One-and-a-half cheers for the American College of Physicians, which has issued a statement "Supporting Research into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana." The ACP is the nation's largest medical specialty group -124,000 internists- and is widely respected. "There are no more prestigious letters to have after your name," says Philip A. Denney, MD (president of the Society of Cannabis Clinicians), "than FACP -standing for Fellow of the American College of Physicians."
The statement commits the ACP to five positions:
1. ACP supports programs and funding for rigorous scientific evaluation of the potential therapeutic benefits of medical marijuana and the publication of such findings.
1a. ACP supports increased research for conditions where the efficacy of marijuana has been established to determine optimal dosage and route of delivery.
1b: Medical marijuana research should not only focus on determining drug efficacy and safety but also on determining efficacy in comparison with other available treatments.
2. ACP encourages the use of nonsmoked forms of THC that have proven therapeutic value.
3. ACP supports the current process for obtaining federal research-grade cannabis.
4. ACP urges review of marijuana's status as a schedule 1 controlled substance and its reclassification into a more appropriate schedule, given the scientific evidence regarding marijuana's safety and efficacy in some clinical conditions.
5. ACP strongly supports exemption from federal criminal prosecution; civil liability; or professional sanctioning, such as loss of licensure or credentialing, for physicians who prescribe or dispense medical marijuana in accordance with state law. Similarly, ACP strongly urges protection from criminal or civil penalties for patients who use medical marijuana as permitted under state laws.
From the perspective of pro-cannabis doctors and patients in California, Position 5 is the best and bravest aspect of the ACP statement. The support for physicians who "prescribe and dispense medical marijuana under state law" could have been written with Marian Fry, MD, in mind. Fry and her husband, attorney Dale Schafer, were convicted under federal law for cultivation for sale (to her patients) and are soon to be sentenced.
Position 4 is long overdue. Marijuana was categorized as a Schedule 1 drug -as if it had no medical use and a high potential for abuse- by the federal Controlled Substance Act of 1970. In 1999 dependence on marijuana was deemed "relatively rare and... less severe than dependence on other drugs" by the Institute of Medicine in a report commissioned by the Drug Czar's office. The medical utility of marijuana has been confirmed in numerous ways and settings, including the IOM report and a recent study published in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal ("Cannabis in painful HIV-asssociated sensory neuropathy," by Abrams et al, Neurology, Feb 13, 2007).
Position 2 singles out the Volcano vaporizer as an efficient delivery system (right on, right on).
Position 3 seems to undermine the rest of the position paper. Why open wide the valves on the research pipeline while leaving the main closed and allowing only the slightest trickle? At present the would-be researcher must get an Investigational New Drug Application approved by the FDA and a Schedule I license from the DEA to receive marijuana grown by a NIDA-funded contractor at the University of Mississippi and processed into cigarettes at the Research Triangle Institute in North Carolina. The DEA can choke off research, the FDA can choke off research, NIDA can choke off research. Over the years they have taken turns doing so, working a four-cornered stall (the NIH and the Drug Czar's office get involved as needed) as if diagrammed by the Tarheels' legendary basketball coach, Dean Smith himself.
Counterpunch <<< For remainder of article
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
State Bill Introduced Yesterday Protects Employment Rights of Medical Marijuana Patients
State Bill Introduced Yesterday Protects Employment Rights of Medical Marijuana Patients
AB 2279 would reverse the State Supreme Court in Ross v. Raging Wire
Sacramento, CA -- Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and several co-authors introduced a bill yesterday that would protect the rights of hundreds of thousands of medical marijuana patients in California from employment discrimination. The bill leaves intact existing state law prohibiting medical marijuana consumption at the workplace and protects employers from liability by carving out an exception for safety-sensitive positions. The employment rights bill, which is being co-authored by Assemblymembers Patty Berg (D-Eureka), Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) and Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego), is in response to a January decision by the California Supreme Court in Ross v. RagingWire. National medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) argued the case before the court and is now a sponsor of the bill.
