I'm doing some research, and part of that includes some info from you all...

Do you have online forums you frequently use (including ours!)?  (URL please!)

How do you like the way they are set up?

What do you dislike about the way they are set up?

How would you change them to make them easier to use, more useful?

What features would you find useful? (mobile web access, 'sticky' notes, https (SSL certificate), mailing list support,
etc.)

Please post a reply here!

Thanks

Your Looney Moderator

I hope this flies brother.. it's been a long, long haul these last few years.. to long imo. I am tired, very tired.

Ruff draft for mondays court filing .  Anyone in clark county interested being a party to this complaint ?  Or just copy it and make your own.. if you think it will fly. If not, at least I tried. Big Grin

pg1
STATE OF WASHINGTON
CLARK COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

JAMES E. BARBER SR. No.
Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
V JUDGMENT AND FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF; BOND WAIVER REQUEST

CLARK COUNTY, a political
subdivision of Washington State,
Clark-Skamania Drug Task Force,
an unknown entity,
Defendant(s),

______________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff James E. Barber Sr. appearing pro-se, brings this civil action against defendant(s) Clark County, and Clark-Skamania Drug Task Force seeking declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, Chapter 7.24 RCW, and injunctive relief under Chapter 7.40 RCW. This is not a LUPA petition and does qualify as a delineated exception(s) under Chapter 36.70C.030(a)(i),(b) and ( c) do herein apply.

This action arises from the enactment by the board of Clark County Commissioners of Emergency Moratorium Resolution Ordinance No. 2011-08-07 (Moratorium) and emails of commander Mike Cook of the Clark-Skamania Drug Task Force, prohibiting qualifying patients use of medical cannabis, and any collective gardens on land or in any building within Clark County. The Emergency Moratorium Resolution Ordinance is in conflict with the general laws of the State of Washington because it conflicts with: Chapter 69.51A.085(qualifying patient collective garden), 69.51A.025( qualifying patient and designated provider privacy), 69.51A040 ( the immunity clause), which establishes and defines patients rights to use and grow cannabis without local controlling regulation interference(s) either alone, with assistance of a designated provider, or collectively with other patients of upto 10 on any location of land or building. Chapter 9A.36.021 RCW in part because it rises to the level of pain and agony commonly known as equivalent to that of torture, and is a classified as a violent class B felony. Chapter 36.70A.410 RCW because it removes a protected class of handicapped/disabled citizens non-federally funded dwelling structural protections which the legislature and congress prohibits. The emails are a chilling effect on voters rights with a legal force and effect of disenfranchising. They also have a chilling illegal commandeering effect.

Pg.2
The legislature, by it’s enactment of Chapter 69.51A.085 RCW provides in relevant part: Authorized qualifying patient(s) to create and participate in “COLLECTIVE GARDENS” for the purpose of producing, processing, transporting, and delivering cannabis for medical use subject to the following conditions:

(a) No more than ten qualifying patients may participate in a single collective garden at any time;

(b) A collective garden may contain no more than 15 plants per patient upto a total of 45 plants;

( c) A collective garden may contain no more than twenty four ounces f usable cannabis per patient upto a total of seventy-two ounces of usable cannabis.

(d) A copy of each qualifying patient’s valid documentation or proof of registration with the registry established in *section 901 of this act, including a copy of the patients proof of identity, must be available at all times on the premises of the collective garden; and

(e) No usable cannabis from the collective garden is delivered to anyone other than one of the participating in the collective garden.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the creation of a “collective garden” means qualifying patients sharing responsibility for acquiring and supplying the resources required to produce and process cannabis for medical use such as, for example, a location for a collective garden, equipment, supplies, and labor necessary to plant, grow, and harvest cannabis: cannabis plants, seeds, and cuttings ; and equipment, supplies, and labor necessary for proper construction, plumbing, wiring, and ventilation, of a garden of cannabis plants.
[2011 c 181 $ 403]

The legislature, by it’s enactment of Chapter 69.51A.025 Construction of Chapter-Compliance with RCW 69.51A.040 clearly provides: Nothing in this Chapter or in the rules adopted to implement it precludes a qualifying patient or designated provider from engaging in the private, unlicensed, non commercial production, possession, transportation, delivery, or administration of cannabis for medical use as authorized under RCW 69.51A.040.
[2011 c 181 $ 413]

The legislature, by it’s enactment of Chapter 69.51A.040 Compliance with chapter-Qualifying patients and designated providers not subject to penalties-law enforcement not subject to liability provides in relevant part:

The medical use of cannabis in accordance with the terms of this chapter does not constitute a crime and a qualifying patient or designated provider in compliance with the terms and conditions of this chapter may not be arrested, prosecuted, or subjected to other criminal sanctions or civil consequences, for possession, manufacture, or delivery of, or for possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, cannabis under state law, or have real or personal property seized or forfeited for possession, manufacture, or delivery of, or for possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, cannabis under state law, and investigating peace officers and law enforcement agencies may not be held civilly liable for failure to seize cannabis plants in this circumstance if:

Pg.3
(1) (a) The qualifying patient or designated provider possesses no more than fifteen plants and;

( i ) No more than twenty four ounces of usable cannabis;

(ii) No more cannabis product than what could reasonably be produced with no more than twenty four ounces of usable cannabis; or

(iii) A combination of usable cannabis and cannabis product that does not exceed a combined total representing possession and processing of no more than twenty four ounces of usable cannabis.

