Mullaways Medical Cannabis is seeking expressions of
interest from those interested in participating in clinical
trials of MMC Tinctures. The "Conditions" line is
for a statement of ailments.
The officer is going through Darrel's pockets.
NZ Medicinal Use Of
Cannabis Bill Defeated
New Zealand- The Green Party's three-year campaign to allow
cannabis to be used for medicinal purposes came to grief in
Parliament on Wednesday night. Their bill failed on its first
reading, voted down 86-34 on a conscience vote.
Its promoter, Metiria Turei, pleaded with MPs to let it through
so it could go to the health select committee which could hear
evidence of how cannabis eased the suffering of seriously ill
people. "Many people already use it and they live in real
fear of the law," she said.
"Sick and vulnerable New Zealanders are being jailed ...
let MPs hear their stories, let these people have their say."
Under the bill, seriously ill people would be able to apply
for a cannabis card, issued on a doctor's authority and registered
with the police, which would allow them to grow small amounts
of it. Turei said they didn't have to smoke it, they could use
it in other ways to help relieve their pain such as making tea
with it or using it as oil to rub into their limbs.
Sativex is available now in 22 countries including Australia
via what is known as named patient
supply. GW Pharmaceuticals are not allowed to promote this,
so you are not going to see any advertisements or read about
it in newspapers.
Under this procedure, a patient's doctor writes a prescription
for Sativex that is sent to GW Pharmaceuticals in the UK. In
countries that allow this, the material is then sent directly
to the patient. The process begins with the doctor sending an
enquiry to:
Dr. Robert J. Melamede Ph.D. Chairman of the Biology
Department of the University of Colorado:
"The Cannabinoid System has been around for over 600 million
years. Before the Dinosaurs. The Cannabinoid System is continuously
evolutioning and has been retained by all new species. Food
and feeding is at the heart of the Cannabinoid System."
More here!
Dr. Robert J. Melamede Ph.D. Chairman of the Biology
Department of the University of Colorado:
"The Cannabinoid System has been around for over 600 million
years. Before the Dinosaurs. The Cannabinoid System is continuously
evolutioning and has been retained by all new species. Food
and feeding is at the heart of the Cannabinoid System."
More here!
SAN FRANCISCO, Jun 18, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) ----Cannabis
Science Inc. (NASD OTCBB: CBIS:), an emerging pharmaceutical
cannabis company, announced today that patent filings are expected
for two of its key innovations. "The Drug Development Team
members recognize the importance of having our first cannabis-based
medicine covered, not just by one patent, but by two,"
Dr. Mary J. Ruwart, Vice President, Research & Development
explained. "A competitor can sometimes engineer
a way around a single patent. Patenting both the manufacturing
process as well as the delivery system virtually guarantees
that our product will be immune to 'invasion' by a competing
company."
Cannabis Science CEO, Steve Kubby, is the
inventor who will assign both of his patents to Cannabis Science.
"Our new manufacturing process allows for the rapid and
uniform harvesting of cannabis 'trichomes,' the part of the
plant containing the active ingredient, THC," Kubby told
potential investors today. "Just as the cotton gin made
cotton harvesting economically feasible, our innovative process
will revolutionize trichome harvesting."
"Having a creative mind like Steve Kubby's at the helm
gives us a competitive advantage," Dr. Robert Melamede,
Chief Scientific Officer commented. "The new manufacturing
process is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The unique
drug delivery system he has designed enhances the stability
and uniform absorption of the active ingredient. We expect our
first product to outshine the competition with rapid---and prolonged---blood
levels of THC." More
here!
Cannabis Science fires CEO Steven Kubby Posted by Jack Davis on July 9th, 2009 at 4:02 pm |
Categorized as Cannabis Science, Docu-Drama | Tagged as Cannabis
Science, Departures, Hirings, Robert Melamede, Steve Kubby
The board of Cannabis Science, the San Francisco research and
development firm aiming to develop medicines derived from marijuana,
resolved today to “immediately remove and terminate all
corporate contracts” with Chief Executive Steven Kubby.
Without citing specific instances, the board resolution said
Kubby (pictured) “failed to conduct his duty in the manner
that it is in compliance with his fiduciary duties to preserve
shareholders value and corporate integrity.” Furthermore,
the board said it “hereby” removed his power to
negotiate, sign agreements or conduct banking on behalf of the
company.
