- Absolute Asinine Laws
- Asset Forfeiture
- Baby Snatching
- Cannabis Culture
- Cannabis Media
- CBD/Hemp Oil
- CHER FORD MCCULLOUGH
- CIVIL RIGHTS
- Coal Mining
- Corporate Cannabis
- Cris Ericson
- Drug War
- Elections 2014-2015
- Elections 2016
- Farming and GMO
- HUMAN INTEREST
- Human Slavery/Trafficking
- International Cannabis
- Latest News
- Marijuana and Employment
- Marijuana and the Law
- Mary Thomas-Spears
- Medical Cannabis
- New Legislation
- NJ Weedman, Ed Forchion
- NSA, DHS, FBI, Cyber War
- Patriot Act
- POW, MIA, US Army
- Prison Industrial Complex
- Rand Paul
- Read the Bills
- Religion and Law
- Rev. Mary Thomas-Spears
- Shapelle Corby
- Supreme Court
- Taxing Cannabis
- The Law
- United Nations
- World News
Either you want your freedoms restored, or you don’t. Most people “say” they want their freedoms restored, even as they deliberately stab themselves–and everyone else–in the back by begging for more statutory enslavement, and REFUSING to end the problem, somehow “believing” that not ending the problem, and always making it worse, is somehow going to end the problem.
So let’s look at the BULLSHIT NON-OPTIONS that people “believe” means they get their freedoms back, as opposed to the REPEAL of the statutes, which actually WOULD end the persecution once and for all:
1) “Decriminalization” is NOT repeal. It is NOT freedom. But some of you still fight for this, instead of to end prohibition.
2) “Legalization” is what we already have. It is NOT freedom. But some of you still fight for this, instead of to end prohibition.
3) “Re-legalization” is two letters prepended to what we already have. It is NOT freedom. But some of you still fight for this, instead of to end prohibition.
4) “Tax and regulate” will create more statutes, more regulations, more licenses, more fees, and create more problems and more “criminal charges.” It is NOT freedom. But some of you still fight for this, instead of to end prohibition.
5) “Regulate like _____” is just a different way to say “tax and regulate.” It is NOT freedom. But some of you still fight for this, instead of to end prohibition.
6) “Hemp ONLY!” It is NOT freedom. But some of you still fight for this, instead of to end prohibition.
7) “Medical ONLY!” It is NOT freedom. But some of you still fight for this, instead of to end prohibition.
“Government control ONLY!” It is NOT freedom. But some of you still fight for this, instead of to end prohibition.
9) “Corporate control ONLY!” is financial in nature, and is ENTIRELY motivated by profiteering. It is NOT freedom. But some of you still fight for this, instead of to end prohibition.
10) “Government/corporate partnership control ONLY!” is actually OVERT FASCISM. It is NOT freedom. But some of you still fight for this, instead of to end prohibition.
There are several other “NOT REPEAL” options that people keep sucking up as “the ONLY solution”, even as they continue to “say” they want their freedom restored.
How can you ever hope to restore your own freedoms while you REFUSE to remove the statutes that took them away, and keep pushing for MORE STATUTES to further control your life in more intrusive ways?
How long are you going to keep paying for more of your own enslavement?
Are people EVER going to just wake up and see the truth that’s been staring them in the face for DECADES already?!?
“There is no correlation between Morgan & Morgan and the medical marijuana,” Stumbo spokesman Brian Wilkerson said.
House Speaker Greg Stumbo pitching personal-injury law firm in TV commercials
House Speaker Greg Stumbo has accepted a position as partner at Morgan & Morgan, a Florida-based personal-injury law firm whose founder, John Morgan, is a major financial backer of the movement to legalize medical marijuana.
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
GUELPH – A Guelph candidate in the last federal election will contest the local result to the country’s highest court.
Kornelis (Case) Klevering, who collected 171 votes as the Marijuana Party candidate in the May 2011, filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada last week. The appeal came days after the Federal Court of Canada rejected Klevering’s contention that the election results in Guelph should be annulled on the grounds that fraudulent and illegal practices misdirected local voters.
In her ruling, prothonotary Martha Milczynski of the federal court found Klevering’s case lacking. Milczynski acknowledged that "Guelph may be singled out as one of, if not the most egregious example of the voter suppression efforts" that marred the election. Voters were misdirected through automated telephone calls, or robocalls, fraudulently informing them of the relocation of polling stations.
But she ruled that Klevering was unable to prove through solid evidence that voter suppression "had an impact on the election results in the riding of Guelph or on the integrity of the election such that there is even the slightest chance that the results would be annulled and the electorate in Guelph put through a byelection."