(b) If a person is both a qualifying patient and a designated provider for another qualifying patient, the person may possess no more than twice the amounts described in (a) of this subsection, whether the plants, usable cannabis, and cannabis product are possessed individually or in combination between the qualifying patient and his or her designated provider.

Section (2) and section (3) are presumed vetoed under section *901 of this act

(4) The investigating peace officer does not possesses evidence that:

(a) The designated provider has converted cannabis produced or obtained for the qualifying patient for his or her own personal use or benefit; or

(b) The qualifying patient has not converted cannabis produced or obtained for his or her own medical use to the qualifying patients personal, non medical use or benefit;

(5) The investigating peace officer does not possess evidence that the designated provider has served as a designated provider to more than one qualifying patient within a fifteen day period; and

Section (6) is presumed vetoed under section *901

[2011 c 181 $ 401; 2007 c 371 $ 5; 1999 c 2 $ 5 ( Initiative Measure No. 692, approved November 3, 1998]

The legislature, by it’s enactment of Chapter 69.51A.045 Possession of cannabis exceeding lawful amount- affirmative defense.

Provides in relevant part: A qualifying patient or designated provider in possession of cannabis plants, or cannabis product exceeding the limits set forth in RCW 69.51A.040(1) but otherwise in compliance with the other terms and conditions of this chapter may establish an affirmative defense to charges of violations of state law relating to cannabis through proof at trial, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the qualifying patient’s necessary medical use exceeds the amounts set forth in RCW 69.51A.040(1).
[2011 c 181 $405]
Pg.4
The legislature, by it’s enactment of RCW 69.50.302 Registration requirements clearly provides in relevant part: :

(c ) The following persons need not register and may lawfully possess controlled substances under this chapter.

(3) An ultimate user or a person in possession of any controlled substance pursuant to a lawful order of a practitioner or in lawful possession of substance included in schedule V
[2011 c 336 $ 839; 1993 c 187 $ 16; 1989 1st ex.s c 9 $ 432; 1971 ex.s. c 308 $ 69.50.302]

The legislature, by it’s enactment of Chapter 9A.36.021 in relevant part:
was to protect the citizens within it’s boarders from serious bodily harm which could amount to serious physical or psychological violations or even death. And provides fully: to punish those violators of a serious criminal violent act with severe punishment to garnish a violation as a class B felony.

The legislature, by it’s enactment of Chapter 36.70A.410 RCW in relevant part: is to protect a specific suspect class of citizens and their property interest from any offending ordinances, development regulations, zoning regulations, or official control, policy or administrative practice which treats a residential structure occupied by persons with handicaps differently than a similar residential structure occupied by a family or other unrelated individuals.
[1993 c 478 $ 23]

The ordinance therefore prohibits any activity allowed by state law when conducted pursuant to a valid recommendation of a medical practitioner for the use of cannabis for medical treatment at or on property in a zoning district for private, non commercial use, and causes by design such pain and agony as to be equivalent of that produced by torture. Because it prohibits what state law permits and causes substantial bodily harm, and even has the potential of causing death to a suspect class of citizens, it is in violation of article 11, section 11 of the Washington State Constitution.

James E. Barber Sr. requests this court declare said emergency moratorium resolution /ordinance 2011-08-07 designation of cannabis use and/or possession in any form covered by state law, even qualifying patients collective gardens and any other subsequent use of any moratorium for qualifying patients collective gardens land use, zoning designation unconstitutional and void with respect to its provision that they classified or declared illegal facilities as defined by the u.s. department of justice , and the county commissioners, their political, legal, environmental advisory board, and any other special interest group or agency.

James E. Barber Sr. further requests that this court enjoin the defendant(s) from enacting or enforcing any ordinance or internal rules, policy, custom or usage or a code change or code additions seeking to prohibit county employees from or to, the normal permit accepting ,processing, inspection and signing off on permits for construction, plumbing, wiring, ventilation as required by the county codes already in place for land use, zoning of private, non-commercial uses.
Pg.5
James E. Barber Sr. alleges as follows:

I. PARTIES and STANDING

1.1 Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Washington. Plaintiff is a “qualifying patient” with valid documentation as required under Chapter 69.51A et. seq. . Plaintiff has “full” vested property use and interest rights which have been prohibited within the county of clark. Plaintiff has standing.

1.2 Defendant Clark County is a political subdivision of the State of Washington. Clark-Skamania Drug Task Force is a agency of unknown origin. The board of Clark Commissioners is the local governmental authority established under RCW 36.32.010 and empowered under RCW 36.32.120(7) to make and enforce within Clark County, by appropriate resolutions or ordinances, all such police and sanitary regulations as are not in conflict with state law. Defendant(s) lack standing as the resolution is not appropriate use of their authority in good faith within the scope of their assigned duties under Chapter 69.51A et. seq., Chapter 36.70A.410, and conflicts with state law intertwined with: disenfranchising the voters of Washington State, defendant prohibition resolution has legal effect of of the eminent domain force of law without notice or just compensation to debilitated and terminally ill qualifying patients property owners which divests “full” use, and interest in their property and usurps, if not fully commandeers the legislature of Washington State rights to enact laws there own for the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens within their borders which therefore, can not be harmonized.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1 The court has jurisdiction over this matter under RCW 7.24 et. Seq.

2.2 Venue is proper in Clark County Superior Court under RCW 36.01.050(1), Clark County Superior Court is the County Court in which both Plaintiff and Defendant(s) are located .

III. BACKGROUND FACTS

3.1 In July of 2011, the board used their emergency moratorium authority without public notice under the auspice in good faith and within the scope of their duties under Chapter 69.51A.140 RCW intertwined with (if not bootstrapped to) 69.51A.130 RCW of land use and zoning districts on the use of cannabis by qualifying patients and designated providers, as well as licensed dispensers as necessary to further the public, for their health, safety, and welfare.

On August 16th, 2011, the board of Clark County Commissioners adopted and enacted resolution/ordinance No. 2011-08-07, after an invitation of special interested persons with prior notice of the public hearing. A true and correct copy of the resolution/ ordinance is attached to this complaint as exhibit 1 and is incorporated by this reference.

3.2 Notice was given to the public for the hearing by the local media outlet. No copy of the
Pg.6
emergency moratorium resolution was included to make the public aware of : the actual facts of why an emergency moratorium was necessary and/or used, nor why a design to assault qualifying patients resolution was being promulgated , nor a planned resolution to disenfranchise the voters of the state and property owners or those whom have interests in property by the clark county-Skamania drug task force agency commander Mike Cook and the defendants political and legal advisors.

3.3 The resolution/ordinance defines by reference relating to land use and zoning, continuing the temporary “prohibition“ of “any facilities for the growing or production, processing, or dispensing of marijuana prior to further study and public analysis” . The resolution also makes reference to the board needing more time to establish local criteria from churches, schools, bus stops, and other public gatherings sites to ensure that the public is properly protected. The resolution further states by reference the production, processing, dispensing of medical marijuana is an important public interest issue and the improper location of such “facilities” could cause serious harm to the public generally and particularly “VULNERABLE” populations, including youth. The resolution also makes by reference in 2011 the legislature has sought to expand the opportunities to grow, produce, process, and dispense medical marijuana in the state of Washington.

The resolutions findings are restricted to section (a) pursuant to section (b), section (a) states: There is a contradiction between Federal law and state law. Until such time as federal law permits or allows Clark County and it’s employees to do so free of federal prosecution, Clark County will not amend its development code to allow the sitting or operation of medical marijuana collective gardens or dispensaries within the county.

Section (b) states: The board hereby adopts the facts contained in the recital clauses above as findings of fact in support of this resolution.

3.4 RCW 69.51A.140 defines and provides: the authority of Cities and Counties as:

(1) Cities and towns may adopt and enforce any of the following pertaining to the production, processing, or dispensing of cannabis or cannabis products within their jurisdiction; Zoning requirements, business licensing requirements, health and safety requirements, and business taxes. Nothing in chapter 181, laws of 2011 is intended to limit the authority of towns and cities to impose zoning requirements or other conditions upon licensed dispensers within it’s jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction has no commercial zones, the jurisdiction is not required to adopt zoning to accommodate licensed dispensers.

(2) Counties may adopt and enforce any of the following pertaining to the production, processing, or dispensing of cannabis or cannabis products within their jurisdiction in locations outside of the corporate limits of any city or town; Zoning requirements, business licensing, requirements, and health and safety requirements. Nothing in chapter 181, laws of 2011 is intended to limit the authority of counties to impose zoning requirements or other conditions upon licensed dispensers, so long as such requirements do not preclude the possibility of sitting licensed dispensers within it’s jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction has no commercial zones, the jurisdiction is not required to adopt zoning to accommodate licensed dispensers.
[2011 c 181 $1102]

Pg.7
3.5 RCW 36.70A.410 Treatment of residential structures occupied by persons with handicaps.

Provides: No county or city that plans or elects to plan under this chapter may enact or maintain an ordinance, development regulation, zoning regulation, or official control, policy, or administrative practice which treats a residential structure occupied by persons with handicaps differently than a similar residential structure occupied by a family or other unrelated individuals. As used in this section, “handicaps” are as defined in the federal fair housing amendments act of 1988 (42 USC sec. 3602).
[1993 c 478 $ 23]

3.6 Clark County and Clark-Skamania Drug Task Force the defendant(s):

(1) Claim they do have legal good faith authority under land use and zoning moratorium statutes to regulate and/or abate any medical use of cannabis by qualifying patients located in RCW 69.51A.025, RCW 69.51A.040, RCW 69.51A.045, RCW 69.51A.085 as it is not state law only regulated but, is federally regulated only , nor does the handicapped/disabled statute under RCW 36.70A.410 apply. [see Exhibit 1]

(2) Defendant county admits and acknowledges the Plaintiff is handicap/disabled as defined by state and federal laws.

(3) Defendant county admits and acknowledges plaintiff has a No. 1 disability exemption rating in relation to real property taxes due to plaintiffs federal disability status. [ Exhibit 2]

(4) Defendant county admits and acknowledges to be in receipt of a $20 million dollar claim filed with clark county risk management with plaintiffs social security disability ruling and order with finding of facts and conclusions of law by a federal administrative law judge containing 8 debilitating medical conditions under state and federal disability laws while using cannabis authorized under state law for plaintiffs suspect class complex seizure disorder as defined as a HIGHLY protected class by congress and as clearly implicated in the judges order. [Exhibit 3]

(5) Defendant county admits and acknowledges plaintiff lives in a dwelling as described in RCW 36.70A.410 as defendant Clark County has already attempted to abate plaintiff due to his disability status.
[Exhibit 4]

3.7 RCW 9A.36.021 Assault in the second degree

Provides in pertinent part: (1) A person is guilty of assault in the second degree if he or she, under circumstances not amounting to assault in the first degree:

(d) with intent to inflict bodily harm, administers to or causes to be taken by another, poison or any other destructive or noxious substance; or

(e) with intent to commit a felony, assaults another; or

(f) Knowingly inflicts bodily harm which by design causes such pain or agony as to be equivalent
Pg.8
of that produced by torture; or

(g) Assaults another by strangulation or suffocation.

(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, assault in the second degree is a class B felony.
[2011 c 166 $ 1; 2007 c 79 $ 2; 2003 c 53 $ 64; 2001 2nd sp.s.c 12 $ 355; 1997 c 196 $ 2; Prior; 1988 c 266 $ 2 ; 1988 c 206 $ 916; 1988 c 158 $ 2; 1987 c 324 $ 2; 1986 c 257 $ 5]

3.8 Continued federal Prohibition of the use of medical cannabis by qualifying patients as authorized by state law would knowingly by design assault debilitated and terminally ill patients to the point of pain and agony as to be equivalent to that of torture and all but, eliminate the health, safety, and welfare the medical cannabis use by qualifying patients the act was designed to embrace and protect. It will have a chilling effect on the voters of the state of Washington by disenfranchising their vote under the initiative processes, it has created an eminent domain legal effect with the force of law and made without notice and/or just compensation. It has the legal effect and the force of law of commandeering the state legislative and judicial processes.

IV CLAIMS

4.1 This is not a land use or zoning petition. Clark County resolution/ordinance No. 2001-08-07 is unconstitutional and is an abuse of clark county commissioners authority because it is in violation of article 11 section 11 of the Washington State Constitution. The resolution/ordinance is contrary to the laws of the State of Washington because it conflicts with and is preempted by RCW 69.51A.025, RCW 69.51A.040, RCW 69.51A.045, RCW 69.51A.085, RCW 36.70A.410, RCW 9A.36.021(d),(e),(f),(g), RCW 69.50.302( c)(3), and The District of Columbia legislating the clear finding that legal use of cannabis sativa l. a schedule 1 controlled substance as having medical use in the united states . The letters to and from the US Dept. of Justice are irrelevant as congress has clearly and unambiguously legalized the sale and distribution by dispensaries and has recognized the medical use of cannabis as a legal substance with medical use to be produced, processed, dispensed, possessed, administered, used and transported. The emails sent by commander Mike Cook of the Clark -Skamania Drug Task Force has a clear federal chilling and commandeering effect with the force of federal law and is also unconstitutional.

4.2 A controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendant(s) as to whether resolution/ordinance 2011-08-07 and/or any subsequent adoptions or moratoriums worded differently with the same legal effect having the force of law is constitutional.

4.3 Plaintiff has suffered immediate damage and injury and will continue to do so if resolution/ordinance 2011-08-07 and/or any subsequent resolutions/ordinances are not declared unconstitutional and are permitted to continue and/or go into legal effect as a force of law.

V REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff James E. Barber Sr. requests that this court grant the following relief:

Pg.9
1. Enter an order waiving any and all bond requirements using the courts sound discretion for just cause and the fact it would jeopardize the plaintiffs health and/or life as delineated in Chapter 7.40.080, and signing judge file said order with the clerk of the superior court.

2. Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff James E. Barber Sr. declaring resolution/ordinance 2011-08-07 is unconstitutional and void, except with respect to “licensed dispensers and/or dispensaries” which is not unconstitutional nor contrary to state law to allow reasonable time to make time to plan for making reasonable code revisions for the public interest of health, safety and welfare.

3. Enter judgment permanently enjoining defendant(s) Clark County and Clark-Skamania Drug Task Force from enacting, or enforcing any resolution/ordinance seeking to prohibit any qualifying patients medical use of cannabis for medical treatment under the auspice of land use and/or any zoning district applications for private, non commercial use and/or of a collective garden. Enter a judgment permanently enjoining the Clark-Skamania Drug Task Force from attempting and /or actually commandeering any local or state legislative and/or judicial processes.

4. Enter a judgment affirming defendants acted in bad faith and did not act within the scope of their assigned duties but, contrary to them.

5. Enter judgment denying defendant(s) cost and attorney fees.

6. Enter at the sound discretion of the court any damages for emotional and/or physical distress that are just under the circumstances or find discovery is warranted as a trial maybe necessary .

DATED this_____ day of March, 2012.

JAMES E. BARBER SR.
APPEARING: PRO-SE

PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT JAMES E. BARBER SR.