"The California Supreme Court decision said that an employer may fire someone solely because they use medical marijuana outside the workplace," said Assemblymember Leno. "Long ago, the legislature prohibited patient use of medical cannabis in the workplace or during working hours," continued Leno. "AB 2279 is merely an affirmation of the intent of the voters and the legislature that medical marijuana patents need not be unemployed to benefit from their medicine."
On January 24, in a 5-2 decision, the California Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling that denied qualified patients a remedy from employment discrimination, based either on their status as a patient or a positive test for marijuana. The plaintiff in the case, Gary Ross, is a 46-year old disabled veteran who was a systems engineer living Carmichael, California, when he was fired from his job in 2001 at RagingWire Telecommunications for testing positive for marijuana. "It's important that we not allow wholesale employment discrimination in California," said former plaintiff Gary Ross. "If the court is going to ignore the need for protection, then it's up to the legislature to ensure that productive workers like me are free from discrimination."
The decision in Ross v. RagingWire closed the door on redress through the courts, shifting the debate to the state legislature. California is not alone in its attempt to affirm employment protections for medical marijuana patients. Both Oregon and Hawaii have introduced similar legislation aimed at clarifying the intent of the state legislatures. This recent multi-state effort builds on existing legislation adopted in ten out of twelve medical marijuana states, including California, which already sought to protect patients from employment discrimination. "We welcome and strongly endorse this clarification from the legislature," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "Despite the ill-conceived ruling by the California Supreme Court, the intent of state legislatures has been to recognize the civil rights of patients and to offer them reasonable protections."
Before the court made its final decision, Ross enjoyed the support of ten state and national medical organizations, all of the original co-authors of the Medical Marijuana Program Act (SB 420), and disability rights groups. Since it began recording instances of employment discrimination in 2005, ASA has received hundreds of such reports from all across California. Employers that have either fired patients from their job, threatened them with termination, or denied them employment because of patient status or because of a positive test for marijuana, include Costco Wholesale, UPS, Foster Farms Dairy, DirecTV, the San Joaquin Courier, Power Auto Group, as well as several construction companies, hospitals, and various trade union employers.
ASA Forum
AB 2279 would reverse the State Supreme Court in Ross v. Raging Wire
Sacramento, CA -- Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and several co-authors introduced a bill yesterday that would protect the rights of hundreds of thousands of medical marijuana patients in California from employment discrimination. The bill leaves intact existing state law prohibiting medical marijuana consumption at the workplace and protects employers from liability by carving out an exception for safety-sensitive positions. The employment rights bill, which is being co-authored by Assemblymembers Patty Berg (D-Eureka), Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) and Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego), is in response to a January decision by the California Supreme Court in Ross v. RagingWire. National medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) argued the case before the court and is now a sponsor of the bill.
"The California Supreme Court decision said that an employer may fire someone solely because they use medical marijuana outside the workplace," said Assemblymember Leno. "Long ago, the legislature prohibited patient use of medical cannabis in the workplace or during working hours," continued Leno. "AB 2279 is merely an affirmation of the intent of the voters and the legislature that medical marijuana patents need not be unemployed to benefit from their medicine."
On January 24, in a 5-2 decision, the California Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling that denied qualified patients a remedy from employment discrimination, based either on their status as a patient or a positive test for marijuana. The plaintiff in the case, Gary Ross, is a 46-year old disabled veteran who was a systems engineer living Carmichael, California, when he was fired from his job in 2001 at RagingWire Telecommunications for testing positive for marijuana. "It's important that we not allow wholesale employment discrimination in California," said former plaintiff Gary Ross. "If the court is going to ignore the need for protection, then it's up to the legislature to ensure that productive workers like me are free from discrimination."
The decision in Ross v. RagingWire closed the door on redress through the courts, shifting the debate to the state legislature. California is not alone in its attempt to affirm employment protections for medical marijuana patients. Both Oregon and Hawaii have introduced similar legislation aimed at clarifying the intent of the state legislatures. This recent multi-state effort builds on existing legislation adopted in ten out of twelve medical marijuana states, including California, which already sought to protect patients from employment discrimination. "We welcome and strongly endorse this clarification from the legislature," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "Despite the ill-conceived ruling by the California Supreme Court, the intent of state legislatures has been to recognize the civil rights of patients and to offer them reasonable protections."
Before the court made its final decision, Ross enjoyed the support of ten state and national medical organizations, all of the original co-authors of the Medical Marijuana Program Act (SB 420), and disability rights groups. Since it began recording instances of employment discrimination in 2005, ASA has received hundreds of such reports from all across California. Employers that have either fired patients from their job, threatened them with termination, or denied them employment because of patient status or because of a positive test for marijuana, include Costco Wholesale, UPS, Foster Farms Dairy, DirecTV, the San Joaquin Courier, Power Auto Group, as well as several construction companies, hospitals, and various trade union employers.
ASA Forum
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Pot, guns returned to acquitted medical marijuana patient
The Shingle Springs medical marijuana patient who a jury last fall found not guilty of cultivation and possession to sell charges will be returned his firearms and the approximately 8 pounds of cannabis seized at the time of his March 2005 arrest.
A judge Friday ruled that the El Dorado County Sheriff's Department must return to acquitted 26-year-old patient Thomas Boberg all 8 pounds of the cannabis and all six firearms owned by Boberg, which consist of four shotguns and a pistol.
Deputy district attorney Worth Dikeman did not object to the guns and other various items being returned, but said he had an issue with the marijuana being handed back to the man he prosecuted unsuccessfully.
Boberg's San Francisco attorney, Zenia Gilg, argued to Judge Eddie T. Keller that her client should get the drug back, since all 8 pounds of it was found by the jury to be legally possessed by Boberg and two other patients he grew it for.
Dikeman responded that the jury wasn't asked to make that determination during the trial.
In the end, Keller ruled to have all of the evidence returned to Boberg.
The two felony charges were brought up against Boberg after sheriff's detectives smelled marijuana while investigating an armed robbery at the home he shared with his girlfriend.
After exonerating Boberg, several members of the jury spoke to and congratulated him on the steps of the Courthouse.
After appearing in court Friday, Boberg said he is happy to get the guns and other items back, but said he's not so sure about taking back the marijuana.
Attorney Gilg said she's seen cases where sheriff's officials return the marijuana, but then tip off the federal Drug Enforcement Agency. Under federal law, marijuana is illegal altogether and has no medicinal value.
Boberg was prescribed cannabis by his physician in 2000 for chronic back pain brought on by a car accident in Southern California. The gunman who entered his home was never caught.
Mountain Democrat
A judge Friday ruled that the El Dorado County Sheriff's Department must return to acquitted 26-year-old patient Thomas Boberg all 8 pounds of the cannabis and all six firearms owned by Boberg, which consist of four shotguns and a pistol.
Deputy district attorney Worth Dikeman did not object to the guns and other various items being returned, but said he had an issue with the marijuana being handed back to the man he prosecuted unsuccessfully.
Boberg's San Francisco attorney, Zenia Gilg, argued to Judge Eddie T. Keller that her client should get the drug back, since all 8 pounds of it was found by the jury to be legally possessed by Boberg and two other patients he grew it for.
Dikeman responded that the jury wasn't asked to make that determination during the trial.
In the end, Keller ruled to have all of the evidence returned to Boberg.
The two felony charges were brought up against Boberg after sheriff's detectives smelled marijuana while investigating an armed robbery at the home he shared with his girlfriend.
After exonerating Boberg, several members of the jury spoke to and congratulated him on the steps of the Courthouse.
