The gap between budget and receipts looks to be nearly 5 million dollars.  Not a paltry some, especially to a state still reeling from dramatic cuts to education and other services after recessionary retreats in tax income.

A portion of the shortfall has been attributed to local communities banning dispensaries from the retail environment.  These communities include Fort Collins, Fruita, Crawford, Louisville and others.  The bans have precluded receipt of licensing fees and as such have somewhat reigned in the full vision of the MMED to regulate.

The reason the MMED thinks that there will be a return to levels of funding previously anticipated, is the looming end to the moratorium on new dispensaries coming up on July 1st.  There is a great deal of anticipated growth and consolidation that will take place at that time, because it will allow successful dispensaries to expand their operations.

It is not entirely unheard of to have such budgetary miscalculations in government and most staffers are being reassigned.  The resulting MMED has just over half the staff they were utilizing prior to making cuts.  The significance of changes to the MMED is probably not going to be noticed much by MMJ patients given that they do not interact with the MMED.

At the time of writing this article, the CDPHE (responsible for licensing MMJ patients) has not reported similar cuts.  It should be noted, however, that CDPHE is 45+ days behind in processing applications and that does impact regular MMJ patients by way of extending the time that you may have to wait before legally acquiring meds from a MMC.

In an earth shaking endorsement, Pat Robertson of The 700 Club television show has endorsed MMJ!  To what ends this will effect popular opinion on marijuana remains to be told, but Robertson made the following statement on the subject:

“I just think it’s shocking how many of these young people wind up in prison and they get turned into hardcore criminals because they had a possession of a very small amount of a controlled substance,” Robertson said on his show March 1. “The whole thing is crazy. We’ve said, `Well, we’re conservatives, we’re tough on crime.’ That’s baloney.”

It is really amazing to see this kind of dialog because in all likelihood, this statement would never have been made if not for the efforts initially of activists promoting marijuana for medical use.  While Mr. Robertson’s statement is undoubtedly a brilliant change of paradigm for many in the religious right, it was precipitated by the efforts of many that were derided in the past as ‘hippies’ or ‘pot-heads’ with an agenda to manipulate laws for purely selfish desire to adjust their perception of reality.

The new paradigm seems to be that the ends must justify the means.  In this case, if the ends are social justice and social good, the measurement must show that the means are improving those metrics.  Time and again we look to prohibition as the source of authoritarian laws, egress upon personal sovereignty, right to privacy and the general application of surveillance upon a civilian population.

Safety is important and it is the government’s job.  However increasingly we see even those of the political party more closely identified with upholding social order are shedding strict positions inherited through moral absolutism in favor of more egalitarian rules that embrace good science and presumption of a right to privacy.  In many ways, as seen with Pat Robertson, these beliefs seem to fall in line closely with moral beliefs because they discourage abrasive criminalization and access to medicine that works for many people.

The Colorado Independant ran the story on Colorado Republicans’ support of Medical Marijuana.   It shows an even greater degree of support (73% of republicans supporting) of The State of Colorado being allowed to regulate its medical marijuana dispensaries on its own.  We have covered in previous blogs the role that the DOJ plays in MMJ and their obvious concerns regarding illicit distribution of cannabis to states without medical marijuana or by criminals.  We understand the concerns they have in this regard.  It is interesting to see the direction of public opinion diverging somewhat from the implied motivations in this case.

Above all else, we want to see patients maintain safe, affordable access to medicine.  To what ends that goal bears fruit in the form of improving the level of discourse an perhaps even eventually the social contract remains to be seen.

We wish that we could help our patients, but if you do not have a new red card in hand, we cannot help you.  So The Releaf Center is will be sending reminders out 60 days via email plus reminders in store.  It has been taking a minimum of 45 days for our patients to receive their reissued red cards.

In an effort to help with the cost of renewal The Releaf Center is offering a $75 store credit when you bring in your new red card and sign up The Releaf Center as your primary center for one year.  Keep in mind that license fees have been reduced to $35 this year as well.

If you do not have a primary physician to see you in regards to your recommendation, these are two doctors offices that have provided excellent care for patients in our experience.

Dr. Kenneth R Lampkin, M.D.

2460 W 26th Ave., Building C, Suite 180

Denver, CO 80211

720-202-6854 Phone

303-586-6263 Fax

MMD Medical Doctors

600 Grant St, Suite #350

Denver, CO 8 0203

720-287-3440 Phone

We would love if you could attend the One Love benefit.  You may want to know about the person for whom the event is being organized.  Jason Beinor is a MMJ patient that lives in Denver, he was fired from a job working for the Service Group Inc. as a street sweeper for failing a drug test.  The issue at hand is whether or not patients utilizing medical marijuana in Colorado have a standard of rights they should be presumed to have which bestow upon them protections in regard to the medically prescribed use of marijuana.

