420 Use and Health

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Crow
    Member
    • Oct 2010
    • 4312

    #691
    Washington (US)

    "Gregory Carter, Providence Hospital Doctor, Goes to Bat for Medical Marijuana"

    By Nina Shapiro, Seattle Weekly

    In the never ending debate about marijuana, it's usually activists on one side and law enforcement on the other, with a smattering of politicians weighing in. But marijuana, at least in part, is supposed to be a medical issue. So where are the doctors?

    "There's a lot of ignorance," explains Gregory Carter ([pictured at link below]), a rehabilitation medicine specialist who works at Providence Hospital in Olympia and Centralia. Like the general public, he says, many docs believe there isn't a lot of research on the subject, when in fact there's a ton--some of it done by him.

    He says that's why he spent months working on Governor Chris Gregoire's petition, released Wednesday, asking the the feds to reclassify marijuana as a legal drug.

    "There are now literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers," Carter says. Nearly 50 reach what is considered the "gold standard" of research: double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in which patients don't know whether they're getting cannabis, a placebo or a different type of medication. These have shown marijuana to be helpful for alleviating chronic pain--specifically nerve pain-- and other symptoms such as nausea. (For a listing of papers, see the exhibits in the governor's petition.)

    More than a decade ago, before medical became legal in this and other states, Carter knew next to nothing about the medicinal uses of marijuana. Much of the early scientific literature on pot, based on recreational rather than medical use, was negative. In his practice, though, he sees a lot of patients with Lou Gehrig's disease, and one told Carter he was finding pot helpful.

    "I was shocked," the doctor says. "In fact, I didn't really believe him."

    But after medical marijuana become legal here in 1998, more patients starting coming in saying the same thing. Carter started keeping track of his patients' experiences with marijuana, and in 2001 published a seminal paper that he says started a body of research looking at cannabis' potential use in neurodegenerative diseases.

    Carter, who also holds a position at the University of Washington, has continued researching cannabis as well. (See, for instance, this paper with Carter's graduate student. [available at link below]) But it has not been easy. Because marijuana is illegal, the feds as well as UW require exhaustive paperwork before they will authorize its use in research. To get approval for a recent study using human subjects, Clark says he had to hire a lawyer. The process took six months.

    And that's just the barriers for research. Doctors thinking about whether to recommend marijuana for patients have something more serious to think about: punishment from the feds. Carters points out that the DEA can take away a doctor's ability to prescribe drugs like morphine, which can put a physician out of business.

    That helps explain why most of the doctors signing off on marijuana authorizations are affiliated, not with mainstream practices, but dispensaries or other pot businesses.

    Carter, however, does give such authorizations. He says he protects himself by following the state law. And, he says, "I try to keep a low profile." With his participation in the governor's petition, though, his profile just got a lot higher.
    Linked content at: http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/daily...dence_hosp.php
    Words of Wisdom

    Premium Parrots: only if the carpet matches the drapes.
    Crow: Of course, that's a given.
    Crow: Imagine a jet black 'raven' with a red bush?
    Crow: Hmm... You know, that actually sounds intriguing to me.
    Premium Parrots: sounds like a freak to me
    Premium Parrots: remember DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON CROW
    Premium Parrots: not that it would hurt one bit if he nailed you with his little pecker.
    Frosted: lucky twat
    Frosted: Aussie slags
    Frosted: Mind the STDs Crow

    Comment

    • Crow
      Member
      • Oct 2010
      • 4312

      #692
      I'm not sure how Allen obtained this memorandum, but I applaud him for discovering this:

      California (US)

      Fed’s Criterion For Busting Medical Marijuana Industry

      By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director

      [Allen St. Pierre: Hah! Also, this memo is only applicable in California---not Colorado, New Mexico and Maine, where these states regulate the medical cannabis industry (whereas California does not, arguably opening the door to federal incursions and prosecutions).]
      To: DEA, HIDTA, Federal task force partners in California for internal law enforcement use only. Not for public use or circulation.