After appearing in court Friday, Boberg said he is happy to get the guns and other items back, but said he's not so sure about taking back the marijuana.
Attorney Gilg said she's seen cases where sheriff's officials return the marijuana, but then tip off the federal Drug Enforcement Agency. Under federal law, marijuana is illegal altogether and has no medicinal value.
Boberg was prescribed cannabis by his physician in 2000 for chronic back pain brought on by a car accident in Southern California. The gunman who entered his home was never caught.
Mountain Democrat
Marijuana Laws Based On Discriminatory Past
Marijuana has been illegal for a long time. However, unlike with most drugs there has always been a rather distinguished movement to have it legalized. In the American psyche, it lies somewhere between alcohol and everything else. It recent years, doctors and patients touting its medical benefits have brought it back to the forefront, causing some states and cities to either decriminalize it or to allow doctors to prescribe it for medical uses. It is time that the history and reasons for marijuana prohibition be reexamined and hopefully significant and serious debate can be reopened among politicians.
Any intelligent debate, especially in Congress, has been stifled by the knee-jerk reaction to say that it is illegal and it should stay that way. There is some fear marijuana will open a can of worms and "corrupt our youth." However this argument has no firm ground to stand on, especially when upon further examination - marijuana was made illegal without any scientific basis. The passages of the first prohibitive pieces of legislation regarding marijuana, the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act (1932) and the Marihuana Tax Act (1937), were passed based only on racist agendas against minority classes - especially Mexicans - and by overly exaggerated tales of murder and mayhem caused by the drug.
Marijuana legislation began primarily as a regional phenomenon based in southern and western states. For the most part, the legislation was racially motivated. Despite what people may think, Mexican immigration is not a new issue. Today it may be based on nationalism and fairness to the working class, though some may argue otherwise, but in the 1920s and 30s anti-Mexican sentiment was based on blatant racism.
It was generally known that marijuana use in these states was limited to Mexican immigrants. During this time, with the Mexican population growing in Southern and Western states, legislators saw their use of marijuana as a way to stem this tide. There are two reasons that state legislatures made marijuana illegal. The first is that during this time the Temperance Movement was in full swing. This was at the height of alcohol prohibition in the United States. Legislators wanted to ensure with the influx of Mexican immigrants, there was no rise in use of marijuana among the white middle- and upper-classes. Second, the onset of the Great Depression, created an enormous of resentment among the white populations competing for jobs with Mexican immigrants. Marijuana prohibition was the perfect to tool to prevent the loss of jobs among the white populations, because it only affected Mexicans workers.
Continued...
The Daily Campus
Any intelligent debate, especially in Congress, has been stifled by the knee-jerk reaction to say that it is illegal and it should stay that way. There is some fear marijuana will open a can of worms and "corrupt our youth." However this argument has no firm ground to stand on, especially when upon further examination - marijuana was made illegal without any scientific basis. The passages of the first prohibitive pieces of legislation regarding marijuana, the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act (1932) and the Marihuana Tax Act (1937), were passed based only on racist agendas against minority classes - especially Mexicans - and by overly exaggerated tales of murder and mayhem caused by the drug.
Marijuana legislation began primarily as a regional phenomenon based in southern and western states. For the most part, the legislation was racially motivated. Despite what people may think, Mexican immigration is not a new issue. Today it may be based on nationalism and fairness to the working class, though some may argue otherwise, but in the 1920s and 30s anti-Mexican sentiment was based on blatant racism.
It was generally known that marijuana use in these states was limited to Mexican immigrants. During this time, with the Mexican population growing in Southern and Western states, legislators saw their use of marijuana as a way to stem this tide. There are two reasons that state legislatures made marijuana illegal. The first is that during this time the Temperance Movement was in full swing. This was at the height of alcohol prohibition in the United States. Legislators wanted to ensure with the influx of Mexican immigrants, there was no rise in use of marijuana among the white middle- and upper-classes. Second, the onset of the Great Depression, created an enormous of resentment among the white populations competing for jobs with Mexican immigrants. Marijuana prohibition was the perfect to tool to prevent the loss of jobs among the white populations, because it only affected Mexicans workers.
Continued...
The Daily Campus
Monday, February 18, 2008
Illinois Shooter was Treated with Psych Meds Prior to Shooting Rampage
It comes as no surprise to anyone who's been following school shootings all the way back to the Colombine High massacre in Colorado: Every young, male shooter that has gone on a killing spree in the United States also has a history of treatment with psychotropic drugs -- typically SSRI antidepressants. These shootings have three things in common: 1) The shooters are young males. 2) The shooters exhibit a mind-numbed disconnect with reality. 3) The shooters have a history of taking psychiatric medications.
This latest shooting by 27-year-old Stephen Kazmierczak shares the same three factors. Stephen was considered a "normal, undistressed person," according to press reports. He was considered "an outstanding student" and even received a Dean's Award for outstanding work in sociology. So what happened to Stephen's brain that caused him to snap and open fire on students in a college classroom?
Psych meds make good people do bad things
Psychiatric medications, of course, are well known to cause extremely violent thoughts and behavior in young males. This is actually acknowledged by the FDA and is found in the black-box warnings printed on the packaging for such drugs. In Europe, the prescribing of many such drugs to children and teens is actually illegal. But in the United States, where psychiatric medications have become the "new medicine" for American youth, nobody seems to pay attention to the simple fact that every school shooting we've seen in the last decade has been committed by a young male with a history of treatment with psychiatric medications.
The mainstream media, of course, is trying to spin the story by claiming Stephen snapped because he stopped taking his medications. MSM headlines proclaim, "Illinois Shooter Stopped Taking His Medications." What these headlines fail to communicate is the fact that psychiatric drugs cause long-term disruptions in the brain which lead to a strong dissociation with reality. These young, male shooters hardly even know they're in the real world anymore. They no longer see their fellow classmates as human beings, but rather as lifeless objects to be used for target practice. For those people taking psychiatric medications, there's even a strong dissociation with one's own life, as evidenced by the repeated willingness of these shooters to ultimately turn their guns on themselves.
These are precisely the kinds of things acted out by people who take psych medications: Disconnection with reality, disconnection with self, and disconnection with others. Modern psychiatric medicine is in the business of taking people who feel depressed and chemically lobotomizing their brains so they feel nothing. Once they feel nothing, there's nothing stopping them from unloading on fellow human beings with firearms. They no longer feel empathy or compassion. Nothing matters anymore. This is strongly characteristic of the well-documented side effects of psychiatric medications.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Illinois shooter's history of taking psychiatric medications was the primary cause of his violent behavior. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if every single shooter in recent memory was treated with psych meds, and if those same psych meds are well known to cause violent thoughts and suicidal behavior, it's fairly obvious that the chemicals are the most likely cause of the behavioral problems. It's also worth noting that before children were prescribed such medications in America, school shootings were virtually unheard of. It was only after psychiatric medicine started targeting young people with mind-altering medications that we witnessed this explosion in violence.
Pharmaceutical-induced violence
Until we stop medication young people with mind-altering psychotropic drugs, we will simply not see an end to this pharmaceutical-induced violence. Even if you somehow manage to take away all the guns, similar atrocities can be carried out with machetes, swords, knives or explosives. The problem here is not simply the weapon, but rather the mind behind the trigger. When minds are disturbed through psychiatric medications and young men are trapped in a chemically-induced state of sub-consciousness with no connection to reality, outbursts of mindless violence are exactly what you're going to get.
In fact, I publicly predicted this school shooting in a December 7, 2007 article about the mall shooter in Omaha, where I said:
There will be more. I hate to be accurate about this grisly prediction, because I grieve for the families of those lost to pharmaceutically-induced violence, but the truth is that until we stop drugging our children with psychotropic drugs, the shootings are not going to stop.
And as sad as this tragedy is for all those affected by this medication-induced violence, the truly sad part is that America still hasn't learned this lesson. If you drug the children with chemicals that cause violence, you're going to see more shootings. It's as simple as that. And if you take away the guns, you'll see bombs, knives or machetes used in these attacks. When disturbed young boys are doped up on psychotropic drugs that promote violence -- and they're drugged by the hundreds of thousands -- it's like playing a national game of Russian roulette (with apologies to Russia). Sooner or later, another kid whose mind has been altered by Ritalin, Prozac or some other drug is going to walk into yet another school or mall and start killing people. This kind of behavior is a direct product of chemical-based psychiatric "treatment."
Let me now continue that prediction by stating that the Illinois shooting won't be the last one, either. As long as the psychiatric industry -- which is now run by Big Pharma -- is allowed to run amok and "play doctor" with the chemicals in children's brains, we're going to continue to see school shootings, bombings, stabbings and other outbursts of violence. While ignorant psych docs will say the population needs more drugs, and while silly voters will call for bans on guns, nothing will actually prevent this kind of violence in America until we stop drugging our children with mind-altering drugs and stop exposing them to extremely violent video games and television shows. In fact, I believe it is the combination of violent TV programming and mind-altering psych meds that ultimately leads to the kind of violence that took place in Illinois.
Natural News Follow the link for the continuation of this article.
Even though this particular article has nothing to do with MMJ, it does however (at the end) encourage to "Think Green." How many of these evil happenings could have been avoided had they "Thought Green" in the first place and not immediately use a chemical bludgeon.
This latest shooting by 27-year-old Stephen Kazmierczak shares the same three factors. Stephen was considered a "normal, undistressed person," according to press reports. He was considered "an outstanding student" and even received a Dean's Award for outstanding work in sociology. So what happened to Stephen's brain that caused him to snap and open fire on students in a college classroom?
Psych meds make good people do bad things
Psychiatric medications, of course, are well known to cause extremely violent thoughts and behavior in young males. This is actually acknowledged by the FDA and is found in the black-box warnings printed on the packaging for such drugs. In Europe, the prescribing of many such drugs to children and teens is actually illegal. But in the United States, where psychiatric medications have become the "new medicine" for American youth, nobody seems to pay attention to the simple fact that every school shooting we've seen in the last decade has been committed by a young male with a history of treatment with psychiatric medications.
The mainstream media, of course, is trying to spin the story by claiming Stephen snapped because he stopped taking his medications. MSM headlines proclaim, "Illinois Shooter Stopped Taking His Medications." What these headlines fail to communicate is the fact that psychiatric drugs cause long-term disruptions in the brain which lead to a strong dissociation with reality. These young, male shooters hardly even know they're in the real world anymore. They no longer see their fellow classmates as human beings, but rather as lifeless objects to be used for target practice. For those people taking psychiatric medications, there's even a strong dissociation with one's own life, as evidenced by the repeated willingness of these shooters to ultimately turn their guns on themselves.
These are precisely the kinds of things acted out by people who take psych medications: Disconnection with reality, disconnection with self, and disconnection with others. Modern psychiatric medicine is in the business of taking people who feel depressed and chemically lobotomizing their brains so they feel nothing. Once they feel nothing, there's nothing stopping them from unloading on fellow human beings with firearms. They no longer feel empathy or compassion. Nothing matters anymore. This is strongly characteristic of the well-documented side effects of psychiatric medications.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Illinois shooter's history of taking psychiatric medications was the primary cause of his violent behavior. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if every single shooter in recent memory was treated with psych meds, and if those same psych meds are well known to cause violent thoughts and suicidal behavior, it's fairly obvious that the chemicals are the most likely cause of the behavioral problems. It's also worth noting that before children were prescribed such medications in America, school shootings were virtually unheard of. It was only after psychiatric medicine started targeting young people with mind-altering medications that we witnessed this explosion in violence.
Pharmaceutical-induced violence
Until we stop medication young people with mind-altering psychotropic drugs, we will simply not see an end to this pharmaceutical-induced violence. Even if you somehow manage to take away all the guns, similar atrocities can be carried out with machetes, swords, knives or explosives. The problem here is not simply the weapon, but rather the mind behind the trigger. When minds are disturbed through psychiatric medications and young men are trapped in a chemically-induced state of sub-consciousness with no connection to reality, outbursts of mindless violence are exactly what you're going to get.
In fact, I publicly predicted this school shooting in a December 7, 2007 article about the mall shooter in Omaha, where I said:
There will be more. I hate to be accurate about this grisly prediction, because I grieve for the families of those lost to pharmaceutically-induced violence, but the truth is that until we stop drugging our children with psychotropic drugs, the shootings are not going to stop.
And as sad as this tragedy is for all those affected by this medication-induced violence, the truly sad part is that America still hasn't learned this lesson. If you drug the children with chemicals that cause violence, you're going to see more shootings. It's as simple as that. And if you take away the guns, you'll see bombs, knives or machetes used in these attacks. When disturbed young boys are doped up on psychotropic drugs that promote violence -- and they're drugged by the hundreds of thousands -- it's like playing a national game of Russian roulette (with apologies to Russia). Sooner or later, another kid whose mind has been altered by Ritalin, Prozac or some other drug is going to walk into yet another school or mall and start killing people. This kind of behavior is a direct product of chemical-based psychiatric "treatment."
Let me now continue that prediction by stating that the Illinois shooting won't be the last one, either. As long as the psychiatric industry -- which is now run by Big Pharma -- is allowed to run amok and "play doctor" with the chemicals in children's brains, we're going to continue to see school shootings, bombings, stabbings and other outbursts of violence. While ignorant psych docs will say the population needs more drugs, and while silly voters will call for bans on guns, nothing will actually prevent this kind of violence in America until we stop drugging our children with mind-altering drugs and stop exposing them to extremely violent video games and television shows. In fact, I believe it is the combination of violent TV programming and mind-altering psych meds that ultimately leads to the kind of violence that took place in Illinois.
Natural News Follow the link for the continuation of this article.
Even though this particular article has nothing to do with MMJ, it does however (at the end) encourage to "Think Green." How many of these evil happenings could have been avoided had they "Thought Green" in the first place and not immediately use a chemical bludgeon.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Pot bust blasted as persecution of dying man
DILLON — The large-scale marijuana bust that law officers here touted as a major success this month was instead the persecution of a terminally ill man who needed the drug to help ease his suffering, a pro-medical marijuana group said Friday.
Patients and Families United, based in Helena, blasted the bust and said it would not stand up in court thanks to Montana’s Medical Marijuana Law passed three years ago. And they criticized law officers for making a terminally ill man’s last days miserable because of the worry that he would end up in prison.
“It amounts to persecution of somebody who’s already so overburdened with a medical condition that no one should have,” said Tom Daubert, founder and director of PFU. “That’s the purpose of our law, to have some relief for somebody who wants to be left alone.”
Daubert said his group will step up to help with the legal defense for the man, whose name has not been released by officials.
Law officers from Beaverhead County and the Southwest Montana Drug Task Force this week were trumpeting the seizure of 96 marijuana plants from a mobile home north of Dillon. They said the sophisticated growing operation was meant to keep a steady supply of marijuana coming, with plants at all stages of development.
They said the marijuana’s street value could be up to $153,000.
Blair Martenson, regional director for the task force, refused to comment specifically on PFU’s comments, saying only that officials were push ahead with prosecution.
“What we have to say will come out in court,” he said.
But Daubert said the man targeted in the investigation, who, along with a woman, has yet to be arrested and charged, is suffering from a horrific disease. He would not specify what it was to protect the man, but said it is a rare degenerative disease that is always fatal.
