Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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:


CALL IN NUMBER: (347) 326-9626

Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m.



w/ Attorney Michael Komorn


The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Similar Content

    • By FlowerPower99
      Executive Order 2020-01 Executive Order 2020-04 (COVID-19) - Declaration of State of Emergency - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-05 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-06 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-07 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-08 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-09 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-10 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-11 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-12 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-13 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-14 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-15 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-16 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-17 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-18 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-19 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-20 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order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)  
    • By MR49009
      research completed
    • By Michael Komorn

      Subcommittee Votes Down Anti-Recreational Marijuana Resolution

      June 12, 2018

      A proposed resolution opposing the recreational use of marijuana has
      failed to pass a Livingston County subcommittee, following a tie vote.

      The county’s General Government and Health & Human Services Committee
      met Monday and discussed the proposed resolution, which asked the
      Board of Commissioners to show their opposition to the legalization of
      marijuana for general use, as well as encourage others to oppose the
      issue through similar resolutions.

      Committee members Bob Bezotte and William Green voted in support of
      the resolution, as Bezotte stated residents looked to their officials
      to take the lead on these types of matters. Dennis Dolan and Gary
      Childs voted against the resolution, saying the issue will ultimately
      be up to citizens in November’s election when they vote on a ballot
      proposal that would legalize the possession and sale of up to 2.5
      ounces of marijuana for personal use. As the committee’s vote was a
      tie, the resolution failed and will not move forward as it stands.

      Dave Domas, who represents the county’s 3rd district on the Board of
      Commissioners, approached the committee during the meeting’s second
      call to the public with some heated words. Domas told committee
      members, "Anybody that votes against this issue doesn’t belong on this
      board. Not now, not ever." The resolution previously came before the
      county’s Board of Commissioners and Domas says it was then that he saw
      many community members expressing opposition to the legalization of
      marijuana, including several youth. He says the kids in attendance
      were "victims of recreational marijuana and they didn’t want to share
      that 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, again
      staing he believes it’s up to Michigan’s residents to decide. He feels
      the county has more important things to deal with, specifically naming
      the opioid crisis. Childs also responded to Domas’ confronting the
      committee, saying some of his information related to the ballot
      proposal and potential law was "erroneous".

      Domas later told WHMI he “…expected this sort of performance from the
      board, 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 local
      units of government that would “present the side of recreational
      marijuana that people don’t understand”. He also says the community
      shouldn’t be surprised to see a similar resolution make its way to the
      Board of Commissioners, adding, “If it dies, a lot of stuff dies with
      it, and we’re not gonna let that happen.”
    • By Michael Komorn
      Hemp, Inc. (OTC: HEMP), the first all-hemp, publicly-traded company in US history forges path in the industrial hemp industry, continues its effort to blow the lid off a nest of deception and double standards many feel have been imposed by the United States government concerning the ancient superfood, hemp seeds. Despite the Cannabis classification, hemp seeds aren't for smoking, nor does it get you "high" as countless people have been led to believe, according to the Kimble Group, LLC. Hemp seeds are growing in popularity, thus, questions are arising concerning their presumed health benefits. So what is it 'they' don't want the American people to know? Why would such enlightening, useful and beneficial information be kept under wraps?
      The first all-hemp, publically-traded company in US History,Hemp, Inc. (OTC: HEMP), hemp.com, blows the lid off a nest of deception.
      (PRWEB) September 28, 2012
      It wasn't until this year, August, US senators Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden, Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul ardently worked together in a bipartisan effort to get industrial hemp removed from the federal doghouse. If passed, this historic senate bill will create economic opportunities by removing federal restrictions on the domestic cultivation of industrial hemp.
      Before light is shed on the benefits on hemp, let's take a look at how and why hemp has been getting a bad rap over the years. According to Hemp, Inc. (OTC: HEMP), the first all-hemp, publically-traded company in US history, William Hurst, an influential American newspaper publisher, created a yellow journalism campaign to associate hemp with marijuana. Why?
      Commercial hemp seeds contain very low amounts of THC, the property responsible for the drug response, plus they contain a substance that counteracts THC. According to Dr. David P. West, who specializes in plant breeding and genetics and who has written a plethora of articles on industrial hemp, says, "The washed hemp seed contains no THC at all. The tiny amounts of THC contained in industrial hemp are in the glands of the plant itself. Sometimes, in the manufacturing process, some THC- and CBD-containing resin sticks to the seed, resulting in traces of THC in the oil that is produced. The concentration of these cannabinoids in the oil is infinitesimal. No one can get high from it."
      Hurst, along with his friend Pierre DuPont, succeeded in outlawing hemp in America and in turn robbed the world of an environmental cash crop. Why would they do such a thing? As noted by Hemp.com, "Because instead of using hemp for paper, clothing, fuel, oils, resins, medicines, and many other uses, we now use trees and synthetic petrochemicals. Hearst owned huge forests and interests in lumber mills. DuPont made synthetic fuels and fibers (nylon, rayon, plastics) from petroleum." Go figure.
      Hemp seeds go back as far as 8,500 years. Initially, the Chinese were harvesting it and using the plant fibers to produce durable cloth, however, 3,000 years ago, they began using the seeds as a food source. Hemp seeds have been a proven source of protein on the planet, primarily because they contain all twenty one known amino acids.
      Clinical herbalist, Larken Bunce, says, "Hemp seeds are a nutritionally dense food source that provide the body with necessary macro- and micronutrients, including protein, essential fatty acids, fiber, vitamins and minerals. The addition of hemp seeds to your daily diet can ensure you are getting necessary essential fatty acids, a good balance of protein and carbohydrates, a good source of fiber as well as some essential vitamins and minerals."
      Essentially, the human organism is unable to produce all essential amino acids, but amazingly, hemp does. The hemp seeds are a great source of polyunsaturated fat as well as essential fatty acids. According to Nourishing Gourmet, hemp foods are also a rich source of phytonutrients, the organic compounds of plants that are thought to promote human health.
      More specifically, Dr. Cassandra Forsyth, nutrition researcher at the University of Connecticut, says, "Hemp seeds are rich in omega3 fatty acids, which reduce your risk of heart disease and stroke." According to an article in Men's Health, written by Carolyn Kylstra on 9/25/12, a 1-ounce serving of the seeds provides 11 grams of protein, not to be confused with incomplete protein found in most plant sources. The article's research found the protein in hemp seeds to be comparable to that found in meat, eggs, and dairy.
      If hemp food is easily digested and in turn can be used to treat malnourishment, why such a bad rap? Why not mass produce since the consumption of complete proteins is necessary for human survival? The US Government's complacency of 'profit before health' can no longer stand on the incredulous foundation on which it was built. The American people are, indeed, waking up.
      Michael A. Komorn
      Attorney and Counselor
      Email: michael@komornlaw.com
      Website: www.komornlaw.com
      Check out our Radio show:
      Live Every Thursday 8-10:00p.m.
      w/ Attorney Michael Komorn
      The most relevant radio talk show for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Community. PERIOD
    • By Michael Komorn
      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.
  • Create New...