Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Similar Content

    • By FlowerPower99
      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      Executive Order 2020-01 Executive Order 2020-04 (COVID-19) - Declaration of State of Emergency - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-05 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-06 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-07 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-08 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-09 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-10 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-11 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-12 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-13 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-14 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-15 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-16 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-17 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-18 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-19 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-20 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-21 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-22 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-23 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-24 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-25 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-26 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-27 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-28 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-29 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-30 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-31 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-32 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-33 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-34 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-35 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-36 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-37 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-38 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-39 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-40 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-41 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-42 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-43 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-44 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-45 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-46 (COVID-19) Executive Order 2020-47 (COVID-19) - Rescinded Executive Order 2020-48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
    • By t-pain
      Massachusetts DOPH published an in depth report about medical marijuana patients. The findings and information in the report are useful for petitioning new qualifying conditions and educating physicians. Similar to the Minnesota DOH reports.
      https://www.mass.gov/report/massachusetts-department-of-public-health-marijuana-research
      REPORT Report Massachusetts Department of Public Health Marijuana Research
      ORGANIZATION: Department of Public Health DATE PUBLISHED: July 9, 2019 The Marijuana Baseline Health Study (MBHS)
      A legislative mandate required the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) to conduct a baseline study to investigate three topics:
      Patterns of use, methods of consumption, and general perceptions of marijuana Incidents of impaired driving and hospitalization related to marijuana use; and Economic and fiscal impacts for state and local governments This study, referred to as the Marijuana Baseline Health Study (MBHS), was conducted by DPH, under the leadership of the DPH Commissioner, in consultation with the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, and the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security.
      Downloads
        Open PDF file, 5.37 MB, forMarijuana Based Health Study Final Report (PDF 5.37 MB)   Open DOCX file, 4.29 MB, forMarijuana Based Health Study Final Report (Accessible Version) (DOCX 4.29 MB)  
      Good quotes can be found within the report:
       
    • By MR49009
      research completed
    • By Michael Komorn
      https://whmi.com/news/article/county-votes-down-anti-marijuana-resolution


      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
      Pregnancy and Medical Marijuana
      Expectant mothers are searching for answers about the safety profile of Medical Marijuana. Unfortunately the scientific community has dropped the ball and kicked it off the cliff on this issue. The lack of scientific research is due to marijuana’s illegality. Further, there exist huge biases within the published research. Mostly the research confounds marijuana use with tobacco and/or alcohol, two known causes of fetus and child harm. Separating out marijuana effects from the self-reported research on mothers who also smoke tobacco and drink alcohol is impossible. Likewise no pregnant women are signing up for research studies due to the illegality of marijuana and CPS removing children from mothers for testing positive for marijuana use.
      Many organizations quote from other organizations, who quote from other studies and reviews. The Minnesota Department of Health OFFICE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS quotes from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee report:
      In the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists official committee opinion, interim update Oct 2017, the committee found:
       
       
      Uninformed opinion, with zero evidence and lots of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) are used to scare mothers away from a nontoxic plant. These uninformed unscientific opinions are being used by lawmakers to craft laws continuing the cycle of FUD and the illegality of marijuana. “Oh we don’t know what marijuana does, so let’s treat it like heroin” and “if anyone questions our opinion of marijuana, we’ll call them dirty lazy pothead stoner hippies” or “puppets of the marijuana industry”.
       
      But we do know what marijuana does. One cannot live in a bubble and ignore reality and the world around us. Women smoke and eat marijuana while pregnant.
      Cannabis use during pregnancy in France in 2010
      Trends in Self-reported and Biochemically Tested Marijuana Use Among Pregnant Females in California From 2009-2016

      http://news.gallup.com/poll/194195/adults-say-smoke-marijuana.aspx 
       
      Much of the opinions on marijuana are tainted by a small number of poorly designed studies on marijuana. For example, the National Institute of Health gives grants to researchers through NIDA, the National Institute of Drug Abuse, to study marijuana. NIDA’s focus is on drug abuse, so 90% of its grants are for studies on marijuana abuse, not marijuana benefits. When you ignore half of your research, you ignore science. Many of these studies are completed in order to get future grants from NIDA; research is often conducted from the conclusion backwards in order to show some kind of harm from marijuana use. This, in of itself, does not bias research.
       
      https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/health/policy/19marijuana.html 
       
      The bias is introduced when researchers are rushed and forced to publish results, even if the studies were deficient. For example, every website and newspaper ran with the story about marijuana using children lose IQ points. Not many reported on the follow-up study that could not replicate the first study. When eliminating co-founders, the new study found no drop in IQ points. Further, research on twin siblings showed that the drop in IQ was due to parenting, binge drinking or other societal influences, not marijuana.
      https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/nida-notes/2016/08/study-questions-role-marijuana-in-teen-users-iq-decline 

       
      Try reading that last sentence again. In a world of science, evidence, reasoning and logic, a doctor makes a statement that decades of use of marijuana might make you lose intellectual function, based on conjecture.
      NIDA also continues to perpetuate the myth that Marijuana is a “gateway drug”.
      https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-gateway-drug 
      These findings are consistent with the idea of marijuana as a "gateway drug." However, the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, "harder" substances.
      NIDA, NIH, FDA, DEA, including other federal, state, and local government organizations and private companies continue to perpetuate these and other lies in order to keep marijuana illegal. ASA has filed complaints against the DEA multiple times to get it to remove incorrect statements about marijuana off of the DEA’s website.
      http://www.safeaccessnow.org/iqa_victory 
      A cyclical pattern emerges from the current and past situation surrounding marijuana.
      1.      Stymied scientific research, due to illegality of marijuana and government funding biases
      2.      Using stymied scientific research as a reason to ignore reality.
      3.      Repeating the biased scientific research, long after it was shown to be deficient.
      4.      Using the deficient biased research in “meta-reviews”. Thus taking bad science as a base to create more bad science just by doing an analysis of the bad science conclusions.
      5.      Even after a research study has been fully proven to be deficient and conflicting with better research, continue to hold it up as if it is still valid in some way.
      6.      Publish opinions as if they were facts, without any data to back up any claims.
      Continue reading for more conflicting studies and more calls for research.
      Marijuana: Prenatal and Postnatal Exposure in the Human
      Marijuana use in pregnancy and lactation: a review of the evidence
       
      Marijuana and Pregnancy
      The Association of Marijuana Use with Outcome of Pregnancy
       
      Prenatal Tobacco, Marijuana, Stimulant, and Opiate Exposure: Outcomes and Practice Implications 
      Many of these studies contradict themselves. Some report differences in birth weight, some show no differences. Read the studies yourself!
       
      http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2017-HB-5222 
      House bill 5422 will force MMFLA provisioning centers to give patients and caregivers an unscientific pamphlet, as described by the legislature.
       
       
      HB 5222 looks like it will pass. All this fear and doubt of a non-toxic 5,000+ year old medication used by millions of humans in every country in the world.
×
×
  • Create New...