DC Approves More Than 50 To Apply for MMJ Licenses
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('DC Approves More Than 50 To Apply for MMJ Licenses');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

DC Approves More Than 50 To Apply for MMJ Licenses
Posted by CN Staff on September 04, 2011 at 18:31:39 PT
By Annys Shin and Victor Zapana
Source: Washington Post
Washington, DC -- Any one of these people could soon be your pot supplier: a former daytime TV talk show host, a competitive bass fisherman, a billionaire’s son or a Chinatown businessman.More than a year after medical marijuana became legal in the District, the competition to secure one of the 15 licenses to grow or sell cannabis is finally underway. This week, the D.C. Department of Health is slated to name more than 50 contenders that have been greenlighted to apply. The District plans to announce the winners in January.
Gone is the sound technician who wanted to sell cannabis-infused cupcakes. And gone is the hydroponics supply store owner who once named a strain of pot after the Potomac River. They are among at least a dozen would-be medical marijuana entrepreneurs who took themselves out of the running because they found the city’s regulations too restrictive or the start-up costs too high. And in the past week, at least five more dropped out because of a recent change in the regulations that they fear increases the likelihood of federal prosecution.The contenders that remain range from medical-cannabis veterans to complete novices whose qualifications for cultivation consist of “a green thumb.”Many have gone the A-Team route and gathered an assortment of people with different specialities: doctor, CPA, horticulturist.One of the most polished entrants is the nonprofit Abatin Wellness Center, the brainchild of former television talk show host Montel Williams, who has multiple sclerosis and has long supported legalizing medical marijuana. Abatin opened a dispensary in Sacramento this year that one reviewer dubbed “the Neiman Marcus of Marijuana.”Intent on expanding eastward, Abatin hired veteran lobbyist and longtime Marion Barry lawyer Frederick Cooke Jr. to represent it in the District. In July, Cooke escorted Williams around the Wilson Building to meet local pols.Williams said he hopes an Abatin outpost in Washington will help change perceptions about medical marijuana on Capitol Hill. He agrees with critics who complain that in some parts of the country, loose regulation has turned medical marijuana into little more than state-sanctioned drug dealing.“It has gotten out of control and hijacked by people that only want to make some money,” Williams said, adding that if there were an Abatin center in the District, “members of Congress can come over and take a look at how this can be done correctly.”Others jockeying for the 10 cultivation and five dispensary licenses include a bartender, a duo of administrative assistants, and an Alexandria man who in a letter to health department officials touted his five years in the security business and a desire to “help people AFTER something bad happens.” Array of ApplicantsIn many cases, the relevance of a prospective applicant’s work experience to medical cannabis is somewhat relative.There are the insiders, who know the workings of city government. Johnnie Scott Rice, a former aide to D.C. Council member David A. Catania (I-At large) falls in that category. She’s part of a group of older women seeking both cultivation and dispensary licenses.There are a few medical pros, including a urologist from New Jersey, a psychiatrist from Los Angeles and an opthalmologist in Bethesda.There are experienced entrepreneurs, such as the former chief of a successful medical device firm, the owner of an alternative-medicine clinic in Friendship Heights and the proprietor of a spa in Clinton.Then there are those who see parallels between giving people the munchies and serving them: Sticky Rice co-owners Joey Belcher and Jason Martin, Brookland Cafe owner D’Maz Lumukanda and Chinatown restaurateur Tony Cheng.Some are prospectors who see a chance to make money, even though the District’s regulations likely will make it tough to match the profits of medical cannabis purveyors in Colorado or California.Others are driven more by personal experience. Jonathan Marlow, a competitive bass fisherman known as the Bass Hog, has watched his mother struggle with multiple sclerosis for nearly 30 years. She was diagnosed in 1983. By 1987, while still in her 40s, she needed a walker. She now lies in a special hospital bed designed for quadriplegics.Marlow said he believes medical marijuana could help alleviate his mother’s suffering: “The federal law should be changed to at least allow patients with a doctor’s recommendation to grow their own medicine.”Other potential applicants were tight-lipped about their plans and intentions, including Ben Bronfman, a son of billionaire Edgar Bronfman and the fiance of rapper MIA, who has been approved to apply for a dispensary license. But the wallflowers won’t be able to hide much longer. In what might be likened to the talent portion of the competition, the applicants will have to make their case later this year to advisory neighborhood commissions, which have a say in choosing the winners. Taking a Risk Who comes out on top might