Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Restorium2

  • Rank
    Plant Manager

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Your first post. We learned a lot last election. Trolls find a point of contention and use that to cause division in a community. I see you like that.
  2. ^^who among us patients "Needs" the paperwork to serve as proof for those couple days Couple days? I've waited an extra three months when LARA messed up. That's when you are glad you did everything right.
  3. Dr. Paul A Meyer

    He did MM renewals less than two years ago. Thanks for the info.
  4. Dr. Paul A Meyer

    One of the best doctors I've ever had bar none! Actually had great knowledge and knew how to help a lot of people. God Speed Dr. Meyer. Whatever your journey, God Speed.
  5. Dr. Paul A Meyer

    It's like he was abducted by aliens or Schuette. Fear and Loathing in Vegas? Where's The doc?
  6. Dr. Paul A Meyer

  7. Dr. Paul A Meyer

    Has anyone been able to contact Dr. Paul Meyer in Saginaw lately? I keep getting a busy signal on his office phone.
  8. Democrats Forming Marijuana Legalization Consensus Posted by CN Staff on February 15, 2018 at 05:45:36 PT By Tom Angell, Contributor Source: Forbes Washington, D.C. -- Support for marijuana legalization is quickly becoming a mainstream consensus position in the Democratic Party. Two of the party's leading potential 2020 presidential candidates joined together this week in support of far-reaching legislation that would end the federal prohibition of cannabis and encourage states to legalize the drug. “Legalizing marijuana isn’t a matter of if, it’s a matter of when," Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) said about the legislation, the Marijuana Justice Act, which he introduced last August. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who signed onto the bill as a cosponsor on Wednesday and did a Facebook Live chat with Booker about it, called cannabis legalization "a social justice issue and a moral issue that Congress needs to address." The vocal pro-legalization support from the two senators, who are widely considered to be weighing campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, signals that a shift toward marijuana reform advocacy that has been underway in the party for some time is elevating to a near consensus. And polling shows that Democratic voters are in support of the move. Gallup found last year that 72 percent of Democrats back marijuana legalization, and a Quinnipiac University survey last month showed that 95 percent of the party’s voters support medical cannabis. The latter poll also showed that just 12 percent of Democrats want the federal government to interfere with the implementation state marijuana laws. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, also supports legalization. The senator, who introduced legislation to deschedule marijuana during his nearly successful campaign for the party's 2016 presidential nomination, is reportedly considering another run in 2020. Last week, Sanders's campaign organization launched an online petition calling for an end to marijuana prohibition and the broader "war on drugs." Democrats' march toward legalization seems to have been accelerated by the Trump administration's anti-cannabis moves. While Trump pledged during the campaign that he would respect local marijuana laws if elected, Attorney General Jeff Sessions last month to tore up Obama-era guidance that has generally allowed states to implement their own laws without federal interference. A large number of members of Congress from both parties, but Democrats in particular, immediately criticized the Justice Department reversal. "The Attorney General’s decision to rescind the Cole memo was a very bad one & I oppose it," Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) tweeted. "I believe that the States should continue to be the labs of democracy when it comes to recreational & medical marijuana. Jeff, this is one place where states’ rights works. Let each state decide." House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi also slammed the move, tweeting, "Attorney General Sessions, your unjust war against Americans who legally use #marijuana is shameful & insults the democratic processes that played out in states across the country." But while most Democratic lawmakers tend to vote in support of marijuana proposals in Congress, the party is by no means unanimous on the issue. Longtime Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), for example, is one of Congress's most ardent opponents of marijuana law reform, and has voted against amendments to protect her state's medical cannabis law from Justice Department intervention. She also vigorously campaigned against marijuana reforms at the state level. And some Democrats were upset that congressional leaders chose Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-MA), who opposes legalization, to deliver the party's response to President Trump's first State of the Union address last month. As a member of Congress, Kennedy has not only opposed his state's move to legalize marijuana, but has voted against amendments to shield state medical marijuana laws from federal interference, allow military veterans to access medical cannabis and protect children who use non-psychoactive cannabidiol extracts to treat severe seizure disorders. Kennedy knows that his views on cannabis are out of step with the party. "I come at it a little bit differently, obviously, than the vast majority of my colleagues,” he said in an interview. “I think the party is clearly moving in that legalization direction. It might already be there." But legalization isn't strictly a Democratic issue. Several Republican lawmakers have taken leadership roles in efforts to end federal cannabis prohibition. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO), for example, has gone so far as to actively block Justice Department nominees from being confirmed in protest of Sesssion's move. In a speech this week, Sessions called the dispute "frustrating" and implied that Gardner is prioritizing marijuana over national security. While support for marijuana law reform is growing across party lines -- Gallup's recent poll found for the first time that a bare majority of Republicans now back ending prohibition -- Democratic voters and elected officials are so far more likely to favor legalization. But although the party's platform adopted in 2016 included a plank calling for "a reasoned pathway for future legalization," that year's Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, only went as far as voicing vague support for respecting state laws and slightly downgrading cannabis's federal status. And not all rumored 2020 contenders have embraced legalization like Booker, Gillibrand and Sanders have. At least not yet. While another potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), like Sanders, also recently launched an online petition about marijuana, she hasn't yet added her name onto any bills to change cannabis's status under federal law. Her position does seem to be evolving, though. In 2014, as state attorney general, Harris simply laughed in a reporter's face when asked about her position on legalization. But now she is signing letters calling on the federal government to respect state laws and cosponsoring legislation to allow banks to serve state-legal cannabis businesses. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) -- another potential 2020 contender -- is also cosponsoring the banking bill and has signed onto broader legislation to allow states to implement medical marijuana policies. A lot can happen before the 2020 Democratic National Convention, but it's a safe bet that the party's next presidential nominee will at least have a more far-reaching marijuana reform position than that of their 2016 candidate. Tom Angell publishes Marijuana Moment news and founded the nonprofit Marijuana Majority.
  9. Lawsuit Could Be The One To Legalize Marijuana Posted by CN Staff on February 15, 2018 at 05:55:27 PT By Mona Zhang, Contributor Source: Forbes Washington, D.C. -- On Wednesday, advocates and professionals in the cannabis industry descended on a federal court in New York to watch Justice Department lawyers try to dismiss a case against Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The suit involves a motley crew of plaintiffs: Alexis Bortell and Jager Cotte, both pediatric medical marijuana patients, Jose Belen, an Army combat veteran who uses cannabis to treat his PTSD, Marvin Washington, a former New York Jet-turned cannabis entrepreneur, and the Cannabis Cultural Association, a non-profit dedicated to ending the war on drugs and promoting people of color in the cannabis industry. Over the years, many have attempted to challenge the federal government’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance. Wednesday’s hearing was both an example of how far the country has come on the issue and how far there still is to go. During the hearing, Judge Alvin Hellerstein considered the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the suit. Assistant U.S. Attorney Samuel Dolinger argued that the case should be dismissed because “courts around the country have considered similar or identical claims and have rejected them.” Dolinger and Hellerstein spent a good deal of time discussing the case of U.S. v. Kiffer, which affirmed the drug’s Schedule I status. “When they talk about Kiffer, a 1973 case… you really don't know the rest of the history,” Michael Hiller, lead counsel for plaintiffs in the case, told reporters after the hearing. He cited numerous developments since 1973, including the government’s Investigational New Drug program, Nixon’s Schafer Commission, the federal government’s very own cannabis patent, and the emergence of state-level marijuana programs. “There is a well-established body of case law that when the facts change, the courts have to change too,” said Hiller. “If you only decided case law based upon what people thought years before, we would never have Brown vs Board of Education… We would never have Windsor. We wouldn't have marriage equality.” Indeed, while other attempts to challenge marijuana’s Schedule I status have failed, the atmosphere in the court reflected the times. Supporters of cannabis reform showed up in droves, quickly filling the court and spilling into an overflow room. They laughed and cheered when the judge grilled Dolinger, who seemingly struggled to answer some of his questions. They scoffed when Dolinger cited Kiffer, suggesting that marijuana’s Schedule I status "was constitutionally rational." But perhaps most indicative of our changing times was that “the judge made absolutely clear that cannabis does not meet one of the three requirements,” for Schedule I status, said Hiller. “As far as I'm aware, very few judges have commented openly on [that].” “Your clients are living proof of the medical applications of marijuana,” Hellerstein told Hiller during the hearing. “I have to take the plausible allegations in your complaint as true. How could anyone say that your clients’ lives have not been saved by marijuana? How can anyone say that your clients’ pain and suffering has not been alleviated by marijuana? You can’t, right?” “I could not agree with you more, your Honor,” responded Hiller. While the judge’s views did reflect the changing times – a majority of Americans now support some sort of cannabis reform – he questioned whether it made sense to challenge the matter in a district court. “There are lots of things district judges have to do,” said Hellerstein. “When agencies are set up to do the very kind of thing that you want me to do, I think the right thing is to defer to the agency.” The lawyers for the plaintiffs recognized this. “We can't carry the day necessarily with a judge that feels constrained by what the law may keep him from doing, which is declaring this unconstitutional,” said co-counsel David Holland. “He knows it is, but he may not be able to do it. We need you all to keep the fight alive.” Still, the pro-cannabis camp was heartened by the judge’s statements. “Our judge gets it,” said Lauren Rudick, counsel for the plaintiffs. “And that was really important today.” For the time being, the judge delayed making a decision on the government’s motion to dismiss the case. “He's going to consider the issues over the next several days or weeks until he comes to a conclusion,” said Hiller. But the plaintiffs came away from the hearing feeling optimistic. “I think the judge made it very clear that he agrees and understands that cannabis is helping Alexis and Jagger and so many other people,” said Jagger’s father Sebastien Cotte. “We're going to keep fighting because we have to make this happen for everybody.... we're in it for the long run.” Dean Bortell, Alexis’ father, agreed. “Kids are growing up seeing this hypocrisy... if we don't get it done. But we're going to get it done.”
  10. BUSTED: Forfeiture Laws Encourage Policing For Profit

    'Not Charged' means they made a huge mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. But when you do you are responsible for that mistake and should make things right. If you will not do that on your own you will pay ten fold, either now or when karma comes knocking. Cannabis people are owned a huge debt. We will be rewarded somehow, some day.... The universe always balances things out.
  11. Investing in Cannabis

    I know that for sure. We all are. It's in the air we breath. People who never had allergies have them now because of the genetically altered crops 500 miles away. Not too many people understand the full implications of GMO's. They just think WTF?
  12. Investing in Cannabis

    Smells like BS to me. GMOs can produce unintended consequences like allergies to things you never were allergic to before. That's just the tip of the iceburg. The variables involved are infinite with an infinite number of things that can evolve in the future out of something that seemed great in the short run. No thanks, I'll keep my legacy strains.
  13. The premise that when someone is a room they are considered to be in actual 'possession' of everything in the room is a stretch that only a bad prosecutor would make. If the card said access and no access that would dictate the actual access. Being in a room with, or having access, doesn't mean actual possession. If you put on your common sense prosecutor hat then it all comes down to the criminal background check and having access to actual numbers of plants a person is cleared for. Every qualified patient has the right to access 12 plants regardless of their criminal background. That's the law. Not more than 12 though. That requires passing the proper background check.
  14. True. Although I have to say it makes no sense that a patient be unauthorized to be near a plant that they are authorized to have everything that comes from it. The only legal purpose the plant has is to supply the patient who created the authorization in the first place.