      From: California United States Attorneys

      This memorandum outlines factors that all four California U.S. Attorneys Offices (the USAOs) agree may render a particular marijuana case suitable for federal prosecution. Identification of these factors is intended to assist federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in determining whether a particular marijuana case has significant potential for federal prosecution and conducting investigations in a manner that develops the best evidence to support federal prosecution (Footnote 1). The USAOS will consider for federal prosecution cases investigated by federal, state or local law enforcement agencies that implicate federal interests as reflected in the factors. Cases investigated by federal agencies will generally be given priority over cases adopted from state or local investigations. The factors listed below are relevant to the USAOs consideration of whether a marijuana case should be prosecuted federally but the presence or absence of one or more of the factors will not guarantee or preclude federal prosecution in any case. In general the federal interest will be greater in prosecuting leaders and organizers of the criminal activity as opposed to lower level workers.

      The memorandum is intended as prospective guidance only, is not intended to have the force of law and is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied on to create any right, privilege or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any person or entity against any type of the USAOs, DOJ or the United States.

      1) Domestic distribution cases.

      Federal prosecution of a case of domestic distribution of marijuana should generally involve at least 200 or more kilograms of marijuana and also include additional factors that reflect a clear federal interest in prosecution (Footnote 2—This guidance for domestic distribution cases does not apply to cases involving distribution within or smuggling into a federal prison.18 USC 1791). Typically the more marijuana above 200 kilograms the better the potential for federal prosecution. Domestic distribution cases involving quantities of marijuana below 200kilograms should demonstrate an especially strong federal interest or should not be prosecuted with marijuana distribution as the sole federal charge. Set forth below is a non-exhaustive list of factors that USAOs believe indicate a federal interest in a domestic distribution case.

      *Distribution by an individual or organization with provable ties to an international drug cartel or a poly-drug trafficking organization.

      *Distribution of significant quantities to persons or organizations outside California.

      *Distribution by individuals with significant prior criminal histories.

      *Distribution by individuals with provable ties to a street gang that engages in drug trafficking involving violent conduct.

      *Distribution for the purpose of funding other criminal activities.

      *Distribution near protected locations or involving underage or vulnerable people (e.g. in violation of 21 USC 859 persons under 21, 860 near schools, playground and colleges, 861 employment of persons under 18).

      *Distribution involving the use or presence of firearms or other dangerous weapons including cases that would support charges under 18 USC 924c.

      *Distribution generating significant profits that are used or concealed in ways that would support charges of federal financial crimes such as tax evasion, money laundering or structuring. Note: Generation of significant profits alone generally will not be viewed as a factor weighing in favor of federal prosecution.

      *Distribution in conjunction with other federal crimes involving violence or intimidation.

      2. Cultivation cases.

      Federal prosecution of a marijuana case involving cultivation on non-federal or non-tribal land, indoor or outdoor, should generally involve at least 1,000 marijuana plants so that the quantity necessary to trigger the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence can be clearly proven and also include additional factors that reflect a clear federal interest in prosecution. Typically, the more marijuana above 1,000 plants, the better the potential for federal prosecution. Non-federal or non-tribal land cases involving quantities below 1,000 plants should demonstrate an especially strong federal interest or should not be prosecuted with marijuana cultivation as the sole federal charge. Federal prosecution of a marijuana case involving cultivation on federal or tribal land should generally involve at least 500 marijuana plants and also include additional factors that reflect a clear federal interest in prosecution. Cases on federal or tribal land involving quantities below 500 plants will be considered if they demonstrate a strong federal interest, if the cultivation has caused significant damage to federal or tribal lands or has occurred in an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction (Footnote 3– The USAOs will consider the totality of circumstances with respect to all marijuana plant quantities in these guidelines. For example, the presence of especially mature, large or robust plants will generally weigh in favor of prosecution while the presence of seedlings or immature plants will generally weigh against prosecution). Set forth below is a non-exhaustive list of factors that the USAOs believe indicate a federal interest that may justify federal prosecution of a marijuana case involving cultivation whether on federal, tribal or other lands.

      *Cultivation causing significant environmental damage, risk to human health or interference with particularly sensitive land or significant recreational interests, ie damage to wilderness area or wildlife, danger to innocent families using a recreation area or use of toxic or dangerous chemicals.

      *Cultivation by an individual or organization with provable ties to an international drug cartel or poly-drug trafficking organization.

      *Cultivation of significant quantities on behalf or persons or organizations outside California.

      *Cultivation by individuals with significant prior criminal histories.

      *Cultivation by individuals with provable ties to a street gang that engages in drug trafficking involving violent conduct.