boil down to an appetite for risk. Until mid-August, when health department officials amended the regulations, applicants had to sign a statement saying they understood growing and selling marijuana remains illegal under federal law. Under the revised regulations, applicants also have to “recite verbatim” that they understand that having a city-issued license doesn’t “authorize” them to break federal law, and that if the federal authorities go after them, the District government isn’t liable. Montgomery Blair Sibley, who has been approved to apply for a dispensary and a cultivation license, interprets the new wording as a Get Into Jail For Free Card. He recently filed suit against the District over the new requirements, arguing that they violate applicants’ fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination. He further contends the courts have yet to settle the question of whether federal drug laws supercede state and local laws legalizing medical marijuana.In the District, the legal confusion is even murkier because Congress, which must approve District laws, essentially gave its blessing to the city’s medical marijuana program by not killing it when it had the chance.City officials say their intent was not to alter the legal meaning but to make the warning label for applicants bigger.“It really doesn’t change anything. We still are very committed to moving the program forward,” said Department of Health Director Mohammad Akhter. “Everybody involved with this should come into this with open eyes.”Source: Washington Post (DC)Author:  Annys Shin and Victor ZapanaPublished: Sunday, September 4, 2011Copyright: 2011 Washington Post CompanyContact: letters URL: CannabisNews  Medical Marijuana Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 

Comment #40 posted by Hope on September 10, 2011 at 12:13:29 PT
Thanks, FoM. Enjoy your company.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #39 posted by FoM on September 10, 2011 at 12:06:00 PT
Comment away! You are never rude! We have a friend from the early 70's visiting from out of state so we have been really busy. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #38 posted by Hope on September 10, 2011 at 11:17:12 PT
I'm thinking
about maybe going crazy today. Just posting stuff and posting stuff. Until I have like a hundred and ten straight posts.That, in the etiquette of the Internet, would be rude though. Wouldn't it? I think I'll rudely HOLLER today just to get started. (Sounds Texas of me, doesn't it?) Hmm? Maybe not.Wasn't that reprobate reprobate article odd? A long, long, long page of one sentence paragraphs. I was scared. But I wondered about that Yoga man. It was a Federal prison that he was in. I wonder. What say Runruff? Did you know that Corky guy? 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #37 posted by Hope on September 09, 2011 at 13:50:24 PT
Sometimes You Get What You Need:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #36 posted by Hope on September 09, 2011 at 13:23:14 PT
Losing power on a hot night is so much worse than losing power on a cold night.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #35 posted by Hope on September 09, 2011 at 13:21:29 PT
Our public speakers.
I've prayed many times over many years for our speakers. That they be able to speak the truth, clearly and well with grace. And they do. It's beautiful to watch. They are extraordinary. I was so impressed with Ethan's speech on that video I posted here the other day.And today, I am so impressed again, and thankful, for our speakers, which are many, not just these two, and they do obviously, to me, speak with admirable grace.This is Jodie Emery speaking. The first video on that page. I'm so thankful for them, those that speak to the media for us, and their, to me, amazingly, awesome, blessed ability.They are so lovely. All of them. Even Ethan N. is lovely. I'm very thankful for them and what they do. They are the voice of reason and sanity.I just now really enjoyed hearing Jodie E. speak in this video. She has a lot of good things to say. She's so blessed and full of grace, I think. I liked it, plus a couple of funny photographs back when Marc E. was a teenager.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #34 posted by FoM on September 08, 2011 at 20:21:09 PT
I was reading about the power outage. I hope they get the power back on soon since it is around 100 degrees out in LA I read.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #33 posted by Hope on September 08, 2011 at 19:21:06 PT
Lots of people 
are without electricity tonight.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #32 posted by Hope on September 08, 2011 at 18:24:05 PT
Sinsemilla Jones Comment 27
I so agree!"With the bad economy making a Republican win possible, I want the most reasonable Republican nominee possible."I think we ought to use our voting bloc to see if we can effect the Republican Primary. There likely aren't enough of us to cause him to win the primary, but maybe we could make a showing in his favor.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #31 posted by Hope on September 08, 2011 at 15:59:10 PT
Comment 26
Thank you, Greenmed.Yeah! That!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #30 posted by Hope on September 08, 2011 at 15:47:19 PT
Thinking about Mr. Obama.
