2312 3 YEAR EXEMPTION WAIVER IS ANOTHER RED
    HERRING; The exemption only applies to whomever a city says it applies to
    and once AB2312 goes into effect "Any person found to not be in good
    standing by the legislative body of a city, county, or city and county
    pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not "automatically" be deemed a
    successful mandatory registrant for purposes of this article. In other
    words if your city doesn't put your collective on its list .. you and all
    your heart and soul AUTOMAGIKALLY cease to exist; right away … end of
    story … unhappily every after. Get it … AB2312 IS A SUCKER PUNCH
     
     
    (f) (1) A legislative body of a city or county with existing
    medical marijuana regulations may provide to the board a list of
    regulated persons that it finds to be in good standing under its local
    medical marijuana regulations in force as of the effective date of
    the act adding this article, which shall be accompanied by a
    certified copy of any ordinance regulating the location or operation
    of medical marijuana facilities in that jurisdiction. These persons
    shall automatically be deemed successful mandatory registrants
    for purposes of this article, and shall be exempt from renewal
    procedures for three years from the effective date of the act adding
    this article.
    (2) Any person found to not be in good standing by the
    legislative body of a city, county, or city and county pursuant to
    paragraph (1) shall not automatically be deemed a successful
    mandatory registrant for purposes of this article.
    (g) If a city or county does not enact a medical marijuana
    dispensary zoning ordinance, medical marijuana dispensaries and
    facilities in that jurisdiction shall be wholly regulated by the board
    pursuant to this article, and medical marijuana dispensaries and
    facilities that are mandatory registrants may locate in that
    jurisdiction in any location that the board finds to be approp

     

    Terry Colorado <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 02 01:11AM -0700  

    Alright; no one else want to take a jab at this? Okay i will. Sorry i know
    i got a big mouth but i can't resist. Y'all are just being way to polite on
    the Pro-Tax Warriors.
     
    Bud; you complete me. Please EVERYONE bear witness to exactly the atypical
    response from the Pro-reg; Pro-tax side:
     
    Bud said:
     
    You might want to climb on board before the Supreme Court sinks our
    > battleship.
     
     
    This is straight-up PRO-REG scare mongering: what you(Bud) are really
    saying is this:
     
    Although AB2312; effectively nullifies almost all rights Prop 215 provides;
    which is basically Prop 215 gives us the unquestioned right to
    "collectively organize to cultivate and distribute to our members." AND
    despite the RECENT fact that the 2nd District Appellate court upheld those
    rights with People V Colvin decision AND despite the fact that the State
    Supreme Court decided AGAINST reviewing that same decision; People V
    Colvin;
     
    You(Bud) advocate supporting passage(GIFTING) of AB2312; although it
    essentially GRANTS ANY CITY THE RIGHT TO BAN A COLLECTIVE; real
    authorization they do not now have … because you(Bud) are afraid the
    Supreme Court is going to bascially FLIP PROP 215 on its ear and uphold a
    cities right to BAN COLLECTIVES. Sorry Bud; this is completely illogical;
    and i hope everyone can see through the flimsy veil.
     
    In summary: You(Bud) want to just GIFT Local Govt's the right to kill
    collectives; instead of letting the Supreme Court decide; DESPITE THE FACT
    THAT THE STATE SUPREME COURT DECIDED AGAINST REVIEWING PEOPLE V COLVIN; AND
    INSTEAD DECIDED TO REVIEW RIVERSIDE AND LAKE FORREST.
     
    That's what you said BUD .. and their you have it my friends exactly what I
    aim to warn you about:
     
    Bud you clearly complete me.
     
    TRUE ACCESS Analysis: The Supreme court decided against reviewing the 2nd
    district appellate court decision because they support the People V Colvin
    decision; and PROP 215 … the Supreme court wants to review Riverside and
    Lake Forrest because BANNING COLLECTIVES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and they are
    about to hand our movement the greatest gift we could ask for (high court
    legitimacy) … and the PRO-REG; PRO-TAX crowd is asking us .. no …
    that's not quite right … begging us … nope that not it either …
    DEMANDING us to COVER our eyes, and PISS IT ALL AWAY!!
     