      *Cultivation for the purpose of funding other criminal activities.

      *Cultivation near protected locations or involving under-age or vulnerable people (eg, in violation…

      *Cultivation involving the use or presence of fire-arms, booby traps or other dangerous weapons including cases that would support charges under 18 USC 924c.

      *Cultivation generating significant profits that are used or concealed in ways that would support charges for federal financial crimes such as tax evasion, money laundering or structuring. Note—generation of significant profits alone will not be viewed as a factor weighing in favor of federal prosecution.

      *Cultivation in conjunction with other federal crimes involving violence or intimidation
      Words of Wisdom

      Premium Parrots: only if the carpet matches the drapes.
      Crow: Of course, that's a given.
      Crow: Imagine a jet black 'raven' with a red bush?
      Crow: Hmm... You know, that actually sounds intriguing to me.
      Premium Parrots: sounds like a freak to me
      Premium Parrots: remember DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON CROW
      Premium Parrots: not that it would hurt one bit if he nailed you with his little pecker.
      Frosted: lucky twat
      Frosted: Aussie slags
      Frosted: Mind the STDs Crow

      Comment

      • Crow
        Member
        • Oct 2010
        • 4312

        #693
        Previous article continued...

        3. Dispensary cases.

        Given California state law, prosecution of marijuana stores or “dispensaries” purporting to comply with state law face additional challenges. Federal prosecution of a case involving a marijuana store should generally involve a) provable sales through seizures or records of over 200 kilograms or 1000 plants per year. b) sales clearly in violation of state law, eg sales to persons without legitimate doctors’ recommendations, side-sales occurring outside of the store or shipping to persons outside of California (Note—selling for profit, though a violation of state l aw, typically alone will not alone satisfy this requirement), and c) additional factors that reflect a federal interest in prosecution. Set forth below is a non-exhaustive list of such additional factors. Nothing herein should be taken as a limitation on investigation by federal law enforcement to determine the existence of these factors. However, search warrants or other more intrusive investigative techniques directed at marijuana stores should be closely coordinated with the USAOs.

        *Marijuana “inventory” obtained from cultivation on federal or tribal land.

        *Targets involved in cultivation or distribution outside of the dispensary that merits federal prosecution based on consideration of factors set forth in sections 1 and 2 above.

        *Targets using profits from the dispensary to support other criminal activity.

        *Store linked to physician providing marijuana recommendations without plausible legitimate justification, eg doctor on site providing recommendation with no on-site examinations or legitimate medical procedures.

        *Targets have significant prior criminal histories.

        *Targets have provable ties to a street gang that engages in drug trafficking involving violent conduct.

        *Store operations involve the use or presence or firearms or other dangerous weapons including cases that would support charges under 18 USC 924.

        *Store generates significant profits that are used/concealed in ways that would support charges for federal financial crimes such as tax evasion, money laundering or structuring. Note–generation of significant profits alone generally will not be viewed as a factor weighing in favor of federal prosecution

        *Store operations in conjunction with other federal crimes involving violence or intimidation.

        *Store employs minors under 18 and/or sells a significant portion of marijuana to minors under the age of 21 especially where evidence that minors aren’t using for medical purposes

        4. Civil forfeiture.

        The USAOs general preference is to pursue forfeiture through criminal forfeiture or civil forfeiture filed in parallel with a criminal case. Nevertheless circumstances may arise in which civil forfeiture alone is the best option. Those cases will generally involve one or more of the following:

        *Significant forfeitable assets clearly traceable to marijuana trafficking in violation of federal criminal law that would merit federal prosecution based on consideration of factors set forth in sections 1-3 above.

        *Significant forfeitable assets clearly traceable to non-marijuana related violations of federal law such as structuring or money-laundering. Large scale “medical marijuana” cultivation operations that 1) are operating in violation of state law 2) involve real property that has been the subject of a warning letter or similar prior notice or 3) involve real property that has been the subject of a prior forfeiture proceeding arising from marijuana cultivation or a property owner who has been a claimant in such proceedings or individual targets not subject to criminal prosecution eg fugitives or persons whose involvement in marijuana trafficking is too marginal to justify criminal prosecution including off-site land lords and non-resident owners falsely claiming ignorance of tenant’s marijuana trafficking.
        http://blog.norml.org/2011/12/07/fed...uana-industry/
        Words of Wisdom

        Premium Parrots: only if the carpet matches the drapes.
        Crow: Of course, that's a given.
        Crow: Imagine a jet black 'raven' with a red bush?
        Crow: Hmm... You know, that actually sounds intriguing to me.
        Premium Parrots: sounds like a freak to me
        Premium Parrots: remember DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON CROW
        Premium Parrots: not that it would hurt one bit if he nailed you with his little pecker.
        Frosted: lucky twat
        Frosted: Aussie slags
        Frosted: Mind the STDs Crow

        Comment

        • Crow
          Member
          • Oct 2010
          • 4312

          #694
          Colorado (US)

          Congressman Polis’ Grills Attorney General Holder About Fed’s Medical Marijuana Policies

          By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director

          I’ve spoken to two reporters today inquiring about Colorado Congressman Jared Polis’ medical cannabis-related questions to Attorney General Holder at a congressional committee hearing that was otherwise a ‘bloodbath’ for Holder—getting grilled about the guns and Mexico fiasco—when Polis, who is not a member of the Judiciary Committee, was allowed to ask Holder two questions about medical cannabis enforcement.

          Generally written…

          Polis first wanted assurances that Colorado’s medical cannabis dispensaries/cultivation centers compliant with state laws—unlike California’s medical cannabis businesses that are not regulated by the state—are not a Department of Justice (DOJ) target. Holder affirmed the basic tenets of the previous Ogden and Cole memos, and wouldn’t provide assurances, but, re-iterated the DOJ stance that enforcing medical cannabis laws, notably in a state like Colorado with its rules and regulations, and with limited federal resources at hand, is a low law DOJ enforcement priority.

          The second Polis question was about banking and medical cannabis businesses in Colorado, where he pushed Holder to acknowledge that the DOJ is not placing a priority on interfering with state compliant medical cannabis businesses and banking concerns.

          I assume there will be news and industry coverage later today and tomorrow about this unexpected, but informative exchange between Representative Polis and Attorney General Holder.
          Article with linked content available at: http://blog.norml.org/2011/12/08/con...uana-policies/

          -----------------------------------

          Update: video

          Words of Wisdom

          Premium Parrots: only if the carpet matches the drapes.
          Crow: Of course, that's a given.
          Crow: Imagine a jet black 'raven' with a red bush?
          Crow: Hmm... You know, that actually sounds intriguing to me.
          Premium Parrots: sounds like a freak to me
          Premium Parrots: remember DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON CROW
          Premium Parrots: not that it would hurt one bit if he nailed you with his little pecker.
          Frosted: lucky twat
          Frosted: Aussie slags
          Frosted: Mind the STDs Crow

          Comment

          • Crow
            Member
            • Oct 2010
            • 4312

            #695
            Washington (US)

            Bill expected soon from state Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles

            Source: Cannabis Defense Coalition (CDC)

            "We met last week with state Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles, who outlined the components of a bill she intends to sponsor this legislative session. The bill seeks to address concerns of cities and towns that want "clarity" in the law and "flexibility" to regulate medical cannabis access points. It would allow for large nonprofit access points in counties with more than 200,000 people, meaning King, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane and Thurston counties. Towns and cities in these five counties would be forced to allow medical cannabis access points, unless the town or city voted to "opt out" of the law. In counties with less than 200,000 people, jurisdictions could choose to "opt in" to the law and allow medical cannabis access points.

            Local authorities would be given express permission by the state government to regulate access points, something many local jurisdictions still feel they do not have the legal authority to do, and for which many of them are clamoring. Conversely, it may provide authority for the local moratoriums on medical cannabis access points and collective gardens which proliferated after Governor Gregoire's disastrous swiss-cheese veto of medical cannabis legislation last session. Currently, we believe most of these medical cannabis moratoriums overstep the legal authority of the jurisdictions enacting them, and we fear this legislation may provide the authority for the medical cannabis moratoriums.

            The bill would also fund the state Department of Health to create a government registry for medical cannabis patients. Ever independent, Washington State is one of the few medical cannabis jurisdictions that do not have government registration for medical cannabis patients.

            This outline is based on what Senator Kohl-Welles told us last Thursday. She has indicated that she will provide us with a draft copy of the bill by next Monday, and at that time we can analyze the actual text of the bill instead of providing this hearsay."
            --------------------------------------------------------------------

            Petition Hearing Announcement on adding 'ADD' and 'OCD' to the state's medical cannabis law

            A committee of the Medical Quality Assurance Commission and the Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery will conduct a hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 11, 2012.

            The Medical Quality Assurance Commission received petitions to add Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), type 3, 4 and 5, and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) to the medical conditions for which medical marijuana would be beneficial and that are permitted under state law RCW HU69.51A.010U (6). The Medical Commission in consultation with the Osteopathic Board will determine whether the medical conditions submitted by the petitioners will be added to the Medical Marijuana Law.
            The Medical Commission and the Osteopathic Board committee invite written information from members of the public who are for or against adding the medical conditions to the Medical Marijuana Law. Written comments are to be submitted to the Medical Commission’s office no later than close of business on December 16, 2011, and will be provided to the committee for consideration prior to the January 11, 2012 hearing date. Written comments will be accepted by email at medical.commission@doh.wa.gov, by mail or in person at the Medical Commission’s office in Tumwater.
            Oral testimony will be heard January 11, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. from members of the public who are for or against adding the conditions of ADD (type 3, 4 and 5) and OCD as conditions for which medical marijuana would be beneficial and that are permitted under state law HURCW 69.51A.010H(6). The length of oral testimony may be limited by the committee.

            The committee will deliberate in closed session after the hearing to consider oral and written testimony. The committee will make a recommendation to the Medical Quality Assurance Commission and the Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery to accept or deny the petitioners’ requests to add additional medical conditions to the Medical Marijuana Law. The Medical Commission and the Osteopathic Board will consider the committee’s recommendation and make a decision to accept or deny the petition. The decision will be announced at a later date due to the need for both the Medical Commission and the Osteopathic Board to discuss the hearing panel’s recommendation.
            For more information, please email: Hmedical.commission@doh.wa.gov

            Hearing Location:

            Holiday Inn Seattle-Renton
            One South Grady Way
            Renton, Washington 98057
            (425) 226-7700

            Mailing Address:

            Maryella Jansen, Executive Director
            Medical Quality Assurance Commission
            P.O. Box 47866
            Olympia, Washington 98504-7866

            Physical Address:

            Maryella Jansen, Executive Director
            Medical Quality Assurance Commission
            243 Israel Road SE
            Tumwater, Washington 98501
            Words of Wisdom

            Premium Parrots: only if the carpet matches the drapes.
            Crow: Of course, that's a given.
            Crow: Imagine a jet black 'raven' with a red bush?
            Crow: Hmm... You know, that actually sounds intriguing to me.
            Premium Parrots: sounds like a freak to me
            Premium Parrots: remember DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON CROW
            Premium Parrots: not that it would hurt one bit if he nailed you with his little pecker.
            Frosted: lucky twat
            Frosted: Aussie slags
            Frosted: Mind the STDs Crow

            Comment

            • Crow
              Member
              • Oct 2010
              • 4312

              #696
              California (US)

              5-year-old suffering from seizures is treated with medical cannabis

              On Thursday night, the Discovery Channel's controversial reality show "Weed Wars" became even more controversial when a father administered medical marijuana to his five-year-old son in an attempt to ease his seizures.

              According to "Weed Wars," Jason has tried to soothe his son Jayden's hour-long seizures since he was four months old. But after finding little success from traditional medication, Jason desperately turned to Harborside Health Center, a medical marijuana dispensary in Oakland and the focus of the Discovery Channel reality show.
              "I'm not trying to get my son high," said Jason on the segment. "I'm trying to cure my son's seizures."

              In the episode, Jason administered a tincture of medical cannabinoid (CBD) orally with little resistance from Jayden. The CBD tincture he used was non-intoxicating, meaning that Jayden should not have felt any side affect or high.

              But with loaded controversy surrounding the use of medical marijuana, critics are sure to be outraged anyway.

              Since airing this fall, "Weed Wars" has aimed to shed light on the medical marijuana industry and dispel the myths and stereotypes that might surround it. The medical marijuana war is one that Harborside Health Care has battled for years, and the center drew national attention when it was hit with a $2.4 million tax bill from the IRS last October.

