Search the Community

In 2018 Michigan became the first state in the midwest to legalize the possession and sale of cannabis for adult use. 2018 also marked a historic injustice when a husband and father of three was sentenced to five and a half years in prison for his operation of a Detroit city-sanctioned medical cannabis dispensary. On this episode of Let’s Be Blunt, Montel speaks to Rudi Gammo by phone from the Michigan State prison, where he has now been incarcerated for 3 years and 8 months of his 5 1/2 year sentence for a victimless cannabis offense. Montel checks in with Sarah Gerston as well on Rudi’s case, General Counsel for The Last Prisoner Project.

Hello, I am looking for a Caregiver near 49509 Grand Rapids, MI. My name is Ariel, and I am a legal medical patient looking for a new caregiver. Thanks, Ariel

Montel speaks with Earl Carruthers on this episode of Let’s be Blunt, In 2012, Earl was pulled over while carrying what he thought to be a legal amount of medical marijuana for himself and four other patients. Rather than count how much cannabis they contained — which was within the limits of the law — the prosecution counted the total weight of the brownies. “The jury perceived me as another black guy with marijuana, and I was found guilty and had to go to jail.” He was there for 33 days, then was sentenced to five years probation. Earl Carruthers is a business owner and the first POC dispensary owner in the state of Michigan.. He was party to two historic Michigan Supreme Court cases, one changing the legal definition of ‘edibles” in the enactment of Michigan HB 4210.

2020 EXECUTIVE ORDERS Executive Order 2020-01 Executive Order 2020-04 (COVID-19) - Declaration of State of Emergency - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-05 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-06 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-07 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-08 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-09 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-10 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-11 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-12 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-13 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-14 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-15 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-16 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-17 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-18 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-19 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-20 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-21 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-22 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-23 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-24 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-25 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-26 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-27 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-28 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-29 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-30 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-31 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-32 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-33 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-34 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-35 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-36 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-37 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-38 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-39 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-40 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-41 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-42 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-43 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-44 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-45 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-46 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-47 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-48 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-49 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-50 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-51 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-52 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-53 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-54 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-55 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-56 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-57 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-58 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-59 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-60 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-61 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-62 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-63 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-64 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-65 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-66 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-67 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-68 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-69 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-70 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-71 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-72 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-73 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-74 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-75 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-76 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-77 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-78 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-79 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-80 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-81 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-82 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-83 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-84 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-85 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-86 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-87 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-88 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-89 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-90 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-91 (COVID-19) (May 18, 2020) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-92 (COVID-19) (May 18, 2020) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-93 (COVID-19) (May 20, 2020) Executive Order 2020-94 (May 19, 2020) - Declaration of State of Emergency Executive Order 2020-95 (COVID-19) (May 21, 2020) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-96 (COVID-19) (May 21, 2020) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-97 (COVID-19) (May 21, 2020) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-98 (May 22, 2020) - Declaration of State of Emergency Executive Order 2020-99 (COVID-19) (May 22, 2020) - Declaration of State of Emergency - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-100 (COVID-19) (May 22, 2020) Executive Order 2020-101 (COVID-19) (May 22, 2020) Executive Order 2020-102 (COVID-19) (May 22, 2020) Executive Order 2020-103 (COVID-19) (May 22, 2020) Executive Order 2020-104 (COVID-19) (May 26, 2020) Executive Order 2020-105 (May 26, 2020) - Declaration of State of Emergency Executive Order 2020-106 (COVID-19) (May 28, 2020) Executive Order 2020-107 (May 29, 2020) Executive Order 2020-108 (May 29, 2020) Executive Order 2020-109 (May 29, 2020) Executive Order 2020-110 (COVID-19) (June 1, 2020) Executive Order 2020-111 (COVID-19) (June 1, 2020) Executive Order 2020-112 (COVID-19) (June 3, 2020) Executive Order 2020-113 (COVID-19) (June 4, 2020) Executive Order 2020-114 (COVID-19) (June 5, 2020) Executive Order 2020-115 (COVID-19) (June 5, 2020) Executive Order 2020-116 (COVID-19) (June 5, 2020) Executive Order 2020-117 (COVID-19) (June 9, 2020) Executive Order 2020-118 (COVID-19) (June 11, 2020) Executive Order 2020-119 (COVID-19) (June 11, 2020) Executive Order 2020-120 (COVID-19) (June 12, 2020) Executive Order 2020-121 (June 12, 2020) Executive Order 2020-122 (COVID-19) (June 12, 2020) Executive Order 2020-123 (COVID-19) (June 15, 2020) Executive Order 2020-124 (COVID-19) (June 16, 2020) Executive Order 2020-125 (COVID-19) (June 17, 2020) Executive Order 2020-126 (COVID-19) (June 17, 2020) Executive Order 2020-127 (COVID-19) (June 18, 2020) - Declaration of State of Emergency Executive Order 2020-128 (COVID-19) (June 18, 2020) Executive Order 2020-129 (COVID-19) (June 18, 2020) Executive Order 2020-130 (June 19, 2020) Executive Order 2020-131 (COVID-19) (June 24, 2020) Executive Order 2020-132 (COVID-19) (June 25, 2020) Executive Order 2020-133 (COVID-19) (June 25, 2020) Executive Order 2020-134 (COVID-19) (June 26, 2020) Executive Order 2020-135 (COVID-19) (June 26, 2020) Executive Order 2020-136 (COVID-19) (June 26, 2020) Executive Order 2020-137 (COVID-19) (June 29, 2020) Executive Order 2020-138 (COVID-19) (June 29, 2019) Executive Order 2020-139 (June 30, 2020) Executive Order 2020-140 (COVID-19) (June 30, 2020) Executive Order 2020-141 (COVID-19) (June 30, 2020) Executive Order 2020-142 (COVID-19) (June 30, 2020) Executive Order 2020-143 (COVID-19) (July 1, 2020) https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90705---,00.html

research completed

https://whmi.com/news/article/county-votes-down-anti-marijuana-resolutionSubcommittee Votes Down Anti-Recreational Marijuana ResolutionJune 12, 2018A proposed resolution opposing the recreational use of marijuana hasfailed to pass a Livingston County subcommittee, following a tie vote.The county’s General Government and Health & Human Services Committeemet Monday and discussed the proposed resolution, which asked theBoard of Commissioners to show their opposition to the legalization ofmarijuana for general use, as well as encourage others to oppose theissue through similar resolutions.Committee members Bob Bezotte and William Green voted in support ofthe resolution, as Bezotte stated residents looked to their officialsto take the lead on these types of matters. Dennis Dolan and GaryChilds voted against the resolution, saying the issue will ultimatelybe up to citizens in November’s election when they vote on a ballotproposal that would legalize the possession and sale of up to 2.5ounces of marijuana for personal use. As the committee’s vote was atie, the resolution failed and will not move forward as it stands.Dave Domas, who represents the county’s 3rd district on the Board ofCommissioners, approached the committee during the meeting’s secondcall to the public with some heated words. Domas told committeemembers, "Anybody that votes against this issue doesn’t belong on thisboard. Not now, not ever." The resolution previously came before thecounty’s Board of Commissioners and Domas says it was then that he sawmany community members expressing opposition to the legalization ofmarijuana, including several youth. He says the kids in attendancewere "victims of recreational marijuana and they didn’t want to sharethat bad experience with anyone else", so they asked county officials"to listen to them and act on their behalf.”Childs defended his decision to vote against the resolution, againstaing he believes it’s up to Michigan’s residents to decide. He feelsthe county has more important things to deal with, specifically namingthe opioid crisis. Childs also responded to Domas’ confronting thecommittee, saying some of his information related to the ballotproposal and potential law was "erroneous".Domas later told WHMI he “…expected this sort of performance from theboard, based on the way they handled this resolution two weeks ago”,claiming the committee refused to let it be presented.Domas says he’s working on presentations he’d like to share with localunits of government that would “present the side of recreationalmarijuana that people don’t understand”. He also says the communityshouldn’t be surprised to see a similar resolution make its way to theBoard of Commissioners, adding, “If it dies, a lot of stuff dies withit, and we’re not gonna let that happen.”

While the experienced members in the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association already know the ins and outs of certifications, physician appointments and sending paperwork into the state, hopefully articles like this one help people who know nothing about medical marijuana. Although the article never answers the question in the headline, getting a Michigan medical marijuana card is very similar to getting a prescription from a doctor. Although there is an extra step required that is more like getting a professional medical license from the state. The process is fairly easy, although needlessly stressful and LARA likes to reject patients for not "dotting every i" in the application. Prescription holders do not have to jump through the same hoops as medical marijuana patients. It is an unfair system. https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/2018/04/23/how-hard-get-michigan-medical-marijuana-card/450779002/

Truth Squad: Counting the flips by Michigan AG candidate Pat Miles March 27, 2018 Ted Roelofs Michigan Truth Squad In an increasingly caustic race for Michigan attorney general, former U.S. attorney Pat Miles has come under concerted attack ‒ not only from his Democratic primary opponent, but in a series of articles in the Michigan Progressive, a progressive media site. Miles, who has tilted centrist in the past, is opposed by Dana Nessel, a progressive and the lead attorney in the federal court case that ended up overturning Michigan’s ban on gay marriage. (Nessel famously unleashed a campaign ad last year touting herself in this #MeToo era as “the candidate who doesn’t have a penis.”) The drumbeat of Michigan Progressive attacks on Miles carries a common theme: that the Harvard Law-educated attorney has cynically discarded his moderate past to better compete with Nessel on the party’s left flank. Michigan Progressive contends Miles is setting “a record for flip-flopping” on issues from gay marriage to civil forfeiture, and lists a series of position changes by Miles. We find the Michigan Progressive attacks mostly accurate, even though the publication overreaches a bit. The claims Among the position changes cited: Medical marijuana: “Miles refused to say how he voted on the Medical Marijuana Act, which Michigan voters approved in 2008…Now he claims to have voted for medical marijuana in 2008.” Marijuana legalization: “Miles had stated for months that he would not take a position on legalization, but follow ‘the will of the voters’ at the ballot box. Two days after a poll was released showing legalization at 61 percent support, Miles reversed his position to be in support of legalization.” LGBTQ rights: “When Miles ran for Congress against (Republican) Justin Amash in 2010, he opposed same sex-marriage. He also denied a speaking opportunity to an LGBTQ activist as Chairman of the Aquinas College Board, and has troubling anti-LGBTQ ties. Now, he calls himself an ‘ally’ of the LGBTQ community.” Capital punishment: “Miles said he supported the death penalty in his 2010 congressional run. Now he says he is opposed to it.” Civil asset forfeiture: “Flip-flopped during the Michigan Radio interview! That's got to be a record.” The facts In a September interview on “Off the Record,” a Lansing political talk show, host Tim Skubick asks Miles more than once if he voted for the state ballot measure passed in 2008 to legalize medical marijuana, including this exchange: Skubick: “Did you vote yes on it?” Miles: “I’m not going to talk about my personal vote on that issue.” Then earlier this month, on March 7, in a Facebook post, Miles said he “voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative in 2008.” In that same interview last September, Miles is asked if he backs a 2018 ballot measure to legalize recreational marijuana. Miles said then: “It’s up to the voters to decide…I will never use my personal beliefs to undercut what the people decide.” On March 5, Lansing polling firm EPIC-MRA released a poll that found 61 percent of Michigan voters would vote yes on the ballot proposal. Two days later, again on Facebook, Miles wrote, “I've reviewed the language of the ballot initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol, and find it to be very thoughtful and well-written, and I support it.” On gay marriage, Miles was against it before he was for it. In a 2010 candidate survey in his run for Congress, Miles agreed that marriage should “only be between one man and one woman.” Before that, in 2008, Miles had backed the decision by Aquinas College to cancel a talkby John Corvino, a gay-rights Wayne State University philosophy professor who intended to deliver a lecture entitled "What's Morally Wrong With Homosexuality?" Miles, the college’s board chairman at the time, said then: “The president is authorized to make those types of decisions regarding on-campus programming and speakers, and his decision was consistent with college and board policy.” Fast forward to this January, when Miles told Pride Source, a gay rights publication, that his views on gay marriage “evolved” to “where I believe in full equality under the law for everyone and that includes the right of same-sex couples to get married.” Michigan Progressive also suggested Miles belongs to a church that espouses anti-gay views. The publication shared a 2014 message from Rick Lippert, one-time pastor at Grand Rapids Christian Church, that reads in part: “I do not support homosexuality or ‘homosexual marriage.’” But according to Lippert’s LinkedIn account, he had left the church a year earlier, in 2013. Jen Eyer, Miles’s campaign spokesperson, said “anti-LGBT rhetoric has never been and is not currently preached at Grand Rapids Christian Church.” On the death penalty, Miles said during his 2010 congressional race that he supported capital punishment for “certain crimes.” That sounds similar to his stand in the “Off the Record” interview: “I do believe the death penalty can be appropriate in two very limited circumstances, for mass murders or serial murders where the evidence is absolutely clear that they (crimes) were committed.” But at a January 13 meeting with 6th Congressional District voters, Miles apparently again evolved, saying: “I am personally opposed to the death penalty. I am very proud that Michigan was one of the first democracies, Western democracies, to outlaw the death penalty in the world.” Finally, on civil forfeiture, Miles seemed to reverse his position at a March 16 appearance with Nessel on Michigan Radio. The practice, in which law enforcement agencies seize assets of individuals before they are convicted of a crime, has had its critics on the left and the right. A state House bill introduced last year would require a conviction before law enforcement could seize assets under $50,000. In the Michigan Radio appearance, Miles first states: "There are instances where asset forfeiture is very appropriate,” he said, including forfeiture “before conviction.” Later in the interview, Miles says to interviewer Lester Graham: “Well, we can go back to the asset forfeiture question if you want. I might have a better sound-bite for you.” He then adds: “Well, I would say that on asset forfeiture, that we should make sure that there’s due process before people’s assets are taken and that in all cases that law enforcement is not allowed to unilaterally seize assets rather than freeze assets.” Graham states: “That’s a little different from what you were saying before." Miles agrees: “It is.” The call: Mostly accurate. By and large, Michigan Progressive’s assertion that Miles frequently changes his positions holds up. Miles declined to say where he stood on legalizing medical marijuana and legalizing recreational marijuana use. Then he came out in support of both. If not a flip-flop, he took fuzzy stands on both before making it clear (in one case, on the heels of decisive polling) where he stood. He opposed gay marriage. He later said he supported it. He appears to have expressed different stands on the death penalty in this campaign after supporting it for some crimes in the past. On civil forfeiture, Miles changed his stand in the course of a single interview. The suggestion that Miles attended a church whose pastor espoused anti-gay views is not supported. And even if it was true, it’s a stretch to impart views from the pulpit to every congregant. Hitting back, a Miles campaign spokesperson noted that Liano Sharon, a Michigan Progressive contributor, is Nessel’s cousin. Indeed, Sharon (who acknowledged they are related) shares Nessel’s campaign posts on his Facebook page. Readers of Michigan Progressive can decide for themselves whether it matters that a key contributor to the publication is Nessel’s second cousin. (Sam Pernick, another Michigan Progressive, said he is the primary author of its articles on Miles.) Truth Squad is less concerned about the publication’s editorial standards than whether the arrows it directed at Miles had merit. In most instances, they did. https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-truth-squad/truth-squad-counting-flips-michigan-ag-candidate-pat-miles

The Michigan Medical Marijuana Association endorses Dana Nessel for Michigan Attorney General. View our Endorsement here. Civil asset forfeiture is a heavily abused police tool created in order to seize assets of drug kingpins. Unfortunately, the majority of civil asset forfeiture is property or cash seized under $1,000. Police aren't tackling drug kingpins and taking $1,000 at a time, they are taking $1,000 or less from regular people. A majority of the time, these people are never charged or convicted of any crime. Civil Asset Forfeiture needs to stop. Dem candidates for AG on civil asset forfeiture By LESTER GRAHAM • MAR 16, 2018 Stateside Dana Nessel (l) and Pat Miles (r) are vying for the Democratic party's nomination to be candidate for Michigan Attorney General. LESTER GRAHAM / MICHIGAN RADIO The Democrats running for state Attorney General represent two wings of the party. Dana Nessel is a self-described progressive. Pat Miles is more centrist, but he’s shifted some of his positions on issues as he’s talked to Democrats across the state. We asked each of the candidates about asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize property when police think it was bought with illegally gotten money such as drug money. But, even if those people are not convicted or even charged with a crime, they have to fight in court to get their assets back. “There were more than 500 people last year that lost assets to the state without even being charged with anything. They weren’t even alleged to have done something wrong,” said Jarrett Skorup with Mackinac Center for Public Policy. (Hear the complete Stateside interview with Skorup here.) Groups as politically disparate as the Mackinac Center and the American Civil Liberties Union-Michigan have argued for legislation to restrict civil asset forfeiture. “I’m also one of the few attorneys running for this office that has actually handled dozens of civil asset forfeiture cases,” Dana Nessel said. There were more than 500 people last year that lost assets to the state without even being charged with anything. They weren't even alleged to have done something wrong. -Jarrett Skorup, Mackinac Center for Public Policy. She’s running for the Democratic nomination for Michigan Attorney General. She is best known as being instrumental in the case that legalized gay marriage nationally. She’s also been a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney. She has strong feelings about civil asset forfeiture. “I truly, honestly believe this to be a violation of due process," says Nessel. "What I see all the time is this: people who have never been convicted of a crime, people who have never even been charged with a crime and, you know, the police get a search warrant, they bust down somebody’s door and they take everything. They take all of their cash. They take all of their automobiles. If they have any money in a bank account, they freeze and seize that. (People) have to hire an attorney to basically prove those assets did not come about, did not come into their possession as a result of criminal distribution of narcotics." She says if elected Attorney General, her office will not use civil asset forfeiture. But, if someone is found guilty in court… “I don’t mind criminal asset forfeiture. When you have proven someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I think it’s absolutely fair game to go after property that was the result of the narcotics distribution or manufacturing,” Nessel explained. Her opponent, Pat Miles, most recently worked as U.S. Attorney in Michigan’s Western District. Prior to that, he was a partner in a Grand Rapids law firm. He specialized in business and cable/telecommunications laws. He agrees there are issues with civil asset forfeiture. “I believe that really, there’s been abuses of asset forfeiture by the law enforcement agencies and that there have, there are instances, where we should be waiting until there’s been more evidence brought and more of a conviction of when assets should be forfeited,” he stated. But, then he added he thinks it’s an important tool for law enforcement. Pat Miles: "There are instances where asset forfeiture is very appropriate, where people are using the proceeds from criminal conduct in terms of, and they should be, that’s what asset forfeiture is about. And so there are instances where it’s appropriate to use asset forfeiture." Lester Graham: "Before or after conviction?" PM: “Before conviction. There are instances where it’s appropriate.” LG: "Can you give me an idea where that would be the case, where due process wouldn’t matter?" PM: “Well, due process should always matter, and, so, but there is the instance where assets are forfeited from proceeds of large scale drug trafficking, from proceeds of embezzlement and other types of cases like that.” We went on to talk about other issues and at the end of the interview, like I often do, I asked if he had anything to add. PM: “Well, we can go back to the asset forfeiture question if you want. I might have a better soundbite for you.” LG: (laughs) "Okay. That’s fine with me. What do you want us to know about asset forfeiture?" PM: “Well, I would say that on asset forfeiture, that we should make sure that there’s due process before people’s assets are taken and that in all cases that law enforcement is not allowed to unilaterally seize assets rather than freeze assets.” LG: "That’s a little different from what you were saying before." PM: “It is.” LG: "This is your position?" PM: “That’s my position.” Just this month Miles shifted his position on legalization of recreational marijuana, an issue his opponent, Nessel has championed from the start of her campaign. It will be up to the members of the Michigan Democratic Party Endorsement Convention to make sense of those shifts. They will meet on April 15th to endorse candidates. TAGS: ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ELECTION 2018

