Iowa Pharmacy Board open their eyes and ears to the benefits of marijuana,
In early June the Iowa State Pharmacy Board stated that marijuana has no medical benefits. Susan Frey, who chairs the state pharmacy board said there is no truth to marijuana having any medicinal benefits.
Now the Iowa Pharmacy board has relented by announcing a series of public hearings on whether or not marijuana is a schedule 1 drug.Schedule 1 drugs are defined as deadly addictive and with no accepted medical use. For more information follow the Google link or see Iowa’s Quad City Times new article. Iowa is home to one of the federal medical marijuana patients receiving a tin of 300 marijuana joints every month.The federally provided cannabis is handled via the pharmacy network, so it will be very interesting to see what the Iowa Board of Pharmacy says after the hearings.The first hearing is scheduled for August 19th.
The history of cannabis (AKA Marijuana) is rife with medical applications dating from ancient China to the United States prior to the 1937 marijuana prohibition laws. See "The Antique Cannabis book" about about pre-1937 medical cannabis products. It is good to hear that Iowa is open to hearing some of the evidence versus making a silly statement like "there is no truth to marijuana having any medicinal benefits."
On Wednesday December 2, 2009 was an historic day here in Pennsylvania. For the first time ever, the House of Representatives held a hearing of the Health and Human Services Committee in order to hear testimony on HB 1393, the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act. You can read my testimony online in PDF format. Thanks to the dozens of patients and advocates who traveled to Harrisburg for the hearing, wrote testimony, or simply spread the word, we had a resounding success educating the HHS committee how marijuana is medicine but jail is not.
Dim lights
22 Members of the HHS Committee heard testimony from a variety of advocates, patients, and physicians. Advocates who testified in favor of the bill included PA Rep. Mark Cohen, Chris Goldstein and Derek Rosenzweig of PhillyNORML and Pennsylvanians for Medical Marijuana (PA4MMJ), Edward Pane of PA4MMJ, Patrick K. Nightingale Esq. of Pittsburgh NORML and PA4MMJ; Bradley Walter, Charles Rocha, Sandra Crue, John Ray Wilson, and Dr. Denis Petro; Rabbi Eric Cytryn, Brian Gralnik, former Montgomery County Commissioner Ruth Damsker, and Dr. Howard Swidler, MD, Chief of Emergency Medicine at Warren Hospital, all from the Jewish Social Policy Action Network (JSPAN); and Bob Cappecchi of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP).
What's Next?
Medical Marijuana was well represented at this hearing, so well that both chairmen of the committee - Reps. Oliver (D) and Baker (R) - have agreed that more hearings need to be held.
Rep. Benninghoff (R), Rep. Beyer (R), Rep. Seip (D), and Rep. Payton (D) asked very good questions, indicated they are leaning towards supporting the bill, or flat out refuted the opposition during the hearing. It is imperative that we get at least two Republicans as co-sponsors if this bill is to have a chance in the full House of Rep, and gain any traction in the Senate later this year. Current legislators' known positions can be found at Philly Norml Website.
The government keeps pushing the BS that pot is addictive and has serious health consequences. And no wonder -- lying about pot is a lucrative business.
Marijuana's addiction potential may be no big deal, but it's certainly big business.
According to a widely publicized 1999 Institute of Medicine report, fewer than 10 percent of those who try cannabis ever meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of "drug dependence" (based on DSM-III-R criteria). By contrast, 32 percent of tobacco users and 15 percent of alcohol users meet the criteria for "drug dependence."
Nevertheless, it is pot -- not booze or cigarettes -- that has the federal government seeing red and clinical investigators seeing green. As I reported for AlterNet last year, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which overseas more than 85 percent of the world's research on controlled substances, recently appropriated some $4 million in taxpayers' dollars to establish the nation's first-ever Center for Cannabis Addiction. Its mission: to "develop novel approaches to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of marijuana addiction."
Of course, what good is a research center if it isn't conducting clinical research? To this end, the U.S. National Institutes of Health recently made millions of dollars in grant funding available "to support research studies that focus on the identification, and preclinical and clinical evaluation, of medications that can be safe and effective for the treatment of cannabis-use and -induced disorders."
According to NIH's request for applications,
"Cannabis-related disorders (CRDs), including cannabis abuse or dependence and cannabis induced disorders (e.g., intoxication, delirium, psychotic disorder, and anxiety disorder), are a major public health issue. ... Nearly one million people are seeking treatment for marijuana dependence every year and sufficient research has been carried out to confirm that the use of cannabis can produce serious physical and psychological consequences.
"Currently, there are no medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of CRDs. Given the extent of the use of cannabis in the general population, and the medical and psychological consequences of its use Š there is a great public health need to develop safe and effective therapeutic interventions. The need to develop treatments targeting adolescents and young adults is particularly relevant in view of their disproportionate use patterns."
Sounds dire, huh? It's meant to. But as usual, the devil is in the details.
When you ask the public if we should regulate, control and tax substances like marijuana; the answer is an overwhelming yes. Today the state of California has received millions of dollars in general sales taxes from medical marijuana dispensaries. Now the city of Oakland has taken the next step by enacting the first marijuana sales tax.
Ohio could enact a yearly marihuana possession fee of $100 and not arrest people for misdeamenor offenses. $100 is the fine for possession of 100 grams of marijuana. The "fee" card holder would simply have his or her card confiscated along with the marijuana and any marijuana paraphernalia.The state would gain revenue from card sales and by not wasting precious law enforcement time for minor marijuana possession cases.
Marijuana smokers are like roaches; where there is one there is a lot more you do not see hiding "behind their wall". It is about time these pot heads start paying taxes.
For more details on Oakland's new tax on marijuana see the news release from NORML below.
Oakland California Voters Approve Nation's First Marijuana Business Tax
Oakland, CA: Municipal voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the nation's first ever business tax on retail marijuana sales.
Approximately 80 percent of Oakland voters approved the new tax (which appeared on the ballot as Measure F), which imposes an additional tax for "cannabis businesses" of $18 for every $1,000 of gross receipts beginning January 1, 2010.
Presently, Oakland's medicinal cannabis dispensaries are taxed at the same rate as other retail sales businesses ($60 per year for the $50,000 of gross receipts, plus $1.20 for each additional $100,000).
Four dispensaries are licensed by the Oakland City Council to sell and dispense medical marijuana.
According to a financial analysis by the Oakland City Auditor, Oakland's new cannabis business tax will generate an estimated $300,000 in additional annual tax revenue. Other proponents have estimated that the new tax could yield up to a million dollars yearly.
Why do we jail people for using marijuana to meet medical needs
Written by Robert Ryan
On October 21st the Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an article titled "Medical marijuana advocates' hope renewed". You can read it and post your own comments on the Plain Dealer's website.
I responded with a letter to the editor. The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran my response letter to the editor. I urge you to start writting your own letters also and be sure to send one to your elected representatives ( all of them! ).
It should be noted that marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug by Ohio and the federal government.
A Schedule I drug is defined as one that fits all the following criteria: a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of accepted safety standards for its use under medical supervision
The last criterion is interesting. It says even a doctor could not use marijuana safely. Thus, marijuana is considered deadly, addictive and with no medical use. I challenge Ohio Senate President Bill Harris, an Ashland Republican who opposes the proposed bill, to prove any one of those criteria.
The real question is what moral or ethical justification we have for putting people in jail simply for possessing or using marijuana for their own medical needs.
Robert Ryan, President of Ohio Patient Network.
Iowa Pharmacy Board said medical marijuana does not exist but now announces hearings
Written by Robert Ryan
Iowa Pharmacy Board open their eyes and ears to the benefits of marijuana,
In early June the Iowa State Pharmacy Board stated that marijuana has no medical benefits. Susan Frey, who chairs the state pharmacy board said there is no truth to marijuana having any medicinal benefits.
Now the Iowa Pharmacy board has relented by announcing a series of public hearings on whether or not marijuana is a schedule 1 drug.Schedule 1 drugs are defined as deadly addictive and with no accepted medical use. For more information follow the Google link or see Iowa’s Quad City Times new article. Iowa is home to one of the federal medical marijuana patients receiving a tin of 300 marijuana joints every month.The federally provided cannabis is handled via the pharmacy network, so it will be very interesting to see what the Iowa Board of Pharmacy says after the hearings.The first hearing is scheduled for August 19th.
The history of cannabis (AKA Marijuana) is rife with medical applications dating from ancient China to the United States prior to the 1937 marijuana prohibition laws. See "The Antique Cannabis book" about about pre-1937 medical cannabis products. It is good to hear that Iowa is open to hearing some of the evidence versus making a silly statement like "there is no truth to marijuana having any medicinal benefits."