We previously posted about the company’s recent hiring
of a firm to provide investor relations activities for the company,
which began trading shares through a reverse merger earlier
this year between Gulf Onshore, a public company that in March
acquired Cannex Therapeutics, a privately held company founded
by Kubby involved in developing medical cannabis-based pharmaceutical
products.
Kubby is described as “an entrepreneur with a wide range
of experience and success in businesses ranging from property
management to publishing to political fundraising,” according
to biographical information included in the company’s
most recent annual 10-K report with the SEC.
Kubby is also identified as the executive director of the American
Medical Marijuana Association, “an internationally recognized
organization comprised of doctors, lawyers, nurses and patients
working for the rights of medical cannabis patients primarily
in the United States and Canada,” according to the 10-K.
Kubby played a key role in the drafting and passing of California’s
historic medical cannabis initiative (Proposition 215) in 1996
and has also authored two books on drug policy reform.
Described as “a widely recognized medical marijuana pioneer
and political leader,” Kubby is said to be “intimately
familiar with the legal and regulatory problems involved in
developing and marketing cannabinoid-based pharmaceuticals.”
As of March 31, the company listed 849,000 in cash on its balance
sheet.
Robert Melamede, a director on the board of Cannabis Science,
was named to take over as chief executive immediately, continuing
until the company’s next general meeting. He will also
serve as the company’s chief financial officer. Both Melamede
and Kubby will continue to serve as directors.
CSI Appoints Dr. Robert Melamede, Ph.D.,
Former Chairman of the Biology Department at University of Colorado,
Colorado Springs, As President & CEO
SAN FRANCISCO, Jul 09, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) ----Cannabis Science
Inc. (NASD OTCBB: CBIS:), an emerging pharmaceutical cannabis
company, is pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Robert
J. Melamede, Ph.D., as President & CEO, replacing Steven
W. Kubby in that position. Mr. Kubby will remain as a Director
and the company is in discussions with him about his future
role.
Dr. Melamede has previously served as the Chief Science Officer
of Cannabis Science Inc, and will continue in that capacity
as well. Dr. Melamede retired as Chairman of the Biology Department
at University of Colorado, Colorado Springs in 2005, where he
continues to teach.
Dr. Melamede has a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
from the City University of New York. He Dr. Melamede is recognized
as a leading authority on the therapeutic uses of cannabis,
and has authored or co-authored dozens of papers on a wide variety
of scientific subjects. Dr. Melamede also serves on the Advisory
Board of The Journal of the International Association for Cannabis
as Medicine, and the Scientific Advisory Board Medical of the
Marijuana Policy Advocacy Project, as well as the Scientific
Advisory Board of Americans for Safe Access. He also served
as a director of Newellink Inc, a Colorado-based company specializing
in cancer research.
The global market for oral cannabis medications has been recently
estimated at almost $6 billion annually. Cannabis Science proprietary
delivery systems, which insure rapid absorption with prolonged
blood levels of active drug, are expected to give the company's
products a competitive edge worldwide.
About Cannabis Science, Inc.
Cannabis Science, Inc. is at the forefront of medical marijuana
research and development. The company works with world authorities
on phytocannabinoid science targeting critical illnesses, and
adheres to scientific methodologies to develop, produce, and
commercialize phytocannabinoid-based pharmaceutical products.
It is dedicated to the creation of cannabis-based medicines,
both with and without psychoactive properties, to treat disease
and the symptoms of disease, as well as for general health maintenance.
This Press Release includes forward-looking statements within
the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 21E of the Securities Act of 1934. A statement containing
works such as "anticipate," "seek," intend,"
"believe," "plan," "estimate,"
"expect," "project," "plan," or
similar phrases may be deemed "forward-looking statements"
within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995. Some or all of the events or results anticipated
by these forward-looking statements may not occur. Factors that
could cause or contribute to such differences include the future
U.S. and global economies, the impact of competition, and the
Company's reliance on existing regulations regarding the use
and development of cannabis-based drugs. Cannabis Science, Inc.
does not undertake any duty nor does it intend to update the
results of these forward-looking statements.
A note on eating cannabis confections.
