Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
My abstract was rejected by the conference. I'm a neuroscientist formerly funded by NIDA studying benefits of cannabinoids on pain & addiction.
Dr. Carl Hart speaks eloquently about NIDA's deliberate skewing of the data here:
It's not a worry that the old politicians are again relying on the old pack of lies they have told so many times that they now believe the lies to be absolute truth. The silent majority is replacing the same old party politicians with a new president and all new senators and representatives as they come up for re-election. A whole new government that does work for the people and does what the majority of the people of his nation want. Marijuana will soon be legal for adults medicinally and recreationally. Tax money will go into making America great again and a better place to live and not be going to every other nation except ours. The blatant lie our government keeps telling offends me, a 100% disabled veteran, that's states marijuana has NO medical value. IT does! it certainly helps those sent into combat and come home with PTSD. It certainly helps those that have service connected in juries such as myself manage the 24/7/365 pain without getting hooked on the opiates the VA gave out for pain. Turning hundreds of thousands of veterans into opiate junkies. Now the government has been telling the VA and doctors to NOT give out Vicodin and Oxycontin for chronic pain, but did not offer any alternative for those who have now lost their pain medication and still won't legalize marijuana that has been proven by many universities and medical research facilities that marijuana does in fact relieve chronic pain. America's politicians disgust me. I for one wish to see them all out on their asses begging to work for food just like so many Americans were forced to do. Veteran Robert Therrien
Great comments James Gierach - spot on.
GIERACH Drug Axioms from Speeches, Campaigns and Writings
1. If drugs are bad, Drug War is worse.
2. Drug prohibition is the most effective policy to put more drugs uncontrolled and unregulated everywhere.
3. We can have safe streets or drug prohibition, but not both.
4. UN Drug Treaties are the foundation and fountainhead for the World War on Drugs.
5. Everything in drug policy works in reverse; good drug policy is counterintuitive.
6. The harder we try to suppress drugs, the more they flourish.
7. An anti-drug ad is first and foremost a drug ad.
8. Drug cartels and street gangs want us to burn their seized drugs which is very helpful to protect their exclusive control over drugs, drug markets and persons addicted to drugs.
9. Outlawing drug products makes something that grows on a plant in the ditch having no value, the most valuable commodity on the face of the Earth.
10. The ‘good guys’ and the 'bad guys’ are both on the same side of the line of scrimmage, both in favor of drug prohibition. (Capone, Brownfield, Escobar, Botticelli, 'El Chapo’ Guzman, Fedatov, Hoover, Emanuel…)
Why does Pres. Obama have drug warriors like Botticelli, Brownfield, Lynch and Volkow in key offices. They should be retired, fired and recalled. Save us from the War on Drugs, much worse than drugs! Amend UN Drug Treaties. End the War on Drugs! James E. Gierach
When are Emeryville and Oakland going to follow the example of the city of Berkeley requiring medical marijuana dispensaries to give away two percent of the amount of cannabis they sell each year free to low-income patients.
As Berkeley City Councilmember Darryl Moore said: “Basically, the city council wants to make sure that low-income, homeless, indigent folks have access to their medical marijuana, their medicine.
Can Emeryville and Oakland be less compassionate?
Why is anybody surprised? This country continues it's long and distinguished history of systematically favoring whites and blocking economic access to people of color. Rich white boys are making vaults of money in some states cultivating and distributing marijuana in massive amounts while people of color in other places have had their lives ruined for doing exactly the same thing. How many historical examples do we need to bring up? The GI bill in the 50's became the greatest stimulus for white middle class wealth accumulation and upward mobility in the history of the country. The problem was that only white veterans could access the program and buy new homes in suburbia. This white suburban sprawl was further subsidized by a national highways act and federal funding for school construction. At the same time, black GI's could only by homes in certain neighborhoods and were subject to predatory lending practices. That pattern was recently repeated in the housing crisis of 2008. Let's look at some more recent events. Erin Andrews was just awarded 55 million dollars because a hotel unknowingly allowed some pervert to view her through a peephole. At the same time, a black man recently freed by the justice project after 39 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, is awarded only 1 million dollars. Who do you think is more damaged? Serena Williams is the greatest women's tennis player of all time. She has over 20 grand slam wins. However, Anna Kournikova makes more money. Serena has beaten Kournikova 18 times in head to head matches and Kournikova has only 4 grand slam wins in 10 years. Uber claims to be an example of the so called new economy. The only new thing is that these young white investors are getting rich because don't play by the same rules as others providing transportation services. The cab industry, at least in the bay area, is dominated by middle eastern service providers. Uber has been allowed to come in, play by different rules and take money from the pockets of these hard working drivers. Uber is a transportation company the owns no cars. Airbnb is a transient occupancy provider that owns no hotels. This is not a new economy, this is certain people being allowed to systematically circumvent the rules in order to profit. White privilege is alive and well. Why should we expect anything different from the marijuana industry?
The stigma of mental illness has crippled too many for too long, the sufferers, their family and friends. Marijuana has offered relief to many with mental illness. But for info about marijuana and depression please visit undepress.net/marijuana-and-depression-is-it-really-as-bad-as-they-say/
So what does Cannabis Sativa, Inc. have to do with Kush, Inc.?
What was that about a 'SELL' rating?
From the article:
"Cannabis Sativa Inc (OTCBB:CBDS) has heated up in a big way and is making a spectacular move up on record volume as pot stocks have ignited after GW Pharmaceuticals announced positive Phase 3 trial data for its drug Epidiolex, for the treatment of Dravet syndrome.
The news is a game changer for pot stocks especially CBDS with several irons of their own in the fire as it proves that cannabinoids can produce compelling and clinical important data and represent a highly promising new class of medications.
Cannabis Sativa Inc (OTCBB:CBDS) is a holding Company in the pot sector with a number of subsidiaries including Hi Brands International, Inc., a Nevada corporation that recently opened its first “Hi” branded marijuana dispensary on October, 2015 in Portland, Oregon."
>>>"Those shares can't be traded for six months after their date of issue."
Since voting day is less than 8 months away, what good will that do MCLR? - Their most crucial need is money to gather signatures to get on the ballot. It's too little, too late. - If they wanted to make a serious contribution, they should have just done it with cash.
Response to Article by David Downs March 13, 2016
I'm a small investor owner in Kush Inc., the subject of David's article.
I want to set the record straight. I'm writing based on my research from public documents and Kush releases. I am not an attorney or CPA. All information shared is to the best of my knowledge.
I take offense to an article clearly intended to smear and damage a political opponent.
The competition between AUMA and MCLR has degenerated into dirty politics.
Is his article a hit piece arranged by the AUMA group?
Why else would David go after a charitable effort and undermine an upcoming IPO of a cannabis start-up? It's easy to see his assertions are vague and unfounded.
No good deed goes unpunished...
First of all, as I understand it, the shares KUSH donated to MCLR aren't free trading.
Those shares can't be traded for six months after their date of issue.
That means two things.
First of all, unlike Alan's assertion, the shares will have little effect on the proposed IPO date of 4/20. Secondly, when the shares 'mature' and can be sold, they will have a clear value.
Another problem is the idea Kush randomly chose a share price. While the 'real' value won't be known for some time, the IPO and PPO values were suggested by the company's SEC Attorney and Brokerage house, based on the business plan and other factors. They are named in their business plan and filings.
A third point: Kush sold $150,000 worth of shares in the first 24 hours of their PPO.
There is at least that much faith in the management team, business plan and intellectual property.
The idea of a 'Canna-business' IPO to kick off on April 20th, a key anniversary day for Cannabis enthusiasts, is pure genius. I understand Kush is confident they can pull it off.
Alan's misleading and politically motivated article is unfair to Kush and its investors.
He says 'experts' say certain things, but doesn't always name them.
What ever happened to naming your sources?
I highly doubt Alan has either read the offering or contacted anyone at Kush.
If he's going to stoop as low as this, he might at least be sure of his facts before he tries to destroy the dreams of both the supporters of MCLR and KUSH Inc. Investors.
I own more than 5,000 and less than 10,000 shares of Kush at this time.
I'm have volunteered for CCHI, a different competing Cannabis Legalization Initiative.
Rupert Baxter - Absolutely right. - That's why I said it would be okay with most consumers if the state grew and sold all the marijuana. - The incredibly important thing is stopping all punishment of consumers. - AUMA does that, and will likely end the fraudulent federal prohibition as well.
Thanks for speaking out for consumers and freedom lovers! - It's refreshing after hearing the GGAL lying to fool consumers into voting against their own freedom.