    Stand up! Protect Prop 215; DO NOT SUPPORT AB2312; SUPPORT TRUE ACCESS.
    DISREGARD THE PRO-REG; PRO-TAX ARGUMENT.
     
     
    Colorado:
     
    DID YOU KNOW: Do you realize that AB2312 authorizes a 2.5 state wide tax;
    and an additional 5% tax for cities; on top of the BOE tax?
     
     
     
    On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Bud <s..s@a2c2.us> wrote:
     

     

    Mickey Martin <s..s@a2c2.us> Jun 02 08:11AM -0700  

    We may find out if “all use is medical”
    Posted by Mickey Martin on June 2nd, 2012
    AB 2312 passed the California Legislative Assembly yesterday with the minimum votes needed, passing 41-28. The bill has a difficult path to passage, as it now goes before the CA State Senate for approval and then on to the Governor. Many are skeptical that it will be able to make it out of the Senate, at least with any resemblance to its current form. But for shits and giggles let us just say that it does pass out of the Senate and gets signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. What then?
    My position on AB 2312 has been simple…I am not for more strict regulation of cannabis period. Cannabis is safe and the more we play into the “we need to regulate the shit out of this industry” theory, the more we affirm the drug warriors position that cannabis is not safe….and effective…and even enjoyable. I also understand that the stupid society we live in does not feel as liberally as myself, and I understand that because our current system is a “medical only” system that we are bound by the constraints of what is considered to be appropriate medical operations and controls. In this type of an environment, unfortunately there are much stricter standards and methods of distribution associated with producing, handling, and dispensing of this “very powerful medicinal drug.” We are playing into the “if this is really a medicine then it should be produced, handled, and distributed under the same conditions as pharmaceuticals.”
    We have seen this theory play out somwhat in Colorado. Often some rambling idiot will begin preaching about how great the system is in CO. But let us get real. From its peak in 2010, the mandatory registration of medical cannabis patients has dropped by 60%. That is right…6 out of 10 people who were once registered as patients in Colorado have DROPPED OUT of the program. Did everyone get better? Hardly. What has happened there is that people do not see the benefits of the program, and have decided that it is easier to just be an outlaw than to jump through all of the hoops required of patients and providers there. So, essentially, they have driven 60% of cannabis users back to the black market….at least. The Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division there has laid off, or reassigned, the vast MAJORITY of their staff as expected revenues of $5+ million dollars have only resulted in less than $500,000. Yikes. That is about 10% of their expected
    revenues. Why? Are less people in weed buying and using cannabis? No. They just are not buying it as part of the regulated system because it is too cumbersome and limiting. So the next time a person declares we must pass regulations to be like Colorado, just remind them that at least 6 in 10 patients there have decided it was easier to be a criminal than to participate in that system.
    But back to the hypothetical passing of AB 2312 in Cali.
    One of the leading provisions in this bill is the “cracking down on fraudulent and falsified doctors’ recs.” So when I tell you that these regulations will EXPAND PROHIBITION, there is no bullshit about that. It is written clearly into the law. But the way it is written may bring up some interesting legislation or court cases in the future. Here is the section of AB 2312 that discusses the “new crime” created by this bill aimed at reeling in the issuing and use of falsified doctor recommendations:
    The Legislative Counsel’s Digest on the bill says this:
    (2) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor offense to, among other things, fraudulently use or obtain a medical marijuana identification card.
    >This bill also would make it a misdemeanor offense to knowingly produce, issue, utilize, or sell a falsified, forged, or fraudulent physician’s recommendation for medical marijuana. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
    The actual law reads:
    11362.81.
    >(5) A person who knowingly produces, issues, utilizes, or sells a falsified, forged, or fraudulent physician’s recommendation for medical marijuana.
    >(c) In addition to the penalties prescribed in subdivision (a), any person described in subdivision (b) may be precluded from attempting to obtain, or obtaining or using, an identification card for a period of up to six months at the discretion of the court.
    >(d) In addition to the requirements of this article, the Attorney General shall develop and adopt appropriate guidelines to ensure the security and non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use by patients qualified under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
    So that is a bit interesting to think about, regardless of where you stand on AB 2312. In fact, I am QUITE SURPRISED that the medical marijuana doctors are not out in force to lobby against these provisions. I mean, where is Dr. Jean Talleyrand now? He was so adamant about his opposition to Prop. 19 because it could “possibly interfere with patient access” that surely he would come out very publicly about a bill that would allow law enforcement to decide if a person “fraudulently represents a medical condition.” I mean, Medicann has over 200,000 patients. All of those recommendations will now be subject to review by law enforcement for validity? Sounds like a nightmare. And one of Talleyrand’s opposition points of Prop. 19 was that it still allowed jurisdictions to ban dispensaries, and AB 2312 also allows for them to ban dispensaries stating, “A city or county with a population of at least 50,000 may prohibit the establishment of
    medical marijuana dispensaries within its jurisdiction, or limit the number of allowed medical marijuana dispensaries to a number below one per 50,000 residents, if an ordinance or regulation authorizing that restriction has been lawfully enacted by the city, county, or city and county.” So where is the outrage now, doc?
    But the “new crime” enacted for “fraudulently represent(ing) a medical condition” brings up quite a conundrum for the “All use is medical” crowd. Under this new crime I seriously doubt that the gatekeepers will agree that all use is medical. What does that mean? It is a very real possibility that tens of thousands of patients’ legal status could be in question, and that people who are being charged by law enforcement can have their medical legitimacy challenged by law enforcement and prosecutors. That is pretty serious stuff; and with the way law enforcement and DA’s have been screaming “most of these people are not really sick and the system is being abused” you can bet your ass that they will see this new provision as a tool to challenge the entire premise of medical cannabis and put people’s medical conditions on trial as a “fraudulent medical condition.” Doctors will have to show up to court to justify their issuing of the
    medical recommendation. It could get real nutty. You could see the classic private investigator watching patients under suspicion and documenting their normal healthy activities to use against them in a case, like is often used in insurance fraud claims. It might get quite interesting.
    You may be saying, “Now Mickey, you are being paranoid.” Well…maybe. And in no way am I telling anyone to not support AB 2312. That is your choice to make. For me, while I understand that there will likely be some sort of strict regulations passed as long as we are still under the strict medical only flag and that AB2312 may be the best we can get, I just cannot bring myself to actively cheerlead for a bill that will decimate the small grower who cannot afford to pay for the regulatory compliance equipment and procedures, and that will remove thousands of patients from the medical cannabis protections we currently have in place.
    There are several other important questions that encompass the AB 2312 discussion. Unfortunately, many of the policy groups and organizations supporting the bill have failed to really explain it very well. Mostly because they likely have no idea how this thing will look in reality. Because the bill simply creates a Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division, a 9-person Board charged with setting the rules and regulations for the industry, and does not actually spell out any of those restrictions or operating standards, we actually have no idea of what this model will end up looking like. Yet, folks blindly follow the lead of ASA and others, without so much as questioning why or how this will all play out. How will the grandfathering of current facilities play out? What rules can the MMED set? How do small patient associations play into the registration program?
    There have been many valid questions posed, with very little real response or insight. I could care less if people support the bill or not; and the truth is that it will still likely take a miracle for it to pass…at least in its current form. But I think it is healthy to have an open and honest discussion about how this bill will drastically change the landscape of medical marijuana in California and what that really means for the large majority of us. If we cannot discuss these issue without those supporting it getting all offended that people would question their position, then we are lost. If those who are promoting this issue cannot do a better job of explaining how AB 2312 will be a positive for cannabis users, then they should not be surprised when many in the cannabis community reject it outright.
    As for the “protections” that folks believe this will provide from Federal enforcement…good luck with all that shit.
     
    Mickey Martin
    T-Comp Consulting Director
    Author of Medical Marijuana 101
    www.cannabiswarrior.com
    www.tcompconsulting.com
    s..s@a2c2.us
    (phone#-removed)
    http://twitter.com/micKEYmarTIN
    http://twitter.com/CANNABISconsult
     
    ***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.***

     

    Steve Kubby <s..s@a2c2.us> May 31 12:40AM -0700  

    Patients fight back against the Federal Crackdown with New Technology
     
    With dispensaries under senseless federal attack and frightened patients being denied safe access to their medicine, one group is fighting back by launching a new social media site that allows patients and providers to find each other for the purpose of obtaining or providing the medicine they need, as authorized by state law.
     
