Current Feed Content Dr. Bob
Cannabis Causes Brain Damage and other Propaganda
Posted: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11
27 +0000
FAIL: Dr. Kevin Sabet’s Anti-Marijuana Legalization Arguments Debunked
Posted by RadicalRuss at 4:04 PM on August 29, 2012
This week, the Huffington Post is doing a feature called “Shadow Convention” where they address topics that neither the Democratic nor Republican conventions will address. Today they took a look at the War on (Certain American Citizens Using Non-Pharmaceutical, Non-Alcoholic, Tobacco-Free) Drugs and my one non-pot-smoking friend Dr. Kevin Sabet appeared likePunxsatawney Phil on Groundhog Day to see his shadow and declare six more years of Drug War. And like the movie Groundhog Day, the repetition of his fallacious anti-legalization arguments is beginning to sound like the opening to I Got You, Babe by Sonny & Cher. Let’s relive some of the classics:
A balanced and nuanced approach based on evidence, common sense, public health and public safety has been shown to produce results.
The Obama Administration’s drug war budget is still tilted two-to-one in favor of interdiction and incarceration over treatment and rehabilitation, just as it was during the George W. Bush Administration. (Speaking of Groundhog Day, have you noticed how much Bush’s DEA Administrator looks like Obama’s?)
(a) Community-based prevention that focuses not only on preventing drug use among school kids, but also on changing ill-conceived local laws and ordinances that promote underage drinking, smoking and marijuana use (so-called “environmental policies”);
You mean like drug testing 11-year-olds for the school orchestra? Maintaining school policies that punish underage marijuana use worse than underage drinking, thus promoting use of a more harmful substance? Cancelling student aid for college kids who get caught with a joint? And since pot smoking among kids is now more prevalent than tobacco smoking, and tobacco’s highly addictive and available to eighteen-year-olds legally, why didn’t we have to lock up adult cigarette smokers in cages to achieve the drop in lifetime tobacco smoking for youth from the high 70-percents to the low 40-percents?
Marijuana in Schedule 2-5?
Posted: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:08:21 +0000
Lo and behold, they want to reschedule cannabis
Published on May 12, 2011 by Reverend Ryan in Call to Action, Cannabis Education, Medical Marijuana, xCann News, xVideos
After discussing a topic with facebook friends and activists I learned that there is a growing desire to reschedule cannabis in Washington state. I posted my opposition to this yesterday, because after having this idea myself in 2009 and collecting signatures on a petition to do just that, I have learned a lot of things about this process that has made me change my mind.
Now the CDC, Cannacare and other medical marijuana groups in WA are proposing rescheduling.
I thought it was entirely peculiar that so many people were talking about this all at once.
Well, read it and weap, cannabis is about to be changed forever as we’ve known it:
https://cdc.coop/docs/2011_rescheduling_petition.pdf
https://xcannabis.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2011_rescheduling_petition.pdf
Here are my thoughts and at the bottom I will give you some research to consider:
Rescheduling cannabis rather than removing it from the list, will NOT prevent MOST cannabis consumers from going to jail.
Rescheduling cannabis in Washington will not over ride federal supremacy clause via Article VI, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
This will open more doors to BIG pharma (not the little guys) for getting into the cannabis business, and leaving the rest of us out.
Once big pharma is involved and once they put their money into cannabis, prohibition will not decrease, they will fight harder to keep it a schedule II, because it benefits them more.
The US government already has dozens of patents on cannabis, and when it is rescheduled those patents will be more effective for them. Meaning they will further OWN cannabis as opposed to now. As a schedule I, those patents can’t really be utilized. Under schedule II they can give their big pharma friends and contributors the rights to utilize those patents
I have known about the patent for neuroprotection and anti-oxidants for years now.
US Patent 6630507
There are also many OTHER patents on cannabis:
Cannabis Prohibition (NORML)
Posted: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:01:08 +0000
Cannabis Prohibition Now Seventy-Five Years Old
by Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director August 2, 2012
Infamously, America’s federally created Cannabis Prohibition marks its seventy-fifth anniversary this August 2, 2012. The so-called ‘great failed social experiment’ of Alcohol Prohibition of the 1920s barely lasted a dozen years in effect. Rightly, it took a constitutional amendment to both ban and restore alcohol products to the free market. Is there a similar constitutional amendment for cannabis products in 1937?
No, of course not.
And that is where the sophistry, hypocrisy and duplicity begin regarding America’s modern cannabis policy of vilifying, arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating cannabis consumers, cultivators and marketers.
Even though virtually every other country’s farmers have the choice whether or not to cultivate industrial hemp, even in countries where cannabis policy is decidedly worse than America’s, can American farmers prosper from cultivating this environmentally-friendly and productive crop?
No, of course not.
Do Americans support this failed, expensive and unconstitutional public policy of criminalizing cannabis?
No, of course not.
The Bonafide Dr/Pt Relationship
Posted: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:09:28 +0000
Recently in court I was asked by an attorney what the 'specific law' was that defined the term 'bona fide' concerning the Dr/Pt relationship. I mentioned HB 4851 and the medical board standards for the bona fide Dr/Pt relationship and was corrected by the attorney. These were not actual laws she said, one was a recommendation by the medical board, the other was a bill.
The question was in response to the characterization of a 'certification clinic event' where no physician was in contact with the patients and my contention that this didn't qualify as a 'Bona Fide' Dr/Pt relationship. I discussed the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, and I discussed the Medical Practice Act (which is the legal basis of medicine in Michigan). While the court sided with me overall, this question was not resolved.
Obviously, this issue has been at the forefront of list of 'grey areas' within the MMMA over the last couple of years. After reflecting some more on the question, I think I've come up with an answer....
Michigan Medical Marijuana needs to Overcome
Posted: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16
16 +0000
We are making huge inroads in the acceptance of medical cannabis in the general public, over 80%, and we are over 50% for full legalization according to the polls (Gallop Poll on Marijuana). We have about 1/3 the states with medical cannabis laws, some for up to 15 years. We need to continue that trend.
To do so, in my opinion, we need to continue the efforts made by many in this field.
We need to play by the rules when we have state cannabis laws. Every time we push the envelope and over shoot, we get a black eye in public opinion.
We need to promote the attitude that it is 'no big deal' a city council debate on medical marijuana should someday be viewed with the same public interest as a discussion of a drain commission report- routine business about a routine subject- not a controversy.
We need to educate physicians about what cannabis can and cannot do, and encourage them to use it in their primary care practices in place of narcotics and other harmful drugs. Physicians exposed to cannabis certification clinics, talking to patients, express shock at the amount of reduction in narcotics the patients and their MAP reports show. This is a key point to speak to doctors about.
Schedule 1? Infographic from Toke of the Town
Posted: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 14
42 +0000
This is an excellent infographic from Toke of the Town concerning the status of cannabis as a schedule 1.
Huge Victory for Medical Marijuana Patients!
Posted: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00
30 +0000
From the ACLU
The City Of Wyoming’s Ordinance Banning Medical Marijuana Violates Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Act
The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan applauded a state appeals court decision today (August 1, 2012) declaring the City of Wyoming’s ordinance that bans medical marijuana “void and unenforceable” because it directly violates the state’s Medical Marihuana Act.
The lawsuit was originally filed in November 2010 on behalf of John Ter Beek, a retired attorney and medical marijuana patient who suffers from diabetes and a neurological disorder that causes neuropathy and severe pain.
“In 2008, people across the state overwhelmingly voted to protect patients who use marijuana to treat their medical conditions from punishment and penalty,” said Dan Korobkin, ACLU of Michigan staff attorney. “Today’s decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals rejects the misguided efforts of a few local officials to undo the results of that historic election. Now that the law is clear, all cities should take notice and stop threatening to treat patients who have done nothing wrong like criminals.”
The ordinance was adopted by the Wyoming City Council in 2010 despite a public outcry. Ter Beek, who feared criminal and civil penalties if he grew or used medical marijuana in accordance with state law, filed the lawsuit challenging the ordinance. The ACLU later joined the lawsuit.
Marinol vs Marijuana (from the web)
Posted: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:54:32 +0000
Marinol Vs. Medical Marijuana
(Just a little article from the web)
Agaric, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Jan 31, 2007 "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites. Start Here."
Marinol is a synthetically-produced medication to mimic the effects of marijuana in cancer and glaucoma patients. The drug has been marketed as a safe alternative to medical marijuana, and is completely legal to purchase. However, the question remains whether or not Marinol is up to par with medical marijuanain terms of health benefits.
Why would a drug be synthetically produced in order to create the same effects of something that occurs naturally in nature and can be taken just as easily? Well, in this particular case since it is illegal to sell, possess, or use marijuana in the United States, a country that has seen marijuana used medically, then it seems obvious that to avoid decriminalizing marijuana a viable alternative should be created. In order for a synthetically-produced substance to be superior to a naturally-occurring substance, it has to pass certain tests. The first test is that it has to pose less side-and adverse effects when compared to the naturally-occurring substance. The second is that it has to produce comparable beneficial effects compared to the naturally-occurring substance. And finally, it has to be cost-effective for the consumer. In this particular case the final test is quite important because both Marinol and medical marijuana are used by patients with a terminal illness whose medical bills are already very high.
Cannabis Causes Brain Damage and other Propaganda
Posted: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11
27 +0000FAIL: Dr. Kevin Sabet’s Anti-Marijuana Legalization Arguments Debunked
Posted by RadicalRuss at 4:04 PM on August 29, 2012
This week, the Huffington Post is doing a feature called “Shadow Convention” where they address topics that neither the Democratic nor Republican conventions will address. Today they took a look at the War on (Certain American Citizens Using Non-Pharmaceutical, Non-Alcoholic, Tobacco-Free) Drugs and my one non-pot-smoking friend Dr. Kevin Sabet appeared likePunxsatawney Phil on Groundhog Day to see his shadow and declare six more years of Drug War. And like the movie Groundhog Day, the repetition of his fallacious anti-legalization arguments is beginning to sound like the opening to I Got You, Babe by Sonny & Cher. Let’s relive some of the classics:
A balanced and nuanced approach based on evidence, common sense, public health and public safety has been shown to produce results.
The Obama Administration’s drug war budget is still tilted two-to-one in favor of interdiction and incarceration over treatment and rehabilitation, just as it was during the George W. Bush Administration. (Speaking of Groundhog Day, have you noticed how much Bush’s DEA Administrator looks like Obama’s?)
(a) Community-based prevention that focuses not only on preventing drug use among school kids, but also on changing ill-conceived local laws and ordinances that promote underage drinking, smoking and marijuana use (so-called “environmental policies”);
You mean like drug testing 11-year-olds for the school orchestra? Maintaining school policies that punish underage marijuana use worse than underage drinking, thus promoting use of a more harmful substance? Cancelling student aid for college kids who get caught with a joint? And since pot smoking among kids is now more prevalent than tobacco smoking, and tobacco’s highly addictive and available to eighteen-year-olds legally, why didn’t we have to lock up adult cigarette smokers in cages to achieve the drop in lifetime tobacco smoking for youth from the high 70-percents to the low 40-percents?
Marijuana in Schedule 2-5?
Posted: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:08:21 +0000
Lo and behold, they want to reschedule cannabis
Published on May 12, 2011 by Reverend Ryan in Call to Action, Cannabis Education, Medical Marijuana, xCann News, xVideos
After discussing a topic with facebook friends and activists I learned that there is a growing desire to reschedule cannabis in Washington state. I posted my opposition to this yesterday, because after having this idea myself in 2009 and collecting signatures on a petition to do just that, I have learned a lot of things about this process that has made me change my mind.
Now the CDC, Cannacare and other medical marijuana groups in WA are proposing rescheduling.
I thought it was entirely peculiar that so many people were talking about this all at once.
Well, read it and weap, cannabis is about to be changed forever as we’ve known it:
https://cdc.coop/docs/2011_rescheduling_petition.pdf
https://xcannabis.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2011_rescheduling_petition.pdf
Here are my thoughts and at the bottom I will give you some research to consider:
Rescheduling cannabis rather than removing it from the list, will NOT prevent MOST cannabis consumers from going to jail.
Rescheduling cannabis in Washington will not over ride federal supremacy clause via Article VI, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
This will open more doors to BIG pharma (not the little guys) for getting into the cannabis business, and leaving the rest of us out.
Once big pharma is involved and once they put their money into cannabis, prohibition will not decrease, they will fight harder to keep it a schedule II, because it benefits them more.
The US government already has dozens of patents on cannabis, and when it is rescheduled those patents will be more effective for them. Meaning they will further OWN cannabis as opposed to now. As a schedule I, those patents can’t really be utilized. Under schedule II they can give their big pharma friends and contributors the rights to utilize those patents
I have known about the patent for neuroprotection and anti-oxidants for years now.
US Patent 6630507
There are also many OTHER patents on cannabis:
Cannabis Prohibition (NORML)
Posted: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:01:08 +0000
Cannabis Prohibition Now Seventy-Five Years Old
by Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director August 2, 2012
Infamously, America’s federally created Cannabis Prohibition marks its seventy-fifth anniversary this August 2, 2012. The so-called ‘great failed social experiment’ of Alcohol Prohibition of the 1920s barely lasted a dozen years in effect. Rightly, it took a constitutional amendment to both ban and restore alcohol products to the free market. Is there a similar constitutional amendment for cannabis products in 1937?
No, of course not.
And that is where the sophistry, hypocrisy and duplicity begin regarding America’s modern cannabis policy of vilifying, arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating cannabis consumers, cultivators and marketers.
Even though virtually every other country’s farmers have the choice whether or not to cultivate industrial hemp, even in countries where cannabis policy is decidedly worse than America’s, can American farmers prosper from cultivating this environmentally-friendly and productive crop?
No, of course not.
Do Americans support this failed, expensive and unconstitutional public policy of criminalizing cannabis?
No, of course not.
The Bonafide Dr/Pt Relationship
Posted: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:09:28 +0000
Recently in court I was asked by an attorney what the 'specific law' was that defined the term 'bona fide' concerning the Dr/Pt relationship. I mentioned HB 4851 and the medical board standards for the bona fide Dr/Pt relationship and was corrected by the attorney. These were not actual laws she said, one was a recommendation by the medical board, the other was a bill.
The question was in response to the characterization of a 'certification clinic event' where no physician was in contact with the patients and my contention that this didn't qualify as a 'Bona Fide' Dr/Pt relationship. I discussed the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, and I discussed the Medical Practice Act (which is the legal basis of medicine in Michigan). While the court sided with me overall, this question was not resolved.
Obviously, this issue has been at the forefront of list of 'grey areas' within the MMMA over the last couple of years. After reflecting some more on the question, I think I've come up with an answer....
Michigan Medical Marijuana needs to Overcome
Posted: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16
16 +0000We are making huge inroads in the acceptance of medical cannabis in the general public, over 80%, and we are over 50% for full legalization according to the polls (Gallop Poll on Marijuana). We have about 1/3 the states with medical cannabis laws, some for up to 15 years. We need to continue that trend.
To do so, in my opinion, we need to continue the efforts made by many in this field.
We need to play by the rules when we have state cannabis laws. Every time we push the envelope and over shoot, we get a black eye in public opinion.
We need to promote the attitude that it is 'no big deal' a city council debate on medical marijuana should someday be viewed with the same public interest as a discussion of a drain commission report- routine business about a routine subject- not a controversy.
We need to educate physicians about what cannabis can and cannot do, and encourage them to use it in their primary care practices in place of narcotics and other harmful drugs. Physicians exposed to cannabis certification clinics, talking to patients, express shock at the amount of reduction in narcotics the patients and their MAP reports show. This is a key point to speak to doctors about.
Schedule 1? Infographic from Toke of the Town
Posted: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 14
42 +0000This is an excellent infographic from Toke of the Town concerning the status of cannabis as a schedule 1.
Huge Victory for Medical Marijuana Patients!
Posted: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00
30 +0000From the ACLU
The City Of Wyoming’s Ordinance Banning Medical Marijuana Violates Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Act
The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan applauded a state appeals court decision today (August 1, 2012) declaring the City of Wyoming’s ordinance that bans medical marijuana “void and unenforceable” because it directly violates the state’s Medical Marihuana Act.
The lawsuit was originally filed in November 2010 on behalf of John Ter Beek, a retired attorney and medical marijuana patient who suffers from diabetes and a neurological disorder that causes neuropathy and severe pain.
“In 2008, people across the state overwhelmingly voted to protect patients who use marijuana to treat their medical conditions from punishment and penalty,” said Dan Korobkin, ACLU of Michigan staff attorney. “Today’s decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals rejects the misguided efforts of a few local officials to undo the results of that historic election. Now that the law is clear, all cities should take notice and stop threatening to treat patients who have done nothing wrong like criminals.”
The ordinance was adopted by the Wyoming City Council in 2010 despite a public outcry. Ter Beek, who feared criminal and civil penalties if he grew or used medical marijuana in accordance with state law, filed the lawsuit challenging the ordinance. The ACLU later joined the lawsuit.
Marinol vs Marijuana (from the web)
Posted: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:54:32 +0000
Marinol Vs. Medical Marijuana
(Just a little article from the web)
Agaric, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Jan 31, 2007 "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites. Start Here."
Marinol is a synthetically-produced medication to mimic the effects of marijuana in cancer and glaucoma patients. The drug has been marketed as a safe alternative to medical marijuana, and is completely legal to purchase. However, the question remains whether or not Marinol is up to par with medical marijuanain terms of health benefits.
Why would a drug be synthetically produced in order to create the same effects of something that occurs naturally in nature and can be taken just as easily? Well, in this particular case since it is illegal to sell, possess, or use marijuana in the United States, a country that has seen marijuana used medically, then it seems obvious that to avoid decriminalizing marijuana a viable alternative should be created. In order for a synthetically-produced substance to be superior to a naturally-occurring substance, it has to pass certain tests. The first test is that it has to pose less side-and adverse effects when compared to the naturally-occurring substance. The second is that it has to produce comparable beneficial effects compared to the naturally-occurring substance. And finally, it has to be cost-effective for the consumer. In this particular case the final test is quite important because both Marinol and medical marijuana are used by patients with a terminal illness whose medical bills are already very high.