If you take it orally (eating cookies, cakes, etc), you could
be in for quite a ride. The liver metabolises THC into 11-OH-*9-THC,
a compound three times more psychoactive. Foods made with high
THC "heads" or hashish can give a powerful, almost
psychedelic experience, which can be very uncomfortable if you're
not expecting it. The effects are slower to come on (1 to 2
hours) and last considerably longer (around 4 hours).
Different people have different experiences. While one person
might go to sleep, another might smile and laugh excessively,
while another might have a panic attack. These are classic responses
but they are by no means definitive. Experiences vary. If smoking
cannabis makes you nervous or agitated, then
consuming cookies (and indeed other temporarily mind altering
drugs) may be inadvisable.
Do not assume cookies from different sources are of the same
strength. Even different batches from the same source can vary.
Know thyself. Stay in your comfort zone. Try half a cookie
first, and assess the effect.
Sativex is available now in 22 countries including Australia
via what is known as named patient
supply. GW Pharmaceuticals are not allowed to promote this,
so you are not going to see any advertisements or read about
it in newspapers.
Under this procedure, a patient's doctor writes a prescription
for Sativex that is sent to GW Pharmaceuticals in the UK. In
countries that allow this, the material is then sent directly
to the patient. The process begins with the doctor sending an
enquiry to:
Orangeburg, NY: Daily administration of oral synthetic THC
significantly improves symptoms of schizophrenia, according
to the findings of an open-label case series published this
month in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology.
Synthetic delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (dronabinol) can improve
the symptoms of schizophrenia.
Investigators at the Rockland Psychiatric Center in Orangeburg,
New York, and the New York University School of Medicine, administered
2.5 to 5 mg doses of oral THC (dronabinol) for a period of eight
weeks to six patients diagnosed with chronic, refractory schizophrenia.
All of the patients enrolled in the study had reported previously
using cannabis to mitigate their condition.
"Four of the 6 patients improved to a clinically significant
extent (after taking dronabinol)," researchers reported.
"Three of the six patients had a robust response, with
modest to marked reductions in core psychotic symptoms. Patients
1 and 2 showed improvement within several weeks of beginning
the medication, whereas patient 3 required 8 weeks to reach
significant improvement. In addition, robust improvement in
overall functioning was also observed, with patients 1 to 3
changing from being gravely ill to being functioning individuals
able to be discharged. Patient 4 had more limited improvement
in that he was calmer, cooperative, and less aggressive but
had persistence of his core psychosis. Nevertheless, his overall
functioning was significantly improved. ... There were no clinically
adverse effects."
Investigators concluded, "These results ... open a possible
new role for cannabinoids in the treatment of schizophrenia."
Previous studies assessing the use of marijuana in patients
with schizophrenia have produced mixed results. A 2007 German
study reported improved cognition in patients who used cannabis,
and a 2008 Australian study found that patients diagnosed with
schizophrenia report experiencing subjective relief from pot.
Critics of medical cannabis use have argued that heavy marijuana
use may exacerbate psychosis in patients with mental illness.
However, the largest trial ever conducted comparing cannabis
using and non-using schizophrenic patients reported no statistically
significant "differences in syptomatology between schizophrenic
patients who were or were not cannabis users" after controlling
for patients' age, sex, a nd ethnicity.
For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML
Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org. Full text of the study,
"Synthetic Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (dronabinol) can
improve symptoms of schizophrenia," appears in the June
issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology.
Long term cannabis use by patients with schizophrenia
is associated with enhanced cognitive functioning, with both
frequency and recency of use linked to better neuropsychological
performance, conclude Australian researchers. (1st November
2007)
"Logistic regression analysis revealed that more patients
with lifetime cannabis abuse/dependence performed better on
the psychomotor speed component than those without lifetime
abuse/dependence. Frequency and recency of cannabis use were
associated with better performance, particularly on the attention/processing
speed and executive function domains." While acknowledging
the issues around cannabis use in schizophrenia patients, the
team concludes in the journal Schizophrenia Research: 'In essence,
the findings of this study suggest that cannabinoids, via their
agonistic effects on cannabinoid receptors in the forebrain,
may have a potentially useful role in the treatment of high-order
cognitive processes known to be impaired in schizophrenia."
We have been living beyond the sidewalks for over 18 years.
Our little ‘A’ frame cabin sits on Tierra Sol Farm,
near the west branch of the Feather River, in the Sierra foothills.
Ten years ago, on a Mother’s Day morning, I scooped up
some runaway ducklings and slipped and fell. In one swift move,
I dislocated my ankle, shattered 3” of leg bone, shredded
my tendons, and severed the nerves!
The Doctor was sure I’d have to use a cane the rest of
my life and all he could suggest for the pain and swelling was
cortisone shots. This seemed pretty bleak, but I wasn’t
willing to settle for it, besides I have 30 acres to attend
to!
I have been making salves for the family for years, from the
herbs grown in our garden. So I started researching various
herbs that would help heal my injuries. While formulating the
cream I was introduced to cannabis root. I discovered that the
chief element in restorative creams of early pharmacopoeia was
Cannabis hemp, the active ingredient essential to oils prescribed
in both the Aramaic and Hebrew versions of the Old Testament.
Hemp root, myrrh, and olive oil preparations were applied topically
to alleviate swelling and joint pain, or as salves for burns.
So I added it to the batch, making a 9 herb formula.
After using the cream, The bruising was gone, The swelling
was gone, the circulation was back, I gained full movement of
my foot and ankle, and no more pain. I was so excited that I
shared the cream with family and friends. The results were fantastic.
It’s works on sore muscles, burns, eczema, arthritis,
and even insect bites too. Everyone has encouraged me to put
it on the market. So now I am working with our community college’s
small business development center to launch our new venture.
Last month a gal who is taking Hemp studies at the University
of Idaho in Hailey, contacted me about using my cream for her
study, of course I said yes. She took a jar with her to Holland
last week for a complete chromatography testing! I am so excited
to be a part of this! I'll share with you the results when I
get them back. Many people consider the root to be a by-product
to be tossed in the compost pile, but we all need to understand
that it's the whole mother that's healing.
Minnesota Medical Marijuana Ads urging Governor Pawlenty
not to veto a passed Bill.
Medical Cannabis debated In South Australian
Parliament
Legislative Council – Thursday, 27th November, 2008 –
page 1052
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (PALLIATIVE USE OF CANNABIS) AMENDMENT
BILL 2008
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (17:42): I take this opportunity
to address the criticisms that have been made of this bill by
all but one of the speakers; so, I know that it will fail when
we put it to the vote. I want to begin by quoting from the Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 to which Australia is a signatory.
The preamble of this convention is in that usual UN language—recognising
this, understanding that, noting this and so on. Once that has
been said, it goes on to set out the actual agreements. This
sort of preamble sets the picture—it is the base on which
all the agreements stand. It is really important to note that
one of the fundamentals of the preamble of that convention,
the very second one of those, states:
...recognising that the medical use of narcotic drugs continues
to be indispensable for the relief of pain and suffering and
that adequate provision must be made to ensure the availability
of narcotic drugs for such purposes ...
It then goes on to the next clause, and so on, and I note the
word 'must' in that. One of the many people who has been emailing
me with support for this bill posed the following question to
me: 'Which part of the word 'must' do our politicians not understand?'
I also ask that question in relation to the word 'indispensable'.
Article 4.1(a) of this same convention states:
The parties shall take such legislative and administrative measures
as may be necessary—
(a) to give effect to and carry out the provisions of this convention
within their own territory.
If you put those two together, this is what you get, so listen
carefully:
...recognising that the medical use of narcotic drugs continues
to be indispensable for the relief of pain and suffering and
that adequate provision must be made to ensure the availability
of narcotic drugs for such purposes, the parties shall take
such legislative and administrative measures as may be necessary—
(a) to give effect to and carry out the provisions of this convention
within their own territory.
The message is absolutely and abundantly clear that the signatories
to this convention, despite problems that might be associated
with narcotics, have an obligation to ensure availability of
narcotic drugs for the relief of pain and suffering.
I am pleased that, amongst some of the contributions which were
made on this bill, there was some reluctant recognition of the
palliative value of cannabis—and we will talk more about
those values later. As I said, I am addressing some of the criticisms
of the bill, but the Hon. Ann Bressington personalised those
criticisms: it was not just criticism about the bill but it
was about me as well.
In her speech, she accused me of hypocrisy, undermining parents
and having a shallow and meaningless approach to serious global
issues. Her logic was that anyone calling for the use of cannabis
for medical purposes as I am doing in this bill is (to use her
words) first, encouraging our children to believe marijuana
is harmless; secondly, is guilty of abusing their position;
and, thirdly, being absolutely irresponsible. There is quite
a leap of faith (as you would hear) from one argument to the
next in that continuum, and I reject both the suppositions and
the accusations.
