cannabisnews.com: County Enters Medical Pot Challenge
County Enters Medical Pot Challenge
Posted by CN Staff on September 11, 2006 at 09:52:14 PT
By Chris Collins
Source: Merced Sun-Star
California -- Grant Wilson, a medical marijuana patient, stands in front of the marijuana garden his caregiver grows for him. Wilson has battled with Merced County supervisors over whether he should be allowed to have a medical marijuana identification card. An attorney battling Merced County over a lawsuit that could determine the future of medical marijuana laws in California said Friday that the county's opposition to the use of the drug is a "broadside attack on state laws."
Joe Elford, the top attorney with Americans for Save Access, made his remarks a week after attorneys for Merced County issued a legal brief that said "marijuana is a substance with no recognized medical use" and that "the possession or use of marijuana is a crime."The legal firing exchange centers around a high-profile suit filed in San Diego Superior Court earlier this year that challenges the state and its decade-old law allowing the use of medical marijuana.San Diego, San Bernardino and Merced counties -- which are the only plaintiffs in the suit -- also seek to overturn a state law approved in 2003 that requires counties to provide ID cards to medical marijuana patients.The suit has a good chance of ending up in the California Supreme Court, attorneys on both sides of the suit said.Merced County didn't get involved in the legal battle until five months after the suit started. County supervisors voted unanimously to join the suit in June after medical marijuana-user and Merced resident Grant Wilson pestered the supervisors for months to issue him an ID card that would protect him from being arrested.The county has refused to set up a local program that would provide such cards. Instead, it argues that Senate Bill 420, which requires counties to issue ID cards, violates the California Constitution.The county said in its brief filed last week that Proposition 215, which voters approved in 1996 to legalize medical marijuana, was never intended to be amended by the Legislature.The ID cards requirement was "neither voted for nor likely anticipated by the California electorate" when Proposition 215 was approved, the brief argues.But Elford said that SB 420 "is in no way repugnant to the will of the voters who passed Proposition 215" and should not be shot down.Teresa Schilling, a spokesman for the state Attorney General's Office -- which is fighting against Merced County in the suit -- said that the Legislature "has the power and authority to develop regulations to implement the law."Even though three counties are fighting against the medical marijuana laws, Merced County's attorneys said they are the only ones making the argument that SB 420 is unconstitutional because it makes changes to Proposition 215.Elford, the pro-medical marijuana attorney, called the county's approach "unique."Most of the debate, however, centers around whether Proposition 215 is superseded by federal laws that have declared marijuana illegal since the 1960s.Elford said states should remain autonomous and be allowed to experiment with different policies."History is replete with examples of why the federalist system is a good thing," he said. "If it's a bad idea, then the state will pull the plug and we'd all learn a lesson."But Merced County attorneys cite a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year dealing with medical marijuana laws that said that "if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail."The county's involvement in the suit is somewhat peculiar. Unlike San Diego County, where three out of five supervisors oppose the use of medical marijuana, at least three of the five supervisors in Merced County favor laws that give patients access to marijuana.Only Supervisor Mike Nelson has said he opposes Proposition 215. Supervisor John Pedrozo has not said where he lies on the issue.Supervisors say they voted to join the suit to overturn the laws because they wanted to know whether they should follow federal and state guidelines. Most said they didn't necessarily want to see Proposition 215 overturned.Merced County attorneys said the only way the county could get that clarification is if they joined the suit."The only reason we're in the case is