Trump might be a lot of things but stupid he is not. There's too much money in it now to repeal the legalized weed. Unless he wants to make a ton of people bankrupt or unemployed he'll leave it as a state's rights issue. He's pro 2nd amendment and a finding that federal law trumps (pun intended ) state law would really threaten that position which is a bigger deal to more people than cannabis.
John Thomas: Well put. Let me go further to try to illuminate where our priorities should be. If AUMA passed and _every single jurisdiction_ in California decided to ban recreational marijuana business of all types - every single city, every single county, between Crescent City, Alturas, San Diego, and El Centro - it would not be an ideal situation, but AUMA would still have been a great victory. The point is to stop criminalizing personal use and growth, stop the drug war which destroys the lives of thousands of people, predominantly of color: that is the moral priority.*
Setting up a viable commercial structure, eliminating the black market, and ensuring safe access is important but secondary, and to some extent must be be a battle for another day.
* And no blather, please, about AUMA criminalizing activity: the vast majority of AUMA's criminal provisions are eliminating or loosening penalties, it merely doesn't create the no-regulation libertarian utopia absolutists seem to want; it does explicitly gives the Legislature authority to further loosen penalties down the line by majority vote as we work out the ideal set of rules.
Are you really going to act so naive as to deny the vast majority of those shouting against AUMA are growers or sellers? I noticed you didn't deny that you are one.
>>>"that the law shuts farmers in these areas--greedy or not, regulation-hating or not--out of the new legal regime."
So? - It's still world's better than the way things are. Again, marijuana reform is not about the growers and sellers. I'm so tired of the GGAL, I really wish the state would just grow and sell all the marijuana. - At least for ten years or so.
The whole Eastern half of Oregon has insidiously achieved banning dispensaries and farms, but ALL of the consumers are still exponentially better off and very glad Oregon passed legalization. Even consumers in the Eastern half are now legal and don't have to worry about every encounter with the police anymore. - And Eastern Oregon will eventually come on board - much faster than they would have if Oregon hadn't won legalization.
>>>"for many rural folks in the Northstate, where job opportunities are scarce, the cannabis market is the best economic opportunity going."
That's their fault if they went into it with any long-term expectations. No one should enter into a black-market without realizing the risks and likely temporary nature. They should have saved all that incredible mark-up they charged to bankroll something else. Further, it's a huge, new (legal) industry. To sit and moan you won't be able to break into it just sounds pathetic and lazy. And if you can't, so what? - Do you really think you're going to convince consumers it's better to stay criminals so you can keep feeding off their blood?
>>>"From what I've observed, it is to be expected that leaving tens of thousands of outdoor farmers out of the legal market will make the black market very much larger."
Nonsense. Marijuana reform is a national movement, following the same trajectory as when we ended the misguided alcohol prohibition. We will increasingly dry up the black-market as each new state ends prohibition. - When was the last time you bought some moonshine?
>>>"AUMA is likely to have serious social costs as tax dollars from growers in one county go to law enforcement to bust "unlicensed" (because unlicense-able) farmers in the next county over."
More nonsense. Why would anyone set up a large commercial operation in a place where it was prohibited, when they could just do so in the accomodating areas?
The logical end-game of marijuana is it will be grown on large farms in the areas with the best climates and shipped everywhere else. That's not what you want, but again, marijuana reform is not about the growers and sellers. It never was.
Everything good flows from one legal ounce. - Just ask any consumer in the any of the four Free States. - AUMA not only frees Californians, but will break the back of the fraudulent federal prohibition as well.
John Thomas, it would appear you read my comment without much care in your haste to paint every critic with the "Greedy Growers Against Legalization" brush.
To take just one example, my point about prime cultivation country being under outdoor bans has nothing to do with home gardens being allowed indoors. The point is that the law shuts farmers in these areas--greedy or not, regulation-hating or not--out of the new legal regime.
That's unfair for those farmers, but it's also evident that for many rural folks in the Northstate, where job opportunities are scarce, the cannabis market is the best economic opportunity going. From what I've observed, it is to be expected that leaving tens of thousands of outdoor farmers out of the legal market will make the black market very much larger.
That's the "Achilles heel" I'm talking about. Given the realities on the ground, AUMA is likely to have serious social costs as tax dollars from growers in one county go to law enforcement to bust "unlicensed" (because unlicense-able) farmers in the next county over.
That's not "getting it right," JT.
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation