Yo Ho, Reefer Pirates! Remember me rant several months ago about how reasonable it is to allow us reefer heads to smoke and drive? Wasn't I just awful again?? Seems like your humble narrator has company! The entire state of Califonia seems to have come on board the good ship Bush and passed some law changes. How nice. Medical Marijuana Advocates Get Calif. DMV Change Qualified Patients No Longer Subject to Arbitrary License Revocation The ASA legal team saw the fruits of another big victory for patients in March, when the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued a new policy on driver's licenses that ends discrimination against state medical marijuana patients. ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford As of March 2, the DMV Driver Safety Procedure Manual now says that "use of medicinal marijuana approved by a physician should be handled in the same manner as any other prescription medication which may affect safe driving." The change means that medical marijuana use now "does not, in itself, constitute grounds for a license withdrawal action," as it had in the past. The change in DMV policy stems from a lawsuit filed by ASA on behalf of Rose Johnson, 53, whose driving license was revoked because she uses medical marijuana on the advice of her doctor. Despite having driven for 37 years without an accident or a ticket, the DMV revoked Johnson's license last July. According to the DMV, Johnson was no longer able to safely operate a motor vehicle "because of...[an] addiction to, or habitual use of, [a] drug." Their evidence? Her doctor's recommendation for medical marijuana. ASA filed suit on Johnson's behalf in November, and DMV announced their new policy in January, before her case was heard. Johnson was given a driving test, which she passed, and DMV reinstated her license. "The new DMV policy is a significant change," said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who handled the action. "Drivers will no longer have their licenses suspended or revoked simply because of their status as medical marijuana patients." ASA had reports that the DMV had targeted medical marijuana patients in at least eight California counties, including Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Glenn, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, and Sonoma. License suspensions and revocations by the DMV were done under cover of calling the drivers "drug abusers," though they were based on nothing more than the person's status as a state-qualified medical marijuana patient. "This DMV policy change represents a victory for patients, which puts us closer to full implementation of California's medical marijuana law," said Elford. My friends, isn't this just great? Ha! I take morphenyweenies and percocets and methadone.... yech! But, I am a real bad boy if I also smoke weed? I think NOT! And now a news flash: senator Chaz Grassley has switched sides in the marijuana debate and decided to stop being a drug warrior and general puke with a great big mouth. Ahh, no. He is commited to being a dinosaur and will likily remain so to his death. Why is it that we are stuck with leaders who can't or won't change their minds when the people who put them in want something different? and better?? More on this issue later, right chuck? Hey Senator Chucky Grassley! Have you been paying attention to Illinois and Minnesotta? They have red hot pro-cannabis issues coming before the full senate of these two states bordering Iowa! You are getting more and more isolated, drug warrior moron. Dinosaurs are not remembered for the bridges they got us. They are remembered for telling the cops and child protective to come into our bedrooms all gunned up and take our precious children by violent force because Mommy smoked a joint. You Will be remembered senator grassley. For being a nazi puke. I am the bush and you can kiss it, drug warrior morons. Legalize our smoke at All levels and give us our children back!

