Cannabis Consultant and Advisors

$15 MILLION CREDIT CARDS ISSUED THIS LAST YEAR! DOES YOUR CLUB TAKE CREDIT CARD?

2011-08-19T22:15:00.000-07:00

Does your local Cannabis club take credit cards?

Just released was the fact: Credit card use on the rise, 15 million new cards issued this last year.

If you want more facts, info, advice. We will offer free web hosting, free consultation, also free equipment for your retail, wholesale or other business:)

Thanks,
420atm.info

Chocolate-Covered OREO Cookie Cake recipe

2011-08-19T18:19:00.000-07:00

Chocolate-Covered OREO Cookie Cake recipe

Chocolate-Covered OREO Cookie Cake
http://www.kraftrecipes.com/assets/recipe_images/Chocolate_Covered_OREO_Cookie_Cake.jpg
) total time 1 hr 20 min
prep 20 min
servings 16 servings

recipe

what you need
1 pkg. (2-layer size) devil's food chocolate cake mix
4 squares BAKER'S Semi-Sweet Chocolate
1/4 cup (1/2 stick) butter
1 pkg. (8 oz.) PHILADELPHIA Cream Cheese, softened
1/2 cup sugar
2 cups thawed COOL WHIP Whipped Topping
12 OREO Cookies, coarsely crushed
make it
HEAT oven to 350ºF.

PREPARE cake batter and bake in 2 (9-inch) round pans as directed on package. Cool cakes in pans 10 min. Invert cakes onto wire racks; gently remove pans. Cool cakes completely.

MICROWAVE chocolate and butter in small microwaveable bowl on HIGH 2 min. or until butter is melted. Stir until chocolate is completely melted. Cool 5 min.

MEANWHILE, beat cream cheese and sugar in large bowl with mixer until blended. Gently stir in COOL WHIP and crushed cookies. Stack cake layers on plate, spreading cream cheese mixture between layers. Spread top with chocolate glaze; let stand until firm. Keep refrigerated.

kraft kitchens tipsFAMILY FUNThis great-tasting cake looks like a giant OREO Cookie.COOKING KNOW-HOWIf chocolate glaze becomes too thick, microwave on HIGH 20 to 30 sec. or until of desired consistency.SIZE-WISEEnjoy a serving of this indulgent cake on occasion, but keep portion size in mind. One cake makes enough for 16 servings.

Rocklin business owner steps forward for cure - Rocklin

2011-08-17T05:18:00.000-07:00

Rocklin business owner steps forward for cure - Rocklin

The Pot Republic: One Sheriff's Quietly Radical Experiment 215

2011-08-02T21:45:00.000-07:00

The Pot Republic: One Sheriff's Quietly Radical Experiment
215

Watch the full episode. See more FRONTLINE.

SUPPORT PROVIDED BY MENDO COUNTY CANNABIS PATIENTS

Last week, federal, state and local law enforcement officials kicked off the largest ever series of raids on illegal marijuana grows in northern California. Code-named "Operation Full Court Press," the raids are spearheaded by Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman.

But as shown in the above clip from The Pot Republic, which airs tomorrow night, Sheriff Allman also has gained attention for an innovative -- and radical -- program his county launched to work with Mendocino County's medical marijuana growers.

Mendocino County is one of the few places nationwide where local officials are experimenting with regulating marijuana production. Under county law, patients with a valid medical marijuana identification card can apply for a license to grow a maximum of 25 plants; in return a patient can purchase up to 25 zip ties for $25 each that will mark their plants as legal. Alternatively, a cooperative of four patients can grow up to 99 plants. The zip ties expire at the end of each calendar year, and any plants grown outdoors must be enclosed by a 6-foot lockable fence. (More information on obtaining the permits and additional requirements can be found on the Mendocino County Sheriff's website.)

"Some people are watching this right now shaking their head saying, 'I can't believe there's a cop in uniform that's working with marijuana people,'" Sheriff Allman told FRONTLINE. "And to those people I just say, listen. The voters have passed the law. ... The longer we build up hurdles and we build up laws, then the more money we're going to be spending in court to ultimately be told to get over it. So the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office, we're over it, and we're trying to make it work."

To date, more than 80 growers have signed up under the sheriff's plan. But as tomorrow night's program shows, the Mendocino County program and other California experiments in regulating medical marijuana have gotten federal attention. Now, in light of the Obama administration's recent pushback on medical marijuana, officials involved in Mendocino's tagging program may be forced to decide whether to shut it down -- or risk jail themselves.

For more on California's medical marijuana business, watch Republic of Cannabis, a series of reports from our partners at the Center for Investigative Reporting and KQED.

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/2011/07/the-pot-republic-one-sheriffs-quietly-radical-experiment.html#ixzz1TwASqgdv

Obama Advertises on NORML's Youtube channel 215 - NORML

2011-08-02T21:31:00.001-07:00

President Obama advertises on NORML’s YouTube Channel
August 2nd, 2011 By: Russ Belville, NORML Outreach Coordinator
Share this Article

Why does music from British rock legends "The Who" keep playing in my head when I see this ad?

Remember when we were told that “legalization isn’t in the president’s vocabulary?”

Remember when Mr. Obama laughed off a suggestion that marijuana legalization could help the economy?

Remember when he emphatically stated he would not pursue a strategy of decriminalization of marijuana?

Yeah, we do, too.

So imagine our surprise at NORML to find an ad for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign nestled in the prime ad spot on our YouTube channel: NORMLtv (http://youtube.com/natlnorml).

What’s the campaign strategy for the marijuana smoker vote, Mr. Obama? Keeping at the head of the DEA one of Mr. Bush’s administrators? Maintaining the Bush-era policy of raiding medical marijuana providers? Escalating numbers of marijuana arrests on your watch?

Or will it just be, “Look, you think I’m bad, imagine what happens if (fill in GOP nominee) wins! I just want to force pot smokers into costly rehab they don’t need on the threat of prison. (Fill in GOP nominee) wants to (fill in terrible threat we’re already experiencing now)!”

You want the absolute guaranteed votes of 90% of the 25 million American adults who use cannabis annually in America?

Convince Congress to pass and then you sign Barney Frank and Ron Paul’s Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act.

It doesn’t cost you anything. Marijuana is still illegal in all fifty states and 99% of all marijuana arrests take place at the state and local level. It just means marijuana is no longer a federal issue; states are free to set up any marijuana regulations they choose. The people in marijuana friendly states will support you more and the ones who hate pot still think you’re a secret Muslim agent from Kenya anyway.

Well, I take that back. Your contributors from Big Pharma might not like you endorsing the competition.

UPDATE: Apparently, based on comments below, I should’ve explained how BlogAds work. NORML didn’t “accept” advertising from the Obama campaign. We offer up a piece of screen real estate to the BlogAds company. They sell advertising packages to third parties, like the Obama campaign, which promise to place their ads on websites matching certain demographics and content keywords. So we don’t even know who or what is going to appear up there as an ad (within limits; obviously there isn’t going to be a phone sex ad or Klan rally promotion going up there… we can limit certain types of ad content.)

It’s possible that the ad algorithm just saw “within 50,000 on Alexa”, “large youth demo of readers”, and “Congress / House / Senate / Obama” on our website and automatically placed Obama’s ad there because he wants to reach young politically active people on popular websites. In fact, I seem to recall some “Marijuana: The Anti-Drug” ads showing up on our BlogTalkRadio page in the early days of NORML SHOW LIVE. I’ve seen ONDCP ads show up on other pro-marijuana sites.

We’re not a 20th century newspaper; it’s not as if Obama’s campaign team called and said, “Hey, NORML, how about we support you by advertising and you support us by accepting the ad. The day the ad appeared on NORMLtv was the first time we saw it there and probably just as shocking to the president.

Tags: normltv, President Obama, Youtube

Modesto New 215 Doctor for Modesto Cannabis Patients...

2011-07-24T01:40:00.000-07:00

Now Modesto is showing some compassion with almost 5 Medical Marijuana doctors consulting with patients regarding there cannabis use and effects.

Listing coming soon with prices.

Contact Doctors@compassionatecaregivers.com for specials in your town.

New hurdle in Dutch plan to stop marijuana tourism - World News - Modbee.com

2011-07-04T00:30:00.000-07:00

New hurdle in Dutch plan to stop marijuana tourism - World News - Modbee.com

Businesses raided, 2 arrested in NorCal pot probes - State News - Modbee.com

2011-07-04T00:29:00.000-07:00

Businesses raided, 2 arrested in NorCal pot probes - State News - Modbee.comNEWARK, Calif. -- State investigators have raided a California medical marijuana dispensary and the offices of two psychics.
Two men were arrested and a Salinas storefront was also raided during Tuesday's state Department of Justice operation.
The Oakland Tribune says the NBD Collective in Newark was the focus of the investigation into drug-related crimes. Officers from the Southern Alameda County Major Crimes Task Force and the Newark Police Department served the search warrants.
http://www.oaklandtribune.com

Authorities also raided the offices of psychics in Fremont and Salinas. Investigators say they were targeted because marijuana was being sold at those establishments.
More than $30,000 was seized.

Read more: http://www.modbee.com/2011/06/29/1753961/businesses-raided-2-arrested-in.html#ixzz1R7SwWxcF

Pot farm with 36K plants raided in Tulare County - State News - Modbee.com

2011-07-04T00:25:00.000-07:00

Pot farm with 36K plants raided in Tulare County - State News - Modbee.comSPRINGVILLE, Calif. -- Authorities say they have destroyed nearly 36,000 marijuana plants found growing on U.S. Bureau of Land Management land near Sequoia National Park.
The Tulare County Sheriff's Department said several suspects fled when detectives raided the pot farm Wednesday morning and at least one exchanged gunfire with deputies. One man, Gregorio Montero of Livingston, was arrested on suspicion of marijuana cultivation.
The Visalia Times-Delta reports that officials found guns and about 400 pounds of partially processed marijuana on the land. The sheriff's department estimates all the seized drugs would have been worth more than $143 million on the street.

A Tulare County grand jury this week issued a report saying the county has over 100 illegal known marijuana gardens at any given time, but lacks law enforcement resources to deal with them all.

Read more: http://www.modbee.com/2011/06/30/1756301/pot-farm-with-36k-plants-raided.html#ixzz1R7RqtAIz

Pot activists to sue over Colorado rules - Nation - Modbee.com

2011-07-04T00:24:00.000-07:00

Pot activists to sue over Colorado rules - Nation - Modbee.comDENVER -- Marijuana groups representing thousands of patients and caregivers are suing to block Colorado's sweeping limits on how pot can be sold starting Friday.
Four groups, including the Rocky Mountain Caregivers Collective and the Cannabis Patient Alliance, prepared to file suit Thursday in Boulder County. The lawsuit seeks to void large parts of a law passed last year setting up the nation's most regulated pot marketplace.
The plaintiffs say lawmakers went too far in requiring caregivers to do more than grow pot for their patients, and that caregivers shouldn't be limited to five patients or banned from making a profit.
http://www.twitter.com/APkristenwyatt

The lawsuit also challenges whether patient information should be available to tax regulators or law enforcement, not just the health department. Advocates say that because the constitutional amendment passed by Colorado voters in 2000 described a "confidential state registry" maintained by the health department, others in government shouldn't be able to see who is using pot.
"It's a fundamental violation of the constitution," said Kathleen Chippi, a plaintiff in the suit and president of the Patient & Caregiver Rights Litigation Project.
The lawsuit comes hours before regulations set up to comply with the 2010 law take effect July 1. The regulations also give dispensaries hundreds of pages of regulations, including mandatory video surveillance of all transactions and rules governing how marijuana can be grown and turned into edible products such as pot brownies. A second Colorado marijuana law, mostly refining the one passed last year, also takes effect Friday. That law isn't being challenged by the marijuana advocates, but they say they may challenge that one next.
Another plaintiff, Timothy Tipton of the Rocky Mountain Caregivers' Cooperative, said he's most interested in challenging the caregiver restrictions. Tipton says it's unfair to say that dispensaries can make a profit, but home growers serving small numbers can't.
There's considerable time and expense associated with this," Tipton said of growing small amounts of marijuana.
The lawsuit filed Thursday did not address new rules on dispensaries. Some advocates have vowed to challenge some of those regulations, especially a requirement that dispensaries grow 70 percent of the pot they sell.
A marijuana advocate in Colorado Springs who isn't part of the lawsuit said most commercial pot shops are going ahead with compliance and not suing. But Tanya Garduno, president of the Colorado Springs Medical Cannabis Council, added that many are hoping the lawsuit prevails - or that lawmakers loosen rules as the industry matures.
"We're hoping that as people see this isn't a criminal-riddled business the regulations will open up a little bit," Garduno said.
Follow Kristen Wyatt at http://www.twitter.com/APkristenwyatt

Read more: http://www.modbee.com/2011/06/30/1756372/pot-activists-to-sue-over-colorado.html#ixzz1R7ROXgto

Feds won't give assurance on medical pot - Nation - Modbee.com

2011-07-04T00:20:00.000-07:00

Feds won't give assurance on medical pot - Nation - Modbee.commarijuana cultivation centers
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Justice Department says that marijuana dispensaries and licensed growers in states with medical marijuana laws could face prosecution for violating federal drug and money-laundering laws.
In a policy memo to federal prosecutors obtained Thursday by The Associated Press, Deputy Attorney General James Cole said a 2009 memo by then-Deputy Attorney General David Ogden did not give states cover from prosecution.
Starting in February, 10 U.S. attorney's offices have asserted they have the authority to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries and licensed growers in states with medical marijuana laws. Prosecutors, the states complained, are not even willing to declare that state employees who implement such laws are immune from prosecution.

State officials say that following a two-year period in which federal prosecutors gave breathing room to state medical marijuana laws, the Justice Department is now toughening up its position as more states move toward opening facilities to dispense marijuana.
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the medical use of marijuana, with programs in various phases of development. The states are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
In 2009, the Justice Department told prosecutors they should not focus investigative resources on patients and caregivers complying with state medical marijuana laws.
The new memo says that view has not changed.
"There has, however, been an increase in the scope of commercial cultivation, sale, distribution and use of marijuana for purported medical purposes," says the new memo by Cole.
The deputy attorney general said within the past 12 months, several jurisdictions have considered or enacted legislation to authorize multiple large-scale, privately operated industrial marijuana cultivation centers.
"Some of these planned facilities have revenue projections of millions of dollars based on the planned cultivation of tens of thousands of cannabis plants," Cole wrote.
Cole said that the Ogden memorandum "was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law."
Cole added: "Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardless of state law."
On Thursday night, Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that the medical marijuana statement by Cole does not represent a new policy, but rather clarifies the policy, as reflected in the recent letters by U.S. attorney's offices to officials in a number of states.
In view of the letters sent by the prosecutors in recent months, Arizona officials have taken the U.S. government to court, seeking a ruling on whether strict compliance with the state's medical marijuana law protects Arizona residents and state employees from federal prosecution.
Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee suspended plans to license three dispensaries after U.S. Attorney Peter Neronha warned that opening such facilities could lead to prosecution.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has said he wanted assurances from federal officials that they won't pursue criminal charges against state-sanctioned medical marijuana programs before he agrees to implement a state law that allows the programs. New Jersey adopted a law to allow medical marijuana in January 2010, just before Christie took office.
DeFalco reported from Trenton, N.J. Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvilhill in Trenton contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.modbee.com/2011/06/30/1756570/feds-wont-give-assurance-on-medical.html#ixzz1R7QcsIFv

Judge blocks parts of Mont. medical marijuana law - Nation - Modbee.com

2011-07-04T00:15:00.000-07:00

Judge blocks parts of Mont. medical marijuana law - Nation - Modbee.comHELENA, Mont. -- A judge on Thursday blocked Montana from prohibiting commercial medical marijuana operations, saying that ban on profits from pot sales will restrict access to patients and deny people the right to seek health care.
Helena District Judge James Reynolds issued a preliminary injunction against portions of a restrictive overhaul of the state's voter-approved medical marijuana law, which was due to take effect on Friday. One part of the law would have limited marijuana providers to distributing to a maximum of three patients and barred them from receiving anything of value for their product.
Montana hasn't banned any other industries from receiving compensation for their goods and services, and the state has declared medical marijuana a legal product, Reynolds said in his ruling. A profit ban would limit the number of willing marijuana providers and deny patients "this fundamental right of seeking their health care in a lawful manner."

"The court is unaware of and has not been shown where any person in any other licensed and lawful industry in Montana - be he a barber, an accountant, a lawyer, or a doctor - who, providing a legal product or service, is denied the right to charge for that service or is limited in the number of people he or she can serve," Reynolds wrote.
Reynolds also blocked provisions of the law banning advertising of medical marijuana, allowing unannounced searches of providers and requiring an investigation into any doctor who recommends marijuana for more than 25 patients in a year.
But he left other changes to the law in place, including stricter requirements of proof of chronic pain before a person can receive a registration card for that condition.
The ruling means medical marijuana providers for now will continue to operate under many of the rules approved by voters in 2004 until the full case can be heard. Critics say the voter-approved initiative is riddled with loopholes and has allowed the industry to spin out of control.
Montana has more than 30,000 medical marijuana users in a state with a population with just below 1 million. That's one of the highest rates among the 15 states that allow medical marijuana use. Critics say the law is too permissive and has created a booming retail industry that peddles a product considered an illegal drug under federal law.
The overhaul passed by the 2011 state Legislature followed an attempt to repeal medical marijuana use in Montana altogether, a bill that was vetoed by Gov. Brian Schweitzer. Lawmakers approved the restrictive measures after federal agents in March raided more than two dozen medical marijuana operations and warned state leaders that prosecutors will pursue anybody suspected of trafficking in the drug.
The Montana Cannabis Industry Association sued the state after the bill was passed, saying the restrictions were an unconstitutional violation of the right to pursue good health. The group had asked the judge to block the entire law from taking effect Friday, and spokeswoman Kate Cholewa said that blocking only portions of it "makes things a little more messy."
The ruling "demonstrates the need to regulate medical marijuana instead of trying to get rid of it through backdoor ways, such as the law that was passed," Cholewa said. But, she added, "Access will be made more difficult for chronic pain patients."
She said her group will move ahead with plans to gather signatures for a proposed referendum to block and repeal the law.
State Department of Justice officials said in a statement that they were pleased Reynolds did not block the entire bill and that important provisions will still go into effect that should curb some of the worst abuses.
"Based on an initial review of the decision, however, we are concerned about the potential consequences of allowing providers to grow and sell marijuana to an unlimited number of cardholders," the statement said.
In his ruling, Reynolds said the other provisions he blocked raised constitutional questions: the ban on advertising medical marijuana could be impair freedom of speech and the unannounced searches of registered premises were a possible violation of the protection against searches and seizures.
He also said the additional checks on physicians was worrying because of testimony from doctors their reputations could be harmed and they might stop certifying patients.
Mike Smith, owner of the Healing Center, which provides medical marijuana for about 100 patients, said the judge's ruling is a victory for patients' rights. He said he hopes the result will ultimately be better changes in the law, which he believes is too open now.
But Smith said he won't reopen his storefront yet. He changed his business model to delivery only after the March raids targeting medical marijuana operations.
"I'm not going to be hanging out on Main Street, but I will be caring for patients," Smith said.

Read more: http://www.modbee.com/2011/06/30/1756517/judge-blocks-parts-of-mont-medical.html#ixzz1R7PUsHJX

Modesto Marijuana Doctor - Medicann - Modesto's First and Best Medicinal Cannabis Clinic -

2011-06-24T22:45:00.002-07:00

Still to this day Medicann has kept its demand which comes in daily for new approvals, renewals, and advice.
Many medical users are searching for the lowest cost or closest cannabis clinic with a doctor on site to consult and recommend
Medican Pricing is still reasonable, not the cheapest but then again not the most expensive. Also available with there toll free number 1-866-632-6627 medicann.com also online. Discounts for Seniors and Medical! Please mention Cannabis Consultant blog as your referral.

Medicann has clinics all around California

Modesto Marijuana Doctor - Cannabis Doctor - Modesto 420 Clinic

2011-06-24T22:45:00.001-07:00

Medicann Modesto Marijuana Clinic -1866.632.6627

New Dispensary Offers Patients Pot-Laced Ice Cream - The Central Coast News Story - KSBW The Central Coast

2011-06-22T16:01:00.000-07:00

New Dispensary Offers Patients Pot-Laced Ice Cream - The Central Coast News Story - KSBW The Central Coast

Pot, guns seized at 2 Modesto homes - Crime & Courts - Modbee.com

2011-06-20T13:00:00.000-07:00

Pot, guns seized at 2 Modesto homes - Crime & Courts - Modbee.comMODESTO -- Two indoor marijuana growing operations, illegal weapons and 2,000 rounds of ammunition were seized from homes in west and east Modesto this week thanks to one anonymous tip, police said.
The tip to Crime Stoppers led Modesto police officers from the Crime Reduction Team to the 1100 block of Courtney Way on Monday morning, according to Lt. Rick Armendariz.
During a search of the home, officers found an indoor growing operation with 364 pot plants of various sizes and stages of maturity. One mature pot plant typically yields 1 pound of processed marijuana, Armendariz said.

(MPD) - Monday June 14 Ð at about 10:30 a.m. - All this was found at Larry Escobedo's house 364 pot plants in different stages of growth - six guns - five handguns and a few long rifles Mac-11 were seized from 1100 block of Courtney Way in Modesto. At Gerardo Montoyo's house on Wednesday in the 2600 block of El Pasado officers recovered 18 pounds of processed marijuana and 100 plants in different stages of growth. The resident was also illegally tapping into power.
CLICK FOR MORE PHOTOS

Also in the home were five handguns, two rifles and ammunition. Two of the handguns were stolen and one of the guns was an illegal Mac-11 semi-automatic sub-machine gun with a 30-round magazine and a silencer, Armendariz said.

On Wednesday morning, officers searched that house and found an indoor marijuana growing setup, with 100 plants as well as 18 pounds of processed marijuana and a rifle, Armendariz said. The 18 pounds of processed marijuana has a street value of $45,000 to $54,000, according to Armendariz

.Escobedo also is suspected of stealing power from the Modesto Irrigation District to run the operation, which amounted to about $3,000 a month.

Also arrested was Gerardo Montoya, 32, on suspicion of cultivation, possession and sale of marijuana, felony power theft and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Looking to start a delivery, dispensary, collective or co-op?

2011-06-12T23:20:00.000-07:00

We can help guide you! Starting at $50 for our phone and referral services! Toll free number for a flat fee! Unlimited $25 a month! Answering services also available with free marketing! Your new venture could be up and going for anywhere from $3-30k! Well help guide, save and direct you in the right path! Speak to a care specialist at PCS- 800/420-4124x0

Looking for caregivers and delivery providers in SF, Berkley, Napa, Sonoma, Santa Cruz, LA, and all southern California towns! Free referrals! Ask us how!

Priceofweed.com price of weed medical or not?

2011-03-11T20:39:00.000-08:00

Websites Drive Down Prices with Data
Posted December 08, 2010 8:23AM PST
Online databases of street prices for marijuana are supplanting unreliable federal statistics and driving down the cost of marijuana in places where dispensaries compete.
Up until now, price data has been hard to come by, and official sources like the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy cannot be trusted, said an independent report released in October by the RAND Corp.

"Existing estimates about drug production and consumption are cryptic, inconsistent, and often impossible to verify," RAND stated in the study titled, "Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in Mexico."

Simple and anonymous new website PriceofWeed.com asks for user data on location, and marijuana cost by weight and quality, then polls for local levels of drug law enforcement and tolerance. The site strips identifying internet protocol addresses from respondent data and presents a searchable, worldwide price index with over 12,000 data points.

The state of California contains over 1,200 data points, high enough to contain statistical validity, when controlled for outliers. The vast majority of Californian PriceofWeed.com respondents report buying high-quality cannabis, which retails for $341.80 per ounce. In New York, an ounce of high-quality marijuana costs $441.87, demonstrating a relationship between drug law severity and price. An independent study by the RAND Corp. titled "Altered State" found more than 80% of the price of black-market marijuana comes from risk.

PriceofWeed.com's founders did not respond to a request for a phone interview. But it stated on its blog that it is adding technical updates to the site.

Popular dispensary-review and strain-location website Weedmaps.com also reports prices. Dispensaries voluntarily submit them to Weedmaps.com and pay for higher placement in user searches. The market data helps drive down prices, said founder Justin Hartfield. Fueled by the price pressure, San Francisco dispensaries have begun to regularly advertise new menu additions and deals online via email lists, Twitter and Facebook.

Weedmaps Goes Public through Reverse Merger with General Cannabis

2011-03-11T20:30:00.000-08:00

Weedmaps Goes Public through Reverse Merger with General Cannabis
Posted December 08, 2010 8:23AM PST
Marijuana dispensary advertising website Weedmaps became a publicly traded company through a reverse merger with General Cannabis, formerly known as LC Luxuries. General Cannabis plans to expand in managing medical marijuana clinics and providing internet technology services to the industry.

General Cannabis also signed closing documents to acquire all the assets of Synergistic Resources, doing business as Marijuana Medicine Evaluation Centers, which specializes in the turn-key management of medicinal marijuana clinics throughout California, General Cannabis announced in a statement Monday.

LC Luxuries, a Nevada-based company with headquarters in Costa Mesa, Calif., officially began trading on the Pink Sheets as General Cannabis Inc. on Nov. 19 under the new ticker symbol CANA. Its stock was trading at $4.05 on Dec. 6. Jim Pakulis serves as chief executive.

It also closed on the acquisition of Weedmaps, an online directory of medical marijuana clinics, on Nov. 19. General Cannabis bought the domain from co-founders Justin Hartfield and Keith Hoerling for 16.4 million shares of common stock and $3.6 million in promissory notes, according to a financial statement. Hartfield and Hoerling were also hired as chief web officer and chief technology officer respectively, each earning $30,000 per month, according to the statement.

Weedmaps, which charges clinics to appear in the directory, reportedly claimed in October to have 50,000 members and monthly revenues of $400,000.

"Weedmaps is a tight-knit group of creative engineers, a technology think-tank at the core, and fusing with General Cannabis builds a more holistic synergy of talent that better positions us to serve our industry as it matures," said Hoerling in a Nov. 19 news statement.

General Cannabis plans to create multiple vertical operational and business-to-business services in the market that will create new ancillary businesses, according to Pakulis.

"The acquisition of Weedmaps, and the addition of Hartfield and Hoerling to the intellectual and creative process of General Cannabis will create a wealth of innovation that this Company intends to develop as it redefines this industry," he said in the news statement.

Synergistic Resources is also being purchased with a combination of cash and stock, Monday's statement said. Founder Brent Inzer is being hired for business development. Inzer said the company, which receives more than 500 calls a day at its call center, will be overseeing at least 20 clinics by the end of 2011.

In October, before the name change, LC Luxuries' subsidiary U.S. Cannabis, entered into a letter of intent with Synergistic Resources to assume all marketing and advertising responsibilities for 10 clinics in California.

Forward to a Friend

More weed maps news!

2011-03-11T20:27:00.000-08:00

General Cannabis Says Revenue Improved, but No Financial Statements
Posted February 15, 2011 3:19PM PST
Publicly traded General Cannabis' main enterprise, WeedMaps.com, is generating 6 million page views per month as it launches a coupon program for marijuana, the Costa Mesa, Calif.-based company said in a statement today.

WeedMaps has "improved revenue consistently for the 14th straight month ending in January," General Cannabis said in a Feb. 4 statement. But neither statement said how much WeedMaps or General Cannabis has earned.

Justin Hartfield, chief web officer at General Cannabis, told The Marijuana Business Report last month that financial statements would be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by the end of January. But as of today, no financial statements have been filed. On Friday, General Cannabis CEO Jim Pakulis declined to comment.

General Cannabis closed at $2.80 per share today, up 7.69%, according to Google Finance. Its stock price has fluctuated between $0.01 and $5.60 over the last year.

Launched out of Southern California with Weedmaps.com, followed by a handful of clinics, General Cannabis is moving into Northern California and other states. General Cannabis said it plans three new medical clinics, increasing the total under management to 14.

General Cannabis' merchant services division, General Merchant Solutions, produced "greater than $1.2 million" in merchant processing volume in January. This was an increase from $700,000 generated in December, the company stated on Feb. 4.

As part of its purchase of Revyv, General Cannabis reported on Jan. 25 the issuance of 500,000 shares of common stock, bringing the total to 83,140,256 shares of common stock issued. The company hired former Revyv employees David Johnson and James Johnson. David Johnson, lead user interface engineer, received a $25,000 monthly salary and a $10,000 signing bonus, with options for 700,000 shares if gross sales increase 50%. Senior project manager James Johnson received the same package.

Revyv owns 13 domain names, Saleforce.com-licensed clinic software, patient data, and contracts with 17 clinics.

General cannabis Inc. - weedmaps company revenue, stocks, shares and profits!

2011-03-11T20:24:00.000-08:00

General Cannabis May Run Out of Cash This Year
Posted March 04, 2011 4:25PM PST
General Cannabis Inc., the company behind website WeedMaps.com, could run out of money this year unless it raises capital, the company said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing this week.

The Costa Mesa, Calif.,-based corporation, which provides medical cannabis industry services, is seeking to raise $10.5 million through the sale of 3 million shares of common stock at $3.50 per share, the company said in the Tuesday filing. It also registered more than 20.5 million shares of stock for sale by 30 existing shareholders.

General Cannabis shares were trading at $2.85 today, according to Google Finance.

General Cannabis reported net income of $1.2 million, or 4 cents per share, for 2010. That compared to a $1.28 million loss, or 9 cent loss per share, for 2009.

It had $1.39 million in cash on hand as of Dec. 31. Revenue last year totaled $7.7 million. The company posted an $87,768 loss in operating income and interest expense for 2010. It also reported $1.35 million in income attributed to "discontinued operations" related to a reverse merger and purchase of Revyv Inc.

"Based on our current financial situation we may have difficulty continuing our operations at their current level, or at all, if we do not raise additional financing in the near future," the company said in the filing. "Additionally, we would like to continue to acquire assets and operating businesses, which will likely require additional cash."

General Cannabis stated that it faces intense competition, as well as threats to its business from U.S. federal law, state law and sometimes local ordinances.

Hawaii medical marijuana updates!

2011-03-11T20:18:00.001-08:00

Hawaii's Marijuana Legislation Makes Advances
Posted March 09, 2011 12:53PM PST
Five Senate bills dealing with marijuana were overwhelmingly passed by Hawaii's Senate and moved on to the House of Representatives yesterday. Meanwhile, one House bill was passed and headed to the Senate.

One bill, Senate Bill 58, increases the patient-to-caregiver ratio and the amount of cannabis permitted per patient or caregiver. It also allows transfer and transport to another qualified patient without prosecution. It passed by a vote of 24-0. Another bill, Senate Bill 113, establishes a three-year pilot medical cannabis research program involving local medical cannabis patients. It passed 23-2.

Senate Bill 175 would take jurisdiction of medical marijuana laws away from the Department of Public Safety and assign oversight to the Department of Health. Senate Bill 1458 creates three classes of medical marijuana licenses: a compassion center license, a marijuana cultivation license, and a marijuana-infused products manufacturing license. Both bills were passed on a 24-1 vote.

Unrelated to medical marijuana, Senate Bill 1460 would reduce the penalties of possession of less than one ounce of marijuana to no more than $100. It passed by a vote of 24-0.

In the House, House Bill 1085 passed unanimously. This measure amends Hawaii's statutes on controlled substances to make them consistent with federal laws and increases the fee to $35 for the patient registration certificates.

Hawaii has been a medical marijuana state since 2000.

Source: Hawaii State Legislature

Forward to a Friend

Florida Legalization Bill Covers Adults, Minors Posted March 09, 2011 12:31PM PST Florida State Rep. Jeff Clemens, a Democrat from Lake Worth, has introduced a bill that would remove criminal penalties for use of medical marijuana. House Joint Resolution 1407 would modify Florida's constitution starting in July 2013. Medical cannabis users would need to obtain a doctor's diagnosis for a condition and a recommendation that cannabis treatment would be helpful. Individuals under the age of 18 would be covered under the bill, which calls for two medical recommendations and parental consent for minors. Property could not be seized in matters involving legitimate medical use, and authorities would be required to return both marijuana and paraphernalia if the owner is determined to be a medical user. Possession of amounts of marijuana inconsistent with personal medical use would continue to be illegal. The bill provides the Legislature latitude for establishing criminal penalties for fraudulently representing a medical condition to physicians or law enforcement officials. Health insurers would not have to pay medical marijuana claims. Political interest group People United for Medical Marijuana (PUFMM) is also pursuing a legalization initiative in Florida. PUFMM's website says it needs more than 675,000 signatures by February 2012

2011-03-11T20:15:00.001-08:00

Florida Legalization Bill Covers Adults, Minors
Posted March 09, 2011 12:31PM PST
Florida State Rep. Jeff Clemens, a Democrat from Lake Worth, has introduced a bill that would remove criminal penalties for use of medical marijuana. House Joint Resolution 1407 would modify Florida's constitution starting in July 2013.

Medical cannabis users would need to obtain a doctor's diagnosis for a condition and a recommendation that cannabis treatment would be helpful.

Individuals under the age of 18 would be covered under the bill, which calls for two medical recommendations and parental consent for minors.

Property could not be seized in matters involving legitimate medical use, and authorities would be required to return both marijuana and paraphernalia if the owner is determined to be a medical user. Possession of amounts of marijuana inconsistent with personal medical use would continue to be illegal.

The bill provides the Legislature latitude for establishing criminal penalties for fraudulently representing a medical condition to physicians or law enforcement officials.

Health insurers would not have to pay medical marijuana claims.

Political interest group People United for Medical Marijuana (PUFMM) is also pursuing a legalization initiative in Florida. PUFMM's website says it needs more than 675,000 signatures by February 2012 for a ballot initiative.

Source: HJR 1407

Forward to a Friend

Amergence group changing its name!

2011-03-11T20:14:00.001-08:00

Amergence Heralds Marijuana Focus with Name Change
Posted March 10, 2011 4:37PM PST
The Amergence Group said today that it is changing its name to Altitude Organic Corp. to reflect its focus on the medical marijuana industry.

Amergence Group, which once operated a digital copy protection business as SunnComm International, said in a statement that it is basing its operations in Arizona to capitalize on that state's new medicinal cannabis laws. SunnComm withdrew its registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2006.

Last month, Amergence announced it was hiring Altitude Organic Corp. CEO Brian Cook as president and chief executive of Amergence. The statement said Altitude Organics is a division of Amergence.

Altitude Organic's website said it founded its first dispensary in 2009 in Denver, where it incorporated in 2010. The company recently launched Doctor MMJ, a medical marijuana doctor referral service. It also licenses its Altitude Organic federal trademark and seed-to-sale business services.

SPARC recorded an award from IIDA

2011-03-11T19:04:00.000-08:00

San Francisco Dispensary Design Wins International Award
Posted March 09, 2011 12:19PM PST
The San Francisco Patient and Resource Center (SPARC) received an accolade this week when the San Francisco dispensary took top international honors for its interior design.

The International Interior Design Association (IIDA) announced Monday it awarded SPARC's designer, Sand Studios of San Francisco, first place in commercial design from small firms for 2011.

SPARC marketing director Nicholas Smilgys said he believed it was the first time a dispensary had ever won an IIDA award.

Jenny Palmer, IIDA manager of industry relations, said Sand Studios' minimal, modernist and zen design utilizing concrete, iron, and recycled oak beat about 52 entrants. It was judged by four IIDA members, including a former association president and several principals of major design firms. Called the "Will Ching Award," Sand Studios will receive the award at a gala in June.

http://www.economist.com/node/18118857?story_id=18118857

2011-02-18T15:49:00.000-08:00

http://www.economist.com/node/18118857?story_id=18118857 2 to 1 :) HOW WEED WON THE WEST!

Medical Marijuana AZ on 91.5 KJZZ

2011-02-12T05:58:00.000-08:00

http://kjzz.org/news/arizona/archives/201102/hn_medicalmarijuana

Medical Cannabis ON the Radio 91.5FM

Good Interview on KJZZ with DHS Director Will Humble. If your a physician, this is a "must listen". Interesting takeaway...12 doctors in CO wrote 75% of the 120,000 patient recommendations. Aprox 90k approals from 12 doctors!

Sounds to me like they are on the right track to patient care services, sounds like they are going to regulate doctors and allow access!

Unlike California, where most counties have cards with limited to no access.

HAPPY TOKING, SMOKING, VOTING, 2012+

2011-02-12T05:28:00.000-08:00

Happy toking

Strong majorities for drug reform
The Economist/YouGov poll Feb 10th 2011
.THIS week’s Economist-YouGov poll contains some exciting news for devotees of the weed. A huge majority of Americans, more than two to one once don’t knows have been excluded, support the legalisation and taxation of marijuana. Even without excluding the don’t knows, a clear majority favours treating the drug equivalently to tobacco and alcohol.

.The data (see chart) reveal some interesting patterns. In every age group, more people favour than oppose legalisation. Predictably enough, the young are very strongly in favour, but babyboomers are almost as strongly so; and even those over 65 are narrowly in favour as well. Breaking the poll down by party, one finds that Republicans as well as Democrats are in favour, though the former much more narrowly so.

If our poll is right, then it can only be a matter of time before laws start to change, at least in the more liberal states. A ballot initiative that would have legalised the sale of marijuana was only narrowly defeated in California last November, possibly losing some potential supporters because the drug is already very widely available and possession is no longer treated as a crime. The full poll, which also shows Barack Obama’s ratings continuing to improve, is available online.

Idaho Medical Marijuana - Cannabis Clubs

2011-02-12T02:01:00.000-08:00

The respected Boise State University Public Policy survey, a poll that's been conducted statewide for more than 20 years, yielded an interesting result Tuesday: 74 percent support for allowing "terminally and seriously ill patients to use and purchase marijuana for medical purposes."

Just 23 percent said "no" to medical marijuana in the statewide survey, and three percent said they didn't know, reports Betsy Z. Russell of the Spokane Spokesman-Review.

"I'm not surprised at all," said state Rep. Tom Trail (R-Moscow), who has pending legislation to legalize medical marijuana in Idaho, "because in similar states out here in the West, the results are 65 to 75 percent (in favor), as long as you focus, like we have, very narrowly on medical marijuana for folks who are in excruciating pain with long-term diseases."

Rep. Tom Trail says it's time for lawmakers to help reduce the suffering of seriously ill patients in Idaho.

The survey asked adults in 525 randomly selected Idaho households. It included cell phone as well as landline respondents, and has a margin of error of plus or minus five percent.

When it comes to dispensaries, results were evenly split. Upon being asked if Idaho "should allow the sale and manufacture of marijuana for medical purposes," 46 percent agreed and 46 percent disagreed.

The overwhelmingly favorable results on the "terminally and seriously ill" question were so startling that "we kept thinking, 'This has to be wrong,' " said Carole Nemnich, associate director of the BSU Public Policy Center.

"The substantial amount of support that we have received over the last few years of activism in the Gem State has shown us that we were correct to believe in the compassion of our neighbors," Serra Frank, founding director of Idaho Moms for Marijuana, told Toke of the Town. "Now, the Boise State University Public Policy Survey strengthens our belief and our resolve."

"Whether it is through Rep. Tom Trail's Idaho Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, or through Compassionate Idaho's Idaho Medical Choice Act, it is only a matter of time before Idahoans have a new alternative to traditional pharmaceutical medications," Frank told us.

Photo: Serra Frank
Serra Frank, Idaho Moms for Marijuana: "It is only a matter of time before Idahoans have a new alternative to traditional pharmaceutical medications"

"It is exciting to see so much change happening in my home state," Frank said. "I'm very encouraged by the wonderful people who are standing up for cannabis in Idaho."

"It's no surprise to me," agreed Theresa Knox, director of research and networking at Moms for Marijuana. "Most people, if asked on a personal level, would want others to have access to relief from suffering. This is because we're human beings who care about those who are ill or in pain, not a huge corporation whose only concern is the profit margin."

"That type of thinking has no place in health care," Knox told Toke of the Town. "Kudos, Idaho!"

The survey asked Idahoans about their views on state policy every year for two decades, but the last one was taken in 2007, as budget cuts nixed the survey for the past two years. The new survey, conducted between November 18 and January 8, is the 20th one taken.

Rep. Trail said he's working now to make sure his medical marijuana bill, HB 19, gets a hearing. The bill, called the Idaho Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, is pending in the House Health and Welfare Committee.

Neighboring Washington, Montana, Oregon and Nevada have all legalized medical cannabis, but the herb is still illegal for any purpose in Idaho, with possession -- even of traces -- classified as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000.

Anyone under 18 caught with any amount of marijuana also loses their driver's license for a year, and possession of three ounces or more is a felony, carrying up to a five-year prison sentence and fines of up to $10,000.

Trail said his bill is modeled after a similarly restrictive measure in New Jersey. It would allow up to two ounces of cannabis per patient every 28 days.
Tags: idaho, medical, poll

http://420busted.blogspot.com/

2011-01-28T23:50:00.000-08:00

http://420busted.blogspot.com/

420 BUST and NEWS!

Stockton Cannabis Clubs and Information

2011-01-19T18:18:00.000-08:00

Stockton Cannabis Clubs and Information

Stockton Medical Marijuana Dispensaries

Dispensary Listing

Dispensary Specials

Patient Products, Supplies and more...

Stockton Cannabis .info

HIGHTIMES.COM Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Rules Stricter than Expected

2011-01-03T01:37:00.000-08:00

HIGHTIMES.COM Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Rules Stricter than ExpectedArizona’s Medical Marijuana Rules Stricter than Expected

by Mike Hughes

Fri, Dec 17, 2010 6:09 pm

more: headline news, arizona, medical marijuana, medical news

Share |

Arizona may be the 15th state to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes but the rules for both patients and doctors will be among the strictest in the nation. According to the director of the Arizona Department of Health Services it is likely that only 20,000 Arizonans will qualify as medical marijuana patients under the new rules – this compared to an earlier estimate of 100,000 patients.

The State Health Services director stated at a news conference Friday, “We figured hey, if we put some true checks and balances in this system, we can actually make this a medical marijuana program and not a recreational marijuana program … For that guy in his 30s without any qualifying medical condition who is going to expect to be able to walk into a physician and get a quick recommendation by saying his shoulder’s been sore – those are people that we expect to have a bigger challenge in actually getting a qualified patient card.”

More @ washingtonpost.com

Karma: Oakland : Tax on top of Taxes

2010-12-21T00:18:00.000-08:00

Central Valley Cannabis

2010-12-17T11:31:00.000-08:00

Now the valley is growing...with over 20+ Care Service providers for your Medical cannabis needs! There is also a few new clinics and private doctors also helping out! Contact us for holiday specials on new patients and renewals. Referrals, Compassionate Discounts, and Specials! Ask us about the New Years discounts from our partners helping with the compassionate caregivers network!

Happy Holidays from Central Valley Co-op/ Primary Caregivers & Consultants and Central Valley Caregivers - 209-818-2932

2010-12-17T11:28:00.000-08:00

The Central Valley Co-op would like to wish everyone a Happy and Safe Holidays! Merry Christmas! Also free gifts for new and updated patients! If you are un-able to reach the Patient Support Line at 209-818-2932 feel free to call the CVC (Co-op/Caregivers) answering service "PCS" at 800/420-4124! One of the PCS - Care Specialist will register, verify and guide you in the right direction! Until then please feel free to contact me with comments and Valley reviews of new services and/or old Care providers!

Local Medicinal Marijuana Stockton's 1st Medicinal Dispensary 3260 Tomahawk Dr, Tell them Brian sent you! 209-464-3940

2010-12-17T04:12:00.000-08:00

LocalMedicinalMarijuana = Local Medicinal Marijuana
Stockton's 1st Medicinal Dispensary 3260 Tomahawk Dr,
Tell them Brian sent you! 209-464-3940

Reduce, Manage, Control and make your dosages effective!!

2010-12-01T18:36:00.000-08:00

Consider alternative's such as tea's, editable and more. Try reducing, controlling and managing your medical marijuana dosages to make them more effective.

For example have you ever felt your smoking too much? or you need to smoke more and more? Try taking breaks, alternating strains and varieties or approaches. Even consider stopping once a month or once every few months for a few days or a week.

For more on how to regulate, control or stop smoking contact us!

CALIFORNIA STATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA ID CARDS, PATIENT ID, CANNABIS CARD, CALIFORNIA CERTIFIED STATE CANNABIS CARD

2010-11-30T01:22:00.000-08:00

What is the purpose of the STATE ID CARDS? TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF PATIENTS AND PREVENT ARREST WHILE GIVING OFFICERS VERIFICATION 24/7!

WHERE ARE THEY PRINTED? OUT OF THE STATE

WHY? ONLY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE COST, CONNECTIONS OR CONTACTS! CORRUPTION

MORE UPDATES TO COME! CALLING THE COUNTIES IN THE MORNING!

Medical-pot sales in AZ could start as early as mid-'11 Prop. 203

2010-11-30T01:11:00.000-08:00

PHOENIX - Patients hoping to get medical marijuana now that voters have approved the law should not hold their breath.
State health director Will Humble said it could be summer 2011, or possibly even that fall, before all the applications to distribute legal marijuana are processed and the selected facilities are set up.
Humble said Monday that Proposition 203 gives the Department of Health Services 120 days from the time the election results are certified - now set for Nov. 29 - to come up with rules and regulations for how the system will operate.
Theoretically, he said, that should allow doctors to begin writing recommendations for patients in early April, but patients still may not have any place to legally purchase their drugs by then.
At the end of that 120 days, Humble said, his agency has to start reviewing what he expects to be hundreds of applications by groups wanting to operate one or more marijuana dispensaries around the state. He can approve only 125 permits, by law.
Humble said he probably will check each application for its operating and security plans, and award the licenses to only the most qualified. The alternative is a simple lottery process, which he said he does not favor.
"And remember, they've got to get their cultivation facility up and running so they have an inventory that's legitimate," he said. "I don't want this to be inventory that comes off the street or from Mexico or something. This has got to be from cultivation facilities inside the state."
But Andrew Myers, the campaign manager for Proposition 203, said patients may not have to wait that long because the proposition allows those who are at least 25 miles from a state-regulated dispensary to grow their own.
"Patients will be given ID cards before dispensaries will be licensed," he said. "So, at the outset, the first batch of patients are all going to be able to grow, for a year, until their renewal comes up."
Humble said he's still researching that question.
He said everything else to make the system work will be more complex.
Humble said there needs to be a secure computer system to track the drugs and the users. And, he said, there needs to be an inventory system to ensure everything that starts out as seeds in a legal cultivation facility winds up being sold through a legal dispensary, and only to a legitimate cardholder.
"That's not as simple as it might sound on the surface," he said.
He said dispensaries need round-the-clock access to the database of patients who have state-issued cards to verify that person is entitled to purchase marijuana. The system will keep cardholders from buying more than 2 1/2 ounces every two weeks, the limit in the new law.
Finally, law enforcement needs the same access to determine if the person they stopped is entitled to have that bag of marijuana.
Of greater concern is keeping some doctors from becoming the kind of "recommendation mills" he said have popped up in Colorado, Humble said.
"If we have a loose interpretation of what a doctor-patient relationship is ... you could end up with situations like they have in Colorado where folks are walking into a doctor's office for a 15-minute appointment and $150 bucks on the barrelhead, they're walking away with a recommendation," Humble said.
Of particular concern are those seeking the drug for chronic pain, which he said is difficult to measure and has become the justification for 90 percent of the marijuana recommendations in Colorado.

420 Insurence for the 215 Industy : Risk of an Insurace Agent For Medical Marijuana Collectives and the Cannabis Business

2010-11-27T03:16:00.000-08:00

The risk of being an Insurance Agent for the medical marijuana industry
Even us Insurance Agents have a risk in the mmj industry.

Greenpoint Insurance

Financials see green in growing licensed marijuana industry

By Mindi Westhoff
SNL Financial

At first glance, the policies sold by Greenpoint Insurance Group owners J.B. and Mary Woods seem apropos for most any retail business, as lines such as general liability and business income coverage are common inclusions in their packages.

But the Woods have no misgivings about the unique product their clients offer and what they, in turn, insure: Medical marijuana.

The business of cannabis dispensary and crop insurance caters to a focused but growing segment of the retail industry, the Woodses said. Professional liability protects pharmacists who make recommendations to medical marijuana patients. Crop insurance, which Greenpoint has only been able to offer since the start of 2010, offers growers protection against, among other things, fire, flood and theft, the last of which Mary Woods said is the No. 1 concern for most dispensary owners and marijuana crop growers.

The threat of theft is exceptionally high for dispensaries because of the cash-only nature of many of the businesses, said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Because most banks will not provide lending to dispensaries due to federal laws against marijuana, St. Pierre said the roughly 4,000 “cannabusinesses” in the U.S. are forced to deal with university credit unions, “sketchy” regional banks that “go down on almost any given weekend,” or worse.

“Some of these folks must have the biggest mason jar collection you can imagine. They must have Tupperware stuffed to the brim with cash,” he said. “The banks are leaving hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees [on thetable].”

A growing industry

While the Woodses would not reveal the names of the policy underwriters for competitive reasons, J.B. Woods said the underwriters for Greenpoint were “major” companies with A ratings or above. Many are domiciled in the U.S., but some are overseas. All of them specialize in medical marijuana insurance.

In the 17 years the Woodses have offered insurance packages to medical marijuana dispensaries, the pair have watched average six-month premiums slide from between $15,000 and $17,000 to closer to the $5,000 to $6,000 range, with some as low as $2,000, as more and more carriers have entered the marketplace. The increased competition is bittersweet for insurance brokers like Greenpoint, since more players also means a legitimization of the market, and the Woodses expect to see the business grow.

“I think it’s being considered by more insurance companies out there,” Mary Woods said. “I think they see the opportunity, due to the fact that there are so many legal states right now.”

So sure that the business of protecting medical marijuana dispensaries is about to explode, the Woodses have licenses to insure the businesses in Colorado, California, Montana and Oregon and are awaiting the approval to write policies in New Jersey, New Mexico, Michigan and Washington as well.

“This will become a national program for us,” Mary Woods said.

High profits, risky business

The threat of legal action on a federal level has kept some major money-center banks such as Wells Fargo & Co. and Bank of America Corp. from approving new accounts for medical marijuana dispensaries. Although medical marijuana is now legal in 14 states, it is still very much illegal at a federal level, and no safe harbors have been put in place protecting banks or insurance companies from being prosecuted, said law firm Fenton Nelson LLP founder Harry Nelson, who also co-founded the Medical Marijuana Law Group.

“The statements of nonenforcement have focused on patients who use it or providers who recommend it. It has not focused on all these ancillary services,” Nelson said of medical marijuana. Although there is no known case of the federal government taking action against a bank for lending to a dispensary, “nobody wants to be the first one to be tagged for it,” he said.

The level of risk can be viewed as different for a small bank versus a national bank, but the differences are even more noticeable between a bank and insurance company, Nelson said. While all can be pegged for aiding and abetting a dispensary, the assistance provided by a bank is more direct, while insurers can make the argument that they are only insuring for a potential loss. Only once a claim is actually paid out, and only then if that claim is directly related to an illegal product, can an insurer hypothetically be charged, he said.

Regional banks, while broadly held to the same regulatory standards as their larger brethren, tend to maintain lower profiles, and some could make the argument — albeit tenuous, according to Nelson — that their businesses are intrastate if they solely conduct banking operations in California, Colorado or any of the states where dispensaries are legal.

There is “very limited” permissiveness for depository institutions operating purely intrastate in the states that have decriminalized marijuana, Nelson said. “But a regional bank that had any kind of interstate transaction would be at the same risk as a national bank,” he added.

The Woodses discovered this fact in early May, when the pair made calls to 50 local banks in Colorado to determine for their clients which ones would be willing to simply open a checking account for a dispensary. The response was bleak.

“We had two,” J.B. Woods said.

Rolling out new rules

A handful of banks in the Woods’ survey said they were considering the prospect of opening accounts for dispensaries, but the remaining 42 voiced a loud and clear “No.” From a conservative business point of view, St. Pierre admitted that the banks are probably right to be cautious, despite the recent Oct. 19, 2009, “Ogden Memo,” which provides guidelines that offer some protection for those who use and sell marijuana, so long as they comply with state laws.

“Even with that in place … you would be rue to make the advice to the CEO or CIO or whoever that this is a business endeavor or an underwriting they should undertake,” St. Pierre said. “Technically speaking, if someone is selling marijuana, they’re taking in cash. They hand it to a bank or insurance company, [and] by any strict reading of the law, that’s a RICO conspiracy.

Despite the risks of violating antiracketeering laws, the opportunity for the financial services industry to jump on board with medical marijuana dispensaries is an attractive one, and St. Pierre pointed to the growing number of hedge funds actually buying medical cannabis businesses.

Texas-based International Merchant Advisors announced March 15 that it would purchase medical marijuana company Organic Science Inc., followed by news in April that it would operate the Healing Arts Cooperative Medical Marijuana dispensary in San Diego. There are untapped opportunities in the insurance field as well, St. Pierre said.

“Even if you can walk into one of these places and buy a ball of hash the size of your fist, that doesn’t negate the fact that you can’t get health insurance,” he said of medical marijuana users. “You can’t get life insurance often.”

The conflicting laws that limit banks’ ability to access this segment of the retail market are ones that several lawmakers hope to change, including 15 members of Congress who on May 20 submitted a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner asking for formal, written guidance that assures banks will not be prosecuted for doing business with medical marijuana facilities.

As much as the pending legislation would open up opportunities for banks, the Woods said that a ballot in November to legalize marijuana for recreational use in California would also mean a huge boom to business for the insurance market.

“If that is passed, I think that is going to change the dynamics of this industry forever,” J.B. Woods said. “It’s going to cause more and more people who have been on the fence to actually jump into this business.”

We have yet another chance....

2010-11-15T15:46:00.000-08:00

If your pro 19 or not! All medical users have another chance to regulate, control and give back to the communities! Until the 2012 chance! Since prop 215, many retail clinics, private co-ops, or 215 collectives have been paying there taxes for many years now. Although if a not a schedule one drug it would be un-taxed like pharmaceuticals!

Tax Avoidance vs. Tax Evasion: Don’t Be Afraid of the IRS

2010-11-15T15:30:00.000-08:00

Tax Avoidance vs. Tax Evasion: Don’t Be Afraid of the IRS

Work Slow, Times tough? Have your hours been cut back? Might re-consider the cannabis industry?

2010-11-12T19:39:00.000-08:00

Some folks are following the lead, just 14yrs later~! Schools across the state such as Oaksterdamn teach folks everything from growing to selling. However with almost a dozen universities for cannabis, one might wanna think twice about the Cannabis business! For the first time ever the flood started early and even worse, it was a disaster! After speaking with growers, dispensary owners, smokers and caregivers I confirmed it has even hit the youth! With that in mind, we have done one thing positive. Instead of legalizing cannabis with prop.19, we over-grew the government. Prop. 19 would of been a good step, progress as well as change, however it might have increased the youth and underground distribution due to profits and over-taxed retail clinics. It would of been promoting corruption, payoffs, and greed with excess taxes in every town. Although it would of been great, I think it might of gave the wrong impression and we would still see too many friends and family in court, jail and prison~!

Sweet Purple from Stockton

2010-11-12T19:37:00.000-08:00

Nice flavor, sweet taste! After a slow cure this smells kinda near a jack strain but dense like a purple...Clean taste, one of a kind~! Picture pending~!

The forgotten pioneers within the medical marijuana industry

2010-07-30T21:01:00.000-07:00

The forgotten pioneers within the medical marijuana industry

The forgotten pioneers within the medical marijuana industry
Tuesday, July 27th, 2010
Proposition 215 was a California State voter initiative, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, authored by Dennis Peron, Anna Boyce,...
Keep Reading » Proposition 215 was a California State voter initiative, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, authored by Dennis Peron, Anna Boyce, Valerie Corral, Dale Gieringer, William Panzer, Steve Kubby, Richard Cohen, Ivan Silverberg, and Tod H. Mikuriya. Approved by voters in 1996 it allows those with a valid doctor's recommendation to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal medical use. It has also been expanded to protect a growing system of collective and cooperative distribution, but is not very well regulated or clearly defined. As such, implementation across the State varies widely, some counties and cities trying to ban it all together, while others such as San Francisco, Oakland and Santa Cruz embrace it with city-sanctioned gardens, patient programs and even taxation.

It was back in 1993 when Dennis Peron, one of the key authors of Prop 215, opened the first California medical marijuana dispensary in San Francisco, The Cannabis Buyers Club, supplying medical cannabis to patients in need through a truly compassionate business model. It was a genuinely care giving enterprise to safely serve those suffering from a number of serious illnesses and disabilities which cannabis helped with the associated pain, appetite, nausea, and more. When they moved to their permanent location on Market Street in 1994 it became the headquarters for the 215 movement and model for future outlets. In mid 1996, with polls showing a clear majority ready to vote in favor of medical legalization and more clubs gearing up to open, then acting Attorney General Dan Lungren made his first move against the clubs by ordering the DEA to raid the Cannabis Buyers' Club. This, just one instance of a long line of tribulations Dennis has had to endure which has helped enable the industry to become what it is today.

About the same time Dennis was setting up the Cannabis Buyers Club in San Francisco, WAMM was being established by Valerie Corral and Husband Mike Corral in Santa Cruz. WAMM (Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana - www.WAMM.org) is the first medical marijuana collective to be granted non-profit status in the United States. It is also considered to be the most legitimate medical marijuana collective and cooperative in the nation due to their truly compassionate commitment to the cause and dedicated non-profit attitude. It is a model on how every medical marijuana enterprise should be developed based on the written law. Despite this, on September 5, 2002 armed federal agents from the DEA raided the WAMM garden, arresting the Corrals, detaining and restraining critically ill and disabled patients, and destroying the entire collective's medicine. Years later Valerie continues to care for her patients and if it was not for her die hard commitment to the cause patients and even growers would never be in the permissible state as they are now.

But when asked to a large group of newbie commercial growers, growers that each distribute more then $30,000 a month to our local dispensaries but have only been in the business 5 years or less, what they know about the leaders and activist founders, the current laws, and how their businesses are structured; most did not know the individuals mentioned, and the majority were not structured legally through a non-profit organization as required with current laws. Nearly all agree they are primarily profit minded, care less about the cause, and have little compassionate association to patients. Typically they still look at it as a black market, only now with viable methods of distribution, and do not pay taxes nor operate within the perimeters of the law. A lot of this is based on unclear regulations, continued DEA arrests and federal influence, and non cooperating cities that force growers to stay underground. But there seems to be a lack of compassion or care to those that led the way or those that use the product for medical use with only finding self-indulgence and free-enterprise leading the way.

Valley Attorney's

2010-06-22T00:11:00.000-07:00

We have a network of 5 Lawyers who specialize in these type of cases, one from SF.

Central Valley Cannabis Doctors

2010-06-22T00:10:00.001-07:00

Medicann
Also we now have :
two private doctors in Modesto as well as two public new clinics with a total of 5 doctors and clinics in MODESTO. THANKS TO THE SO CALLED "WAR ON DRUGS" MANY FOLKS ARE STANDING WITH US TO HELP OTHERS!

EMAIL ME FOR CONTACT INFORMATION!
THERE IS two CLINICS in Fresno as well as over 8 in Sacramento

Modesto Cannabis Marijuana Ban, Discussions, Services and Support!

2010-06-21T23:51:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the Modesto Cannabis Marijuana Blog! We will update you with new services and old with discrete titles. Just as I expected the county demand is growing. As ID cards are rising, recommendations and doctors are coming out. We have 16 services and counting. To be listed or work with us contact me asap.

PCC 2003
PS 2004
CVC 2006 collective
CVC-D 2008 deliveries
NG -2009
MH -2009
MCD-2009
MJM-2009
MH-2009
HM-2009
PP -2010
MOE -2010
CAL -2010
CC -2010
HSD-2010
MSD-2010

Lowest Prop. 215 recommendation rates on 215 approvals and SB-420

2010-06-21T23:39:00.000-07:00

Recommendation are now cheaper than ever in HollyWood, Long Beach,Orange, San Diego and LA area. We have contact to clinics and doctors as low as $35-60 Bucks!

Thanks California Compassionate Caregivers, we will market and advertise compassion for free as we believe in KARMA!

Odds of getting busted selling marijuana

2010-06-20T10:40:00.001-07:00

What are the odds of getting busted for selling marijuana?

The marijuana business poses one unique risk that you won't find in most business ventures -- you could wind up in jail for a long time. As with any other business risk, this one needs to be analyzed.

The first thing to understand is that the odds depend on the behavior of the marijuana grower and dealer. In many cases where someone got busted, there was a clear reason -- like their crop was growing over their fence and bothering the neighbors. Or, in many cases, the people just got too big and too greedy and fairly well provoked their arrest and prosecution. On the other hand, there are lots of examples of people who have been in business for years without getting busted. There are traditional marijuana dealers who have been in business for thirty years or more and some openly operating stores that have been in business for ten years or more. It has a great deal to do with the local situation, and how intelligently someone operates their business in view of the local situation. The goal is to "fly under the radar" of enforcement. It might also be added that marijuana dealers should be good citizens in every way they can. Being a good citizen is a good way to stay under the radar, and to have people vouching for one's integrity if anything bad should happen.

Overall, provided someone's behavior is what could be called "average" for marijuana growers and dealers, the odds of getting busted are something less than one percent over a period of about five years. If someone is reasonably careful, the odds of getting busted are close to zero. Marijuana dealers who want to stay hidden from law enforcement, and pay attention to what they are doing, can operate quite freely without any real fear from law enforcement.

This is true even of the clubs that are openly operating in California right now. Our surveys show that there is a uniform sentiment among the owners and operators of these clubs. They simply are not afraid of getting busted. They know they are safe under California law and with the current political situation in the Los Angeles area. They are not afraid of the Federal DEA because they know that the DEA is overwhelmed and rapidly losing the battle of public image. The DEA has raided several stores but arrests are few and prosecutions, so far, are fewer. There are already too many stores for the DEA to feasibly prosecute them. Under the current worldwide terrorist situation they would have a tough time justifying the resources needed for the prosecution of several thousand people for medical marijuana in Los Angeles.

The DEA has sent letters to landlords warning the landlords that they face seizure of their properties. As we will discuss in more detail elsewhere, this will not turn out to be a credible threat. If the DEA actually tries to do that, they will be in for one of the nastiest political battles of their lives.

Given this situation, the DEA is reduced to a kind of temper tantrum. They raid shops, take all the money and marijuana, break everything in the place and then leave. They are acting like stupid kids because they know they have lost this battle. They are still potentially dangerous and no one should underestimate their capacity for dangerous stupidity but they have already lost this fight and they know it themselves.

Therefore, the bottom line is that, if you pay attention to what you are doing, don't bend your security rules, don't have lines around the block outside your apartment, or stink the neighbors out with 400 plants in your apartment, you should be OK. If someone is careful, it is quite possible to do business for many, many years with no significant risk of any significant bust. In fact, it is the rule, rather than the exception.

The Hemperor, Jack Herer has Died Bonnie King Salem-News.com The global cannabis community mourns the loss of the

2010-04-16T00:30:00.000-07:00

The Hemperor, Jack Herer has Died
Bonnie King Salem-News.com

Jack Herer
June 18, 1939 – April 15, 2010
Jack Herer
The one and only Jack Herer will be missed forever

The global cannabis community mourns the loss of the great Jack Herer.

(SALEM, Ore.) - The sad news has been confirmed. Jack Herer, author of The Emperor Wears No Clothes and renowned around the world for hemp activism, has died at 11:17 a.m. today, in Eugene, Oregon.

Jack Herer suffered a heart attack last September just after speaking on stage at the Portland HempStalk festival. The last seven months have proven to be a huge challenge to the man, with several health issues making his recovery complicated.

Jack Herer's health has been poor lately, this last week there have been reports of the severity, and an outpouring of prayers on his behalf.

"It's shocking news, even after these last seven, trying months," said Paul Stanford, THCF Executive Director.

"Jack Herer has been a good friend and associate of mine for over 30 years. I was there when he had the heart attack at our Hempstalk festival and I know he wouldn’t appreciate the quality of life he's endured these last months. Still he will be greatly missed. I honor his memory."

"No other single person has done more to educate people all across the world about industrial hemp and marijuana as Jack Herer. His book is translated into a dozen different languages, it's a bestseller in Germany," added Stanford.

"The Hempstalk stage will forever be the Jack Herer Memorial stage. And, a Memorial is planned to be built where he fell that day," Stanford said.

"His legacy will continue to inspire and encourage for generations to come."

Jack HererJune 18, 1939 – April 15, 2010

ARCHIVE of recent Salem-News.com reports about Jack Herer:

Marijuana Author Jack Herer Collapses After Stage Appearance at Portland Hempstalk (9/13/09)

Supporters of Jack Herer Say They're Focusing on the Positive (9/14/09)

Jack Herer Continues to Fight for His Life -- Donation Fund Formed (9/17/09)

Hemp Guru Jack Herer's Condition Critical But Stable (9/19/09)

Portland Media Group Releases False Report About Jack Herer's Death (9/19/09)

Dr. Phil Leveque Comments on Jack Herer's Recent Heart Attack (9/23/09)

The Hemperor Jack Herer Shows Slight Progress in Oregon Hospital (9/27/09)

Jack Herer Strives To Recover While The Fight For Hemp Goes On (10/13/09)

Jack Herer: A Man Well-Loved is Saved Again (11/2/09)

Jack Herer Benefit Event Tonight at Village Ballroom in Portland (12/3/09)

JACK, JACK: Who's Got Your Back? (12/21/09)

The Story of Jack Herer and Hempstalk VIDEO (12/24/09)

================================================

Bonnie King has been with Salem-News.com since August '04, when she became Publisher. Bonnie has served in a number of positions in the broadcast industry; TV Production Manager at KVWB (Las Vegas WB) and Producer/Director for the TV series "Hot Wheels in Las Vegas", posts as TV Promotion Director for KYMA (NBC), and KFBT (Ind.), Asst. Marketing Director (SUPERSHOPPER MAGAZINE), Director/Co-Host (Coast Entertainment Show), Radio Promotion Director (KBCH/KCRF), and Newspapers In Education/Circulation Sales Manager (STATESMAN JOURNAL NEWSPAPER). Bonnie has a depth of understanding that reaches further than just behind the scenes, and that thoroughness is demonstrated in the perseverance to correctly present each story with the wit and wisdom necessary to compel and captivate viewers.

View articles written by Bonnie King

Pot Sales Go Legit!!

2009-09-21T07:00:00.000-07:00

pot sales go legit is the title for money.com although don't get too comfortable as they are still doing raids with federal resources and involvement in San Diego and LA area. They have targeted over 30 clubs...updates coming soon. Here is the news from the fully legit or longterm bay area club founders:) thanks Mr. Lee

FEDERAL MEDICAL CANNABIS PATIENT, FEDERAL USERS, FEDERAL MARIJUANARIGHTS

2009-09-21T06:58:00.000-07:00

MS PATIENT PUNISHED FOR MEDICAL POT

2009-09-11T01:03:00.000-07:00

AN MS PATIENT WAS PUNISHED BELOW FOR HIS CHOICE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS....

WE WILL EDUCATE AND HELP GAIN AWARENESS TO THIS AS WELL AS MANY OTHER ISSUES SURROUNDING MEDICAL CANNABIS BOTH NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE...PLEASE EMAIL US STORIES.

THIS BRINGS TO MIND THE MANY NEEDS, DEMANDS AND NEW EXPANDED CANNABIS SERVICES WHICH CA CANNABIS CAREGIVERS SHOULD OFFER TO PATIENTS...

"TIME TO IGNITE" WITH THE PURPLE DANK ENERGY HEMP INFUSION THE HEALTHIEST ENERGY DRINK WITH OMEGA 3 AND 6(EFA'S)GUARANA AND YERBA MATE GREEN TEA

2009-08-25T04:14:00.000-07:00

"TIME TO IGNITE" WITH THE PURPLE DANK ENERGY HEMP INFUSION THE HEALTHIEST ENERGY DRINK WITH OMEGA 3 AND 6(EFA'S)GUARANA AND YERBA MATE GREEN TEA ANYTIME,ANYWHERE ...ITS ALWAYS 420 SOMEWHERE

Landmark Ruling Issued on Collective Cultivation of Medical Marijuana

2009-08-23T06:16:00.001-07:00

For Immediate Release: July 1st, 2009

Landmark Ruling Issued on Collective Cultivation of Medical Marijuana
Appellate court protects collective cultivation and affirms civil actions by patients

Sacramento, CA -- The California Third District Court of Appeal issued a landmark ruling today on the right under state law of patients to collectively cultivate. The 2-1 appellate court decision stems from the case County of Butte v. Superior Court involving a private medical marijuana collective of 7 patients in Paradise, California. The nationwide advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a lawsuit in May 2006 on behalf of 56-year-old David Williams and six other collective members after a 2005 warrantless search of his home. Williams was forced by the Butte County Sheriff to uproot more than two-dozen plants or face arrest and prosecution. Contrary to state law, which allows for collective cultivation, Williams was told by the Sheriff that it was not lawful to grow collectively for multiple patients.

"This ruling by the California Courts sends yet another strong message to state law enforcement that they must abide by the medical marijuana laws of the state and not the competing federal laws," said Joe Elford, ASA Chief Counsel and the attorney that litigated the case on behalf of Williams. Today's appellate court ruling affirmed this position by concluding that, "the deputy was acting under color of California law, not federal law. Accordingly, the propriety of his conduct is measured by California law."

The appellate court also stated that to deny patients protection from warrantless intrusions and seizures by law enforcement "would surely shock the sensibilities of the voters who approved [Proposition 215]." Especially worthy of note is the appellate court's assertion that the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 is not simply an affirmative defense to criminal sanctions, but "...we see an opportunity for an individual to request the same constitutional guarantee of due process available to all individuals, no matter what their status, under the state Constitution. The fact that this case involves medical marijuana and a qualified medical marijuana patient does not change these fundamental constitutional rights or an individual's right to assert them."

Today's appellate court decision upholds Butte County Superior Court Judge Barbara Roberts' ruling from September 2007, in which she states that seriously ill patients cultivating collectively "should not be required to risk criminal penalties and the stress and expense of a criminal trial in order to assert their rights." Judge Roberts' ruling also rejected Butte County's policy of requiring all members to physically participate in the cultivation, thereby allowing collective members to "contribute financially."

Even in his dissenting opinion, Court of Appeal Judge James Morrison stated that, "the United States Congress should reconsider its refusal to amend the federal drug laws to make reasonable accommodation for the 13 states that have enacted some form of compassionate use exception to their penal codes."

ASA was compelled to file the Williams lawsuit after receiving repeated reports of unlawful behavior by Butte County law enforcement, as well as by other police agencies throughout the state. After uncovering Butte County's de facto ban on medical marijuana patient collectives, ASA decided to pursue the case to show that collectives and cooperatives are protected under state law. "In addition to protecting patients' right to collectively cultivate, the Court has reaffirmed that medical marijuana patients enjoy the same constitutional rights as everyone else, including the ability to file civil rights actions when those rights are violated," continued Elford.

Further information:
Today's ruling by the California Third District Court of Appeal: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Butte_Appellate_Decision.pdf
Information on Butte Case: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/Butte

Court Strikes Down SB420 Limits

2009-08-22T23:40:00.000-07:00

Court Strikes Down SB420 Limits

Los Angeles, May 22, 2008: The Second District of California Court of Appeals ruled that the state limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation established under state law SB 420 are unconstitutional.

In the case People v. Patrick Kelly, the court overturned defendant's conviction for possessing 12 ounces of dried marijuana plants on the grounds that the prosecutor had improperly argued that the defendant was guilty because he possessed more than the 8-ounce limit established in Health & Safety Code Sec. 11362.77 and did not have a doctor's recommendation authorizing more. (Text of Kelly decision).

The Court validated the long-standing view of California NORML and other Prop 215 advocates that the SB 420 limits are unconstitutional. Cal NORML attorneys have successfully argued the point in several lower court cases, but this is the first time it has been addressed by an appellate court.

In a 3-0 decision, the court ruled: "The prosecutor's argument was improper. It was improper because the CUA [Compassionate Use Act] can only be amended with voters' approval. Voters, however, did not approve the eight-ounce limit and other caps in section 11362.77 [of SB420]; hence, section 11362.77 unconstitutionally amends the CUA." The decision is certified for partial publication, pending possible appeal to the Supreme Court.

The full implications of the Kelly decision remain unclear. In particular, it is not clear whether it rules out the use of SB 420 numbers as guidelines to protect patients with state ID cards from arrest. The court's reasoning would seem to apply only when the SB 420 numbers are used to limit patients' rights, not when they are used to protect them. However, the court's sweeping pronouncement that this section of SB 420 is "unconstitutional" might be interpreted otherwise by police who would prefer to ignore it. Further litigation therefore seems likely.

Ironically, the court noted that the constitutional problems in SB 420 could have been avoided by enactment of Sen. Vasconcellos' proposed "SB 420 Clean-Up" bill SB 1494 in 2004. That bill made it clear that qualified patients could legally possess whatever amount of marijuana was consistent with their needs. However, SB 1494 was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger on the grounds it removed "reasonable and established quantity guidelines."

One incidental casualty of the Kelly decision was Mendocino's Measure B anti-pot initiative, aimed at rolling back the county's limits for medical marijuana cultivation from 25 to 6 plants. Measure B specifically cites the clause in SB 420 that was struck down in the Kelly decision, H&SC 11362.77. Measure B therefore appears to rest on invalid law, making it vulnerable to legal and political challenge.

The Attorney General's office announced that it would appeal the Kelly ruling.

Text of the Kelly decision

UPDATE 8/14/08 - State top court to review medical pot limit

Oakland's marijuana legalization initiative is still a Trojan Horse August 16, 3:54 PM · J. Craig Canada -

2009-08-17T04:38:00.000-07:00

Oakland's marijuana legalization initiative is still a Trojan Horse
August 16, 3:54 PM · J. Craig Canada - Santa Cruz County Drug Policy Examiner

While Oakland's Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010) has been amended to exclude California's current medical marijuana laws from two items, it could still be a Trojan Horse.

For one thing, the two items that exempt California's current medical marijuana laws apply only to sales, tax, and possession; and this only in cities.

Nowhere in the proposition are medical marijuana patients, providers, and caregivers exempted from its cultivation, distribution, transportation, licensing, and administration requirements. And nowhere does the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" apply to "local government" or "county".

Proposition 215, The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, became California Health and Safety Code §11362.5. The California Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) was passed by the legislature as SB 420 and signed by Governor Gray Davis in 2003, just before he was recalled and replaced with Arnold Schwarzenegger. It became California Health & Safety Codes §11362.7 through §11362.83.

Initiatives in California are of higher legal authority than legislation and therefore Prop 215 (§11362.5) trumps the MMP (§11362.7 through §11362.83).

What's wrong with the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010)

The first thing to note is the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9". There is no California Health & Safety Code §11362.9. There are no California Health & Safety Codes between §11362.83 and §11363.

The next thing to note is the use of the words "city", "county", and "local government". In §11304(d)(vi) ROT 2010 defines "local government" as "city", "county", or "city and county". (Coincidentally, there is only one city/county in California and that is San Francisco.)

ROT 2010 consists of 5 sections: 1 - Name; 2 - Findings, Intents, and Purposes; 3 - Lawful Activities; 4 - Prohibition on Furnishing Cannabis to Minors; and 5 - Amendment.

The first two sections are essentially window dressing and have no direct effect on law except, perhaps, to act as guidance when questions of interpretation arise. It is in Sections 3, 4, and 5 that the actual legal language appears.

The amendments to ROT 2010 made 4 Aug 09 consist of appending the phrase "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9" to items 7 and 8 of Section 2 under Purposes. Neither the word "county" nor the phrase "local government" appear in these items, but only the word "city". Further, those items are specific to buying, selling, taxing, possession, and consumption. The words, "cultivation", "processing", and "transportation" do not appear.

Items 7 and 8 have to do with prohibiting sales in "cities" that do not tax marijuana while allowing the possession and consumption of small amounts for personal use in private.

While it appears the intent of the amendments is to prevent ROT 2010 from impacting current California medical marijuana law, patients, and providers; a strict reading reveals this is not what it says.

Ironically, it appears that while it would be illegal to sell recreational marijuana in a city that doesn't tax it, selling recreational marijuana in an unincorporated area where the county is the "local government" would be legal unless and until the county enacts a marijuana tax or prohibits sales. Could it be argued that if ROT 2010 had meant "county" or "local government" it would have said it?

Previously, I stated this initiative was a treacherous Byzantine Maze and a Trojan Horse. Then, upon learning it had been amended I published an article announcing that it no longer appeared any of the initiatives filed in California would threaten California's current medical marijuana laws. It now appears this may not be the case.

Section 3, Lawful Activities, is the meat of ROT 2010. It is comprised of four sections of law to be added to the California Health and Safety Code as sections 11300 through 11304.

§11300 legalizes possession, processing, and transportation of up to an ounce for personal consumption and cultivation of up to 25 square-feet for personal use. It also prohibits consumption in public and smoking marijuana anywhere children are present as well as sales except by licensed vendors. Neither the words "city", "county", or "local government" appear in this section. Since the impact of this initiative on California's current medical marijuana laws is exempted only for "cities" and only with regard to "sales", "tax", "possession" and "consumption" of marijuana, it could be interpreted to set limits for patients on possession and consumption in unincorporated areas where the local jurisdiction is the county.

Since "cultivation" is nowhere in the document related to the exemption for current California medical marijuana law, ROT 2010 could be used to set marijuana cultivation limits statewide, for medical patients as well as recreational users.

This is all the more likely because recently the California Court of Appeals struck California Health & Safety Code §11362.77 enacted by the legislature which limits the number of plants and weight of dried bud medical marijuana patients can have because it conflicts with Proposition 215 (§11362.5) which has no limits. This matter is currently on appeal to the California Supreme Court.

Since ROT 2010 as an initiative has the same authority as Proposition 215 and is 14 years afterwards, it could well be argued that it was the intent of the voters to set limits where there were none, or to allow each city or county to set limits on how much patients may cultivate and possess. This possibility is further supported by the conspicuous absence of Health & Safety Codes 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83 in the list of California laws ROT 2010 is not intended to affect in Section 2, C - Intent.

The limits in Santa Cruz County for medical marijuana patients are 3 pounds and 100 square feet of canopy. Three pounds is what your average medical marijuana patient will use in one year. Twenty-five square feet is about enough room to bloom a couple of plants. If you're lucky, an indoor plant will yield 2.5 ounces. If you're not, you'll get an ounce or less per plant. The bloom cycle is 8 weeks and it takes at least as long to grow a clone to the point it will produce enough bud to be worth harvesting.

A perpetual garden requires at least two different areas with different lighting; one for cloning and growing the clones in a vegetative state, and another for blooming the clones. Many patients would not be able to supply themselves if limited to 25 square feet total for their grow area, particularly those who are not master gardeners, and especially if they grow outdoors and can only bring in one crop a year.

And then there are crop failures.

Take a look at its proposed §11300(a):

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual's personal consumption, and not for sale.

How does someone "share" something that is "solely for that individual's personal consumption"?

Does this section apply "notwithstanding" current California medical marijuana laws?

Similarly, §11301 states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of state and local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit, or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
...(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years of age or older, for personal consumption and not for resale

Does "Notwithstanding any other provision of state and local law..." include California Health & Safety Codes 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83?

Could this be used to argue that sales to medical marijuana patients under 21 years of age is prohibited in unincorporated areas where the local jurisdiction is the county?

Keep in mind, California's current medical marijuana laws are only exempted from the provisions of ROT 2010 in "cities" and with regard to "sales", "tax", "possession", and "consumption" as stated in the Purpose.

Item (k) of this section authorizes "appropriate fees or taxes pursuant to §11302". Could it be argued this was meant to authorize counties to tax medical marijuana even though it is medicine? And even though cities are not required to tax it in order to sell it to medical marijuana patients as stated in the Purpose? Why do items 7 & 8 in the Purpose say "city" instead of "local government"?

If I find this initiative treacherous and confusing, what about the voters? The legislature? The courts?

The potential points of conflict raised here are only a sample of the problems found in The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010) by Oaksterdam U.

What's wrong with the Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010)

Unfortunately, upon reflection, the Tax, Regulate, And Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010) doesn't appear to offer any more protection to medical marijuana patients than ROT 2010. While this proposition from Tax and Regulate Cannabis California 2010 states first among its intentions to "prohibit furnishing cannabis to minors under the age of 21, except for medical use", the only other place the word "medical" is found in the initiative is in item (h) under Intent which states, "Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes".

Further, while cultivation for personal consumption is permitted and there is no limit defined for personal consumption, nowhere is medical sales exempted from the $50 per ounce tax. §11302(e) states "Only Cannabis commercially cultivated, distributed and/or sold shall be taxed". Does this mean all cannabis that is not grown for personal consumption will be taxed? Are medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives commercial cultivation?

Should these initiatives make the ballot and pass, will the courts determine that the intent of the voters was to replace or supersede Proposition 215 which has withstood every challenge for more than a decade? Why-oh-why couldn't an institution that makes money teaching people the law regarding medical marijuana come up with something as clear, unambiguous, and straightforward as Tom Ammiano's Marijuana Control, Education, and Regulation Act (AB 390)? How did they get through 14 drafts without exempting current California medical marijuana law and, particularly, The Compassionate Use Act of 1996?

What's right with The Marijuana Control, Education, and Regulation Act (AB 390)

AB 390, in Section 1 (h) under intent states:

To exclude from the fees and regulations imposed by this Act marijuana that is for other uses than smoking and ingestion, and to exclude medicinal marijuana from fees under these provisions.

While it does not exclude medicinal marijuana from the "regulations" imposed by the Act, it does exclude it from the taxes and fees. Unlike either proposed initiative, this intent is written into the actual legal code under §34004(a) which states:

However, no fee shall be imposed under this part on marijuana used medicinally with a doctor's recommendation as specified in Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

Further, by listing the codes it repeals, and not including California's current medical marijuana laws among them, and as an act of the legislature and not an initiative by the people, AB 390 ensures that Proposition 215 will remain intact.

It should be noted that while AB 390 and THC 2010 have a "statutes repealed" section and do not list existing California medical marijuana laws among these statutes, ROT 2010 has no such section. Instead, it lists the statutes it is not intended to affect and does not include existing California medical marijuana laws among them.

As for the licensing, AB 390 sets limits for a commercial cultivation or wholesale license at $5,000 for the initial application and $2,500 for annual renewal.

How to fix ROT 2010

If the proponents have 15 business days from the time they filed with the attorney general to amend ROT 2010, they still have until the 18th to make amendments.

If I could, I would amend Section 2, B, 7 and 8 by replacing "city" with "local government".

I would also add Health & Safety Codes 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83 to the statutes ROT 2010 is "not intended to affect the application and enforcement of" under Section 2 C 2.

Under Section 3, change "Notwithstanding any other state or local law" and "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" to "except as permitted under Health and Safety Section 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.83".

Under Section 5, Amendment, add something like "Nothing in this section shall authorize the legislature to amend H&S 11362.5 without approval of the voters."

In addition to THC 2010 and ROT 2010, there is also The Common Sense Act of 2010. The proponents of these three California marijuana legalization initiatives will have until the time they turn in their signatures to withdraw the initiatives from the 2 Nov 2010 ballot. If more than one initiative wins, the one with the highest number of votes will trump the others.

If AB 390 should pass before the 2010 election and these initiatives have not been withdrawn, and if they win, will they be used to supersede AB 390 and dismantle Proposition 215?

For more info:
Office of The Attorney General, State of California - Initiative Measures
The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act (AB 390) - CA State Assembly | 23 Feb 09
The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010) - CA Attorney General | 15 Jul 09
The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010) - CA Attorney General | 28 Jul 09
The Common Sense Act of 2010 - California Attorney General | 4 Aug 09

Legalize Marijuana in California - The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act (AB 390)
California Cannabis Initiative - The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010 (THC 2010)
Tax and Regulate Cannabis - The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (ROT 2010)
Common Sense for California - The Common Sense Act of 2010

California has three initiatives filed to legalize marijuana - Examiner.com | 10 Aug 09
Marijuana legalization and California initiatives - Examiner.com | 8 Aug 09
Comparing California cannabis/marijuana legalization initiatives - Examiner.com | 31 Jul 09
Oaksterdamn U wants to tax marijuana without limit - Examiner.com | 29 Jul 09
Selling out the medical marijuana movement? - Examiner.com | 24 Jul 09
Tax Prozac not medical marijuana - Examiner.com | 20 Jul 09
Medical marijuana and pizza - Examiner.com | 19 Jul 09

Copyright 2009 Examiner.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Author
J. Craig Canada is an Examiner from San Francisco. You can see J. Craig's articles at: "http://www.Examiner.com/x-14883-Santa-Cruz-County-Drug-Policy-Examiner"

Pot Collective Sprouts In Retirement Community

2009-08-16T13:08:00.001-07:00

If you want to see my ideal group that will be successful!??

Pot Collective Sprouts In Retirement Community

by Debra Baer

If you would like to discuss patients working collectively, pot, the cannabiz or even the political pot world..Let's talk. Everything but legal advice. I cannot and will not give legal advice.

100 million Americans say yes to marijuana

2009-08-15T09:11:00.000-07:00

100 million Americans say yes to marijuana

19 May, 2009, 02:28

Marijuana is America’s largest cost crop, said pro-pot advocate in Washington, Aaron Houston, the Director of Government Relations for the Marijuana Policy Project.

It is bigger than corn and wheat combined with a value of about $36 billion per year; and if marijuana wholesale is legalized, not just for medical purposes, the US would make between $14 and $40 billion from the drug.

“There are 13 US states that have legalized medical marijuana but there are about 100 million Americans using marijuana and those people want to admit to government’s survey takers that they have used it,” Houston said.

“Clearly, when we have 100 million people saying they used it to government survey takers it probably would stand to reason. But that number is actually higher because certain people just do not want to tell someone from the government that they have used marijuana, a kind of illegal substance,” he said.

Supporters of legalization say the drug helps to relieve pain and may have huge financial benefit for the country.

Mercedes and BMW use Hemp fibers in door panel fabrication | The News is NowPublic.com

2009-08-15T07:48:00.000-07:00

Mercedes and BMW use Hemp fibers in door panel fabrication | The News is NowPublic.com

Pot Parents: Smoking’s Better Than Drinking! : Chelsea Green

2009-08-15T06:53:00.001-07:00

Pot Parents: Smoking’s Better Than Drinking! : Chelsea Green

Posted using ShareThis

Feds Solicit Medical Marijuana Cultivators

2009-08-11T04:22:00.001-07:00

Feds Solicit Medical Marijuana Cultivators

Posted using ShareThis

California: How to get a medical marijuana permit August 9, 10:13 PM · Angela Macdonald - NORML Examiner The golden state offers medical marijuana...

2009-08-11T01:46:00.000-07:00

California: How to get a medical marijuana permit
August 9, 10:13 PM · Angela Macdonald - NORML Examiner

The golden state offers medical marijuana protection
and safe access to medicine for thousands of citizens
(Google Images)

If you live in California and you are interested in a medical marijuana permit, you are one of the lucky in the United States. Your state offers plenty of dispensaries and medical marijuana clinics with compassionate doctors. You also live in the one state that allows medical marijuana use for certain mental illnesses.

The state of California medical marijuana program is administered by individual counties. Recently San Diego and San Bernardino counties were ordered to begin issuing medical marijuana I.D. cards. Not all counties have I.D. programs in place yet.

To obtain a medical marijuana permit you can visit one of many clinics in the state. Once you obtain your I.D. card you can visit various dispensaries, co-ops, caregivers, or you can grow your own medicine. Often times, the dispensary will give you an I.D. card specific to their dispensary. The state offers a verification program, where dispensaries can verify a patient’s I.D. card online.

For a list of qualifying conditions in California click here.

Collectives and Cooperatives in SD, California Deputy district attorney of the narcotics division, Chris Lindberg

2009-08-11T00:56:00.000-07:00

IV. GUIDELINES REGARDING COLLECTIVES AND COOPERATIVES
Under California law, medical marijuana patients and primary caregivers may “associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.” (§ 11362.775.) The following guidelines are meant to apply to qualified patients and primary caregivers who come together to collectively or cooperatively cultivate physician-recommended marijuana.

A. Business Forms: Any group that is collectively or cooperatively cultivating and distributing marijuana for medical purposes should be organized and operated in a manner that ensures the security of the crop and safeguards against diversion for non-medical purposes. The following are guidelines to help cooperatives and collectives operate within the law, and to help law enforcement determine whether they are doing so.

1.Statutory Cooperatives: A cooperative must file articles of incorporation with the state and conduct its business for the mutual benefit of its members. (Corp. Code, § 12201, 12300.) No business may call itself a “cooperative” (or “co-op”) unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the Corporations or Food and Agricultural Code. (Id. at § 12311(b).) Cooperative corporations are “democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their members as patrons.” (Id. at § 12201.) The earnings and savings of the business must be used for the general welfare of its members or equitably distributed to members in the form of cash, property, credits, or services. (Ibid.) Cooperatives must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each year. (See id. at § 12200,et seq.) Agricultural cooperatives are likewise nonprofit corporate entities “since they are not organized to make profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but only for their members as producers.” (Food & Agric. Code, § 54033.) Agricultural cooperatives share many characteristics with consumer cooperatives. (See, e.g., id. at § 54002, et seq.) Cooperatives should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.

2. Collectives: California law does not define collectives, but the dictionary defines them as “a business, farm, etc., jointly owned and operated by the members of a group.” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary; Random House, Inc.© 2006.) Applying this definition, a collective should be an organization that merely facilitates the collaborative efforts of patient and caregiver members – including the allocation of costs and revenues. As such, a collective is not a statutory entity, but as a practical matter it might have to organize as some form of business to carry out its activities. The collective should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, it should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.

From the 2008 Attorney General’s Guidelines for the Security and Non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use.

Read more: http://www.sdnn.com/attorney-generals-guidelines-for-the-security-and-non-diversion-of-marijuana-grown-for-medical-use#ixzz0NrINqe76

http://www.sdnn.com/sandieg...SD Deputy district attorney of the narcotics division, Chris Lindberg

Drug-Legalizing Cop Wins Back His Free Speech Rights Press Release Sergeant Fired After Criticizing "War on Drugs," Now Reinstated

2009-08-11T00:36:00.000-07:00

Drug-Legalizing Cop Wins Back His Free Speech Rights
Press Release Sergeant Fired After Criticizing "War on Drugs," Now Reinstated

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 13, 2009

SEATTLE, WA -- A Mountlake Terrace police sergeant who was fired after publicly criticizing the "war on drugs" has reached an $812,500 settlement in a lawsuit he filed against the city and police department, among others. Under the settlement, Sergeant Jonathan Wender has been reinstated on the force and is eligible to receive back pay and full retirement benefits.

“In an open society, people on the front lines of the criminal justice system have an ethical duty to speak out on controversial social and legal issues that affect the public we serve," said Sgt. Wender, a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a 10,000-strong organization representing police, prosecutors, judges and others who fought on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and who now want to legalize and regulate drugs. "The public has a fundamental right to know which laws and policies are effective, and which ones aren’t; and they should expect that their police officers will speak the truth even when it isn’t popular or comfortable to do so. I hope that the outcome of this case will help reassure police and other public officials that they can speak freely on controversial topics such as the urgent need to seek better ways to deal with the crisis of drugs that plagues American society.”

Sgt. Wender joined the police force in 1990 after graduating from college and was terminated in 2005. He holds a Pd.D. from Simon Fraser University and is currently a full-time sociology professor at the University of Washington. As part of the settlement, Sgt. Wender is back on the payroll at the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, where he will serve on administrative leave until he retires from the force on November 10, 2010 and can then qualify for his full pension.

"Jonathan Wender's victory is ours, as well. As was his fight," said Norm Stamper, the retired Seattle police chief and LEAP member. "Because of this fine man's courage and perseverance, and his willingness to tell the truth about the 'drug war,' we've all moved closer to putting an end to that war. I believe police officers across the country will be moved by Jonathan's example, and will raise their voices in support of LEAP's goal of ending drug prohibition."

The lawsuit was filed against the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office, the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, the City of Mountlake Terrace, the City of Lynnwood, and a handful of individual defendants.

For more information about LEAP, please contact Tom Angell at (202) 557-4979 or media@leap.cc www.leap.cc

We can Do it Again: Help our economy, Keep streets safer - LEAP Central Valley

2009-08-10T17:16:00.000-07:00

As your constituent, I'm writing to you with an important question: Would you like to know how we can boost America’s ailing economy by tens of billions of dollars every year and make our communities safer?

All we have to do is learn a lesson from 75 years ago in America's history, back in December 1933, when our leaders had the good sense to stop spending so much money on the ineffective prohibition of alcohol in the midst of the Great Depression.

Today, we spend tens of billions of dollars a year arresting, prosecuting and locking up far too many Americans under this generation's failed prohibition policy, the "war on drugs." But drugs are generally cheaper, more potent and more available than at any point in history.

But that's not the worst of it. During alcohol prohibition, gangsters like Al Capone were using illegal booze profits to run rampant in our cities. Today, in addition to dealing with violent domestic gangs, we are also under attack from international cartels and terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, who make money off of drugs only because of today’s prohibition.

Ultimately, judging the merits of our drug policy - which seems to hurt countless citizens and help only violent criminals and traffickers - requires that we first have a true accounting of all its costs.

But while we know that direct government expenditures on drug prohibition cost tens of billions of dollars every year, there are also numerous corollary costs that aren't easily tallied. For example, what about tax revenue not collected from wages of drug market employees and on properties where drugs are produced? And let's not not forget the diminished wages (and tax payments) of people who find it hard to secure gainful employment because of criminal records.

That's why I'm writing to urge you to support the creation of blue ribbon commission that can take a serious look at the real cost of continuing our ineffective approach during a time of economic crisis. The results of a comprehensive review, I believe, will make it crystal clear that under our limited budgets, prohibition is a failed drug control policy that we just can't afford any longer.

Why not take a good look at the facts before our fiscal reality forces us to cut essential services that are actually necessary for protecting public health and safety for our children and families?

This is a serious issue with real consequences that we cannot afford to ignore. I look forward to reading your thoughts on what actions you think policymakers should take to solve the problems caused by our failed drug prohibition policy. Thanks in advance for your attention to this important matter.

Oakland Approves Nation's First Cannabis Business Tax Last night's landslide victory for Oakland's cannabis business tax, Measure F, by 79.9% mirrors

2009-07-26T00:29:00.000-07:00

Oakland Approves Nation's First Cannabis Business Tax
Last night's landslide victory for Oakland's cannabis business tax,
Measure F, by 79.9% mirrors the historic 79.6% victory of San
Francisco's path-breaking medical marijuana initiative, Prop. P, in
1991. Like Prop P, Measure F seems destined to serve as a model for
cannabis reform elsewhere in the state and country.
Measure F would impose a 1.8% tax on the city's medical cannabis
businesses, raising an estimated $300,000 for the city.
Kudos to James Anthony for having proposed and authored this
measure; to Rebecca Kaplan for having shepherded it through City
Council; and to medical cannabis collective directors Steve
DeAngelo, Richard Lee, and Keith Stephenson for their enlightened
support of this landmark measure.
Thanks too to the voters of Oakland, who approved Measure Z to "tax
and regulate" marijuana in 2004 and have kept their city on the
forefront of cannabis law reform.
- Dale Gieringer, Cal NORML

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0722/p02s07-ussc.html
Christian Science Monitor, Jul 22, 2009
Oakland voters approve marijuana tax
It is the first US city to assess such a tax, which could raise
almost $300,000 in revenue next year. Opponents of the measure say it
opens the door to more crime and heavier drug use.
LOS ANGELES - Oakland, Calif., on Tuesday became the first city in
the US to assess a tax on marijuana.
State and national advocates of the tax say the victory is a
significant turning point in the history of cannabis use, paving the
way for taxation in other communities and states and establishing
more social acceptance of marijuana use.
Opponents say an irreversible threshold has been crossed, opening
the door to more crime and heavier drug use.
By a wide margin of 80 percent to 20 percent, Oakland voters
said "yes" to Measure F, which asked: "Shall City of Oakland's
business tax, which currently imposes a tax rate of $1.20 per $1,000
on 'cannabis business' gross receipts, be amended to establish a new
tax rate of $18 per $1,000 of gross receipts?"
"The voters of Oakland have sent a message to the nation that
cannabis is better treated as a legitimate, tax-paying business than
as a cause of crime and futile law-enforcement expenditures," says
Dale Gieringer, California state coordinator for the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
The city estimates that the measure will raise $294,000 in
additional tax revenue in 2010 and more in future years. Some say the
measure will provide funds to help offset the city's current $83
million deficit as well as allow police to direct their limited
resources to more serious crimes and drug offenses.
"The public is more interested in having money to preserve social
services and fight more important crimes," says Sam Singer, a
Berkeley resident and well-known PR consultant.
Mr. Singer and others say that since the passage of Proposition 218
in 1996 - which made marijuana available by prescription to relieve
pain and nausea - marijuana use in California has existed behind a
"false front": Users can go to a doctor, complain of symptoms, and
for about $100, get the doctor to write them a prescription for the
drug. A state-issued card lasts for one year.
"It's so easy to get a card that it's almost as if physicians will
help lead you to your story of chronic pain, insomnia, fatigue,
etc.," says John Diaz, editorial page editor of the San Francisco
Chronicle.
Oakland has not so much cleared up the marijuana issue so much as
found a way to contain it, Mr. Diaz says. The city is giving permits
to only four clubs, compared with a few dozen in San Francisco and
about 800 in Los Angeles.
Federal law still prohibits the use and sale of marijuana,
although US Attorney General Eric Holder has said that federal law
enforcement will no longer conduct raids in the states that have
legalized medical-marijuana use. Nationwide, about 775,000 people
were arrested for marijuana possession in 2007.
"It takes a lot of time, attention, and money to bust, prosecute,
and then incarcerate marijuana users," Singer says. "Given the
economy, this is a move that will be welcomed not just in Oakland,
but most likely in major urban cities across the nation."
Some residents in nearby communities are not happy with the Oakland vote.
"I am happy to forfeit the tax money and keep it illegal," says
Trygve Mikkelsen, a Norwegian immigrant living on the
Berkeley-Oakland border. The owner of a wine-rack business, Mr.
Mikkelsen worked on the San Francisco waterfront in the 1970s and
'80s around some people who used cannabis every day. "I preferred not
to work next to them, preferred to have conversations with other
individuals since they were affected by the drug," he says.
The father of three is convinced that younger people will have more
access to marijuana. "I prefer that it is difficult to get a hold of
and an illegal substance," he says.

Cannabis Delivery, Co-op, Collective, Dispensary - Work for yourself or work with others?

2009-07-19T21:40:00.000-07:00

Want to open a medical marijuana dispensary? Have you thought it was for you? Do you want to make money? Well Think again!

Legal or not, you must have a passion for pot.
Also besides passion you must have the proof that you need the cannabis:)
Thanks to the voters, state laws, and even the attorney general..
Although still since the news and changes the feds can come at any time...Do you want that Stress? Legal Risk, and more??

As usual everything is at your fingertips. Well if you have more questions...contact me!!! NO BULL,PLAN FOR BAIL!!

Do you own a California Compassionate Club, Collective, Dispensary or Co-op? Give us your feedback.

"The Best part is seeing the patients happy, relieved, and thankful"- PCC

"I love working for myself. When you work for yourself, you work when and where you want to, and it is your choice as to how much you want to make."- Brandon

It's not for everyone...

"You should never start a business if you do not have your heart and soul in the business," "I have seen many put in the money investment but never truly put in the physical investment needed for their business to succeed. ... You have to love what you are doing."-BJM

Stanislaus County Medical Marijuana ID Cards

2009-07-05T07:46:00.000-07:00

Newshawk: http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm
Pubdate: Mon, 12 Jan 2009
Source: Modesto Bee, The (CA)
Webpage: http://www.modbee.com/1618/story/560876.html
Copyright: 2009 The Modesto Bee
Contact: letters@modbee.com
Website: http://www.modbee.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/271
Author: Tim Moran
Cited: Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors http://www.co.stanislaus.ca.us/board/index.shtm
Cited: Americans for Safe Access http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/
Cited: Marijuana Policy Project http://www.mpp.org/
Cited: California NORML http://www.canorml.org/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Proposition+215
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/dispensaries
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)

MARIJUANA ID REVIEWED BY COUNTY

Stanislaus One of Dozen Without a Card Program

A medical marijuana identification card program will come before the Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors sometime in the next few months. It's a program that has been in the works for more than 2 1/2 years.

Stanislaus is one of just 12 of the state's 58 counties that does not already have an identification card program, which is required by state law. The programs issue identification cards to medical marijuana users who ask for them. The cards can then be shown to law enforcement officers when patients are stopped and questioned about possession of the drug.

The cards, like the whole issue of medical marijuana, have been controversial. Two years ago, then-Stanislaus County Supervisor Ray Simon called the program "a huge fraud perpetrated on us by the state of California." Modesto Police Chief Roy Wasden also criticized the program, saying it should go through a formal U.S. Food and Drug Administration trial and be dispensed by prescription through pharmaceutical companies.

Proponents, however, point out that medical marijuana use was approved by the state's voters in 1996 in Proposition 215. The federal government still considers any marijuana use to be illegal, but proponents of Proposition 215 point out that issuing the ID cards violates neither state nor federal law -- and not issuing them would violate state law.

Stanislaus and several other counties delayed issuing the cards while legal challenges played out. Now that the ID cards have cleared legal hurdles, most counties have launched programs. San Joaquin County announced its card program last week.

The Stanislaus ID card program is under review to make sure it complies with state law, said Deputy County Counsel Dean Wright. The program will require the county to acquire camera equipment to take pictures of applicants, along with paperwork to ensure that the applicants have a doctor's recommendation. The information would then be forwarded to Sacramento, where the cards will be issued.

Some of the delay in getting the program before the Board of Supervisors has been caused by the small staff in the California Department of Public Health dedicated to overseeing the program, Wright said.

When it gets on the supervisors' agenda is still in question, because the county is wrestling with midyear budget adjustments, said Cleopathia Moore, associate director of the county Health Services Agency, which will administer the program.

The cards are completely voluntary -- medical marijuana users don't have to get them in order to comply with the state law. The cards in theory will prevent them from being arrested if police officers find them in possession of marijuana.

When the medical ID card program comes before the board, members will be faced with a decision to approve or reject a specific program. Rejecting the idea of an ID program carries a legal risk: Solano County was sued last week by Americans for Safe Access for failing to implement a card program.

Most Dispensaries Banned

In the meantime, the medical marijuana environment in California and the Northern San Joaquin Valley continues to evolve. Most of the cities in the northern valley have banned marijuana dispensaries. That leaves patients with a doctor's recommendation a choice of either driving to the Bay Area, where there are many dispensaries; seeking the drug in the underground illegal market; or growing their own, which is allowed by law in limited quantities.

Medical marijuana advocates say most patients don't want to grow their own. It takes time and some expertise, as well as a place to grow it, said Aaron Smith, California policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project.

Driving to the Bay Area is also inconvenient if not impossible for some patients, Smith said. Some patients are undergoing chemotherapy and are physically unable to cultivate plants or drive for hours to get marijuana, he said.

Sources Will Deliver

"Many are going into the black market. It's readily available in the black market, but part of the intent of Prop. 215 was that they not have to go to the black market," Smith said.

"They are pushing the market into the dark corners of society instead of open, licensed and inspected dispensaries."

The Web site of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, another marijuana advocacy group, lists several sources that will deliver marijuana to the Modesto area, but the group doesn't vouch for the reliability of the sources, said Ellen Comp, a board member and volunteer for California NORML.

Doctors are more willing to recommend marijuana to patients since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that it was a First Amendment right of doctors to make recommendations, Smith and Comp said.

In Modesto, a MediCann clinic at 725 18th St. provides patient evaluations and marijuana recommendations. MediCann is a San Francisco-based group with 12 clinics throughout the state dedicated to helping patients with medical marijuana referrals and other alternative medical treatments.

For a local county packet and information email cacaregivers @ aol.com
If you have any cannabis related questions please contact your local co-op 209-818-2932

A look at cannabis, CBD, and blood pressure

2009-07-05T07:44:00.000-07:00

A look at cannabis, CBD, and blood pressure
Ask MedicalCannabisMD.com
By David Ostrow, MD
This issue’s column responds to two related questions sent in by readers that illustrate the complexity of understanding how the 100+ active ingredients in whole cannabis produce different effects depending on the genetic strain, how and where it was grown and harvested, an individual’s sensitivity to these different compounds, how much and by what route it was ingested and, as always, the setting in which it is used and what other drugs it may be combined with. To help answer these complex questions, Sunil Aggrawall, PhD, has provided most of the following information from his recently completed thesis on The Medical Geography of Cannabinoid Botanicals in Washington State: Access, Delivery, and Distress, available at sunilaggarwal.net.

Question 1: What is Cannabidiol (CBD) and do its effects on the body differ from THC?

A: There are over 100 compounds in whole cannabis — including at least 108 different cannabinoids (which, structurally, are 21-carbon terphenophenolics), flavonoids, sesquiterpenoids, and phytosterols — all pharmacologically active to varying degrees. A good general rule is that indica strains produce more CBD, and are better for chronic bodily pain and sedation; while sativa strains produce more THC and are better for antidepressant and energizing effects. But, as indicated above, these are only the two best-studied components of whole cannabis and the actual properties and effects of a particular strain or preparation, such as hash or kief, may depend more on the interplay between the total set of active ingredients — what Dr. Ethan Russo calls the “entourage effect.”

That is why medicinal cannabis users often find relief from not just depression or pain, but also inflammation, nausea/vomiting, and muscle spasticity. In addition, basic and clinical researchers are testing whole cannabis and its components for anti-cancer and anti-aging properties.

Question 2: Is cannabis good for controlling blood pressure? Since it can make your heart beat faster, is there a risk of heart attack with cannabis use? A friend once passed out from using cannabis while drunk on wine. It was very scary and made me afraid to combine cannabis with alcohol.

A: Any drug that can lower blood pressure in some individuals and at specific doses, but produce the opposite effect in others or at different doses, is considered “biphasic.” Most often, this is related to dose — one phase of the drug effect predominates at lower doses while the other phase predominates at higher doses. But with whole cannabis, we are dealing with over 100 active compounds, so it is difficult to impossible to predict what dose will have what effect beforehand. Your friend who passed out was probably reacting more to the wine they consumed than to the cannabis. When used alone, cannabis usually causes a mild increase in heart rate (tachycardia) and an insignificant rise in blood pressure.

However, persons with a variety of heart conditions, particularly those with irregular heart rhythms (dysrhythmias) or uncontrolled abnormal blood pressure, can experience more severe changes in heart rate and blood pressure from cannabis, and thus should consult with their cardiologist (who, hopefully, is knowledgeable about the pharmacology of cannabis) before using it. While there are no reported deaths due to cannabis use, there have undoubtedly been persons whose abnormal blood pressure or heart rhythm was worsened by it. This can rarely, if not recognized, lead to a heart attack, stroke or even death.

Major HIV/AIDS research findings on cannabis

2009-07-05T07:42:00.000-07:00

Major HIV/AIDS research findings on cannabis
The Lab Bench
By Jahan Marcu*
Promising research demonstrates that cannabis could be used for neuropathic pain, inhibiting HIV replication, and fighting drug-resistant bacterial infections.

Two clinical studies on smoked cannabis for HIV neuropathy

A study published by a research team at UC Davis Medical Center [1] was conducted as a double blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of 38 patients with HIV neuropathic pain. The Participants smoked medicine with a THC content of seven percent or 3.5 percent. They were scheduled for three 6-hour sessions, which were separated by at least 3 days. Their pain was significantly alleviated and the side effects were well tolerated.

Another study was conducted and published by researchers at UC San Diego [2]. This study began with 34 patients who were not responsive to other pain medication. Over the course of the study, participants received both real and placebo cigarettes. The THC content ranged from one to eight percent and was smoked four times daily for five days. Treatment phases were interrupted by two weeks of no medication. The patients continued to use their regular pain medication during the whole study. The team found that 46 percent of the 28 patients in the study gained pain relief of more than 30 percent. These studies follow previous research findings on the same topic (Abrams et al. 2007).

Cannabis-extract component inhibits HIV replication
Research efforts to find new HIV treatments often focus on viral particles that are essential for HIV replication. Plant-derived natural products are emerging as potent anti-HIV compounds which can interfere with viral particles. Researchers from Germany and Spain investigated cannabis tinctures and found extracts that inhibited HIV replication [3]. Denbinobin, a single compound, was demonstrated to be mostly responsible for the ability of the extract to inhibit HIV replication. Denbinobin was shown to directly interfere with a replication protein called NF-KB (NF-kappa B), which is considered a good target for HIV therapies because it contributes to a wide variety of cellular processes.

Cannabinoids kill antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria
Multi-drug resistant and extremely drug-resistant forms of bacteria have created a strong demand for new antibacterial drugs. In the US such strains are causing more deaths each year [4].

Developing a new antibacterial is very challenging. Only one has been introduced in the last 30 years. The antibacterial effects of cannabinoids have been documented for over 50 years, inspiring researchers in Italy to re-examine the effects of cannabinoids on these new and more dangerous forms of bacteria. The research team found that the five most common cannabinoids THC, CBD, CBG, CBC, and CBN had potent antibacterial effects. The authors conclude that mixtures of cannabinoids could also be used as cheap and biodegradable antibacterial agents.

* Email: cannabispodcast@gmail.com

Source notes for the above:

1. Wilsey, B., et al., ‘A randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of cannabis cigarettes in neuropathic pain.’

J Pain, 2008. 9(6): p. 506-21.

2. Ellis, R.J., et al., ‘Smoked medicinal cannabis for neuropathic pain in HIV: a randomized, crossover clinical trial.’ Neuropsychopharmacology, 2009. 34(3): p. 672-80.

3. Sanchez-Duffhues, G., et al., ‘Denbinobin, a naturally occurring 1,4-phenanthrenequinone, inhibits HIV-1 replication through an NF-kappaB-dependent pathway.’ Biochem Pharmacol, 2008. 76(10): p. 1240-50.

4. Appendino, G., et al., ‘Antibacterial cannabinoids from Cannabis sativa: a structure-activity study.’ J Nat Prod, 2008. 71(8): p. 1427-30.

Botanist battles Federal marijuana monopoly

2009-07-05T07:41:00.000-07:00

Botanist battles Federal marijuana monopoly
By Fred Gardener O’Shaughnessey’s Journal
The “final” DEA decision issued Jan 12 in the case of Craker v. DEA might not be final after all. Lyle Craker is the UMass-Amherst botany professor who applied in 2001 for a DEA application to grow cannabis for use by FDA-approved medical researchers.

After a three-and-a-half-year run-around he was turned down on the grounds that the nation’s one licensed grower, Mahmoud ElSohly, U Mississippi, was meeting all the researchers’ needs. Craker appealed and after a few more years won — in the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge who heard the case — but after another year-plus of ‘review,’ as the Bush gang was exiting stage right, acting DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart, issued a ‘final’ rejection of Craker’s application.

Craker, with legal help from ACLU and Julie Carpenter of Jenner & Block (working pro bono), filed a “motion to reconsider” that could extend the case until Obama appointees are running DEA. Caren Woodson of Americans for Safe Access convinced Rep. John Oliver (D-MA, whose district includes Amherst) and 15 co-signers to send a letter urging AG Eric Holder to grant the motion. Leonhart, perhaps sensing a shift in the political winds, then gave Craker’s lawyers additional time to file a response to the “final” ruling.

The best-case scenario, according to Craker’s longtime backer Rick Doblin of Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, would be that “DEA decides to reverse its final ruling and give Craker the license, before April 1 when the current Final Ruling becomes effective.”

Worst case? “We fail to gather sufficient political pressure and end up having to sue DEA in the DC Court of Appeals, which could take years, cost lots of money, and give the Obama Administration a reason to do nothing until the litigation is completed.... Unless there is a political decision to let research take place, we could bounce back and forth between DEA and the Court of Appeals for Obama’s entire first term.”

Doblin adds, “I’d say the worst case is more likely, but that our odds for the best case are improving. ... DEA is on the defensive and needs a new strategy.”

The federal monopoly on growing cannabis for approved research has held back work in the US, but not in other parts of the world. For the most current information, subscribe to O’Shaughnessy’s Journal online at oshaughnessys.com.

Harborside launches lab testing program

2009-07-05T07:35:00.000-07:00

Harborside launches lab testing program
Concentrates found to contain more CBD than do flowers
By Shiloh Brotherman
In mid-December 2008, Harborside Health Center became the first dispensary in California to offer laboratory testing of its medicine. All flowers and concentrates distributed by the Oakland collective are now laboratory tested for safety and potency. It uses plate culture analysis to detect pathogenic molds invisible to the human eye, which may pose a health hazard to patients with compromised immune systems. Potency tests use gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry/flame ionization detection to measure the percentages of three major cannabinoids: THC, CBD, and CBN.

Harborside CEO Steve DeAngelo greeted the program with enthusiasm “For first time in the history of human cannabis consumption, patients have a scientific assessment of the safety and potency of their medicine prior to ingesting it.”

The program is the result of a long and painstaking development process, undertaken in partnership with the Analytical Laboratory Project. The seeds of the program were planted at the 2007 NORML conference, when ALP founders David Lampach and Addison DeMoura met lifelong activist DeAngelo.

“Everybody we talked to said it had been tried before, but that it was impossible” said Lampach, “We never believed that; and when we met Steve, he agreed and encouraged us to develop the testing program. So we took the plunge and started purchasing equipment.”

Over the course of the next 18 months, ALP developed analytical methods in partnership with a senior bio-chemist from one of the Bay Area’s most prestigious research institutions. Additional scientific oversight is provided by London’s Institute of Psychiatry and the University of the City of London, in a partnership with the internationally renowned Beckley Foundation.

The ultimate goal of the partnership is the development of a comprehensive database to compile patient evaluations of tested medicine samples. This database could one day identify the most therapeutically active components in the cannabis plant, and guide future development of cannabinoid medicines. Lady Amanda Neidpath, Director of the Beckley Foundation, commented, “It could very well be a scientific gold mine.” After a short beta phase at Harborside, ALP will extend the testing program to dispensaries, collectives, and growers state-wide.

Results so far show that most of the medicine presented to Harborside is free of pathogenic molds; but some samples have traces of the aspergillus mold — possibly fatal to patients with very seriously compromised immune systems. Harborside returns to the grower all items found to contain any aspergillus and any that exceed American Herbal Products Assn. standards for mold content. Harborside THC content has ranged from 5.18 to 87.60 percent (including care packages and concentrates), with most flower varieties falling between 15 and 25 percent, and most concentrates between 20 and 80 percent.

Levels of CBD, a cannabinoid of intense interest to researchers, vary markedly between flowers and concentrates. CBD levels in flowers generally have been less than 1 percent, while concentrates — often made from leaf material — have up to three times more. Because researchers and some patients believe CBD has great therapeutic potential, this may be the most important finding of the program so far.

Business profile: Stressful life of pioneering 'cannabis dealer'

2009-07-05T07:31:00.000-07:00

Business profile: Stressful life of pioneering 'cannabis dealer'

Published: 12:01AM BST 05 Aug 2006

Geoffrey Guy: ?It has been very, very difficult. Some slightly unkind things have been said about us?

Geoffrey Guy remains confident despite feeling exhausted after trying to rush MS medicine to the market, writes Katherine Griffiths

Should regulators just chill out about the cannabis-based drug for multiple sclerosis made by GW Pharmaceuticals?

Related Articles
British birds will suffer from the disappearance of set-aside land
Thank goodness the EU said 'no' to Chateau So Light 2009
MS sufferer who pioneered specialist treatment commits suicide
World Stinging Nettle Eating Championship attracts record crowd
Postmistress foils Kinder egg cannabis deliveryThe company has faced so many difficulties from watchdogs it might be enough to drive Geoffrey Guy, GW's executive chairman, to the weed he grows in huge quantities.

Guy prefers to unwind by boating in his native Dorset and does not even drink alcohol or coffee, let alone smoke dope, which he says he has never tried.

He admits running GW - the first company to attempt the complicated process of making a medicine using the entire cannabis plant - has been gruelling.

GW's main product, Sativex, is potentially a revolutionary medicine for people with MS. The under-the-tongue spray, made from cannabis grown in GW's top-secret greenhouses in the south of England, uses the plant's relaxing qualities to alleviate involuntary muscle spasms of MS patients, while not creating any of the hallucinogenic qualities of smoking a joint.

Yet, having been formed eight years ago, GW has disappointed investors by seemingly being on the brink of launching Sativex on the market, only to be thwarted by adverse regulatory rulings and disappointing results from some of its medical studies. The frustrations have led to accusations that Guy has over-promised and under-delivered.

Guy, a co-founder of GW and the G in its name, is normally relentlessly upbeat about the medical potential of cannabis.

But he concedes that the process of developing Sativex in a way that satisfies regulators has been tough: "It has been very, very difficult. I do suffer under the frustrations and some slightly unkind things have been said about us. On the other hand, spending a day with a patient restores it all, when you get a patient who says 'thank you Geoffrey for giving me my life back'."

The Barts-trained doctor points out that many of GW's hiccups with regulators were because he speeded things along. In the mid 1990s, MS patients desperate for something to alleviate their condition were using cannabis, only to find themselves charged with possession of an illegal drug. The courts tended to let them off or hand out suspended sentences, but the Home Office recognised the situation was unsatisfactory and encouraged a plan put forward by Guy to look at turning cannabis into a regulated medicine.

"When I started this programme I did it under a social, legal, medical imperative to work as quickly as possible. The transcripts of a House of Lords select committee in 2001 show it was lambasting the Department of Health for being so slow. The Department of Health was saying in late 2002 Sativex would be approved in 2004."

GW first submitted its dossier to regulators in the UK in 2003 as a treatment for both spasticity and neuropathic pain, which affects peoples nerves. To the company's dismay, it was rejected, on the grounds that separate trials should be conducted for each problem even though most MS patients suffer from both.

Two subsequent trials followed in spasticity, the latest of which was published in March. The study showed good results but just fell short of the efficacy standard demanded by regulators.

Guy admits they did not get the "slam dunk" but he insists the trials taken together show Sativex works, and he is confident that some regulators, perhaps on the Continent, will see it that way.

At the same time, GW has been doing trials of Sativex for neuropathic pain - a massive market - and is also conducting trials for cancer pain in the US.

Mindful of previous promises that have not come off, Guy is cautious about which indication it will focus on first. "I'm not saying it is going to be X or Y on a certain date. We've been caught out very badly on that before," he says.

The 51-year-old nearly died from pneumonia a few years ago and has been diagnosed with diabetes. He admits he is "exhausted", but adds "that is like saying to a marathon runner don't get tired at the end of the marathon".

He says "our European programme has been spreading, we have more positive results across the board and we have got into the US. And since the beginning of the year patients in the UK can get Sativex under prescription from their doctor."

Guy has made a lot of money in the drugs industry, though his 20pc stake in GW has almost halved in value since 2004 to about £18m.

His successes include developing narcotic analgesics and the first skin patch for hormone replacement therapy.

Guy found himself having a conversation on this subject with Margaret Thatcher, who complained about the old style hormone replacement treatment, delivered through jelly bags attached to the skin.

"I was on the British mission in Kiev in the late 1980s, on a stand about drug delivery.

"Margaret Thatcher - who is a chemist - was talking about HRT and said they are awfully crispy and fall off."

Much of Guy's work on HRT was done at Ethical, another drugs company he set up in 1985. He left it after the company "ran straight into the front of the biotech downturn" in 1996 and failed to list in London.

"I felt really, really bad about it at the time. Later it wasn't so bad when you considered that nobody else got away." The decision to leave, he says, was because "I always said if I find a time when I don't believe I can add anything the next day it is time to move on. So that is what I did."

After Ethical, Guy decided to pursue a hunch he had that cannabis might be the missing link in the naturally produced pain killers that include morphine and capsicum, from peppers.

To the doubters Guy can fairly claim he has made progress.

Sativex sales have started in Canada and there has been a small-scale distribution in Spain and the UK under a compassionate use scheme. GW has licensing partnerships with much larger drugs companies, such as Germany's Bayer and Almirall of Spain, which will net it £70m if it meets certain hurdles.

In the key American market the go-head by the Food and Drug Administration to carry out a late-stage trial on cancer pain is also a considerable opportunity.

Guy points out that due to the nature of his raw ingredients, GW's progress has been in the spotlight.

"It is like a cook being asked to choose a new recipe and being told people are going to sit in the kitchen all day and watch them make it. Every single thing, warts and all has been looked at. Most pharmaceuticals companies do not have to do that," he says.

Publishers wishing to reproduce photographs on this page should phone 44 (0) 207 538 7505 or e-mail syndication@telegraph.co.uk

Delivery Services - Deliveries and Private Caregivers BE SAFE!!

2009-07-05T07:02:00.000-07:00

We decided to post these two videos to educate and show the SD law enforcement have choose to taken the position against private care services. One video has the purchase and everything on tape from the verification to the delivery. We also have a video which the attorney also replies. Coming soon. www.compassionatecaregivers.com

Speaking at a press conference with DEA administrator Michelle Leonhart, Attorney General Eric Holder declared that ending medical marijuana raids

2009-02-25T20:59:00.001-08:00

Speaking at a press conference with DEA
administrator Michelle Leonhart, Attorney General
Eric Holder declared that ending medical
marijuana raids "is now American policy."
A reporter asked, "shortly after the
inauguration there were raids on California
medical marijuana dispensaries...do you expect
these to continue?", noting that the President
had promised to end the raids in the campaign.
Holder responded, "What the President said
during the campaign...is consistent with what we
will be doing here in law enforcement. He was my
boss in the campaign....He is my boss now. What
he said in the campaign is now American policy."
!!!
The question appears about 25 minutes into the
press conference, which was devoted to an
operation against the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821

Tom Ammiano: Legalize Marijuana, Regulate It and Tax It

2009-02-25T20:29:00.000-08:00

Tom Ammiano: Legalize Marijuana, Regulate It and Tax It
by: Robert in Monterey
Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 12:00:22 PM PST

A frequent topic of online discussion on the budget crisis in recent weeks has been a call to legalize and tax marijuana in order to help close the budget deficit. This would have two beneficial effects - reducing the prison population and increasing the revenue stream for state government. It was even the most popular question at Change.gov back in December.

Today Assemblymember Tom Ammiano announced he supports this basic concept, and to that end is introducing AB 390 - a bill number you'll be hearing a lot about in coming months. From a press release sent via email:

Today Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) announced the introduction of groundbreaking legislation that would tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education act (AB 390) would create a regulatory structure similar to that used for beer, wine and liquor, permitting taxed sales to adults while barring sales to or possession by those under 21.

"With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense. This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes", said Ammiano. "California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana."

Ammiano estimates this will bring in $1 billion in annual revenue. That could double when considering the impact of savings on prison spending.

This is clearly an idea whose time has come. I do not know of any recent polling on the topic, but I have to believe that support for regulating marijuana like alcohol has risen in recent years. 2009 offers an interesting moment, where long-time legalization advocates can now ally with Californians who want to solve the budget crisis and can no longer afford to ignore the high costs of a failed marijuana policy.

Ammiano is also following in the footsteps of other San Francisco legislators. In 1975 then-State Senator George Moscone got a bill passed and signed by Governor Jerry Brown to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Ammiano's proposed legislation is of a much larger scale, but it makes sense to treat marijuana, a drug that is already widely available in California, the same way we treat alcohol.

It's good to see someone in Sacramento stand up and point out that there's no reason we should maintain a policy that has failed so totally and completely, and at such an enormous cost, as marijuana prohibition.

Recession depression....? Medical Marijuana Market Also effected!

2009-02-25T20:02:00.000-08:00

Wouldn't you think that more medical cannabis would be smoked during a recession for depression possibly??

Well according to the SF pot Clubs the Marijuana Market is even slow and hurts them.

Now could it be the new president and his great positive attitude? maybe this is a change, change but hopefully for the best!~ Now is the time to stand for what you believe in vs standing for nothing at all.

BASA AND GREEN CROSS even hurt by the recession....

2009-02-25T20:01:00.000-08:00

Pubdate: Tue, 17 Feb 2009
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Copyright: 2009 San Francisco Examiner
Contact: letters@sfexaminer.com
Website: http://www.sfexaminer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/389
Author: Tamara Barak Aparton
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/topic/dispensaries

RECESSION THREATENS TO BURN OUT POT CLUBS

SAN FRANCISCO - One might guess that tough economic times would only fuel the desire for mind-altering substances. For San Francisco's cannabis clubs, however, nothing could be further from the truth.

The deepening economic crisis has hit the dispensaries hard, forcing the nonprofit collectives to cut staff, business hours and donations to charities.

Charlie Alazraie, manager of Bay Area Safe Alternatives, said business has dropped about 60 percent since summer, as the economy forces patients to buy smaller quantities. Alazraie had to let go of one full-time employee and two part-time workers at the small Western Addition collective.

Also halted were donations to soup kitchens and low-cost health clinics that serve many of BASA's patients. The previously profitable collective was hit with a penalty last quarter after paying their sales tax late for the first time.

"This year we're going to be so much in the red, I don't want to find out. I know it's going to be ugly," Alazraie said. "We're in arrears with our vendors, with architects, with everything."

The collective has always had a commitment to provide free medical marijuana for those in impossible situations - people who are critically ill and living in poverty were subsidized with money set aside from sales. In the past, the number of people who qualified hovered around 36. Today, there are 60.

The recession hit right after many San Francisco pot clubs had spent tens of thousands of dollars to comply with legislation passed in 2005 requiring them to meet city permit regulations.

Kevin Reed, founder of the Green Cross, which delivers medical marijuana to patients in San Francisco, said his sales are down 25 percent in the past 40 days, and dropped 45 percent in the past two weeks.

To survive, the collective cut its hours and cut its 12 employees' pay by $2 an hour.

"It's amazing to me," Reed said. "It's an industry I never thought could be affected."

Reed said he thought marijuana would be a recession-proof product, much like alcohol.

"I always heard that if the economy went bad, people would be depressed," he said. "The whole theory got blown out the window for me."

The cost of the pot hasn't risen, but the $300-an-ounce price tag has become a heavy burden for people who have lost their jobs and cut back on expenses. Insurance does not cover medicinal marijuana.

"The only busy day we've had in the past 40 days is when we offered a one-third off discount for veterans," Reed said. "It seemed like half the veterans in the state signed up."

Toronto: Stirling Hemp Company Gets $2 Million To Open Plant

2009-01-24T20:54:00.000-08:00

Toronto: Stirling Hemp Company Gets $2 Million To Open Plant

* News

Stonehedge Bio-Resources Inc.
Saturday, January 24, 2009

http://www.elorin.ca/imagedb/StonehedgeNew.jpg

Stirling research scientist John Baker has spent a decade growing and testing varieties of hemp.

He's now taken a giant step toward producing industrial hemp for the global marketplace.

The founder and president of Stonehedge Bio- Resources Inc. was in Toronto Wednesday to secure $2 million from private investors to open the first North American bio-processing plant for industrial hemp by this time next year.

Baker has received three letters of intent to invest more than $2 million from Lime Technology Ltd. in the United Kingdom, American Lime Technology in the United States and another private UK investor. Also attending the ceremony and news con-f erence were John Wilkinson, minister of research and innovation and Northumberland- West MPP Lou Rinaldi.

"I am delighted to

accept these letters of intent on behalf of my company," Baker said. "We have a vision to make Stonehedge the leader in industrial hemp in North America and today we are one step closer."

Baker said the investment will allow him to hire five employees this year and employ up to 27 people by 2011, as well as creating new opportunities for up to 200 farmers.

He plans to open a biorefining facility along the Highway 41 corridor between Oshawa and Belleville that would produce Hemcrete, an environmentally-friendly limestone building material similar to concrete.

The company also expects to produce more than $17 million per year in renewable hemp fibre, woodlike chips, pellets, matting and seed products.

"These bio-based products signify the future of sustainable development and clean green technology by replacing products that cause serious environmental damage with innovative carbon-negative alternatives," he told The Intelligencer in a telephone interview from a Toronto hotel.

Industrial hemp has been grown for thousands of years to make fibre for clothing, furniture, ropes, sails and more.

Baker said that as an agricultural crop, hemp is beneficial -- it can be readily grown organically as it does not require the use of harsh chemical herbicides, pesticides and defoliants as do many other fibre crops.

Baker and his wife, Christine, have owned and operated Stonehedge Kennels and horse breeding farm on Eggleton Road southeast of Stirling for the past 25 years. Their 50-acre farm is located almost next door to their daughter, Beth Bouma, who has 80 acres.

Baker said he's spent the past 10 years growing, testing and coming up with his own varieties of hemp and is now looking to industrialize it for the marketplace.

He said the Quinte area and Northumberland region provides an ideal soil/climate resource on which to develop the hemp biomass sector.

As well, he said the regions' proximity to the Quebec-Ontario market corridor and the eastern seaboard of the United States provides an additional competitive advantage.

Baker said he will need at least 17,000 acres of land to produce hemp. He plans on contracting hemp production to growers along the 401 corridor.

"This will be an opportunity for Northumberland, Hastings and Prince Edward and Lennox and Addington farmers to grow seeds that we need to plant acreage," he said.

Baker said he believes growing hemp can be as profitable as other crops.

"It's a great opportunity and our farming community can gauge on this ... but it will take some patience on everyone's part."

He is now looking for a location for the bio-refining facility for hemp, adding that it will have to be along the 401 corridor, central to where the hemp is grown.

"We hope to be ordering equipment in three months and start production 12 to 15 months from today," Baker said. "We will have to contract some acreage this year in anticipation of the plant being up in 12 months."

He added the success of the operation may mean adding additional bio-refining facilities in the future.

"The whole project will be in the neighbourhood of $20 million," Baker said. "This $2-million private investment is a giant step ahead."

He said the possibilities are endless, considering that the global renewable and bioproducts industry is expected to exceed $125 billion in revenues by 2010.

Baker credits several organizations for contributing to his success, including the Trenval Business Development Corporation, Northumberland Community Futures Development Corporation and the Easter Lake Ontario Innovation Network.

Gerrit DeBruyn, Trenval's executive director, accompanied Baker to Toronto Wednesday and said the investment is like a dream come true.

"Trenval had been working with John probably seven years or so ago when he had this dream of utilizing hemp in various products and we have been supporting his mission by providing him some funding ... we're delighted today that after years of patience and perseverance on John's part that we're able to see a major breakthrough here," he said.

DeBruyn said Trenval will assist Baker in taking the next step in opening his bio-refining facility.

"It's green energy and obviously we're very supportive of that," he said.

http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1398812

DEA denied Carl Olsen marijuana rescheduling request (enclosed)

2009-01-12T20:11:00.000-08:00

U.S. Department of Justice
Drug Enforcement Administration
Office of the Deputy Administrator
Washington, D.C. 20537

December 19, 2008

Mr. Carl Olsen
130 E Aurora Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50313-3654

Dear Mr. Olsen:

On May 12,2008, you petitioned the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to initiate rulemaking proceedings under the rescheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). You requested that DEA remove marijuana from schedule I of the CSA based on your assertion that the federal definition for a schedule I controlled substance no longer applies to it. You contend that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine accepted medical use and that marijuana, therefore, has a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" because 12 states have passed laws relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Based on these same assertions, on August 5, 2008, you filed a "Notice and Deadline to Cease and Desist Illegal Enforcement of Fraudulant [sic] Marijuana Regulation." The notice states that the DEA must "cease and desist enforcement of the illegal regulation of marijuana" within 30 days or you will file a federal civil injunction.

The Deputy Administrator finds, for the reasons stated herein, that the grounds upon which you rely are not sufficient to justify the initiation of proceedings for the removal of marijuana from schedule I ofthe CSA. Accordingly, your petition is hereby denied. For the same reasons, the Deputy Administrator finds that the notice to cease and desist also lacks merit. Accordingly, to the extent you seek action based on this filing, this request also is hereby denied.

Legal Background

When the CSA was created, Congress specified the initial scheduling of controlled substances and the criteria by which controlled substances could be rescheduled. 21 U.S.C. 811-812 (2008). Congress placed marijuana into schedule I. See Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-513, 202(c), schedule I (c)(10), 84 Stat. 1247.

The Attorney General "may by rule" transfer a drug or other substance between schedules if he finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse and makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of Section 812 for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed. 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(I). In order for a substance to be placed in schedule I, the Attorney General must find that:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse;

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1)(A)-(C). To be classified in one of the other schedules (II through V), a drug of abuse must have a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." [Footnote 1]

Footnote 1: A controlled substance in schedule II must have either "a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions." 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(2)(B); see also Notice of Denial of Petition, 66 Fed. Reg. 20,038, 20,038 (Apr. 18,2001) ("Congress established only one schedule - schedule I - for drugs of abuse with 'no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States' and a 'lack of accepted safety for use ... under medical supervision.'").

The CSA provides that, in making any rescheduling determination, the Attorney General shall consider the following eight factors:

(1) The drug's actual or relative potential for abuse;

(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known;

(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug;

(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse;

(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse;

(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health;

(7) The drug's psychic or physiological dependence liability; and

(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under the CSA.

21 U.S.C. 811(c). The Attorney General has delegated this authority to the Administrator of DEA, who has redelegated it to the Deputy Administrator. See 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) & 0.104, Appendix to Subpart R, sec. 12 (2008).

The CSA further provides that, before initiating proceedings to reschedule a drug, the Administrator must gather the necessary data and request from the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendations as to whether the controlled substance should be rescheduled as the petitioner proposes. 21 U.S.C. 811(b); 21 C.F.R. 130S.43(d); Gettman v. DEA, 290 F.3d 430, 432 (D.C. Cir. 2002). In making such evaluation and recommendations, the Secretary must consider the factors listed in paragraphs (2), (3), (6), (7), and (8) above, and any scientific or medical considerations involved in paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) above. 21 U.S.C. 811(b). The Secretary has delegated this function to the Assistant Secretary for Health. [Footnote 2] If the Administrator determines that the evaluations and recommendations of the Assistant Secretary and "all other relevant data" constitute substantial evidence that the drug that is the subject of the petition should be subjected to lesser control or removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings to reschedule the drug or remove it from the schedules as the evidence dictates. 21 U.S.C. 811(b); 21 C.F.R. 1308.43(e).

Footnote 2: As set forth in a memorandum of understanding entered into by HHS, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), FDA acts as the lead agency within HHS in carrying out the Secretary's scheduling responsibilities under the CSA, with the concurrence of NIDA. Memorandum of Understanding with the Nat'l Inst. on Drug Abuse, 50 Fed. Reg. 9,518 (Mar. 8, 1985).

Basis for Denial of Your Petition and Notice

Your petition and notice rest on your contention that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine, for purposes of the CSA, whether a drug has a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," and that marijuana has such a currently accepted medical use because 12 states have passed laws relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes. See Carl Olsen Petition for Marijuana Rescheduling (May 12, 200S) ("Pet."); Carl Olsen Memorandum of Law in Support ofPetition for Marijuana Rescheduling (May 25, 200S) ("Mem."); Notice and Deadline to Cease and Desist Illegal Enforcement of Fraudulant [sic] Marijuana Regulation (Aug. 5, 200S) ("Notice"). [Footnote 3] For the following reasons, your contention is not in accordance with law.
Footnote 3: You do not, in this petition or notice, dispute whether marijuana meets the frrst criterion for schedule I or schedule II, i.e., that the substance has a high potential for abuse. Nor do you purport to present new scientific or medical evidence - beyond that previously considered by DEA in its prior denial of another petition to reschedule marijuana, see Notice of Denial of Petition, 66 Fed. Reg. at 20,038 - regarding whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use. See generally Pet.; Mem.; Notice. Finally, you do not raise any religious use arguments such as those you previously raised and recently had rejected in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See Olsen v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2008) (rejecting Olsen's religious use claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and rejecting Olsen's free exercise and equal protection claims).

A. The CSA's Statutory Scheme

The CSA's statutory scheme disproves your contention that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine whether a drug has a "currently accepted medical use" within the meaning ofthe CSA. You rely on Section 903 ofthe CSA, see Pet. at 2; Mem. at 16; Notice at 1, which provides that: "No provision ofthis subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part ofthe Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any state law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together." 21 U.S.C. 903 (2008).

As a threshold matter, 21 U.S.C. 903 merely reaffirms, for purposes of the CSA, what is inherent in the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution: that any state law that actually conflicts with federal law is preempted by federal law and therefore invalid under the supremacy clause. [Footnote 4] Section 903 also provides that, so long as the states do not enact a law relating to controlled substances that creates a positive conflict with the CSA, the states are free to enact laws regulating controlled substances which would otherwise be within their authority that will operate alongside the CSA. Thus, it would be antithetical to the text of section 903 to cite it for the proposition that state controlled substance laws that conflict with the CSA can override or frustrate the purposes of the CSA. As the Supreme Court stated in the context of marijuana possession and cultivation taking place in purported compliance with California law: "The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail." [Footnote 5]

Footnote 4: See, e.g., California Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 280-281 (1987).

Footnote 5: Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 29 (2005).

Furthermore, the CSA plainly does not assign to the states the authority to make findings relevant to CSA scheduling determinations. Rather, the CSA expressly delegates the task of making such findings - including whether a substance has any currently accepted medical use - to the Attorney General. 21 U.S.C. 811(a). The CSA also expressly tasks the Secretary of HHS to provide a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendations to inform the Attorney General's findings. 21 U.S.C. 811 (b). [Footnote 6] That Congress explicitly provided scheduling authority to these two federal entities further precludes your argument that Section 903 reserves this authority to the states.

Footnote 6: DEA regulations echo this statutory scheme. See 21 C.F.R. 1308.43.

In addition, the CSA explicitly provides that in making a scheduling determination, the Attorney General shall consider the following eight factors:

(1) The drug's actual or relative potential for abuse;

(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known;

(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug;

(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse;

(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse;

(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health;

(7) The drug's psychic or physiological dependence liability; and

(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under the CSA.

21 U.S.C. 811(c). These factors do not include state law. The CSA's statutory text evidences that Congress did not envision such a role for state law in establishing the schedules of controlled substances under the CSA. [Footnote 7]

Footnote 7: DEA previously conducted lengthy proceedings to review a petition to reschedule marijuana from 1995 through 2001. After requesting and reviewing a scientific and medical evaluation from HHS, the Administrator denied the petition on the grounds that marijuana has no currently accepted medical use and because it is not safe for use even under medical supervision. Notice of Denial of Petition, 66 Fed. Reg. at 20,038, pet. for review dismissed, Gettman, 290 F.3d at 436. As you note, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed a petition with the DEA in October 2002 discussing scientific and medical findings relating to the medical use of marijuana. That petition remains pending.

B. Gonzales v. Oregon and Other Recent Supreme Court Cases

You further rely on Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). See Pet. at 2-3; Mem. at 13; Notice at 4. This reliance also is misplaced. You argue that Oregon supports your petition by requiring federal authorities to defer to states' determinations on issues of medical practice. To the contrary, Oregon affirms the core federal authority of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of HHS, as to drug scheduling.

In Oregon, the United States Supreme Court considered the Attorney General's Interpretive Rule prohibiting doctors from prescribing controlled substances for use in physician-assisted suicide under an Oregon state law that permitted the procedure. Id. at 248. The Court held that the Rule was not entitled to deference because it was not issued pursuant to an explicit delegation of rule making authority. Id. at 258-69. The Court did not find the Attorney General's interpretation persuasive and invalidated the Rule because the CSA "manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally." Id. at 270.

In so holding, however, the Court repeatedly cited by contrast - as a valid and explicit delegation of authority - the Attorney General's power as to drug scheduling. [Footnote 8] The Court observed that, by the text of the CSA itself, Congress had delegated "control" authority to the Attorney General to add, remove, or reschedule substances. [Footenote 9] The Court further cited the CSA's detailed scheduling procedures, including the requirement to request a scientific and medical evaluation by the Secretary of HHS. Id. at 260. Oregon thus confirmed that, in contrast to the invalidated Rule, drug scheduling authority and the corresponding scheduling procedures are an appropriate exercise of the federal power granted in the CSA.

Footnote 8: See Oregon, 546 U.S. at 262 ("It would be anomalous for Congress to have painstakingly described the Attorney General's limited authority to ... schedule a single drug, but to have given him, just by implication, authority to declare an entire class of activity outside 'the course of professional practice' and therefore a criminal violation of the CSA.").

Footnote 9: The Court noted that the term "control" is a term of art in the CSA, meaning to "add a drug or other substance ... to a schedule ... whether by transfer from another schedule or otherwise." Oregon, 546 U.S. at 260 (quoting 21 U.S.C. 802(5)).

The Court also approvingly cited the CSA's explicit allocation of medical judgments in the scheduling context - not, as you argue, to states - but rather, to the Secretary: "The CSA allocates decision making powers among statutory actors so that medical judgments, if they are to be decided at the federal level and for the limited objects of the statute, are placed in the hands of the Secretary." Id. at 265. Whereas the invalidated Rule involved an overly broad assertion of authority, the drug scheduling context exemplified the "CSA's consistent delegation of medical judgments to the Secretary and its otherwise careful allocation of powers." Id. at 272. Thus, far from giving authority to the states, Oregon instead confirms the Attorney General's explicit authority, in conjunction with the Secretary's recommendations on scientific and medical matters, as to drug scheduling.

The two other recent Supreme Court cases you cite, see Mem. at 15-16; Notice at 3, likewise affirmed the primacy of federal law over state marijuana laws. In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001) ("OCBC"), the Court held that no medical necessity exception existed to the CSA's prohibition on manufacturing and distributing marijuana. Notwithstanding California state law authorizing possession and cultivation of marijuana for claimed medical purposes, Congress' clear determination that all schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana, have no currently accepted medical use forecloses any argument as to whether such drugs can be dispensed and prescribed for medical use. Id. at 493. The Court in OCBC was explicit in stating that "for purposes of the [CSA], marijuana has 'no currently accepted medical use' at all. 812." Id. at 491. Similarly, in Raich, 545 U.S. 1, the Court held that, even in a state that had legalized marijuana activity for claimed medical use, Congress' federal commerce clause power extended to prohibit purportedly intrastate cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with the state law. "Limiting the activity to marijuana possession and cultivation 'in accordance with state law' cannot serve to place respondents' activities beyond congressional reach." Id. at 29.

C. Whether A Drug Has A "Currently Accepted Medical Use in Treatment in the United States"

Your argument that there is no federal definition of"currently accepted medical use" also fails. In order to determine whether a substance has a "currently accepted medical use," the Administrator applies a five-part test:

1) The drug's chemistry must be known and reproducible;

2) There must be adequate safety studies;

3) There must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;

4) The drug must be accepted by qualified experts; and

5) The scientific evidence must be widely available.

Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("ACT II"). This test was approved by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language. See Id. at 1134-5, 1137 (approving the Administrator's Final Order applying these five criteria); see also Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ("ACT I"). Significantly, with respect to your petition, this test includes no reference to state law.

D. Other Arguments as to Currently Accepted Medical Use

A substantial portion of the remainder of your memorandum in support of your current petition and your notice merely rehash arguments as to "currently accepted medical use" that you unsuccessfully asserted when you petitioned DEA to reschedule marijuana in 1992 and when you sought review of DEA's denial of that petition by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals, in declining your petition for review in a per curiam order issued October 3, 1996, stated that the arguments you raised "occasion no need for an opinion." Olsen v. DEA, No. 94-1605, 1996 WL 590870 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 3, 1996). It is, therefore, unnecessary for DEA to revisit these same arguments yet again in 2008.

Nevertheless, to ensure completeness of the record, we briefly address and dismiss these contentions. First, you discuss again at length litigation relating to the 1972 petition to reschedule marijuana filed by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), see Mem. at 7-9, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's decision in Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1987). See Mem. at 9-12; Notice at 2. These cases are inapposite, however, as they were superseded by the subsequent ACT I and ACT II decisions approving the present five-factor test. See ACT II, 15 F.3d at 1133 (noting "[t]he petition to reschedule marijuana was first filed [by NORML] in 1972 and has been before this court on four prior occasions ...."); ACT I, 930 F.2d at 939-40 (explicitly distinguishing Grinspoon). [Footnote l0]

Footnote 10: The Grinspoon court never considered the present five-part test, but rather invalidated only a 1986 version of the "currently accepted medical use" test that depended on FDA approval. 828 F.2d at 884. On administrative remand, the test evolved before being replaced with the present five-part test approved in ACT I and ACT II. See Schedules of Controlled Substances, 53 Fed. Reg. 5,156, 5,157 (Feb. 22,1988) (formulating alternative eight-factor test following Grinspoon remand); Marijuana Scheduling Petition; Denial of Petition, 54 Fed. Reg. 53,767, 53,783 (Dec. 29, 1989) (applying eight-factor test); Marijuana Scheduling Petition; Denial of Petition; Remand, 57 Fed. Reg. 10,499, 10,506 (Mar. 26, 1992) (discarding eight-factor test and applying present five-part test). As to possible duplication of criteria between the 1986 version of the test Grinspoon rejected and the present test, the ACT I court explicitly distinguished Grinspoon, stating that the First Circuit "never suggested the DEA Administrator was foreclosed from incorporating and relying on those standards employed by the FDA that are relevant to the pharmaceutical qualities of the drug." 930 F.2d at 939.

Second, you reiterate arguments regarding the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, contending that it was modified in 1991 to allow for the medical use of the pharmaceutically pure primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, delta-9-THC, and that this ingredient has been rescheduled twice, from schedule I to schedule III. Mem. at 4. You further contend that plants are not typically scheduled in schedules more restrictive than the psychoactive substances that are obtained from them. Mem. at 5. Under the CSA, however, the regulation of chemicals and the plant material are distinct from each other: drugs or other substances are treated and classified differently, according to the enumerated statutory criteria. 21 U.S.C. 812(b); see also Final Order, In the Matter of Petition of Carl Eric Olsen (May 16, 1994) (rejecting petition to reschedule marijuana); Olsen, 1996 WL 590870, at *1 (denying Olsen's petition for review). Whether marijuana is a source of delta-9-THC is irrelevant to the status of marijuana under the CSA.

None of your remaining arguments as to whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use have merit. [Footnote 11] First, you reference a portion of the 1970 legislative history of the CSA relating to appointment of a commission that issued a report on marijuana in 1972, citing a portion of the 1972 report itself. See Mem. at 2-3. In the more than 36 years that have elapsed since these materials were published, however, numerous individuals and marijuana legalization advocates have pointed to the 1972 marijuana report to justify CSA violations involving marijuana, to challenge the constitutionality of the federal marijuana laws, or, as with your latest petition, to argue that marijuana should be deemed to have medical efficacy for purposes of the CSA. [Footnote 12] None of these efforts have ever succeeded for the simple reason that Congress took no action to alter the CSA in any respect as a result of the 1972 report. The fact that Congress has not rescheduled marijuana speaks for itself.

Footnote 11: Your notice in particular exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the "currently accepted medical use" standard. You argue that the DEA should have rescheduled marijuana in 1996 as soon as one state (California) passed legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana, citing Raich, OCBC, and Grinspoon. Notice at 2-3. But none of these cases support your argument. First, as you acknowledge, see Notice at 3, Raich noted that Congress classified marijuana in schedule I, that is, "Congress expressly found that [marijuana] has no acceptable medical uses." 545 U.S. at 27. Second, you ignore that OCBC specifically rejected an exception for the medical use of marijuana on the basis that Congress, and not the Attorney General, had placed marijuana in schedule I. The Court held:

It is clear from the text of the [CSA] that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception .... The statute ... includes no exception at all for any medical use of marijuana. Unwilling to view this omission as an accident, and unable in any event to override a legislative determination manifest in a statute, we reject the [plaintiff's] argument.

532 U.S. at 493. Third, you misstate the holding of Grinspoon. That court did not say, as you argue, that a controlled substance cannot be scheduled in schedule I if it has accepted medical use anywhere in the United States; rather, it said only that "Congress did not intend .. to require a fmding of recognized medical use in every state." 828 F.2d at 886 (emphasis added).

Footnote 12: See, e.g., United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 1998); NORML v. Bell, 488 F. Supp. 123, 128 (D.D.C. 1980); United States v. LaFroscia, 354 F. Supp. 1338, 1340 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).

You also observe that the federal government has supplied marijuana to medical patients through a program of compassionate use. Mem. at 5-6 (citing Kuromiya v. United States, 78 F. Supp. 2d 367 (E.D. Pa. 1999)). The existence of this exception is not a ground for rescheduling. As the federal district court held in Kuromiya, the government's decision to continue the program at all was a "means of balancing" the interests of those who had relied on the drug with the government's desire to avoid distributing marijuana. 78 F. Supp. 2d at 370-71. You further claim that one participant's primary care doctor has retired, and that she is not able to find another doctor willing to prescribe marijuana because of the stigma associated with prescribing a schedule I substance. Mem. at 6. You have not provided any evidence to support this contention. Even if you had, one individual's potential hardship to participate in a compassionate use program is not adequate legal grounds for rescheduling. See 21 U.S.C. 811(c).

Finally, you argue that the "DEA's own Administrative Law Judge [ALJ Young] has already determined that marijuana is safe for use under medical supervision." Olsen Petition at 4. As you acknowledge, however, see Pet. at 3, the DEA Administrator unambiguously rejected ALJ Young's determination in In re Marijuana Rescheduling, DEA Dkt. No. 86-22 (Sept. 6, 1998) (attached as Ex. 1 to Pet.). The D.C. Circuit later affirmed the DEA's final order (Mar. 26, 1992) in ACT II, 15 F.3d at 1135 (denying petition to review DEA's final order declining to reschedule marijuana). Nor is it accurate that the Administrator's rejection of ALJ Young's determination depended on the fact that no state had accepted the use of marijuana for medical purposes. In fact, ALJ Young's opinion had noted the efforts of a number of states to pass such legislation. See, e.g., In re Marijuana Rescheduling, DEA Dkt. No. 86-22, 21,22,28. In any case, for the reasons set forth in detail above, the existence of state legislation is not relevant to a scheduling determination.

Conclusion

Accordingly, there is no statutory basis for DEA to grant your petition to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana. Nor is there any basis to initiate any action based on your August 5th notice.

The Petitioner's request is denied.

Sincerely,
Michele M. Leonhart
Deputy Administrator

MEDICAL MARIJUANA GROUP TO FILE SUIT A Bay Area organization supporting medical marijuana users said it's filing suit against the Solano County

2009-01-12T20:09:00.001-08:00

MEDICAL MARIJUANA GROUP TO FILE SUIT

A Bay Area organization supporting medical marijuana users said it's filing suit against the Solano County Board of Supervisors and the county's Health and Social Services Department to force them to implement a state-mandated medical marijuana identification card program.

The group, Americans for Safe Access, announced Monday that it would be seeking a writ of mandate -- basically an order to comply with existing law -- from Solano County Superior Court requiring that the county comply with California's Compassionate Use Act for medical marijuana users.

The suit also lists medical marijuana users identified as Linda Jimenez and "John Doe" as petitioners in the case.

Americans for Safe Access spokesman Kris Hermes reported that California law adopted in 2003 requires all counties in California to offer a marijuana ID card program to assist medical marijuana users and to make it easier for law enforcement to identify legitimate patients and their caregivers.

Since then, Hermes said, 40 of California's counties have put together medical marijuana ID programs, and another 11 are on their way.

The Solano County Board of Supervisors first discussed implementing a medical marijuana identification card program in 2006 but voted not to do so. Americans for Safe Access reported that letters requesting compliance were sent to the Board of Supervisors on Aug. 11 and Oct. 28, 2008, but neither the supervisors nor the county Health and Social Services Department complied.

In a prepared statement issued Monday, Oakland attorney Joe Elford, chief counsel for the group, said it was time for Solano County to comply with state law.

"Solano County cannot simply flaunt its obligation under the law," Elford stated. "This lawsuit is aimed at forcing counties like Solano to fully implement state law and to stop denying medical marijuana patients their legal rights and protections."

Solano County Counsel Dennis Bunting said he had been informed that the group had been preparing to file an action on the medical marijuana ID issue, but had not yet received a copy of the petition for writ of mandamus and could not comment on it.

The Board of Supervisors, he said, is scheduled to revisit the subject during a closed session discussion next Tuesday.

Weed Toilet Paper Has Arrived w Pot Leaves for 420 Cannabis users

2009-01-12T20:01:00.000-08:00

Interested in Pot Leaf 420 Cannabis Toilet paper?

Operation Green Acres.

2009-01-12T19:52:00.000-08:00

?"Operation Green Acres." anyone else heard about this????

POT GROWER SUES FOR 'LOST PROFIT'

Sheriff Destroyed Confiscated Plants

A Gasquet man currently facing marijuana-sales charges has sued the
Del Norte County Sheriff's Office for "lost profit" after his
marijuana plants were destroyed prior to the dismissal of a previous
marijuana-sales case.

Kirk David Stewart, 45, filed the suit Jan. 2, claiming the Sheriff's
Office should have returned 93 confiscated plants to Stewart -- or at
least the cash amount that could have been made by harvesting them.

The suit states that "Mr. Stewart is requesting the fair market
value" of the 93 marijuana plants that were destroyed.

If there is any truth to the true market value of the marijuana the
(Drug) Task Force say they are taking off the streets, then Mr.
Stewart's plants are worth upwards of several hundred thousand
dollars," said Jon Alexander, Stewart's attorney.

Stewart was arrested in January 2007 after a search warrant was
served on a Crescent City residence on Union Street that he owned.

Authorities confiscated 93 plants along with numerous items used to
grow marijuana, including grow lights, exhaust fans, ballasts and pots.

The suit alleges that Alexander sent a request to the Sheriff's
Office in August 2007 asking for the return of the plants confiscated
from Stewart.

In April 2008, the charges against Stewart were dismissed by the DA's
office because Stewart was found to be in compliance with the
Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Proposition 215), according to the suit.

He brought these certificates saying there were 10 people he was in
care for," said District Attorney Mike Riese.

Equipment, not plants, returned Alexander said Stewart's case should
not have taken as long as it did to be dismissed.

His case did not need to languish for an entire year -- allowing his
marijuana to rot," the lawyer said.

In May 2008, the growing equipment had been returned to Stewart at
the Sheriff's Office, but the plants were not, the suit states.

A copy of the evidence release form included in the lawsuit states,
"unable to release MJ plants -- they were destroyed."

Riese suggested another reason why the Sheriff's Office doesn't ever
give back confiscated drugs after a case is dismissed.

The feds don't recognize Prop. 215," he said. "Under federal law,
marijuana is an illegal substance."

The DA said the Sheriff's Office abides by federal laws and if it
gave drugs back to someone who was exonerated, the office could be
under federal suspicion for drug trafficking.

If they do something with it -- it's part of a distribution chain," said Riese.

New charges pending Stewart now faces several new marijuana-sales charges.

He is charged in Del Norte County with planting and cultivation of
marijuana, possession of marijuana for sale, selling in lieu of a
controlled substance (trading in drugs) and being a felon in
possession of a firearm, said Riese.

Stewart was arrested at his trailer in Gasquet last April 17 with
Fred Kenneth Otremba, 48, of Crescent City, after the federal Drug
Enforcement Agency served a search warrant at the trailer with the
help of the Sheriff's Office.

Otremba is currently facing a charge of being a felon in possession
of a firearm.

The Sheriff's Office said Otremba and Stewart were trimming marijuana
when authorities arrived.

The arrests were part of a DEA operation called "Operation Green Acres."

As the lead agency in the raid, the DEA confiscated 100 pounds of
processed marijuana, 22 firearms and 84 plants, according to the
Sheriff's Office.

Riese said that because the two men were in Del Norte County when
they were arrested, he filed local charges against them -- so he
wouldn't have to wait for federal charges to be filed.

Riese said the men have appeared in court and the case will most
likely go to trial.

Stewart has already voiced the defense of being a Prop. 215 caregiver
just like he did in 2007, Riese said.

It's the same thing, he's saying they are compassionate caregivers
--they gave a certificate saying 'these are the people we care for,'"
said Riese.

So I said, 'prove it,'" he said, adding that in 2007 Stewart wasn't
required to prove he had been the caretaker of his "clients."

Riese said Stewart provided him with nearly a dozen of the Prop 215
certificates for the new case.

Alexander has since filed a motion to suppress the warrant that led
to the DEA confiscation of the processed marijuana, plants and firearms.

Stewart was already convicted around a decade ago in Del Norte County
for marijuana sales, said Riese.

Riese said Stewart was sentenced to 180 days in jail and felony
probation after he was found guilty of being in possession of a
10-pound bag of pot for sale.

The DA did not think the Prop. 215 compliance defense will work
because of the 100 pounds of pot that were found in the new case.

It's just not going to fly this time," said Riese.

The fate of confiscated drugs Sheriff Dean Wilson commented on the
office's policies on the confiscation of illicit substances and on
what he sees as problems with Stewart and Alexander's suit.

When processed marijuana --most commonly the dried and packaged buds
of the plant -- is confiscated it is kept until the case has been
adjudicated, said the sheriff.

Wilson said all the processed pot is kept in evidence, and "we'll
test a small portion of the marijuana."

The test would indicate the THC (tetra-hydra-cannabinol) content of
the drug, which is the chemical that gives users the "high."

The rest of it will be held in evidence up to the point to where the
case is adjudicated," said Wilson.

Some cases take so long that "the marijuana actually grows mold on it
before they would get it back," said the sheriff.

Wilson said his office hasn't given back any confiscated drugs, to
his knowledge.

He said pot-plant confiscation is different. When plants are
confiscated they are literally torn from the ground or planters they
are in and thrown in the back of a vehicle.

We retain a small percent of the plant, then record the amount of
THC," said the sheriff. "Once that is done, it just sits in our
impound and rots."

The sheriff said at the "rotting point," the plants are shredded and
buried, while processed pot is eventually burned.

Wilson said the burning, shredding and burying of confiscated pot
occurs in Del Norte County.

Usually, locally we can take care of the marijuana," he said.

Wilson said the policy is the same for most confiscated organic
drugs, such as hallucinogenic mushrooms.

Chemical drugs, such as methamphetamine, cocaine, ecstasy pills and
prescription narcotics, cannot be disposed of in Del Norte County, he said.

We just don't have the facilities -- so we have to take all the white
dope over to Shasta County," said Wilson.

Once or twice every year, the office clears out or destroys all of
its drug evidence for cases that have been resolved, he said.

Misinterpretation of Prop. 215? The sheriff said that he felt the
suit misrepresented Prop. 215.

The law, the way that it states it, is 'if I'm growing marijuana for
medicinal purposes -- I'm not allowed to make a profit from it,'" said Wilson.

So how could he ask for the profit from the plants?" he said about
Stewart and Alexander's suit.

The sheriff said if Prop. 215 medicinal use is granted, the "personal
use" pot is not to be sold or bartered with.

Wilson said that makes the suit's claim for "lost profit" a moot point.

If you're not doing a commercial operation, then what is the profit
of a plant that you can't legally sell?" he asked.

Alexander called Wilson's interpretation of Prop. 215 "simply not true."

The attorney said, "I would like to see Sheriff Wilson's socialist
view of medicine extended to the country's pharmaceutical companies."
____________________________________________________________

Hi Everyone in Riverside and San Bernardino County - From Lanny

2009-01-12T19:43:00.000-08:00

1-11-9
Hi Everyone,
Once again – there is just so much going on that it is almost mind-boggling. With the economic disaster the country is going through (some pundits are now using the word “depression”), the two seemingly never-ending wars we are in and the looming (if not already here) disaster to our environment, medical marijuana and marijuana law reform pale in comparison. Cannabis cannot solve all these problems, but it can make a significant impact on each one.
As fuel and especially fiber, cannabis can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, practically eliminate the need to cut down forests for paper and hence have a significant impact on global warming and can be cultivated almost anywhere and needs less water than cotton. Solve all our environmental problems? – of course not. Make a significant improvement – absolutel y yes.
As for the economy, we can save $20 billion a year by ending law enforcement’s addiction to marijuana law prohibition and probably raise close to $50 billion a year in taxes (sin tax, sales tax, income tax and tax tax) on the legal sales of marijuana. With job losses and unemployment soaring to new heights, marijuana legalization will give jobs to hundreds of thousands. Will marijuana solve all our economic problems? – also of course not. Will it make a significant improvement? – Well I don’t know what world our elected officials are living in, but $50 billion plus hundreds of thousands of jobs isn’t something to ignore just because law enforcement wants to keep its pig trough of marijuana law prohibition and the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t want the competition from cheap pot.
As for the two wars – well there are some things even marijuana can’t help – although I am thoroughly convinced if everyone could just sit down and pass around some joints with some really killer weed, maybe the perspective and tolerance that pot seems so capable of inducing in its users may lead them to want to stop all this crap. I know that this is beyond fanciful thinking – but you know damn well that it wouldn’t hurt.
OK – so if you agree with the above, then you should get involved and look at all that is happening that you can ge t involved in.
1. MAPP patient support group & law reform meetings.
Wednesday, Jan. 14 at 7:30 p.m. at the THCF Medical Clinic, 647 Main Street, Riverside 92501. Click here for a map.

Wednesday, Jan. 21 at 6:30 p.m. at the Castle Inn, 1388 N. Golden Slipper Lane, Landers 92285. Click here for a map.

At both meetings we will be discussing what is happening in both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. With lawsuits being filed in SB County, dispensary ordinances being passed in Palm Springs and Yucca Valley, patient collectives forming and patients still under threat by law enforcement and drug warrior organizations, there is lots of stuff going on that you need to know about and get involved with. If you live in those areas an ywhere within reasonable driving distance to the meetings, you would be greatly benefited by making the time and coming on down.

2. THCF Medical Clinic 1st Anniversary Celebration
January 17 marks the one year anniversary of the opening of the THCF Medical Clinic - the first cannabis therapeutics clinic in the Inland Empire. Since the first day, the clinic has provided medical marijuana recommendations to over 500 patients, effectively and safely treating a variety of ailments from arthritis to depression to chronic pain.
Located at 647 Main St. in Riverside, the clinic is centrally located within the Inland Empire and has become the center of medical marijuana activism in the region.
To celebrate the one year anniversary, the THCF Clinic is hosting a one year anniversary party on Saturday, Jan. 17 open to the general public. The highlight of the celebrati on will be the presentation of plaque of honor to California medical marijuana pioneer Anna Boyce.
Anna Boyce, who is a retired R.N. became the public voice of medical marijuana advocates and was seen in many TV commercials advocating for the passage of Proposition 215.
Mrs. Boyce will discuss how Proposition 215 came into existence and her role in educating voters about this groundbreaking legislation. Her task and that of other Prop. 215 advocates was formidable, but through their concerted advocacy they overcame the opposition by law enforcement on every level including the concerted effort by every California District Attorney, save one, to convince the voters not to pass Proposition 2 15.
There will be desserts and other refreshments so this indeed will be a festive as well as an historic occasion. I hope you can make it – this is one of those all too rare chances to get together and celebrate our knowledge that our use of cannabis is beneficial for our health and the community rather than all this try-to-figure-out-the-legal BS we always seem to be meeting over.
There is no charge to attend the THCF Medical Clinic’s first year anniversary party. The celebration will be held at the THCF Medical Clinic, 647 Main Street in Riverside 92501. Information may be obtained by calling 951-782-9898. Click here for a map.
Plan now to attend this event and meet Mrs. Boyce and many other patients and advocates in what promises to be very enjoyable evening on Saturday, Jan. 17 at 7:30 p.m. So as to get an idea of about how many desserts and drinks we are going to need , I would really appreciate it if you would either send me an email back letting me know that you are planning on coming or giving me a call at 760-799-2055.
3. Important phone call you can make to stop DEA raids!!!!
I am passing along to you this NATIONAL ACTION ALERT – please take 60 seconds to help stop the DEA raids by making a phone about the US Attorney General Confirmation! During his election campaign, President-elect Obama pledged to end DEA raids on individuals who use or provide medical cannabis in accordance with their state law. The U.S. Attorney General is the cabinet official who will carry out President-elect Obama's policies. Confirmation hearings for Obama's nominee, Eric Holder, are scheduled to begin on January 15th before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Help us make sure the next Attorney General keeps the promises made by President-elect Obama!=2 0

*Call Sen. Leahy's office at (202) 224-4242 and say: "Hi, my name is ___________ and I am calling about the Attorney General confirmation hearings. President-elect Obama said numerous times during his campaign that DEA raids on individuals legally qualified to use medical marijuana in their states are a waste of resources and that he would end that policy. 72 million Americans live in the 13 states with medical marijuana laws. Please ask Eric Holder if he will uphold Obama's promise and end DEA raids on legal medical marijuana patients."

This is really Really REALLY important. It will take less than 60 seconds and YOU CAN CALL ANYTIME 24/7 because if the Senator’s office is not open, you can leave a message on the voice mail. I believe Senator Leahy has supported us in the past, so make sure he continues this support by asking him to ask AG nominee Eric Holden if he will uphold President elect Obama’s pledge to end DEA raids against medical marijuana patients in states that have legalized the use of marijuana medicinally.

Call his office RIGHT NOW at (202) 224-4242.

You may have heard about President elect=2 0Obama’s transition team website www.change.gov. Marijuana issues have been among the top issues and in a number instances, it is the number one issue. If you want to join in and let them know that marijuana law reform and medicinal marijuana is an important issue go to the following link.
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/legalize_the_medicinal_and_recreational_use_of_marijuana

4. Yucca Valley City Council recently passed a medical marijuana dispensary ban, but the one collective that was already up and running was grandfathered in. Now there is a concerted effort to try and close it being whipped up by the Inland Valley Drug Free Community Coalition. In another atrocious column by these anti-harm reduction drug warriors published in the Hi-Desert Star, they spread falsehoods and lies in order to whip up public support against medical marijuana and direct that anger at Yucca Valley’s lone medical marijuana dispensary. I have printed at the end of this email the IVDFCC column and an article about the meeting held in=2 0Yucca Valley last week.
This is an example how the IVDFCC works to defeat us (and with your tax money to boot).
I am not aware of anywhere else in the state of California where law enforcement is using public money to get the public to take action to close down medical marijuana facilities, but that is exactly what is happening here and if it succeeds here I don’t doubt for one second that other law enforcement agencies up and down the state will take their cue from San Bernardino law enforcement and channel public money to these organizations that are out to defeat us.
If we don’t challenge them by responding to their threats, then their BS becomes reality for the general public. Please read the article and column at the end of this email and then write a response and send it to: editor@hidesertstar.com
At the Wednesday, Jan. 21 MAPP meeting we will be dealing with this challenge. I strongly urge all of you up in the High Desert to attend this meeting. If you don’t challenge them and stop this illegal and unethical behavior on the part of law enforcement, then no one will and if you think it is difficult and dangerous to obtain your medicine, it will only get worse.
5 . Send us a donation!!!!! Please!!!!
Any cause organization in order to be effective relies on their supporters to help provide them with the financial resources needed to do what needs to be done. Could you take a moment and go to our website, www.marijuananews.org, and help provide us those resources by making a donation?
As you can see we are up to our neck in alligators and we need your help to get a boat.
Donations can also be made by sending a check made out to MAPP to:
MAPP, PO Box 739, Palm Springs CA 92263.
If you would like to make a tax deductible donation, please contact me.

Take action today. There’s so much you can do it. Will you do it?

Lanny

DON'T WASTE RESOURCES: ID PROGRAM IS OVERDUE

2009-01-12T11:39:00.000-08:00

DON'T WASTE RESOURCES: ID PROGRAM IS OVERDUE
Newshawk: http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm
Pubdate: Mon, 12 Jan 2009
Source: Reporter, The (Vacaville, CA)
Copyright: 2009 The Reporter
Contact: letters@thereporter.com
Website: http://www.thereporter.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/472
Cited: Board of Supervisors http://www.co.solano.ca.us/depts/bos/default.asp
Cited: Health and Social Services Department http://www.co.solano.ca.us/depts/hss/default.asp
Cited: Americans for Safe Access http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Americans+for+Safe+Access
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)

DON'T WASTE RESOURCES: ID PROGRAM IS OVERDUE

It is hard to believe that a county looking at all possible ways to cut expenses has resources to waste on a losing court battle, but that would seem to be the case in Solano County.

Last week, the Board of Supervisors and the Health and Social Services Department were sued because Solano continues to disregard a state law that requires counties to issue identification cards to patients whose physicians legitimately prescribe marijuana for a serious medical condition.

The law requiring counties to issue the cards was adopted by the Legislature in 2003 to clarify issues raised after voters approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Some 55 percent of Solano County voters joined the majority of Californians in approving that initiative.

And yet Solano County has steadfastly refused to follow state law on the matter.

The last time Supervisors voted on the issue, in 2006, the sentiment was that the board should wait until a San Diego County lawsuit concerning the legality of the state law was settled.

As it turns out, San Diego, which also does not wish to issue the cards, lost its case. The Superior Court upheld the validity of state-issued medical marijuana cards and the state Appeals and Supreme courts declined to hear any appeal. The final rejection came in October.

In August and again in October, the plaintiffs in the newest lawsuit, Americans for Safe Access, formally asked Solano County to establish a medical marijuana ID program. The plea fell on deaf ears, so the organization turned to the courts.

It is hard to imagine that judges are going to find in Solano's favor, considering not only the recent Supreme Court action but also an opinion by Attorney General Jerry Brown and instructions by the state Department of Publish Health, both requiring counties to provide the cards.

But it is easy to imagine that the courts will order the county to pay the plaintiff's attorney fees.

More to the point, it is foolish for the county not to issue the cards, which are specifically designed to help law officers determine who has a legitimate prescription for medical marijuana and who doesn't.

Statewide, 41 counties now issue the cards. Six more -- including neighboring Sacramento and San Joaquin counties -- are expected to implement the ID program this fiscal year. Solano is among only 11 holdouts.

It should stop fighting a losing battle and issue the cards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Solano County sued over pot ID cards Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, January 6, 2009

2009-01-09T03:50:00.000-08:00

Solano County sued over pot ID cards

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

(01-05) 16:03 PST FAIRFIELD --

A medical-marijuana advocacy group sued Solano County on Monday for its failure to issue identification cards to users of medicinal cannabis as required by state law.

The lawsuit, filed in Solano County Superior Court, said the county is among several in California that have failed to give out the cards, which protect their holders from arrest by state or local police for possessing small amounts of marijuana.

"Solano County cannot simply flout its obligation under the law," Joe Elford, an attorney for Americans for Safe Access, said in a statement.

The group sent letters to Solano County in August and October urging it to comply with the 2003 law requiring the marijuana ID card program, Elford said.

In July, a state court of appeal upheld California's medical marijuana law enacted in 1996, rejecting arguments by San Diego and San Bernardino counties that allowing patients to use the drug with their doctor's approval condoned violations of federal narcotics laws.

Of California's 58 counties, 51 comply with the ID card program, Elford said.

Jo Ann Parker, deputy Solano County counsel, said the county had not yet been served with the suit. But she noted that the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to discuss the ID card program in closed session Jan. 13.

E-mail Henry K. Lee at hlee@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/06/BAAO1541JK.DTL

This article appeared on page B - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Study links marijuana smoking to gum disease

2008-12-27T16:18:00.000-08:00

Study links marijuana smoking to gum disease

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON, Feb 5 (Reuters) - Smoking marijuana, much like smoking tobacco, may increase a person's risk for gum disease that can lead to tooth loss, researchers said on Tuesday.

A study of 903 New Zealanders found that people who smoked marijuana frequently had triple the risk for severe gum disease and a 60 percent higher risk for a milder form of it compared to people who did not smoke the drug, also called cannabis.

People who smoked marijuana less frequently had a smaller increased risk for gum disease, the researchers said.

Gum or periodontal disease is an infection of the tissues surrounding and supporting the teeth. In advanced stages, the gums and bone that support the teeth can become seriously damaged and the teeth can become loose, fall out or have to be removed. MORE

Cannabis Link Pages

2008-12-27T16:12:00.000-08:00

420 Kind Zone - Marijuana Related Links and Resources

420KindZone offers marijuana and smoking related resources. Check out our links, articles, and more at our resource directory.

Green Man's Page - Marijuana Seeds Search Engine and Free Marijuana Grow Guide Library.

Volcano Vaporizer North American Distribution and Sales!!

2008-12-27T15:31:00.000-08:00

Do you own a Volcano?? Want to own one?? Search around before you buy as there is only a couple main distributors besides the Manufacture. If you find the best price? Let me know. I know the two best Northern California Distributors, and Southern California Distributor. Also the Manufacture is an options with massive orders, however for the cheapest or best deals test me... $539 and $669 are the MSP...however some stores and retailers are asking as much as $600- $750 depending on the classic or digital styles.

Some Prime Time GD...hmmm PT GD

2008-12-27T15:22:00.001-08:00

Wow, not bad work here...one of the top 10 Purples for the 2008 Season. Nice strain, Nice Taiste, although they could have done some better trimming. We are headed towards a new movement, new approach, hopefully some new strains.

Mid Grade or Low End from a Private Caregiver

2008-12-27T15:20:00.000-08:00

Now from the start no comment on this strain:(

California NORML Release - Dec 21, 2008 News: (1) California NORML agenda for 2009 targets changing federal law: http://www.canorml.org California

2008-12-23T07:39:00.000-08:00

California NORML Release - Dec 21, 2008 News: (1) California NORML agenda for 2009 targets changing federal law: http://www.canorml.org

California NORML Release - Dec 21, 2008

News:
(1) California NORML agenda for 2009 targets changing federal law:
http://www.canorml.org/news/2009agenda.html
(2) California Police Chiefs Association called on the DEA to raid
medical marijuana facilities and undermine state law, according to a
letter submitted to the House Juciciary Committee.
http://www.canorml.org/news/CPCAtoDEA.html
(3) Warning: Marinol patients being tested for marijuana!
Cal NORML has recently heard increasing reports that Marinol
patients are being drug tested and denied employment for use of
marijuana.  In particular, we have heard from legal Prop. 215
patients who were denied jobs despite presenting Marinol
prescriptions after being re-tested specifically for marijuana.
 Until recently, Marinol and marijuana were indistinguishable on
the standard drug tests, so that patients with a Marinol prescription
had a valid medical excuse under federal law for testing positive for
marijuana.   However,  special testing techniques have been developed
that make it possible to distinguish the two by testing for
non-standard cannabinoids that appear in marijuana but not Marinol.
Until recently, these tests were expensive and rarely used except in
high-profile criminal cases.   However, it appears that they are now
being routinely used by certain laboratories in cases where Marinol
use is claimed.   In particular, we have heard reports of such
testing being used to disqualify Marinol-using Prop 215 patients by
the transportation industry and by Walmart.
    Cal NORML has accordingly altered its drug testing advice to
warn against relying on Marinol RXs as a screen for marijuana use.
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/testing.tips.html
    There is of course no valid scientific or health justification
for allowing patients to use Marinol but not marijuana.  The only
purpose is to enforce compliance with the law.  It is  a tribute to
the power and influence of the drug testing industry that they have
prevailed  in foisting the costs of this unnecessary and obnoxious
procedure on employers.

LA area and Central Valley alert!

2008-12-18T18:54:00.000-08:00

It's holiday season be alert, safe and careful... they normally work in stages and hit areas in packs... Sometimes its every 2 years sometimes 3 years..

Cal NORML Alert - DEA Raids in LA Dec 18th

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second DEA raid of the day in progress now at Ashmoon Caregivers, 21610
Ventura Blvd, Woodland Hills, 91364.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC Remedies, 21146 Ventura Blvd. Ste. 206 Woodland Hills CA 91346, was
raided by the DEA this morning.

No arrests were made however the store manager says one of the agents told
him that if they reopen or are seen working at another dispensary they will
be arrested.

At the dispensary agents seized approximately 25 pounds of marijuana, all
computers, and over 5,000 patients records.

Agents also raided the Ventura County homes of the dispensary owners and
seized about $50,000 cash, computers and documents.

HC Remedies and their home, Ashmoon Caregivers, 21610
Ventura Blvd, Woodland Hills, 91364. Right now it
appears to be armed Christmas shopping (DEA is taking cars, electronics,
jewelry) - no arrests.

DRUG squad cops raided an elderly couple because a plant in their garden smelled like CANNABIS.

2008-12-17T21:19:00.000-08:00

DRUG squad cops raided an elderly couple because a plant in their garden smelled like CANNABIS.

Compassionate Caregivers around the state helping medical

2008-12-17T21:01:00.000-08:00

Interested in being listed as a private compassionate caregiver or just another patient helping patients for your area? reply, email or get active and get in touch!!

Fresno :

LA:

Merced :

Sacramento :

San Diego :

San Joaquin :

Stanislaus :

Turlock :

View Medical Marijuana - People v Konow on Scribd

2008-08-11T01:26:00.000-07:00

Medical Marijuana - People v Konow