The Thinking Man

The use of cannabinoids as anticancer agents

Thu, 03 Sep 2015 18:50:00 GMT

Highlights

The endocannabinoid system may play a dual role on the regulation of tumor generation and progression
Administration of THC and other cannabinoids exert anticancer actions in animal models of cancer
THC and other cannabinoid receptor-ligands induce cancer cell death and inhibit tumor angiogenesis.
Cannabinoids enhance the anticancer activity of other antineoplastic agents in animal models of cancer.
Cannabinoids are currently being tested as anticancer agents in phase I/II clinical studies.

In conclusion there exist solid scientific evidences supporting that cannabinoids exhibit a remarkable anticancer activity in preclinical models of cancer. Since these agents also show an acceptable safety profile, clinical studies aimed at testing them as single agents or in combinational therapies are urgently needed. Results from these studies are essential to clarify whether cannabinoids (and specifically cannabinoid-based medicines) could be helpful in the fight of cancer.

Read Full Article

The above information was provided by Paul Armentano from NORML.

Colorado employment and MMJ: NEW critical court ruling in Colorado.

Tue, 16 Jun 2015 22:17:00 GMT

Note that there are still things that can impact individual situations. Colorado, being an â€œat willâ€ state for employment, an employee can be terminated for no reason. They cannot be fired for a â€œwrong reasonâ€ such as being Black or for being Jewish. They CAN be fired for no reason. This CAN be changed by employment contracts, tolerant employers, and for some professions, like nursing, a first offense is treated as a â€œtreatment issueâ€ and generally not grounds for termination.

As we gain more tools for measuring performance instead of blood chemistry, employers will be able to better determine whether an employee is performing up to standards or if they are not. An employee who has slower reaction times, for example, might not be the person to operate a table saw, drive a car, or do anything dangerous. Whether the cause of the behavior degradation is drugs, alcohol, a mix, tiredness, or illness makes no difference to making the best decision about operating a power tool. Whether at home or at work or driving, performance is the only thing that matters. The rest is like taking someones temperature. Without knowing their â€œnormal,â€ the current body temperature tells us little, including not telling us what the cause of the possible fever might be.

2015 CO 44

No. 13SC394, Coats v. Dish Network â€” Labor and Employment - Protected Activities

The supreme court holds that under the plain language of section 24-34-402.5, C.R.S. (2014), Coloradoâ€™s â€œlawful activities statute,â€ the term â€œlawfulâ€ refers only to those activities that are lawful under both state and federal law. Therefore, employees who engage in an activity such as medical marijuana use that is permitted by state law but unlawful under federal law are not protected by the statute. We therefore affirm the court of appealsâ€™ opinion.

Read the full opinion.

Can I Use Marijuana on Probation in Colorado?

Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:13:00 GMT

In another forward-looking and compassionate showing of a willingness to respond to the needs of Colorado residents, the legislature for Colorado passed a new law during its latest session. House Bill 15-1267 has been signed into law by the Governor on 5/8/2015.

While representing another milestone in Colorado marijuana legalization, the new law is widely misunderstood. What does it really say? Here are the answer, directly from the new law.

18-1.3-204, amend (1) and (2) (a) (VIII) permits, in some situations, medical marijuana while on state probation. Use on parole is NOT addressed or legalized, and out-of-state probationers are also not addressed.

New language starts with providing that possession or use of medical marijuana shall NOT be considered a new offense, and therefore is not another offense to be considered a probation violation. It is NOT a violation of state probation to use medical marijuana, but beware of the limitations. This is not a blanket open-door permission. There are significant important limitations.

Now, the Court SHALL, meaning must permit medical marijuana use UNLESS the probationer is on probation for a violation of the medical marijuana law.

The Court is permitted to deny medical marijuana, and to leave it as a â€œprobation violationâ€ if the Judge, after seeing a substance and alcohol abuse evaluation, decides that the medical marijuana prohibition is â€œnecessary and appropriate to accomplish the goals of sentencingâ€ as defined by Colorado law. C.R.S. 18-1-102.5 requires the assessment in some cases.

To me, as a defense attorney, that means avoid a plea to a medical marijuana defense, and be prepared to present medical evidence, medical record, or anything else supporting the importance of continued use of medical marijuana. Pay attention to shifting from opiates to medical cannabis resulting in substantial decreases in the need for opiates. As we know, some are able to eliminate the use of opiates entirely. Of course pain management is only one of the plethora of medical/psychological conditions that for some are ameliorated with the use of medical cannabis. In Colorado, we are limited by the list of permitted condition and illnesses listed in the Colorado Constitution, Article 18 Section 20, Medical Marijuana. Additions to the list to include such challenges as PTSD and more are in the works and continue to be an active area for further progress.

In the meantime, this is another milestone in Coloradoâ€™s progress with regulating marijuana, and another contribution by Colorado to the Great Experiment that is our United States of America. We are the People, and we are finally being heard. Colorado continues to lead the way.

What can be part of a plea bargain?

Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:53:00 GMT

LENNY'S LEGAL ANALYSIS REGARDING SENTENCING STIPULATIONS

Leonard Frieling 2015

What's really going on is that ONLY THE JUDGE can reject or accept a plea bargain. ⁱ The plea bargain with the dda is not the end of the story. It is only what will be presented to the court. The judge can accept is or reject it. There is no reason the Judge has to say why an offer is being rejected. If they want a record or want to spank the DDA, Def Atty, or Defendant they can.