Milczynski also ruled that Klevering’s application was filed late – well beyond the 30-day limit after election results were officially published in the Canada Gazette.
Guelph MP Frank Valeriote, who won the 2011 election by just over 6,200 votes, opposed Klevering’s application to the federal court, and said Monday he would opposed the Supreme Court appeal as well.
Klevering said in an interview Monday that he is no stranger to Supreme Court proceedings, having filed five previous appeals to the high court related to "constitutional issues with respect to cannabis marijuana."
His latest filing includes a sworn affidavit related to personal finances which should ensure that he can appeal the case without personal expense. The Supreme Court received his filing last Friday. He believes contesting the case on charter grounds is the best way to ensure the rights of voters are upheld.
The best result, he added, would be for the Supreme Court to determine if the election in Guelph was free and fair according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if the integrity of the election was compromised enough to call a byelection. That would ensure that all voters in Guelph have the same opportunity to cast a ballet, as opposed to being unfairly redirected to a fraudulent polling station.
"It’s a constitutional question that has to be dealt with at the Supreme Court, not the federal court," Klevering said, adding that the matter must be decided by a judge with more authority than Milczynski. A prothonotary is a principle clerk in a court of law, not a judge.
"She said there was no evidence, which is ridiculous because there is evidence," Klevering said, explaining that the Marc Mayrand, Canada’s chief electoral officer ruled there were thousands of robo-calls in Guelph alone. Klevering added that Justice Richard Mosley had previously ruled that fraud had occurred in six ridings during the election, particularly in Guelph. That is evidence enough of wrongdoing, he said.
"For me it’s more a charter violation," he said. "Section 3 of the charter says all elections are supposed to be free and fair. That certainly didn’t happen for everybody in Guelph. Based on that, I am asking the court to rule if the integrity had been compromised to the point where the election was no longer free and fair."
Valeriote said Klevering has, like all Canadians, "the right to be heard, provided the circumstances are such that an argument is warranted." In this case, Valeriote said, the federal court decision was clear.
"I’m satisfied with the result, but more importantly the court held that the fraud that was the centre of Case’s argument was fraud that was perpetrated by someone who had access to the Conservative database, and that it did strike at the integrity of the electoral process in attempted to dissuade voters from voting," Valeriote added.
Quoting Mosley’s findings, Milczynski said evidence of fraud was "mostly clearly demonstrated in the Guelph investigation," and that it was clear that a database maintained by the Conservative Party of Canada was accessed by unknown person or persons in placing the fraudulent calls. There is no evidence the access was approved or condoned by the party.
While in other jurisdictions where robo-calls took place the outcome may have been influenced by those fraudulent calls, Valeriote added there was no evidence of that being the case in Guelph, where the margin of victory was wide.
"So I really have to challenge now why Case would continue with this given that the judge said it did not affect the ultimate result," Valeriote said. "Because of the result, it’s clear that the voters of Guelph spoke quite loudly and clearly on election day, notwithstanding the voter fraud on election day."
Valeriote said there will be a financial cost to him in challenging the Supreme Court appeal. His lawyer will represent him at the proceedings when they are held. Klevering said a date for a hearing has not been decided.
The Michigan medical marijuana patient whose imprisonment could ultimately cost federal taxpayers more than $1.2 million is being denied adequate health care while he serves his sentence, his wife claims.
Jerry Duval surrendered to federal authorities in June to serve out a 10-year sentence for marijuana distribution at the Federal Medical Center Devens prison in Massachusetts. His wife, Tracey, said in an interview with The Huffington Post that he has suffered two hemorrhages in his eye since then. After the first one several months ago, Duval never received the outside medical care he needed, she alleged. And a second hemorrhage on Wednesday left him almost without sight in his right eye, his wife claimed.
"It’s actually the worst one that he’s ever had," said Tracey, who said she spoke to Duval over the phone after his eye worsened on Wednesday. "If this situation doesn’t get taken care of, he could lose his eye."
Tracey and the advocacy group Americans for Safe Access are urging the Federal Bureau of Prisons to allow Duval to visit an outside doctor to treat his glaucoma and retinal problems. They previously sought Duval’s compassionate release on the grounds that his numerous transplants and other medical problems would be better treated in a general population hospital.
Chris Burke, a Bureau of Prisons spokesman, told HuffPost over email that the agency does not comment on individual prisoners’ medical conditions.
"I can tell you that we provide appropriate and necessary medical care to inmates in our custody," he said.
By Jack Grinspoon, Thursday at 6:51 pm
It’s no coincidence that marijuana legalization support has surged with the growth of social media. The voices of the Reefer Madness era are silenced daily as studies and testimonials continue pouring in about this often misunderstood plant. Ignorance still remains, however, and this fight won’t be won without continued education of the masses.
It takes one fact that hits home to sway someone’s opinion. Maybe one of the following will do that for you. Here are five things about marijuana you may not have known:
1. THC and CBD, marijuana’s primary cannabinoids, are both cancer killers.
No, I’m not talking about using marijuana to help manage cancer’s effects. It’s actually anti-cancer.
Recent research out of Spain suggests that THC, marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient, kills brain cancer cells. Study co-author Guillermo Velasco claims that when THC was applied to cancerous brain tissue, the cancer cells were killed while healthy cells were left alone.
CBD apparently does the same; a pair of scientists from California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco demonstrated the cannabinoid’s ability to stop metastasis in many kinds of aggressive cancer.
Imagine if this plant were discovered in a jungle two weeks ago. What would the news be saying? The CBD article goes as far as to say the breakthrough could "potentially alter the fatality of the disease forever." The lack of media coverage for this is astounding, but that doesn’t diminish the research.
2. Marijuana triggers neurogenesis. Layman’s terms: It leads to brain cell growth.
Wait….marijuana is supposed to kill brain cells, right?
The roots of the marijuana-kills-brain-cells myth are deep despite the lack of credible evidence. The original study supporting this notion is questionable at best and recent research suggests exactly the opposite.
In 2005, a study showed cannabinoids’ ability to promote neurogenesis in the adult hippocampus, the brain region responsible for many important brain functions including mood and memory. The authors also cited anti-anxiety and anti-depressant effects that accompany the neurogenesis. This explains why people across California, Colorado, Washington and other marijuana-friendly states often turn to the herb for a mood-boost instead of pharmaceutical drugs. It also supports research that marijuana helps improve cognitive function in bipolar disorder patients. This brings us to our next fact….
3. Suicide rates are lower in areas where medical marijuana is available
A Denver state-level study analyzed the statistical trend of suicide after introduction of medical marijuana.
"Our results suggest that the passage of a medical marijuana law is associated with an almost 5% reduction in total suicide rate, an 11% reduction in the suicide rate of age 20-29 males, and a 9% reduction in the suicide rate of 30-39 males."
It’s interesting this hasn’t become mainstream data in a country so focused on suicide prevention. Not surprisingly, one of the main reasons cited by the study’s authors for the decrease was connected to the at-risk population (20 and 30-something males) replacing alcohol with marijuana. This data makes the strictness of Illinois’ new medical marijuana policy even more laughable.
"Don’t let usage get out of control! Less people might commit suicide!"
Speaking of marijuana’s effects on well-being, I highly recommend this very personal, heart-wrenching article.
But what about the physical effects?
4. There is zero evidence that marijuana causes significant lung damage.
While vaporization is always touted as the safest method of marijuana ingestion, the largest study of its kind suggested marijuana-only smoking is harmless as well:
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use. What we found instead was no association at all, and even some suggestion of a protective effect."
The above words come from UCLA Medical Doctor Donald Tashkin, author of the study and marijuana researcher of more than 30 years.
Considering the tar in marijuana smoke was found to contain as many harmful carcinogens as cigarette smoke, this study actually strengthens the notion that marijuana is anti-cancer. The plant itself seems to have an offsetting effect for the harmful properties of smoke.
5. There are two completely different types of marijuana, both with different effects on the user.
One of the biggest mistakes made by people who first try marijuana is immediately thinking that it’s "not for them." It certainly isn’t for everyone, but what if they just tried the wrong kind?
There are hundreds of different strains of marijuana, tagged with names like Blue Dream, OG Kush, Trainwreck or Pineapple. All of these are categorized as "Sativa" or "Indica." Here’s a simple-as-possible explanation on the difference:
are usually day-time strains, used to enhance the experience of social events, time in nature or listening to new music. Caregivers often recommend sativa strains for patients seeking relief from depression, PTSD, fatigue and some types of anxiety and pain. Some patients even report positive effects on ADHD while medicating with sativa strains. Although sativas produce an enjoyable effect, they usually are the culprit for an inexperienced user "tweaking out" during one of their first times smoking.
are often smoked at night due to their narcotic effect on the user. Indica strains are perfect for users suffering from any type of pain, nausea or anxiety. They’re also preferable for novice users as they acclimate themselves to the herb. This variety is popular for meditation or yoga due to its mind-calming qualities.
Here is a more extensive explanation on the two categories if you’re interested.
Marijuana isn’t for everyone. Nothing is for everyone.
But should we be throwing those it is for in cages?
I dare you to say yes.
Email me at [email protected] if there’s anything in particular you’d like covered in this blog
Filed under: Uncategorized