By Kiera Flynn on Nov 23, 2011 at 11:54 pm

The petition of the day is:
County of Erie v. Cash

Docket: 11-613
Issue(s): Does imposing municipal liability for a single incident of sexual assault on an inmate by a jail guard contravene the rigorous deliberate indifference and pattern and practice requirements of Connick v. Thompson (2011), Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown (1997), and Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978)?
Certiorari stage documents:

    * Opinion below (2d Cir.)
    * Petition for certiorari

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline

Opinion below (2d Cir.)
Appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendants in the United States District
Court for the Western District of New York (Jeremiah J. McCarthy, Magistrate Judge)
notwithstanding a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for a
violation of due process arising from her sexual assault by a sheriff’s deputy while in pretrial
detention at a county correctional facility. Defendants cross-appeal charging errors in the
special verdict form and inconsistent jury verdicts.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Chief Judge Jacobs dissents in a separate opinion.

Harvard Mental Health Letter » April 2010 » Medical Marijuana and the Mind

Medical marijuana and the mind

More is known about the psychiatric risks than the benefits.

The movement to legalize marijuana for medical use in the United States has renewed discussion about how this drug affects the brain, and whether it might be useful in treating psychiatric disorders.
Unfortunately, most of the research on marijuana is based on people who smoked the drug for recreational rather than medical purposes. A review by researchers in Canada (where medical marijuana is legal) identified only 31 studies (23 randomized controlled trials and eight observational studies) specifically focused on medical benefits of the drug.

A separate review by the American Medical Association (AMA) also concluded that the research base remains sparse. This was one reason that the AMA urged the federal government to reconsider its classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance (prohibiting both medical and recreational use), so that researchers could more easily conduct clinical trials.

Consensus exists that marijuana may be helpful in treating certain carefully defined medical conditions. In its comprehensive 1999 review, for example, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that marijuana may be modestly effective for pain relief (particularly nerve pain), appetite stimulation for people with AIDS wasting syndrome, and control of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting.
Given the availability of FDA-approved medications for these conditions, however, the IOM advised that marijuana be considered as a treatment only when patients don't get enough relief from currently available drugs. Additional research since then has confirmed the IOM's core findings and recommendations.

Although anecdotal reports abound, few randomized controlled studies support the use of medical marijuana for psychiatric conditions. The meager evidence for benefits must be weighed against the much better documented risks, particularly for young people who use marijuana.
Key points

•    Medical marijuana may be an option for treating certain conditions, such as nerve pain or chemotherapy-related nausea.

•    There is not enough evidence to recommend medical marijuana as a treatment for any psychiatric disorder.

•    The psychiatric risks are well documented, and include addiction, anxiety, and psychosis.
Challenges in drug delivery

Marijuana is derived from the hemp plant, Cannabis. Although marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, researchers best understand the actions of two: THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and cannabidiol.

THC is the chemical in marijuana primarily responsible for its effects on the central nervous system. It stimulates cannabinoid receptors in the brain, triggering other chemical reactions that underlie marijuana's psychological and physical effects — both good and bad.

Less is known about cannabidiol, although the research suggests that it interacts with THC to produce sedation. It may independently have anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective, or antipsychotic effects, although the research is too preliminary to be applied clinically.

Drug delivery remains a major challenge for medical marijuana. The FDA has approved two pills containing synthetic THC. Dronabinol (Marinol) combines synthetic THC with sesame oil. Most of the active ingredient is metabolized during digestion, however, so that only 10% to 20% of the original dose reaches the bloodstream. Nabilone (Cesamet) uses a slightly different preparation of synthetic THC that is absorbed more completely into the bloodstream. Among the concerns about both of these drugs, however, are that they do not work rapidly, and the amount of medication that reaches the bloodstream varies from person to person.

Another medication under investigation in the United States (and already approved for sale in Canada) combines THC and cannabidiol. In Canada, it is marketed as Sativex. This drug is sometimes referred to as "liquid cannabis" because it is sprayed under the tongue or elsewhere in the mouth, using a small handheld device. However, it takes time to notice any effects, as the drug has to be absorbed through tissues lining the mouth before it can reach the bloodstream.

Inhalation is the fastest way to deliver THC to the bloodstream, which is why patients may prefer smoking an herbal preparation. But while this method of drug delivery works fast, smoking marijuana exposes the lungs to multiple chemicals and poses many of the same respiratory health risks as smoking cigarettes. Limited research suggests that vaporizers may reduce the amount of harmful chemicals delivered to the lungs during inhalation.

More psychiatric risk than benefit

Part of the reason marijuana works to relieve pain and quell nausea is that, in some people, it reduces anxiety, improves mood, and acts as a sedative. But so far the few studies evaluating the use of marijuana as a treatment for psychiatric disorders are inconclusive, partly because this drug may have contradictory effects in the brain depending on the dose of the drug and inborn genetic vulnerability.

Much more is known about the psychiatric risks of marijuana (whether used for recreational or medical purposes) than its benefits.

Addiction. Observational studies suggest that one in nine people who smokes marijuana regularly becomes dependent on it. Research both in animals and in people provides evidence that marijuana is an addictive substance, especially when used for prolonged periods.

Addiction specialists note with concern that THC concentration has been increasing in the herbal form of marijuana. In the United States, THC concentrations in marijuana sold on the street used to range from 1% to 4% of the total product; by 2003, average THC concentration had risen to 7%. Similar trends are reported in Europe. This increased potency might also accelerate development of dependence.

Less conclusive is the notion that marijuana is a "gateway drug" that leads people to experiment with "hard" drugs such as cocaine. The research is conflicting.

Anxiety. Although many recreational users say that smoking marijuana calms them down, for others it has the opposite effect. In fact, the most commonly reported side effects of smoking marijuana are intense anxiety and panic attacks. Studies report that about 20% to 30% of recreational users experience such problems after smoking marijuana. The people most vulnerable are those who have never used marijuana before.

Dose of THC also matters. At low doses, THC can be sedating. At higher doses, however, this substance can induce intense episodes of anxiety.

It is not yet known whether marijuana increases the risk of developing a persistent anxiety disorder. Observational studies have produced conflicting findings. Studies of recreational users suggest that many suffer from anxiety, and it's difficult to know what underlies this association. Possibilities include selection bias (e.g., that anxious people are more likely to use marijuana), a rebound phenomenon (e.g., that marijuana smokers feel worse when withdrawing from the substance), and other reasons (e.g., genetic vulnerability).

Mood disorders. Little controlled research has been done about how marijuana use affects patients with bipolar disorder. Many patients with bipolar disorder use marijuana, and the drug appears to induce manic episodes and increases rapid cycling between manic and depressive moods. But it is not yet clear whether people who use marijuana are at increased risk of developing bipolar disorder.
The small amount of research available on depression is also muddied. In line with what studies report about anxiety, many marijuana users describe an improvement in mood. Animal studies have suggested that components of marijuana may have antidepressant effects. Yet several observational studies have suggested that daily marijuana use may, in some users, actually increase symptoms of depression or promote the development of this disorder.

For example, an Australian study that followed the outcomes of 1,601 students found that those who used marijuana at least once a week at ages 14 or 15 were twice as likely to develop depression seven years later as those who never smoked the substance — even after adjusting for other factors. Young women who smoked marijuana daily were five times as likely to develop depression seven years later as their non-smoking peers. Although such studies do not prove cause and effect, the dose-outcomes relationship is particularly worrisome.

Psychosis. Marijuana exacerbates psychotic symptoms and worsens outcomes in patients already diagnosed with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders. Several large observational studies also strongly suggest that using marijuana — particularly in the early teenage years — can increase risk of developing psychosis.

An often-cited study of more than 50,000 young Swedish soldiers, for example, found that those who had smoked marijuana at least once were more than twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as those who had not smoked marijuana. The heaviest users (who said they had used the drug more than 50 times) were six times as likely to develop schizophrenia as the nonsmokers.

Until recently, the consensus view was that this reflected selection bias: Individuals who were already vulnerable to developing psychosis or in the early stages (the prodrome) might be more likely to smoke marijuana to quell voices and disturbing thoughts. But further analyses of the Swedish study, and other observational studies, have found that marijuana use increases the risk of psychosis, even after adjusting for possible confounding factors.

Although cause and effect are hard to prove, evidence is accumulating that early or heavy marijuana use might not only trigger psychosis in people who are already vulnerable, but might also cause psychosis in some people who might not otherwise have developed it.

Certainly genetic profile mediates the effect of marijuana. People born with a variation of the gene COMT are more vulnerable to developing psychosis, for example. Because there is as yet no reliable way for clinicians to identify vulnerable young people in advance, however, it is safest to restrict use of medical marijuana to adults.

Other effects

A review of side effects caused by medical marijuana found that most were mild. When compared with controls, people who used medical marijuana were more likely to develop pneumonia and other respiratory problems, and experience vomiting, and diarrhea.

There's no question that recreational use of marijuana produces short-term problems with thinking, working memory, and executive function (the ability to focus and integrate different types of information). Although little research exists on medical marijuana, anecdotal reports indicate that some patients take the drug at night to avoid these types of problems.

The real debate is about whether long-term use of marijuana (either for medical or recreational purposes) produces persistent cognitive problems. Although early studies of recreational users reported such difficulties, the studies had key design problems. Typically they compared long-term marijuana smokers with people who had never used the drug, for example, without controlling for baseline characteristics (such as education or cognitive functioning) that might determine who continues to smoke the drug and who might be most at risk for thinking and memory problems later on.

Studies suggest that although overall cognitive ability remains intact, long-term use of marijuana may cause subtle but lasting impairments in executive function. There is no consensus, however, about whether this affects real-world functioning.

Additional research, focused on the benefits and consequences of medical marijuana use for specific disorders, may help to clarify some issues. In the meantime, there is not enough evidence to recommend marijuana as a medical treatment for any psychiatric disorder.

Crippa JA, et al. "Cannabis and Anxiety: A Critical Review of the Evidence," Human Psychopharmacology (Oct. 2009): Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 515–23.

Grinspoon L, et al. Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine (Yale University, 1997).

Iversen LL. The Science of Marijuana, Second Edition (Oxford University Press, 2008).

Wang T, et al. "Adverse Effects of Medical Cannabinoids: A Systematic Review," Canadian Medical Association Journal (June 17, 2008): Vol. 178, No. 13, pp. 1669–78.

For more references, please see www.health.harvard.edu/mentalextra.

This is not a recommendation for or against either candidate.

However, in past elections (and present) it has been interesting to ask candidates where they stand on the war on drugs.  (Link below was added in case anyone is interested....)

Xxx wrote:
>
> Where do you stand on America’s war on drugs?
>
> Sincerely,
>
xxxx

From Mitchell Clogg:
>
It's a hoax. Meth is a horrible scourge, the worst I've seen, but "war"
is a childish idea and another fraud.

for more info

http://www.mitchcloggforcongress.com/

Caveat Grower
By North Coast Journal Readers, April 8, 2010

Editor:

In recent issues of the North Coast Journal, Kym Kemp, Amy Stewart and others discuss some of the consequences of an assembly bill and a ballot initiative that could legalize marijuana. One consequence that was not discussed is the social cost from the inevitable increase in the number of motorists driving "under the influence." My concern is that if and when marijuana is legalized, I will have to share the road with drivers who are under the influence of THC in addition to those impaired by alcohol and other drugs. According to the California Dept. of Alcohol and Drug Programs, over 32,000 people were killed or injured in 2007 in California alone due to impaired drivers. This number is larger than the total US casualty rate in both Iraq and Afghanistan for that same year, according to the Defense Manpower Data Center.

I believe that public debate regarding the legalization of marijuana must include its effect on highway safety. The promoters and marketers of legalized marijuana must accompany their efforts with a relentless and radical condemnation of driving under its influence through a comprehensive public service campaign. This proactive campaign must be aimed at creating such a powerful social stigma against driving while stoned as to serve as a deterrent that is more influential than are legal penalties.
The alcohol industry has made only token gestures to encourage the marketplace to "drink responsibly." I would like to see the nascent marijuana industry pioneer an aggressive and progressive endeavor to encourage responsible use of its product.

Carman Gentile, Arcata

TSA to My Mother-in-Law: 'There's an Anomaly in the Crotch Area'

The question is, How did it come to pass that the federal government takes official and invasive interest in the "crotch areas" of 79-year-old grandmothers? Have we just gone crazy?

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? … A6ABBB9D95
Lawmaker reports TSA altercation

http://news.yahoo.com/minnesota-police- … 31934.html

No one has been arrested for distribution of a controlled substance.

There is finally a sign of progress in the stalled effort to adopt an ordinance to regulate medical cannabis patients' cooperatives and collectives in Los Angeles. Can you take a moment to send a message to each member of the Los Angeles City Council and ask him or her to support a motion by Council Member Paul Koretz on Wednesday's agenda? [ http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/18 … _KEY=10490 ] Americans for Safe Access' (ASA) online action center makes it easy to send a fax to all fifteen City Council Members at one time right from your computer. Just enter your name and address, and we will take care of the rest!

Council Member Koretz is asking the City Attorney to write an ordinance that will accommodate some patients' cooperatives and collectives in the city, provided they meet certain eligibility requirements. This is a patient-friendly alternative to calls from some City Council Members to ban patients' association altogether. Don't be alarmed by the term "gentle ban" in the motion [ http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/200 … 5-9-12.pdf ]. Council Member Koretz is simply borrowing that phrase from the City Attorney's recommendations. The "limited immunity" will allow those facilities that meet certain criteria to stay open, while shielding the ordinance from alleged conflicts with federal law.

Restarting the regulatory process is a big step in the right direction. Research shows that sensible regulations are good for patients, and adopting a workable ordinance will go a long way towards showing Angelinos that our city's medical cannabis program is on track. We still have a lot of work to do to make sure the ordinance turns out right. That is why City Council Members need to hear that patients and advocates support this effort and are still concerned about the issue. Please send those faxes today.  [ http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/18 … _KEY=10490 ]

You may also tell the City Council that you support Council Member Koretz's motion at the City Council meeting on Wednesday, May 16. The meeting begins at 10:00 AM in room 340 at City Hall at 200 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Arrive early to find parking and complete a Public Speaker's card for agenda item number ten.

Please share this message with others who care about safe and reliable access to medical cannabis in Los Angeles. Thanks for helping,

Don Duncan
California Director

P.S. – Join me in Sacramento this weekend for the California Unity Conference [ http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/caunityconference ]. There will be a free bus to Sacramento leaving from West Hollywood.

Americans for Safe Access (ASA) is providing a free bus to the California Unity Conference [ http://www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/CAUnityConference ] in Sacramento this weekend. Do you need a ride? You can reserve seats by sending the name and telephone number of each passenger to info@safeaccessnow.org before the end of the business day on Thursday. Make your reservations today!

The California Unity Conference [ http://www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/CAUnityConference ] will be a unique and important chance to influence the future of medical cannabis in California. We want as many people as possible from Southern California to attend. You will be there for two days of strategy, skill-building, networking, and more. On Monday, May 21, hundreds of us will visit every legislative office in the state capitol in support of sensible legislation.

There will also be a special gala celebration in honor of ASA's 10-year anniversary on the evening of May 19. Please plan to spend this special night with us. Tickets are on sale now [ https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1 … _KEY=73809 ], and all proceeds benefit ASA's ongoing state and federal campaigns to protect and expand safe access to medical cannabis.

The bus will leave promptly at 10:00 AM from the Los Angeles Patients and Caregivers Group located at 7213 Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood, CA 90046. Please arrive early so the bus can leave on time. Be aware of meters and neighbor permit parking restrictions. The bus will stop at the Holiday Inn located at 300 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. There will be a free shuttle bus from the Holiday Inn to the conference venue and state capitol. You can get all the details and meet other participants at early check in at the Holiday Inn bar between 6:30 and 8:30 PM on Friday night.

If you have not registered for the California Unity conference, do it today! Advance registration is $25 less that on-site registration. [ https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1 … _KEY=73806 ]

Please note that our usual Los Angeles chapter meeting for May is canceled for the conference. See you up north,

Don Duncan
California Director

P.S. – Did you send a fax to the City Council yet? Are you going to speak at Wednesday's meeting? [ http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/18 … EY=1246325 ]

-----------------------------------------------

* Friend on Facebook [ http://www.facebook.com/pages/Americans … 1160857871 ]
* Follow on Twitter     [ http://twitter.com/safeaccess ]
* Forward to a friend   [ http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/18 … EY=1246390 ]

-----------------------------------------------

* Take Action [ http://safeaccessnow.org/takeaction ]
* Forum         [ http://safeaccessnow.org/asaforum ]
* Store           [ http://safeaccessnow.org/store ]
* Blog            [ http://safeaccessnow.org/blog ]
* Donate        [ http://safeaccessnow.org/donate ]

-----------------------------------------------

* Unsubscribe             [ http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/18 … EY=1246390 ]
* Manage your profile   [ http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/18 … y=27561090 ]

*Email your California Assemblymember in support of AB 2312.* [ http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/18 … _KEY=10471 ]*
**And email your California Senator in support of SB 1182.* [ http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/18 … _KEY=10470 ]

AB 2312 is a bill by Assemblymember Tom Amminao (D-SF) that will create a statewide board to develop standards for medical cannabis, limit local taxation (without imposing a state tax), and make it harder for cities and counties to ban patients' associations. We need this legislation address ambivalence about medical cannabis and move forward with implementing Proposition 215 everywhere. Learn more about the bill and take action today! [ http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/ab2312 ]

Another important bill that needs your support right now is Senator Mark Leno's (D-SF) SB 1182. This bill will add patients' cooperatives, collectives, and other associations to the list of those protected by California's medical cannabis law. This simple clarification will help to stop unnecessary harassment, arrests, and prosecutions of law-abiding patients and caregivers. Read more about SB 1182 and what you can do to help today! [ http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/sb1182 ]

I am looking forward to seeing all of you at the California Unity Conference [ http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/caunityconference ] this weekend and Monday in Sacramento (May 19-21) . Please register online today [ https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1 … _KEY=73806 ] for two days of strategy and skills-building, followed by a massive citizen lobby day at the state capitol. You will be helping pass good bills in California and laying the groundwork for medical cannabis patient advocacy for years to come. Register in advance for as little as $25! [ https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1 … _KEY=73806 ] I also want to be sure you all know about ASA's 10-year anniversary celebration on Saturday, May 19, in Sacramento. Buy your tickets now. [ https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1 … _KEY=73809 ] Proceeds benefit ASA's state and federal campaign to protect and expand patients' rights.

Send those emails and meet me in Sacramento!

See you there,

Don Duncan
California Director

US Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps, who won eight gold medals in the Beijing games last year, was photographed smoking cannabis at a college party in November. He issued the standard apology after a picture of him holding a water pipe surfaced in the tabloids this week, telling the Associated Press he engaged in “regrettable” behavior and “demonstrated bad judgment." Time will tell if the incident will have any effect of Phelps’ career or his lucrative endorsement contracts.

So why is cannabis use by a 23-year old athlete considered newsworthy? Phelps is a public figure, of course, and tabloids need to manufacture controversy in order to sell copies and ads. But setting aside the shortcomings sensational media, there is still a great public ambivalence about using cannabis. Parents and pundits will wring their hands in the op-ed pages worrying what message Phelps’ transgression sends to children.

Medical cannabis advocates would do well to take note of the brief public controversy surrounding this photograph. 80% of Americans support medical cannabis, but that does not mean they are comfortable with its use – especially when they see it publicly or in their neighborhood. As the state of California moves closer and closer to full implementation of its medical cannabis laws, neighbors and local representatives are encountering the issue of medical cannabis use in very up close and personal ways – loved ones are getting recommendations, dispensaries are opening nearby, and advertising for medical cannabis is increasingly commonplace.

Most Americans have some experience with cannabis use, theirs or a loved one, and not all of those experiences are good. Much of that baggage will come up as we continue to engage this issue in neighborhood councils, City Councils, and other local forums – in California and other medical cannabis states. Advocates for medical cannabis should not underestimate this concern in the neighborhoods as we push for implementation, especially for local regulations for medical cannabis dispensaries. The seeds of a backlash lie in this ambivalence, and the consequences can be severe – even this late in the process.