There is no need for anything to be said by the court beyond "I'm rejecting that plea bargain, do you want to withdraw your plea? The court has NO discretion to keep the defendant from withdrawing the plea which was part of a rejected deal.

If they are rejecting because they think the offered charge is too high or to low, or if they think what is pitched as a "stipulated sentence," or "stipulated probation" is inappropriate, the deal is simply rejected by the judge. The DDA can deal for "I'll make a recommendation for probation, and then, sota voce, and this judge usually goes with my recommendation." Also DDA can say "won't object to PSI recommendation." "I'll ask for 45 days." "I'll have no objection to what you say" "I'll leave it to the court" "I'll affirmatively join in your request/recommendation." Open sentencing also gives us a rare chance to do more courtroom lawyering. Same for the judge. Only the DDA may not like it as much. The sentencing is not "fun" but is IS lawyering.

Recently, I've had "stipulated sentences," "recommended sentences," "I'll join in your sentencing request, or will have 'no objection.'" Some jurisdictions have had judges who said "I will not take sentence stips." I have had a judge say "add 10 days jail and I'd approve the deal," at sidebar.

SO, with each piece of and the total plea bargain, we reach an agreement with the prosecutor only. That agreement is then presented to the court to accept or reject. If accepted, we move ahead. If the judge rejects the deal, then, at the sole choice of the defendant, the defendant's guilty plea may be withdrawn by the defedndate. The case proceeds accordingly. What's ironic is that if the court rejects a plea deal, it is generally because WE did too well with the DDA, so the judge says "dream on counsel.

WAR STORY All TRUE

Leonard Frieling 2015

Events of some time before 1980 I think

As we know, these things only happen on Fridays.

The judge rejected our proposed plea bargain. She then immediately took my client into custody, directly from the courtroom, do not pass go, do not collect $200. This was based only guilty plea and upon the rejected deal. I explained immediately on the record that that we were withdrawing the guilty plea, and that the Court could simply NOT take the client into custody based upon the court rejecting the deal. She could either take the deal, or permit him to withdraw it.

She would not give an inch. Client was cuffed and escorted to the jail, in the CJC basement at that time. I went to my office, got copies of what I recall as being the appropriate criminal procedure rule. I gave that to the trial court judge, hand-to-hand. It laid out word for word what I was telling her. She did not budge. Client was in jail.

I walked upstairs, knocked, and sat downⁱⁱ with Boulder's then the Chief of the Boulder Courts, William. Neighbors. "Judge, here's what happened." “Did you explain the rule to her?” "I explained the rule to the her." "Oh Christ." "Did you show her the rule?" "Yes your honor. First personally, then personally delivering a copy of the rule directly to her.” " "Oh Christ!!” "And you withdrew the plea?" "Yes Judge." "And she put him in jail immediately?" "Yes Judge.” “Oh Christ!!!”

"Mr. Frieling, wait a moment. " The Judge picked up his phone, called the jail directly on their hot line, and said "Hi Hank," "This is Bill Neighbors." "You have a guest down there named Mr. Client." "Would you please release him immediately?" â€¦ "Thanks."

"Anything else Mr. Frieling?" "Yes. Judge, which of my positions was used to release Mr. Defendant?" "Mr. Frieling, that's your problem. I got him out of jail."

"Thank you Your Honor." “Have a great weekend.”

Leonard Frieling

perhaps 1979? [Close to literally transcribed].

i Crim. P. Rule 11states:

(f) Plea Discussions and Plea Agreements.

(1) Where it appears that the effective administration of criminal justice will thereby be served, the district attorney may engage in plea discussions for the purpose of reaching a plea agreement. He should engage in plea discussions or reach plea agreements with the defendant only through or in the presence of defense counsel except where the defendant is not eligible for or refuses appointment of counsel and has not retained counsel.

(5) Notwithstanding the reaching of a plea agreement between the district attorney and defense counsel or defendant, the judge in every case should exercise an independent judgment in deciding whether to grant charge and sentence concessions. (emphasis added). [That covers the keys to the entire deal; charges and sentencing].

See also: Section 16-7-302(3) C.R.S. (Notwithstanding the reaching of a plea agreement between the district attorney and defense counsel or defendant, the judge in every case should exercise an independent judgment in deciding whether to grant charge and sentence concessions). Thanks Danny Luneau, Esq.

ii *I hope I let the city attorney know what I was doing, and don't remember.

Proper Chemical Terminology for THC and THC-COOH

Fri, 19 Dec 2014 07:00:00 GMT

Proper Language for carboxy THC, a non-psychoactive metabolite of THC, and a frequent target for drug urine testing.

The best source is quoted here for educational purposes only, and with thanks.

From our friends at Wikipedia, downloaded 12-19-2014.

This excerpt specifically refers to proper chemical language for the name of the psycho-inactive metabolite of THC (the main part of pot that gets you high). This author has referred to it as â€œcarboxy THC,â€ probably safe, COOH THC, not too bad, and THC COOH, I think wrong. Here is something far more reliable and more interesting.

11-nor-9-Carboxy-THC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia CONTRIBUTE PLEASE!! This is a good thing.

Not to be confused with Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid.

Authorâ€™s note: I believe that â€œTHCâ€ that gets you high is the acid, and carboxy is the base that results from metabolism by the body.