I bet this guy is Great. This is the sort of business we grower/tokers need to start seeing prosper right through the hard ground of the current stock environment. If our cannabis can become an investment by the mainstream of our business culture then our legalization just CanNOT be too far behind. I asked the Chinese girls I was in college accounting class with (and these girls worked hard and this was a knee-buster of a college class ) if they ever had Coka Cola over there in the homeland. When they excitedly said, "Yes!" I knew capitalism was not too far behind. Same applies here with a pot-based business. Once they start getting used to us being around and not being distant and murderous alien lifeforms they only hear about from the pukey politicians then we are on our way to acceptance and legalization. Here is the next installment of the thin edge of the wedge, pot haters. Brought to you by: the scientific community and your local marijuana grower's community. From: "Steve Kubby" < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:16 AM Subject: KUB: "Are these guys nuts? They'll NEVER get FDA approval for their cannabis-based medicines." Dear Friends, Last week, Gulf Onshore, a  publicly traded, over-the-counter, oil leasing company acquired the assets of Cannex Therapeutics, a cannabis research and development company that was started by Dr. Robert Melamede, Richard Cowan and yours truly. In simple terms, the owners of Gulf have decided to exit the oil business, sell off their oil leases and merge with Cannex.  For them, our venture is just the ticket for an environmentally friendly, 21st century company.  Best of all, we acquired controlling interest and, with their full support, replaced their team with ours. Hopefully, people will appreciate that in merging our two companies, we recycled an ugly old oil company, into a cannabis-friendly company instead. Fox News and other financial networks covered the event, as did Bio Century, a $4,000 per year trade magazine for the biotech industry. Meanwhile, many of our friends and most of the drug policy reform movement was left scratching their heads and wondering, "Are these guys nuts? They'll NEVER get FDA approval for their cannabis-based medicines." Of course, when we explain our plan, the lights go on and people understand why we are confident we can succeed. For example, the FDA has already approved phase 3 human trials of another cannabis based product by a pharmaceutical company.  We believe our product is very similar in formulation and much more effective.  In fact, we conducted tests in Canada that confirmed that our product was more desirable.  However, the important point here is that the precedent has already been established for us. Another objection that we hear is that our venture is too risky and uncertain.  Yes, our venture is a risk and investors could lose everything, but where is there a "safe" investment these days?  Let’s say we had a deal with Lehman Bros. It was guaranteed by AIG and funded by RBS and our cash is managed by Madoff & Co. Think how safe that would have looked! Meanwhile, in the real world, we attempted to launch our new endeavor, while we confronted a stock market crash and a collapse of the credit markets.  Despite such overwhelming challenges, we have persevered and we have made business history. So, for us, right now, acquiring a publicly traded company is a significant accomplishment, not just for us, but for all who believe in this miraculous, healing herb. Everyone congratulates us, but then they go out of their way to inform me that the odds are just too staggering for me to pull this off. Well, excuse me, but I have a proven track record of repeatedly defying enormous odds and still succeeding: --No one has ever survived my form of cancer for more than a few years, yet this is my 35th year of surviving this deadly disease and cannabis is the only medicine I use.  For most of those 35 years people laughed at me when I told them the cannabis was keeping my cancer under control.  Today, our company has a database of 510 scientific, peer-reviewed studies showing that cannabinoids kill cancer cells. --No one believed me when I promised to deliver the half million dollars we needed to collect signatures and qualify Prop. 215 for the ballot, but I did.  Everyone said we would never succeed, but I knew we had the polling numbers and the element of surprise.  I told our wealthy sponsors, "It will never be easier or less expensive than NOW."  Fortunately, they listened and gave us the money. --No one believed I could fight off 19 felony charges with a minimum of 40 years in prison, but I did AND so did you, because you supported my battle with the Blue Meanies and many of you even contributed to my defense fund. --No one, not even my closest friends and family, believed me when I insisted that I would ultimately be vindicated, my convictions dismissed, and my record expunged, yet that is exactly what came to pass. As you can see, I have an extraordinary track record of overcoming seemingly impossible odds. I ask that you respect my track record and join our venture.  Vote with your wallet, so we can work together to show the world that we mean business. Even if you are only investing $100 through an online brokerage site, you'll still be making a statement and you'll be investing in a prosperous future of your own values and beliefs. It amazes me how excited my friends and fellow activist become about paying the government $100 million in taxes.  How about creating a $100 million cannabis-based medicine company instead?  Personally, I find that far more exciting and creative. Can we actually create a viable, cannabis-based pharmaceutical company with FDA approved medicines that are nontoxic, organic, and highly effective?  All I can tell you is what I tell everyone else: "It will never be easier or less expensive then NOW." If it would be a suitable investment for you, we are a publicly traded, over-the-counter (Bulletin Board, not Pink Sheets) stock, you can look us up with our current symbol NASD OTCBB: GFON and invest and own a stake in a future world where cannabis is accepted and approved for medical use. But what about the name?  Don't worry, we will be announcing a change in the company name to Cannabis Science Inc. (CSI), later this week. Call me if you have any questions. Let freedom grow, Steve Kubby, CEO, Cannabis Science, Inc.

