i feel like i was called out on the issue of weed a few weeks ago because of my name..by swifty....so i will try to post information about weed in this thread or the other one. i have no problem with that. i do not think that alot of people truly understand marijuana and its history. hopefully i can help people absorb knowledge.

https://www.vice.com/read/are-we-finally-about-to-start-studying-marijuana-as-a-treatment-for-ptsd

[Edited on 3/10/2016 by LeglizHemp]

weediquette ep 3 is very interesting

i feel like i was called out on the issue of weed a few weeks ago because of my name..by swifty....so i will try to post information about weed in this thread or the other one. i have no problem with that. i do not think that alot of people truly understand marijuana and its history. hopefully i can help people absorb knowledge.

https://www.vice.com/read/are-we-finally-about-to-start-studying-marijuana-as-a-treatment-for-ptsd

[Edited on 3/10/2016 by LeglizHemp]

I was just curious about your choice of the name. The article you posted answered that question but it also opened up other areas for exploration. I guess many have always thought of weed, pot or grass as weed, pot or grass and never dug any deeper. If people traveled they might call it kif, bong or ganga. These are the common names people might use if they want to score. Your choice of name was more specialized and that was the point of interest.

Personally I think it should be legalized and this is generally where a majority of the population stands.

I heard someone say doobie in a movie the other day, made me laugh, haven't called a joint a doobie in a long time.

no problem swifty, others have asked thru the years also. I kinda got tired of talking about weed for a long time but I feel like getting back in the game.

Don't bogart that joint Lyrics by Country Joe And The Fish

Don't bogart that joint, my friend
Pass it over to me
Don't bogart that joint, my friend
Pass it over to me

Roll another one
Just like the other one
You've been hangin on to it
And I sure would like a hit

Don't bogart that joint, my friend
Pass it over to me
Don't bogart that joint, my friend
Pass it over to me

Rolllllllllllllllll another one
Just like the other one
That one's just about burned to the end
So come on and be a real friend

Don't bogart that joint, my friend
Pass it over to me
Don't bogart that joint, my friend
Pass it over to me

Everybody sing along this time

Don't bogart that joint, my friend
Pass it over to me
Don't bogart that joint, my friend
Pass it over to me

Rolllllllllllllllll another one
Just like the other one
That one's just about burned to the end
So come on and be a real friend

Don't bogart that joint, my friend
Pass it over to me

Don't bogart that joint, my friend
Pass it over to me

Everybody sing along this time

Don't bogart that joint, my friend
Pass it over to me
Don't bogart that joint, my friend
Pass it over to me

just singin along! Don't mind me.

I haven't smoked the stuff in years. it's just too strong these days. Also not cool in my line of work, as it was a crime until last year. However a few weeks ago was having a horrible anxiety attack, with asthma distress, due to some, whatever, you know, life... anyway so I borrowed my ex's smokeless blueberry diesel, two tokes and, presto, breathing free and relaxed, instant relief, stopped worrying and played guitar instead.

And experienced a strange psychological phenomena, when that old devil vibe "I've got an illegal smile, and this is a felony, and I could lose my house and family and go to jail, and maybe I am a bad person for wanting assist with a change of mood..." paranoid buzzkill started to kick in, and what an incredible good feeling to realize, hey brother, the nightmare is over, you are in Oregon and it is perfectly legal now so just rest easy my man.

Wake up America, the stuff is good for you! DUH!!!!!!

And how about a class action lawsuit against the government for redress on behalf of all the good folks who have been traumatized, jailed, ruined and experienced permanent psychological damage from worry, because of Nazi marijuana laws.

If anyone among us is still confused as to why myself and others on here are more than a little frustrated with our current resident of the White House and his complete disappointment with regard to rescheduling marijuana, I suggest you watch the two most recent additions of this excellent program (Weediquette).

Both episodes make clear how utterly absurd the schedule one status of marijuana truly is. My one critique of the VA episode recently aired is that the reporter, while interviewing Kirsten Gillibrand about her Senate bill to change the current scheduling, barely mentioned the uselessness of the President and not only didn't mention this fact, but seemed to ignore it altogether other than mentioning briefly that an executive order could make moot the Senate effort for the short term. Until, that is, the Democrats retake the Senate in the 2016 election and allow Senator Gillibrand's bill out of committee where it's been sitting for nearly a year.

[Edited on 3/11/2016 by Chain]

anyway so I borrowed my ex's smokeless blueberry diesel.

What makes it smokeless?

http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/03/10/david-casarett-medical-cannabis-ivy-league-stoned/49876/

This Ivy League doctor sees cannabis’ medical promise, wants it rescheduled

Q&A with Dr. David Casarett: He understands marijuana's true medical potential, and here's why he wants it rescheduled

Published: Mar 10, 2016, 4:15 pm
By Ricardo Baca, The Cannabist Staff

Dr. David Casarett will always remember the moment in 2013 when a patient asked for his opinion on medical marijuana. “Do you think it could help me,” she asked. He replied with what he knew, that it was illegal federally and also in Pennsylvania, where he lives and practices at Penn Medicine.

He also told her that cannabis has no known medical benefits.

“Then she pulled out a couple printouts from trials that had been done, and she said, ‘I found these online. It sure looks like medical cannabis has some benefits. Maybe you should read these?’ And I was embarrassed my patient knew more about this than I did.”

Casarett listened to his patient, and he read the trial reports. He talked with his colleagues, and he researched some more on his own. And when he found out he was wrong — that marijuana has indeed been scientifically proven to help with some diseases and medical conditions — he knew he had his next book.

And “Stoned: A Doctor’s Case for Medical Marijuana” was published by Penguin Random House in July 2015.

The book knowingly and compassionately begins with the epigraph, “What is a weed? A plant whose virtues have never been discovered. — Ralph Waldo Emerson.”

“Years ago a lot of my physician colleagues thought (medical marijuana) was going to be a fad that would pass or that they could just ignore it,” said Casarett, a physician, researcher and tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine who has been published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and The New England Journal of Medicine. “But even in Pennsylvania, a lot of my physician colleagues are realizing that this is something they have to know about. They may decide that they won’t recommend it, but we have to know about it.”

Casarett will talk on cannabis’ risks and benefits from 5-7 p.m. March 25 at the Reiman Theater inside the University of Denver’s Margery Reed Hall, 2306 E. Evans Ave. Tickets are $8-$15. The Cannabist had a wide-ranging conversation with the Ivy League professor and doctor on marijuana’s risks, its benefits as well as the most common misinformation out there.

The Cannabist: Did you write “Stoned” specifically for doctors?

David Casarett: I used doctors as an example, just figuring that doctors had a lot to learn about cannabis, but everyone else does, too. This book is for anyone who is using or thinking about using medical cannabis. It’s also for all those people who have come to the industry, dispensary owners or growers or researchers.

Cannabist: What’s the best feedback you’ve gotten from the book so far?

Casarett: Some people have told me that it’s really useful to have such an unbiased view, and that’s rewarding to me because that’s exactly what I was going for. There are books out there that are very pro-cannabis written by people who strongly believe in its benefits. I wanted to write a book that wouldn’t talk people into using it or talk them out of it. And now when they sit down to have a conversation with a patient, physician or family member, they can talk about what we know, what’s real and what is hypothetical. It’s very factual.

Cannabist: I’m sure you’re familiar with the important medical marijuana analysis published in the Journal of the American Medical Association last year, which found that while cannabis helps with some ailments, its efficacy regarding most conditions is unproven. What did you think about JAMA’s analysis?

Casarett: I was really surprised, honestly, that they didn’t come up with more evidence than they did. For example, they concluded there was moderate evidence that medical cannabis could help those with neuropathic pain. But because one of my patients had neuropathic pain, and those were some of the trials she showed me, and there were others that I found, I would have called that evidence much stronger than that. There have been at least half a dozen controlled trials on that, and looking at that quality of evidence I’d say there’s pretty strong evidence there. But the criteria (JAMA) used to judge quality of evidence is very strict. They discounted the validity of any study that’s small, and their definition of small was less than 200 subjects, I think. So how many medical cannabis studies have more than 200 participants? Not many.

Cannabist: I really appreciate that “Stoned” — as well as your own quest to know more about medical pot — started with you listening to your patient.

Casarett: For me, that’s always been really important. Of the three nonfiction books I’ve written, all have started from conversations with patients … In general, physicians have a unique opportunity to learn from our patients, if we bother to listen to their questions. To be fair, for a lot of general internists who get five-to-10 minutes per patient, it’s really hard to listen. Sometimes they just can’t. But in palliative care and hospice work, I have the opportunity to spend extra time with my patients.

Cannabist: Why do you think the medical profession is trending away from listening to patients?

Casarett: A couple of possible reasons. One is time — everyone is too busy. Another is information — doctors now have lab results to check and test results, and more requirements for documentation. We’re often too busy to take care of patients.

Cannabist: When do you think this medical marijuana conversation will truly open up between practitioners of traditional medicine and their patients?

Casarett: I think it already is, slowly. But I think we can help by giving physicians, in particular, language to have the discussion. That’s been one of my missions with my colleagues — giving them language that they can use to summarize what we know about risks and benefits.

Cannabist: Do you think cannabis should be rescheduled or descheduled?

Casarett: Rescheduled, definitely. It makes no sense that cannabis is Schedule I but marinol (THC) is Schedule III. We also need to reschedule in order to reduce barriers to research. I’m not sure about descheduling. I’m very sympathetic to those arguments. Why should cannabis be scheduled when tobacco and alcohol aren’t? But I’d want to understand much more about the legal and economic implications of descheduling before I weigh in. Maybe it’s the right move, I just don’t know.

Cannabist: After you first started studying the medical benefits of marijuana, was there a moment where you had to privately address everything you thought you knew about cannabis — especially the Drug War-era misinformation about marijuana, as told to you and others by teachers and politicians and parents?

Casarett: That moment really came when I realized that there were medical benefits. For me, that flipped the debate. Now we were talking about a substance that has benefits and risks, not just risks. And in my mind, that made cannabis seem to be in the same box as many other legal drugs I prescribe. Once I realized that medical cannabis offers benefits, the question became whether, when and how to use it safely, rather than how to ban it.

Cannabist: Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren recently asked the Center for Disease Control — and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration — to have another look at medical marijuana as an alternative to opioids for pain treatment. Could cannabis be more effective than opioids for patients looking to manage their pain?

Casarett: The short answer is yes. We do know as much as we can know about cannabis, and it does seem to be effective in treating chronic, neuropathic pain, which is pain due to nerve damage. That can be pain that is difficult to treat. It doesn’t always respond to opioids. Physicians prescribe opioids, but they sometimes don’t work and they cause side effects. For neuropathic pain, medical cannabis is a reasonable treatment option for many people. I’ve talked with a lot of patients who have said they’d rather be on medical cannabis than use opioids, for a lot of those reasons. Opioids can cause sedation, nausea, constipation, it makes people feel tired and goofy and not themselves. You take a pill orally and for the next eight-to-12 hours you’ll feel loopy or not yourself. Medical cannabis, with a vaporizer or smoked cannabis, you can control it yourself. I tell a story in the book of one woman who owns a chain of clothing stores in California. She had a workplace injury that caused neuropathic pain, and she started using opioids — but by the time I met her she was off them entirely and relying only on medical cannabis. There is this population of people with chronic neuropathic pain, many of whom might do better on cannabis than opioids.

Cannabist: What do you think about the theories that those addicted to opioids and other more dangerous drugs could use less-addictive, less-dangerous cannabis to kick some of those habits?

Casarett: It’s a little too speculative to comment on at this point. There are some advantages of replacing opioid addiction with cannabis. Cannabis is also addictive, but without the risk of fatal overdose … Still you have to be careful when talking about the replacement of one drug with another. The opioid epidemic is one example. Many physicians argued 15 years ago that we needed to be doing a better job of treating pain and shouldn’t be concerned about addiction. We saw untreated chronic pain, and we know how that turned out — more opioid prescribing, more availability and when we tightened the reins, patients went from legal Oxycontin to illegal Oxycontin to heroin. If we get a lot of people to switch from opioids to cannabis, maybe there will be other problems down the road.

Cannabist: What do you tell your anti-cannabis colleagues about their work in this space?

Casarett: It’s fine if my physician colleagues don’t want to recommend medical cannabis, but they should have enough knowledge to be able to have a discussion with their patient when they’re asked for advice about it … I tell them, ‘Your patients are using it, thinking about using it, they need your advice, so at least be able to give them the summary of benefits and risks.’ If patients are forced to go online and look for evidence, it’ll be hard for them to find clean, accurate information on cannabis’ risks and benefits. There’s a lot of misinformation out there. It doesn’t take long to learn the basics. You can summarize the risks and benefits in a couple sentences.

Cannabist: In your opinion, what is the most dangerous misinformation out there on both sides of the medical cannabis issue?

Casarett: From pro-cannabis groups, there are two. One is that because cannabis is a flower it’s perfectly safe. Heroin is derived from poppies, which are also flowers. Heroin isn’t so safe. Also the advice to use cannabis to cure cancer. I met a woman in Denver who put all her hope in cannabis oil to treat her curable lymphoma; she died six months ago. From the anti-cannabis groups, I worry about case reports of risks. For instance, there are reports of people who used cannabis right before they had a stroke. That’s correlation, but it doesn’t mean that cannabis caused the stroke. It’s easy to get those sorts of case reports published, so there are a lot of them.

http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/03/09/pennsylvania-marijuana-prisons/49819/

Pennsylvania prisons spend millions to house less than 100 pot offenders

quote:
anyway so I borrowed my ex's smokeless blueberry diesel.

What makes it smokeless?

Catalytic converter, vaporizes the herb. It's unreal, man, futuristic. It's this thing, looks like a pen. You just take a pull on it and somehow that activates a tiny catalytic converter and the vapor is inhaled (so probably not a good thing for Bill Clinton). Anyway, gotta be careful, it was so easy to breathe in I got murdered on that first toke... almost died coughing, but then... nothing but alright. Shifted my mind away from the anxiety, said hello to Jesus, played some reggae... real felony stuff, for sure.

My only complaint is that I wish they had a much milder kind, I just wanted a little high, not the full Carlos Castaneda, y'know?

And would like to add, how being able to talk freely about using marijuana heals the paranoia of decades, and the emotionally cancerous resentment of obviously unjust law, which eats at your esteem as a citizen of a country you are proud of (mostly).

Re the Federal rescheduling: They may be hogtied by Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, and oil interests who are directly threatened by the revolution that the zillion uses of hemp will cause against their monopolies. When we see corporations like Merck and Shell and Nestle get some corners on the hemp market it will be legal worldwide overnight.

As far as marijuana only being ok for medical use, as long as it isn't being used to get high, isn't that kind of like saying sex should only be for procreation and shouldn't feel good? Just throw a sheet with a hole in it over your wife? Whatever! It is perfectly ok to get high. Get these Puritan idiots out of power. Do we have to prove the medical benefits of champagne and chocolate, or bungee-jumping? Double whatever!!!!

Isn't just the ability of the herb to cause a mood change an obvious medical benefit? Isn't there a zillion dollar industry in prescription mental drugs for exactly that? Ergo: Getting high is a medical benefit.

[Edited on 3/11/2016 by BrerRabbit]

http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/03/09/pennsylvania-marijuana-prisons/49819/

Pennsylvania prisons spend millions to house less than 100 pot offenders

Who don't they just give them community service and let them work on Rick Santorum's next political campaign?

http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/03/09/pennsylvania-marijuana-prisons/49819/

Pennsylvania prisons spend millions to house less than 100 pot offenders

Who don't they just give them community service and let them work on Rick Santorum's next political campaign?

LOL, let or make?

http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/03/14/epidiolex-epilepsy-marijuana-seizures-cannabis/50046/

Could this become the first cannabis-derived prescription drug in the U.S.?

CBD-focused Epidiolex reduced convulsive seizures significantly among epilepsy patients in new clinical trial, says drug's maker. But will the FDA approve its sale in the U.S.?

Published: Mar 14, 2016, 11:46 am Comments (1)

By Ricardo Baca, The Cannabist Staff

Experimental marijuana-based drug Epidiolex significantly reduced convulsive seizures among epilepsy patients in a recent clinical trial, according to GW Pharmaceuticals, the U.K. company that makes the drug.

Among the drug’s primary ingredients is cannabidiol, better known as CBD, a non-psychoactive marijuana derivative that is anecdotally known for helping some patients suffering from epilepsy, Crohn’s and other diseases. There is little scientific evidence backing up patients’ experiences with CBD, which is one of the reasons GW Pharmaceuticals’ first-of-its-kind study is so important.

Epidiolex is being studied to treat Dravet syndrome, a rare type of epilepsy for which there are currently no treatments approved in the U.S. GW Pharmaceuticals is currently in talks with federal regulators, hoping that Epidiolex will be introduced to the U.S. market — which would make it the first prescription drug in America that is extracted from cannabis.

“The results of this Epidiolex pivotal trial are important and exciting as they represent the first placebo-controlled evidence to support the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical cannabidiol in children with Dravet syndrome, one of the most severe and difficult-to-treat types of epilepsy,” Orrin Devinsky, M.D., of New York University Langone Medical Center’s Comprehensive Epilepsy Center and the trial’s principal investigator, said in a statement. “These data demonstrate that Epidiolex delivers clinically important reductions in seizure frequency together with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, providing the epilepsy community with the prospect of an appropriately standardized and tested pharmaceutical formulation of cannabidiol being made available by prescription in the future.”

CBD as a treatment for epilepsy patients has been mainstream since CNN’s Sanjay Gupta in 2013 made Colorado-based toddler Charlotte Figi, who suffers from Dravet syndrome, the subject of his first “Weed” documentary. The non-traditional and often illegal epilepsy treatment option was the subject of online forums for years before that.

Some scientists say CBD “quiets the excessive electrical and chemical activity in the brain that causes seizures,” according to CNN. And while most scientists would agree that more research is needed, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse is optimistic that CBD has legitimate medical potential.

“Pre-clinical research has indeed suggested that CBD may have a range of therapeutic effects, most notable of which are anti-seizure, neuroprotective, anti-inflammatory, analgesic, anti-tumor, anti-psychotic and anti-anxiety relieving properties,” NIDA director Nora Volkow told a Drug Caucus hearing in June 2015 that discussed the barriers to cannabidiol research.

Volkow has long spoken cautiously about cannabis’ medical efficacy and efforts in U.S. states to legalize marijuana medically or recreationally. But Volkow told senators and others at the hearing that “CBD may be effective in treating children with drug-resistant epilepsy” and she even mentioned Epidiolex by name when she mentioned that “more than 400 children are receiving Epidiolex, a purified CBD extract, under an expanded access program, and the descriptive results are also encouraging.”

“However,” Volkow said, “proof of therapeutic efficacy requires demonstrations with large randomized clinical trials that control for unexpected effects.”

The Epidiolex study had half of its 120 participants, whose average age was 10 years old, on the study drug and the other half on a placebo. The participant patients were taking an average of three other anti-epileptic medications and had an average of 13 convulsive seizures per month.

Those taking Epidiolex saw a reduction of monthly convulsive seizures of 39 percent while those on the placebo saw a reduction of 13 percent, a statistically significant difference, wrote GW Pharma.

The executive director of the Dravet Syndrome Foundation was “thrilled” the Epidiolex clinical study showed such positive results.

“Dravet syndrome is one of the most catastrophic types of epilepsy in children and safe and effective treatments are desperately needed,” the Dravet Syndrome Foundation’s Mary Anne Meskis said in a statement. “We are thrilled to learn of these positive results, which bring much needed hope to the children and families who have been living with these debilitating seizures.”

Epidiolex, GW Pharma says, “has both Orphan Drug Designation and Fast Track Designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the treatment of Dravet syndrome.”

GW Pharmaceuticals CEO Justin Gover said the company is taking this study to the FDA to discuss his company’s regulatory submission. The company already sells another marijuana-based pharmaceutical, Sativex, to treat spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis — but the drug has not yet been approved for sale in the U.S.

[Edited on 3/14/2016 by LeglizHemp]

http://www.vice.com/read/bernard-noble-sentenced-to-13-years-in-prison-for-two-joints

Thirteen Years for Two Joints
By Krishna Andavolu
March 16, 2016

More than half of Americans believe that marijuana should be legal in the United States, according to a Gallup poll from October 2015. With 58 percent in favor, legalization is enjoying the highest support ever reported (up from 34 percent in 2001). Still, draconian sentencing laws surrounding marijuana have led to the imprisonment of millions of American citizens, many of whom are still serving time for possessing small amounts of weed for personal use.

One of those citizens is Bernard Noble, a father and aspiring restaurateur from New Orleans who was stopped by police and nabbed for possession of two joints in 2010. In keeping with Louisiana's habitual offenders law, Noble, who had two prior cocaine possession charges and a prior marijuana possession charge (he admits that he was a coke addict in the 90s), was sentenced to a staggering 13 and 1/3 years in prison for simple marijuana possession, a nonviolent offense.

In tracing Noble's story for this week's episode of Weediquette on VICELAND, I saw how a system of justice that's discriminatory to African-Americans at the moment of arrest, overly aggressive in its prosecution, and inhumane and profit-driven in its practices of incarceration can result in truly illogical outcomes.

People are getting rich from legal weed in Colorado, a development that's spurring business and generating tax revenue (and a topic that I'll be exploring in future episodes), but in states like Louisiana, weed is still a tool of the incestuous political economic machine of mass incarceration.

For Noble, there's some hope. Louisiana has a new governor who might be more inclined to grant him clemency. If you watch this piece and think Noble has done enough time in prison, please consider using the hashtag #freebernardnoble, and dropping Governor John Bel Edwards a line. He can be reached by phone at 866-366-1121 or via email here.... http://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/form/home/4

Give the third episode of WEEDIQUETTE a watch above and stay tuned for new episodes airing on VICELAND Tuesdays at 11 PM.

http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/03/21/scotus-declines-hear-colorado-marijuana-lawsuit-oklahoma-nebraska/50457/

SCOTUS won’t hear case on Colorado pot legalization

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Oklahoma and Nebraska's lawsuit against Colorado over marijuana legalization, the plaintiff states can still take their case to U.S. District Court

Published: Mar 21, 2016, 8:54 am
By John Ingold and Ricardo Baca, The Denver Post

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied Nebraska and Oklahoma’s proposed lawsuit against Colorado’s legal marijuana laws.

The 6-2 vote means the nation’s highest court will not rule on the interstate dispute, and Colorado’s legal cannabis market is safe — for now.

Because the Supreme Court has passed on the case, Nebraska and Oklahoma could now take it to a federal district court if they choose to, law experts say. The states have not yet said how or if they will move forward with a similar suit in another court.

“The complaint, on its face, presents a ‘controvers[y] between two or more States’ that this Court alone has authority to adjudicate,” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the dissenting opinion. “The plaintiff States have alleged significant harms to their sovereign interests caused by another State. Whatever the merit of the plaintiff States’ claims, we should let this complaint proceed further rather than denying leave dissenting without so much as a word of explanation.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Thomas in dissenting with a majority of justices.

Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson on Monday said he was disappointed but that he is working with partners in Oklahoma “and other states” to figure out their next steps “toward vindicating the rule of law,” according to a statement.

“Today, the Supreme Court has not held that Colorado’s unconstitutional facilitation of marijuana industrialization is legal,” Peterson said in the statement, “and the Court’s decision does not bar additional challenges to Colorado’s scheme in federal district court.”

Colorado Attorney General Cynthia H. Coffman celebrated the victory on Monday morning but also acknowledged that Nebraska and Oklahoma’s concerns won’t disappear with the court’s ruling.

“I’m proud of the legal team in my office that successfully defended this complicated case,” Coffman said in a statement. “I continue to believe that this lawsuit was not the way to properly address the challenges posed by legalized marijuana. But the problems are not going away. Although we’ve had victories in several federal lawsuits over the last month, the legal questions surrounding Amendment 64 still require stronger leadership from Washington.”

Legalization activists reacted positively to the court’s decision on Monday.

“There’s no question about it: This is good news for legalization supporters,” said advocate Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority. “This case, if it went forward and the Court ruled the wrong way, had the potential to roll back many of the gains our movement has achieved to date. And the notion of the Supreme Court standing in the way could have cast a dark shadow on the marijuana ballot measures voters will consider this November.”

The lawsuit was filed more than a year ago by two neighboring states, Nebraska and Oklahoma, and it specifically challenges Colorado’s ability to license and regulate marijuana businesses. The two states say Colorado’s system impermissibly conflicts with federal law and creates burdens for them by increasing the amount of pot coming across their borders.

Because the lawsuit involves a dispute between states, it was filed directly to the Supreme Court. The first step in the lawsuit was for the justices to decide whether they even wanted to consider it. When the Supreme Court does accept such cases, the subsequent litigation can go on for years or even decades.

Attorneys for both the state of Colorado and the Obama administration had urged the Supreme Court not to take up the lawsuit, while a group of former leaders of the Drug Enforcement Administration sided with Nebraska and Oklahoma and asked the court to accept the case.

In 2012, Colorado voters legalized possession of small amounts of marijuana and also authorized the creation of state-administered rules that would allow stores to sell marijuana to anyone over 21 years old. Those stores opened in 2014, and, since then, Nebraska and Oklahoma say they have seen an increased number of people bringing marijuana into their states, in violation of both their state laws and federal law.

“The State of Colorado has created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system,” the two states complained in their lawsuit.

Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman responded that eliminating the stores — while keeping marijuana possession legal — would likely create more trafficking. And, the Obama administration, in its own filing, said the case was inappropriate for the Supreme Court because the harm is allegedly being caused by individual lawbreakers not the state of Colorado, itself.

“Entertaining the type of dispute at issue here — essentially that one State’s laws make it more likely that third parties will violate federal and state law in another State — would represent a substantial and unwarranted expansion of this Court’s original jurisdiction,” U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. wrote in his brief to the court.

The Supreme Court justices spent more than a year pondering whether to take the case. The lawsuit was scheduled and re-scheduled five times for a closed-door conference, where the justices would debate the merits of taking the case.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nixon-drug-war-racist_us_56f16a0ae4b03a640a6bbda1

Journalist Dan Baum wrote in the April cover story of Harper’s about how he interviewed Ehrlichman in 1994 while working on a book about drug prohibition. Ehrlichman provided some shockingly honest insight into the motives behind the drug war. From Harper’s:

“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/03/28/thc-limit-colorado-marijuana/50990/

Is Colorado pot too potent? Plans limit THC at 16 percent

Those behind the THC-limiting proposals say they're smart, cautious moves; Opponents say they'll hurt the pot industry

Published: Mar 28, 2016, 5:54 pm Comments (15)

By John Ingold and Ricardo Baca, The Denver Post

A proposed ballot initiative and an amendment to a bill in the state House would cap the THC potency of recreational cannabis and marijuana products at a percentage below most of those products’ current averages.

The initiative would limit the potency of “marijuana and marijuana products” to 15 percent or 16 percent THC.

The average potency of Colorado pot products is already higher — 17.1 percent for cannabis flower and 62.1 percent for marijuana extracts, according to a state study.

Supporters of the legislation, introduced by Republican state Rep. Kathleen Conti, say they’re being cautious until more research has been done and protecting the brain development of adolescents. But opponents say the measures are unreasonable and could squash some of the legal cannabis industry’s most popular categories.

“All the studies that have been done on THC levels have been done on THC levels between 2 and 8 percent,” said Conti, whose district encompasses parts of Greenwood Village and Littleton. “Most of the marijuana coming in now, the flowers are being rated at a THC count of about 17 percent on average, so this is dramatically over, and we really don’t know that we’ve gotten the true feel on the health risks associated with that marijuana.”

The THC-limiting measures have the support of Smart Colorado, a group that focuses on Colorado youths amid cannabis commercialization.

“One of our legislative priorities for this year was to raise awareness of the high levels of THC in the marijuana products in our state,” said Henny Lasley of Smart Colorado. “Concentrates are of course what are put into marijuana edibles, and we have well over 300 of those food products, many many of which are attractive to children.

“And the high potency and unknown health impacts of those are deeply concerning to Smart.”

Marijuana industry compliance professional Mark Slaugh considers the proposed THC limit “unconstitutional” and said such a cap would send patients and recreational users to the gray and black markets.

“I don’t think a lot of thought was put into the proposals,” said iComply CEO Slaugh, also the executive director of the Cannabis Business Alliance. “This bill threatens to wipe out most infused product manufacturers, and its language is unclear as to what to do with edibles.”

Josh Hindi, whose Dabble Extracts is a medical-only concentrates company looking to expand to the recreational side, said such a THC limit “would remove concentrates in total from any kind of retail operation.

“We would have to dilute our products to get them to 15 percent,” said Hindi, who estimates his extracts test between 70-80 percent THC and cater to patients who prefer the more potent product.

The first THC-capping proposal is a ballot initiative that would limit the potency of cannabis products to 16 percent THC, would require everything to be sold in a child-resistant, opaque, resealable package and would require edibles to be packaged and sold only in single-serving amounts. It would amend the state constitution and would apply only to retail marijuana, not medical.

The initiative — which was filed last week with support from proponents Ali Pruitt and former Lakewood High School principal Ron Castagna, who has previously spoken out against marijuana — would also define a single-serving amount as 10 milligrams of THC.

The initiative would also require all retail marijuana products to contain labels identifying the potency and providing warnings about “identified health risks,” including “birth defects and reduced brain development,” risks to the brain and behavioral development of babies, breathing difficulties, “permanent loss of abilities,” mood swings, impaired thinking and body movement, depression, temporary paranoia, anxiety, and “potential for long-term addiction.”

In order to qualify for the ballot, the proposed initiative must navigate a series of hearings, then proponents must collect 98,492 signatures from registered Colorado voters.

The second THC-limiting proposal is an amendment to HB 1261, a “sunset” bill that reauthorizes rules that are set to expire. Specifically, the bill would extend Colorado’s rules for the sale of retail marijuana until 2019, and would, among other things, eliminate a requirement that licensees post surety bonds and would create new “retail marijuana transport” and “retail marijuana operator” licenses.

The bill was heard by the House Finance Committee on March 24, and, after hearing from Smart Colorado’s Lasley, Joe Hodas of edibles brand Dixie Brands, Dean Heizer of retail cannabis giant LivWell Enlightened Health and others, the committee laid the bill over without taking a vote.

This amendment would ban recreational cannabis stores from selling “retail marijuana or retail marijuana products” with a THC potency higher than 15 percent. Knowingly violating the ban could result in a punishment as lenient as a license suspension and as strict as license revocation or a fine up to $100,000.

The amendment would also require a special label on marijuana or marijuana products containing more than 10 percent THC. The label would state: “Warning: The health impacts of marijuana with a THC potency of above 10 percent are unknown.” Lastly, the amendment would tighten up the suggested variance that stores would be allowed in potency measurements. Stores would have to be able to accurately report potency within plus or minus 5 percent.

According to the latest House calendar Monday, the bill has not yet been rescheduled for a vote in the Finance Committee.

please watch this series.......maybe you can argue its biased.....that is ok

i just have this name. i am not trying to get people to use marijuana....i just want people to understand what prohibition is and does to society. and minorities. and the corporate prison system.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dea-marijuana-reschedule_us_5704567de4b0537661881644

DEA Plans To Decide Whether To Reschedule Marijuana By Mid-Year

The agency gave no clue whether it will remove pot from its Schedule 1 category of dangerous drugs.

04/05/2016 10:46 pm ET

The Drug Enforcement Administration plans to decide whether marijuana should reclassified under federal law in “the first half of 2016,” the agency said in a letter to senators.

DEA, responding to a 2015 letter from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and seven other Democratic senators urging the federal government to facilitate research into marijuana’s medical benefits, doesn’t indicate whether it will reclassify marijuana as less dangerous.

The U.S. has five categories, or schedules, classifying illegal drugs or chemicals that can be used to make them. Schedule I is reserved for drugs the DEA considers to have the highest potential for abuse and no “current accepted medical use.” Marijuana has been classified as Schedule I for decades, along with heroin and LSD. Rescheduling marijuana wouldn’t make it legal, but may ease restrictions on research and reduce penalties for marijuana offenses.

“DEA understands the widespread interest in the prompt resolution to these petitions and hopes to release its determination in the first half of 2016,” DEA said the 25-page letter, obtained by The Huffington Post.

The letter, signed by Acting DEA Administrator Chuck Rosenberg, explains in great detail the marijuana supply available at the University of Mississippi, the federal government’s only sanctioned marijuana garden.

The Food and Drug Administration has completed a review of the medical evidence surrounding the safety and effectiveness of marijuana and has forwarded its rescheduling recommendation to the DEA, according to the letter. The document didn’t reveal what the FDA recommended.

If demand for research into marijuana’s medical potential were to increase beyond the the University of Mississippi’s supply, DEA said it may consider registering additional growers.

This isn’t the first time DEA has been asked to reconsider marijuana’s classification. In 2001 and 2006, DEA considered petitions, but decided to keep marijuana a Schedule I substance.

The DEA response is signed by Rosenberg, Sylvia Burwell, secretary of HHS, and Michael Botticelli, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In addition to Warren, the letter was sent to Democratic Sens. Jeffrey Merkley (Ore.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Edward Markey (Mass.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Cory Booker (N.J.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.).

Those senators, with the exception of Warren, are co-sponsors of a sweeping bill introduced in 2015 designed to drastically reduce the federal government’s ability to crack down on state-legal medical marijuana programs while also encouraging more research into the substance.

Tom Angell, founder of Marijuana Majority, a marijuana reform group, said there was “absolutely no reason marijuana should remain in Schedule I.”

“Almost half the states in the country have medical cannabis laws and major groups like the American Nurses Association and the American College of Physicians are on board,” Angell said in a statement. He said the Obama administration should use its authority to make the change “before this president leaves office.”

Read the DEA letter here.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/dearesponse.pdf

Isn't it just lovely how one federal agency has the power to arbitrarily decide whether to continue to operate an illegal war on our citizens and continue quasi occupations of other nations we've never actually declared war on?

The very same organization which funds itself partially with the assets it seizes from the citizens it arrests, prosecutes, etc. in the very illegal war it perpetuates? Talk about an obvious and corrupt conflict of interest!

And Obama continues to ignore our nations longest war. Dithering and dathering...A war he could partially end or at least delay with the stroke of his executive order pen. Perhaps even worse, his potential successor seems just as oblivious on the subject. Ms. Clinton barely has the courage to even mention the word marijuana much less end its prohibition. The drug companies sure have done well with their campaign contributions...

They own both of these hypocrites

[Edited on 4/7/2016 by Chain]

http://www.vice.com/read/a-history-of-women-and-weed?utm_source=homepage

A Bong of One's Own: A Brief History of Women and Weed
By David Bienenstock

April 11, 2016

LOL should those in our national legislature be tested for drugs? weed is semi legal in DC. ROFL

https://www.viceland.com/en_us/show/weediquette-tv

seriously, watch this......you don't have to change your mind.....just learn about it.

indeed, dumb title, but the article is actually pretty informative, did you read it?