We've known for forty years that Cannabidiol (CBD) from the Cannabis Sativa aka Marijuana aka Hemp plant vastly reduces many different kinds of seizures and epilepsy in humans. It is a travesty that patients and parents of children with epilepsy are prohibited from using this non-toxic plant to prevent and stop seizures. Tens of thousands of epileptics have died because they were unable to access this life saving safe non-toxic medication. Abstract In phase 1 of the study, 3 mg/kg daily of cannabidiol (CBD) was given for 30 days to 8 health human volunteers. Another 8 volunteers received the same number of identical capsules containing glucose as placebo in a double-blind setting. Neurological and physical examinations, blood and urine analysis, ECG and EEG were performed at weekly intervals. In phase 2 of the study, 15 patients suffering from secondary generalized epilepsy with temporal focus were randomly divided into two groups. Each patient received, in a double-blind procedure, 200-300 mg daily of CBD or placebo. The drugs were administered for along as 4 1/2 months. Clinical and laboratory examinations, EEG and ECG were performed at 15- or 30-day intervals. Throughout the experiment the patients continued to take the antiepileptic drugs prescribed before the experiment, although these drugs no longer controlled the signs of the disease. All patients and volunteers tolerated CBD very well and no signs of toxicity or serious side effects were detected on examination. 4 of the 8 CBD subjects remained almost free of convulsive crises throughout the experiment and 3 other patients demonstrated partial improvement in their clinical condition. CBD was ineffective in 1 patient. The clinical condition of 7 placebo patients remained unchanged whereas the condition of 1 patient clearly improved. The potential use of CBD as an antiepileptic drug and its possible potentiating effect on other antiepileptic drugs are discussed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7413719 Abstract A high dose of Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main Cannabis sativa (cannabis) component, induces anxiety and psychotic-like symptoms in healthy volunteers. These effects of Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol are significantly reduced by cannabidiol (CBD), a cannabis constituent which is devoid of the typical effects of the plant. This observation led us to suspect that CBD could have anxiolytic and/or antipsychotic actions. Studies in animal models and in healthy volunteers clearly suggest an anxiolytic-like effect of CBD. The antipsychotic-like properties of CBD have been investigated in animal models using behavioral and neurochemical techniques which suggested that CBD has a pharmacological profile similar to that of atypical antipsychotic drugs. The results of two studies on healthy volunteers using perception of binocular depth inversion and ketamine-induced psychotic symptoms supported the proposal of the antipsychotic-like properties of CBD. In addition, open case reports of schizophrenic patients treated with CBD and a preliminary report of a controlled clinical trial comparing CBD with an atypical antipsychotic drug have confirmed that this cannabinoid can be a safe and well-tolerated alternative treatment for schizophrenia. Future studies of CBD in other psychotic conditions such as bipolar disorder and comparative studies of its antipsychotic effects with those produced by clozapine in schizophrenic patients are clearly indicated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-05687-001 Abstract BACKGROUND The Dravet syndrome is a complex childhood epilepsy disorder that is associated with drug-resistant seizures and a high mortality rate. We studied cannabidiol for the treatment of drug-resistant seizures in the Dravet syndrome. METHODS In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 120 children and young adults with the Dravet syndrome and drug-resistant seizures to receive either cannabidiol oral solution at a dose of 20 mg per kilogram of body weight per day or placebo, in addition to standard antiepileptic treatment. The primary end point was the change in convulsive-seizure frequency over a 14-week treatment period, as compared with a 4-week baseline period. RESULTS The median frequency of convulsive seizures per month decreased from 12.4 to 5.9 with cannabidiol, as compared with a decrease from 14.9 to 14.1 with placebo (adjusted median difference between the cannabidiol group and the placebo group in change in seizure frequency, −22.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −41.1 to −5.4; P=0.01). The percentage of patients who had at least a 50% reduction in convulsive-seizure frequency was 43% with cannabidiol and 27% with placebo (odds ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 0.93 to 4.30; P=0.08). The patient’s overall condition improved by at least one category on the seven-category Caregiver Global Impression of Change scale in 62% of the cannabidiol group as compared with 34% of the placebo group (P=0.02). The frequency of total seizures of all types was significantly reduced with cannabidiol (P=0.03), but there was no significant reduction in nonconvulsive seizures. The percentage of patients who became seizure-free was 5% with cannabidiol and 0% with placebo (P=0.08). Adverse events that occurred more frequently in the cannabidiol group than in the placebo group included diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, pyrexia, somnolence, and abnormal results on liver-function tests. There were more withdrawals from the trial in the cannabidiol group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with the Dravet syndrome, cannabidiol resulted in a greater reduction in convulsive-seizure frequency than placebo and was associated with higher rates of adverse events. (Funded by GW Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02091375.) http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1611618 Muskegon mom hopes medical pot will save daughter, 5 Nina DeSarro, WZZMPublished 9:08 a.m. ET March 1, 2018 Can medical marijuana save Michigan girl? Could something so taboo, something the federal government doesn't recognize as containing medicinal value, be the cure for a 5-year-old girl in Muskegon? (Photo: WZZM) LeAnne Parker is a supermom. Between caring for her two daughters, her dogs and keeping up with her career, she does it all. “For four years my life was normal. My kids were normal. I knew nothing was wrong,” Parker said. That is until January 7, 2017 when her five-year-old daughter, Lily became unresponsive. “Her eyes just slowly start going to the right, almost like poltergeist, to the point where she turned her whole body until she was facing the shower which was behind her,” Parker said. In a panic, Parker immediately called an ambulance. “I didn’t know what to do, I just sat there and cried, I thought I was losing her, I just had the door open and I was just screaming for somebody to please help,” Parker remembered. Lily was taken to the hospital where doctors couldn't figure out what had happened. “They just said, 'if it happens again call us' and sent me home with no answers so we came home with no answers,” Parker said. Two weeks later, it happened again. And then again. “She did testing and testing and everybody said ‘I don’t know, just the brain is…welcome to the brain,’” Parker said. Finally in February, Lily received a diagnosis of epilepsy. “With two seizures that are unprovoked, you get the diagnosis of epilepsy.” She was immediately put on prescription medication, but the seizures continued. Lily had reached the maximum dosage possibly. “Now she’s failed all pharmaceuticals,” Parker said. Not only were the medications ineffective, her physical and mental state began to deteriorate. Five-year-old Lily was high, every day, her mom said. “I sent her to school the other day, and they called me and they said that she was tired. She was passing out. She fell asleep during circle,” Parker said. She picked Lily up from school after her teachers told her she was walking into walls. The only other option for Lily was brain surgery, if she would even qualify. “I thought, there has to be something else,” Parker said. Brain surgery could mean a loss of Lily’s peripheral vision. “And there’s a chance that it wouldn't even work, so then my daughter is partially blind and still has seizures, how do you make that choice for your kid, I don’t know,” Parker said. She would never be able to drive, never be able to play sports, that’s a really, really hard decision to make as a parent.” Desperate for another solution, Leanne found out about CBD, Cannabidiol. “I started doing my research so instead of doing all of my research about epilepsy, now I was doing all of my research about CBD oil and learning everything I possibly could to learn about the benefits of it,” Parker said. She went to a meeting in Grand Haven about medical marijuana’s use in treating epilepsy and from that point forward, she was going to give CBD a try. “It’s my daughter, so you can judge me. I feel like we live in a culture where it’s okay to pop Oxycontin, Vicodin and pain killers but we look at CBD oil like it’s awful, I don’t understand that,” Parker said. Nervous, Leanne approached her daughter’s neurologist with the idea. “I brought it up to my doctor hoping and praying that he was on board with it and a lot of people aren’t I’m lucky that I found a doctor that is, because if he wasn’t, I’d have to do it behind his back,” Parker said. Weeks later, she received Lily’s medical marijuana license in the mail. “The sad part is, there’s no doctor to talk to and that is the most frustrating part with me, because I’m like ‘okay I’m on board I want to do this, how, where, what do I do, how do I go about it and how do I even know how to dose my daughter?’” Parker said. Through her research, she found Bloom. The Ann Arbor based medical marijuana facility that offers doctor/patient consulting. “I wish this was option one before the pharmaceuticals, I wish I would have tried this first,” Parker said. It’s still a little too early today, but it’s been 25 days seizure free for Lily. “I am not hopping on a bandwagon of medical marijuana, I’m jumping off of the pharmaceutical bandwagon,” Parker said. So far, this is the longest Lily has gone without having a seizure since July of 2017. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/03/01/muskegon-medical-marijuana-leanna-parker/384280002/

LANSING, MI - It was chilly on the morning of Dec. 15., but Michigan State Police stood outside a state office building. They were there for safety, ready, as the Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulation opened its doors, for some applicants to show up with the $6,000 application fee in cash. Michigan lawmakers authorized a new medical marijuana industry in 2016, and the state began accepting applications to be a part of it on Dec. 15, 2017. But businesses seeking inclusion are already running into a roadblock: banks won't take their money. "It's not that banks don't want to. It becomes a very significant risk," said Patricia Herndon, senior vice president of government affairs for the Michigan Bankers Association. Michigan created a $837M medical marijuana industry with nowhere to put its cash Updated Feb 14, 7:46 AM; Posted Feb 14, 7:45 AM By Emily Lawler elawler@mlive.com Federally, marijuana is considered a Schedule I substance, a category that means the government considers it to have no medical use and a high potential for addiction. The revenue from a state-authorized medical or recreational marijuana business can potentially be viewed as drug money by the federal government. In Michigan, medical marijuana is legal and its industry is projected to expand rapidly. A House Fiscal Agency analysis of the bill lawmakers approved projected it would grow to $837 million annually. As of Feb. 2 there were already 146 businesses who have submitted prequalifications with the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation, and another 618 had started the online application process. But without being able to rely on basic banking services, those medical marijuana business owners are struggling with how to remain above-board. Paul Samways, an accountant with Cannabis Accounting, said he's currently going out to clients to count their cash. And when the businesses start operating under the new scheme, it only gets more complicated if they can't cut checks or store money. "These guys aren't hiding stuff in their mattress, they want to be above-board, they want to make sure everybody knows what's going on, they want to pay their taxes... how do you do it without a bank account?" Samways asked. Banks shy away from marijuana money Acting as a bank for a medical marijuana business was a thorny issue to begin with, and one that's gotten more difficult in wake of a memo issued by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions last month. Banks that want to handle medical marijuana business money have to do a lot of due diligence at a high upfront cost to ensure compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering rules, Herndon said. But on Jan. 4, Sessions repealed an Obama-era policy known as the Cole memo, which instructed federal prosecutors since 2013 not to prioritize the enforcement of federal anti-marijuana laws in some instances where states had their own marijuana laws on the books. Now, federal prosecutors are using their discretion on the enforcement of federal marijuana laws. Sessions policy shift on marijuana could have implications for Michigan "That rescission adds even greater uncertainty to this," Herndon said. "I will say that they continue to look at this, there's been no declaration from the U.S. district attorney that there's going to be an active force in that direction." Before that move, there had been an uptick nationally in banks serving the medical marijuana industry. According to a report from the federal Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, 400 financial institutions were banking with marijuana businesses in September of 2017, which represented steady growth. And some states have found ways around needing buy-in from financial institutions. In Hawaii, state officials collaborated with a cashless service called CanPay and Safe Harbor Private Banking, a marijuana-specific financial institution, to let medical marijuana businesses handle transactions. In Maryland and Florida, banks have quietly popped up to fill the void. But Florida's bank is backing out now. With Michigan's industry coming online at the same time banks are grappling with the Sessions memo, it's not clear any financial institutions will rush to fill the void. Samways looked into the possibility of starting a state-chartered credit union that would accept medical marijuana money a few years ago. The problem he ran into, he said, was that he couldn't get a master account in the federal reserve without compromising the medical marijuana money. "What happens is if you don't have a federal reserve master account, you can't cash checks or take debit cards or transfer money into the money super-highway," he said. As of now, Herndon said, no Michigan bank has publicly come forward as accepting medical marijuana money. Lawmakers look for solutions Rep. Klint Kesto, R-Commerce Twp., is the sponsor of House Bill 5144, which was signed into law last month. It makes several refinements to the medical marijuana law the state passed in December of 2016. Among the changes, it specifies that an accountant or financial institution providing services to someone licensed under the Medical Marihuana Act wouldn't be subject to penalties. Kesto said the intent was not to hold banks accountable for providing somebody with their banking records. "Because in order to apply for a license you have to go and get your banking records. So if you went to the teller or the clerk or whoever was going to assist you, then we don't want to subject them to any criminal laws that then may be out there. We specifically codify that," Kesto said. The same idea applies to certified public accountants, he said. To apply for a license to be a medical marijuana grower, processer, tester, transporter or dispensary, applicants have to prove they meet a capital requirement, which is often dependent on financial records. It's CPAs who provide an attestation that applicants have met those requirements. And that's just for the application process. But when marijuana businesses actually start pulling in money, they'll run into another problem, one Kesto acknowledges. Where are they supposed to store it? "I think that it makes a lot of people nervous. I bet the people who have to hold that cash are nervous, because that makes them a target as well," Kesto said. "Law enforcement is probably nervous because they have to enforce the laws if there's theft, or robberies, or what have you. So I think that we have to be cognizant of that." Rep. Pete Lucido, R-Shelby Twp., is looking to answer that with House Joint Resolution CC, which would create a state bank capable of handling money from marijuana businesses. Without some kind of solution, he said, Michigan would have a huge industry that basically lacked the ability to put its revenue back into the economy. Right now, he said, people could get stuck keeping it in mattresses and coffee cans. "What other safe harbor do we have? If the banks can't touch the proceeds and the credit unions can't touch the proceeds from the sale of marijuana, then what do we leave those that are in the business that are regulated by the state as it relates to licensing? Even the labs that test it would be barred from putting the proceeds into the bank or credit union because it violates federal law," Lucido said. So far, Lucido said, South Dakota is the only other state with a state bank. South Dakonta authorized it close to 100 years ago and don't have medical marijuana. But Michigan has a chance to open their own and be a leader, he said. He doesn't necessarily think a state bank competing with private banking services is a good idea. But right now, it's what he's got. "I would surely think that if the banking industry and credit union industry have an alternative, they can sure knock on my door and give it to me," Lucido said. Magnitude of problem could grow with legalization Try as state lawmakers might, it's not clear that they have the power to address the issue, at least through regular banks. "Very little can be done at this point, at the state level, to impact the prohibitions and the obstacles that are put into place that are keeping us from jumping into this," Herndon said. Right now the state's talking about a potentially $837 million medical marijuana industry with banking issues. But if a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana for adult use passes, even more businesses and more dollars could have trouble accessing traditional banking systems. Josh Hovey, a spokesperson for the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, the group pushing for legalization, said based off what other states have experienced, "We're thinking that once the market is fully established that Michigan could be generating anywhere from $100 million to $200 million a year in tax revenue." That's a lot of money to think about collecting from a cash-only business. But he's hopeful Congress will broker a federal solution. "I think it's something that Congress is starting to look at and realizing that there's a whole lot of money out there that the IRS needs to be collecting, that state governments need to be collecting," Hovey said. But absent that - or any potential state action - Michigan's marijuana industry will likely be a cash one. http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/02/michigan_created_a_837m_medica.html

BUSTED: Forfeiture Laws Encourage Policing For Profit By Charmie Gholson Published Fall 2010 The Midwest Cultivator Ed Boyke, a former General Motors employee who served in the Navy, became disabled in 1996 after undergoing two brain surgeries due to a tumor and epilepsy. Boyke was approved for medical marijuana due to severe sciatica due to a pinched nerve. He was diagnosed by the Mayo clinic in Minnesota and is caregiver for himself and for one additional patient. On April 15, Boyke stepped outside of his Saginaw Township home and was surrounded by Saginaw County Sheriff’s deputies and U.S. DEA Agents. With weapons drawn, they served Boyke with a federal warrant to search his residence, based on confidential information that he had violated marijuana laws. They handcuffed Boyke while they executed the warrant. The DEA agents surveyed his home, said they wouldn’t pursue the case and left. The Saginaw County sheriffs department stayed to “see if he’d broken any state laws,” and according to Boyke, “started tearing the place apart.” They smashed his grow operation and a humidifier, dumped out dresser drawers and emptied closets in two rooms. They taunted him about who he voted for in the last presidential election. When the officers left, they took with them: two lawn mowers, a leaf blower, an air compressor and generator from his garage, his 2008 Chevy Impala, $62 from his wallet, his marijuana plants, hunting rifles and ammo, his harvested marijuana, Boyke’s medical marijuana card and paperwork, a generator, a paint sprayer, a dehumidifier, growing apparatuses, scales and a 42-inch Panasonic TV. “They asked me for the key to my girlfriend’s car too, but I didn’t have it,” he says. “They told me I was lucky ‘cause they would have taken that too.” The deputies returned the next day and asked Boyke how much money he had. “When they came back the next day threatening to take a lien on my house,” Boyke recalls, “I called this one lawyer, Tom Frank in Saginaw and asked him about the $5,000 they wanted from me. He said, ‘I’ll run over and talk to them.’” Frank didn’t call him Boyke back; instead the detectives called and asked if he had the money. “I was worried because they were threatening to take my house,” he says. “That Sheriff said ‘Make sure it’s cash, then we’ll bring your stuff back.’” Boyke gave them $5,000 in cash, and they returned his car, the lawn mowers, leaf blower and air compressor but they didn’t return his TV or rifles. He says everything except the car was old junk from the garage. One of the rifles, however, was a present and heirloom. Boyke’s wife passed away at the age of 36 and the rifle had been a gift from her father. He says he pleaded with the department to return, “ just that rifle, but they told me, ‘your guns are gone.’” “They didn’t give me a receipt,” he says. “I had to go down and get that myself.” The receipt is for storage and impound charges. Michigan forfeiture laws require contesting property owners to file a claim with the county clerk within 20 days of a seizure, a copy of the claim with the prosecutor’s office, and pay a bond, ranging between $250 and $5,000, which is reimbursed if they appear in court. When Boyke learned this, and after reading in the paper that he had received legal advice prior to paying his “impound and storage” charges, he was furious. He hadn’t received legal advice. He drove to Franks' office. “Frank told me he didn’t tell the sheriff he was my lawyer,” Boyke says, “but Frank could have told me I had twenty days, the detectives could have told me, I would have disputed it, but they didn’t tell me bunny muffin. I don’t know those laws, I’m not a lawyer, and that lawyer never called me back.” Saginaw County Sheriff’s Detective Sgt. Randy F. Pfau told the Saginaw times that no one forced Boyke to pay for the return of the items. Property owners “have every right to take it to a formal hearing with a judge,” Pfau said. “By coming in and paying that $5,000, he’s waiving that right.” Saginaw County Sheriff William L Federspiel says medical marijuana users are not his department’s targets. “I wish we could just say, ‘Hey, this guy’s got a card, don’t even bother with it,’ but unfortunately we don’t have that option,” Federspiel told The Saginaw News. “So we follow through, because you know what, it’s still against the law, unless you have the medical marijuana card.” But Boyke did have a medical marijuana and caregiver card, until police confiscated it during the raid. Pfau also said it is department protocol for deputies to destroy or seize all marijuana-growing related items when they perform a search or seizure at a suspected grow operation. Federspiel maintains the department’s investigation indicated Boyke was in violation of the law, illegally possessed marijuana and was thereby subject to forfeiture law. To date, however, Boyke has not been charged with any crime. According to Michigan state forfeiture laws, he may never be. GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT Michigan’s civil asset forfeiture laws are some of the most egregious in the country. In March 2010, The Institute for Justice released Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture, the most comprehensive national study to examine the use and abuse of civil asset forfeiture, and the first study to grade the civil forfeiture laws in all 50 states and the federal government. Only three states receive a B or better. Michigan received the lowest score possible: D-. Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent. The report chronicles how state and federal laws leave innocent property owners vulnerable to forfeiture abuse. These laws encourage law enforcement to take property to boost their budgets. The report finds that by giving law enforcement a direct financial stake in forfeiture efforts, most state and federal laws encourage policing for profit, not justice. In Michigan, law enforcement receives all proceeds of civil forfeiture to enhance law enforcement efforts, creating an incentive to pursue forfeiture more vigorously than combating other criminal activity. The report says Michigan multi-jurisdictional task forces work extensively with district attorneys and police departments to forfeit property, resulting in more than $149 million in total forfeiture revenue from 2001 to 2008. Americans accused of using drugs also have much to fear from informants, such as the “concerned citizen” that tipped police to Ed Boyke’s “illegal activity.” Asset forfeiture laws allow police to seize money and property from anyone merely accused of drug activity. In 2007, Saginaw Sheriffs and Prosecutors reported earning $53,797 net proceeds from their multijurisdictional drug task forces, like the ones who raided Boyke. 2008 proceeds totaled $75,598.

Michigan bills would allow medical marijuana dispensaries, edibles that courts prohibitedhttp://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/12/michigan_bills_would_allow_med.html LANSING, MI -- Michigan's medical marijuana law would be updated to allow for dispensaries and edible products under legislation debated Thursday in a state House committee. Legal experts who testified in support of the bills said they are appropriate responses to recent court decisions that limited the voter-approved law, and patients argued that they need easier access to various forms of the drug. Still, the proposals face an uncertain future in the state Legislature, which has generally moved to tighten medical marijuana regulations since the successful 2008 ballot proposal. House Bill 4271, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville, would let communities decide whether they want to allow dispensaries. Medical marijuana storefronts had operated in Michigan until a February ruling by the state Supreme Court forced them to close. "Local control will allow cities, townships and villages to regulate the level they feel most comfortable with," Callton said in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. "And for those communities who feel it is inappropriate, it allows them to opt out all together." Under Callton's bill, municipalities also could require dispensaries to test their medical marijuana for quality, purity and contaminants -- or contract with a "safety compliance facility" to do so. Patients would be prohibited from using the drug on premises. The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act does not specifically reference dispensaries, providing the basis for the state Supreme Court ruling, but patients who had obtained their medications from such facilities said they made it easier to obtain safe products in forms that suited their needs. John Targowski, a Kalamazoo-area attorney who helped write the city's charter amendment that made marijuana the lowest possible priority for local police, has been a wheelchair user since suffering a spinal cord injury in 1999. He testified that he uses medical marijuana to treat pain and post-traumatic stress disorder. Dispensaries, he said, had offered him access to a variety of marijuana oils and edibles that he was able to use in a professional environment. "I go to court. I meet clients. And sometimes, particularly if it's in the day, if I need medicine I don't want to be knocked out and high," Targowski said. "The ability to pick and choose and experiment within the types of strains and products gives greater leeway to people like me who go to work everyday in a suit." Ann Arbor City Attorney Steven Postema, who helped write that city's medical marijuana ordinances, testified in support of the dispensary bill as a means to improve the state law, which he called the "worst" in the country. He challenged lawmakers to "do the right thing" rather than deferring to the Supreme Court decision. "It's a second step to the Medical Marihuana Act," he said. "It's not legalization. It's not forcing a community to have a dispensary, but it will be that next step to take dispensaries out of the legal limbo they are in now." House Bill 5104, sponsored by state Rep. Eileen Kowall, would update the medical marijuana law to clarify that multiple parts of the plant -- including dried leaves, resin and extracts -- can be eaten or otherwise used by patients. The Michigan Court of Appeals, in a July decision, ruled that "pot brownies" are not a usable form of marijuana under the medical law, essentially prohibiting non-smokable forms of the drug, including topical creams, drops and edibles. An appeal request has been filed with the Michigan Supreme Court. "Smoking obviously delivers harmful substances to the respiratory system," said Kowall. "The community of marijuana patients and caregivers in Michigan desperately needs alternative delivery methods." Rebecca Brown, founder of the Pediatric Cannabis Therapy Group, testified that edible marijuana is the most effective treatment method she's found for her son, who suffers from a rare disorder that causes frequent seizures. "This is a deadly disease. It's a genetic mutation. He'll never outgrow it," said Brown, noting that her son once suffered a seizure that lasted 40 minutes but is doing well on medical marijuana. "I am asking you, please, don't let parents live that, please." Sen. Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw Township, also testified in support of his proposal that would allow the state to regulate large-scale growing facilities and sell medical marijuana through pharmacies in the event the federal government reclassifies the drug. Senate Bill 660, approved in the upper chamber last month, would not replace the state's caregiver-patient model, Kahn said, but would provide patients with the option to access carefully tested and consistently dosed medicine. Former state House Speaker Chuck Perricone, now working for Prairie Plant Systems Inc. of Canada, helped write the bill and answered questions from lawmakers on Thursday. The bio-pharmaceutical company has been Canada's primary medical marijuana provider for more than a decade and already owns a facility in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Committee Chairman Kevin Cotter, R-Mt. Pleasant, took roughly an hour and a half of testimony on the bills before ending the hearing to allow members to attend a scheduled House session. A second hearing is scheduled for Tuesday morning in Lansing.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Aug. 1, 2013 State Rep. Mike Shirkey will host a citizen town hall event in Jackson County on Aug. 14 to help create a public dialogue on drug enforcement strategies and policy. Shirkey said the debate needs to happen, based on both the citizen initiative that legalized medicinal marijuana and the introduction of legislation such as House Bill 4623, which would impose fines instead of jail time for the possession of small amounts of recreational marijuana. "Michigan citizens expect and demand that we strive to balance the needs of personal freedom, public safety, pain management and a host of other factors as we determine how to best spend the people's tax dollars," said Shirkey, R-Clarklake. "Are we forcing law enforcement to police and jail recreational marijuana users instead of using time and money that should be going to battle our meth lab epidemic? Are we limiting reasonable options to end-of-life pain management by putting excessive restrictions on medicinal marijuana? Those are questions that politicians, law enforcement, and most importantly the general public, need to actively discuss and answer." The town hall, which is free and open to the public, takes place from 5-7 p.m. at the Grass Lake Township Hall, 373 Lakeside Drive. Shirkey is inviting several people to speak and is hopeful for a large turnout, regardless of people's position on the issue. State Rep. Jeff Irwin, the author of HB 4623, will attend as will former prosecutor James Gierach, a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). Seventeen states have some type of marijuana decriminalization laws on the books, according to LEAP, and the organization said they were interested in coming to the Jackson area in part because of a local petition drive addressing decriminalization. "My time working with law enforcement as a Cook County prosecutor and municipal attorney showed me firsthand how frequently we are turning average citizens into criminals and not spending enough time tracking down and dealing with the true bad guys in this equation," Gierach said. "You can be both tough and appropriate with drug enforcement once you start to differentiate and realize the serious downsides of a one-size-fits-all policy. We've already seen that with alcohol and prohibition, and I think we're going to see that very soon with recreational marijuana use as well." People with questions may call Rep. Shirkey's office at (517) 373-1775. Gierach will also be making himself available for private meetings with interested public officials by appointment, and can be reached through the LEAP offices at (315) 243-5844.

Going Live at 8:00 p.m. EST February 7, 2013 8-10 p.m. 13473269626 dial 1 to get on the air Guests: We are honored to have returning and taking care of unfinished business from last week: Power House Attorney Neil Rockind, aka the Rockweiler joins us again to discuss and analyze P v, Green (holding patient to patient transfers where no money is exchange is protected from arrest and prosecution). Additionally we will take a look at 2 other recent COA opinions regarding medical cannabis: P v. Hinzman (perjury case) and P v. Hill (warrantless search of a home-emergency exception) Dan Riffle attorney and legislative analyst for Marijuana Policy Project. (MPP) Representative Mike Callton ® Nashville MI Also we will be revisiting some of the important cases still pending in the Judicial system that will have an impact on the interpretation of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act. On the Agenda: Robert Redden, Barb Agro, People v. McQueen, People v. Jeff Ellis (Bad Axe), Marshall Alternatives. Also on the agenda for discussion: Everything that is Cannabis or Medical Cannabis related Brought to you by: Our Regular Group of Community Entertainment. Your host: Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law 18006563557 Regular guests: Chad from the Birmingham Compassion Club, Jamie Lowell of Third Coast Compassion Center, Rick Thompson-Editor and Chief of the Compassion Chronicles- reporting on news events, Canna-Miracles our very own Gold Cup Winner. Thanks to Purnell Jameson and Greg Pawlowski for producing tonight’s show. Tonight's Show Sponsored By: MMMA: michiganmedicalmarijuana.org Thanks to all the moderators especially Q tipper! Komorn Law - Atty Michael Komorn (800) 656-3557- The Med Joint Community Compassion Center - Oshtemo, MI Kevin Spitler http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees/2013/02/08/planet-green-trees-episode-133-green-money-and-the-industry

http://www.huffingto...b_2330021.html� Last week, Michigan's leaders passed a number of bills in a marathon lame-duck session, scrambling to push through controversial legislation behind closed doors late into the night. The bills included several amendments to Michigan's Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), in addition to an Emergency Financial Manager bill which was previously rejected by Michigan voters just over a month ago. The medical marijuana bills passed include provisions that: - Restrict how medical marijuana is transported, potentially creating a new crime - Dictate workers' compensation or auto insurance coverage for medical marijuana - Continue to attack the doctor-patient relationship, discouraging additional potential doctors from participating - Encourage outdoor growth without addressing concerns of additional protections - Disqualify some current, approved caregivers after previous long-term patient relationships These stipulations do nothing to protect patients or caregivers, and seem aimed at creating more medical marijuana-related arrests. Requiring a specific location for transport is absurd, and shows politicians do not recognize the medicinal benefits of marijuana, continuing to treat it as an illegal drug. Must you take the same precaution when picking up antibiotics or heartburn medication, locking it in the trunk and disallowing any passengers? These new bills are a step back for Michigan and the MMMA. If legislators want to make a difference, it starts elsewhere than the Act. The program's $16.7 million surplus, according to the Senate Fiscal Agency, should be used to teach and retrain police agencies on new policies and procedures regarding medical marijuana. Patients and caregivers have created this surplus, they should benefit directly from it. Several months ago, I spoke at a House Judiciary Committee Hearing, providing perspective on patients and medical marijuana. The goal then, as it remains now, is to change the perception of medical marijuana and increase patient safety, not leave them open for more scrutiny and harassment. Legislators need to accept medical marijuana, its benefits, and understand that their constituents overwhelmingly approved its legality. Medical marijuana needs to be added as a provision to the Public Health Code, rather than viewed as an exception to criminal behavior in limited circumstances. Legislators have seemingly caused more stress, fear and anguish for the very people who put them in office. The passing of the MMMA was an historic day for Michigan and a huge victory for those seeking a natural, legal remedy for their ailments. The continued attacks of the Act endangers Michigan residents and is an ill-fated attempt to over-regulate and destroy its original intent, which is to provide patients with the relief they seek through the use of medicinal cannabis. Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) (855) 456-6676: (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD. Attorney Michael Komorn’ practice specializes in Medical Marihuana representation. He is the President of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), a nonprofit patient advocacy group with over 26,000 members, which advocates for medical marihuana patients, and caregiver rights. He is also an experienced defense attorney successfully representing many wrongfully accused medical marihuana patients and caregivers

Great Show last night- we had the world renowned leading specialist in the human cannabinoid system Dr. William Courtney. If you want to learn about the health benefits of Raw Juicing the cannabis plant, this is the show you want to listen to. (Dr. Courtney and the Medical Cannabis Communities favorite Legislature Representative Callton will be speaking tonight Friday 10 12 12 at the Genesys Conference and Banquet Center, 801 Health Park Boulevard, Grand Blanc township, MI 48439). Also calling in was Stephanie Sherer, the executive director of ASA. A longtime activist in the medical cannabis community, she provided many details to the upcoming challenge filed by ASA against the Federal Governments schedule 1 classification of marijuana. A special thanks to our in studio staff and other callers who participated in this informative and exciting show: Jamie Lowell, Peanut Butter, Greg Palowski, Pernell, Q tipper, Rick Thompson, Chad Carr, Kevin Spitler, Charme Gholson. Planet Green Trees is sponsored by” the Michigan Medical Marihuana Association-.michiganmedicalmarijuana.org and Komorn Law-18006563557. The archive to this episode can be found here: http://www.blogtalkr...am-l-courtney-s Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

Author presents 150 beneficial and healthful uses of marijuana http://www.digitaljo...l.com/pr/896120 VANCOUVER, B.C. (PRWEB) September 22, 2012 “Living happier, healthier and longer lives are ultimate rewards with consuming natural marijuana plant components,” explains Joseph W. Jacob. It is with this sentiment he pens his new book “Medical Uses of Marijuana” (published by Trafford Publishing). Jacob describes more than 150 beneficial and healthful uses of marijuana plants, from the dawn of recorded history until today. “Conversely, drinking alcohol produces more than 150 destructive medical harms to human bodies,” he observes. “It’s not democratically fair to encourage harmful food products for people to consume, while legally prohibiting the public from consuming a healthful and nutritional product.” Thoroughly researched and documented, “Medical Uses of Marijuana” also discusses discriminatory government laws allowing public ingestion of alcohol, while prohibiting helpful uses of marihuana, and the process by which marijuana uses became illegal due to taxation laws. “Medical Uses of Marijuana” seeks to provide the truth about the loss of beneficial public uses of what Jacob describes is a natural and helpful plant. About the Author Joseph W. Jacob attended Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia, double-majoring in Economics and Commerce. Afterwards, he graduated from the University of Victoria, a sister school of the Harvard School of Public Administration, earning a Master’s Degree in Public Administration. After graduation, Jacob worked as an analyst, researcher and ergonomic specialist with the British Columbia Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services for 15 years. This is his third book. Trafford Publishing, an Author Solutions, Inc. author services imprint, was the first publisher in the world to offer an “on-demand publishing service,” and has led the independent publishing revolution since its establishment in 1995. Trafford was also one of the earliest publishers to utilize the Internet for selling books. More than 10,000 authors from over 120 countries have utilized Trafford’s experience for self publishing their books. For more information about Trafford Publishing, or to publish your book today, call 1-888-232-4444 or visit trafford.com. ### Read the full story at http://www.prweb.com...rweb9928892.htm Read more: http://www.digitaljo...0#ixzz27C4I1r5x Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

Planet Green Trees episode 112 –Juicing Raw Cannabis September 20 2012 8-10 p.m. 13473269626 dial 1 to get on the air Special Guests: Ken Beyer from Michigan Testing Authority Kevin Spitler from The MedJoint Walter Sbresny from Kalkaska Brad Forrester Cheboygan Norml We will be discussing the benefits of juicing raw cannabis. Ken Beyer from Michigan Testing Authority has been studying the raw juice, and Kevin Spitler from The MedJoint and others will discuss their experiences and feedback from the patients juicing raw cannabis . Also tonight Walter Sbresny from Kalkaska will discuss his efforts to expose his county's Sherriff for not properly taking his oath of office, and Brad Forrester will give us a re-cap on yesterday's rally in Lansing. Your host: Attorney Michael Komorn of KomornLaw 18006563557 Regular guests: Chad from the Birmingham Compassion Club, Jamie Lowell of Third Coast Compassion Center, Rick Thompson reporting on news events. Tonight's Show Sponsored By: MMMA: michiganmedicalmarijuana.org Thanks to all the moderators especially Q tipper! Komorn Law - Atty Michael Komorn (800) 656-3557-Green Thumb Garden Center 2484391851. Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

Findings inspire medical pot researcher Victoria Colliver Published 5:27 p.m., Tuesday, September 18, 2012 http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Findings-inspire-medical-pot-researcher-3875582.php The therapeutic uses of cannabis have long been a focus of research for Dr. Donald Abrams, UCSF professor and chief of the hematology-oncology division at San Francisco General Hospital. Abrams wrote a study last year on the combination of cannabinoids - the main ingredient in cannabis or medical marijuana - and pain drugs. Abrams talks about the preclinical work by the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute and other research on cancer and cannabis, 16 years after California became the first state to legalize medical marijuana. Q: Is it difficult, due to stigma or the political climate, to do research on the therapeutic benefits of cannabis? A: The only way you can get cannabis to do research in this county is through the National Institute on Drug Abuse, or NIDA, and it's clear the congressional mandate is to study the substance for abuse rather than for treatment. It started in 1997 in HIV research when we studied whether it was safe to inhale cannabis while on protease inhibitors. The next study was through the UC Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research in 1999, when the state budget surplus allowed the state to devote $3 million for three years of studies to demonstrate whether cannabis had medical use. The funding enabled a number of studies and NIDA supplied the cannabis, but that money ran out. If this plant were discovered in the Amazon today, scientists would be falling all over each other to be the first to bring it to market. But it has a stigma, and it's being attacked by our government as part of the war on drugs. Q: What kind of research are you doing now? A: We did a study in patients with HIV who had damage to their nerves. We showed inhaling cannabis was better than inhaling a cannabis placebo for relieving those symptoms and that vaporization of cannabis was equivalent to smoking. The last study we did, which was again funded by NIDA, was looking to see if it was safe to combine cannabis with opiates - sustained-release morphine and sustained-release oxycodone. It was a small study ... but we did note patients had increased relief of pain when cannabinoids were added to the opiates. Q: What do you think of the research being done on triple-negative breast cancer cells at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute? A: The data is promising and it's elegant, but the true test is now really going to be to do some clinical trials in the patient population that (the researchers) think is correct to study at this time, which is patients with triple negative breast cancer. But at this time I would not tell my triple-negative patients to go out and look at taking high cannabidiol-containing cannabis products. We need to do the research. What happens in the test tube or even in animal models does not necessarily predict what happens in people. People are much more complex. Q: What do you think about the University of Southern California study released last week that found a link between the recreational use of marijuana among young men and testicular cancer? A: Young men use cannabis and get cancer. If they looked at video games and riding bicycles, that might also be associated. Is there an epidemic of testicular cancer in Jamaica where Rastafarians use cannabis religiously? I think that's all a trick of numbers, personally. Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

A pioneer speaks out http://metrotimes.com/mmj/a-pioneer-speaks-out-1.1374920 Irvin Rosenfeld signs copies of his book with one of his U.S. cannabis supply cans nearby. By Larry Gabriel PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 Irvin Rosenfeld is one of the four surviving federal medical marijuana patients. There were once 13 of them, and Rosenfeld has been receiving his allotment longer than any of the other survivors. He gets a canister with about 300 rolled marijuana cigarettes from the government every 25 days. Instructions printed on the can instruct the patient to smoke 12 of them each day. Rosenfeld, who has a bone disease called multiple congenital cartilaginous exostosis, which causes tumors to grow on the long bones of his body, was in Michigan last week to lobby the state Legislature on pending bills that will affect medical cannabis patients and their access to their medicine. He also spoke at a Downriver Community Compassion Club (DCCC) meeting held at Donovan VFW Hall in Dearborn Heights and sold a few copies of his 2010 book, My Medicine: How I convinced the U.S. government to provide my marijuana and helped launch a national movement. It was a heck of a meeting for the 60 or so attendees, who also got to hear from Hiedi Handford, publisher of the Montana Connect (a medical cannabis publication), and Dan Solano, a former Detroit police officer and member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Solano gave a status rundown on 11 pending bills in the state Legislature. Rosenfeld was clearly the star of the evening. He began with: "I'm going to thank each and every one of you for paying for my medicine." That's because the cannabis he receives for free from the government is paid for by our tax dollars. Rosenfeld was diagnosed with more than 200 bone tumors when he was 10 years old and was told that he probably would not live through his teen years. He suffered severe pain and pain-related insomnia, had several operations over time to remove tumors that got in the way of normal activities. After one operation to remove tumors from his leg he had to learn to walk again. He was prescribed drugs from alcohol and methaqualone (qualudes) to Demerol, valium and morphine. During high school, he became an anti-drug activist arguing against the use of marijuana and other recreational drugs. It was during his freshman year of college in 1971 that Rosenfeld gave in to peer pressure and tried marijuana. It didn't get him high — it still doesn't — but within a few weeks he realized after smoking that he'd been able to sit still for a half-hour while playing chess. Normally after about 10 minutes the tension in his legs forced him to get up and move around. He also realized that he hadn't taken a pill in six hours — a long time for him in those days. Rosenfeld began researching marijuana and found out that it had once been used in tincture form to treat muscle tension, inflammation and pain. Well, one thing led to the next and soon Rosenfeld was puffing away on a daily basis and watching his health improve while taking fewer of the pills he had been prescribed. He stopped smoking to see what would happen. His health declined. He went back to smoking and got better. "It was now very clear to me that cannabis was a great medicine and that I had to have it," he wrote in My Medicine. Rosenfeld became an activist and many of his activities are chronicled in his book, including his 10-year bureaucratic and legal battle for government-issued marijuana. But his appearance at the DCCC meeting was more about what's happening now. He specifically criticized Senate Bill 977, sponsored by Sen. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge), which would take glaucoma off the registry as a medical marijuana qualifying disorder. Studies have shown that cannabis use decreases intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients. It should be used in combination with prescribed eye drops to make the medication more effective. However some medical marijuana patients stopped using their prescribed medication, which can lead to problems. Several times during the meeting, speakers exhorted attendees to lobby their representatives, and there was contact information available at the meeting for anybody interested in doing so. "Every phone call you make counts 20 times," Rosenfeld says. "That's how seriously legislators take those calls." SB17 would prevent the formation of medicinal marijuana clubs and SB377 would make MMMA registry information available to law enforcement officers. There are more but I'm not going to detail them all in this column. They were supposed to come up for a vote on Sept. 11 but didn't. "At this time Jones doesn't have the votes," says Solano, who opined that activists need to stay in contact with their representatives on these issues in order to keep Jones from lining up enough votes to pass these bills. Most folks watching the machinations of government and marijuana believe that reclassifying marijuana from the prohibitive Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 or 3 is on its way, and that pharmaceutical companies have cannabis-based drugs in the pipeline to take advantage of that change. Rosenfeld said he'd rather see total cannabis declassification, which would take it out of the hands of government and big pharma entirely. Although his focus is on medical marijuana, he supports the folks who got the question of legalizing possession of 1 ounce or less by adults on private property in Detroit onto the fall ballot. "I'm all about getting medicine into the hands of patients," says Rosenfeld. "That would definitely get medicine into the hands of patients." Handford, who works with a number of medical cannabis organizations across the country, also spent a couple of days lobbying in Lansing. "Sen. Jones is not our friend," she says. "When you walk into legislative offices to lobby you cannot be emotional. When you get in there get straight to it and to the point. Don't ever give up." She also told patients and caregivers that they should experiment with all parts of the plant — leaves, stems and roots. "Grind them up, extract them; let's have zero waste in this industry." I was impressed with the DCCC and how much business they seemed to get done at the meeting. They leave the growing classes to others and focus on protecting their rights. The club just received its federal 501©(3) nonprofit status, which made the $300 winning auction bid for one of Rosenfeld's supply cans tax deductible. The club took care of business, got all their speakers up (there were no problems with the sound system), ran an auction and a raffle, took questions from the audience, and called for lobbying action from the membership. If all clubs ran with such judicious dispatch the political end of the medical marijuana movement would be in very good care. I was also impressed with Rosenfeld, who left us with these words of wisdom: "I always want to push the envelope as far as you can. But don't push it until you get arrested. If you go to jail your family goes on welfare and that's not good for anybody. As far as I'm concerned, cannabis is the fountain of youth." Maybe it is. One guy in the crowd announced that he'd been smoking cannabis since 1948. He didn't look that old.

Time to DEBUNK - Commentary: Medical Marijuana – Time for Parents to Step In Everything about this commentary is slanted and one sided toward the atypical uninformed law enforcement point of view. Obviously expressing the worst side of medical cannabis, possible isolated incidents or exaggerated situations. I posted this in an effort to debunk the commentary, and utilize the insight of this community to respond to this rhetoric. Please help by adding your comments, research and input to this thread with the ultimate goal of responding to the propaganda offered from this commentary. The challenge here is to address the premise of the concerns raised: "THE CHILDREN"- if you look back over the last 4 years, the opponents seem to pull this out in every debate or discussion. Well this needs to be addressed and debunked To allow this kind of rhetoric to go unanswered leaves Parents who are caregivers or patients, or who support medical cannabis in a vulnerable situation. For those interested in assisting, let us use this thread to debunk the rhetoric and paint a picture more accurate, honest and one that really addresses the issue. Here are a few topics to start with. 1. cities that have medical cannabis laws have consistently reported a drop in crimes. Stats needed... 2. The article addresses cannabis use among children, but fails to mention the prescription drug problem which statistics show is a much more widely abused drug, much more dangerous and on the rise amongst children and teens. (For example: 7 overdoses resulting in death for prescription drugs in livingston county high school this past year). ( stats needed ) Thank you in advance for any effort you can offer. http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/commentary-medical-marijuana-time-for-parents-to-step-in By TRI Ken Winters PhD and Amelia Arria PhD | September 11, 2012 | 1 Comment | Filed in Drugs, Legislation & Parenting To paraphrase a former First Lady, “What goes on in the White House is never as important as what goes on in your house.” As the evidence mounts of the negative effects of medical marijuana laws in various states, it’s even more important for parents to recognize that marijuana needs to be on their parenting radar screen. A Colorado study shows some of these impacts, where nearly 74 percent of a sample of teenagers receiving addiction treatment in that state told researchers they used medical marijuana that was recommended for someone else. This news should be of no surprise because increased availability of marijuana is highly associated with increased use. Studies have shown that marijuana is not a safe, benign drug. It’s a highly addictive drug. When smoked it contributes to pulmonary damage. It significantly impairs judgment, and is associated with poor performance in school. Its use has also been linked to contributions to impairment on important measures of life achievement, including physical and mental health, cognitive abilities, social life and career status. Marijuana is a drug that’s widely used by teens and young adults. Among teens aged 12 to 17, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, after several years of declines, current marijuana use increased in 2009 and again in 2010, to 7.4 percent of the population. Among young adults aged 18 to 25, almost 30 percent used marijuana in the past year, with almost 6.3 million young adult users in the past month. Marijuana use is now more prevalent among teens than cigarette smoking. Marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Moreover, the typical weed available to adolescents these days is so much more potent compared to the marijuana used by prior generations. This increased potency is particularly concerning in light of recent scientific findings that marijuana use deleteriously affects brain development, particularly in areas related to mood, reward, and learning. Medical marijuana laws have made parents’ jobs tougher, no doubt about it. Although the provisions of the statutes differ, as of early July medical marijuana statutes had been signed into law in 17 states and the District of Columbia. Parents are a mighty lobbying force – at the local, state and national levels – particularly when they act in groups. We are not suggesting that parents shouldn’t try to influence government at any one of these levels. But because governments move slowly and not always in everyone’s best interests, parents can (and should) influence what goes on in their households. Science will continue to inform the public and seek solutions. But as the constant in a child’s life – with protective instincts that can be brought out by science but not replaced – it’s the parents who are the first lines of defense for their children. Ken C. Winters, PhD & Amelia Arria, PhD Dr. Winters is the Associate Director, Dr. Arria the Scientific Director, of the Parents Translational Research Center (PTRC) of the Philadelphia-based Treatment Research Institute. The PTRC is a NIDA-funded Center dedicated to developing practical, science-based tools for parents and other caregivers faced with challenges related to adolescent substance abuse.

The Right & the Drug War – From the American Conservative Conservatives are the last prohibitionists, but that’s changing. By Anthony Gregory • September 12, 2012 http://www.theameric...t-the-drug-war/ Pat Robertson began publicly criticizing the drug war in December 2010, and he has become more vocal since. Unlike the vague critiques often heard from prominent figures—even Barack Obama has called the drug war a failure—Robertson’s insights have been precise, and consistent, and deeply-rooted. “We here in America make up 5 percent of the world’s population, but we make up 25 percent of jailed prisoners,” he noted in March, appearing genuinely moved by the issue. “I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat … alcohol,” he told the New York Times. Beyond the practical argument, Robertson sees the moral dimension: “I believe in working with the hearts of people, and not locking them up.” In light of his key role in the religious right, Robertson’s comments take on special significance. The man speaks to a particular strain of social conservatives, not straying from their rhetorical comfort zone even as he champions drug legalization for principled reasons. He even blames the left for a burgeoning police state: “Every time the liberals pass a bill—I don’t care what it involves—they stick criminal sanctions on it.” Should “theocons” adopt a more tolerant view on drugs, it would shake the entire right-wing on the issue. They would be the last prominent faction to demonstrate skepticism. The American right has long had its share of drug-war critics. William F. Buckley articulately defended legalization on a half-hour PBS special in 1996. George Will has often explained the unintended consequences of prohibition, although he still falls short of calling for decriminalization. Barry Goldwater expressed skepticism toward the criminal-justice approach. Neocons have either not cared much about drugs and other domestic matters or have sometimes embraced drug decriminalization as a nod to their social liberal side. Fusionist and libertarian-leaning conservatives have tended toward decriminalization. Right-wing talk radio, the information source for millions, has also featured many voices skeptical of drug laws, from the sensationalist Michael Savage to Jeffersonians like Mike Church. The common-sense center-right has often decried the futility of marijuana prohibition in particular. Missing in the conservative approach to the issue has been an understanding of the grave threats prohibition poses to the social institutions that cultural conservatives, including the Christian right, hold dear. If Robertson foreshadows a coming shift in the Silent Majority’s sentiments, this void will finally be filled. Despite the prominent critics among their ranks, everyday conservatives have consistently revealed themselves in polls as more hostile to decriminalization than liberals and moderates. A socially conservative turnaround on the issue would change everything. Just as many moralists who championed temperance turned against alcohol prohibition after seeing the social destruction it unleashed in the 1920s, today’s social conservatives could play a defining role in ending drug prohibition. The drug war embodies secular leviathan like few other government efforts. The federal anti-drug crusade began with Woodrow Wilson’s signing of the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1914, escalated with Franklin Roosevelt’s signing of the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937, and tyrannically expanded to cover previously legal psychedelics and other substances during Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Bill Clinton increased marijuana arrests and drug task force spending, greatly accelerating the Reagan-Bush drug war. Under Obama, the policies have once again enjoyed a boost: his 2009 stimulus bill included major hikes in drug enforcement spending that had dwindled under George W. Bush. If alcohol prohibition qualified as the progressives’ greatest domestic triumph in the early 20th century, drug prohibition has achieved even more as a usurpation of traditional morality and the social order. Constitutionalism, states’ rights, subsidiarity, community norms, traditional medicine, family authority, and the role of the church have all been violently pushed aside to wage an impossibly ambitious national project to control people in the most intimate of ways. For years, the federal DARE program encouraged children to rat out their parents for minor drug offenses, an intrusion into family life all too reminiscent of Soviet Russia. Prohibition-fueled gang warfare has not only inflicted violence upon the social fabric; the crime wave has also served as a rationale to weaken the very civil liberties that conservatives most cherish—particularly Second Amendment rights. Bloodshed on city streets attributed to the 1920s liquor trade spawned the National Firearms Act of 1934. Congress specifically targeted drug users in its Gun Control Act of 1968. The 1990 Crime Control Act focused on creating drug-free school zones, but semi-automatic rifles also came under its ambit. Even the 1993 Waco standoff, rationalized by the Clinton Justice Department as an anti-assault-weapons operation, started with search warrants dubiously directed at finding a meth lab. In the 1980s drugs had served as the excuse to carve out exceptions to the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act forbidding military involvement in domestic law enforcement. The radicalized grassroots patriots in the post-Cold War 1990s who saw national police power as a threat to their liberty, their guns, and their families should have recognized America’s drug laws as a principal culprit. Today drug money finances not just domestic gangs but foreign thugs as well. In the last decade many reporters have commented on how opium profits have enriched the Taliban—a nearly unavoidable result of America’s drug policies, which keep narcotics highly profitable. But today the most conspicuous violent foreign threat comes from Mexico. The cartels, whose killing spree has taken tens of thousands of lives in just the last couple years, have shattered the peace on the border and become the subject of the Obama administration’s most notorious scandal. Some conservatives have wondered aloud whether the “Fast and Furious” program of arming Mexican drug gangs was intended to create an excuse to crack down on American gun ownership. Regardless of the ATF’s intentions, the drug violence has indeed served as a rationale to restrict American liberties, including the right to bear arms. But very little of this would be possible if these cartels could not fund themselves with the amplified profits that drug prohibition produces. (No wonder all of the conservative movement’s heroes of economic science—Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman—were unambiguous in opposing the drug war, on practical as well as moral grounds.) Recent polls indicate that a slight majority of Americans is now open to legalizing marijuana. Somewhat surprisingly, residents of liberal California are less likely than the nation at large to support the idea, according to a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll, although Democrats and voters in the lefty Bay Area favor decriminalization in far higher numbers than Republicans and the rest of the state. Conservatives are still the main ideological barrier to drug liberalization. But the tide may be turning. At a Republican primary debate in South Carolina last May, Ron Paul likened the freedom to use drugs to the freedom to worship according to one’s faith, a radical insight about the liberty of conscience usually heard mainly from proud proponents of psycho-pharmacological experimentation. Moderator Chris Wallace asked the Texas congressman whether using heroin was simply an “an exercise of liberty.” Paul responded with a rhetorical question: “How many people here would use heroin if it were legal?” He mocked the very idea of paternalistic prohibition: “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws.” The audience erupted in laughter and enthusiastic applause. Many of Paul’s supporters sat in the crowd, but more important was the lack of booing from the more conventionally conservative attendees. In this Republican audience in a right-leaning state, some of the most radical arguments for heroin legalization fared surprisingly well. Even if today’s conservatives do not buy into all the reasons to end prohibition, they no longer find them as dangerous or worthy of ridicule as in years past. Also in May, a survey conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research found that 67 percent of Republicans wanted to see an end to federal medical-marijuana raids. President Obama’s policies are not only out of touch with his liberal base, they are far more draconian than what most conservatives want. On the issue of national power, this is not a completely new development on the right. Citing states’ rights, George W. Bush suggested he would put a stop to the raids in 1999. After becoming president, he stepped them up instead, but not nearly as much as Obama has done. According to Americans for Safe Access, the Obama Justice Department conducted 170 SWAT-style raids of medical-marijuana dispensaries between October 2009 and Spring 2012. Given his campaign promises to the contrary, Obama has “gone from first to worst,” according to Marijuana Policy Project Executive Director Rob Kampia. “There’s no question that Obama is the worst president on medical marijuana.” The federalism argument against the raids has always seemed more appealing to conservatives than liberals. In 2005, the Supreme Court upheld the marijuana raids in Gonzales v. Raich in the name of preserving an expansive federal commerce power. Antonin Scalia joined the majority, but Clarence Thomas, Sandra Day O’Connor, and William Rehnquist dissented. Justice Thomas, the court’s most conservative member, issued the most stirring rebuke, which he grounded in a restrictive reading of Commerce Clause power: “If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers—as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause—have no meaningful limits.” Tellingly, the Supreme Court’s opinion upholding Obamacare this summer cited the precedents of Raich many times. Dissenting conservatives on the court attempted to find a distinction between the two rulings, but many commentators noted the corner into which Scalia in particular had painted himself, viewing federal power as nearly unlimited concerning medical marijuana but restrained on health insurance. Thomas was right in Raich that a federal police power that can supersede state marijuana laws, bust down someone’s door, and jail him for growing a plant for personal use, faces no effective limits and is the very face of tyranny. The liberals who endorsed unmitigated federal power on Obamacare as well as on medical marijuana were being completely consistent. The logic of the drug war is the logic of the New Deal, national supremacy, and everything conservatives profess to hate about Obama-style governance. Drug laws expose the tension within the conservative movement: devoted to localism and nationalism, freedom and law and order, today’s conservatives, if they are to mount a meaningful resistance to the unrestrained bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., must choose between their conflicting values. Many on the Tea Party right have come to regard the Bush-created Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as clumsy and despotic. They cling proudly to their guns and religion. They worry about their privacy in the face of a relentlessly growing central state. But it was the drug war that first shredded the Bill of Rights in modern times. Public opinion has gradually been turning against the militarized Just Say No approach. Meanwhile, special interests like the tobacco and law-enforcement lobbies continue to put pressure on politicians to maintain the status quo. Democrats do not have the political will or capital to push for major changes. Perhaps Republican leaders—unafraid of accusations of being soft on crime, emboldened by a conservative movement increasingly skeptical of unlimited police power—are the ones most likely to lead the charge toward liberalization. This prospect leaves much to be desired, but for the first time in many years perhaps there is some hope on the horizon, and from an unexpected direction. Michael A. Komorn Attorney and Counselor Law Office of Michael A. Komorn 3000 Town Center, Suite, 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 800-656-3557 (Toll Free) 248-351-2200 (Office) 248-357-2550 (Phone) 248-351-2211 (Fax) Email: michael@komornlaw.com Website: www.komornlaw.com Check out our Radio show: http://www.blogtalkr...lanetgreentrees CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626 Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m. PLANET GREENTREES w/ Attorney Michael Komorn

Study: Non-Psychotropic Cannabinoid “Proven To Be Safe” In Humans http://blog.norml.org/2012/09/05/study-non-psychotropic-cannabinoid-proven-to-be-safe-in-humans/ Study: Non-Psychotropic Cannabinoid “Proven To Be Safe” In Humans by Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director September 5, 2012 http://blog.norml.org/2012/09/05/study-non-psychotropic-cannabinoid-proven-to-be-safe-in-humans/ The oral administration of the non-psychotropic cannabis plant constituent cannabidiol (CBD) is safe and well tolerated in humans, according to clinical trial data published online by the journal Current Pharmaceutical Design. Investigators at Kings College in London assessed the physiological and behavioral effects of CBD and THC versus placebo in 16 healthy volunteers in a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial. Investigators reported that the oral administration of 10 mg of THC was associated with various physiological and behavioral effects – such as increased heart rate and sedation – whereas the oral administration of 600 mg of CBD was not. They concluded, “There were no differences between CBD and placebo on any symptomatic, physiological variable. … In healthy volunteers, THC has marked acute behavioral and physiological effects, whereas CBD has proven to be safe and well tolerated.” A previous review of the use of CBD in human subjects, published in the scientific journal Current Drug Safety last year, similarly concluded that the compound was safe, non-toxic, and well tolerated. Separate investigations of CBD have documented the cannabinoid to possess a variety of therapeutic properties, including anti-inflammatory, anti-diabetic, anti-epileptic, anti-cancer, and bone-stimulating properties. In recent years, patients in states that allow for the use of cannabis therapy, particularly California, have expressed an interest in plant strains that contain uniquely high percentages of the compound. Cannabidiol, because it is an organic component of cannabis, is presently classified under federal law as a schedule I prohibited substance. Such substances are required by law to possess “a high potential for abuse,” “a lack of accepted safety … under medical supervision,” and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” Full text of the study, “Acute effects of a single, oral dose of d9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) administration in healthy volunteers” appears online in Current Pharmaceutical Design.

NYPD critics offer free app to track 'stop and frisk' By Perry Chiaramonte <http://www.foxnews.com/archive/author/perry-chiaramonte/index.html> Published June 06, 2012 FoxNews.com Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/06/new-york-civil-liberties-union-creates-smartphone-app-that-collects-stop-and/?test=latestnews#ixzz1xDHgsQIO'>http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/06/new-york-civil-liberties-union-creates-smartphone-app-that-collects-stop-and/?test=latestnews#ixzz1xDHgsQIO Video at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/06/new-york-civil-liberties-union-creates-smartphone-app-that-collects-stop-and/?test=latestnews Critics of the New York Police Department's controversial stop-and-frisk policy say their new smartphone application will allow residents to monitor and document cops employing the tactic, but police officials say the device itself could be a threat to people's privacy. “Stop and Frisk Watch” was released for Android phones on Wednesday, and the New York Civil Liberties Union says the free application “will empower New Yorkers to monitor police activity and hold the NYPD accountable for unlawful stop-and-frisk encounters and other police misconduct.” “It may not be the smartest thing to pull something out of your pocket during a tense situation." - NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne “The NYPD’s own data shows that the overwhelming majority of people subjected to stop-and-frisk are black or Latino, and innocent of any wrongdoing," NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman said in a written statement. "Our app will allow people to go beyond the data to document how each unjustified stop further corrodes trust between communities and law enforcement.” The app has three primary functions, the ability to record video and then fill out an “incident report” about what was witnessed, a "listen" function, which sends the user alerts from other app users telling them of incidents in the area and a "report" option that allows users to report a police incident even if they did not record it. The application also provides a section that tells the user their rights when stopped by a police officer. NYPD officials say this time, it is the NYCLU that could be intruding on people's rights. “The main problem with this app is privacy regarding the information sent,” NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne said to FoxNews.com. “They [NYCLU] have acknowledged that the app collects the data. What will be done with that information? Will it be sold? Are they aggregating personal information? They can’t guarantee the privacy of the info.” Browne also expressed the potential dangers posed by someone using the app during a stop or someone in the vicinity of police activity. “It may not be the smartest thing to pull something out of your pocket during a tense situation,” he said. The app is recommended only for use by witnesses, not those who are actually being stopped, said NYCLU officials. "The NYCLU will use the videos we get to put a face on the humiliating experience of a police street stop, not create a database. The department should be familiar with the First Amendment – in our society, people have a clear right to document police activity in public places," Lieberman said in a statement to FoxNews.com. The issue of stop-and-frisk, in which police can briefly detain people long enough to ask them what they are doing and ensure they are not carrying weapons, has been the center of heated debate in New York. Opponents claim that the practice is ineffective, while Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly maintain that it has been successful in keeping illegal guns off the city’s streets. Recently, however, Bloomberg has eased his stance, admitting that the policy may not have cut down on shootings. The app was developed by Brooklyn-based artist and software developer Jason Van Anden, who previously created an app during the height of the Occupy Wall Street movement called, “I’m getting arrested.” A version of the app for the iPhone is expected to be released in July. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/06/new-york-civil-liberties-union-creates-smartphone-app-that-collects-stop-and/?test=latestnews#ixzz1xDHU25qx