What was it he called us? "The online community"?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #29 posted by Hope on September 08, 2011 at 15:37:50 PT
Excuse me.
Not "Probably", but "No doubt".
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #28 posted by Hope on September 08, 2011 at 15:37:00 PT
Comment 25
As far as I'm concerned, McCaffrey's being unhappy with him means President Obama is probably doing something right.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #27 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on September 08, 2011 at 15:34:06 PT
FoM and Hope
"I think a person has to get over a certain percentage at some time since they announced running to qualify for being in a TV debate."You and Hope are right about the polls being the excuse the networks give for excluding Gov. Johnson, however the rule seems rather arbitrary and misguided. Most polls have a margin of error of about 3 to 5 percent, so excluding someone for only having 3 percent rather than 4 percent just isn't correct on a purely mathematical basis. Some recent polls put Johnson ahead of some of those who have been included in the debates., this early in the campaign, name recognition, rather than issues and qualifications, is what shows up in polls. Those who have made a name in the past have an automatic advantage over those who haven't. Of the new faces, the amount of media coverage they get seems to almost directly translate to better poll numbers.The media has ignored Gary Johnson. On the day he announced, he got little or no coverage. The cable news networks preferred to constantly speculate on candidates who might run. They gave an enormous amount of free publicity to Rick Perry for weeks, before he even decided to run. Ironically, if Perry ends up becoming President, the supposedly "liberal" MSNBC deserves a lot of the credit, or rather, the blame."I didn't even know Gary Johnson was still running."You and the vast majority of the American public, FoM, even those who watch a lot of cable news. I wouldn't know, if I hadn't actively tried to find out. It's much more fun for reporters to talk about the Perrys and Bachmans. Although, you'd think talking about a pro pot, pro choice, pro gay union, pro immigration, pro internet gaming Republican who might be more fiscally conservative that any of them, would be fun, too. It seems the main difference between Johnson and the candidates that the media prefers to cover, is that his "wacko" positions are ones that might actually appeal to a lot of progressive independents. plans to stay in the race through New Hampshire. In fact, he is focusing on New Hampshire, which seems a very sensible approach. Certainly, if he can only garner 3 or 4 percent of the actual vote in that state's primary, it would be a true reason for the media and the public to write him off. is more disturbing and surprising to me than the lack of establishment media coverage, has been the lack of attention given Gary Johnson by the cannabis community. In fact, at least based on their websites, Johnson is much more outspoken in his support of marijuana legalization than Ron Paul. Marijuana legalization does seem to be a priority to Gov. Johnson. One thing that really bothers me about Dr. Paul, despite having co-sponsored with Barney Frank a few pro cannabis pieces of legislation, there is a glaring lack of such support on his campaign website. Both in 2008 and now for 2012, there is nary a virtual word in specific support of cannabis, marijuana, or hemp from Rep. Paul. is front and center on Ron Paul's 2012 website, as it was in 2008, is Paul's extreme anti-abortion position, which would legally define human life as beginning at conception. This position alone, I believe, makes him unelectable, and I fear if Paul was to somehow be elected President, his priorities would be abortion and the federal reserve, and cannabis would be largely forgotten. Yet, Paul remains the darling of many cannabis proponents.Johnson, on the other hand, believes abortion should be a woman's choice up to when the fetus becomes viable, a position that I and, I believe, a majority of Americans agree with. That alone, again in my opinion, makes him much more electable than Ron Paul, as well a much more appealing candidate to me, personally.In fact, on points of personal liberty, including making homosexual unions equal under the law to heterosexual unions, pro early term abortion choice, the freedom to gamble online, and, of course, the legalization of cannabis, and not legalizing hard drugs but making their use a health care issue, I am in almost complete agreement with Gary Johnson. Of all the Republicans, and Democrats, he is easily the most appealing in terms of a favorable, progressive, and common sense approach to personal freedom.However, although I consider myself fiscally conservative (my definition being that I don't want the government wasting huge amounts of money, but I'm not against social programs on principle), I may not agree on some, perhaps many, specifics of Gov. Johnson's approach to fiscal responsibility. Yet, I don't see anything about his ideas to reduce government spending that are any more unreasonable than those the other Republicans, and even many Democrats. Especially, if you see the legalization of marijuana as not only an issue of personal liberty, but one of fiscal responsibility.Barring a very good reason not to, such as an unexpectedly important local Democratic primary race, or maybe if Paul or perhaps Huntsman was in a close race with Perry, Bachman, or God forbid, Santorum, I will almost definitely cross over and vote for Gary Johnson in my state's Republican primary. With the bad economy making a Republican win possible, I want the most reasonable Republican nominee possible.However, in the general election, I will probably vote for Obama over any of the Republicans, except possibly Gary Johnson. If Johnson managed to be the nominee, I would have to consider voting for him in the general election, but the debates, running mate, and other unforeseeable things would ultimately determine my final decision.But to turn around that oft used quote most often attributed to Ben Franklin, I would be inclined to trade security for freedom."I find all this sudden Rick Perry stuff alarming. It makes me aware of that big shadowy something that seems to almost control who gets to be president."I find the mainstream media, particularly MSNBC, specifically Chris Matthews, but all of them in general, promoting first Bachman, then Perry before he was a candidate, and their non-stop free publicity then resulting in big poll numbers for each, alarming as well. If one took a conspiratorially inclined view of it, one might almost think that they were promoting candidates that they thought could win the Republican nomination, yet would lose the general election. Maybe even Fox.And it's funny that Republicans seem to be letting the mainstream, "lame stream", "liberal", what we know is actually the establishment media, dictate who their candidates should be. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by greenmed on September 08, 2011 at 12:21:30 PT
(R) debate and the "Ponzi scheme"
The Washington Post has an article up today. There's a rebuttal of the "Ponzi scheme" claim. Here's an extract:  “It is a monstrous lie. It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, you’re paying into a program that’s going to be there.” — Gov. PerryPerhaps the governor does not know the dictionary definition of a Ponzi scheme. Here’s what Merriam-Webster says: “An investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks.”This is a frequent mistake politicians make when talking about Social Security. It is not an investment vehicle; it is intended to provide income security as well disability and life insurance. Just more than 60 percent of the 54 million beneficiaries are retired workers; the rest are disabled workers, dependents or survivors.Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, which means that payments collected today are immediately used to pay benefits. Until recently, more payments were collected than were needed for benefits. So Social Security loaned the money to the U.S. government, which used it for other things. In exchange, Social Security received interest-bearing Treasury securities. The value of those bonds is now about $2.6 trillion. (We have written about this at length.)In any case, Perry is wrong to label Social Security a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes ultimately go bust and everyone (except possibly early investors) generally loses their money. Social Security faces a long-term funding issue, but one that most experts say is manageable. After all, the Social Security actuary says that Social Security’s shortfall is 0.7 percent of the gross domestic product over the next 75 years.Link:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by FoM on September 08, 2011 at 12:17:55 PT
I hope they win too. Barry McCaffrey was on the news today and he is very disappointed in how lenient President Obama has been. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by Hope on September 08, 2011 at 11:25:36 PT
I'm very happy about this. 
Veteran, ACLU Challenge Florida Welfare Drug Test Law course, I hope the ACLU and Mr. Lebron are successful in their suit.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by Hope on September 08, 2011 at 11:17:42 PT
I didn't watch it, but I've heard about some of it
"Ponzi scheme"? That is so ridiculous. It's like insurance and it isn't something people voluntarily "invest" in. It's an insurance pool spread among many people.I don't care for most of Perry's politics and I am so surprised he's actually in the running for president.Why aren't they all over him for trying to "Change" America, like that makes him some sort of traitor, like they are our present President? "Ponzi scheme"? I can't believe he said that and I hope he doesn't get away with it. It forebodes badly of what he might try to do if he were the President.Not that the government's mismanagement hasn't rather turned it into something not unlike the proverbial Ponzi scheme. But it was founded as insurance. It is insurance. Required insurance for every worker. You don't say I just won't pay my Social Security payments, nor can your employer, without getting into trouble with the government.It seems like Perry is trying to destroy America... kind of like some are always saying about President Obama.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by FoM on September 08, 2011 at 11:12:13 PT
I am not really against Republicans. I voted for Reagan, Kerry and Obama and that's the only times I ever voted. The only Governor that is Republican that I think is somewhat open to other ideas is Governor Christie. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by Hope on September 08, 2011 at 11:03:24 PT
I don't remember anything.
But I'm prejudiced somewhat to him in that his office sent the nicest letter in reply to a letter I wrote him.Him being a Republican, I realize, might displease you.I like Ron Paul, too, because of an e-mail reply his office sent to me. I certainly don't agree with his views about some things. I was impressed that his office was nice to me in response to correspondence I'd sent there... even though I was not his constituent. Those two, Johnson and Paul, are the only ones in public office that I tried to correspond with that were even truly polite to my efforts. Everyone else disagreed with me and more or less scolded me like I was a challenged child.I remember Phil Graham's office being awful and sending awful stuff to me in response to my letters about marijuana in particular, and the "War" in general, about "scum" in relationship to those he despised in the hot and heavy "Drug War". He venomously despised "Drug scum". He was a "Warrior". No doubt. I was glad to see him bow out of government because he was our own bitter little dictator. I wrote his office about other things, too, but they were nice enough about the other things. They made him appear to be a regular ass about any discussion of cannabis policy or drug policy of any kind. Kay B. Hutchinson was opposed to my views in no uncertain terms, too. And of course, the same disagreement with the present office holder. In his emails... his office sent me the message that the man really didn't like me and didn't appreciate my views at all. He sounded like an angry, belligerent old man. Which he is. Apparently.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by FoM on September 08, 2011 at 10:47:55 PT
I watched a little of the debate last night but not the whole thing. I heard your governor rail against the federal government and even called Social Security a ponzi scheme. The stock market is more like a ponzi scheme then SS in my opinion. Then he complained when they were talking about the border that Obama won't send National Guard troops to secure the border in Texas. Related Article from 2007:Governors Lose in Power Struggle over National GuardBy Kavan Peterson, Staff Writer   
 A little-noticed change in federal law packs an important change in who is in charge the next time a state is devastated by a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina.To the dismay of the nation’s governors, the White House now will be empowered to go over a governor’s head and call up National Guard troops to aid a state in time of natural disasters or other public emergencies. Up to now, governors were the sole commanders in chief of citizen soldiers in local Guard units during emergencies within the state.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by FoM on September 08, 2011 at 10:01:56 PT
When Mr. Johnson announced he was running for President he sent up some red flags that made me not follow what he believes about our issue. I do want the laws changed on marijuana but the other things he said wouldn't be worth having him as president in my opinion. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by Hope on September 08, 2011 at 09:10:23 PT
Sinsemilla Jones
FoM is right about the poll rating getting him left out. I hate that, too. I think he might be a good president. Not just on our issue. I'd like to be able to vote for him. I might vote for him in the Republican primary, I think, if I get a chance. I find all this sudden Rick Perry stuff alarming. It makes me aware of that big shadowy something that seems to almost control who gets to be president. It seems weird to me that suddenly he's all that to the Republicans. Brrrr.While I like Ron Paul a lot... I think Mr. Johnson is more reasonable about the programs that help old, impaired, sick, or poor people. I could be wrong though.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by FoM on September 08, 2011 at 04:54:32 PT
Sinsemilla Jones 
I didn't even know Gary Johnson was still running. I haven't seen him on the news. I thought they have a cutoff on poll ratings that determines who is in the debates. I think a person has to get over a certain percentage at some time since they announced running to qualify for being in a TV debate. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on September 07, 2011 at 23:58:34 PT
Speaking of Debates....
...CNN, Fox, and MSNBC have all agreed not to let the most pro cannabis candidate ever to run for either major parties' nomination in one.Gary Johnson clearly states his position favoring the legalization of marijuana not just once, but multiple times, under 3 different issues on 3 separate pages of his campaign website!"The parallels between drug policy today and Prohibition in the 1920’s are obvious, as are the lessons our nation learned. Prohibition was repealed because it made matters worse. Today, no one is trying to sell our kids bathtub gin in the schoolyard and micro-breweries aren’t protecting their turf with machine guns. It’s time to apply that thinking to marijuana. By making it a legal, regulated product, availability can be restricted, under-age use curtailed, enforcement/court/incarceration costs reduced, and the profit removed from a massive underground and criminal economy.By managing marijuana like alcohol and tobacco – regulating, taxing and enforcing its lawful use – America will be better off. The billions saved on marijuana interdiction, along with the billions captured as legal revenue, can be redirected against the individuals committing real crimes against society. Harder drugs should not be legalized, but their use should be dealt with as a health issue – not a criminal justice issue.""MAKE MARIJUANA LEGALOVER A MILLION AND A HALF AMERICANS were arrested last year on drug charges, and nearly 40% of those arrests were for marijuana possession alone. Does this make sense?A recent Gallup poll reports that 46% of Americans now agree that marijuana should be legalized, a dramatic increase in support that reflects Americans' increased knowledge and understanding of the issue. Proposals to regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol have been considered in several states, and Governor Johnson has supported those efforts; he believes the federal government should end its prohibition mandate and allow each state to pursue its own desired policy.Governor Johnson believes it is insane to arrest roughly 800,000 people a year for choosing to use a natural substance that is, by any reasonable objective standard, less harmful than alcohol, a drug that is advertised at every major sporting event.As Governor Johnson often points out to concerned parents, "it will never be legal for a person to smoke marijuana, become impaired, and get behind the wheel of a car or otherwise do harm to others, and it will never be legal for kids to smoke marijuana." But we have to understand that marijuana is our nation's #1 cash crop despite the prohibition; it will always be available to those who really wish to use it.When polled, high school kids say marijuana is easier to get than alcohol. Perhaps this is because they buy from black market dealers who do not ask for ID?Legalization of marijuana would instantly and dramatically improve conditions on our southern border. Marijuana is Mexico's #1 illegal export, dramatically reducing the power and wealth of the drug lords, and instantly helping to restore stability in a nation whose stability and sustainability is truly vital to our economic and national security interests. If we truly wish to reduce border violence, take the profit out of it.""Legalizing marijuana will reduce border violence and illegal immigration significantly, decreasing the U.S.-Mexican drug trade by 70 percent. Without a monopoly on the marijuana trade, Mexican drug cartels will have vastly diminished incentives to violate U.S. law and risk capture.""Legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana, rather than wasting money on an expensive and futile prohibition."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by runruff on September 07, 2011 at 15:14:10 PT
I saw the debate with Ethan.
He was fabuloso! Why do I feel the prohibitionist are always selling their policies? It seem to me that after forty years the people would see the good in prohibition and embrace it instead of constantly questioning it's effectiveness and viability as an answer to the human-nature and physiology of craving substances and addiction?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by Hope on September 07, 2011 at 11:34:49 PT
“the Neiman Marcus of Marijuana”?
Not good. Super high end that most people can't afford? That's what "Neiman Marcus" means.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by josephlacerenza on September 07, 2011 at 06:17:57 PT
Exploring the Endocannabinoid System 
Exploring the Endocannabinoid System Cannabinoids and their therapeutic potential: share this info!!! At some point the government/DEA are going to have to answer for their uneducated positions on cannabis/cannabinoids!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by herbdoc215 on September 06, 2011 at 19:27:32 PT
I've been waiting to see Montel's club commercials
Doing "payday loans" for ounces soon...probably at like 600% interest like the sleezy loan companies I see him shilling for every night on TV here...and face it, that is all Montel and his ilk the "paid ho's" are is snake oil salesmen and hucksters that are jumping into the business like sharks to a blood bank! I agree with Hope, and like all the haters who see the light when it is their butts or their families whom get sick I believe we should help them out but never let them run a damn thing as they have already shown themselves to be either easily mislead fools for their pay or just banal asshole fools who refused to see the light until it was shined into their eyes. Peace, Steve
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by Hope on September 06, 2011 at 11:29:39 PT
Montel is only a semi-reformed Prohibitionist.
That's with a capital P.He was forced, dreadfully so, to what understanding he has now.I didn't watch his show much, but I saw him send young people off to boot camp type rehabs to reform them from smoking marijuana. He made a big show of it, of course, and I just thought it was awful. Quite a few times he did stuff like that on his shows. He was harsh, cold, and self righteous about it all. He was not about, "Don't punish people for use of cannabis".
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by runruff on September 06, 2011 at 11:23:38 PT
"Why so much contempt? "
Sour grapes, sore losers,inflated egos punctured, funds and perks lost,political power lost...and more, all of which give me a dark delicious thrill!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by Hope on September 06, 2011 at 10:46:38 PT
Sensitive today...
There is a lot that is offensive in the way this article was written, too. Why so much contempt?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by schmeff on September 06, 2011 at 10:20:54 PT
Montel Prejudiced?
His comments that some MMJ states with loose regulations result in little more than state-sanctioned drug dealing seems biased to me. Sure, Montel can afford the time and license fee$ and $ecurity cost$ and inflated insurance protection and scrutiny from the tight sphincter regulation crowd, but those who don't, won't, can't, or shouldn't have to don't need to be characterized as 'druggies' or drug dealers.Ya oughta be able to grow yer own stone without licenses, fees, bureaucracies and red tape. It's not dangerous, toxic, complicated or hazardous. It is an herbal supplement providing compounds essential to human well-being. All use is medicinal.Legal like tomatoes. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by runruff on September 06, 2011 at 03:15:10 PT
"Critical mass"
More like a critical mess!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Canis420 on September 05, 2011 at 22:04:44 PT:
# 3
There ya go!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by The GCW on September 05, 2011 at 18:42:37 PT
Has Congress Officially Approved the Medical Use of Marijuana? Lawsuit Filed in Federal Court Seeks to Find Out"Has Congress officially legalized the medical use of marijuana? Now that Washington D.C.’s medical marijuana program is moving forward, a lawsuit against the federal government seeks to find out. """Cont.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Sam Adams on September 05, 2011 at 08:47:26 PT
nice, we've got an application for an application!  the bureaucracy grows ever more, like a disease that will soon overwhelm the patient (patient being the aging Empire of course)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by runruff on September 05, 2011 at 06:42:19 PT
And then there's...
...the straw that broke the camels back!His carrying capacity reached critical mass.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Canis420 on September 05, 2011 at 02:23:58 PT:
Critical mass
I dont know about critical mass as that sounds like physics...but carrying capacity does come to mind!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by runruff on September 04, 2011 at 19:18:43 PT
A lottery to propagate mother nature!
Not even George Orwell saw this coming. As a society we have yet to reach critical mass but don't look away....
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment