Grow Weed Blog

As a convicted fellonhishead for growing our Lord's most gentle pain reliever on the planet I am constantly faced with exactly the following article's punishments. I am forced to be limeted to only ranting the congressdinosaurs like that puke Grassley. How can I help pull the old baastard's teeth if I can't vote him out for being out of touch with the people? These entrenched scums Like these restrictions that de facto continue my jailing by permanently denying me my right to vote here in Iowa because I owe past, and very, very falsely obtained, fines. To the whole world: I will continue to grow and eat and smoke my pot. This statement can, and will, be used against me in a court of law because I have no power to actually vote and protect myself from future grief over this God-given and man removed right to cultivate my reefer. Changing the pot laws is not tantamount ( don't cha luv big words lol ) to legalizing child molestation. It Is tantamount to freedom of a home grower to medicate his or her self under the "quiet in residence" laws, however. If I grow weed in my closet and I eat that nice growth on my corn flakes just what the hell business is it of Grassley's???? It isn't any, at all. none, that old constitution stomping wart! hmm, probo best alert the old bastard to some new facts. yep, I just checked the rant-o-meter and Chucky is one rant arrears so after this post I'll have to do my civic duty and paste him another shot. I can't vote him out, but he doesn"t have the capacity to know that in the e mails. yuk yuk serves him right to have to talk to me what with all that "I can eat these percocets or I can eat this here reefer" sort of e mails. Just let your imagination free and you get what I might send him. lol Well, here's some news you can use, fellow reefer brains... Wash. bill would aid felons' voting restoration Debt stands between ballot box and tens of thousands of convicted felons In this Thursday, March 30, 2006 photo, Beverly DuBois, a convicted felon, stands outside of her trailer home in the Riverside Community, just outside of Chattaroy, Wash. Under current law, felons can't vote until they have served their sentence, including the completion of any parole or probation, and paid all restitution and other court fees. updated 6:44 a.m. CT, Mon., March. 23, 2009 OLYMPIA, Wash. - For tens of thousands of convicted felons in Washington state, only one thing stands between them and the ballot box: debt. Under current law, felons can't vote until they have served their sentences, including the completion of any parole or probation, and paid all restitution and other court fees. A measure to remove that payment requirement — opponents say it's akin to a modern-day "poll tax" — has passed the House and awaits action in the Senate. If it becomes law, felons could simply re-register to vote once they're no longer in state custody, including any parole or probation. "The basic unfairness is that our system is currently based on someone paying off their legal obligations," said Rep. Jeannie Darneille, a Tacoma Democrat who sponsored the measure. "If you have money, you can get your rights restored, and if you don't have money, you won't." Washington's neighbor, Oregon, automatically restores voting rights to felons once they're released from prison. Nearly 40 other states and the District of Columbia also have less onerous restrictions on restoring voting rights to felons. But others argue Washington state is obligated to make sure felons complete all of their sentence, including all monetary obligations. "Until they pay their fines and restitution, to me, they haven't carried out their entire sentence," said Rep. Ed Orcutt, a Kalama Republican who opposes the bill. "So their voting rights shouldn't be restored." 'An issue of fairness' Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, a Seattle Democrat who sponsored a similar measure in the Senate, said felons will still need to pay off their debts, but won't have to wait to vote while they're doing so. "It's more an issue of fairness," she said. "I don't think the right to vote should be based on one's income." Similar bills have been raised here before, but this is the first time the measure has gotten any traction. It passed the House on a 53-43 vote earlier this month, and has a public hearing Monday morning before the Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee. Secretary of State Sam Reed, the state's top elections officer, had not taken a position on the measure in the past, but this year he publicly supports it, saying the bill could foster greater civic engagement. "When people have served their time and are out of prison, we want them to get involved in their community and get connected," said Reed, a Republican. Equally important, Reed said, the measure would help reduce the bureaucratic challenges in determining who is a legal voter. 