To quote from the westword article on the subject, attorney Andrew Reid frames the argument, “If those rights don’t exist, there’s no argument.  If they do, patients and caregivers have a broader argument to make.”

After being fired, Beinor filed unemployment, he was initially approved.  His employer appealed the decision and the appeals panel ruled in the employer’s favor citing Article XVIII in the constitution for the State of Colorado.  The article states that an employee who tests positive during work hours for controlled substances with no medical prescription do not qualify for benefits.  The appeal board voted 2-1 against Beinor in the decision.

The root of this decision is the argument put forth from Attorney General John Suthers which states that there is no fundamental right to medical marijuana in Colorado.  This contradicts the amendment to the state constitution, Amendment 20, which arguably grants those rights specifically and as such, the argument for Beinor’s denial would be invalid as would some other precedents set previously in the implementation of state legislation which regulates and limits dispensary conduct and also defines medical marijuana centers and caregivers specifically.

The problem in this case are the repercussions for the precedent that is set by Attorney General John Suthers, for if there is no fundamental right to medical marijuana, there are implications for the actions of every MMJ patient as criminals for growing or consuming marijuana to relieve side effects of sickness.  The possible eventuality would be that there could possibly be prosecutions of MMJ patients for possession as their license has been invalidated by court precedent.

Advocates of medical cannabis, specifically Kathleen Chippi have been working to bring the case to the State Supreme court to challenge the presumption set by the Attorney General.  Depending on the direction the case goes, it could have major ramifications on the ability for patients to use medical marijuana.  A judgement overturning the decision by the Court of Appeals could have major implications on a wide spectrum of court decisions and laws in place.  It could require cities to allow enough dispensaries for patients within the city to have reasonable access to medication.

On the topic of patients rights, this issue is incredibly important because as the precedent stands today, a terminally ill patient could lose their employment or possibly even disability payments because of the use of medical marijuana to treat their symptoms.  State Attorneys have showed no indication they would pursue such cases, however they may have the standing to do so if the case against Beinor stands.

If these issues are important to you, please come to the benefit on Thursday, March 29th and help Beinor and his advocates in making an argument to the State Supreme Court in favor of patients right to prescribed medication.

Cited: Westword Article: CO Supreme Court asked to review Jason Beinor case about MMJ rights

EVENT: One Love at Hayters, a fundraiser for Amendment 20 MMJ Patient Rights Thurs. 3/29 @ 6:30PM

ACT4 Colorado and Cannabis Business Alliance Present:

ONE LOVE at Hayters

One Love is the collaboration of the MMJ industry, patients and people who understand that protecting the rights of one patient will help protect the constitutional rights of all patients.  All are welcome at this kickoff event.

Proceeds benefit Jason Beinor’s legal defense fund.

DATE: Thurs. March 29, 2012

TIME: Doors Open at 6:30

MUSIC BY: Whiskey Tango, Buggsy Mogues & DJ Nikka T

PLACE: Hayters: 1920 Blake Street, Denver

SPONSORS:  ACT4 Colorado, Cannabis Business Alliance, CARE, Hayters & Co, Westword, Kush, Craig Hoggatt Design, Whiskey Tango, Culture, The Hemp Connoisseur, Cannabis Health News Magazine, Joseph Starr Sound, Essential Extracts.

The idea is that establishing a guideline will make it easier to provide a definitive proof of intoxication by way of a standardized test.  In this case they will look for a level of THC in excess of 5ng per ml (nanograms per milliliter) of blood.  The implications of this are fairly diverse and opinions from legislature this time around seem more favorable towards establishing a limit.

Many folks are quite concerned about this rule, with some good reason.  The fear of course is that a patient that requires a high amount of THC in order to achieve relief of symptoms may be above the legal limit when not medicated.  Last year, the rule was defeated in part due to a proponent of MMJ who was also a patient utilizing medical marijuana that was given sobriety tests and a blood test which showed he was well above the 5ng limit and not at all impaired.

According to the NHTSA :

It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person’s THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects. Concentrations of parent drug and metabolite are very dependent on pattern of use as well as dose. THC concentrations typically peak during the act of smoking, while peak 11-OH THC concentrations occur approximately 9-23 minutes after the start of smoking. Concentrations of both analytes decline rapidly and are often < 5 ng/mL at 3 hours. Significant THC concentrations (7 to 18 ng/mL) are noted following even a single puff or hit of a marijuana cigarette. Peak plasma THC concentrations ranged from 46-188 ng/mL in 6 subjects after they smoked 8.8 mg THC over 10 minutes. Chronic users can have mean plasma levels of THC-COOH of 45 ng/mL, 12 hours after use; corresponding THC levels are, however, less than 1 ng/mL. Following oral administration, THC concentrations peak at 1-3 hours and are lower than after smoking. Dronabinol and THC-COOH are present in equal concentrations in plasma and concentrations peak at approximately 2-4 hours after dosing.

It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone, and currently impossible to predict specific effects based on THC-COOH concentrations. It is possible for a person to be affected by marijuana use with concentrations of THC in their blood below the limit of detection of the method. Mathematical models have been developed to estimate the time of marijuana exposure within a 95% confidence interval. Knowing the elapsed time from marijuana exposure can then be used to predict impairment in concurrent cognitive and psychomotor effects based on data in the published literature.

It is hard to arrive at an objective conclusion that a 5ng limit is going to be either useful or pertinent in the assessment of intoxication in a driver that has used marijuana based products or medicine.

Before pulling out pitchforks and torches, however, it is important to remember that the goal that lawmakers are pursuing here is to establish safety for drivers.  There is probably a point where someone is too medicated to drive, although it seems as though the amount of THC in blood might be radically higher in order to indicate as much.

More difficulty is added to the conversation when considering that there are going to be some MMJ patients with exceptionally low tolerance that are more intoxicated than others.  Is it appropriate to establish guidelines that may leave many MMJ patients vulnerable to wrongful prosecution?  Is there a way to establish more thoughtfully applied standards based upon science?

This law additionally will relieve the prosecutor from establishing evidence against you proving that your driving was impaired.  As such, being suspected of consuming marijuana may in and of itself establish reasonable cause in demanding a blood test with refusal resulting in the revocation of driving privileges for a year.  Currently the onus of proof is on the prosecution to provide evidence that the driver isn’t able to exhibit clear judgement, care of control while driving.  The other side of this is that you can be charged with a DUI with any amount of marijuana in your blood.

The new law has the following rules defining intoxication on marijuana:

1. a milliliter of a person’s blood contains five nanograms or more of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (more commonly known as “THC”); or
2. a person’s blood, urine, or saliva contains ANY amount of a Schedule I controlled substance other than THC.

The goal is a good one; safety for drivers and pedestrians.  However, what is the real solution?  How dangerous is a driver with 5ng per ml?  What are the dangers of this law in terms of overreach and prosecuting potentially innocent patients?  How do patients work with lawmakers to help establish rules that protect everybody?

In light of the information here, it seems as though these are very important questions.  Answers must be sought objectively from all sides.  It is neither good to protect the dangerously intoxicated nor the responsible patient.  There seem to be more questions than answers in the pursuit of this this.  Perhaps you can lend some insight of your own.

As Colorado dispensaries still seem to be somewhat out of the cross hairs so long as they are following regulations precisely, it wouldn’t seem that the administration has necessarily regressed to the degree of the Bush administration.  That is to say, Obama seems to acknowledge the legitimacy of the medical use of the plant, but has loosened the reigns a bit on prosecutors to allow them to intervene on a state level where there are questions of impropriety or operational problems for the dispensary.  We do not know what conversations Obama has had with his Attorney General, Eric Holder, although we may surmise.

In allowing dispensaries to operate, Obama seemed to have hedged his bets on popular sentiment.  Shortly after announcing his tacit consent for medical marijuana to exist, an NBC/WSJ poll showed 73% of Americans were in favor of legalizing marijuana for medical use.   This may have gone up a tad with his endorsement, but it is unlikely to have changed radically.  So on the one hand, you have a very very popular policy of allowing medical marijuana to operate and on the other hand… well, so where is the pressure coming from on the other side?  Certainly, pharmaceutical companies are extremely opposed to legalized medical canibus, it attacks their bottom line.  Although it doesn’t seem like this alone would be enough to turn the President against an overwhelmingly popular policy during an election year.

Well, if you look at California, you see that many dispensaries have been closed that haven’t explicitly been violating any state law.  So what gives?  Well, besides grey market activities… there just aren’t many rules governing exactly what you can and cannot do in the state with MMJ and many MMJ entrepreneurs have taken liberties with their law’s loose guidelines.   This provides a wealth of opportunities for crooked activities and the use of medical marijuana for decidedly non-medical purposes.  While John and Jane dispensary owner may have good intentions and motives, there is very little preventing organized crime or not so organized crime from taking a seat at the table and quietly funneling MMJ for illicit goals.

Meet the contradiction: Colorado.  Speak with any dispensary owner in Colorado and you’ll probably hear a bit about how much of a darn pain in the butt some of the regulations are for daily operations (perhaps some slightly more coarse language).  However, Colorado has seen none of its dispensaries closed without them violating our legislative guidelines.  Colorado is the first state with a more established MMJ industry to implement strict controls on production, transportation and sale of MMJ.  In other words, of all the states having to do with legitimate industry being used for illegitimate purposes, Colorado was first out the gate with strict controls on production and sale of medical marijuana.

Now… some of the eventualities of these laws may seem a bit orwellian.  For instance, at any dispensary in Colorado – that is up to snuff on the regulations that went into effect in July of last year – the MMED (Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division) can login and monitor the cameras on the establishment premises.   Despite being a little creepy, there is a really great purpose being served.  The MMED (and by extension the DEA and federal prosecutors) have access to video or video footage for every dispensary in the state.  So if a dispensary is suspected of doing something that it shouldn’t, the process of obtaining information to confirm or deny such rumors is easily at hand.  Pain for dispensaries, good for the MMED, good for the Feds and eventually… good for patients.  Why?  Because so long as their dispensary keeps their i’s dotted and t’s crossed, patients in Colorado can count on getting their medicine from the same provider for so long as they choose to provide it.

It should seem obvious that all of these conclusions depend on heaping amounts of faith and conjecture.  There have been some negative reports creeping out about higher rates of marijuana use among youths in areas with medical marijuana.  This is obviously a concern and probably to none moreso than to dispensaries, as those running them have magnitudes more to lose than to gain if popular opinion turns against them.  It is also a concern for Obama.  In no small way, such specks on the radar bring the fear that it is an omen of terrible side effects to medical marijuana, which could constitute a threat to the President.  While overwhelmingly, the results of medical marijuana have had nearly no bad side effects to speak of – at least not on crime rates, homicide, rape and so on – the industry is new, which leaves Obama much more vulnerable than his successors will be.  Defending a popular policy that you inherited is quite a bit easier than setting the precedent on a policy that had yet to be proven.

As such, remember, this is an election year.  IE: they are listening.  Speak loudly and you might just be heard.  If you feel that medical marijuana is progress, you better be sure you and those who share your point of view are louder than those against.

 On Tuesday, February 14, the Colorado Senate Finance Committee will hear SB 75, a bill to allow the creation of a financial cooperative for the medical marijuana industry. 

The co-op is regulated at the state-level much like a credit union, but is exempt from federal insurance.  Only licensed business owners and patients with a red card may be members of the co-op.  The co-op will have to maintain private insurance and operate with non-FDIC insured merchant services.  While the bill doesn’t solve the whole problem, it is a step in the right direction.

The Colorado Bankers Association opposes the bill.  The Cannabis Business Alliance has been in negotiation with them for several months.  While they are willing to help with a federal solution, they don’t want these newly-created co-ops to have access to merchant services, the key to MMJ business to operate like any other small business.

Please take a few minutes of your day to contact committee members and ask them to support SB 75.  Let them know that having a “bank” account and access to merchant services is critical to keeping your business in compliance with state-law, will help ensure public safety by getting cash out of your store front, and is key to the smooth operation and accounting of your business transactions.

Chairman Mike Johnston

O: 303-866-4864

E: mike.johnston.senate@state.co.us

Ranking Member Keith King

O: 303-866-4880

E: Keith@Keithking.org

Scott Renfroe

O: 303-866-4451

E: senatorrenfroe@gmail.com

Angela Giron

O: 303-866-4878

E: Angela.Giron.senate@state.co.us

Greg Brophy

O: 303-866-6360

E: greg@grebrophy.net

Lucia Guzman

O: 303-866-4862

E: lucia.guzman.senate@state.co.us

Cheri Jahn

O: 303-866-4856

E: cheri.jahn.senate@state.co.us

Mark Scheffel

O: 303-866-4869

E: mark.scheffel.senate@state.co.us

 

Sadly, the legislation did not pass.  The precise reason this impacts you is that the obstruction of credit card services at dispensaries will continue without relief for the moment.

The reality is often a lot less glamorous than the conspiracies that some will ascribe to the motives of the lawmakers working on these projects.  These lawmakers hear a whole lot less from average people that are benefiting from medicine than they do from lobbyists that have special interests in their ear normally.  Sometimes in frustration, it is easy to forget the humanity of those that are making decisions and to presume ill intent.  Quite often the reality has much more to do with a differing point of view that is promoted more vigorously.

What is the point here?  Well, this is an example of your power to influence.  Certainly, it isn’t going to be you alone, but you and those that share your opinions and vigorously promote them, you all may create change.  It’s a matter of real importance to become involved.  Besides participating in the process by being on the board of the Cannabis Alliance, we can help by promoting awareness and encouraging participation.  Don’t forget that it was people just like you that worked to make Amendment 20 part of the Colorado Constitution.  It will be people like you that create lasting changes that guarantee patients’ rights in the future.  Start with a phone call, if you are so inclined.  Because in this case, the committee above voted against this law.

 SB 75 the legislation offered by Senator Steadman to allow of the creation of a financial services cooperative for the medical marijuana industry died in Senate Finance Committee this evening on 5-2 vote.   Committee Chairman Johnston and Senator Guzman were the yes votes.

It doesn’t pay to demonize those that disagree, but it certainly does pay to vocalize a differing perspective.  It pays to pay attention to the details of the laws that affect you.  Let us know what you think.  Are you interested in hearing more about the comings and goings of MMJ law in Colorado?  Let us know by emailing us at info@thereleafcenter.com.

We will continue in our efforts to keep you up to date, informed, and part of the process.

Still, this issue demands an important question to be asked.  At what point does the medical need of the individual become an issue of individual liberty? This fundamental question seems to be the basis for the federal complacency (if not approval) with medical marijuana laws in states that contradict federal law.  It could be argued that the civil rights interest in this question has created the tacit consent that has allowed so many to have access to this medicine.  Not to undermine the critical importance of the accomplishments made with state laws and by activists championing them; they are only as secure today as is deemed necessary and prudent by the executive branch of our government.

Medical marijuana law in Denver has changed as regularly as the seasons for the last few years.  First it was questionable with little precedent following Amendment 20′s passage in 2000, then as strength in numbers grew and ratification of the new law by the Colorado legislature by way of regulating the industry; the growth expanded.  In Colorado, while we may have stricter regulations on our medical marijuana than some other states, we also have the simultaneous benefit of having a system in place to prevent abuse of our MMJ laws, which may have the benefit of protecting the industry from itself.

Without a doubt, the type of change that would help the most to protect patients and to ensure they have access to medicine is going to be a federal change.  Colorado is actually the home of Jared Polis, a congressperson that submitted three bills to the federal legislature for the 2011 session including HR 1984 last year, which would have made it easier for banks to work with dispensaries without violating federal law.

The story about medical marijuana is just being written today.  With more and more states opting into systems for patients across the nation and ever increasing popularity of medical marijuana in the sentiments of Americans, the question of the day is, ‘How long will it take for the United States legislature to wake up to good science and good sense to put patients’ rights first?’  It’s a great step that the dialog in this nation is even headed in this direction.  It seems that the propaganda fueled ignorance that led to a long popular prohibition campaign may at last be subsiding and more reasonable voices may now be at the forefront.

Article cited: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/30392586/detail.html

Once again the issue of marijuana reform has dominated President Obama’s attempt to have the public submit questions for an online question and answer event.

This afternoon President Obama will be taking part in a live chat on Google+ called “Your Interview with the President”.  Individuals were encouraged to submit and vote for questions. Not surprisingly, the issues of marijuana legalization and medical marijuana overwhelmed all others.

According to the Whitehouse Youtube page, with voting currently closed, 18 of the top 20 most popular question are about marijuana/drug policy. Seven of the top 20 question are directly related to questions created by NORML and its unusual removal from the page. NORML’s original question was:

“With over 850,000 Americans arrested in 2010, on marijuana charges alone, and tens of billions of tax dollars being spent locking up marijuana users, isn’t it time to regulate and tax marijuana?”

The second most popular question on the page is from LEAP’s Stephen Downing, a former LAPD deputy police chief.

His question is:

Mr. President, my name is Stephen Downing, and I’m a retired deputy chief of police from the Los Angeles Police Department. From my 20 years of experience I have come to see our country’s drug policies as a failure and a complete waste of criminal justice resources. According to the Gallup Poll, the number of Americans who support legalizing and regulating marijuana now outnumbers those who support continuing prohibition. What do you say to this growing voter constituency that wants more changes to drug policy than you have delivered in your first term?

So far every attempt by Obama to directly reach out to young voters through some form of online question and answer system has resulted in young adults overwhelming voting to confront the President with questions about our government’s marijuana policies. It happened with his transitional website Change.gov, his first Youtube townhall and with the White House’s new “we the people” petition site.

Marijuana reform is an issue young voters across the ideological spectrum care deeply about. While marijuana legalization is rarely talked about in our mainstream political discourse, at every opportunity regular Americans use the internet to try to make legalization an issue Obama can’t ignore.

Original source: http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2012/01/30/marijuana-again-dominates-president-obamas-online-forum/

OLYMPIA, Wash. (BP) — Washington state could become the first state to legalize the recreational use of marijuana under an initiative that has qualified for the November ballot.

The pro-pot organization New Approach Washington submitted nearly 278,000 valid signatures in order to qualify a proposal that would legalize the usage of marijuana by those ages 21 and over, Reuters reported. Marijuana would be sold at specific stores, and no one under the age of 21 would be allowed to enter the store. Marijuana would be prohibited from being consumed in public and sales would be taxed.

California voters rejected a similar proposal in 2010, 54-46 percent. Although several states allow medicinal marijuana, no state has legalized marijuana’s recreational use.

“This is the grown-up approach to regulating a relatively harmless drug,” Seattle city attorney Peter Holmes told Reuters.

But opponents say legalizing the recreational usage of marijuana would lead to an increase in drugged drivers and road deaths, an uptick in marijuana’s usage among teens and young adults, and an increase in crime statewide. They also say the black market for marijuana would not disappear, as some supporters contend.

“There will always be a black market. That’s been proven with cigarettes with the tobacco industry,” Calvina Fay, head of the Drug Free America Foundation, told Reuters. “Even though tobacco is legal and it’s regulated, there’s still a huge global black market.”

The initiative will be known as I-502. Voters in the state also could have another controversial issue on the ballot — gay “marriage” — if the legislature passes a bill redefining marriage and conservatives gather enough signatures to give voters a say.

Original link: http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37065

Most cancer patients currently being treated with medical marijuana are advised of the option only in the advanced stages of the illness, according to researchers.

More than two-thirds of cancer patients who were prescribed medical marijuana to combat pain are reportedly satisfied with the treatment, according to a comprehensive study conducted for the first time in Israel.

The study – conducted recently at Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, in conjunction with the Israel Cancer Association – involved 264 cancer patients who were treated with medical marijuana for a full year.

Some 61 percent of the respondents reported a significant improvement in their quality of life as a result of the medical marijuana, while 56 percent noted an improvement in their ability to manage pain. In general, 67 percent were in favor of the treatment, while 65 percent said they would recommend it to other patients.

The findings were presented earlier this month at an Israeli Oncologists Union conference in Eilat. The study was led by Dr. Ido Wolf, the director of oncology at the Sheba Cancer Center, with the assistance of researchers Yasmin Leshem, Damien Urbach, Adato Berliz, Tamar Ben Ephraim and Meital Gerty.

According to the study, the most common types of cancer for which medical marijuana is prescribed are lung cancer (21 percent ), breast cancer (12 percent ) and pancreatic cancer (10 percent ).

Researchers found that an average of 325 days passed between the time that patients were diagnosed with cancer and the time that they submitted permit requests to grow or possess medical marijuana. About 81 percent of those requests cited pain resulting from the illness. Some 8 percent of patients requested medical marijuana to combat nausea, while another 8 percent complained of weakness.

Most cancer patients who are currently being treated with medical marijuana are advised of the option only in the advanced stages of the illness, according to researchers. “The treatment should be offered to the patients in earlier stages of cancer,” the report notes.

The study shows that 39 percent of respondents were initially advised of the treatment by friends, other patients or the media, rather than by their doctors. According to the study, “The treatment should be offered to patients by trained medical teams because we are dealing with an effective treatment.”

Side effects resulting from the regular use of medical marijuana were defined in the study as “moderate.” Dizziness was the main side effect documented by the researchers.

According to Miri Ziv, the director of the Israel Cancer Association, “Medical marijuana has become one of the treatments available to cancer patients in Israel in recent years [and therefore] the association believes that the issue should be regulated by the professionals in the field.”

In recent years, the number of medical marijuana users in Israel has increased by some 66 percent per year, according to the study. To date, medical marijuana has been approved for use by about 6,000 Israelis suffering from various illnesses, the report states.

While many legal issues related to medical marijuana use remain unresolved, Health Ministry officials believe that once the issue is fully regulated, the number of patients treated with medical marijuana will reach 40,000.

Of the 12 farms authorized to cultivate medical marijuana in Israel, at least seven are currently active, according to the report. Under directives from the Health Ministry, the distribution centers currently in operation are entitled to NIS 360 a month, per patient, to supply medical marijuana. They are entitled to another NIS 24 for rolling cigarettes and NIS 100 for delivery.

Patients who hold medical marijuana permits issued before 2009 are entitled to grow up to 10 plants at home, with a maximum height of 1.5 meters. Permits issued during the past two years only allow patients to possess medical marijuana, in keeping with the quantities prescribed.

Original link: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-researchers-say-more-doctors-should-recommend-marijuana-to-cancer-patients-1.409918

(Sample Phone Script)

“I am a constituent in your new district who supports medical marijuana patients. I’m calling to say that our state’s medical marijuana system is working and we need to Stop Federal Interference in our state laws. The Colorado state government is doing an excellent job of safely regulating medical marijuana distribution and I ask that the US Attorney cease his actions in shutting down state-legal medical marijuana dispensaries. Please ask the representative to contact Colorado’s US Attorney John Walsh and tell him to cease interfering in Colorado’s tightly-regulated medical marijuana law. Thank you”

(Optional:) “Additionally, I would respectfully ask that Representative _______________ co-sponsor H.R. 1983 – the States Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act – which would protect our state’s medical marijuana patients and providers from federal interference. Thank you!”

U.S. Representatives
District 1 (Denver) – D-Representative Diana DeGette -
202-225-4431

District 2 (Boulder/Longmont/Loveland/Ft. Collins) –
D-Representative Jared Polis – 202-225-2161

District 3 (Western Slope, including Aspen, Grand Junction
and Pueblo) R-Representative Scott Tipton – 202-225-4761

District 4 (Eastern Plains including Greeley and Castle
Rock) R-Representative Cory Gardner – 202-225-4676

District 5 (Colorado Springs/Salida) R-Representative Doug
Lamborn – 202-225-4422

District 6 (Aurora/Douglas/Adams) R-Representative Mike Coffman – 202-225-7882

District 7 (North Metro/Arvada/Golden/Jefferson County) D-Representative Ed Perlmutter – 202-225-
2645

Senators
Entire State – Senator Mark E. Udall – 202-224-5941
Entire State – Senator Michael F. Bennet – 202-224-5852

It is a known fact now that Republican Congressman and presidential frontrunner, Ron Paul, with former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank are looking to legalize medical marijuana and they believe that this decision could come as a boost for people suffering from cancer and the ones undergoing chemotherapy.

Original source:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/284299/20120119/ron-paul-supports-medical-marijuana-5-mental.htm

I don’t think it’s any secret that the internet has helped the marijuana movement. Using blogs, social media, news outlets, etc. the marijuana movement has grown significantly over the last decade. Take a minute and think about what the marijuana movement would be like without the use of the internet…Scary right?

Remember those days where we would have to stand long hours outside of malls and other high traffic areas in order to gather signatures. Remember when marijuana events were almost impossible to organize unless you had a long list of phone numbers? If SOPA and PIPA are approved by the United States Congress, the ramifications on the internet will be severe, and online marijuana efforts will be one of the first to get the chop. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a supporter of online piracy. However, I am a fan of common sense, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater is never a good idea, which is what would happen if SOPA and PIPA were passed.

Have you been using Twitter and Facebook to organize your rallies and protests? If SOPA and PIPA are passed, it’s almost guaranteed that you wouldn’t be able to use social media like you have been. Do you own a blog, or follow blogs to get your marijuana news and information? If SOPA and PIPA are passed, you will be forced to go back to newspapers and TV media, which let’s face it, newspapers and TV media are not marijuana friendly, which is why online marijuana efforts started in the first place! Don’t just take it from me, below are some things that I found on the net that others are saying:

Google – Fighting online piracy is important. The most effective way to shut down pirate websites is through targeted legislation that cuts off their funding. There’s no need to make American social networks, blogs and search engines censor the Internet or undermine the existing laws that have enabled the Web to thrive, creating millions of U.S. jobs…Too much is at stake – please vote NO on PIPA and SOPA.

Wikipedia – For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more.

ACLU – We opposed SOPA in its original form mostly because the impact on non-infringing content would violate the First Amendment right to free speech of the owners and authors of that content, as well as the rights of Internet users to access that content. In fact, we were asked to present our views at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee scheduled for today and submitted our testimony in preparation for that hearing. But the hearing was postponed after SOPA’s proponents promised to significantly change the bill and after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor proposed not to bring any bill to the floor for a vote unless it represented a true consensus of those who support and those who oppose SOPA.

As you can see, this is as serious as serious gets.  If you like using the internet to gain marijuana information, or to spread awareness, or you just don’t like the federal government overstepping it’s reach, then FIGHT SOPA AND PIPA!  The Senate will begin voting on January 24th. Please let them know how you feel.