Daubert said if taken into custody, Beaverhead County taxpayers will be on the hook for medical care that costs a staggering $136,000 a month for injections to keep the man alive.
“Beaverhead County can have some fun with this: pay to keep a guy alive for a trial that probably won’t happen quickly,” he said.
And Daubert lambasted law officers for conducting a three-month investigation without knowledge of Montana’s medical marijuana law. He said assertions that the operation was too large to be for one patient’s use are bogus, because each individual patient in need of medical marijuana requires different quantities.
For some patients, ingesting the marijuana rather than smoking it is the most effective way to ease pain, maintain appetite or gain the other benefits people garner from pot.
“It is not possible on the basis of the number of plants involved to categorically claim that the growing was for anything other than personal use,” he said.
Daubert promised a “vigorous” legal defense of the man. He said although the quantity of marijuana seized far exceeds the one ounce allowed under state law, they will use an affirmative defense to prove that he needed the quantity for his medical needs.
The man is not a registered medical marijuana user, Daubert said. But his medical records will provide more than enough evidence that he has a qualifying condition and needs the drug to help ease his suffering in his final months of life.
“We will bring in experts on dosage, horticulture and quantity issues,” Daubert said. “This will be potentially a major precedent-setting case in Montana.”
helenair.com
Patients and Families United, based in Helena, blasted the bust and said it would not stand up in court thanks to Montana’s Medical Marijuana Law passed three years ago. And they criticized law officers for making a terminally ill man’s last days miserable because of the worry that he would end up in prison.
“It amounts to persecution of somebody who’s already so overburdened with a medical condition that no one should have,” said Tom Daubert, founder and director of PFU. “That’s the purpose of our law, to have some relief for somebody who wants to be left alone.”
Daubert said his group will step up to help with the legal defense for the man, whose name has not been released by officials.
Law officers from Beaverhead County and the Southwest Montana Drug Task Force this week were trumpeting the seizure of 96 marijuana plants from a mobile home north of Dillon. They said the sophisticated growing operation was meant to keep a steady supply of marijuana coming, with plants at all stages of development.
They said the marijuana’s street value could be up to $153,000.
Blair Martenson, regional director for the task force, refused to comment specifically on PFU’s comments, saying only that officials were push ahead with prosecution.
“What we have to say will come out in court,” he said.
But Daubert said the man targeted in the investigation, who, along with a woman, has yet to be arrested and charged, is suffering from a horrific disease. He would not specify what it was to protect the man, but said it is a rare degenerative disease that is always fatal.
Daubert said if taken into custody, Beaverhead County taxpayers will be on the hook for medical care that costs a staggering $136,000 a month for injections to keep the man alive.
“Beaverhead County can have some fun with this: pay to keep a guy alive for a trial that probably won’t happen quickly,” he said.
And Daubert lambasted law officers for conducting a three-month investigation without knowledge of Montana’s medical marijuana law. He said assertions that the operation was too large to be for one patient’s use are bogus, because each individual patient in need of medical marijuana requires different quantities.
For some patients, ingesting the marijuana rather than smoking it is the most effective way to ease pain, maintain appetite or gain the other benefits people garner from pot.
“It is not possible on the basis of the number of plants involved to categorically claim that the growing was for anything other than personal use,” he said.
Daubert promised a “vigorous” legal defense of the man. He said although the quantity of marijuana seized far exceeds the one ounce allowed under state law, they will use an affirmative defense to prove that he needed the quantity for his medical needs.
The man is not a registered medical marijuana user, Daubert said. But his medical records will provide more than enough evidence that he has a qualifying condition and needs the drug to help ease his suffering in his final months of life.
“We will bring in experts on dosage, horticulture and quantity issues,” Daubert said. “This will be potentially a major precedent-setting case in Montana.”
helenair.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)