'Really need a bright line' The state's voter database is able to track people who are currently in prison, or who are still under supervision by the state Department of Corrections. More than 12,000 felons have been removed from the rolls since the database went online in 2006. But people who haven't yet had their rights restored, often because of unpaid court-ordered fines, are harder to track. "It continues to be a problem," Reed said. "We really need a bright line." It is unclear exactly how many people previously convicted of felonies are barred from voting in Washington solely because they haven't paid their fines. A 2002 estimate calculated the figure at more than 46,000 people, but state elections officials say the actual number is impossible to know, because there's no list of people who are no longer in the DOC system, but still owe legal financial obligations. "There is no source of information that provides all of the people who are ineligible," said Katie Blinn, Reed's assistant director of elections. In 2006, a King County judge had ruled that felons cannot be barred from voting just because they owe fines. The following year, the state Supreme Court overruled him, saying that the law did not illegally discriminate against poor felons who have trouble paying their legal bills. 'It's terribly frustrating' The ACLU had sued on behalf of three convicted felons in that case, including Beverly DuBois of Chattaroy, who was convicted on a marijuana charge in 2002. The $10 per month she has been paying since her release in 2003 doesn't cover the interest, and she said her $1,600 fine has increased to nearly $2,000. "This last election, I was just beside myself because I couldn't vote," said DuBois, who was disabled after a car accident and can't work. "It's terribly frustrating." An estimated 5.3 million people nationwide are ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction, according to The Sentencing Project, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C. "People want there to be consequences for committing a crime. But certainly once the sentence has been completed, there's not that many people who think this should be a lifetime punishment imposed on you," said Marc Mauer, executive director of the advocacy group. Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, said she generally supported the idea. "I do not have an objection for restoration of voting rights simply because they haven't paid a fine," she said. "I don't want to create a debtor's prison." Well, that's Exactly what I am in with this no vote boolshit.

Personally, I am defo convinced that far more peeps are in need of medication than know they need it. Medication from cannabis is going to become far more "normal" in the future once we scientifically demonstrate that pot is a vital food for brain and body cells, that is. Then, I believe, we will be giving our children cannabis-extract oil in candy flavored chews for the kids as well as us older kids. But, we aren't there yet. Fortunately we have these helpers in uniform because we have created this tremendous, false scarcity by condemning pot as a terrible narcotic like our moron senator Chaz Grassley here in Iowa insists we keep going on with. I say "fortunately" because they are helping break up the phony prohibition. Unfortunately, they are drug dealers, probabo, anyways. These folks are charging way too much for pot and that will always have a bush bitchin everytime lol Welp, here's a story on our latest helper: ST. LOUIS (AP) — Sheriff Raymond M. Martin has been the law for nearly 20 years in a struggling southern Illinois county. But federal prosecutors say he's been breaking it lately by peddling pounds of pot, some seized by his own department, often in uniform and from his patrol vehicle. Authorities on Monday led away a handcuffed Martin, 46, from his small Shawneetown office after his arrest on federal drug trafficking charges accusing him of supplying a dealer he threatened to kill when that man said he wanted out. The Gallatin County sheriff also allegedly pledged to use his authority to shut down rival drug traffickers. "It's almost beyond belief," said Doug Maier, the sheriff in neighboring White County. Maier called Martin "a pretty low-key guy." He continued, "Obviously, there was a different side that I've never observed." Martin was jailed pending a Wednesday detention hearing on three counts of marijuana distribution and two counts of carrying a firearm, his service weapon, while trafficking drugs. He could not be reached for comment Tuesday. A woman who answered his home telephone refused to comment, and Martin's court-appointed public defender did not immediately return messages. Martin's job status was unclear Tuesday. Calls to Gallatin County Chairman Randy Drone rang unanswered, while calls to the sheriff's department rolled over to a neighboring dispatch center, which regularly answers calls when no deputies are in Martin's office. No one would say the exact size of Martin's department, other than to say it's small. Martin's popularity in the county surrounding Shawneetown — boasting little more than a courthouse, a couple of convenience stores and Rudy's barbecue restaurant — swept the Democrat to re-election four times since he took office in 1990. A criminal complaint accuses him of distributing more than two pounds of marijuana between April 27 and May 11. But an affidavit by Glenn Rountree, an investigator with the Drug Enforcement Administration, suggests Martin's dealings were many times that total. In a blow-by-blow account painting a picture of a good cop gone bad, Rountree wrote that Martin hatched a marijuana-dealing scheme in November with the drug dealer who later got cold feet. At that time, Martin handed the dealer, unidentified in court papers, two pounds of pot and asked if the man could "get rid of that" for the sheriff, who promised he'd use his power to protect him if he ever got caught selling. If the dealer didn't comply, Rountree wrote, Martin said he could "make up" a crime against him. From then until early last month, Martin brought 1- or 2-pound amounts of marijuana on average once every couple of weeks to a rural, secluded meeting spot, Rountree wrote. But the sheriff twice brought 10 pounds and brought 20 pounds another time, according to the affidavit. The meetings between the two were arranged by cell phone, with the dealer using vague code words Martin supplied to confuse possible eavesdroppers, including investigators, Rountree wrote. The dealer grew unsettled over time and wanted out, but Martin would have none of that, Rountree wrote. At least twice, the sheriff pulled his service revolver and insisted emphatically to the dealer that making him "disappear" would be "that easy," according to the affidavit. Rountree suggested the twitchy dealer went to investigators April 9. Over the next several weeks, authorities taped the dealer's conversations with Martin and tracked the sheriff's county-issued Ford Expedition. At least once, Rountree alleged, the sheriff gave the informant marijuana seeds, saying he could pare his debt to the sheriff by growing pot plants for him. And the sheriff dispensed advice, cautioning the man that it'd be "silly" for the dealer to get drunk or use pills and "mess it up" because "we got a good thing going." "(You) won't even have to work and stuff," Rountree said Martin once told the snitch. Such profit could be particularly attractive in Gallatin County, where the population has slowly eroded in recent decades as many of the region's coal mines closed. Its 9 percent unemployment rate is typical in the region. The median household income, according to 2000 Census Bureau figures, is $26,118. Martin's county salary was not immediately available, but he received his $6,500 annual stipend from the state this month. The area received statewide attention in 2005, when a story by the (Arlington Heights) Daily Herald noted that the tiny county with little violent crime was getting more homeland security funding per person — more than $300,000 — than any other in Illinois. The article noted Martin spent "most days battling a thriving methamphetamine trade." Allegations that Martin himself was dabbling in drugs left locals rattled, in many cases leaving them publicly reticent Tuesday. Still, many there remained in Martin's camp. "I thought the world of that boy," said Roberta Tarrence, a 78-year-old widow with a quilting business near the county courthouse. "I've known him all of his life, and I know he was a good sheriff." Shhee-it yeah, he was! Hit me up, Sparky! I feel a deep medical need coming on!

One of the very most vile things the foolish waste our drug war generates is the tremendous hatred and ill will among the people the cops are supposed to be protecting and the cops doing the protecting. This is a great, historic evil we are doing to ourselves and urging onto other nations, as well. Dis-Gusting!! Not all cops agree with this stupidity from the prosecutor side. Some are smarter and more in tune with the will of the people and they are not all silent. Take this retired Seatle police chief right here. He has something very useful for our whole nation to tell us. Go for it! Leap.cc WWW From Norm Stamper's Huffington Post blog: Dear Gil: Congratulations on your confirmation as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy( Yuk!) . Bit of an irony, isn't it? Two Seattle police chiefs on opposite sides of the drug war? As "drug czar" (please retire that ill-begotten label), you are responsible for advising the president and vice president on drug control programs, and for coordinating drug policies among all federal agencies. I, on the other hand, as a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, am devoted to ending the drug war, along with the prohibition model on which it's based. But how far apart are we, really? During your tenure as police chief you either championed or tolerated sensible policies such as methadone treatment, clean needle exchanges, medical marijuana, and a Seattle voter initiative requiring you and the city attorney to make simple adult marijuana possession your lowest enforcement priority (lower, indeed, than jaywalking). You also continued the practice of assigning police officers to Hempfest, knowing your cops would make no arrests for possession of marijuana, thus ensuring a safe and peaceful event. These modest steps represent progress, and they position our former city as a leader in local reform. But I'd be less than honest if I didn't point to some genuinely worrisome positions you've taken recently. In responding to written interrogatories from Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee you claimed there is no scientific consensus supporting medicinal marijuana; announced your opposition to legalizing marijuana; and defended the classification of pot, along with heroin, PCP, and GHB, as a "Schedule 1" drug--which means, I guess, that you believe it is highly addictive and possessed of no medical value. Sadly, these views put you in league with your ONDCP predecessor, John Walters--he of the magnificent obsession with "killer weed"--who during his tenure silenced science, lied habitually, and refused to debate those with opposing views. How much of your stance on these issues falls into the category of confirmation politics? How much represents your true feelings? Either way, your early public comments are disconcerting, coming from an administration headed by a president who's proclaimed the drug war an "utter failure," and who has advocated more of a public health approach to drug control. Still, you did stand up to the shriller apostles of the drug war. You wrote, for example, that needle exchanges are "not a cause of significant public safety problems," that they are part of a "comprehensive approach for drug abuse prevention, treatment, and care, including efforts to reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS and other blood-borne diseases." You share Obama and Biden's position that sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder forms of cocaine are "wrong and should be eliminated." And I loved your reply to Senator Grassley's question of whether marijuana is a gateway drug: "Often, marijuana is the first illicit drug that young people use. I support efforts to educate young people about the dangers of illicit drugs, including marijuana." In other words, Senator: No. Pot is not a "gateway" drug. Likewise, your answer to the Iowa lawmaker's I( you mean our very own iowa puke senator, pot nazi grassley? he will never surrender in the drug war because he does not use nor need science to form an opinion to steal children with and don't you ever forget it because grassley really is a puke! believe it! I rant the bastard every month and I intend to keep on doing it, too. see the preceeding blog ha ha ha)query about whether the medical marijuana case of Gonzales v. Raich was a proper decision. "...the Supreme Court's decision...is the current law of our land. As a result...I am duty bound to honor it and so I [will] until such time as the supreme law of our land on this subject changes." The "subject," simplified, refers to whether the federal government should trump the states on marijuana enforcement. Sounds like another "no" to me. You oppose "mandatory minimums" which have resulted in millions of nonviolent drug offenders going to prison for very long stretches. "...I understand and respect the ability of states, under the longstanding principles of federalism," you wrote, "to make state policy decisions within the scope of their authority and jurisdiction." Sounds like you're fully on board with the president and Attorney General Holder in calling off the DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. (Federalism. Smart invocation, Gil. Appeals to many Americans, including thoughtful conservatives of a "dual federalist" stripe.) So, how open will you be to new ways of looking at old, disastrous drug policies? You claim to support "evidence-based," data-driven solutions. You have, in your own words, "long recognized that to be successful as a police chief you have to rely on and work collaboratively with...other governmental and non-governmental entities." You pledged to "re-establish valid working relationships with non-governmental entities and stakeholders." Drug policy reformers, mushrooming in strength and number every day, are committed to sensible drug laws, Gil. We will support your every worthy incremental step on the road to rational government policies. Of course, some of us, like LEAP members, will not be content with anything less than an end to the drug war, and the replacement of prohibition with a regulatory model based on sound public health principles. But that shouldn't stop you from making a place for us at the table. We are, after all, stakeholders too. Finally, as we begin this new era of drug policy debate, is it too much to ask that you vanquish the vocabulary of "war"? We all know that when Richard Nixon labeled drugs "public enemy number one" and vowed all-out war on them he was in truth declaring war on us, the citizenry of the United States--especially the young, the poor, and people of color. In an April 20, 2009 proposal to end the drug war, the Drug Policy Alliance urged us to recognize that while "DPA's work is all about drugs on the surface, dig down a little deeper and one finds it's not really about drugs at all." It's about "much larger struggles in American and international society--over the extent and limits of individual freedom, what it means to be a free society, and how we deal with both phantom and real threats to health, life, and security." You have been given what DPA calls a "once-in-a-generation opportunity" to help us reclaim our freedom as Americans, and to live safer, healthier lives. Please don't blow it, Gil. Warm regards, Norm Norm Stamper was Gil Kerlikowske's immediate predecessor as Seattle's chief of police, having served from 1994-2000. Dedicated to our departed colleagues who courageously spoke out about the destructive policy of Drug Prohibition Eleanor Schockett Gil Puder Whitman Knapp John Perry Ralph Salerno Bob Owens Eddie Ellison Martin Haines