because we need a binding decision," said James Fincher, a county attorney who handles litigation.But if the case is appealed -- as it most likely will be -- a ruling in a court higher than the San Diego Superior Court would result in a decision that will apply to all California counties.Walter Wall, the county's attorney who is working most closely on the suit, said it was "certainly an option" for the county to wait for a higher court's decision rather than join San Diego County. That would have helped conserve staff time in the already-strained Merced County Counsel's Office.But, Wall said, joining the suit shields the county from potential lawsuits and gives the county a chance to have its say in the legal battle.Supervisor Jerry O'Banion has said that there was some concern that Wilson, the Merced medical marijuana patient, would sue the county over its refusal to issue ID cards.Wilson said he is unemployed and is a single father with three kids at home. But he said he "definitely" plans to sue the county.Elford, however, said it was pointless for Merced County to join the suit since the legal battle would eventually result in a ruling that affects all counties.The county "doesn't add much of anything," he said.Atwater City Council watchThe Atwater City Council meets at 6 p.m. today at 750 Bellevue Road.OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA:• A report about the cost of adding a firefighter to the department.According to the report, the annual price for a mid-salary firefighter is $75,500, including holiday pay, overtime, retirement, health insurance and worker's compensation costs.• A request from Atwater Fire Fighters Local 4398 to move forward with a Mario Granado monument at Fireman's Memorial Ballpark.• A resolution complying with a Merced County judge's order to set aside Atwater Ranch items approved by the council on May 23, 2005.• An ordinance giving planning commissioners a 5 percent cost-of-living increase. Their compensation for each meeting would go from $26.50 to $28. Newshawk: Mayan Source: Merced Sun-Star (CA)Author: Chris Collins Published: September 11, 2006Copyright: 2006 Merced Sun-StarContact: editor mercedsun-star.comWebsite: http://www.mercedsun-star.com/Americans For Safe Accesshttp://www.safeaccessnow.org/CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #5 posted by paulpeterson on September 12, 2006 at 14:14:36 PT
whig & anyone else interested
Yes, you may republish my "letters" on your blog & anywhere else on the planet. I wish to improve access to information, and specifically waive any copyright "rights" to things that everyone should know about this unique set of chemicals.I am tired of seeing articles which tell how Pancreatic and other cancers are "incurable" when this stuff we think about in silence and fear can as well help to cure these incurable tumors. We also need to cure incurable "cognitive dissonance" and information is the cure. (And thanks for noticing). Paul Peterson
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by whig on September 11, 2006 at 13:49:27 PT
Paul
May I republish your letters on cannablog?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by FoM on September 11, 2006 at 13:21:26 PT
Paul
Thank you Paul. I hope all is well.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by paulpeterson on September 11, 2006 at 12:10:14 PT
FoM-version II
Re: Pancreatic Cancer Treatment Potential for “Marijuana” Products
Dear Mr. Gallagher: I read with interest your fine article of 8/24/06, wherein you indicated that each year some 37, 700 people are diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer, and some 32,300 die each year as well-most within 3-6 months of diagnosis, only 4% survive 5 years and ultimately the cancer is 99% fatal-there are no effective treatments so far. This is truly devastating to any family that hears the news that their loved one has this diagnosis-I was appalled to note that just 7/1/06, I saw an article in the “American Association for Cancer Research” journal noting how “Cannabinoids Induce Apoptosis of Pancreatic Tumor Cells...", and I decided that at this very time, I must speak out on this subject-so we can help these desperate people. You see, the US Government knew in 1974 that “THC-delta 9” and another “cannabinoid” called “Cannabinol” (CBN for short) encouraged a process called “Apoptosis” (programmed cell death to tumor cells) and stopped “angiogenesis” (production of new blood supply to tumor growths) by activation of a cell’s own “cannabis” receptor sites-in rat studies with lung cancers, breast cancers and leukemia tumors. The study was designed to “prove” that marijuana would damage the immune system-at the Medical College of Virginia. However, when the study started to show the “antitumor” potential of marijuana products-the study was abruptly cancelled and the findings buried. Then, in 1976, upon vigorous lobbying from George Bush (senior) and others, on behalf of three major pharmaceutical companies (Abbott Labs, Eli Lilly & Glaxo, etc.), President Gerald Ford stopped all positive marijuana research in this country-and granted an exclusive right to research one “molecule” each to those companies. The next major finding came in 1998, when an Italian group found that “anandamide” (a naturally produced “endocannabinoid”) and a synthetic “cannabinoid” called HU-210 both stopped the “proliferation” of breast cancer tumor cells by decreasing “prolactin” (necessary for DNA reproduction of tumor cells in the “S phase”). A Spaniard named Manuel Guzman replicated the US rat study in 2000 and was incensed to learn, after he had released his findings, that the US Government had learned and buried this stunning propensity of marijuana chemicals to stop cancer some 25 years earlier! Now, from an article 9/8/06 in the Des Moines Register, it is noted that “Breast Cancer Rate May Have Reached Plateau in US” where 213,000 women are diagnosed each year-41,000 dying each year from this insidious disease. Does this mean, in fact, that for some 30 years, some 40,000 women have died unnecessarily each year (over 1.2 million women dead that could have been saved, since 1974-burned at the stake for the drug war?) Now, in fact, it is known that some 10 different cancers are known to be sensitive to these chemicals, including: Lung Carcinoma Brain Cancers (gliomas) Thyroid Epithelioma Lymphoma/Leukemia Skin Cancer (non-melanoma) Uterus Carcinoma Breast Carcinoma Prostate Carcinoma
Pancreatic Cancer Neuroblastoma (Autonomic nervous system or Adrenal medulla-young children or adolescents) Briefly, the brain and nerve cells produce a receptor site called the “CB-1” which, when “triggered” causes a “psychoactive” effect, which is quite unpopular to law enforcement and governmental circles. THC-9 (the active ingredient in marijuana) triggers this site, which is “designed” to be used by the body’s own activation system (anandamide was discovered in 1995 or so). All other cells in the body have another receptor site called “CB-2”, which does not produce a “high” when activated-therefore most cannabinoid cancer research has been directed at selectively triggering this less controversial “site”. For instance, in 2001, scientists discovered that a newly discovered “CB-2” receptor-not known to exist in normal brain tissue but only produced by cancerous brain cells could be activated by non-psychoactive chemicals. Various processes have been discovered, to explain how and why these marijuana chemicals help to stop the various cancers. For instance, increases in “ceramide’ levels, decreasing “epidermal growth factor”, increased “kinase”, decreased “AKT” and decrease in “angiogenesis, blocking “CdC2 progression all help stop tumor deaths. Finally, in July, 2006, in Pancreatic cancer, Guzman found THC-9 worked via the "CB-2” receptor site to cause an increase in ceramide levels (P8) & also to trigger apoptosis by a new process via “endoplasmic reticulum stress-related genes (ATF-4 & TRB3). From a review of all of these studies, it would appear that the CB-2 receptor site is uniquely increased and produced in tumor growths-in other words, there must be other reasons why this receptor site is produced-for increase in nutrient needs of aggressively growing tumors? It would also appear that other substances (mostly lipids) trigger these receptor sites in addition to merely the “cannabinoids”. Also of note is that the “endocannabinoids” are produced only from Omega 3 Fatty Acids-and corn oil products (Omega 6) would not produce anti-cancer potential. Abbott Labs, (in Illinois) in fact, got the “nod” to produce a synthetic “THC-9” chemical named (dronabinol) “Marinol”-and they used the Illinois “Research on Cannabis Act” (720 ILCS 550, sections 11 & 15-1971) to research and produce that in the 1980’s (under a wholly owned subsidiary named “Unimed” in Deerfield, Illinois). Now, in fact, “Marinol”, has been accorded “Class 3” status, meaning that it can be “off-labeled” (by a doctor) for any use by prescription. It would appear that many studies have used this THC-9 to prove the various cancer fighting properties-even though a month’s supply costs some $900 (exorbitant), with questionable insurance reimbursement, of course. For my own part, I lobbied ex-governor George Ryan in early 2001 to encourage the Illinois DHS (Department of Human Services) to encourage research utilizing the Illinois law mentioned above-in conjunction with the DEA & NIDA (the two federal departments which I had contacted and had expressed a willingness to embark on new research). Instead of his support, he apparently contacted Abbott Labs-and was told not to cooperate with any “competitive” research proposals. Now Mr. Ryan has just been sentenced to 6 ½ years to federal prison for his bribery and corruption conviction. Also in 2001, I was suspended from the practice of law due to my controversial support for medical marijuana research-my personal stake was the side effect treatment I found these cannabinoids to afford for the ADD medication I took by prescription. The unique “anxiety” benefits documented by the Institute of Medicine report of 1999 was recommended to me by a trained therapist-once I researched and found that Illinois had such a world class enabling statute already in place since 1971-made world class in 1978. Eli Lilly (the Bush’s baby) got the “nod” to produce a synthetic “Cannabinol” chemical (nabilone) under the name “Cesamet”, which may have been pulled off the shelf in the US in 1982 or so. However, Cesamet has been sold ever since in France, where it still has an 88% market share and is being remarketed soon in the US. This is probably due, in great part, to the success in Abbott Labs arriving at “Class 3” status and the strong interest in joining the cancer research market now that 10 major cancers have been found sensitive to this class of products (unsure as to cost). Now a French company, Sanofi Aventis SA, has produced a CB-1 “antagonist” (which blocks the action of the site) which is about to be introduced to the US market-called “Accompli” (Rimonabant)-which is touted to reduce the cravings for food (munchies) and nicotine (dopamine) urges, perhaps as an anti-addiction drug as well. Also, a New Jersey company, Pharmos, is working on another drug called “dexanabinol” (HU211), to help treat brain trauma and seizures and “Mild Cognitive Impairment” (MCI) from open heart surgery-it helps protect the brain from the release of harmful chemicals which damage neighboring cells (probably Beta-Amyloid particles). GW Pharmaceuticals, a new startup company in Great Britain, has already signed on with Bayer for the North American rights to its new clear spray-(Sativex)-which includes the natural THC molecule and Cannabinol, which has already gained approval in Canada. FDA approval is also being sought for that drug. (These last two, at least, have cancer treating potential). In addition, a recent study from Los Angeles, California reports that from a detailed survey analysis of 4000 patients, it was clear that heavy tobacco usage caused a predictable 20 fold increase in lung cancer rates-however researchers were surprised to find that even “heavy smoking” (some 22,000 joints of marijuana) did not elevate lung cancer rates over nonsmokers-in fact there was a slight drop-probably because of the “weak” apoptosis effects of marijuana smoke-all of the cancer studies used concentrated forms of the target chemicals-smoking marijuana could not produce enough amounts to be of significant effect. Of course, since marijuana smoke also contains known carcinogens, at least it appeared that the apoptosis helped to compensate for that, for now, at least.
PAUL PETERSON
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by paulpeterson on September 11, 2006 at 12:07:49 PT
marijuana products and cancer history-to FoM
FoM: I thought you might wish to see this article I penned and distributed to some local papers today. Version 1 gets a little technical. Version 2 shortens that and adds some more detail about the various molecules in the pike so far.
