Cannabis News NORML - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws
  Medical Pot War Engulfs Boy, 7
Posted by FoM on July 11, 2001 at 07:53:15 PT
By Wayne Wilson, Bee Staff Writer  
Source: Sacramento Bee 

medical He's 7 years old and afflicted with a disorder of the brain that for years has wracked his body with extreme changes in mood, energy and behavior. And today, he's at the center of a controversy that pits a caring parent against a protective bureaucracy on the high-octane battlefield of medical marijuana.

It's a war being conducted behind closed doors because it involves a child, a boy Placer County seeks to take away from a mother who says the cannabis muffins she feeds her son have improved his life.

Snipped


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #36 posted by lookinside on July 14, 2001 at 13:26:14 PT:

frances...
you choose not to respond to anything people say here...so
this is not a debate...if you are trying to teach us
something, be aware we are not kindergartners...you need to
provide sources for your information..we will not accept
your out-of-context blurbs without being able to look up the
source...

concerning the contents of the marijuana plant...would you
please do a comparison with things you believe are healthy,
like broccoli, spinach, wheat, peaches, tomatoes, potatoes,
or any other commonly ingested food item...?

how about bay leaves, black pepper, jalapeno peppers, thyme,
rosemary, or cilantro? how about a nice poppy seed muffin?
a cold budweiser?

your statements just don't hold up under scrutiny...if you
don't understand our objections to your style of posting,
you are doomed...stupidity is incurable, being naive is
curable...which are you?


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #35 posted by Rambler on July 14, 2001 at 13:10:19 PT
Or..
Eating an orange to get vitamin C,,,or eating a carrot to get carotene/vitaminA,,or drinking coffe to get caffeinne.

or eating bacon instead of having a nice hot cup of fat.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #34 posted by frances on July 14, 2001 at 12:42:25 PT:

TOXINS in pot
Gentle ? Tokers:

The toxins I listed in my last communique ARE CONTAINED IN THE PLANT (perhaps in the smoke also) but most certainly IN THE PLANT.

NO ONE (that I know of) objects to researching the CANNABINOIDS in marijuana - it is SMOKING a CIGARETTE, BOWL, BONG or eating a BROWNIE for medicine that is over the "medical edge."

It would be like eating moldy bread to "take pennicillin."
or drinking MARE'S URINE to "take premerin."


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #33 posted by The GCW on July 13, 2001 at 21:48:54 PT
lookinside
The profile that frances fits is that of those whom have lost their faith.

The Bible was the beginning of something. What ever took place before that made for a new beginning and one of the 1st things that was attempted to clear up was the plant contraversy that conspired previously, and it was in fact cleared up on the 1st page of the Bible (pretty quick huh? Genesis 1:11&12 + Gen. 1:29). Then in the Bible it explains in many many locations those that would have one abstain from foods which God created (to the point of caging them you would surely imagine) are those who have left the faith. That implication is evedent in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 subtitled Apostasy along with 1 Timothy 1:1-20 subtitled Misleadings in Doctrine and Living for example.

Tomatoe, what is it, frances? Fruit or vegetable? Fruit, right? What is cannabis? The bible implies fruit, at times. Our language has some conotations we hold on to for long times, with other conotations that get lost. The Bible referes to cannabis as kaneh bosm, fruit, food, etc.

No pun intended (from Gods inspired word) in 1 Tim. 1:5-7: But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good consceince and a sincere faith. FOR SOME MEN, STRAYING FROM THESE THINGS, HAVE TURNED ASIDE TO FRUITLESS DISCUSSION, WANTING TO BE TEACHERS OF THE LAW, EVEN THOUGH THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND EITHER WHAT THEY ARE SAYING OR THE MATTERS ABOUT WHICH THEY MAKE CONFINENT ASSERTIONS. Is fruitless discussion one in which there is talk of prohibition of plants given to us by our Father?

frances, are you a christian? Pray to our father and after asking him to forgive you for your sins, and you have his attention, ask for the truth to become known to you. And you will know.