High Friends! "It's Still Cool" if we go along with the article, anyway. Sorry to be all scarce and shit, but I have been all consumed with the personal life boolshit lately. But I am still with the land of the living, damages not withstanding. I came accross this article that sort of summed up Obama for me because I am trying to be optimistic as well as agree with the facts presented below. When Obama surrounded himself with pot nazis like joe biden and his chief of staff I really began to lose heart for him. Pot nazis and your humble narrator not being on the same page and all. Well, not with me rolling up blunts with the pages, anyways. lol here yez goes: Source: Stanford Progressive California -- Many advocates of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana feel Obama has abandoned them. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a consistent warrior against decriminalization. Attorney General Eric Holder has a history of opposing drug policy reforms and considers the adult use of marijuana equivalent to public nuisance. Even Joe Biden, when asked about pain management and medical cannabis, responded that “there's got to be a better answer than marijuana.” But the reality is that the Obama administration has turned the tides in favor of legalization and decriminalization in a much stronger and subtler way than open rhetorical endorsements. Optimism for drug reform began when Obama ended federal raids on cannabis dispensaries in states which allow medical marijuana. What marijuana advocates fail to realize is that with this the Obama administration initiated a small but extremely important step towards legalization. More importantly, it has done so in a way to insulate itself from Republican attacks and attempts to distract the public. At the heart of the marijuana debate is federalism, the separation of state and national governmental power. For most of America's history, marijuana was treated as a crop subject to state regulation. However, the national government justified regulating marijuana through a variety of means, mainly the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which gives Congress power to regulate inter-state trade. This line of reasoning was forcefully used by the John Ashcroft in 2001 to enforce federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. When a state legalizes marijuana, medical or otherwise, state law is in contradiction with federal law. This grey area leads to very confusing legal proceedings. For instance, if a state patrolman finds a medical marijuana patient in possession of marijuana, nothing happens. However, if a federal officer found a medical marijuana patient in possession of the same amount of marijuana, the federal officer can and usually will arrest the patient and prosecute under federal law. This hypocrisy is at the base of the current trials going on against elderly medical marijuana patients. The Obama administration drastically changed this dynamic with just a slight alteration of criteria for federal intervention with marijuana dispensaries. Eric Holder announced that the federal government will no longer pursue medical marijuana dispensaries or patients unless they violate both federal and state laws. In the case of California, because medical marijuana is legal, federal intervention is no longer allowed in cases where California's medical marijuana laws are not broken. Thus, if California were to fully legalize marijuana, under current policy the federal government would not intervene. This leaves Republicans in a very tough spot. Small government is the bedrock foundation of the party. However, if a “liberal” state legalizes marijuana, the only tool left to combat the legalization of marijuana is for the federal government to extend power over state government. Obama's actions cannot be criticized as an attempt to “deregulate” marijuana. Instead, it is a triumph of state rights over federal intervention. More importantly, any attempt to fight state legalization of marijuana through suit automatically goes to the Supreme Court. This creates an opportunity to strike down previous legislation criminalizing marijuana as opposed to having the Democrats introduce a bill on the Senate floor to legalize pot. Consider the alternative strategy of legalizing marijuana on a national level first through Obama. In the current political environment, the leading accusations against the president range from terrorist to Marxist to illegal alien. Imagine the campaigns that could be waged if Obama so much as hinted that he wants to legalize marijuana. Not only would there be insinuations that Obama wants drugs for personal use, but inevitably racial dynamics and stereotypes would enter discourse. It would be the ultimate redirect from the economy. Instead of focusing on regulations and expenditures, emphasis would be on the president who is destroying traditional American values with reefer. If Obama or the Democrats proposed legalization, all the Republicans have to do is have several governors or senators who refuse to implement the federal law. This would frame the argument as Obama trying to extend the government's power to regulate what some consider the moral fabric of society. With just a few rhetorical shuffles, Obama's proposal could be linked to general monetary and budget extensions of power. This would be like the Republican's in the 30s arguing against the New Deal as a whole by linking it with a government proposal to force states to legalize prostitution. The Obama administration's public hesitation towards marijuana legalization is not only understandable but, considering the