    Utilizing revolutionary new social network software, patients will be able to exercise their rights under California’s SB420 law, to legally provide or obtain their medical cannabis to/from other members of their collective, with reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenses plus their time.
     
    While we can't stop members from trading with other members, we offer a safer alternative for those who have been thoroughly verified as bona fide patients by the HEADBOOK staff. Once you are verified, we give you a password to enter "The Vault" to engage in obtaining or providing medicine with other verified patients.
     
    All verified patient/provider interactions within The Vault are strictly private and protected by extreme 1028 bit encryption.
     
    Since there are no over-the-counter sales, no grows, no buildings to seize and nothing but small scale transactions between verified patients, our legal eagles believe Federal prosecutors would not be able to build a viable case against a social media site that allows patients to interact with each other, as specifically authorized by state law.
     
    There will never be a fee to join HEADBOOK and anyone 18 or older can join for free. All members can take advantage of HEADBOOK benefits, including being able to consult with a top attorney or physician at a drastically reduced price.
     
    The new website will go LIVE at 4:20 PM on June 1st. Go to the HEADBOOK website to preregister as a Charter Member: http://headbook.org/
     
    –Steve Kubby and the HEADBOOK team

     

 

    "Axis of Love SF, Shona Gochenaur" <s..s@a2c2.us> May 30 10:25PM -0700  

    Rock on Dege . Im glad to read something from a patient advocate
    organization that was present and that the organization spoke against
    ban!
     
     
    Greetings Colleagues –
     
    Yesterday the PLUM Committee heard the ban ordinances and a closed session
    on the lawsuits. The ‘gentle’ ban moves forward to the full council
    forthwith. The soonest it could appear on the agenda is next Tuesday. I
    urge to you check with your attorney to find out your legal strategy for
    surviving this ban.
     
    What struck me about this hearing was the utter anger and distain for
    patients and collectives from Councilmembers Huizar and Englander.
    Englander states that he proudly helped raid all the collectives in the
    Devonshire division and all of them were engaged in: rape, murder,
    burglary; possession of assault weapons, cocaine and meth. This was the
    point of the meeting where I walked out. This was after input from the
    public and before closed session. Englander and Huizar had a contest to
    see who could pound their chests harder.
     
    However, as a patient advocate I spoke out against ANY ban and in favor of
    Councilmember Zine’s original motion to regulate storefront collectives.
    I urge you to listen to the meeting. PLUM hearings are not video taped
    but audio is available.
     
    I’ve been asked often recently how many patients need to get to city hall
    in order to have any impact on the council. The answer – 10,000. That’s
    the average number of votes for which each council member is seated. The
    ten thousand number gets their attention.
     
    Here are a couple articles:
    http://encino.patch.com/articles/committee-approves-gentle-ban-of-marijuana-dispensaries-67f698ce
     
    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/05/29/city-council-plan-would-close-dispensaries-allow-patients-to-grow-medical-marijuana/
     
     
     
    Sincerely,
     
    Degé Coutee
    Executive & Program Director
    Patient Advocacy Network
     
    @PAN4Compassion
    www.CannabisSavesLives.org
    (323) 334-5282
     
    PAN is a charitable 501(c)(3) organization
     
     
     
     

    Shona Gochenaur
    Executive Director
    Axis of Love SF
    http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
    http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

     

    Ace <s..s@a2c2.us> May 31 01:55PM -0700  

    When we were confronted with the city of San Jose's ordinance. We ran a referendum campaign, we raised over $200,000 and got enough signatures to stop the ordinance for at least 1year. In hind sight I wish we would have put together an initiative and just gone with that. We developed initiative language but did not institute it, instead we were talked into going the referendum route. Which will cost double because once the year is up they will attack us again. We will be a target for someone, whether it is police wanting tax dollars, city council members beating their holier than thou pulpit against drugs or someone else. As president of the cannabis patients alliance I would recommend you get ready to campaign to do an imitative!
    I ha ve bcc'd another member in case any of you have questions. There was a great deal learned from our fight and hopefully it can translate to your upcoming battle!
     
    Ace
     
    Change the world for the better!
     

     

    Pebbles Trippet <s..s@a2c2.us> May 31 12:13PM -0700  

    Where are the righteous lawyers who can help this deserving person?
    Joe Grumbine has already won the right to a new trial
    due to his obvious innocence and scrupulous approach in helping
    patients.
    He should not have to represent himself and put himself at a
    disadvantage.
    Long Beach PDs are likely to be hostile or at best slackers.
    Where art thou, righteous lawyers?
     
    pebbles trippet
     
     

     

    Terry Vail <s..s@a2c2.us> May 30 09:21PM -0700  

    FAQ from CRMM website:
     
    Will the AB-2312 withstand legal challenge if the Pack case is upheld?Yes.
    The Act is designed to avoid issues related to federal preemption. Because
    the Act does not authorize any activity that violates federal law, it is
    expected to stand up to scrutiny in the courts. The AB-2312 also contains a
    severability clause, so that if a particular provision is rejected by the
    courts, the rest of the Act will remain valid.
     
    Q&A:
     
    Is a SEVERABILITY CLAUSE a good thing if the "particular provision's"
    rejected by the courts … are the particular provisions that give us the
    our particular benefit. I mean to say what if the benefit(wheat) is the
    only parts that don't stand up; then we are only left with the the
    left-overs from garage sales … you know the shit(chaff) nobody wants.
     
     
     
     
    —————————————————————————
    A Los Angeles city council panel is urging a complete ban on all
    medical marijuana dispensaries. Proponents, led by councilman
    Huizar, are arguing that current state law doesn't allow for
    dispensaries:
     
    > "If you don't like the state law, let's change the state law,"
    > Huizar told the committee and an audience of about two dozen
    > marijuana advocates
     
    The California legislature is currently considering two bills
    that would change this situation by clarifying state law to
    explicitly allow for dispensaries: AB 2312 by Tom Ammiano, to
    establish a state regulation system for medical marijuana
    distribution, and SB 1182 by Sen. Mark Leno, which clarifies SB
    420. Both bills face a very close vote in the NEXT DAY OR TWO.
    Please tell your legislator to support legal access to dispensaries
    through the following links:
    Support AB 2312:
    http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=61223146
    Support SB 1182:
    http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=61215141
    – Cal NORML
     
    By Rick Orlov, Staff Writer
     
    Posted: 05/29/2012 04:52:54 PM PDT
    Updated: 05/29/2012 05:56:10 PM PDT
     
    http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_20736005/city-panel-urges-complete-ban-all-medical-marijuana
     
    Faced with more than 70 lawsuits and continuing problems with medical
    marijuana dispensaries, a city panel urged Tuesday a complete ban on
    all the clinics now operating in the city.
     
    "You tell us there are a few bad apples ruining it for everyone, but
    from what I've seen, there are more bad apples than good ones out
    there," said Councilman Mitch Englander, who said the estimated 60
    dispensaries in his northwest Valley district had been shut down.
     
    Councilman Ed Reyes, chair of the Planning and Land Use Management
    Committee, said the city had tried to work with the medical marijuana
    supporters.
     
    "We tried to cooperate but it all ended up blowing in our faces,"
    Reyes said.
     
    The proposal will now go to the council's Public Safety Committee
    before going to the full City Council for consideration.
     
    Councilman Bill Rosendahl urged the panel to adopt a less punitive
    measure, that would grandfather in 100 clinics that had complied with
    all the earlier rules in effect by the city.
     
    "It is out of control," Rosendahl acknowledged. "I don't like the
    proliferation any more than anyone. But the only way to deal with this
    is to respect those who have followed the rules and provide the
    medicine that people need."
     
    Councilman Jose Huizar said state law allows for patients and their
    caregivers – up to three people – to cultivate marijuana on their own.
     
    He has called for the ban on all clinics until the courts can decide
    on regulations to be follow.
     