              "What kind of drug trafficking organization actually files a tax return? None of them do," said Harborside CEO Steve DeAngelo to The Huffington Post. "The very fact that we filed a tax return and told the IRS all the details of what we are doing proves we are not a drug trafficking organization."

              Harborside is certainly testing the limits of public acceptance with the recent episode, but DeAngelo claims that establishing trust is essential to the cause. In an article titled "Don't Call it Pot" in the New York Times, DeAngelo explained that maintaining a safe and legitimate environment is the cornerstone of the organization. "We want to make it safe, seemly and responsible," he said. "If we can't demonstrate professionalism and legitimacy, we're never going to gain the trust of our citizens," said DeAngelo. "And without that trust, we're never going to get to where we need to go."

              Watch a clip of Jayden in Thursday's episode of "Weed Wars" below:
              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1140351.html
              Words of Wisdom

              Premium Parrots: only if the carpet matches the drapes.
              Crow: Of course, that's a given.
              Crow: Imagine a jet black 'raven' with a red bush?
              Crow: Hmm... You know, that actually sounds intriguing to me.
              Premium Parrots: sounds like a freak to me
              Premium Parrots: remember DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON CROW
              Premium Parrots: not that it would hurt one bit if he nailed you with his little pecker.
              Frosted: lucky twat
              Frosted: Aussie slags
              Frosted: Mind the STDs Crow

              Comment

              • Crow
                Member
                • Oct 2010
                • 4312

                #697
                Massachusetts (US)

                "Marijuana Law Reform Marching On: Legalization Highly Favored In New Massachusetts Poll"

                58% support in Massachusetts for legalizing marijuana and regulating it as other agricultural commodities

                Georgetown, MA – This evening, attendees at the Second Annual Massachusetts Cannabis Convention hosted by the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition/NORML (MassCann/NORML) at the Crowne Plaza in Natick heard the major results of a live telephone poll conducted in November by DAPA Research Inc. of 600 Massachusetts voters with a margin of error of +/-4%.

                The most significant findings:

                *Fifty-eight percent (58%) support legalizing marijuana and regulating it in the same manner as other agricultural commodities with sales prohibited to underage persons (69% Democrats, 44% Republicans, 54% Other).

                *Sixty-two percent (62%) are more likely to support legalization if the proposed law would regulate the cultivation and sale of marijuana to adults and tax it in the same manner as the state currently regulates alcohol (70% Democrats, 56% Republicans, 60% Other).

                *Fifty-four percent (54%) oppose the federal government disregarding state law in states legalizing marijuana, while only 35% support the federal government’s disregarding state law.

                “The data strongly suggests that Massachusetts voters are more ready than voters in any other state to end prohibition and establish reasonable regulation of cannabis cultivation and commerce for all purposes,” said Steven S. Epstein, a founder and currently an officer of MassCann/NORML. “The data also establishes that if the legislature does not enact a law allowing medical use of marijuana this session the voters will overwhelmingly, perhaps 80%+, approve the voter initiative for the Humanitarian Medical Use of Marijuana at the ballot box in November.”

                “Legalization is essential to ending crime created by the prohibition of cannabis,” said Cara Crabb-Burnham, a member of MassCann/NORML’s Board of Directors. “It is important to recognize legal vendors will card customers and keep it out of the hands of children."
                For more information contact:

                Michael Crawford, 978-502-4080
                Attorney Steven Epstein, 978-352-3300

                http://blog.norml.org/2011/12/10/mar...chusetts-poll/
                Words of Wisdom

                Premium Parrots: only if the carpet matches the drapes.
                Crow: Of course, that's a given.
                Crow: Imagine a jet black 'raven' with a red bush?
                Crow: Hmm... You know, that actually sounds intriguing to me.
                Premium Parrots: sounds like a freak to me
                Premium Parrots: remember DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON CROW
                Premium Parrots: not that it would hurt one bit if he nailed you with his little pecker.
                Frosted: lucky twat
                Frosted: Aussie slags
                Frosted: Mind the STDs Crow

                Comment

                • Crow
                  Member
                  • Oct 2010
                  • 4312

                  #698
                  'Officer, can I have my weed back?'

                  BEAVER, Pa. -- A defense attorney's argument that a bag of marijuana uncovered during a Pennsylvania traffic stop could have belonged to a man other than his client unraveled after an arresting officer recalled the suspect asking him: "Can I have my weed back?"

                  Nineteen-year-old Devonte Davon Jeter was one of four men in a car stopped by Midland police on May 13.

                  Jeter's attorney said Monday that the marijuana could have belonged to any one of the men in the car.

                  But the prosecutor told the judge: "I don't know what else 'Can I have my weed back?' can mean, other than it's his."

                  The Beaver County Times reports that a district judge agreed with the prosecutor and ordered Jeter to stand trial on marijuana possession charges.

                  http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...e-my-weed-back
                  Words of Wisdom

                  Premium Parrots: only if the carpet matches the drapes.
                  Crow: Of course, that's a given.
                  Crow: Imagine a jet black 'raven' with a red bush?
                  Crow: Hmm... You know, that actually sounds intriguing to me.
                  Premium Parrots: sounds like a freak to me
                  Premium Parrots: remember DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON CROW
                  Premium Parrots: not that it would hurt one bit if he nailed you with his little pecker.
                  Frosted: lucky twat
                  Frosted: Aussie slags
                  Frosted: Mind the STDs Crow

                  Comment

                  • BadAxe
                    Member
                    • Jan 2010
                    • 631

                    #699
                    And dude will still scream that he got screwed by the man. LOL

                    Comment

                    • SmokedEuro
                      Member
                      • Aug 2010
                      • 280

                      #700
                      Originally posted by BadAxe
                      And dude will still scream that he got screwed by the man. LOL
                      of course, idiots. I would love to know what they did to turn it from a traffic stop into a searching. Maybe its in the link, maybe I should read that lol.

                      Comment

                      • sirloot
                        Senior Member
                        • Mar 2011
                        • 2607

                        #701
                        Originally posted by SmokedEuro
                        of course, idiots. I would love to know what they did to turn it from a traffic stop into a searching. Maybe its in the link, maybe I should read that lol.
                        when the dummies consent to a search

                        Comment

                        • snusjus
                          Member
                          • Jun 2008
                          • 2674

                          #702
                          People are still getting prosecuted for marijuana possession? Humanity continues to astonish me.

                          Comment

                          • SmokedEuro
                            Member
                            • Aug 2010
                            • 280

                            #703
                            Originally posted by sirloot
                            when the dummies consent to a search
                            Ive tried that non-consent thing. Around here that immediately turns into probable cause. Then next thing you know more cops are pulling up, your being searched and cuffed for their "Safety" and they are tossing your car anyway.

                            Comment

                            • SmokedEuro
                              Member
                              • Aug 2010
                              • 280

                              #704
                              Originally posted by snusjus
                              People are still getting prosecuted for marijuana possession? Humanity continues to astonish me.
                              And the fines/charges are ridiculous. I had a bowl one that was probably half done. Got caught, (fast fwd to the end), $450 in fines and a violation on my record. Or i could've gotten a lawyer paid him/her 1k, still had the fine but would've gotten the violation dropped.

                              Leave us stoners alone. We don't hurt anyone.

                              I can easily see alcohol being more dangerous and causing more problems and thats legal. I just dont get it

                              Comment

                              • snusjus
                                Member
                                • Jun 2008
                                • 2674

                                #705
                                Originally posted by SmokedEuro
                                I can easily see alcohol being more dangerous and causing more problems and thats legal.
                                You are correct:

                                Marijuana is not linked to any form of cancer (including the lungs and throat). Alcohol is linked to a plethora of cancers (notably of the liver, which has a very low survival rate).
                                http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052501729.html

                                Marijuana does not cause violent behavior. Alcohol is involved in the majority of domestic violence cases.
                                Cannabis reduces likelihood of violence during intoxication… Source: Hoaken, Peter N.S., Sherry H. Stewart. Journal of Addictive Behaviors. 28, pages 1533-1554. Drugs of abuse and the elicitation of human aggressive behavior. Dept. of Psychology, University of Western Ontario. Dept. of of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University.

                                Marijuana is less addictive than caffeine. Alcohol is nearly as addictive as heroin.
                                http://www.procon.org/view.backgroun...esourceID=1492

                                I'd gladly trade in my heavy-drinking habits for marijuana dependency. Haha.

                                Comment

                                Related Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X