American Indian wants

smoking ban exemption

for religious ceremonies

HAMILTON, Ill. — Larry Cooper is not a smoker. The Hancock County man couldn't care less that the state's 14-month-old Smoke Free Illinois Act prevents lighting up in restaurants or restricts smoking in public areas. Cooper is an American Indian, visibly proud of his heritage, and his concern is that the legislation makes it nearly impossible to conduct indoor tribal religious ceremonies. Those ceremonies include using smoke from burning prairie grasses, herbs and pure tobacco and the use of ceremonial pipes. Cooper, a member of the Standing Bear Council, is seeking an amendment to the state act that exempts such religious practices. "It (would mean) nothing to the general public," he said. Illinois Sen. John Sullivan, D-Rushville, introduced the state act amendment in February. It will be heard in the Senate's Public Health Committee on Tuesday. If it passes, it will go to the full Senate for a vote. Sullivan said if the necessary approvals are then gathered from the Illinois House, it could be May before the amendment becomes part of the act. The language in Senate Bill 1685 reads, "'smoke' or 'smoking' does not include smoking that is associated with a recognized religious ceremony, ritual, or activity." Sullivan said the issue with the law was brought to his attention by Cooper. He added that he's also met with opponents of any change to the smoke-free act. "It should be a good argument," he said of the committee discussion. Smoke is a large part of American Indian ceremonies and celebrations. One practice, called smudging, is a cleansing ritual before American Indians go into the "circle" to dance. Sage is burned to cleanse the spirit as part of the practice. "We're not just out there dancing," Cooper said. "The circle is a sacred place, and you don't enter it without being cleansed. We try to teach traditional things, so why would we ... do it untraditionally?" Grasses such as prairie sage, lavender and black cedar are crushed and steeped in a stone bowl for at least some of the ceremonies. The process appears similar to burning incense, which Cooper said is also not allowed under Illinois' new smoking act. "Different herbs are used for different processes," he said. "There are no chemicals in any of the herbs." Since the smoke-free act was passed, Cooper said he and other practitioners have been told the ceremonies must be conducted outdoors. He likens that to members of a church having to go outside to take communion. "This is not right," he said. "We shouldn't have to do that. We have to draw a line somewhere." Cooper said he knew seven months before the act was passed by state legislators that it would infringe on the religious rights of American Indians. "I tried then to get the amendment," he said. There was a similar issue when Iowa passed a smoking ban recently. But Cooper said it took just a few telephone calls and a few weeks to get an amendment passed through the Iowa Legislature. Cooper said he has been contacted by an attorney for the American Cancer Society about his requests. He said the attorney asked him not to pursue the amendment and told him a federal law protecting such religious practices should usurp the state law. But Cooper argues that most everyone in Illinois is familiar with the state ban but few know about the federal allowance. "By federal law we have the right," he said. "But it's not our job to try to explain this to people. We shouldn't have to debate what we can and can't do." While Cooper waits for a state legislative decision on the proposed amendment, he's busy at his home office making calls to American Indian groups around the country. He's no longer asking for amendment support but is asking American Indian groups to no longer donate to agencies such as the cancer society that oppose the amendment. "I'm just asking them, but I've had a very good response," he said. An attorney for the cancer society did not return a message seeking comment on the amendment. "I'm looking for a means of coming back and putting pressure on the ones coming at us," Cooper said. "Our people have been very generous. There are enough of us nationwide - I'm sure we can put a stop to it. We'll (hold back) money from the ones creating the problems." Your humble narrator is Sioux as well as veddy English unt German. Personally, I am For getting rid of the damned fags as I watch my friends who puff the evil weed of tobacco cough their lungs up after bonging it up with the bush. I cough, too, but it is soo much different for me because I don't suck down them cancerettes. But, for religious purposes, state law must yeild for the religious execption. period. Lots of such gatherings do not inhale. Did you know that? We don't inhale the peace pipe, folks. Well, uh, some of D0, but no one seems to notice lol bush

Govie pukes give me a migraine... think I'll medicate, as my American Indian brother in law calls it just before we get bonged up. Hey! Tired of being a reefer grower and getting all that fake shit the federal gov of the USA passes out for information on pot? Why not try the unfettered/lesser fettered science from other nations? Like this: On Wed, 4/1/09, Adam Krause < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it > wrote: From: Adam Krause < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it > Subject: MINORML-TALK: Active Ingredient in Marijuana Kills Brain Cancer To: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 6:54 PM HealthDay News Source: Forbes Magazine HealthDay News -- New research out of Spain suggests that THC -- the active ingredient in marijuana -- appears to prompt the death of brain cancer cells. The finding is based on work with mice designed to carry human cancer tumors, as well as from an analysis of THC's impact on tumor cells extracted from two patients coping with a highly aggressive form of brain cancer. Explaining that the introduction of THC into the brain triggers a cellular self-digestion process known as "autophagy," study co-author Guillermo Velasco said his team has isolated the specific pathway by which this process unfolds, and noted that it appears "to kill cancer cells, while it does not affect normal cells." Velasco is with the department of biochemistry and molecular biology in the School of Biology at Complutense University in Madrid. The findings were published in the April issue of The Journal of Clinical Investigation. The Spanish researchers focused on two patients suffering from "recurrent glioblastoma multiforme," a fast-moving form of brain cancer. Both patients had been enrolled in a clinical trial designed to test THC's potential as a cancer therapy. Using electron microscopes to analyze brain tissue taken both before and after a 26- to 30-day THC treatment regimen, the researchers found that THC eliminated cancer cells while it left healthy cells intact. The team also was able, in what it described as a "novel" discovery, to track the signaling route by which this process was activated. These findings were replicated in work with mice, which had been "engineered" to carry three different types of human cancer tumor grafts. "These results may help to design new cancer therapies based on the use of medicines containing the active principle of marijuana and/or in the activation of autophagy," Velasco said. Outside experts suggested that more research is needed before advocating marijuana as a medicinal intervention for brain cancer. Dr. John S. Yu, co-director of the Comprehensive Brain Tumor Program in the Maxine Dunitz Neurosurgical Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, said the findings were "not surprising." "There have been previous reports to this effect as well," he said. "So this is yet another indication that THC has an anti-cancer effect, which means it's certainly worth further study. But it does not suggest that one should jump at marijuana for a potential cure for cancer, and one should not urge anyone to start smoking pot right away as a means of curing their own cancer." But that's exactly what many brain cancer patients have been doing, said Dr. Paul Graham Fisher, the Beirne Family director of Neuro-Oncology at Stanford University. "In fact, 40 percent of brain tumor patients in the U.S. are already using alternative treatments, ranging from herbals to vitamins to marijuana," he said. "But that actually points out a cautionary tale here, which is that many brain cancer patients are already rolling a joint to treat themselves, but we're not really seeing brain tumors suddenly going away as a result, which we clearly would've noticed if it had that effect. So we need to be open-minded. But this suggests that the promise of THC might be a little over-hoped, and certainly requires further investigation before telling people to go out and roll a joint." More information: For additional details on the risks and benefits of marijuana use as it relates to cancer, visit the American Cancer Society. Newshawk: Cheebs1 Source: Forbes Magazine (US) Published: April 1, 2009 Copyright: 2009 Forbes Inc. http://cannabisnews.com/news/24/thread24666.shtml The doc is high on medical model control boolshit, isn't he? I don't tell my ill friends to smoke joints. I tell em to eat> cannabis grease from extracted oil. This is apparently illegal in california! unless you use an Ice o Lator or somesuch. Personally, the Bush LIKES butane. lol

Here is a quote from a nice group of peeps and grandma I would love to meet before I have to leave Oregon and go back ( heavy on the "back") to iowa where I will be subjected to the political fakery of the two senators, harkin ( sell out to the pharmaceutical giants who calls himself a democrat but in reality is a republican puke ) and grassley ( great name, pukey politics and perfectly fits the following description of politicians ). Sucks to be me, but I shall get the hello out of there as fast as I can unload my real estate and load my truck. Off to Oregon I shall go. Ho Ho.

US CA: Column: Three Former Presidents And The Law

THREE FORMER PRESIDENTS AND THE LAWIt seems pretty obvious that the last three presidents - Bill Clinton, George W.  Bush and Barack Obama - once smoked marijuana.  OK, Clinton claimed he didn't inhale.  Bush refused to say whether he ever used drugs, instead he coyly alluded to mistakes in his youth.  Obama didn't play games in his memoir, "Dreams from my Father," he wrote about using marijuana and cocaine as a kid. The big question: If all three men nonetheless managed to become president, why can't Washington decriminalize marijuana? Or better yet, legalize, regulate and tax it. At what the White House billed last week as an "experimental" town hall meeting with questions submitted online, the most popular questions were about marijuana.  President Obama chose not to answer any such question directly.  Instead, the president volunteered that "there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high, and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation." Then he quipped to laughter, "And I don't know what this says about the online audience." His answer to his question: "No, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy." Fair enough, legalizing marijuana isn't a strategy to improve the economy.  But there are reasons to legalize marijuana, such as the 872,720 marijuana arrests made in America in 2007 - more than 775,000 were for possession, not sale or manufacture.  Those individuals who are convicted may have criminal records and may have trouble obtaining financial aid for college - even if some day they could grow up to be president. And what can America show for its drug laws? The World Health Organization found that 42.4 percent of Americans had tried marijuana - - the highest ratio of any of 17 countries surveyed.  WHO researchers concluded that drug use "does not appear to be related to drug policy, as countries with more stringent policies ( e.g., the United States ) did not have lower levels of illegal drug use than countries with more liberal policies ( e.g.  the Netherlands )." In short, drug laws don't work, but they cost the federal government alone some $3.7 billion annually, according to Harvard economist Jeffrey A.  Miron. Ess Eff's Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project observed that "I can't say that I'm completely surprised by the way Obama dealt with it, but I wonder if he was smart to insult the online audience that played a very large role in electing him." Insult? I don't think Obama meant to insult anyone.  I think that was a well-executed political straddle - Obama winked at the pro-legalization crowd, even as he ran from the policy it so craves. Mirken told me, "I can't help but feel that ( Obama ) really knows better, but just doesn't think he can go there politically now." That's the sign of a successful straddle: When the people whom you officially oppose believe you secretly sympathize with them. In February, pollster Scott Rasmussen reported that 40 percent of Americans support legalizing marijuana, 46 percent oppose, while 14 percent are not sure.  Voters under 40 are more supportive of legalizing marijuana than older folk. With such findings, you might expect that 4 in 10 Washington politicians support legalizing marijuana.  But only a minority of politicians dares support something as modest as the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment to stop federal raids on medical marijuana clinics.  In 2007, the House defeated the measure by a 262-165 vote in its fifth incarnation.  In 2008, however, Hinchey-Rohrabacher never even made it to a House vote. Too toxic for a presidential election year. Mirken and I agree on this: Any change in America's marijuana laws will percolate from the bottom up.  Said Mirken: "This is one of those issues that when it changes, it's going to be all of a sudden, like the fall of the Soviet empire.  I think we're getting close to that point, and I think that politicians will be the last to see it coming." Or maybe the change will never come.  Maybe Americans want politicians who back expensive, ineffective marijuana laws - even if the politicians ignored those laws when they were young. Maybe some voters are willing to support laws that they believe will turn someone else's kids into criminals if it means that their kids will be less likely to stray - even if tough laws don't really dampen drug usage.  Maybe anyone can grow up to be president - whether he inhaled or not - just as long as he campaigns on the promise to just say no.

Stormy Ray can be found at: http://www.stormyray.org/ What a cool grandma, eh? And she looks easy on the eyes, too! Pot smoking girls!! we love you!! Fortunately amotivational syndrome doesn't seem to make them stupid at all. Govie pukes? how could you be soo wrong for sooo long? She is Smart! and gets things done! feds? when will you get a clue??? das bush!