I had a child die 4 years ago of cancer at the age of 17. He at one point took self administered morphine every 6 minutes for pain. Perhaps you have also witnessed that level of suffering. I believe that most parents would have used cannabis if there was a chance it would help. It is difficult to comprehend one human not extending love to those with the most need.

Be like Epaphroditus in Phillipians 4:18: (appropriatly subtitled, God's Provisions).


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #32 posted by lookinside on July 13, 2001 at 21:06:58 PT:

frances...
do a search on air quality...whereas NO ONE has EVER died of
cannabis smoke, studies show that HUNDREDS die from smog in
our cities each year...do you drive, frances? you could
serve humanity more effectively by posting on the evils of
human civilization, like freeways, automobiles, etc...

try following a deisel powered schoolbus sometime...if you
turned your mighty intellect to THAT situation, you might
get a glimmer of the foolishness of your arguments here...

a sudden thought: are you overweight, alcohol addicted,
retired vice cop, frances? your posts fit that profile...


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #31 posted by kaptinemo on July 13, 2001 at 19:45:41 PT:

Hit a nerve, eh, Frances?
I hardly equate surliness with truth-telling. Whether you wish to acknowledge your (albeit, miniscule) role in having aided and abetted the retardation of research into the life-preserving medicinal qualities of cannabis is irrelevant.

I have no doubt that someday, when the US Government is finally forced to admit the truth about cannabis and it's medicinal properties (as it has been forced to tell the truth after decades of lying about such matters as the Tuskegee Study, the Atom Vets, Agent Orange, MK-ULTRA, and various other government-sponsored treasons against the people of the United States) that your very minor role as a cog on a wheel of the prohib mechanism will become clear, even to you.

Of course, in the meantime, by your efforts you are indeed acting in such a way as to threaten the continued existence of countless cancer patients with your refusal to face facts. And were most cancer patients not wholly involved in the process of fighting their particular life-threatening disaese, they'd be happy to tell you where to go.

Especially the ones who have learned the truth about cannabis' anti-emitic/analgesic properties for themselves.

(I notice that you seem to think we'll be impressed into silence by providing another prohib study as if it were some magic talisman to deflect sharp-edged inquiry. Sorry, Frances, but it seems that you just didn't get the point of the last post. So, I guess I'll have to resort to shouting.

THE GOVERNMENT LIES, FRANCES!

So none of us are likely to believe that the study you so lovingly cling to and offer as 'proof' of your position's righteousness is worth more than toilet paper. Correction: on second thought, toilet paper has more value.)

Dear Frances, as I've said before, if you think you are impressing anyone here, you are incorrect. If you believe that mindless parroting of slogans and brandishing suspect studies (suspect because of their dubious origin - the government lies Frances, remember?) can win converts here, you are incorrect. If you believe that you can score points off of the researchers, doctors, nurses, social scientists, etc. that inhabit this site, you are incorrect.

I really don't know why you bother. Masochism, perhaps?

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #30 posted by observer on July 13, 2001 at 17:49:25 PT
Campfire "toxins" . . . No Abuse.
Dearest Frances,

Nothing you've presented, not your list of supposed "toxins" in marijuana smoke ... nothing indicated any abuse on the part of the parents: nothing that would indicate that the government must jail anyone, or snatch a child. (Unless you're looking for an excuse to punish cannabis-using sinners, Frances, in which case any old excuse will serve for you.)

(Prenatal and/or childhood exposure to 2nd-hand tobacco "toxins" is never a "cause" for finding abuse, I note.)

I notice too you never bothered to defend your silly theory of "toxic 2nd hand cannabis smoke" causing ADD in the lad, but somehow the cannabis muffins curing it.

The child was eating canabis mufins, not smoking it. Only smoking generates all those terrible horrible deadly toxic poisons you list that cause the lemming-like pot-smokers to all keel over after their first hit, without excepton, so toxic it is.

And with the exception of the caannabinoids, all of the supposed "toxins" that you latch onto as excuse to jail pot smokers are present in candles, campfires, and burning tree leaves. The cannabinoids, of course, are the reason people take cannabis in the first place.

Also, your attempts to somehow puff up "toxins" that come from all burning plant material, like campfires, into a unique danger of cannabis, and then further attempt to attribute great danger, by extension, to the "cannabinoids" is rather transparent. A good whiff of a barbeque or bonfire could give you more of the burning plant-material "toxins" listed in the Mississippi study you presented.

"THC IS a toxin. More specifically, a NEURO-TOXIN, i.e., a nerve (brain) poison."

Again, we remind you, Frances, nothing you're presented here remotly supports your claim that 'THC is a toxin' or poison, etc.

To the cntrary, THC and other cannabinoids are neuro-protective.

Cannabis-Derivative Stops Brain Swelling
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/2/thread2314.shtml

Pharmos Close To Stroke Compound
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/9/thread9163.shtml

To conclude: Frances, your claim that pretatal cannabis exposure, or cannabis 2nd hand smoke somehow made the boy have ADD (yet cannabis muffins subsequently remedied that malady), is absurd.


Q: Is taking cannabis bad for you?

In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research, editors of the British journal Lancet (the British equivalent of New England Journal of Medicine) concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
http://www.changetheclimate.org/facts/#1



[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #29 posted by frances on July 13, 2001 at 16:45:57 PT:

Scientific documentation
Surly Tokers:

(Some of my Gentle tokers have turned "surly.")

In any case: TOXINS IN MARIJUANA

HYDROCARBONS: 50
SIMPLE ALCOHOLS: 7
SIMPLE KEYTONES 13
TERPENES 120
NON-CANNABINONID PHENOLS: 25

IN ALL THERE ARE 483 SUBSTANCES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE CANNABIS PLANT so far..

66 are cannabinoids

"Consituuants of Cannabis Sativa L (Marijuana") published by the Univ. of Mississippi, Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Dept. of Pharmaceutics" (Ross SA, Elsohly MA, Constituents of Cannabis Sativa L. XXVIII Areview of the natural constiuents: 1980-1994. J. Pharm Science. 1995;4:1-10

No other plant continss cannabinoids.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #28 posted by kaptinemo on July 13, 2001 at 10:16:20 PT:

Medicinal cannabis studies
Frances, you evidently have never learned the truth of the
old child's retort about 'sayin' it's so don't make it so!'

If you plug in the words "cannabis neurotoxicity studies"
into a search engine, as I have, you find out something
interesting. Namely, that there are very few studies of
an actual medical nature regarding such alleged
toxicity.
What you do encounter is a lot of
half-baked opinion and outright lies by the kind of
organizations you support.

Part of the reason for this can be attributed to the
enforced "Ignorance is bliss" attitude fostered by the US
Government through intimidation and bullying of
researchers who wish to conduct unbiased, objective
studies.

But the other part of the reason for the paucity of such
studies is quite simple: no one has died from cannabis
use.

Not once. Not ever. Not in 5,000 years of recorded human
history. So, there's really not much motivation to
investigate 'toxic effects' of something that has none.

Unless, of course, you are a closet Lysenkoist willing to
pimp your scientific integrity for a paycheck. Lots of
that type seem to gravitate to government research
positions vis-a-vis cannabis.

If anything, the impetus for modern American studies
permitted by the US Government studies have been directed
at feverishly, desperately finding something,
anything
negative that can be attributed to
cannabis to justify the medically unjustifiable.

This is particularly damning, because, as has been
mentioned, in the 1970's researchers in the US had indeed
conducted (successful!) trials of using THC to retard
glial cell brain cancer. When the results didn't match the
politically pre-determined outcome, the research was
hushed up, only to be rediscovered again in Madrid. I had
a good friend, a kind and decent person who never harmed
anyone in his life, die because of exactly the same kind
of cancer. God alone knows how many others suffered have
the same fate...needlessly. Because a government doesn't
want to admit it has lied about cannabis for 67 years.
With the hearty help of prohib organizations full of
people like you, Frances.

Because people like you, Frances, support the
government in its lying. People like you, Frances, have
the blood of hundreds of thousands of needless cancer
fatalities dripping from your hands.

Some day I hope that you tumble to the fact that you have
been used by the very people you adore. I hope that
someday you are confronted by an M.D. that informs you
that the latest tests you've undergone have turned up
cancer. That you need chemo, right away. And that the
pills they charge you $50.00 USD each as an 'anti-emitic'
don't work. And that the only hope of survival you have in
enabling you to endure the chemo is cannabis.

The only thing 'neurally toxic' about cannabis is the
propaganda continually being verbally defecated by people
like you. With sufficient repetition, it deadens the
brain, and leads to the erosion of higher mental
faculties. Rather like what people like you attribute to
cannabis.

Rather like the pot calling the brand spanking new, mirror
polished, stainless steel kettle black.

As I said before, Frances, peddle your nonsense elswhere;
no one here is buying any.




[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #27 posted by The GCW on July 12, 2001 at 18:41:00 PT
frances
How does that interact with our cannabinoid receptor sites in our brains (Those that are God given)? Poison? Today in 2001 we know now that it helps get rid of cancers cancers, IN THE BRAIN. In fact we know that the government has known also since 1974.

God gave us a remerkable plant able to help keep cancer at bay, and help rid suffering for those who get cancer. God's inspired words in the Bible seem to indicate it is food, plant, etc. As a Christian, I am not able to take what is refered to as food by our Father( on the very 1st page of the Bible by the way, along with 1 Tim. 4:1-5, [which helps put prohibitionist into perspective]), and try to illistrate it incorectly as poison.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #26 posted by lookinside on July 12, 2001 at 17:28:30 PT:

frances...
there is nothing more dangerous than a little
knowledge...that makes you extremely dangerous...

please cite ANY study that backs up your claims?...our
BODIES produce cannabis-like substances...if they were
toxic, the human race would have died out while still
wearing scales and swimming in the ocean...

your various comments lead me to believe your grasp of
reality might be improved with cannabis therapy...find a
good shrink who is willing to recommend and see...


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #25 posted by frances on July 12, 2001 at 17:13:37 PT:

Marijuana smoke - TOXIC
Marijuana smoke has the same CORE toxins as tobacco smoke:

carbon monoxide, benzene, toulene, amonnia, benzo(a)pyrene and many others.

Marijuana brownies would contain at least 66 bio-active cannabinoids. THC IS a toxin. More specifically, a
NEURO-TOXIN, i.e., a nerve (brain) poison.

NEURO = NERVE (BRAIN)
TOXIN = POISON


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #24 posted by The GCW on July 12, 2001 at 15:05:27 PT
frances
If that child is breathing much 2nd hand smoke, it is not mentioned. The article did mention ingesting cannabis mixed in muffins. Truely, this medically is safer than most anything he was prescribed, and that goes to be said w/o even knowing what he was prescribed. It is elementary, cannabis in food has never killed a soul. If it truely helps that child, why would we let a government obtain that womans child? I don't think we are looking at the wrong of a parent giving cannabis to party.
I am led to believe the 2 mentioned have suffered enough and perhaps could use our help instead of inducing more suffering. If this is legitamate, then Frances you owe it to yourself to gain the truth according to God. What is that? The Truth of God rules.

Frances, love our brother and neighbor to please our Father. Love.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #23 posted by Rambler on July 12, 2001 at 12:10:04 PT
Frances
One wonders if perhaps your brain has the Hormel label on it somewhere

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #22 posted by observer on July 12, 2001 at 11:36:12 PT
Chronic Boy Survives Cannabis Muffins Toxins!
Has anyone done a pot-exposure history on the little boy?

the mother admitted that she gate cannabis to the boy ... and noticed it worked better then the government ADD drugs with which government assaulted the lad.

Did his mother expose his little brain to cannabis toxins prenatally?

My dearest Frances, you seemed to be a touch confused: cannabis is not a toxin (in the same sense that, say, Ritalin is, which has a lethal dose). Marijuana is not toxic.

Quite the opposite.

see

Cannabis-Derivative Stops Brain Swelling
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/2/thread2314.shtml

Pharmos Close To Stroke Compound
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/9/thread9163.shtml

etc.

Was the little boy "smoked like a ham" in his own home these many years?

Sorry, Frances, I'm no expert on pigs.

The mother did try "everything to stabilize his illness, administering 19 drugs prescribed by 16 doctors over a span of four years."

"19 drugs prescribed by 16 doctors over a span of four years" . . . but when cannabis helps, that, of course, is then "abuse."

If any of these are true, the little boy may be chronically intoxicated with fat-solluble toxins from 2nd hand marijuana smoke exposure.

Lemme get this this straight. For years the boy "had been a terror at home, unmanageable at school and a challenge to doctors and nurses who had ministered to him during three psychiatric hospitalizations," which, Frances asserts, was due to being, "chronically intoxicated with fat-solluble toxins from 2nd hand marijuana smoke exposure."

But then, when after feeding the boy cannabis muffins, the "boy's behavior over this past five weeks has taken a dramatic turn. He has gone from daily multiple visits to our behavior intervention room to one brief visit last Thursday . . . a 180-degree turn."

If the child were chronically "chronically intoxicated" with fat-solluble toxins from 2nd hand marijuana smoke exposure," why, then, after feeding him cannabis muffins, did his behaviour take the "180 degree" turn? Why did not his alleged cannabis "chronically intoxicated" body respond the same way?

I'm not sure your theory passes the straight face test, Frances.

re: "Fat-solluble"

"Fat-solluble" -- like Vitamin E, you mean?


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #21 posted by frances on July 12, 2001 at 10:16:27 PT:

7-year old AND his (probably) pot filled brain
Has anyone done a pot-exposure history on the little boy?

Did his mother expose his little brain to cannabis toxins prenatally?

Was the little boy "smoked like a ham" in his own home these many years?

If any of these are true, the little boy may be chronically intoxicated with fat-solluble toxins from 2nd hand marijuana smoke exposure.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #20 posted by Free on July 11, 2001 at 23:15:07 PT:

To Winston
Winston Rodney said:>This is so disturbing, knowing that 2-3 million children in
the United States are on Ritalin right now. I hate to say
this, but if they came for my kid like this, they'd have to
take him over my dead body, and I'd kill as many
stormtroopers as I could before they got me.<

And a half million kids are in foster care. If you are told anything you do will jeopordise (sp) you getting your child back, what would you do? I know what you are saying, sometimes they take your child when they are at school or some place that you are not. I feel the same way you do, please check out http://www.avoiceforchildren.com maybe if we all act together we can help the placer family. You ae so right about the stormtroopers, rememember the Idaho Stand-off.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #19 posted by Free on July 11, 2001 at 22:40:30 PT:

Re: Free
Thanks, FoM, I did exactly that. Although I can't imagine someone wanting to hitch these shoes. Hey, in keeping with the subject of "cannabis muffins" (anyone have a link yet?)
For those of you that can hear blackbirds singing, I thought I may supply this link, ( a friend). Careful, the light get's pretty bright. http://fostersurvivor.netfirms.com/

peace.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #18 posted by FoM on July 11, 2001 at 21:26:39 PT
Free
Thank You Free,
I suggest you register your name if you don't want someone else to take it. I don't know if it is already. You don't have to but I would if your value using Free. Here's the link. It's a simple registration. No email is required.

http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/register.shtml

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #17 posted by Free on July 11, 2001 at 21:09:11 PT
heads and highs
GCW: This is the kind of thing that does not please our Father.

You sure got that right!

FoM: They never gave any leads in the article. They just called it her web site. If anyone finds it please post it.

Thanks! I know that I am new here, but an old "steal your face" With cps it is 'steal the babies' it's a cash industry, they don't care what your religious or other preferences are. It is a giant type scandle that is just bursting to be told. i never would have believed it myself until a few years ago. The counties get matching federal and state funds for every child removed. They even get more if the child (as Dan mentioned, Idaho story)) gets diagnosed with some other 'developmental delay" It's wrong and it is really evil and there are people trying to expose it. They hide behind a viel of secrecy (sorry my spelling isn't that great, I'm a father and artist that has had his eyes opened) They sell children on internet auction blocks after parents rights are terminated automatically after 15 months in foster care (due to court delays by the state) They are destroying the family. Here's my humble web-page, but I urge anyone that wants to help to go to http://www.cpswatch.com become a member, and also join the email support group. Yes, I am pro-legal. (as always)
Free. (a heck of a lot more links availiable upon request. KEEP FIGHTING!!!!)


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #16 posted by The GCW on July 11, 2001 at 20:29:02 PT
Wow
This is the kind of thing that does not please our Father.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #15 posted by FoM on July 11, 2001 at 19:39:31 PT
freekaler
They never gave any leads in the article. They just called it her web site. If anyone finds it please post it.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #14 posted by freekaler on July 11, 2001 at 19:31:20 PT:

What is the url for mothers website?
There is some discussion on this at alt.support.child-protective-services at goggle.com usenet discussions (group supporting those that have had children wrongfully removed) Have to admit your posts are all impressive and you have the right view of the kidnappers system. Does anyone know the Mom's website mentioned in the article? Thanks.
p.s. www.cpswatch.com


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #13 posted by aocp on July 11, 2001 at 14:51:07 PT
i wuz going to say something...
...but kapt, observer, and FoM have beaten me to the
punch. Hey, no worries. As an elementary school
teacher, i can't find words enough to express my
complete and total DISAPPOINTMENT for the
legislators, pigz, and whatnot that actually push for the
stealing of this child from his mother. This is
dispicable. I'm out.


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #12 posted by Winston Rodney on July 11, 2001 at 13:44:39 PT
Very sad

This is so disturbing, knowing that 2-3 million children in
the United States are on Ritalin right now. I hate to say
this, but if they came for my kid like this, they'd have to
take him over my dead body, and I'd kill as many
stormtroopers as I could before they got me.


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #11 posted by sm247 on July 11, 2001 at 13:03:46 PT
Got muffins??
These people in Pacer County need to STEP BACK and MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS? Have you ever heard of doctor patient confidintiality ????

BTW you know MOTHER KNOWS BEST !!!!!!!!

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #10 posted by Rambler on July 11, 2001 at 12:22:08 PT
Waking the Sleepwalkers
The only sure way to wake the sleepwalking zombies,who are under the evil spell,is with massive quanities of CASH.Sad but true.George Soros,and his friends have made a big difference.Why? CASH.

Why does the government have such an effective control over the zombies?Because they have mastered the art of milking huge amounts of cash from all the zombies,sleepwalkers,sheeple,old hippies,people who flip burgers for a living,people who buy anything,people who must drive to get to the job where part of their pay is extracted;all these and more are funding the Evil Empire.

It's kinda like we have come full circle from the days when we fled Europe.The only difference is,that this is way worse,because most people think they are free,and most people are allowed to keep just enough to keep them from complaining too loudly.And now we are seeing more and more,the development of and empirial ruling faction,seperated from those below by an ever widening monetary chasm.

I know that a bunch of cash could bring me out of even the most deep,somnambulistic coma-like sleepwalk.

It's rather sad. Cash talks. Sleepwalkers walk.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #9 posted by E. Johnson on July 11, 2001 at 11:46:11 PT
Foster care is better?
With all the dangerous horrible things that happen in foster care -- how can they believe this is going to result in a positive outcome for the boy?

The child "protection" system in this country is an ill-functioning mess where children are routinely medicated and warehoused like cattle.

They allow Ritalin, Haldol, Paxil to be given to these kids, and they don't even adewquately monitor the dose.

In LA County the LA Times did an investigative piece and found children in foster homes and group homes who were being drugged out of the minds, at three or four times the dose prescribed by a doctor, who only saw them once.

This hypocrisy has to end. It is irrational to demonize cannabis to the point where a child can be warehoused in foster care and be doped up on Haldol or worse drugs ostensibly to save him from the evils of THC.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #8 posted by drfist on July 11, 2001 at 11:16:10 PT
"give the baby Ganja Tea "
I heard this in Jamaica in responce to a crying baby!!
Standard procedure in Jamaica for babys and "cross" pickney
dem. Common everyday practice, with no problems!!!!!


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #7 posted by Dan B on July 11, 2001 at 11:14:41 PT:

A Story from Idaho
My sister tells me of a friend of hers who, when found to have cannabis in her system while pregnant, was locked up in jail until she had the child, then the baby was taken from her and is currently in the foster care system. This happened in Idaho, but it happens countless times every year, all across this country.

The government decides that a mother is somehow abusing her child with cannabis when there is absolutely no scientific evidence that any cannabinoids harm a developing child during pregnancy (at least one study from Brazil shows that pregnant women who used cannabis had babies with higher birth weights and better overall health), and there is much evidence to show that stress and deprivation of decent food and shelter do affect children in the womb. Then, with absolutely no evidence of actual harm, they deliberately attempt to destroy the child's life from day one, and they destroy the mother's life in the process.

If a parent is actually physically abusing a child, that is one thing, and I think that the government does have a right to step in. Abusive violence against children is never justifiable. But there is no evidence that the mother I described above hurt her child in any way, and there is no evidence that the mother in the article above hurt her child (although there is ample evidence that the mother did everything she could to help the child and, with her doctor's approval, found an excellent herbal remedy).

Can it get any more clear that the American government is interested only in control? Can it get any more clear that they want to destroy certain people simply because they don't hold traditional Judeo-Christian values?

How do we wake the sleepwalkers?

Dan B

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #6 posted by FoM on July 11, 2001 at 09:59:05 PT
My 2 cents
If they want to really twist that child's mind then go ahead and remove him from his Mother. That will cause more damage then practically anything that could happen to him. Children love and need their Mothers. I never wanted to be removed from my Mother even though she had a bad drinking problem. She was mine and no one has that right in my opinion.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #5 posted by observer on July 11, 2001 at 09:35:07 PT
Saving The Children from ''Drugs''
How can the officials of Placer county sleep with themselves.

To justify the brutality and hurt and killing they (police) have done to people, they have to keep hurting people who use marijuana. If they stop, that is an admission that they were wrong to persecute people for taking cannabis medically in the first place. That is an admission that most police and prosecutors cannot make, even to themselves; a conclusion that police cannot reach. To justify themselves, they must continue to treat marijuana as if it were the most deadly poison, to "save the children." And what better way for corrupted police and prosecutor to publically puff themselves up, claiming to the world that they are "saving the children," than to save "this one young person" from "an abusive situation" where "sexual abuse or drug addiction" was present (always have to conflate to make people seem worse, and police state look better), and there are "at risk" children. Why, for the "child protective services" (read: government police who steal children) to do less would be a horrible travesty! "Why, let me tell you something mister," the police and prosecutor would sing, "We've seen children in meth houses wallowing in filth!" "Kids killed by drug-abusing parents!" Anything to pump up police power, any lie or confusion or falsehood is fine legal and acceptable -- as long as it is told by police.

All for the children, of course.

When the police state finally snatches the child, and they "take him off the drugS" (police state will be loathe to call it marijuana, singular: they will need to conflate it to a plural "drugs"), drugs that were "forced" on him by his "abusive parents", and the child's previous symptoms return, then police state can reap another propaganda coup: they can mislabel the boy's ADD (or whatever) symptoms as "drug withdrawl." Then police can further pontificate, saying, "And don't tell me marijuana isn't addictive -- I've seen the agonizing withdrawls!"


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on July 11, 2001 at 09:30:29 PT:

The fat's in the fire, now.
One of the biggest free-rides the antis have enjoyed over the years is what I call the "Know?/No!" research game:

Regulars here don't have to be reminded that the antis have for years put up all manner of bureaucratic roadblocks to legitimate, objective research into medicinal cannabis. Just ask Dr. Donald Abrams about how he was warned of NIDA's secret foot-dragging agenda to hold up research.

They also don't need to be reminded that his landmark, groundbreaking study into medicinal cannabis for dealing with AIDS complications only received approval after he turned the tables on them and agreed to study possible negative effects.

When (see, we toldja so!) none were found, the silence from NIDA was absolutely deafening...and continues to this day. NIDA continues to assiduosly, strenuously ignore the results published in Durban at the 13th Annual International AIDS conference.

But now, the antis have been backed into a corner, big time

How? Because of one of the other free-rides antis have enjoyed: The Chil-drunnnnn!

Yep, their much-vaunted, publicly-displayed-with-brass-bands-playing concern for the little darlings is now about to be challenged. In a way which will show, once and for all, that their 'concern' is as bogus as a three-dollar bill.

Fact: this woman's child was so messed up that he would have a Ritalin pump attached and directly feeding massive doses into his veins if the "Child Welfare" goons thought could get away with it.

Fact: the child's behaviour was enormously disruptive.

Fact: after his mother, out of desperation, fed him cannabis augmented muffins, the kid quiets down and is able to do his schoolwork without making a holy terror of himself. A fact which is corroborated in school reports to the mother.

Fact: cannabis has no known LD-50 rate, meaning it's toxicity is so small as to be totally negligable. Like I keep saying: not one single death attributed to cannabis use in 5,000 years of recorded human history.

Can the same be said of Ritalin? No. see the following:
http://www.kats-korner.com/health/ritalin-poisoning.html

http://adhdfraud.com/commentary/12-19-00-2.htm

http://www.oregoncounseling.org/ArticlesPapers/Documents/RitalinTakingBack.htm

Fact: the child's quality of life has improved substantially, again, corroborated by past behavior compared to present. The only salient factor in the entire matter that can be attributed to creating the improved situation is cannabis use.

So, how does this put the antis b***s in a crack? In order to prove their case, the antis will have to bring forward their wretched excuses for research. The same wretched excuses for research that keep getting shot down in flames in peer journals. The same scheisse that Leshner's NIDA puts out. If the lawyer for the woman is able to somehow learn of Dr. Abram's study and is able to have such luminaries as Dr. Grinspoon and Dr. Morgan send their information, what will the antis be left with?

This case, like so many others, offers enormous explosive potential to blast the antis clean out of the water. But because of a lack of resources, time, communication, etc. all the pieces of the puzzle can't be gathered together where they could do the most good. Because it they were this could well be the antis' Waterloo.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by Doug on July 11, 2001 at 09:11:14 PT
Child Abuse
The "child abuse" authorities seem to be more concerned of late with taking children from parents who don't fit the authorities middle-class expectations. I've seen this happen to friends of mine. In this case it seems obvious that this mother has stumbled onto something that really helps her child. But we certainly wouldn't want word of this to get out, because the use of Ritalin may be severly damaged as a result. It's interesting how no one complains if you pour toxic pills into your child, as long as they are approved.

This article is very encouraging, however, because it indicates you another medical use for marijuana, and one that should be much in demand these days. One can imagine a future where all the kids now treated with Ritalin et al are using magic muffins. It would make it even harder for anyone to believe DARE.


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by Rambler on July 11, 2001 at 09:00:58 PT
Here's the main point
O.K.

""There are anecdotal reports, but not a body of scientific literature," he said."

This may be quite true,but let's turn it around,and look at this;There are NO reports,anecdotal or otherwise,that any child,or anyone else has been harmed by eating Marijuana.You cant even say that about aspirin! Aha!

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by Sudaca on July 11, 2001 at 08:47:57 PT
This is bad
"There are anecdotal reports, but not a body of scientific literature," he said.

of course we know why; it hasn't bee allowed. And that's exactly why there was a voter initiative to allow doctors to treat patients with pot! Catch 22 can't be the only answer.

How can the officials of Placer county sleep with themselves. Who gave them the power to decide that its better for a child to be taken away from home because his only effective treatment is not "Placer County Approved"?

...


[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on July 11, 2001 at 07:53:15