September 11, 2006Tim Gallagher / Sioux City Journal / Via EMAIL Re: Pancreatic Cancer Treatment Potential for “Marijuana” Products
Dear Mr. Gallagher: I read with interest your fine article of 8/24/06, wherein you indicated that each year some 37, 700 people are diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer, and some 32,300 die each year as well-most within 3-6 months of diagnosis, only 4% survive 5 years and ultimately the cancer is 99% fatal-there are no effective treatments so far. This is truly devastating to any family that hears the news that their loved one has this diagnosis. To me, in fact, a reader of cancer journals and articles involving the stunning findings that scientists have been discovering about how “Marijuana” products impact on cancer progression, treatment & survival rates-mostly from overseas, of course, owing to the repressive and recalcitrant attitude of our own governments and law enforcement agencies towards anything related to such “drug-related” inquiries-I was appalled to note that just 7/1/06, I saw an article in the “American Association for Cancer Research” journal noting how “Cannabinoids Induce Apoptosis of Pancreatic Tumor Cells...", and I decided that at this very time, I must speak out on this subject, to illuminate you about this very issue, so that you can more effectively illuminate the public-so we can help these desperate people-even at great risk to myself for the speaking (I was suspended as a lawyer in 2001 because I tried to invoke the Illinois MM law). Now, I must start by advising you that the US Government knew that “THC-delta 9” and another “cannabinoid” called “Cannabinol” (CBN for short) encouraged a process called “Apoptosis” (programmed cell death to tumor cells) and stopped “angiogenesis” (production of new blood supply to tumor growths) by activation of a cell’s own “cannabis” receptor sites-in rat studies with lung cancers, breast cancers and leukemia tumors. The study was designed to “prove” that marijuana would damage the immune system-at the Medical College of Virginia. However, when the study started to show the “antitumor” potential of marijuana products-the study was abruptly cancelled and the findings buried. Then, upon vigorous lobbying from George Bush (senior) and others, on behalf of three major pharmaceutical companies (Abbott Labs, Eli Lilly & Glaxo, etc.), President Gerald Ford stopped all positive marijuana research in this country-and granted an exclusive right to research one “molecule” each to those companies. The next major finding came in 1998, when an Italian group found that “anandamide” (a naturally produced “endocannabinoid”) and a synthetic “cannabinoid” called HU-210 both stopped the “proliferation” of breast cancer tumor cells by decreasing “prolactin” (necessary for DNA reproduction of tumor cells in the “S phase”). A Spaniard named Manuel Guzman replicated the US rat study in 2000 and was incensed to learn, after he had released his findings, that the US Government had learned and buried this stunning propensity of marijuana chemicals to stop cancer some 25 years earlier! Now, from an article 9/8/06 in the Des Moines Register, it is noted that “Breast Cancer Rate May Have Reached Plateau in US” where 213,000 women are diagnosed each year-41,000 dying each year from this insidious disease. Does this mean, in fact, that for some 30 years, some 40,000 women have died unnecessarily each year (over 1.2 million women dead that could have been saved, since 1974-burned at the stake for the drug war?) Now, in fact, it is known that some 10 different cancers are known to be sensitive to these chemicals, including: Lung Carcinoma Brain Cancers (gliomas) Thyroid Epithelioma Lymphoma/Leukemia Skin Cancer (non-melanoma) Uterus Carcinoma Breast Carcinoma Prostate Carcinoma
Pancreatic Cancer Neuroblastoma (Autonomic nervous system or Adrenal medulla-young children or adolescents) Briefly, the brain and nerve cells produce a receptor site called the “CB-1” which, when “triggered” causes a “psychoactive” effect, which is quite unpopular to law enforcement and governmental circles. THC-9 (the active ingredient in marijuana) triggers this site, which is “designed” to be used by the body’s own activation system (anandamide was discovered in 1995 or so). Another CB-1 “agonist” is “HU-210”, which is 100 times as potent as THC-9, from the literature. All other cells in the body have another receptor site called “CB-2”, which does not produce a “high” when activated-therefore most cannabinoid cancer research has been directed at selectively triggering this less controversial “site”. For instance, in 2001, the Spaniards discovered that the “CB-1” sites could cause “apoptosis” by “win-55212-2 & THC-9, however they also discovered that a newly discovered “CB-2” receptor-not known to exist in normal brain tissue but only produced by cancerous brain cells could be activated by a non-psychoactive chemical-“JWH-133”. In 2000, the Italians found breast cancer tumors to be sensitive to cannabinoids, by an increase in “ERK Ceramide” mechanism. Thereafter, in 2003 it was found that “anandamide” would cause “apoptosis” via this ceramide mechanism in Prostate cancer as well as by decreasing “epidermal growth factor” (which is also relevant to skin processes). Skin cancer was found sensitive in 2003 as well by decrease in prolactin & by decrease in “BRCA1”. Those studies showed a “CB-1” receptor sensitivity to Win-55212-2 & SR-141716 & “CB-2” receptor site activity by SR-144528 & anandamide. Leukemia/Lymphoma was found in 2002 to be sensitive to “apoptosis” by “CB-2” sites to THC-9, HU-210, anandamide & JWH-015. In 2003, “CBD” (cannabidiol), was found to work in brain cancer via the selective “CB-2” activation. This is important, in that the 1975 study found, on the contrary, that CBD increased tumor growth in the lung, breast and lymphoma lines. In 2004, the Spaniards showed how cannabinoids in the brain stopped cancer growth via an increase in ceramide, increased “kinase”, decreased “AKT” and decrease in “angiogenesis-and also protect normal brain cells from death. In July, 2006, breast cancer was found, via THC-9, to block “CdC2 progression” and also caused apoptosis (via the CB-2 site). Manuel Guzman, also in July, 2006, showed how, for the first time in history, THC-9 was found to be safely injected into brain tumors of 9 living brain cancer patients-where brain tumors had been found “chemotherapy resistant”. (The brain cancers seemed to be slowed-the purpose of the study was to prove safety of use in living patients by injection-the first use in living humans so far). Finally, in July, 2006, in Pancreatic cancer, Guzman found THC-9 worked via the "CB-2” receptor site to cause an increase in ceramide levels (P8) & also to trigger apoptosis by a new process via “endoplasmic reticulum stress-related genes (ATF-4 & TRB3). Also noteworthy was that in Pancreatic tumor cells-the CB-2 receptor site is “expressed” in higher levels-meaning that tumor cells produce more activation portals (CB-2’s) making them more prone to THC-9 treatment. From a review of all of these studies, it would appear that the CB-2 receptor site is uniquely increased and produced in tumor growths-in other words, there must be other reasons why this receptor site is produced-for increase in nutrient needs of aggressively growing tumors? It would also appear that other substances (mostly lipids) trigger these receptor sites in addition to merely the “cannabinoids”. Also of note is that the “endocannabinoids” are produced only from Omega 3 Fatty Acids-and corn oil products (Omega 6) would not produce anti-cancer potential. Abbott Labs, (in Illinois) in fact, got the “nod” to produce a synthetic “THC-9” chemical named (dronabinol) “Marinol”-and they used the Illinois “Research on Cannabis Act” (720 ILCS 550, sections 11 & 15-1971) to research and produce that in the 1980’s (under a wholly owned subsidiary named “Unimed” in Deerfield, Illinois). Now, in fact, “Marinol”, has been accorded “Class 3” status, meaning that it can be “off-labeled” (by a doctor) for any use by prescription. It would appear that many studies have used this THC-9 to prove the various cancer fighting properties-even though a month’s supply costs some $900 (exorbitant), with questionable insurance reimbursement, of course. Eli Lilly (the Bush’s baby) got the “nod” to produce a synthetic “Cannabinol” chemical (nabilone) under the name “Cesamet”, which may have been pulled off the shelf in the US in 1982 or so. However, Cesamet has been sold ever since in France, where it still has an 88% market share and is being remarketed soon in the US. This is probably due, in great part, to the success in Abbott Labs arriving at “Class 3” status and the strong interest in joining the cancer research market now that 10 major cancers have been found sensitive to this class of products (unsure as to cost). If your paper is interested in more information (and more “installments” in a series) please edit and place this in print and I will continue to submit more articles of interest, for reasonable compensation, of course. I have recently had some 50 long letters to the editor printed in the Storm Lake papers on a variety of subjects. I would love to come and discuss some long-term relationship with the Sioux City Journal (with copies of articles printed for your review). PAUL PETERSON
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment