THE U.S. MARIJUANA PARTY OF KENTUCKY HAS BEEN INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS IMPORTANT EVENT IN OUR STATE…
SPEAKERS INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO REV. MARY THOMAS-SPEARS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF REPEAL OF PROHIBITION OF THIS PLANT AND HOW REPEAL WILL END THE WAR ON CANNABIS FOR EVERYONE.
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND ….
On December 10th the National Law Review
published an article written by Vedder Price in which
they give some clarification of the Illinois Medical
Marijuana Law.
On august 1, 2013 Governor Pat Quinn signed the
"Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot
Program Act".
One of the most disturbing provisions to me is the
fact that a patient CANNOT grow their own medicine.
It must be dispensed (and paid for) at a legally
licensed dispensary.
However, one good thing that is included in the
"Act" was in regards to an employment related
issue. Under the "Act" it would be unlawful to
discriminate against an employee or applicant based
upon their medical cannabis use, provided is legally
prescribed and obtained.
It would seem that legalization has opened up doors
in all commerce ventures across the country and
worldwide. The problem is the legalization itself has
opened up a whole new door for criminalization.
As the product of "Cannabis" is patented, grown,
produced, sold and exchanged over the stock
market all around the world, the doors of the new
prisons will be opening for those of us who might
not choose to abide by their "growing standards".
Each state law is markedly different and continuously
changing amid the stress of a newly marketed item.
But the bottom line is legalization equals regulation
and taxation which we are seeing now amid the
hustle and bustle of the "legalizing states".
There will indeed be much money to be made.
Jobs will be created. People will have access to
Cannabis - IF deemed necessary by thier doctor,
and the "law".
Just like the opiate wars which we are living in every
day, which would include all Pharmaceutical Opiates
which are marketed through Pharmacy's and
regulated by law therefore creating a black market
for them by law of supply and demand (via
addiction), so will the war on Cannabis continue,
long after it is "legal". The only difference is that the
Cannabis is not addictive like other opiates and that
is and will continue to be the saving factor in this
rude scenario of "legalization".
Below are some links of information on the legalization process.
HALF BAKED: THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONFLICTS OF LEGALIZING MEDICAL MARIJUANA (2012)
DIVERSE SANCTUARY - REV. MARY THOMAS-SPEARS
MAKE IT LAWFUL - AMERICANS FOR CANNABIS
U.S. MARIJUANA PARTY - WE ARE ANTI-PROHIBITIONISTS!
DE-SCHEDULE/REPEAL AND NULLIFY
REPEAL PROHIBITION - END THE WAR ON DRUGS
By Michael C. Bender - Nov 1, 2013 10:10 AM CT
A proposal backed by most District of Columbia council members to decriminalize small amounts of pot may spur federal lawmakers to consider marijuana regulation for the first time since two states legalized recreational sales.
Congress has the power to block legislation approved by the Washington council. U.S. lawmakers can also stop local initiatives in the nation’s capital through the federal budget, which authorizes the city’s spending, as they did to stall the use of medical marijuana there for a decade.
Alliance, say the effects of pot are less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, the U.S. government maintains that marijuana can lead to serious mental-health issues. Photographer: Andrew Hetherington/Redux
Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Bruce Bedrick, chief executive officer of Medbox Inc., talks about the outlook for the medical marijuana market and prospects for legalization of the drug in the U.S. Bedrick speaks with Betty Liu on Bloomberg Television's "In the Loop." (Source: Bloomberg)
The push to loosen local pot penalties, which few expect Congress to block, would set up what supporters say is the next step: legalizing recreational use. Growing support for legal pot and the billions in tax revenue and prison savings the change may bring has convinced some that Congress will ease laws.
“This is where you’re going to see federal movement coming in the next year or two,” said Erik Altieri, a spokesman for the Washington-based National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which was founded in 1970.
Groups such as Norml and the DC Cannabis Campaign are considering a ballot initiative next year to legalize pot sales in the district. If approved, it would force Congress to consider an issue the federal government has mostly left to states. The hands-off approach has created a patchwork of laws ranging from Missouri, where possession of 35 grams, about 1.25 ounces, can mean seven years in prison, to Colorado and Washington state, which legalized recreational sales last year.
In Oregon, activists submitted a statewide ballot proposal last week that would legalize possession of as much as eight ounces of pot, while proponents are gathering signatures for measures in Alaska and Florida. Three Maine lawmakers from Portland today endorsed a question on the city’s Nov. 5 election ballot to decriminalize possession of 2.5 ounces or less.
For the first time, a majority of Americans now favor legalization, according to a Gallup Poll last week showing that support has increased 10 percentage points in one year.
Seventy-six percent of doctors worldwide favor using pot for medicinal purposes, according to a May poll published by the New England Journal of Medicine. Forty-eight percent of U.S. adults reported using it, according to a Pew Research Center survey.
While advocates, including the Washington-based Drug Policy Alliance, say the effects of pot are less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, the U.S. government maintains that marijuana can lead to serious mental-health issues.
“Legalization of marijuana, no matter how it begins, will come at the expense of our children and public safety,” said an April report from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. “It will create dependency and treatment issues, and open the door to use of other drugs, impaired health, delinquent behavior and drugged drivers.”
Sale or possession of marijuana accounted for 48 percent of the 1.55 million drug arrests in the U.S. in 2012, Federal Bureau of Investigation data show. While drug busts have dropped, those for marijuana have risen by 18 percent since 2001, according a June report from the American Civil Liberties Union.
At the same time, racial disparities have increased, according to the report. In the U.S., pot use among whites and blacks is about the same, yet blacks are arrested for possession almost four times as often. In Washington, blacks accounted for 91 percent of marijuana arrests in 2010, even though they account for about half of the population of 632,000.
“We’re saving thousands of black boys and a few girls from having a criminal record for small amounts of marijuana, and that’s important because most employers won’t consider you if they see an arrest record,” said council member Marion Barry, referring to the proposal.
Barry is no stranger to drug laws. He was sentenced to six months in prison in 1990 for possession of crack cocaine while he was mayor. He said that experience hasn’t informed his support for the pot proposal.
Barry wouldn’t say whether he supported legalization. Asked whether that was the next step in D.C., he said, “Yes.”
Estimates on a potential national marijuana market vary from $10 billion to $120 billion a year, with $35 billion to $45 billion being likely, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Tax collections from such sales could reach as much as $20 billion, according to a March report by Brad Barker, a Bloomberg Industries analyst, who cited projections by the Cato Institute, a nonprofit research group, and the Congressional Research Service.
When voters in Washington and Colorado legalized pot a year ago, they forced the federal government’s hand. In an Aug. 29 memo, U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole said the Justice Department wouldn’t intervene in the states’ pot regulations, so long as they prevented out-of-state distribution, access to minors, impaired driving and kept revenue from going to gangs and cartels.
In Congress, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, said in an Aug. 26 statement that “these state laws should be respected.”
The Tea Party movement that helped restore Republican control in the House in 2010 included a wave of libertarian lawmakers who are more receptive to loosening marijuana regulation.
A House bill from California Republican Dana Rohrabacher to give state marijuana laws priority over the U.S. Controlled Substances Act has 20 co-sponsors, ranging from Arizona Democrat Raul Grijalva, among the most liberal members of Congress, to Justin Amash of Michigan and Steve Stockman of Texas, both Republicans aligned with the Tea Party movement.
A triumvirate of Kentucky Republicans is backing proposals to allow farming of hemp, which U.S. law classifies the same as marijuana even though it has a non-intoxicating amount of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in the cannabis plant.
In the Senate, the measure has support from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Rand Paul, a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2016. A third Kentucky lawmaker, Representative Thomas Massie, has 48 co-sponsors for the same bill in the House.
“We’re seeing Congress move this way,” Norml’s Altieri said. “It’s hard to see them really rolling back.”
Rohrabacher said he doesn’t expect his bill to pass until the Republican Party nominates a presidential candidate who supports marijuana legislation. The limited-government Tea Party movement increases the chances, he said.
“It all depends on whether or not, with this Tea Party group, we end up with a Republican that has courage enough to be more libertarian on the marijuana issue,” Rohrabacher said.
The District of Columbia proposal to decriminalize possession of less than one ounce of marijuana has support from 10 of 12 local lawmakers and may get final approval in January, said council member Tommy Wells, who is sponsoring the measure.
Wells’s plan would mean fines of $100 for small amounts of pot, instead of a maximum six months in prison. Wells said in an interview that he’ll probably change his bill at a December hearing to reduce the fine to $25 -- the same as the punishment for parking at an expired meter.
Sixteen states have decriminalized first-time possession of small amounts of marijuana, according to Norml.
Once it passes the council and gets a signature from Mayor Vincent Gray, who supports it, Congress has 60 days to object with a disapproval resolution. Congress hasn’t used that method since 1991, when lawmakers overturned a proposal to exceed a 110-foot height limit for downtown buildings.
When voters in the nation’s capital were among the first in the U.S. to legalize medicinal marijuana in 1998, Congress prevented the district from spending money on the program for a decade with a budget rider.
There are now three dispensaries and three cultivation centers in the district, said Najma Roberts, a D.C. health department spokeswoman.
Both Wells and council member David Grosso said they’d back legalization in Washington, a question that two-thirds of district votes said they’d support, according to an April poll by Public Policy Polling. Neither Wells nor Grosso would venture a guess as to how Congress might respond.
“That fight would have national repercussions,” Rohrabacher said.
To contact Bloomberg News staff for this story: Michael C. Bender in Washington at mbender10@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jodi Schneider at jschneider50@bloomberg.net
October 30, 2013
Under the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug in America. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Cannabis sativa is as dangerous as heroin. (You know… as in heroin!) To justify this ranking, the DEA has declared that the plant has absolutely no medical value. Zero. Nada. Zip. The federal government has determined that this position is backed by science.
Marijuana’s current status as one of the most dangerous drugs in America became official in 1970, during the Nixon administration. (Putting matters in ludicrous perspective, cocaine and even Breaking Bad meth are Schedule II.) Every administration since then has treated marijuana as mad, bad and dangerous to know, with virtually no attempt made to reclassify it. And that list includes the current one.
Harmon Leon is the author of six books, including The American Dream, The Harmon Chronicles and Republican Like Me. His...
“It’s a bit of an Alice in Wonderland scenario with the Obama administration,” explains Kris Hermes of American for Safe Access (ASA). “He made statements prior to being elected about changing the policy on marijuana, but in reality the opposite has happened.”
Not only have there been more medical marijuana arrests during Obama’s administration than the entire Bush regime, but even in states like California and Washington, there’s been a steady rise in the number of people being raided even though they’re in full compliance with state law. The federal government has threatened landlords and financial institutions working with medical marijuana businesses; the IRS has been involved with audits; pro-pot lawmakers have been bullied; and veterans using marijuana for conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder have been denied medical benefits by the Veterans Administration—all because of marijuana’s Schedule I status.
On the other hand, dropping pot down a notch to Schedule II (let alone III, IV or V, or removing it from the Controlled Substances Act completely) would be a big step in resolving the clash between state and federal law, since such a move would at least acknowledge marijuana’s medical utility and allow doctors to legally prescribe it.
So what can be done to reschedule marijuana in a country where the “drug czar” is required by law to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a Schedule I substance—in any form?
Time to put on our citizen-journalist’s hat and go through the looking glass into the bizarre legal labyrinth of the rescheduling process. Kris Hermes warned that it wouldn’t be easy: “Bureaucrats shut down and refuse to talk when it’s convenient for them not to talk… when it suits their purpose!”
I Contact the DEA
Phoning the DEA is an unnerving experience—a sensation similar to being in high school and calling your dad at 2 am to inform him that you’ve crashed the family car (though now safe in the knowledge that the NSA will keep tabs on me).
I get a DEA representative on the phone. He goes by the name Rusty. (Perhaps because of his employer’s corroded views on ending the drug war?)
“Could I get any information regarding the rescheduling of medical marijuana?”
“I don’t want to spark a debate,” Rusty from the DEA replies. “I don’t know if that’s something we’d weigh in on. I don’t know what the point would be—our stance is pretty much on our website.”
Rusty from the DEA informs me that the agency’s position on medical marijuana can be found under the tab astutely labeled “The Dangers and Consequences of Marijuana Abuse.” (The thirty-page PDF reads like some bureaucrat’s idea for a remake of Reefer Madness.)
The key words in this manifesto: dangers, consequences, abuse. That doesn’t seem to indicate much willingness to consider pot’s medical value. Apparently, the DEA is still convinced that cancer victims are merely “abusing” marijuana to alleviate their chemotherapy-induced vomiting and nausea.
Rusty from the DEA adds: “You know, Congress can change this at any point—which people seem to forget.”
Perfect. That would be the same body that recently shut down the federal government and threatened the United States with default. But while the DEA might say that rescheduling is up to Congress, according to the ASA, that’s not exactly the case. The DEA actually delays the process—with no time limit imposed for answering rescheduling petitions, the agency takes the longest possible time before reaching a decision. (And then it says no.) To get around to denying the ASA’s rescheduling petition, it took the federal government a whopping nine years.
I Contact the FDA
According to a memorandum of understanding between the DEA and the Food and Drug Administration, a rescheduling petition has to go through the FDA. (Despite the fact that the DEA is under no obligation to recognize the conclusions of that agency.) Meanwhile, roughly every nineteen minutes, an American dies of accidental prescription-drug overdose—and these are pills approved by the FDA. (“Approved!”) Since the big pharmaceutical companies can’t make money off homegrown medical marijuana, might that be swaying the FDA’s recommendation?
“Can I ask a few questions about the rescheduling of medical marijuana?” I ask an unnamed FDA representative.
“I’m looking into this for you,” she replies.
Moments later…
“We cannot comment on this topic due to pending citizen petitions, other than to say our analyses and decision-making processes are ongoing.”
Not much to work with there, though I’m intrigued by the mention of “pending citizen petitions.” I press on: “What would be the process needed for medical marijuana to be approved by the FDA?”
“As you are aware, Schedule 1 drugs have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and as I indicated before, we cannot comment on this topic of rescheduling due to pending citizen petitions.”
My information parade has been rained out. Why so cagey? After all, the FDA approved Marinol, whose active ingredient is 100 percent synthetic THC (i.e., the stuff that makes pot so dangerous and addictive that it has to be classified as Schedule I). And Marinol, strangely enough, is Schedule III—even though no pot plant in the history of marijuana has tested at 100 percent THC. (Even the strongest pot these days clocks in at under 40 percent.)
So my basic question goes unanswered, though the FDA representative does grant me an open invitation to check out the agency’s website—anytime I please!
My inquiry at the Justice Department yields similar results: “Hi Harmon—DOJ’s enforcement policy on marijuana is in the attached. Thanks.”
My attempt at securing a comment from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals—which threw out the ASA’s appeal on its rescheduling petition—doesn’t go much better: “I’m sorry. I don’t know the answer to your question. I am sure there must be subject matter experts out there who would know.… Good luck!”
Down and Down the Rabbit Hole…
At the heart of the approval process is the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Ironically—or maybe not—the organization is funded by the federal government. Catch-22: for the DEA to reschedule marijuana, scientific studies authorized by NIDA have to prove its medical benefits. This is basically like putting the mice in charge of the mousey snacks. In his now-famous about-face on medical marijuana, Dr. Sanjay Gupta pointed out how many of NIDA’s studies are actually designed to find detrimental effects—with only about 6 percent, he estimates, looking into medical benefits. The end result of NIDA’s efforts: the almost-complete suppression of research into the therapeutic value of marijuana.
“Will Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s statement have any impact on rescheduling medical marijuana?” I ask the NIDA rep.
NIDA’s response: “The best resource for questions about rescheduling is the Drug Enforcement Administration.” (A phone number is provided.)
Reaching deep into my citizen-journalist’s bag of tricks, I try a more straightforward approach: “What would it take to have medical marijuana rescheduled? Clearly we’re at a crossroads where public opinion is changing, yet the federal government doesn’t want to change its stance. Is it left to further scientific studies or any other factors?”
“You’ll need to contact the DEA for questions about rescheduling.”
And so I’m back at square one. It turns out that getting an answer from the federal government on rescheduling marijuana is a lot like contacting the local Scientology center and asking them to go on record about the planet Xenu. In the meantime, the Supreme Court recently declined to hear ASA’s appeal on its rescheduling petition—the one that the DEA waited nine years to reject, and that the DC Circuit Court turned down on appeal, declaring that only Congress has the power to amend the Controlled Substances Act.
If the federal government is determined to maintain marijuana as a highly illegal Schedule 1 substance—despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary and an ongoing sea change in public opinion—then perhaps its best ploy at this point would be to sit on its hands and do absolutely nothing.
Mission accomplished.
Katrina vanden Heuvel: “Why Its Always Been Time to Legalize Marijuana”
Mike Riggs: “Obama’s War on Pot”
Carl L. Hart: “Pot Reform’s Race Problem”
Harry Levine: “The Scandal of Racist Marijuana Possession Arrests—and Why We Must Stop Them”
Martin A. Lee: “Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom: The Populist Politics of Cannabis Reform”
Martin A. Lee: “The Marijuana Miracle: Why a Single Compound in Cannabis May Revolutionize Modern Medicine”
Kristen Gwynne: “Can Medical Marijuana Survive in Washington State?”
Atossa Araxia Abrahamian: “Baking Bad: A Potted History of High Times”
Various Contributors: “The Drug War Touched My Life: Why I’m Fighting Back”
And only online…
J. Hoberman: “The Cineaste’s Guide to Watching Movies While Stoned”
Seth Zuckerman: “Is Pot-Growing Bad for the Environment?”
October 30, 2013
By John Cheves — jcheves@herald-leader.com
In September, Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, announced that he wants a debate in Kentucky about legalizing marijuana for medical purposes.
"I am open and leaning toward supporting the use of medical marijuana as I read more and more research," Stumbo said on Sept. 24.
Through a spokesman, Stumbo this week said he came to his stand on medical marijuana after speaking to Floyd County constituents who support it.
"There is no correlation between Morgan & Morgan and the medical marijuana," Stumbo spokesman Brian Wilkerson said.
John Morgan, a Lexington native who moved to Orlando, Fla., in 1971, gave $250,000 over the summer to People United For Medical Marijuana and produced several commercials to support the effort. He expects to give several million dollars more, he said this week.
On his firm's website, Morgan wrote that medical marijuana helped his father while he was dying from cancer and emphysema.
"Medical marijuana has been proven to give our loved ones relief they need, helping with pain, appetite, seizures and spasms," Morgan says in a radio commercial he recently produced in Florida. "Unfortunately, Tallahassee politicians refused to vote on the issue last session. They wouldn't even hear testimony from patients and their families."
In an interview, Morgan said he's glad to hear about Stumbo's public comments on medical marijuana, but he's not the impetus.
"Greg and I have never talked about it, but I'm spending a boatload of money to get it on the ballot in Florida this fall," Morgan said. "Now that I know he feels this way, maybe we can do something in Kentucky, too."
Steve Robertson, chairman of the Kentucky Republican Party, was ready to draw the opposite conclusion.
"We at least now know that Stumbo bases his public positions on his private finances," Robertson said. "After standing in opposition to the hemp bill, it's mind-boggling that he'd suddenly turn around and advocate for medical marijuana based on his new job."
During the 2013 legislative session, Stumbo criticized and worked against — though he ultimately voted for — a bill that established a licensing system for Kentucky hemp farmers if the federal government decriminalizes that plant, a close relative to marijuana. Stumbo said he agreed with police officers who argued that hemp and marijuana crops could be confused, making their jobs more difficult.
Later this year, Stumbo went to work for Morgan & Morgan. He recently began starring in television commercials for the firm, which employs 240 lawyers in a half-dozen states, including former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist.
"I'm Greg Stumbo of Morgan & Morgan," Stumbo says in a 30-second spot currently airing on Lexington stations. "As attorney general of Kentucky, I was honored to be your personal attorney."
Stumbo, who was attorney general from 2003 to 2007, goes on to tell viewers: "The insurance company doesn't have your family's best interest at heart. We do. Call us."
Speaking Wednesday, Morgan explained the hire: "Stumbo is a consumer advocate. That's what he's done both professionally and politically. He knows his way around Kentucky and he's obviously well-known among his peers."
John Cheves: (859) 231-3266. Twitter: @BGPolitics. Blog: bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com
Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/10/17/2881362/house-speaker-greg-stumbo-pitching.html#storylink=cpy
Aaron Blake, Published: September 23 at 1:57 pmE-mail the writer
Democrat Ed Marksberry, who told Post Politics two months ago that he was considering running for Kentucky's Senate seat as an independent, is now taking steps to do just that.
Marksberry told WFPL-FM that he will drop out of the Democratic primary against Alison Lundergan Grimes and file as an independent.
From WFPL-FM:
Saying Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes isn't speaking to progressives or their issues, Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate Ed Marksberry is dropping out of the primary to run as an independent.
Marksberry is an Owensboro building contractor who has been running a decidedly liberal campaign to take on Republican incumbent Mitch McConnell in next year's election.
In a telephone interview with WFPL, Marksberry, who ran for Congress in 2012, says he plans to speak to the environment, poverty and gay rights in particular.
Marksberry says Grimes is a good Democrat, but she has given up the most important fights against McConnell to pander to special interests.
"I want to give empowerment back to those that are impoverished, back to those who understand what the environment is experiencing right now and back to those who created the middle-class," says Marksberry. "And the only way to do that is to speak about the issues. And I hope that Alison Lundergan Grimes one day will open up and talk about the issues."
Marksberry had been suing the state party, alleging it has favored Grimes's campaign despite bylaws requiring it to stay neutral in primaries.
While the meagerly funded Marksberry stands virtually no chance of winning the Senate seat, independent and third-party candidates can steal votes from major-party candidates and affect close races. In this case, Marksberry would be running to Grimes's left and, to the extent he can win votes they would likely come at Grimes's expense.
Marksberry ran for Congress in 2010, taking less than one-third of the vote as the Democratic nominee against Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.).
McConnell is the Democrats' top target in the 2014 election.
Aaron Blake covers national politics at the Washington Post, where he writes regularly for the paper’s Post Politics and The Fix blogs. A Minnesota native and graduate of the University of Minnesota, Aaron has also written for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and The Hill newspaper. He joined the Post in 2010. Aaron, his wife, Danielle, and his dog, Mauer, live in Northern Virginia. Follow him on Twitter at @AaronBlakeWP.
Ralph B. Davis rdavis@civitasmedia.com
FRANKFORT — Kentucky’s agriculture commissioner says a recent decision by the U.S. Department of Justice now clears the way for Kentucky farmers to once again grow industrial hemp.
Last week, the Justice Department announced it would not seek to challenge state laws regarding the medical or recreational use of marijuana. On Friday, Agriculture Commissioner James Comer said he interprets that announcement as an opening for Kentucky to begin implementing Senate Bill 50, which sets guidelines for the production of industrial hemp, that passed earlier this year.
“It’s about time!” Comer said in a statement released Friday. “This is a major victory for Kentucky’s farmers and for all Kentuckians.”
Comer said the DOJ announcement marks a major change in policy.
“Two years ago, the Obama administration would not even discuss the legalization of industrial hemp,” Comer said. “But through a bipartisan coalition of Kentucky leaders, we forced their hand. We refused to listen to the naysayers, passed a hemp bill by a landslide, and our state is now on the forefront of an exciting new industry. That’s called leadership.”
Comer also announced that Brian Furnish, chairman of the Kentucky Industrial Hemp Commission, has called a meeting of the group for Sept. 12, at which Comer and Furnish will urge the commission to move forward with the administrative framework established by the hemp bill.
“My hope is that we can issue licenses and get industrial hemp in the ground within a year,” Furnish said.
Comer said he believes the passage of the hemp bill will allow Kentucky to be proactive, rather than reactive, in creating jobs.
“Had we not passed the framework to responsibly administer a program, we would be lagging behind right now, rather than leading the pack,” Comer said. “I am so grateful to our federal delegation for its support, especially Sen. Rand Paul and Congressmen John Yarmuth and Thomas Massie, who courageously testified in support of this job-creating legislation.”
On Wednesday, Sen. Paul issued a statement, supporting Comer’s move.
“I support Kentucky Agriculture Commissioner James Comer in his efforts to move forward with the production of industrial hemp in the Commonwealth,” Paul said. “This fight has always been about jobs and providing another opportunity for Kentucky’s farmers, and I expect the Obama Administration to treat all states equally in this process. I will continue to fight at the federal level to enact legislation to secure this new industry for Kentucky.”
UB's Research Institute on Addictions is located on Main Street in downtown Buffalo.
Published August 22, 2013
Share This
“Given the current funding climate, only the most outstanding research projects are being funded.”
Kenneth Leonard, director
Research Institute on Addictions
UB’s Research Institute on Addictions (RIA) recently was awarded more than $6 million in grants from the National Institutes of Health to fund five innovative studies that will expand knowledge on societal ramifications of drug and alcohol use.
The studies cover a wide range of alcohol- and drug-related topics. Three studies focus on youth issues, including bullying and its relationship to substance use, energy drinks mixed with alcohol and their connection to risky sexual practices, and the effects of parental drinking on children of alcoholics.
The remaining grants focus on marijuana-induced aggression and partner violence, and understanding physical craving in substance abuse recovery.
RIA Director Kenneth Leonard is extremely pleased that RIA has been recognized for its hard work and excellence in research.
“The number and size of these grants represent a remarkable achievement for RIA and our talented researchers,” Leonard says. “Given the current funding climate, only the most outstanding research projects are being funded.”
Jennifer Livingston
Jennifer Livingston, RIA senior research scientist, was awarded $1.8 million over five years from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) to study “Peer Victimization as a Pathway to Adolescent Substance Use.”
Livingston says that although there is clearly the potential of peer victimization (PV) (bullying and sexual harassment) to cause harm, not all adolescents suffer serious effects from such experiences. Little is known about the conditions under which PV causes harm.
“This study aims to discover the conditions under which PV contributes to emotional distress and substance use among adolescents, both immediately and over time” says Livingston. “We’re also seeking to identify the circumstances that might curb the long-term effects of PV, particularly as they relate to the development of emotional distress and substance-use problems.”
Kathleen Miller
The NIAAA also awarded $1.37 million to Kathleen Miller, RIA senior research scientist, to fund her study, “Alcohol and Energy Drink Use, Expectancies and Sexual Risk Taking.”
Miller, a nationally renowned expert on the subject of alcohol mixed with energy drinks, says that although energy drinks have been widely available in the U.S. for more than a decade, their effects remain significantly understudied.
“This study will collect the first detailed, nationally representative data on the prevalence of energy drinks (ED) and alcohol mixed with energy drink (AED) use by youth,” says Miller, “and will map the differences in use across gender, race/ethnicity, age, college-enrollment status and sports involvement, as well as examine the links between AED use and sexual risk taking. We will then seek to understand how gender differences affect these relationships.”
Rina Das Eiden
Rina Das Eiden, RIA senior research scientist, received more than $400,000 from the NIAAA for a two-year study, “Early Childhood Predictors of Adolescent Substance Use in a High Risk Sample.”
Eiden, an expert on the prenatal effects of substance use, says that though children of alcoholics (COAs) are a large and critical component of the underage drinking population, little is known about how alcohol affects parenting and what the predictive risks are for underage drinking and substance use among COAs.
“Knowledge about predictors of substance use—beginning in infancy—is crucial for determining and developing early intervention to address substance-use risk among COAs,” she says.
Maria Testa
A $1.86 million grant was made by the National Institute on Drug Addiction (NIDA) to Maria Testa, RIA senior research scientist, for her study titled “Proximal Effects of Marijuana in Understanding Intimate Partner Violence.” The study will take place over four years.
Testa says that despite the commonly held belief that marijuana suppresses aggression, many studies have found a positive association between marijuana use and intimate-partner violence.
“Although marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States—with increases in rates of usage over the past few years—there is a lack of research regarding marijuana use and aggression,” says Testa. “Understanding the contribution of marijuana to the occurrence of domestic violence has important public health implications.”
Her research will address this gap in knowledge by examining the effects of marijuana use in couples and the consequences for their relationships.
Robert Schlauch
Robert Schlauch, senior research scientist, received nearly $600,000 from the NIAAA for his project, “Ambivalence Model of Craving: Re-Examining the Craving-Drinking Relationship.”
This five-year study aims to improve understanding of the ways in which craving impacts positive treatment outcomes. The research specifically will examine how craving processes change over the course of recovery, including their influence on starting and maintaining treatment.
“Greater understanding of craving processes during the course of recovery has the potential to inform current treatment strategies,” he says. “Craving is a complex experience requiring consideration of many factors, including both desires to use (approach) and desires not to use (avoidance).”
Research suggests marijuana could play an important, beneficial role in how humans experience emotions and mood.
August 21, 2013 3:48 PM ET
It's no secret that marijuana can put a smile on many people's faces, but research suggests that the drug's positive effects go beyond just getting high. A 2012 study published in the peer-reviewed academic journal European Neuropsychopharmacology suggests that the brain's endocannabinoid system – which is activated by THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana – may play an important role in emotional processing, "an essential aspect of appropriate social interactions and interpersonal relationships."
How Harsh Is Your State? Check Out Our State-By-State Weed Map
Specifically, the study's authors found that participants given THC in a controlled experiment showed lower brain activity in response negative stimuli than did those given placebo. A bias toward negative stimuli has been linked to mental illnesses like depression, and evidence that THC reduces this effect suggests that the endocannabinoid system could play an important, beneficial role in how humans experience emotions and mood.
Researchers measured test-specific effects of THC administration on about a dozen men who had used marijuana at least four times in the past year, but no more than once a week. Half of them were given THC, the other half placebo; the researchers then showed all the men images of faces with expressions that appeared either "fearful" or "happy." They found that participants given THC showed significantly decreased accuracy in matching facial expressions with negative emotion, but showed about the same accuracy for positive associations. Using brain imaging technology called fMRI, they were also able to watch the effects of THC on the parts of the participants' brains that process emotion – identifying a "network-wide shift from a bias for negative emotional content towards a bias for positive emotional content."
See the Five Reasons Cops Want to Legalize Marijuana
The researchers concluded that the way the human brain reacts to THC could have significant implications for mental health treatment. "These findings," they wrote, "add to existing evidence that implicate the endocannabinoid system in modulation of emotional reactions, and support a previously suggested role for the endocannabinoid system in abnormal emotional processing associated with various psychiatric disorders."
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/can-marijuana-improve-your-emotional-state-20130821#ixzz2ckq9I4FB
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
"I don't want to fucking give this United States
government one fucking dollar of taxes..."
-- Jack Herer, "The Emperor of Hemp", September 12th, 2009
(Portland Hempstalk Festival--his final speech.)
http://overgrow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-fallacy-of-the-legalize-and-tax-cannabis-initiatives
By ElectroPig Von Fökkengrüüven in Overgrow The World v2.0
The Fallacy of the "Legalize and Tax Cannabis" initiatives.
Overgrow The World
April 21, 2010
I have listened and understood the words of the late Jack Herer, and I am amazed how few people who say they believe in what Jack was saying truly understand the real reasons why he so horrified at the idea of creating new cannabis taxes. Let me explain quickly: THEY ARE NOT NEEDED AT ALL! As a matter of fact, nothing could be further from the truth!
Now I'm sure that many of you don't believe me. If that is the case, then you also didn't understand what Jack meant, or perhaps you simply weren't paying attention, choosing to hear what you agreed with and ignoring what you didn't understand, or simply weren't interested in.
The first "ignored fact" is that the vast majority of the "illicit market" for cannabis is underground, hence, completely untaxed. There is a small fallacy to this statement, however, as even those "underground economies" still purchase their supplies, tools and equipment from "legitimate businesses" and those businesses all pay taxes of one form or another. Cannabis growers order pizza, buy gas, hire electricians and plumbers, et cetera. In this admittedly roundabout way, cannabis already is taxed, albeit to a very small degreee in comparison to the total size of the market as it stands, and to the potential which is known to exist.
Let's say that cannabis/hemp were re-legalized prohibition was repealed today, and it was done so without the creation of any new tax codes specifically for cannabis. Most think that this would be a bad thing, as it wouldn't be "exploiting the market" without creating new tax codes, new agencies, new enforcement regimes. Unfortunately, the people who believe that have been lied to, and it's time that they learned the truth.
In actual fact, if cannabis were re-legalized prohibition was repealed today and taxes weren't considered in the equation in any way, it would still be beneficial to society in terms of savings alone. We'd save money on policing, of which estimates range that between 40-60% of all police costs are directly due to "drug prohibition." Logic follows that with police not bogged down with grandmothers taking a puff to slow their glaucoma, they would then be able to concentrate their resources on combating real crimes. Things like rape, murder, fraud, home invasion and theft, assault and battery, arson, financial crimes, environmental crimes (of which cannabis/hemp prohibition is one of the leading causes, in fact), and many more REAL crimes with REAL victims.
Taken a step further, lawyers would then be freed up to work on real crimes as well. So would prosecutors. So would judges, court stenographers, prison staff and more. WIthout locking away non-violent "criminals" who have harmed noone else--and this is the scary part for corporations--the "warehousing of otherwise productive humans for profit" would suddenly become far less profitable for the prison-industrial complex to continue, and prohibitionary statute development might begin to fade. With less "legal reasons" to imprison people for essentially minding their own business, more people would not have the lives and futures destroyed.
So let's say that there were no new taxes created upon re-legalization of cannabis/hemp, and we ONLY consider the tens or hundreds of billions SAVED by no longer wasting time attacking people in their homes for posession or for growing a few plants for their own consumption. Are not those billions of dollars saved a tremendous enough benefit to justify the immediate repeal of cannabis/hemp prohibition? Could saving those billions of dollars not be immediately transferred into lower taxes, or public debt reduction? Would those savings alone not be of tremendous, immediate and long-term social value?
Now let's consider the tax idea on it's own merit.
With re-legalization repeal of cannabis/hemp prohibition, there would immediately follow the creation of new businesses to exploit what is widely known to be a global market for cannaibs and hemp products. Each of those businesses would be subject to business income taxes that currently do not exist. WIthout a single character added to business tax statutes, the net result would be the establishment of "new revenue" from those "new businesses."
Of course, those businesses would need people to man storefronts, deliver products, develop products, design packaging, grow the raw materials, process the raw materials, et cetera. These jobs would all be legitimate jobs in the real job market. Each of those jobs would be subject to existing income tax statutes. It's not hard to see how those "new jobs" would in turn be utilized as "new tax revenue sources" which previously did not exist. Again, without a single line of new codes written, a brand new revenue stream has been obtained.
Each of those new employees and businesses would need supplies, equipment, computers, energy sources, and services. All of those businesses and individuals would then use their incomes to purchase those items or services they needed, either to operate or enhance their businesses, or simply to make their lives at home a little better. All of those products would be purchased at existing retailers and/or wholesalers that exist in the current "legitimate marketplace." All (or the vast majority) of those purchases would be subject to sales taxes at state/provincial and federal levels. Again, not a single comma added to the existing statutes required, but "new revenue" has effectively been attained.
Now let's take the cannabis market ITSELF.
All of those newly created and legitimate businesses would provide products that people either wanted or needed, be they for medical purposes or for recreational uses. All of those products would then be subject to state/provincial and federal sales taxes. With each sale would then come "new revenues" which do not exist today. Again--are you starting to notice a pattern yet?--without the addition of a single line of code to any existing tax codes.
The Fallacy of "New Government Regulatory Jobs"
People keep being told that "new jobs" will be created in the "new regulatory framework" that "will be needed", but they haven't thought this through. Some have partly thought it through, thinking that since a percentage of those worker's incomes will be clawed back by income taxes--say 25%--that means that those jobs are "cheaper" than "real jobs". That's actually not quite right.
When you look the "real economy", or in other words, the economy from which all government income is derived via the millions of tax codes which exist to take our incomes from us all, any position in this "real economy" is one which is subject to taxation, and therefore, is generally to be considered a contributing position.
On the other hand, when you look at "government jobs" which are wholly funded by "real people" with "real jobs" in the "real economy", every government position which exists--no matter what country or what level of government--is a drain on society, and must be so, as "we hired them to work for us."
Now let's take a simple example that we've all heard a million times: "Joe The Plumber."
If Joe was working in his own shop, or for someone else in their business, he would be a contributing factor in the "real economy" in the amount of taxation on his income, we'll use 25% for illustration purposes. This means that 25% of his income is diverted to "public employees and projects" needed for society to function as it currently exists.
Now let's take Joe's situation if he were a government employee...let's say he's employed by the local Public Utilities Comission. Now Joe's income is wholly funded by tax dollars, and thus, is a drain on society. We've established an income tax rate of 25%, so we can now say that Joe is "cheaper" because now his services now only costs us 75% of what they would, had he remained in his private sector job.
Here is the "minor error" in that logic: Joe has moved from the "real economy" to the "government economy". In making that move, the "real economy" has lost 100% of a "real job", while the government has gained an employee "at a discount of only 75% of their private sector wages." When you add that up, you see quite clearly that Joe's "new job" is effectively now a 175% loss to society as a whole.
Joe's still making the same amount of money. We're still paying him the same amount of money when he does his work...but now he is NOT contributing to the "real economy" at all, while he is draining 75% of his wages from unnaportioned taxation of the people who are forced to pay his salary, whether they partake of his services or not.
Unfortunately, this also applies to every "equivalent government position" that exists in the world. Accountants cost 175% of what they would cost in the "real economy." So do welders, secretaries, cafeteria cooks, lawyers...ALL of them! If they work for the government, they are at a much higher cost than their equivalent "real world" positions in the real economy.
We need to keep this in mind whenever we hear talk of " new regulations" because that almost always means "new regulatory bodies", and that DEFINITELY always means "new government employees" which are going to cost us dearly if we allow such things to occur.
If we are forced to accept some form of taxation in order to move closer to the full repeal of cannabis/hemp prohibition, so be it...let's move a little closer...but the second we have a positive change under our belts, we must NOT become complacent! We must continue to fight for the full repeal of cannabis/hemp prohibition until the batttle is decisively won.
Once we have some "half-assed reasonable legislation" in place, we can guage what are the worst parts of those enacted bills and target them one by one until they're all gone, and then, we will have our ofn freedom, and freedom for what is arguably the most important plant known on this planet.
At the Hempstalk Festival, during Jack Herer's final public speech, he said (among other things):
"I don't want to fucking give this United States government one fucking dollar of taxes..."
Obviously, he understood my thinking...or perhaps, I simply learned enough to come to an understanding of his.
What about you?
EDIT: I have since come up with the complete solution to the perils of prohibition in THREE WORDS:
1) DESCHEDULE.
2) REPEAL.
3) DONE!!!
If you remember only three words in your lifetime, THOSE are the ones that WILL end cannabis/hemp prohibition.
If we continue to be led by propagandists and prohibitionists into accepting ever-longer-names for prohibition, while believing we are "moving closer to freedom", we'll never get there...it'll just keep getting more complex, more costly, and more damaging to society as a whole...as it has for decades already.
If we allow our politicians to "reschedule" cannabis, this COULD mean an outright statutory BAN on ALL cannabis use, medicinal or otherwise, for the length of time it would take "to conduct safety studies." We already know that if they keep finding proof cannabis is non-toxic, anti-oxidant, neuroprotectant, et cetera, we also already know that these "safety studies" will be completed in an absolute minimum of 4-6 years, to an absolute maximum of...NEVER!
"Decriminalization" is NOT repeal. It's still illegal.
"Legalization" simply tells the politicians and courts that we believe the fix to bad legislation conveived of in fraud can only be fixed not by deleting it from the recored entirely, but by making it more complex...but keeping it all on the books for future "quick-n-easy" readoption when prison investors want higher revenues to do their profit-taking from.
"Re-legalization" is just two letters prepended to the above.
"Tax and regulate" tells OUR EMPLOYEES that "we owe them new taxes for not wasting our money attacking us." If we keep buying into the scam, they'll get it, too!
"Regulate like [insert commodity of the hour here]" is just another way to justify the creation of a new regulatory body, hire new "government employees", raise taxes, lower rights and freedoms, all while telling the wilfully ignorant population that "they are free." They ain't. They won't be.
"REPEAL" means: The statutes are GONE. Deleted. History. Erased. Terminated. Removed from the "law" journals. NEVER TO RETURN.
The ridiculous proposition that "if we want it legal again, we have to create new taxes" is also a prime example of idiotic propaganda foisted upon a wilfully ignorant population. Only two seconds of thought tells you the truth of the situation...we do NOT need to "appease our employees" when we finally force them to stop wasting our money. Not wasting all those billions of dollars every year should be, and IS, reward enough to everyone all on it's own!
When we find out we've got a crooked mechanic who's bee charging us for spark plug changes on every visit that we didn't really need, and were nothing more than a waste of OUR money...we don't praise them and give them permanent bonuses, do we? So where did the idea come from, that in order for our employees to simply do their job with a litle more brainpower behind their actions, that we need to give them more money and hire more people? Reality has to sink in eventually, folks! Even through the infinitely thick skulls of "politicians." They might be as dense as the core of a neutron star, but they still have ear holes! SO START SPEAKING UP!!!
Either we DEMAND the full repeal of prohibition, or we will continue on with it forever, just with a different name, and higher taxes...and let's face it, folks: OUR EMPLOYEES will be completely happy to rename what they're doing to us and call it whatever we want to call it, if we're dumb enough to allow it to continue. Are we really so blind as to STILL not see the truth for what it is?
Want it over? MAKE it over!
1) DESCHEDULE.
2) REPEAL.
3) DONE!!!
It really is just as simple as that.
* That solves prohibition on a national level...we still need to remove cannabis/hemp from the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in order to end prohibition GLOBALLY.
Views: 3521
Tags: Herer, Jack, PROHIBITION, REPEAL, Rick, Simpson, cannabis, freedom, health, human, More…
By ElectroPig Von Fökkengrüüven in Overgrow The World v2.0
The Fallacy of the "Legalize and Tax Cannabis" initiatives.
Overgrow The World
April 21, 2010
MY PERSONAL COMMENT: SOMETIMES (MOST OFTEN) OLD NEWS IS THE BEST NEWS – SMK.
Another nuance of activity occurred in Bali on Tuesday, as the parole process for Schapelle Corby inched forward once again. Representatives of an agency of the Indonesian Justice Department visited the house where she would be required to live if she were let out of jail early.
Even though she has not yet applied for parole, as with all things Corby, the "news" drove some of the frothier parts of the Australian media into habitual overdrive.
Schapelle Corby is escorted by police to a courtroom in Denpasar in 2006. Photo: AFP
Some outlets have even put a date on her release – October 30.
Advertisement
Well, that may or may not be so. Like the last time a date was so confidently predicted (in May last year, August 2012 was said to be when she would return to Australia), it's far enough away to be possible, yet not so close that anyone is held accountable if the date is missed.
So, assuming her release is coming up after almost nine years in jail, let's take the opportunity to assess our attitude to Schapelle Corby.
Schapelle Corby and fellow convicted drug mule Renae Lawrence in Kerobokan Jail in 2010. Photo: Jason Childs
Many people have spent a great deal of time and energy poring over this one woman's case – the Australian consulate in Bali; authors; lawyers; dozens, if not hundreds of journalists; prison officials, professional internet conspiracy theorists, politicians in both Australia and Indonesia.
It's not only the Australian media who go into a frenzy at the mention of her name. She has become a touchstone in the Indonesian press, too. There, though, it's not about an innocent entrapped in a third-world system, it's about the ugly habit of Westerners to aggressively demand special treatment.
The head of Bali's Kerobokan jail, Gusti Ngurah Wiratna, remarked to the press in frustration recently: "I've got 1000 prisoners, why are you only interested in Schapelle?"
Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dollars, have changed hands – for paid interviews with the family, internet ads, defamation actions and other civil court actions, royalties and lawyers fees.
Her 2004 arrest and imprisonment has turned into a Schapelle industry.
Sadly, for several years, the subject of that industry has suffered from severe mental health issues, and has largely removed herself from its centre. Even the Corby family-friendly journalists can only quote "those who know and live with her" in their stories because Corby herself refuses any direct interaction with the press.
She does not even go to the visitor's area of Kerobokan in case there might be journalists there. Her absence, for the same reason, from compulsory prison events, has potentially even harmed her cause.
For a long time Fairfax Media readers have held the dual belief that Corby is guilty, but that she deserves a shortened sentence.
Views of her innocence in the broader public are likely to be higher, but substantially lower than at the height of the "Our Schapelle" frenzy of 2004 and 2005.
It's her perceived innocence that initially drove the Corby story to the point of obsession, but even though this has changed, nine years later, we in the media remain closely focused on every detail of her incarceration and possible release.
Perhaps we assume people will be moved by the same impulses, or the echoes of the impulses, that moved them a decade ago.
But let's consider what all this will mean when she is ultimately released, whether on parole or at the end of her sentence.
After 10 years in a bubble, Corby will be exposed to the world.
She'll be walking the narrow streets of Kuta, living in a Balinese compound whose address is well known, with the world's media – including a chaotic Indonesian press pack – on her doorstep.
The inevitable paid interviews will create an appetite among the unsuccessful bidders for exclusives of a different kind – for evidence of her poor mental state, for pictures of her drinking her first beer, wearing a bikini at the beach, hanging out with a man, throwing a tantrum.
In the open, she'll lack the protection afforded by the Australian consulate from the tourists and stickybeaks who even now occasionally try to get into the jail to visit her.
The local police are unwilling and unequipped to provide any protection.
Whatever you think of her guilt or innocence, Corby has served a long sentence, and her adjustment to life on the outside – difficult as it will be already – can only be made immeasurably harder by such attention.
Perhaps it's time to let go of our decade-long obsession and finally just leave Schapelle Corby alone.
CORBY: THE FACTS
• Corby has been eligible for parole for more than a year, since the Indonesian president granted her clemency with a five-year sentence reduction;
• She has not yet applied for parole, and the Indonesians have not started the process, because the Indonesian immigration department has not yet confirmed that she can get a visa to be able to serve out her sentence in Bali with her sister Mercedes and brother-in-law Wayan;
• All the other conditions for parole – including an unprecedented letter from the Australian government guaranteeing her good behaviour – are in place;
• With continued remission for good behaviour, she is likely to be out in 2015 even if she does not win parole.
By Alan Johnson
The Columbus Dispatch Tuesday August 13, 2013 5:23 AM
A proposed constitutional amendment to legalize marijuana in Ohio was rejected yesterday by Attorney General Mike DeWine.
DeWine turned down petitioners for the End Ohio Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012, citing four reasons that the submitted summary was not “fair and truthful” as required by state law.
The petition was submitted on Aug. 2 by three Ohio residents, including Tonya Davis, of Kettering, a suburb of Dayton, who has been involved in several previous marijuana issues. Proponents submitted 2,304 signatures of registered Ohio voters, more than double the 1,000 required.
DeWine said the submitted ballot summary omits references to amendment language which repudiates federal cannabis prohibitions and language saying “persons cannot be considered to be under the influence of cannabis ‘solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of cannabis in his or her body.'"
He also faulted the summary because it says education will be provided about the “medical harms or benefits from the personal use of cannabis products,” although the full amendment includes no such provision.
Finally, DeWine said the summary did not refer to language in the body of the amendment saying that the departments of Agriculture and Commerce would be responsible for overseeing the program.
Three other marijuana issues, including one proposing legalization of growing hemp, have been approved by state officials, but they are not likely to appear before Ohio voters at an election in the near future. The deadline for this November’s election already has passed.
DeWine’s letter and the summary text can be found at http://www.OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov/BallotInitiatives.
Print 