11-nor-9-Carboxy-THC
Mol. mass 344.445 g/mol

11-nor-9-Carboxy-THC, also known as 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-THC, 11-COOH-THC, THC-COOH, and THC-11-oic acid, is the main secondary metabolite of THC which is formed in the body after Cannabis is consumed.

11-COOH-THC is formed in the body by oxidation of the active metabolite 11-Hydroxy-THC (also known as 11-OH-THC) by liver enzymes. It is then metabolized further by conjugation with glucuronide, forming a water-soluble congener which can be more easily excreted by the body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11-nor-9-Carboxy-THC downloaded for educational purposes 12-19-2014. Contributions encouraged to Wikipedia.

Does marijuana make driving safer or more dangerous?

Mon, 15 Dec 2014 01:57:00 GMT

While a considerable body of science has established that marijuana does impair driving, many remain convinced that pot does not impair driving. Many believe it improves driving. What are the facts as we know them now?

There is a commonly held belief that pot results in slower driving. That finds scientific support. The obvious, and incorrect conclusion drawn is that slower driving and reduced tailgating results in safer driving. No one argues that a greater following distance is a safer driving practice. It appears to be the result of a coping behavior to compensate for the documented slower reaction time. Additionally, slower driving is not necessarily safer, and in fact may be more dangerous.

While a greater following distance is safer, a surprise combined with a slower reaction time is not overcome by slower driving or by greater following distances.

Experimentation shows that marijuana results in less effective peripheral vision, sometimes to the point of â€œtunnel vision.â€ While the more experienced user might be able to compensate by intentionally scanning the field of vision, the effect does not go away. Peak impairment occurs generally from Â½ hour to three hours after imbibing smoke or vapor. (Edible impairment last much longer.)

One of the key challenges in studying marijuana driving impairment is the subtly of the impact on driving. Unlike the dramatic impairing effects of alcohol on driving, potâ€™s impairment is more subtle. While some drunk drivers believe that they are driving wonderfully, pot produces the opposite impact. In some studies, after smoking, subjects would say things like â€œAre you crazy? Iâ€™m not driving. Iâ€™m too stoned!â€

Compounding the scenario, pot and alcohol work synergistically. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Key to this issue is education. The myth that pot results in better driving, and the lack of knowledge of the power of the combined effect of pot and alcohol must both be addressed by accurate, non-political education. The facts cannot be swept under the rug or underestimated. It is noteworthy that the increase in accident risk from marijuana alone is in fact a fraction of the increase in risk from alcohol-fueled driving. It does not improve driving.

Learn More About Marijuana Breath Testing

Sun, 30 Nov 2014 18:44:00 GMT

Recent press is focusing on new hardware for police roadside breath testing for marijuana. Similar in use to a standard PBT, or portable breath tester for alcohol, the new devices identify and quantify THC from a breath sample.

Current available options are primarily urine testing and blood testing. Urine testing is useless for driving and other impairment questions. Urine testing quantifies THC COOH, a psycho-inactive cannabinoid. THC is the primary psycho-active cannabinoid. Blood testing reveals the quantity of this potentially impairing chemical.

Other than quite low amounts, active THC in blood is rapidly converted, or metabolized into its non-psychoactive cousin, carboxy THC, or THC COOH. While arguably an improvement over urine testing since the THC level depletes rapidly after ingestion by smoke or vapors, that benefit must be kept in context. What it measures is a quantity of THC in blood. What it does not measure is impairment or lack of impairment. While higher levels of blood-THC suggest more recent ingestion, impairment is not revealed.

Alcohol has been shown quite consistently to have a similar impairing impact on different drinkers with comparable blood alcohol levels. That permits generally reliable measurements of blood alcohol to generally indicate lack of impairment or impairment. More scientifically, the experiments comparing BAC, or blood alcohol content and behavior consistently show a â€œnormalâ€ or â€œbell shaped curveâ€ Poisson distribution. That means that most people fall within a fixed range with a decided peak in the middle, when comparing impairment with BAC.

That is decidedly NOT true of THC levels in blood. When the numbers are compared with the impairing impact of cannabis, the result is NOT a Poisson distribution. There is no decided peak in the middle. There is no neat graph that is suggested. The blood level of active THC simply does not suggest a level of impairment.

So measuring a driverâ€™s breath might lead to a suspicion that ingestion had been recent, it certainly does not provide relevant or useful information about impairment or lack of impairment.

CAUTION: mixing alcohol and cannabis is especially risky for drivers. The amount of each does not predict the amount of impairment. They work together, making the whole greater than the sum of the parts. This is working synergistically.

For more detail on the relationship of THC COOH and THC, please see the summary.

Winning or Winning; it's the only option

Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:19:00 GMT

The following post was originally posted on Philip Rosmarin's Website.

One thing a criminal defense lawyer is supposed to do, is trust (trust, but verify) that your client is telling you the truth, even when you know they’re not telling you the truth. You develop the understanding that the facts of the case, and the truth of the case, are almost never the same thing. When it’s their story and they’re sticking to it, you go with it.

So you learn to control yourself, and try very hard not to crack a smile when your client tells you something that, on the bare face of the statement, seems absurdly improbable. Or when a witness to what your client supposedly did says something absurdly damnable.

The worst place to fail, of course, is in court.

Leonard Frieling, one of the best criminal defense lawyers in Colorado, and any state within a couple thousand miles of Colorado, told some of his colleagues today a war story of “the good old days” when a cop understood that the people he swore to protect and serve might sometimes include the person he arrested for a minor offense.

Lenny felt the appropriate result for a client accused of speeding would be a deferred sentence, meaning if the client kept his nose clean for a few months he’d be spared a criminal record and skyrocketed car insurance. The Colorado trooper not only agreed that was fair, but also agreed to allow the client to have his chance at trial, and if found guilty still give the deferred sentence.

As I said, Lenny is a very good lawyer.

But on the witness stand, the trooper testified that the motorist blasted by the trooper’s patrol car at an incredible rate of speed.

Why incredible?

Well, the trooper testified, I didn’t believe it myself. I mean, I really didn’t believe it. I had to lean out my own window to look at my own door to make sure I was driving a marked patrol car.

I’m pretty sure Lenny cracked a smile at that.

I’m pretty sure even his client did.

Wax, dab, hash oil, and other exciting things

Fri, 12 Sep 2014 06:00:00 GMT

Let's get real. Are wax, dab, and other pot extracts really the scourge of pot, the newest form of Devil's Lettuce? Demon in the world of legalized pot? As usual as one would expect, the press waxes eloquent, claiming everything from "dangerous" to "will cause instant death after you eat the neighbor's babies." The reality? I can share my decades of experiences with bud and my latest legal experience with wax.

Here's how strong it is, IMO. One hit of what well could have been one of the best waxes extant got me similarly high as smoking 1/2 a joint of the best pot I've ever run into. 1/2 joint by weight of wax is WAY stronger than bud. BUT no one smokes more than a match head or two of concentrate. ONE toke of the "best" was more than enough. One big toke was perhaps a little too strong. A little. Lets compare apples to apples. Weight to weight.

Treat extracts with caution? Of course. They are strong, and if poorly made, retain some butane taste, if it was a butane extraction. Many prefer "bubble hash," which uses a water or steam extraction. (Not sure which) Are there timing issues like edibles? No. Not scientifically, and not in reality. Timing is about the same as with bud. The active delta 9 THC in blood rises quite rapidly with vaporized or smoked bud. Wax behaves similarly. Like very strong pot , the high comes fast, and does not last particularly long. (several hours perhaps). 30-50 x stronger? No way unless you smoke equal weights of each. . Of course that is not done, and probably could not be done. A full strong dose of wax might be a match-head, separated into several tokes. How can you compare a match-head with a full gram; one joint? You can't!

Article originally published on TalkLeft.

Shocking Numbers Relating to Medical Pot Research

Sun, 10 Aug 2014 17:11:00 GMT

Is it encouraging that we have 28 studies currently approved by the Feds addressing some claimed medical benefits of marijuana? Â Yes and no. Â The headlines suggesting a loosening of restrictions and an increase in federally approved experiments is fantastic. Â What is less exciting is the rest of the story.

We know that the marijuana plant has a minimum of 80 to 105 cannabinoids. Â Most of the research addresses either a single cannabinoid (with 6 of 100 holding center stage). Â Synthetic cannabinoids are also single substance research, and I'm ignoring those studies for the moment. Â Is it really useful, given our present state of knowledge, to look at a single cannabinoid, selected from 100 possible choices? Â What if a medical benefit of the plant is realized most fully when a combination of two cannabinoids are present? Â What if it takes three? Â What if maximum therapeutic benefit is realized when 30 of the cannabinoids are present? Â

It seems to me that the place to start is with the plant, as nature and growers grow it. Â If the plant shows a benefit, then it would be interesting to attempt to isolate the cannabinoid(s) responsible. Â The current batch of experimentation in the US is taking the opposite track. Â It is like trying to figure out if a car works as transportation by looking at the brakes, then, separately, at the trunk, and on and on. Â What about the brakes, trunk, and spark plugs?

I believe the correct math to know how many combinations of two or more cannabinoids exist, one looks at "factorials." Â In short, if there are 100 cannabinoids (105 is the highest claimed number I've seen), how many combinations of two or more of the 100 are there? Â 100 factorial is the answer. Â In english, that means 100x99x98x97...x2x1. Â My handy "googelator" Â tells me that the number is, and I'm not making this up,

100 factorial is 93 326 215 443 944 152 681 699 238 856 266 700 490 715 968 264 381 621 468 592 963 895 217 599 993 229 915 608 941 463 976 156 518 286 253 697 920 827 223 758 251 185 210 916 864 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000Â

Using a LITTLE bit of math shorthand, that number is 9.332621544Ã—10 to the 157 power. Â In english again, that is about 9 Â PLUS 157 more zeros. Â I know. Â It's a really big number. Â

So, given that rather large number (well, actually, an incredibly huge number) of possible combinations, does it make any sense to look at single cannabinoids? Â Not to me.

Is synthetic marijuana really "synthetic marijuana?"

Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:34:00 GMT

While sharing a name, is synthetic marijuana really a lab-created chemical with a molecule, or chemical structure, identical to grown marijuana?

Grown marijuana, cannabis sativa L (which is generally assumed to include or be is treated legally the same as cannabis indica), is a combination of approximately 80 to 105 different cannabinoids along with other plant material. Much as endocannabinoids, produced naturally by the body, these cannabinoids are also "accepted" by the body by our CB1 and CB2 receptors. These receptors seem to perform no additional purpose and have been found in all parts of the body except for the brain stem. It is theorized that since the brain stem is known to control the most basic bodily functions, such as breathing, and since there may be no CB1 and CB2 receptors in the brain stem, the lack of a deadly poisoning dose of marijuana may be explained. Unlike opiates for example, marijuana cannot stop a person from breathing.

The different effects of different strains of marijuana may be the result of varying proportions of the varying cannabinoids. Delta-9 THC tetrahydrocannabinol, is the major psychoactive component of marijuana,. Another cannabinoid, CDB, or cannabidiol is associated with recent successes in reducing or eliminating seizures in youngsters while avoiding the "high". The specific strain of marijuana for youngsters medical needs contains a drastically reduced amount of delta-9 THC, avoiding the "high" of the other marijuana strains. Such high CDB, low THC strains have been produced by cloning various strains of the marijuana plant. Lab duplication of CBD alone has so far proved evasive. Additionally, the role the many other natural cannabinoids may play in the CBD seizure reduction success is not yet known.

Synthetic marijuana is not the same thing as plant marijuana. Variously called Spice, K-2, and other things, it is a at best a lab attempt to create a single cannabinoid resembling marijuana's natural psychoactive cannabinoid , delta-9 THC. It is chemically different, although the molecule looks generally similar. At worst, it is an unknown chemical produced in uncontrolled labs and containing unknown additives of other potentially psychoactive components.

Several problems are presented by the synthetic. First, it is not the same chemical as THC or as any other natural cannabinoid. Moving a single atom in a molecule can drastically change the chemistry, and its the properties of the new chemical. For Spice, the psychoactive effect is quite different, and apparently far more intense and potentially dangerous. Additionally, what is marketed as one of the various these synthetics may have one or a vast assortment of chemicals added, none of which are on the label, in an attempt duplicate marijuana, a complex organic substance. Although chemically-molecularly resembling cannabinoids, the chemistry is NOT the same. The attempts at duplication have been unsuccessful. Not only do the ingredients vary, with no consistency in the various forms of the synthetics, the marketed products contain varying mixes of other unidentified chemicals. The psychoactive effect varies in unpredictable ways. Every time it is ingested, a new science experiment is being attempted, with unpredictable results, and with the experimenter as the subject. It is basic science that unless interested in a "Dr Jekyll- Mr Hyde" type of experiment, one does not experiment on themselves. For all of the years of history of general safety and non-poisonous effects of marijuana, that is not the history of synthetic cannabis. And why should it be expected to be similar? Does synthetic sugar taste the same as cane sugar?

It is dangerous to confuse these two substances, one with a long history of use and experience, the other a lab creation of recent invention probably by John W. Huffman. The drugs share part of a name. Both are psychoactive. The molecules appear generally similar. The similarities end there. The psychoactive effect of marijuana, although it varies, is generally similar. That is Not true of the synthetics. In addition to being of varying chemical structure, they are presented for sale in unknown combinations of generally unknown ingredients.

Regardless of ones opinion on whether the synthetics should be legal or not, we owe it to ourselves and to our friends and children to appreciate the difference, and to not confuse Spice or K-2 or the flavor of the weak with the marijuana plant and its products. They share almost nothing beyond part of a name. If my first name was Albert, that does not mean that my last name was Einstein, or that there is any other similarity beyond general organic construction? Trust me; it is not hard to tell the difference. My level of functioning, as you might surmise, is different from that of Dr. Einstein's.

Do not let a similarity in naming for marketing purposes confuse anyone. Do not use yourself as an experimental subject., risking unwanted, unexpected effects which may be associated with taking the synthetics. At least with marijuana, particularly with state oversight for purity, strength, and the like, there is a base-level of reasonable expectation of what is being consumed.

Pot is legal and sky hasn't fallen

Sun, 13 Jul 2014 02:02:00 GMT

Leonard Frieling had an op-ed piece publish on CNN.com. An excerpt is below:

I am sorry to report that Colorado has shut down all government and civilian activities under a haze of pot smoke. Trains will not run. Store shelves are bare. Citizens are rioting in a pot-induced trance. Tourists are avoiding the Sodom and Gomorrah called Colorado. Keep your children indoors and your money in the mattress!

Yes, many skeptics predicted terrible consequences, but six months after legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado, the sky still hasn't fallen.

We understand that Colorado and Washington are under intense scrutiny because of their forward-thinking legalization of marijuana. Being first presents challenges and opportunities. But there is much to learn from Colorado's experiment, lessons in what works and what doesn't.

Success in these early stages already shows reduced underage use and tremendous tax revenues, according to statistics compiled by the Drug Policy Alliance, amounting to millions of dollars a month. Gov. John Hickenlooper anticipates cannabusiness to be a billion-dollar industry in 2014 in Colorado. Crime rates are down. Colorado travel is up. Applications to attend Colorado schools have increased -- to no one's surprise.

Read Full Article

Marijuana is Harmless!?

Mon, 07 Jul 2014 06:00:00 GMT

Is marijuana harmless? A recent Times article was titled "Six Ways Science Says Marijuana May Hurt Your Health" and as the title suggest is marijuana harmful or is it relatively harmless? What is the reality? Below we share the article by Times along with commentary below each section. As you will see the Times article is misleading and doesn't cover the facts accurately.

Let's begin:

Boosters of marijuana legalization often speak about the relative harmlessness of the drug, especially when compared to alcohol and tobacco, which kill millions of people a year worldwide. But while the evidence suggests that pot is less damaging than some other legal drugs, the exact effects of marijuana on human health have not been well studied. Existing research is often limited in scope and rarely shows a clear causal connection.

The article indicates that very little research has been done and what has been done is limited. This simply isn't true. As of this post, there are over 20,000 studies on PubMed (PubMed is a free search engine accessing primarily the MEDLINE database of references and abstracts on life sciences and biomedical topics.) and nearly 13,000 studies on Cannabis (some of these studies may appear using both keywords so the total number will likely be lower). When searching the entire database there are over 165,000 and 149,000 hits (no pun intended) for cannabis and marijuana, respectively.

As we can see there have been numerous studies yet Times says, "…effects of marijuana on human health have not been well studied." While I do agree that more research should be done, this is by no means a low researched topic. On the topic of research part of the problem and why there are not more studies being done is because the United States Federal Government has severely restricted cannabis research. For research to happen for marijuana one must get the approval of the FDA, DEA, and NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse ). Both the DEA and NIDA have blocked research for those who are looking to study any positive effects of marijuana. Also the only source of marijuana that a federally funded study can use is marijuana provided from its official marijuana stockpile at the University of Mississippi. What is even more bizarre is that there are no other drugs that are required to jump through as many hoops are marijuana is required to do.

The article continues:

But there have been some worrying findings, especially considering the increasing use of marijuana by American adults. A paper published this year in Forensic Science International, for instance, described two rare deaths of young men that were attributed to heart conditions resulting from marijuana use.

With legalization taking place in Colorado and Washington State, more research will now be possible. For now, here is a tour of what has been documented so far about marijuana’s negative effects.

Below we will discuss these "worrying findings" and much more about what studies have shown.

1. It can interfere with learning

Marijuana interferes with the brain’s cannabinoid receptors, affecting cognitive functions such as movement, memory, and emotional control. A recent small study found that impairment in working memory occurs immediately after marijuana use. Subjects who received a higher dose of THC—marijuana’s main active chemical—took significantly longer to complete immediate recall and mental calculation tasks.

There is no secret that marijuana can cause short term impairment of cognitive functions. This is the very reason many people enjoy using marijuana. As the article stated this is also dependent on the dose. Low doses of marijuana may help a person relieve pain but not cause any impairment to that person. One person's "I cannot function at all" marijuana dosage is another's mild buzz. There is no exception to cognitive impairment; each person is different. A dose for one person may make them unable to perform a mental task while another may do just fine.

Another thing the article omits but sort-of implies is that the cognitive function impairment is immediate which means it is temporary. There have been studies that have shown that when a person abstains from marijuana use their cognitive scores are the same as a non-user.

The bottom line is if you are having to perform a cognitive task, be it for school, work or other reason, don't use marijuana or understand your dosage requirements and keep it at a low dose that treats your medical condition but doesn't interfere with your task at hand.

2. It can lead to dangerous driving

Pot impairs functions key to driving, including reaction time, hand-eye coordination and depth perception, a study by the University of Chicago reported. In the first full year after medical marijuana was legalized in Colorado, there was a 12% increase in traffic fatalities, according to data analysis by researchers at Columbia University. However, studies have not been able to provide consistent evidence to prove that the effects of marijuana cause an increased rate of collisions. According to a different study published in Accident Analysis and Prevention, the closest comparison to the culpability of accident when under the influence of marijuana is to a driver who has taken penicillin, anti-depressants or an antihistamine, which suggests marijuana’s effects have a nominal impact on accident risk. More research is needed.

Cannabis can cause impairment and you should never drive while stoned. However, some of the information presented is misleading. First the Times article indicated that the data came from Colorado while the fact is the authors used data for traffic fatalities in six states in 2010. What we must also consider is marijuana is fat soluble. You could use marijuana today and still test positive for marijuana a month later. This means that a person involved in a motor vehicle accident may test positive for marijuana but actually not be impaired in the slightest as they used marijuana several weeks ago, not recently.

The study also says that marijuana "contributed to" the accident. DUI and Criminal Defense Attorney Leonard Frieling says, "…'contributed to' means generally 'alcohol was present, and generally was the primary impairing substance.'" The studies authors never intended to imply that cannabis caused the accidents. In fact the authors of the study said, “The prevalence of non-alcohol drugs reported in this study should be interpreted as an indicator of drug use, not necessarily a measurement of drug impairment.” One of the study's authors, Guohua Li, elaborated on the point in a story in the Denver Post. “The most likely explanation is that use of marijuana in the general driver population has been increasing, which may reflect increased use in the overall population,” Li said.

What Li said is important because usage may be increasing, however, what is increasing is law enforcement testing for marijuana in traffic accidents. In the past they did not always test for marijuana thus some numbers could be skewed when comparing data to old numbers.

Before we proceed to the next point the previous two points are really measures of performance more than anything else. There is an iPhone app called Me Myself which is an app that is designed to measure performance and can assist you in tracking and monitoring your performance over time. Me Myself cannot tell you if you are able to perform certain tasks but it can help you track and measure your ability to perform before performing certain task. Are you on top of your game? Check out Me Myself for more information. (In full disclosure I am affiliated with Me Myself as a web developer as UBhapE2, however, I promote this app because I believe in its mission.)

3. It may harm the developing brain.

Although a causal connection has yet to be found, studies show regular marijuana use—once a week or more—can change the structure of the teenage brain. Marijuana affects memory and problem solving abilities, both of which can impact academic performance. Researchers from the Harvard School of Medicine and Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine surveyed a small group between the ages of 18 and 25 and noticed structural abnormalities in the brain, specifically in grey matter, the nucleus accumbens, and the amygdala, after recreational marijuana use.

Unless there is a valid medical reason marijuana should not be used by those underage. With that said Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, summed up this point clearly:

"Using high–resolution MRI imaging, scientists identified specific changes in particular regions of the brain that they inferred were likely due to marijuana exposure. (Since researchers only performed a single MRI session, they could not say definitively whether these changes were, in fact, caused by cannabis or whether they existed prior to subjects’ use of the plant.) Notably, however, these changes did not appear to be associated with any overt adverse effects in subjects’ actual cognition or behavior. (Separate studies assessing youth use of legal intoxicants, such as nicotine and alcohol, have also been associated with documented changes in brain structure. Ditto for caffeine intake in preclinical models. These findings have received far less media attention.)

"Both the cases (20 marijuana users) and controls (20 nonusers) in the study were recruited from local universities, undermining the notion that the alleged ‘brain damaged potheads’ were any more academically challenged than their non-using peers. Further, as summarized by HealthDay: “Psychiatric interviews revealed that the pot smokers did not meet criteria for drug dependence. For example, marijuana use did not interfere with their studies, work or other activities, and they had not needed to increase the amount they used to get the same high.

"In other words, case subjects and controls appeared to function similarly in their professional and academic endeavors."

4. It could make you panic.

Marijuana may alleviate anxiety for some, but for others it can cause it. THC can cause increased heart rate, poor coordination, or lightheadedness, which can be triggers for anxiety attacks. Some research suggests that people who frequently use of marijuana—and who started using it as young adults—were more likely to have anxiety disorders or depression. Whether cannabis use causes anxiety disorders, however, is not known.

Marijuana is not for everyone. There are people who may have experienced bad reactions to marijuana. There are many marijuana strains and certain marijuana strains may be more prone to cause anxiety. This does not mean it is harmful to your health. They also reference research that frequent marijuana users are more likely to have anxiety disorders or depression. There has been research that contradicts this and that marijuana can decrease anxiety and depression.

In my personal experience I have never had a panic attack because of using marijuana and I have been using marijuana on an almost daily basis for several years. In fact, I use marijuana to treat anxiety from PTSD that developed in a highly abusive marriage. In speaking with people both in and out of Colorado most echo these feelings. Those that did have anxiety related to marijuana I spoke with said that their anxiety wasn't from the marijuana itself but from the fact they might get caught by police and sentenced to jail or prison.

Those who I have spoken with who have negative reactions to marijuana simply avoid using marijuana. Does this mean it was harmful to their health or others should not use it? Absolutely not.

5. It can be addictive.

One in 10 users exhibits symptoms of dependence, according to the American Psychological Association. Marijuana’s rate of dependence liability of 9% is comparable to that of anti-anxiety medications and is well under the liability rates of alcohol (15%) and tobacco (32%), according to a study by the Institute of Medicine. However, the reason why some become addicted and others don’t remains unclear. Genetic studies have suggested that the involvement, or lack thereof, of CB1 receptors in response to cannabis can influence the likelihood of addiction. The receptor gene has been found to have a connection to the development of dependence to drugs and alcohol. Studies done on animals suggest that cannabis triggers reward centers in the brain, including neurons that produce dopamine, which could also encourage continued use.

All substances on earth can cause dependence. I should note that dependence is not addiction. Addiction in its original definition is any strong habit. Dependence means your body relies on the substance. Dependence does not mean addiction and addiction does not mean dependence. Also Times is misusing the term "addiction" because research has shown that some people become dependent (not addicted) on any drug, not just cannabis, while others do not and the reasons remain unclear.

Animal studies can be misleading at times because many animal studies occur in confined environments and often the animals are traumatized by the procedure through which the drug is administered. Studies have shown that lab rats kept in comfortable, interesting environments are less likely to use drugs compared to the other studies.

We should note that dependence or addiction may not always be a bad thing. Anything can be used to excess and cause problem, however, a person who uses marijuana on a daily basis to treat pain may be dependent on the drug. You could also say they are addicted to marijuana because they use it daily; however, the person may have no negative effects from the use of marijuana. What studies should measure is when a person continues to do a behavior (drug related or otherwise) despite negative consequences of doing that behavior.

Also, it should be taken into consideration how the negative behavior is perceived. Let's take a person who uses medical marijuana and loses a job because of a drug test and the person doesn't stop using marijuana. While this is a negative consequence of marijuana use this negative consequence is directly caused by the prohibition of marijuana. Of course this assumes the person who uses marijuana comes to work unimpaired. If a person drinks on Friday night and goes to work on Monday, not drunk, they would be fine. The same should be for marijuana users because a person can get fired for a drug test despite the fact that they are completely sober while at work. The byproduct of marijuana can be detected for weeks after a single use.

6. It can stress your heart

Marijuana-related deaths are so rare as to be treated as mythological by marijuana boosters, but a paper published this spring in Forensic Science International does describe the deaths of two healthy men, ages 23 and 28, who experienced heart trouble after using marijuana. “To our knowledge, these are the first cases of suspected fatal cannabis intoxications where full postmortem investigations, including autopsy, toxicological, histological, immunohistochemical and genetical examinations, were carried out," the authors write. The authors surmise that the cardiovascular events were the result of increased heart rate that can happen in some pot smokers, particularly in the first hours after using marijuana. Nonetheless, the authors conclude, that the “absolute risk of cannabis-related cardiovascular effects can be considered to be low, as the baseline risk for most cannabis smokers is low and cannabis-induced changes are transient.”

This is misleading. Marijuana can increase your heart rate about as much as an espresso or exercise. For healthy individuals this has no harmful effects on your body. Marijuana strains also vary, there are many strains that one can smoke that will not increase your heart rate. For individuals with heart problems you may want to stay away from marijuana just as you would avoid exercise or drinks high in caffeine that could increase your heart rate. Also, many marijuana users will develop a tolerance to these effects and the effects will become less over time.

The information at the start of the point about the two young men that died is very misleading. The two young men both had heart defects they were born with and when they died they had detectable amounts of THC in their blood. This doesn't mean marijuana caused them to die. One of the two also had a history of past drug use (other than marijuana). Making the statement that marijuana killed them is a stretch. What killed them was their pre-existing heart condition. These two guys could have gone for a jog and fallen dead but do we say jogging killed them? No, we say their heart condition killed them. I could continue to elaborate about the way the media tried to twist this story but Dr. Mitch Earlywine explains this much better than I could on NORML's website.

As we can see, much of what the Times article says is harmful is either a temporary effect or blown out of proportion as being harmful. Should certain individuals avoid using marijuana? Yes. Should there be additional research into marijuana? Absolutely. But when looking at the overall picture marijuana has very few harmful effects if used responsibly.

This article was originally posted on Karmaceuticals website. Reprinted with permission.

Feds Tax Pot 10%

Sun, 06 Jul 2014 01:09:00 GMT

Very interesting IMO. Â Â Feds tax pot 10%Â in a clever sick way. Â Federal employee withholding tax quarterlies must be paid by bank wire transfer. Â IF they are paid in cash, say for an industry that cannot get bank accounts, Â they can be paid at ONE location in the State of Colorado (a somewhat large state), by appointment only. Â Bad enough. Â THEN, because the payment is cash and not by bank transfer, there is a 10% IRS penalty. Â I believe this is the Fed's way of keeping pot illegal while imposing a 10% tax on the business.

Â OurÂ Colorado NORMLÂ exec director Rachelle Gillette has filed suit against the IRS over this issue. Â Many of us would love to see the feds legalize and tax marijuana. Â Steal the 10% legally! Â Most interesting, as pointed out in the complaint, is that the alternatives suggested by the IRS to solve the problem to avoid the penalty amount to fairly possible money laundering. Â The Â IRS says "pass the money through a third person." Â Sure sounds like at least a suggestion of money laundering. Does that sound like an overly-oppressive government? Â I'm NOT suggesting revolution, subversion, or any other extraordinary behavior. Â I do think the lawsuit is a marvelous way to bring this issue before the public eye.

Can profiling LEOs (law enforcement officers) in Kansas be criminally prosecuted for kidnapping or anything else as a result of their traffic stops in search of drugs?

Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:00:00 GMT

Is a civil lawsuit or federal civil rights lawsuit under 18 USC 1983 for injunctive relief and money damages currently a workable strategy to address the actions of LEOs like the Kansas State Police? Â We are confident that they are profiling people to stop, and then using any excuse they can find, including as little as three mph over the highway speed limit. Â That was one of SIX times that the particular young driver, with two young friends in the car, were stopped during ONE trip on I-70 into and out of Kansas from Colorado. Â All were over 21, and there were NO drugs in the car. Â Remember that less than an ounce, legal for a Colorado Tourist in Colorado, if over 21, carries a likely 4-5 years in prison in Kansas. Â The Kansas cutoff is i believe 25 grams, well under the 28 grams which was legal in Colorado before crossing the boarder in Kansas.

I suspect that because of the "reasons" for the stops (any reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation was committed), and the consent to the searches, (there were at least 3 searches including the dog search) Â (DO NOT CONSENT TO SEARCHES), criminal accusations against the cops, while satisfying to think about, might prove to be ineffective. Â When I was in law school (Rutgers, 1972-1975), the Constitutional Litigation Clinic, working with William Kunstler and Lenny Weinglass (Center for Constitutional Rights) with a little assist from student-me, worked on a lawsuit against the New Jersey State Police for their profiling behavior. Â After 15 or more years of litigation, our team won.

I don't know if that is a viable option under Â the current 18 USC 1983 federal lawsuit (civil rights violations), given the current bad state of the law on profiling. Â

Generally, today, if there a traffic reason to justify a stop (again, reasonable suspicion of traffic violation, including 1 mph over the speed limit), the truth that it was a profile stop with the LEO's admission that it was profiling, does not matter. Â The LEO's underlying intention does not matter. Â I suspect that if the profiling is racially-based, for example "stop all Blacks for DWB," that might be a good federal lawsuit. Â In NJ on the Rutgers suit, I recall it being "young people with long hair" who were subjected to profiling, highway stops, and what ensued. Â It was during the anti-Vietnam efforts. Drugs were still the target of the cops. Â Hassling "hippies" was a bonus for them, which they truly enjoyed at the time. Â

Ironically, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition was started some years later by the former chief of the NJ State Police Undercover Narcotics Unit. Â He saw first-hand that prohibition could never work and that the only accomplishment was that lives were ruined by the prohibition. Â As a former judge, I am a LEAP speaker, and we find ourselves working together with the best of attitudes and goals. Â

Â I am preliminarily chatting about this issue with our friend, NORML Legal Committee lawyer Â Cal Williams, out of Colby, Kansas.

The above post was originally published by Lenny on TalkLeft.