Original Source: http://www.theweedblog.com/what-would-the-marijuana-movement-be-without-the-internet/

An overwhelming majority, 77% of committed Liberal delegates voted to legalize marijuana. As well, if you do the math on the demographic delegate breakdown, you’ll find that even if one assumes every young Liberals voted in favour, you are still left with almost 2/3rds of the remaining delegates in favour. In other words, no matter how your dissect this vote, Liberals of all subsets support this policy, creating a firm resolve. In addition, not only did our interim Leader resist shying away from the vote, Rae embraced it and placed legalization at the center of “war on drugs” debate.

Liberals rejected the idea of removing a leader veto over policy, so the future party structure philosophy remains unclear. However, I now view the marijuana issue as the canary in the coal mine so to speak, how this issue is treated heading into the next election will provide the clearest indication if a formerly top down entity has truly “renewed” and “reformed”. The base have made their voices heard, a voice which is not out of step with progressive society as a whole. It is fair for EVERY Liberal to now have an expectation that marijuana legalization will be part of future Liberal policy, should that fail to transpire, people can rightly ask if members are nothing more than robotic bank machines, patted on the head, but nothing of real consequence in the affairs of party direction.

There has been some mention of actively soliciting “supporters”, using this issue as a lure of sorts. I agree with an aggressive strategy, as Rob Silver pointed out this is a classic “wedge” issue, one the Liberals can use effectively to contrast crime strategies, as well as certain libertarian issues. The marijuana issue is larger than just pot itself, the tentacles of that approach resonate elsewhere. I think Liberals may well shock themselves at how many “supporters” can be attracted, simply based on this particular perspective. This is a way for non-partisan Canadians to say “hey Liberal Party, I agree with you, I SUPPORT your idea, I’ll lend my name to the cause”.

Moving forward, it is imperative to hold the Liberal Party to account, to push the envelope, to push our new executive to follow through on their commitments. How the Liberals manage the marijuana issue is now a central indicator that will demonstrate, in concrete form, if this has truly become a member-centric institution or remains a timid, top down affair, wherein the rank and file are dismissed in the ways that truly matter. I’m leaving the banner on the sidebar as symbolic of this potential future tension, the members who have kept this listing tub afloat have spoken, loud and clear.

Original source: http://www.oyetimes.com/views/22-columns/17158-marijuana-liberal-canary-in-coal-mine

The Liberal Party over the weekend voted to “legalize and regulate” the selling of marijuana. This issue has the potential to breathe life back into the Liberals if they approach it the right way. As it stands now the party’s best chance of regaining at least second place is by putting the marijuana issue front and centre.

More than one pundit has scoffed at the decision to include legalization in its policy document. Even interim leader Bob Rae made a joke of it during his keynote speech. But it’s not a joke and the party is missing the boat on what could be a game changer.

For me the issue of marijuana is one of liberty versus state overreach. It is an unjust law that attempts to control the choices and the lives of individuals. Smoking pot does not harm others, only the smoker, and the smoker has the right to decide what sort of harm he or she enjoys.

For Liberals the issue could be about money and the economy.

It would be a huge boon for government revenue, without even needing to add a “sin tax” to the legal sales of marijuana. All the unreported income and potential sales tax from Canada’s most profitable cash crop would suddenly be available. It would represent a new source of revenue without having to raise taxes by even a dime.

On the spending side, billions of dollars would be saved by ending the illicit marijuana trade. Some of the money would likely go to whatever regulatory framework the government created, but it would have to be a monstrous bureaucracy indeed to equal the massive sum that now goes towards investigating, prosecuting, and jailing someone in the marijuana trade. The Liberals could claim credit for closing the deficit faster than the Conservatives, and might even have money left over for one of their foolish pet projects.

With the deficit eliminated with relative ease and debt being paid down, Canada would be in a unique fiscal position for a G8 and G20 country. We can expect that confidence in Canada would soar even higher and investment would flood in as investors flee the crumbling economies of Europe.

The best part is that Canadians by and large already agree that marijuana should be legalized. They also think the economy should be the priority. It would not be difficult to connect the two issues and convince Canadians to vote for a party that has the most painless plan to put Canada’s fiscal house back in order.

The resolution approved at the convention is non-binding. So there is no guarantee the issue will be in the 2015 Liberal election platform. In fact Canadian political parties have a history of  ignoring policy resolutions from conventions, so the chances of this one being taken up are pretty low. Hopefully the party leadership will take a moment to closely examine legalization and realize the potential. It would not only be the best thing for the Liberals but for Canada as well.

National Post

Original source:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/18/hugh-macintyre-the-economic-argument-for-legalized-marijuana/

As of January 21st, 2012, The Releaf Center will be open from 8am to 7pm every day for your conveinence.

By Jonathan Martin

Direct link ——> http://sushibandit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/vortex9.gif