    "Until we have a dispensary model, we are going to be in conflict with
    state laws," Huizar said. "The best thing we can do is repeal our
    existing ordinance until the courts decide this issue."
     
    The city had tried to establish a lottery system for the clinics, but
    that was overturned by the courts in a similar Long Beach case.
     
    s..s@a2c2.us
     
    (phone#-removed)
     
    twitter.com/rickorlov
     
    http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_20736005/city-panel-urges-complete-ban-all-medical-marijuana
     

    Committee Approves 'Gentle Ban' of Marijuana Dispensaries, Full
    Council To Take Next Step
     
    Studio City advocates on both sides of the issue spoke up at committee
    meeting Tuesday afternoon.
     
    By Mike Szymanski and City News Service
     
    5-29-12 5:58 pm
     
    http://studiocity.patch.com/articles/committee-approves-complete-ban-of-marijuana-dispensaries-full-council-to-take-next-step
     
    The Planning and Land Use Management Committee of the Los Angeles City
    Council agreed Tuesday afternoon to allow the full City Council to
    consider a complete ban on medical marijuana shops in the city limits.
    The plan would allow patients to grow their own pot or get it from a
    licensed caregiver.
     
    The PLUM committee could have considered a less restrictive plan
    proposed by Paul Koretz, who represents parts of Studio City, but the
    committee instead approved of a full ban until a decision comes down
    from the California Supreme Court over pending lawsuits about the
    legal sale of the drug. A ruling by that court is not expected for at
    least a year.
     
    Lisa Sarkin, who is the chairperson of the Studio City Land Use
    Committee where an advisory commission is hammering out an agreement
    between business people and medical marijuana shop owners, attended
    the meeting Tuesday.
     
    Although she said she sees the need of the shops to help some people,
    she said the proliferation of shops in Studio City is “ridiculous and
    unnecessary.” Now there are 13 shops along Ventura Boulevard in an
    area with 37,000 people and where there are more medical marijuana
    shops than Starbucks, McDonalds and 7-Elevens combined.
     
    “I spoke and recommended that they all be banned until they figure out
    how this whole thing can work,” Sarkin said. “It also bothered me
    about what police found in some of the other stores in other parts of
    the city.”
     
    Council member Mitchell Englander talked about large amounts of cash
    (up to $60,000 worth) and guns at some of the more than 60 shops that
    were closed in his district.
     
    Sam Humeid, president and CEO of the Perennial Holistic Wellness
    Center in Studio City, pointed out that an advisory committee of the
    Studio City Neighborhood Council’s Land Use committee was working on a
    groundbreaking set of agreements being hammered out by medical
    marijuana shop owners, business owners and residents in Studio City.
    The full neighborhood council has yet to take a stand on the issue,
    but activists on both sides have been closely watching the plans that
    the committee is working on.
     
    Jose Huizar moved to pass along the proposal and Englander seconded
    it. It passed unaimously.
     
    The ordinance proposed by Huizar would allow mini- collectives of
    three or fewer patients to jointly grow their own marijuana at one
    location and would allow patients to transport cannabis.
     
    Huizar and fellow committee members Ed Reyes and Mitch Englander also
    disapproved of a separate plan that would have the city refrain from
    prosecuting a set of about 100 dispensaries that follow strict
    restrictions on where they could operate, the hours they could be
    open, and requirements for tight security.
     
    The committee, however, allowed the separate plan by Councilman Koretz
    to move forward, citing a request by other council members to hear
    both plans at the same time before the full city council.
     
    City officials have been trying since 2007 to regulate dispensaries
    and limit their number to close to 100. Early attempts led to an
    explosion in the number of dispensaries trying to establish before the
    city placed a cap on the total number of pot shops.
     
    The city's effort to allow some dispensaries was thwarted by a ruling
    last October by California's 2nd District Court of Appeal, which
    struck down attempts by Long Beach to require marijuana collectives to
    register with the city and pay fees.
     
    The court ruled that cities may pass laws restricting the rights of
    pot shops to operate, but regulations affirming the right for
    dispensaries to exist violate federal law, under which marijuana is
    listed as an illegal drug banned for all purposes.
     