impact of the current economic legislation and programs the administration is endorsing, the most pragmatic and efficient route for the moment. Legalization and decriminalization advocates should focus efforts on state-wide legalization, not nation-wide. If states are challenged in lawsuits, than the Supreme Court will be forced to rule on whether legislation criminalizing marijuana should be struck down. This is preferable to the executive putting forward a proposal to legalize marijuana from the top down. When Obama tells the country that marijuana legalization is not the path he chooses for America, he means to say that the path must first be drawn by us. Source: Stanford Progressive (CA) Author: Ross Raffin Published: May 8, 2009 Contact: progressive.stanford@gmail.com URL: http://drugsense.org/url/DvS5QmCv Website: http://drugsense.org/url/IObEpTeH CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archives "At the heart of the marijuana debate is federalism, the separation of state and national governmental power." This is EXACTLY what I have said before in the Marijuana News months ago. The pot nazis are totally playing with fire and these control freak pukes are ultimately going to pay a very high price by creating a long lasting wound between the individual states here in our United States and the high-jacked federal government. This wound is a increased, even wary, distance between our federal and our state governments. This is Not all bad. The states are the real, true experimental governments envisioned by our constitutional framers. These fellows were generally far smarter than morons like senator grassley and that sell out tom harkin because, if for no other reason, they weren't influenced by murderers like the pharmaceutical corporations. What? these medicine makers are murderers??? did you just hear that from the Bush? You need to go read, The Power to Harm by John Cornwell. God Bless You, John. It happened to me about like it did to poor Joe Wessbecker and when I came back into my body covered with blood I was gone, folks. I was gone. The above is not a fabrication of any sort. Paxil and Tagamet will make you die. There is alot going on so stay tuned, brother and sister reefer growers! We are winning! Justice is real and we can work for it in the now. God Bless Your Gardens!

Want to see the future of cannabis and the world? Read the following. Cannabis is going to break out of the lies of pukes like senator grassley of Iowa and be realized by society as a whole as the wonderful medicine that it is and has been all along. One day in the not too distant future we Mommies and Daddies will be giving our children cannabis oil extract to our children instead of useless vitamins because cannabis acctually Does something for them, like stop their future cancers and give them longer lives. Something you missed out on helping us iowans to have, right, grassley? Drug warrior is a term of shame and disgrace. Drug warrior is a term for self serving liar and pension seeking dead weight on the tax paying public. Drug warriors, you are becoming increasingly isolated as scum. Feel it? Remember grassley, I told you, We won't remember you for your taxes and parks and crap like that. We Will remember you for enabling the gunned up cops to come into our bedrooms and take our kids away from us because Mommy smoked a joint. We will hate your evil guts for the rest of our lives for that shit! And those judges that successfully command us parents to silence to cover up your twisted, evil deeds? If we cannabis growers can see your evil so much so more can God Who Overflows see you! Read the truth, friends: LATEST NEWS[WHR] Whirlpool shares up 15% PRESS RELEASE Cannabis Science Inc. Reports on Prospective Life Saving Treatments for H1N1 Swine Flu and H5N1 Bird Flu in View of the Current Global Threat SAN FRANCISCO, Apr 27, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Cannabis Science Inc. (GFON: 1.10, +0.20, +22.2%) , an emerging pharmaceutical cannabis company, reported today on the current state of development of its whole-cannabis lozenge in response to Homeland Security Administration Secretary Janet Napolitano's declaration of a public health emergency to deal with the emerging Swine Flu pandemic. The Company's non-toxic lozenge has properties that could alleviate many of the symptoms and harmful effects of the H5N1 bird flu and H1N1 swine flu viruses, and has offered its assistance to HSA today in a letter to Secretary Napolitano. The Company has offered to produce up to 1 million doses of its whole-cannabis lozenge, and provide them to HSA for distribution at cost. Cannabis Science Inc., President & CEO, Steven W. Kubby said, "We have the science and preliminary anecdotal results confirming the anti-inflammatory properties of our new lozenges and indicating they may present an effective and non-toxic treatment for minimizing the symptoms and harm from influenza infections. Our lozenges appear to down-regulate the body's excessive inflammatory response to the influenza virus, which could reduce the deadly consequences of an infection into something that is more like a common cold. Because of my cancer and diminished auto-immune functions, even common influenza is a deadly threat, and I've had incredible symptomatic relief with the lozenge." Dr. Robert J. Melamede, Director and Chief Science Officer, stated, "The influenza virus has a unique genetic make up that, in combination with its replicative machinery, has an extraordinary capacity to mutate. As a result, the high lethality of some strains can be attributed to the resulting adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). ARDS is caused by an excessive immune inflammatory response driven by Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) that leads to the death of respiratory epithelial cells and resulting organ failure. Endocannabinoids are nature's way of controlling TNF activity. Existing peer reviewed publications have shown that phytocannabinoids can prevent this cell death by mimicking the endocannabinoids that nature has selected to prevent excessive inflammatory immune responses." Dr. Melamede, who is also a researcher and past Chairman of the Biology Department at the University of Colorado Springs (UCCS), cautioned, "Smoked marijuana will not effectively prevent the excessive inflammatory response, despite delivering the beneficial pharmacological agents, due to the irritating, pro-inflammatory nature of smoke. In fact, I believe it will make things worse and should be avoided by infected individuals." Mr. Kubby added, "If a swine or bird flu pandemic emerges -- and everyone seems to think that it is just a matter of when, not if --, there is simply no time for the usual bureaucratic process. With emergency government approval, we can legally access the huge supply of medical cannabis available in California to produce millions of life saving doses within a relatively short period of time." Dr. Melamede furthermore stated, "Based upon recent discoveries regarding the role that endocannabinoid system plays in maintaining human health, we have a unique solution to the looming threat posed by deadly influenza strains that we believe, if implemented, could save millions of lives. We will strive for an emergency review of our cannabis extract-based lozenge because we believe its availability will prevent many of the deaths associated with the hyper-inflammatory response associated with known lethal strains of the influenza virus. Current anti-influenza medications have a demonstrated decreased effectiveness against some of these lethal variants. Mankind cannot wait for the emergency situation to materialize. We must be proactive in gaining the necessary governmental approvals to test, and pending the outcome of our studies, produce our lozenge." Mr. Richard Cowan, Director and CFO, who recently spoke in Mexico City to a conference sponsored by the Mexican Congress, stated, "I believe the Mexican Congress recognizes that doctors should be able to prescribe medical cannabis. We are prepared to work with the government of Mexico to produce similar medical cannabis products to help fight the outbreak there. We look forward to working with Government officials, including Homeland Security, to help advance our treatments for these outbreaks in Mexico, Canada, the USA, and around the world." About the H5N1 Bird Flu and H1N1 Swine Flu Strains The H5N1 bird flu currently has 63% lethality. A swine-derived H1N1 strain was responsible for 20,000,000 influenza associated deaths in 1918 (more than killed by World War I). The current lethal outbreak of swine flu (H1N1) in Mexico has killed over 80 people and infected more than 1,400 others. There are 20 confirmed cases in the United States, with reports of infections in Texas, New York, Ohio, California and Kansas. Additional reports identify possible cases in New Zealand, Canada, Spain, France and Israel. The H1N1 Swine flu is a porcine respiratory disease caused by type A flu viruses. Human cases occur in people who are around pigs, but an infected person can transmit the disease to another person. Symptoms include a high fever, body aches, coughing, sore throat and respiratory congestion. About Cannabis Science, Inc. Cannabis Science, Inc. is at the forefront of medical marijuana research and development. The Company works with world authorities on phytocannabinoid science targeting critical illnesses, and adheres to scientific methodologies to develop, produce, and commercialize phytocannabinoid-based pharmaceutical products. In sum, we are dedicated to the creation of cannabis-based medicines, both with and without psychoactive properties, to treat disease and the symptoms of disease, as well as for general health maintenance. Forward-Looking Statements This Press Release includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Act of 1934. A statement containing works such as "anticipate," "seek," intend," "believe," "plan," "estimate," "expect," "project," "plan," or similar phrases may be deemed "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Some or all of the events or results anticipated by these forward-looking statements may not occur. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include the future U.S. and global economies, the impact of competition, and the Company's reliance on existing regulations regarding the use and development of cannabis-based drugs. Cannabis Science, Inc. does not undertake any duty nor does it intend to update the results of these forward-looking statements. SOURCE: Cannabis Science Inc. Cannabis Science Inc. Steven W. Kubby, President & CEO, 888-889-0888 info@cannabisscience.com www.cannabisscience.com