Monday, August 31, 2009
[FWD: [NAC]: MERP Newsletter Issue #001]
Sheree M. Krider
http://ky.usmjparty.org
http://www.facebook.com/shereekrider
http://shereekrider.blogspot.com/
http://whengovfailsus.spaces.live.com/
http://kentuckymedicalmarijuanasociety.blogspot.com/
http://whengovernmentfailsus.org/
http://www.myspace.com/smkrider
http://phoenixtears.ca/
http://smkrider.wordpress.com/
http://www.k4mm.org/
http://my.care2.com/shereekrider
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [NAC]: MERP Newsletter Issue #001
From: "newagecitizen.com" <newagec@newagecitizen.com>
Date: Sun, August 30, 2009 9:05 pm
To: <list@newagecitizen.com>
MERP Newsletter Issue #001 - 8/26/09 The Marijuana Re-Legalization Policy Project (MRPP)= "MERP"
Bruce W. Cain, Author of the "MERP" Model
Welcome to the "MERP Newsletter." As you may already know MERP is an alternative model for Re-Legalizing Marijuana whereby "self cultivation" (e.g., the personal growing of Marijuana) would be protected as a sacred inalienable right. And while MERP does allow commercial taxation etc. it is far different from any of the current "tax and regulate" models currently being pushed forward by organizations such as MPP and DPA. These two organizations are basically controlled through the financing of George Soros and it is my opinion that his solutions do not serve the greater good of society.So how does MERP differ from "tax and regulate" models of Marijuana Re-Legalization?In a nutshell the MERP model would allow any adult over 18 to grow, all the Marijuana they would like, without ANY taxation, regulation or other government interference (e.g., there would be no control over THC levels etc.). It is very important to understand that MERP absolutely does not preclude the issuance of commercial licensing or commercial taxation and regulation. But self cultivation is protected as an inalienable sacred right. Such a system would self regulate the market without much need for regulation since the current profit margins (e.g., $300 to $600 and ounce) would be replaced by normal profits where an ounce would probably not sell for more than 100 percent over the cost of growing. In other words adults could grow their Marijuana for free and commercial growers would have to compete in a free and open market.
Ron Kasinsky (wrong spelling) and I have talked at length on a number of occasions. It was his recommendation to lift the limit of 100 plants, under MERP, to an unlimited number of plants. His argument was that Marijuana would not just be grown to smoke but to produce seed, flour and EFA containing oils as well as tinctures (e.g., Run From the Cure). I could not argue that point which is why I recently changed the model to allow unlimited self cultivation.You can always read the latest on the MERP Model and strategy at the following website:MERP Headquarters
The Marijuana Re-Legalization Policy Project (MRPP)= "MERP"
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP.htmWhether you currently endorse the MERP Model the mission of this newsletter is to point out what I feel to be advantages of MERP over the various "tax and regulate" models. We encourage you to do your own analysis and share the MERP Model with other activists.The MERP strategy for implementation is ultimately dependent on getting the "tribes" together in order to force Congress to convene a "special" session of Congress similar to what was done in October 2008 in order to fast track the TARP bailout. During this special session we will demand that Marijuana is taken completely off of the "Controlled Substances Act (1970) and that the US immediately withdraw from all UN Drug accords concerning Marijuana. Finally, the MERP Model will be put in to law at the Federal level. When this has been completed all Americans above 18 will be able to begin "self cultivation" of home grown Marijuana and the "War on Marijuana Consumers" will be considered ended. And like TARP this will be implemented immediately after the special session of Congress has ended. I believe the first noticeable result will be the almost immediate destruction of the Mexican Drug Cartels.Finally, it should be understood that MERP is not just a plan for the United States but provides a template for all other countries on "planet Earth" to break the chains of Marijuana Prohibition: and with lightening speed. I am proud to announce that we now have our first support for MERP outside of North America:Alun Buffry wrote at 5:43am on August 23rd, 2009
The Legalise Cannabis Alliance supports this cause
http://www.lca-uk.org/At any rate we are just getting organized here and hope that you will help spread the word so we can end this senseless "War on Marijuana Consumers" as quickly as possible. To that end we highly encourage you to forward the following link to all of your friends and activists so that they can also receive the MERP Newsletter and become involved with promoting and implementing the MERP Model for Marijuana Re-Legalization. The sooner our numbers grow the sooner MERP will get implemented.Yours in Peace and Freedom,Bruce W. CainTABLE OF CONTENTS
- Marijuana, Healthcare and Obama
The Obama Health Care Plan will be devastating for the American people. What we really need is a Single Payer System, that also completely legalizes Marijuana under the MERP Model, so that the sick and poor can have a competing medicine that is completely free of government taxation or regulation.- Please sign this petition in support of the MERP Model.
In a nutshell the MERP model would allow any adult over 18 to grow all the Marijuana they would like without ANY taxation or regulation.
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/339097/79631787?m=611088da- Marijuana, Tobacco and Obama
By refusing to Legalize the Self-Cultivation of Marijuana, and by supporting an FDA ban on E-Cigarettes, Obama is well on his way to becoming the most hypocritical President in US history He is also compromising the health of Americans.- How to Make Marijuana Free and Legal for For All Adults Within A Year:
Introduction to Your Involvement in the MERP Movement to Re-Legalize Marijuana Throughout the United States and the Planet
If you are in a position to donate I would certainly appreciate any financial support you can provide. Donations can be made by sending a check or money order to:New Age Citizen
PO Box 419
Dearborn Heights, MI 48127Checks and money orders should be made out to "New Age Citizen." Donations to the "New Age Citizen" are not tax-deductible.If you don't want to receive these newsletters please send an email to bcainw@comcast.net and type "Remove from MERP List" in the subject line. You can also include your reasons in the body of the letter, as I do want to understand why you would not want to receive this free newsletter. Your feedback is important to us at "New Age Citizen.".
*************************
*************************
New Age Citizen
www.newagecitizen.com
PO Box 419
Dearborn Heights, MI 48127
** Send Website Feedback to:
newagec@newagecitizen.com
Subject: Feedback
** To Unsubscribe, don't do anything.
Anyone that does not resubscribe (see below) will no longer be on the list
after a few more emails are sent. I'm doing this because I have over
2500 emails, of which less than 50% are current addresses. Some are over
2 years old. If you don't resubscribe (see below) you will be taken off the list within the next couple weeks. Please take a moment to resubscribe.
** To Subscribe your friends . . .
Fill out the following form at the link below:
http://www.newagecitizen.com/EmailListSignUp.asp
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Healthcare Heartache
A Personal Look at the Health Care Crisis
Do Not Depend Upon Your Insurance To Pay For Life Saving Healthcare!
You Must Learn To Treat Yourself!
Sunday, May 31, 2009 9:13 PM
SMKrider, Louisville, KY
They cannot afford it. Or actually they probably could, but then everyone's health would improve and that, of course, would cause their profits to plummet.
We buried another family member yesterday. She was 53 years old and died from complications of lung cancer and its treatment. She had gone through four long and horrid years of treatments and on and off of ventilators.
In Louisville and throughout the state of Kentucky the incidence of cancer can be statistically projected by the zip codes that you live in. And obviously she lived in the wrong one. So do a number of my other family members. As do I, to a lesser degree.
You could argue the point that we all smoke cigarettes and it would be a valid point to make. Jeffrey Wigand proved in XXXX that the Cigarette Companies were intentionally harming us. And in the last ten years or longer the cigarette has become even more dangerous and fatal as the quality in production has declined continuously.
At the same time, my Father smoked until he was 62 and contracted COPD. He lived to be 84. My Mother also smoked until age 62 and lived to be 89.
I have watched this horrid disease killing people all of my life. My first contact with Cancer was in about 1964. My Mothers friend and neighbor who lived a block away had it. I was only four years old and did not understand it except that I knew she did not have any hair and she wore a scarf on her head all of the time. She died at about 49 years of age after having been treated for Cancer
Then there was my Aunt's Cancer. She died when I was about nine years old with Breast and Lung Cancer after several operations and other failed treatments.
It seems to me that the older generation, born before 1940 are less likely to contract the disease versus those of us born after 1950 and 1960. But if you think about it, the older folks had a chance to build up a greater immunity to the toxins that were increasingly being let into our air and water and food supplies. At least they could until the last 10 years or so anyway.
The next really personal incident of Lung Cancer was with my Father in law in 1992. He suffered for a number of years from COPD and Heart Disease before he succumbs to Lung Cancer. He received NO treatment as he wanted a natural death. He died at 62 years old.
I also had another close friend who died in 1994 from Head and Neck Cancer. He was told that it was caused from the drugs he had done which were probably numerous to say the least. However, since he lived here and worked in uncompromising conditions I would beg to differ with the reasons behind his demise. After all, he had stopped the social scene a long time before being diagnosed.
He had gone to the Doctor numerous times with excruciating earaches which they had treated as ear infections for over a year before the diagnosis. He had a very long and painful death as was my recent family members' death.
In 2007 another family member succumb to lung cancer – and he never smoked!
In 2000 I had lost an aunt from the same horrible disease. She also never smoked.
And that is just the beginning of the story of Cancer
In approximately 2002, I too, much like Rick Simpson (Run From The Cure) had read an article in Alternet.Org "Marijuana Cures Brain Tumors". "Government knew in 1974".
Well, the only thing wrong with that story is that they most likely knew long before 1974 and it just did not leak out until then.
The mainstream media avoided the subject all together until recent years when it has been forced out into the open by a lot of really brave and caring people from all over the world. Yet the Government continues to scorn the use of this god given plant. Why? We all now know the answer to that question. Pharmaceutical and other Healthcare Institutions dominate the corporate agenda now more than ever. They stand right beside the ever increasing "DHS" – Department of Homeland Security, and the agenda to CONTROL us. We have become their "rats" of experimentation via the healthcare system. And WE have to pay to be the "rat".
We have been trapped in this conspiracy of corporate money flow through the use of sickness since at least the 1960's.
Where ever there is Cancer there is money to be made at the expense of our families, mentally, physically, and financially. Children endure the loss of their parent's at very early ages and will never forget the horrors which they lived through while watching them die. Spouses are left without their partners they have been with for a lifetime. Parents are loosing their children to cancer at an alarming rate. With each passing year more and more people are stricken with death via cancer.
And most of the time it is all blamed on the patient themselves, for their lifestyle choices. I will not disagree that lifestyle choices do affect your health. I will not agree that the patient is totally responsible for their own demise.
My brother in law made a remark the other day at the funeral home. When someone asked him how old she was when they were married. He responded "Well- I came home from Vietnam, picked her up out of the incubator at the hospital, and took her home with me". Which, in all reality they had married when she was 15 and he was 22, after he came home from Vietnam. So yes, they were truly lifelong partners. In Kentucky it is not uncommon or unusual that girl's marry young.
These are the biggest issues in my mind concerning this corporate health pandemic:
- The blatant disregard for the physical suffering that the patients and their families are enduring.
- The use of pharmaceutical chemicals which are much worse in outcome than in some cases of the disease itself. (I have seen it both ways).
- The children of this conspiracy are the most vulnerable cases. It seems that now the government owns our children and can force parents into this agenda whether they want it or not.
- WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT NOW?
Rick Simpson has now devoted his life to the people of Canada and the U.S. along with the rest of the world in promoting the use of HEMP OIL in the treatment of chronic and deadly diseases. A number of people with cancer have been cured using Hemp Oil.
The U.S. and Canada are refusing to accept this OIL as part of treatment for these illnesses for good reason – their corporate money flow.
It is up to us now, as individuals to learn the art of "treating yourself", and we will have to do it whether or not we are "allowed" to. We now know the truth of the agenda of the governments and their intent for our well-being.
My next concern is this: What if the corporate agenda, due to pressure upon them from activists and patients decide to take up the medical marijuana issue and transform it into another corporate agenda. If the governments, as they are, consider the legalization of "medical marijuana" what will happen to the industry as a whole? Will they legalize it only through pharmaceutical companies via the FDA and the DEA regulations? If they do, it could be a major loss for the citizens. If we have to depend upon the law to provide this medication to us, where does that leave the rest of us – especially those who cannot afford the "healthcare system". And then there will be the question of quality of product that we are given. Consider that they will likely adapt it to their uses and their "grades" of potency
Will penalties for personal possession be made much harsher, similar to the tobacco plant, or maybe much worse as with other "street drugs".
Therefore I would like you to consider the MERP Model for RE-Legalization of the Marijuana/Hemp plants. With this model the plant would belong to the citizens again and not held hostage by the pharmaceutical industry and the government.
As I have stated before, it is up to US to fight this battle for re-legalization of Marijuana/Hemp. We have been given all the education that we need on this subject in the last ten years or so. All that is needed is the strength to fight the battle through education of all people and DO what needs to be done.
At this point in time – unless things drastically change – I do not believe it is in the best interest to fight for legalization through the government anymore. We have been fighting that war for a long time to no avail. The medical marijuana states have been constantly trumped by the Federal government even after it was reported that they would no longer interfere with states rights.
Consider the President Obama when asked questions concerning the legalization of Marijuana/Hemp…
Therefore with the exception of pushing for the MERP Model to be put in place, and the Religious Rights regarding the use of Marijuana/Hemp, I believe it is in our best interest to just educate ourselves on how to use these plants and all other God given plants to our best advantage and concentrate on helping each other through the turmoil that the world has succumb to.
Do not ever think that the Government will be there to protect you. With a few exceptions that is just not the truth. We must fight for our own lives with every fiber of our being.
I cannot begin to tell you here all of the people who have influenced my opinions on this matter. My Father was the greatest influence when he called me at the age of 83 to ask me if I could find him some "pot" because he thought it might make him feel better. He died less than a year later and to this day I regret not knowing that this medicine could have at least made his last days more peaceful had I known how to give it to him.
And in conclusion, it is my opinion that RICK SIMPSON be awarded the NOBEL PRIZE!
SMKrider: In My Opinon
Email to: ShereeKrider@usmjparty.org
http://diversesanctuary.ning.com/profile/Sheree
Websites and Blogs:
http://www.myspace.com/smkrider
http://smkriderinmyopinion.blogspot.com/
http://kentuckymedicalmarijuanasociety.blogspot.com/
http://shereekrider.blogspot.com/
http://phoenixtears.ucmetoo.com/index.php?article=3.0 My Blog on Rick Simpsons site.
http://www.city-data.com/blogs/540177-shereekrider.html
http://whengovernmentfailsus.org/
http://www.ning.com/shereekrider
http://smkrider.wordpress.com/
http://www.k4mm.org/?K4MM_Forum_Area
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=761977993&ref=profile#/profile.php?id=761977993&ref=profile
Citations:
(Alternet, 2009)
(Bruce Cain, 2009)
(Fox News, 2009)
(Marco Renda, 2009)
(President Obama, 2009)
(Rick Simpson, 2009)
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Check out "JOHN F. KENNEDY speech NwO new world order 666 NWO illuminati FREEMANSON obama new world order NWO" on pot talk
To view this video, visit:
http://pottalk.ning.com/video/video/show?id=3869042%3AVideo%3A165
Thursday, August 20, 2009
msnbc.com: Blackwater tied to CIA assassination plot
The CIA in 2004 hired contractors from the private security firm Blackwater as part of a secret program to assassinate top operatives of al-Qaida, according to current and former government officials.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32484932/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/from/ET
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Gatewoods' petition for Hemp/Marijuana in Kentucky
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/hemp-marijuana-ky
Monday, August 17, 2009
U.S. Knew In 1974 That Cannabis May Be A Cure For Cancer
Unlocking A Cure for Cancer with MarijuanaShare
Today at 12:43pm
Who could imagine that cannabis might one day offer hope as a cure for cancer? The United States government, that’s who.
For the past 30 years, U.S. officials have willfully ignored clinical research indicating that marijuana can inhibit the growth of certain type of malignant tumors. However, the recent publication of a trio of clinical studies and a pair of scientific reviews have effectively blown the lid off "Cancergate," and revealed that pot’s medical value may be far greater than ever presumed.
THE EMERGING EVIDENCE
Last year, five scientific journals published prominent articles trumpeting cannabinoids (compounds in marijuana) as potential anti-cancer agents.
These include:
* Clinical trial data published in January 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Society of Clinical Investigation that found cannabinoids significantly inhibit skin tumor growth in mice. Investigators of the study concluded, "The present data indicate that local cannabinoids administration may constitute an alternative therapeutic approach for the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancer."
* Clinical trial data published in the March 2003 issue of The FASEB Journal that found that the "local administration of a non-psychoactive cannabinoid inhibits angiogenesis (tissue growth) of malignant gliomas (brain tumors)."
* A clinical review in the October 2003 issue of the prestigious journal Nature Reviews Cancer that concluded that cannabinoids’ "favorable drug safety profile" and proven ability to inhibit tumor growth make them desirable agents in the treatment of cancer. According to the review’s author, tumors inhibited by cannabinoids include: lung carcinoma, glioma, thyroid epithelioma, lymphoma/leukemia, skin carcinoma, uterus carcinoma, breast carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, and neuroblastoma (a malignant tumor originating in the autonomic nervous system or the adrenal medulla and occurring chiefly in infants and young children).
* Clinical trial data published in the November 2003 issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics that found the administration of the cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the growth of human glioma cells both in vitro (e.g., a petri dish) and in animals in a dose-dependent manner. Investigators concluded, "Non-psychoactive CBD produce[s] a significant antitumor activity both in vitro and in vivo, thus suggesting a possible application of CBD as an antineoplastic agent (something which prevents the growth of malignant cells.)"
* And finally, a clinical review in the December 2003 issue of the journal Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets that summarized "the demonstrated antitumor actions of cannabinoids,"
and elaborated on "possible avenues for the future development of cannabinoids as antitumor agents."
AND SUBSEQUENT MEDIA BLACKOUT
Despite these stunning findings, media coverage of them in North America has been virtually non-existent. As noted by Richard Cowan, editor of the website MarijuanaNews.com, "The New York Times, The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times all ignored this story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors."
Why the media blackout? For starters, all of these studies were conducted overseas. And secondly, not one of them has been acknowledged by the U.S. government.
U.S. KNEW IN ’74... AND AGAIN IN ’96!
Unlocking A Cure for Cancer with MarijuanaShare
Today at 12:43pm
Who could imagine that cannabis might one day offer hope as a cure for cancer? The United States government, that’s who.
For the past 30 years, U.S. officials have willfully ignored clinical research indicating that marijuana can inhibit the growth of certain type of malignant tumors. However, the recent publication of a trio of clinical studies and a pair of scientific reviews have effectively blown the lid off "Cancergate," and revealed that pot’s medical value may be far greater than ever presumed.
THE EMERGING EVIDENCE
Last year, five scientific journals published prominent articles trumpeting cannabinoids (compounds in marijuana) as potential anti-cancer agents.
These include:
* Clinical trial data published in January 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Society of Clinical Investigation that found cannabinoids significantly inhibit skin tumor growth in mice. Investigators of the study concluded, "The present data indicate that local cannabinoids administration may constitute an alternative therapeutic approach for the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancer."
* Clinical trial data published in the March 2003 issue of The FASEB Journal that found that the "local administration of a non-psychoactive cannabinoid inhibits angiogenesis (tissue growth) of malignant gliomas (brain tumors)."
* A clinical review in the October 2003 issue of the prestigious journal Nature Reviews Cancer that concluded that cannabinoids’ "favorable drug safety profile" and proven ability to inhibit tumor growth make them desirable agents in the treatment of cancer. According to the review’s author, tumors inhibited by cannabinoids include: lung carcinoma, glioma, thyroid epithelioma, lymphoma/leukemia, skin carcinoma, uterus carcinoma, breast carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, and neuroblastoma (a malignant tumor originating in the autonomic nervous system or the adrenal medulla and occurring chiefly in infants and young children).
* Clinical trial data published in the November 2003 issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics that found the administration of the cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the growth of human glioma cells both in vitro (e.g., a petri dish) and in animals in a dose-dependent manner. Investigators concluded, "Non-psychoactive CBD produce[s] a significant antitumor activity both in vitro and in vivo, thus suggesting a possible application of CBD as an antineoplastic agent (something which prevents the growth of malignant cells.)"
* And finally, a clinical review in the December 2003 issue of the journal Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets that summarized "the demonstrated antitumor actions of cannabinoids," and elaborated on "possible avenues for the future development of cannabinoids as antitumor agents."
AND SUBSEQUENT MEDIA BLACKOUT
Despite these stunning findings, media coverage of them in North America has been virtually non-existent. As noted by Richard Cowan, editor of the website MarijuanaNews.com, "The New York Times, The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times all ignored this story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors."
Why the media blackout? For starters, all of these studies were conducted overseas. And secondly, not one of them has been acknowledged by the U.S. government.
U.S. KNEW IN ’74... AND AGAIN IN ’96!
This wasn’t always the case. In fact, the first ever experiment documenting pot’s anti-tumor effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest of the U.S. government. The results of that study, immortalized in an August 18, 1974 Washington Post newspaper feature, were that "THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."
Despite these favorable preliminary findings, U.S. government officials banished the study, and refused to fund any follow up research until conducting a similar – though secret – study in the mid-1990s. That study, conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program to the tune of $2 million concluded that mice and rats administered high doses of THC over long periods had greater protection against malignant tumors than untreated controls. However, rather than publicize their findings, government researchers shelved the results – which only became public one year later after a draft copy of its findings were leaked in 1997 to the journal AIDS Treatment News, which in turn forwarded the story to the national media.
Nevertheless, in the nearly eight years since the completion of the National Toxicology trial, the U.S. government has yet to fund a single additional study examining pot’s potential as an anti-cancer agent.
SCIENCE IGNORED NO MORE
Fortunately, researchers at Madrid, Spain’s Complutense University, School of Biology have generously picked up where U.S. researchers so abruptly left off. In 1998, the research team – led by investigator Manuel Guzman – discovered that THC can selectively induce program cell death in brain tumor cells without negatively impacting the surrounding healthy cells. Then in 2000, Guzman’s team reported in the journal Nature Medicine that injections of synthetic THC eradicated malignant gliomas (brain tumors) in one-third of treated rats, and prolonged life in another third by six weeks. A commentary to the study noted that the results were the first to convincingly demonstrate that cannabis-based treatments may successfully combat cancer.
Today, Guzman believes that enough favorable clinical evidence exists supporting pot’s anti-cancer properties to warrant clinical trials in humans. "The scientific community has gained substantial knowledge of the palliative and anti-tumor actions of cannabinoids during the past few years," Guzman wrote in the October 2003 issue of Nature Reviews Cancer. "Anti-tumor compounds should selectively affect tumor cells [and] it seems that cannabinoids can do this, as they kill [malignant] tumor cells but do not affect their non-transformed counterparts and might even protect them from cell death. ... As cannabinoids are relatively safe compounds, it would be desirable that clinical trials using cannabinoids ... could accompany [ongoing] laboratory studies to allow us to use these compounds in the treatment of cancer." Guzman concludes the article by noting that the Spanish Ministry of Health recently approved a human
clinical trial – the first ever – aimed at investigating the effects of intracranially administered THC on the life expectancy of volunteers suffering from malignant brain tumors.
"Cannabinoid research continues to show tremendous potential in the treatment of cancer," summarizes University of Southern California professor Mitch Earleywine, author of the book Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence. However, he laments that the "vast majority of this work originates outside the United States, often in countries that lack our economic and scientific advantages. Let’s hope that our drug policy won’t stymie the battle against the second leading cause of death in America."
Indeed. Let’s not add a potential treatment for cancer to the ever-growing list of victims of pot prohibition.
August 17, 2004
Paul Armentano [send him mail] is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC.
Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com
Today at 12:43pm
Who could imagine that cannabis might one day offer hope as a cure for cancer? The United States government, that’s who.
For the past 30 years, U.S. officials have willfully ignored clinical research indicating that marijuana can inhibit the growth of certain type of malignant tumors. However, the recent publication of a trio of clinical studies and a pair of scientific reviews have effectively blown the lid off "Cancergate," and revealed that pot’s medical value may be far greater than ever presumed.
THE EMERGING EVIDENCE
Last year, five scientific journals published prominent articles trumpeting cannabinoids (compounds in marijuana) as potential anti-cancer agents.
These include:
* Clinical trial data published in January 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Society of Clinical Investigation that found cannabinoids significantly inhibit skin tumor growth in mice. Investigators of the study concluded, "The present data indicate that local cannabinoids administration may constitute an alternative therapeutic approach for the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancer."
* Clinical trial data published in the March 2003 issue of The FASEB Journal that found that the "local administration of a non-psychoactive cannabinoid inhibits angiogenesis (tissue growth) of malignant gliomas (brain tumors)."
* A clinical review in the October 2003 issue of the prestigious journal Nature Reviews Cancer that concluded that cannabinoids’ "favorable drug safety profile" and proven ability to inhibit tumor growth make them desirable agents in the treatment of cancer. According to the review’s author, tumors inhibited by cannabinoids include: lung carcinoma, glioma, thyroid epithelioma, lymphoma/leukemia, skin carcinoma, uterus carcinoma, breast carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, and neuroblastoma (a malignant tumor originating in the autonomic nervous system or the adrenal medulla and occurring chiefly in infants and young children).
* Clinical trial data published in the November 2003 issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics that found the administration of the cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the growth of human glioma cells both in vitro (e.g., a petri dish) and in animals in a dose-dependent manner. Investigators concluded, "Non-psychoactive CBD produce[s] a significant antitumor activity both in vitro and in vivo, thus suggesting a possible application of CBD as an antineoplastic agent (something which prevents the growth of malignant cells.)"
* And finally, a clinical review in the December 2003 issue of the journal Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets that summarized "the demonstrated antitumor actions of cannabinoids,"
and elaborated on "possible avenues for the future development of cannabinoids as antitumor agents."
AND SUBSEQUENT MEDIA BLACKOUT
Despite these stunning findings, media coverage of them in North America has been virtually non-existent. As noted by Richard Cowan, editor of the website MarijuanaNews.com, "The New York Times, The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times all ignored this story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors."
Why the media blackout? For starters, all of these studies were conducted overseas. And secondly, not one of them has been acknowledged by the U.S. government.
U.S. KNEW IN ’74... AND AGAIN IN ’96!
Unlocking A Cure for Cancer with MarijuanaShare
Today at 12:43pm
Who could imagine that cannabis might one day offer hope as a cure for cancer? The United States government, that’s who.
For the past 30 years, U.S. officials have willfully ignored clinical research indicating that marijuana can inhibit the growth of certain type of malignant tumors. However, the recent publication of a trio of clinical studies and a pair of scientific reviews have effectively blown the lid off "Cancergate," and revealed that pot’s medical value may be far greater than ever presumed.
THE EMERGING EVIDENCE
Last year, five scientific journals published prominent articles trumpeting cannabinoids (compounds in marijuana) as potential anti-cancer agents.
These include:
* Clinical trial data published in January 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Society of Clinical Investigation that found cannabinoids significantly inhibit skin tumor growth in mice. Investigators of the study concluded, "The present data indicate that local cannabinoids administration may constitute an alternative therapeutic approach for the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancer."
* Clinical trial data published in the March 2003 issue of The FASEB Journal that found that the "local administration of a non-psychoactive cannabinoid inhibits angiogenesis (tissue growth) of malignant gliomas (brain tumors)."
* A clinical review in the October 2003 issue of the prestigious journal Nature Reviews Cancer that concluded that cannabinoids’ "favorable drug safety profile" and proven ability to inhibit tumor growth make them desirable agents in the treatment of cancer. According to the review’s author, tumors inhibited by cannabinoids include: lung carcinoma, glioma, thyroid epithelioma, lymphoma/leukemia, skin carcinoma, uterus carcinoma, breast carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, and neuroblastoma (a malignant tumor originating in the autonomic nervous system or the adrenal medulla and occurring chiefly in infants and young children).
* Clinical trial data published in the November 2003 issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics that found the administration of the cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the growth of human glioma cells both in vitro (e.g., a petri dish) and in animals in a dose-dependent manner. Investigators concluded, "Non-psychoactive CBD produce[s] a significant antitumor activity both in vitro and in vivo, thus suggesting a possible application of CBD as an antineoplastic agent (something which prevents the growth of malignant cells.)"
* And finally, a clinical review in the December 2003 issue of the journal Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets that summarized "the demonstrated antitumor actions of cannabinoids," and elaborated on "possible avenues for the future development of cannabinoids as antitumor agents."
AND SUBSEQUENT MEDIA BLACKOUT
Despite these stunning findings, media coverage of them in North America has been virtually non-existent. As noted by Richard Cowan, editor of the website MarijuanaNews.com, "The New York Times, The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times all ignored this story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors."
Why the media blackout? For starters, all of these studies were conducted overseas. And secondly, not one of them has been acknowledged by the U.S. government.
U.S. KNEW IN ’74... AND AGAIN IN ’96!
This wasn’t always the case. In fact, the first ever experiment documenting pot’s anti-tumor effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest of the U.S. government. The results of that study, immortalized in an August 18, 1974 Washington Post newspaper feature, were that "THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."
Despite these favorable preliminary findings, U.S. government officials banished the study, and refused to fund any follow up research until conducting a similar – though secret – study in the mid-1990s. That study, conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program to the tune of $2 million concluded that mice and rats administered high doses of THC over long periods had greater protection against malignant tumors than untreated controls. However, rather than publicize their findings, government researchers shelved the results – which only became public one year later after a draft copy of its findings were leaked in 1997 to the journal AIDS Treatment News, which in turn forwarded the story to the national media.
Nevertheless, in the nearly eight years since the completion of the National Toxicology trial, the U.S. government has yet to fund a single additional study examining pot’s potential as an anti-cancer agent.
SCIENCE IGNORED NO MORE
Fortunately, researchers at Madrid, Spain’s Complutense University, School of Biology have generously picked up where U.S. researchers so abruptly left off. In 1998, the research team – led by investigator Manuel Guzman – discovered that THC can selectively induce program cell death in brain tumor cells without negatively impacting the surrounding healthy cells. Then in 2000, Guzman’s team reported in the journal Nature Medicine that injections of synthetic THC eradicated malignant gliomas (brain tumors) in one-third of treated rats, and prolonged life in another third by six weeks. A commentary to the study noted that the results were the first to convincingly demonstrate that cannabis-based treatments may successfully combat cancer.
Today, Guzman believes that enough favorable clinical evidence exists supporting pot’s anti-cancer properties to warrant clinical trials in humans. "The scientific community has gained substantial knowledge of the palliative and anti-tumor actions of cannabinoids during the past few years," Guzman wrote in the October 2003 issue of Nature Reviews Cancer. "Anti-tumor compounds should selectively affect tumor cells [and] it seems that cannabinoids can do this, as they kill [malignant] tumor cells but do not affect their non-transformed counterparts and might even protect them from cell death. ... As cannabinoids are relatively safe compounds, it would be desirable that clinical trials using cannabinoids ... could accompany [ongoing] laboratory studies to allow us to use these compounds in the treatment of cancer." Guzman concludes the article by noting that the Spanish Ministry of Health recently approved a human
clinical trial – the first ever – aimed at investigating the effects of intracranially administered THC on the life expectancy of volunteers suffering from malignant brain tumors.
"Cannabinoid research continues to show tremendous potential in the treatment of cancer," summarizes University of Southern California professor Mitch Earleywine, author of the book Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence. However, he laments that the "vast majority of this work originates outside the United States, often in countries that lack our economic and scientific advantages. Let’s hope that our drug policy won’t stymie the battle against the second leading cause of death in America."
Indeed. Let’s not add a potential treatment for cancer to the ever-growing list of victims of pot prohibition.
August 17, 2004
Paul Armentano [send him mail] is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC.
Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Sunday, August 2, 2009
[FWD: AAMC: Marijuana ... Has No Medicinal Benefit - Kerlikowske]
"Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit," Kerlikowske
said in downtown Fresno while discussing Operation SOS - Save Our
Sierra - a multiagency effort to eradicate marijuana in eastern Fresno County. ....
Sheree M. Krider
http://ky.usmjparty.org/
http://whengovfailsus.spaces.live.com/
http://kentuckymedicalmarijuanasociety.blogspot.com/
http://whengovernmentfailsus.org/
http://www.myspace.com/smkrider
http://phoenixtears.ca/
http://smkrider.wordpress.com/
http://www.k4mm.org/
http://my.care2.com/shereekrider
said in downtown Fresno while discussing Operation SOS - Save Our
Sierra - a multiagency effort to eradicate marijuana in eastern Fresno County. ....
"I WOULD BEG TO DIFFER"....
Sheree M. Krider
http://ky.usmjparty.org/
http://whengovfailsus.spaces.live.com/
http://kentuckymedicalmarijuanasociety.blogspot.com/
http://whengovernmentfailsus.org/
http://www.myspace.com/smkrider
http://phoenixtears.ca/
http://smkrider.wordpress.com/
http://www.k4mm.org/
http://my.care2.com/shereekrider
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: AAMC: Marijuana ... Has No Medicinal Benefit - Kerlikowske
From: Richard Lake <rlake@mapinc.org>
Date: Sun, August 02, 2009 8:58 am
To: aamcnewtalk@drugsense.org
MARIJUANA ... HAS NO MEDICINAL BENEFIT - KERLIKOWSKE
**********************************************************************
DrugSense FOCUS Alert #408 - Sunday, 2 August 2009
On the 23rd of July The Fresno Bee
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n000/a144.html quoted our drug czar:
"Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit," Kerlikowske
said in downtown Fresno while discussing Operation SOS - Save Our
Sierra - a multiagency effort to eradicate marijuana in eastern Fresno County.
Since then the remark has spread to other newspapers.
Syndicated columnist Froma Harrop wrote a column which has appeared
in newspapers from the East Coast to Hawaii which quotes
Kerlikowske's remarks. Today it was printed in a Georgia newspaper, below.
Any time a newspaper prints anything which mentions drug czar Gil
Kerlikowske the item is likely to be a worthy target for a letter to
the editor.
Bookmark this page to spot the articles and opinion
items http://www.mapinc.org/people/Kerlikowske
**********************************************************************
Pubdate: Sun, 2 Aug 2009
Source: Athens Banner-Herald (GA)
Copyright: 2009 The Providence Journal Company
Contact: http://www.onlineathens.com/feedback.shtml
Author: Froma Harrop
OBAMA BLOWING SMOKE ON MARIJUANA
The popular TV series "Weeds" is about a widowed suburban mother who
deals pot to preserve her family's cushy California dream. Not a few
Californians would like to see the theme writ large for their state.
California has legalized medical marijuana, its cannabis crop is
valued at $17 billion a year, and people there smoke pot openly. But
the state can't collect a penny of revenues from the enormous enterprise.
As California faced budget Armageddon, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
called for "a debate" on the potential of tapping marijuana as a
source of tax revenues. That's all he can do, because federal law
still criminalizes marijuana use.
Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron already has calculated the sort of
revenues California and other states could see were marijuana taxed
like cigarettes and alcohol. California's taxes would easily top $100
million a year.
But that's the least of it. Miron puts California's costs of
enforcing the marijuana ban - policing, the courts, jail time - at
$981 million a year.
Nationally, legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion a year on
drug-war spending, according to Miron. And government could raise
$6.2 billion annually in tax revenues.
A vain hope rose that President Obama's naming of Gil Kerlikowske as
drug czar would lead to a more rational and humane policy on drugs.
As Seattle's police chief, Kerlikowske oversaw the city's annual
Hempfest (a giant and mellow smoke-in) without bothering the celebrants.
But Kerlikowske announced this month that "marijuana is dangerous and
has no medicinal benefit." And to end any idea that the hip, liberal
Obama administration would ease up on pot, he added, "Legalization is
not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine."
Obama readily admits having used marijuana in his youth (in addition
to cocaine). And each year, many thousands of Americans are arrested
and their lives ruined for doing what he did. Does Obama get to be
president only because he wasn't caught?
Miron is a libertarian who sees all drug prohibition as interfering
with people's private lives. But he well understands the politics
that stop politicians from taking the no-brainer position on marijuana.
"Democrats know that the potheads are going to vote for them anyway,"
he told me, "and the people on the other side who care about this
stuff know that this is really a big deal." If marijuana were
legalized, and the sky didn't fall in, many drug laws would crack.
In previous economic downturns, state and local governments had
turned to casinos and other gambling for revenues. These tough times
may push legislators to ease their umbrage over additional "sinful" activities.
If they want to tax marijuana, they'll have to legalize it. But even
the lesser step of decriminalization - whereby people may possess
marijuana but not sell it - would save the billions of dollars spent
going after users.
Selling the public on expanded gambling and legalized marijuana
require different arguments. For one thing, marijuana never was part
of the official culture. But it does have an advantage over gambling
as a revenue source: It doesn't compete with other taxed businesses.
Casinos take entertainment dollars away from restaurants, amusement
parks and movie theaters. Legal marijuana would take business away
from foreign drug gangs.
A bill to "tax and regulate" marijuana like alcohol now before the
California legislature has strong support. But it's not going
anywhere as long as "legalization" is not in Obama's vocabulary. The
word "hypocrisy" apparently has made the cut.
**********************************************************************
Please post copies of your letters to the sent letter list (
sentlte@mapinc.org ) if you are subscribed.
Subscribing to the Sent LTE list will help you to review other sent
LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or approaches.
To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see
http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form
Suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center
http://www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides
**********************************************************************
Prepared by: Richard Lake, Senior Editor www.mapinc.org
For News, Recipes, and Medical Info
Come visit us at http://www.letfreedomgrow.com
List-Help: <mailto:aamcnewtalk-request@drugsense.org?Body=help>
Update-Address: <mailto:owner-aamcnewtalk@drugsense.org?subject=update>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