    Huizar said his plan, dubbed a "gentle ban" by the City Attorney's
    Office, is necessary because of poorly written state laws that do not
    allow dispensaries and provide too broad of a description of who can
    qualify for a medical marijuana prescription.
     
    "If you don't like the state law, let's change the state law," Huizar
    told the committee and an audience of about two dozen marijuana
    advocates.
     
    Attorney Steven Lubell, who represents dispensaries in a lawsuit
    against the city, said he understands the growth of illegal pot shops
    is out of control, but disagreed that banning dispensaries is the way
    forward.
     
    "You're cutting off access to the patients, which is against what
    Proposition 215 says," Lubell said. "Instead of totally banning and
    waiting for the supremes to rule, have some form of regulation that
    works in the interim."
     
    Medical marijuana supporters told the council that growing medical-
    grade marijuana takes years of practice and expertise that average
    patients do not have.
     
    The two competing plans will be heard by the public safety committee
    as early as Friday before heading to the full council.
     
    http://studiocity.patch.com/articles/committee-approves-complete-ban-of-marijuana-dispensaries-full-council-to-take-next-step
     

    __,_._,___
    —————————————————————————
     
    Attachment: http://norml.net/attached/VAQJC278o76071.html

     

    Terry Colorado <s..s@a2c2.us> May 31 07:45AM -0700  

    From ASA AB2312 SENSIBLE REGULATIONS FOR MEDICAL CANNABIS FACT SHEET
     
    http://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/AB2312onepager.pdf
     
    Pays for itself with fees for applicants who grow or
    provide medical cannabis on a commercial basis.
     
    Q&A:
     
    How does "commercial basis" reconcile with PACK? My understanding that
    selling marijuana commercially is preempted by the feds?
     
     

     

    CSPARC Sacramento <s..s@a2c2.us> May 31 07:58AM -0700  

    I think all cannabis is preempted by the Feds…..but what Pack says is
    that Cities, and in this reference the State can only…
     
    ….impose further limitations on medical marijuana dispensaries beyond
    those imposed under the Medical Marijuana Program Act, and in no way to
    permit or authorize activity prohibited by state or federal law.
     
     
    My understanding is that there is the right to charge fees for actual costs
    of implementation, but that blanket fees not based in any actual costs are
    basically making money off of weed, straight up….and that is what is
    illegal. What is unclear is if Pack will jive at the State level,
    considering decisions like the Kha case, where the supreme court ruled that
    officers were bound by state law over fed law. So if state law sets up
    these programs, how does that coincide with the bigger picture. State's
    Rights are different than county and city rights I believe…
     
    But those are just thoughts, not based in any sort of legal reality over
    here….
     
     
     
    > > Attachment: http://drugsense.org/temp/Lzg8dFDnv124684.html
     
    > —————————————————————————
     
    > Attachment: http://drugsense.org/temp/Zyt2Jt3cJR25342.html
     

    The Committee for Safe Patient Access to Regulated Cannabis
    Sacramento, CA
    www.RegulateSac.org and www.CSPARC.org
    @CSPARCsac
    Find Us on FB Here<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Csparc-Sacramento(phone#-removed)741>
    Phone:(phone#-removed)
    Email: s..s@a2c2.us
     
    Confidentiality Notice:
    This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
    meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
    2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by
    the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may
    contain confidential information and work product. If you are not the
    intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of
    the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY
    PROHIBITED.

     

    "andrew garret" <s..s@a2c2.us> May 31 07:48AM -0700  

    Hey people, need a little help here.
     
    With reference to DOT-HS-808-078 (a study conducted by the national
    Highway traffic safely department of the Department of Transportation).
     
    It is my understanding that the study (showing the Cannabis does NOT
    EFFECT ones ability to safely drive a car) was censored for a number of
    years, and that we were only able to obtain a copy via the freedom of
    information act.
     
    Does anyone out there know exactly who put the FOIA request in? Also
    anything more dealing the the censored nature of the study.
     
    Need the info for a website now being put together.
     
    antique andy
     
     
     
    —————————————–
    Sent via Catholic Online Webmail!
    Use Catholic Online Webmail to proclaim your faith to the world.
    http://webmail.catholic.org/