In her concluding remarks and using the same line of argument,
the Hon. Ann Bressington stated that, first, there are people
who care little for our children; secondly, such people have
a history of drug abuse; thirdly, these same people want to
validate their lifestyles by legalising drugs; fourthly, that
I ought to have known this; and, fifthly, if I did, I have therefore
made a conscious decision to rely on the recruitment of our
young people. I presume she means to drugs. Again I reject both
her suppositions and her accusations.
The Hon. Ann Bressington claimed that the term 'war on drugs'
was coined by the legalisation movement to get people on their
side. I have never heard of that. Generally, it is attributed
to Richard Nixon in 1971. I did a web search on that and I found
hundreds of thousands of references to Richard Nixon having
been the person who coined that phrase, and the only indication
I could find of its being a ploy of the legalisation movement
actually came from the Hon. Ann Bressington.
The Hon. Ann Bressington has accused me of picking and choosing
international conventions and, by inference, ignoring the international
conventions that relate to drugs. She also used the words 'using
and abusing the conventions'.
What do the conventions say? Let us find out what it is that
she says that I am picking and choosing, ignoring, using, abusing.
There are three of them: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs;
the Convention on Psychotropic Substances; and the Convention
Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
I have already referred to the Single Convention on Narcotic
Drugs in relation to the obligation it places on signatory states
to ensure the provision of narcotic drugs for the relief of
pain and suffering.
Cannabis is a drug that is listed in schedule 1 of that convention,
but so are morphine, pethidine and fentanyl, which are commonly
used in pain relief in our hospitals. We would not deny any
of those drugs to pain sufferers just because they are listed
in schedule 1 of this convention, so why are we doing that with
cannabis? And, for that matter, why is cannabis in the schedule,
anyway? That is an important question to answer.
The fact is that it has got there almost by accident. In 1925,
when the League of Nations was considering drug issues, the
Egyptian delegation, more or less out of the blue, claimed that
cannabis was as dangerous as opium and should be subject to
the same international controls. That was immediately supported.
Apart from no evidence being given, there was no prior briefing
on this. Nevertheless, it was adopted, and then the various
delegates in the League of Nations went back to their home countries.
In Australia, for instance—and this comes from a paper
by the late Robert Kendell—we have a statement from the
then New South Wales under secretary from the Colonial Secretary's
department. Having been to that meeting of the League of Nations
in 1925, he then said:
The omission of that drug [cannabis] from the operation of the
Act would have been of small moment, but having been considered
by the conference as required to be included, it might perhaps
be as well, if practicable, to bring it within the purview of
the dangerous drug laws.
So members can see the beginning of it. Someone makes a statement,
no-one questions it and it then becomes part of a mythology.
Coming back to the convention itself, though, it places the
same restrictions on cannabis cultivation as it does on opium
cultivation. So, there it is going back to 1925. Article 23
and article 28 require each party to establish a government
agency to control cultivation. So, to some extent, Australia
has failed. Cultivators must deliver their total crop to the
agency which must purchase and take physical possession of it
within four months after the end of the harvest. The agency
then has the exclusive right of importing, exporting, wholesale
trading and maintaining stock, other than those held by manufacturers.
I have no problem with that. In Tasmania, one can drive past
field after field, kilometre after kilometre of opium poppies
grown by the state.
The Hon. Ann Bressington is right that I am assuming that people
who are given approval by a doctor to use cannabis for palliation
will be able to grow their own using the existing laws about
personal possession as the basis. But as happens in Australia,
with the commonwealth growing opium for medicinal purposes and
as per this convention, it would be perfectly proper for the
state of South Australia to take responsibility for growing
cannabis for medicinal purposes; after all, the Israeli government
is doing just that. So, if the bill was passed, the state government
would be entitled to establish such a regime and it would be
absolutely in line with this convention.
The next convention is on psychotropic substances. THC, the
active ingredient in cannabis, was originally placed in schedule
1 when the convention was enacted in 1972. At its 26th meeting,
the World Health Organisation Expert Committee—and please
note the word 'expert'—on Drug Dependence recommended
that THC be transferred to schedule 2, citing its low abuse
potential. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs, however, rejected
the proposal. But then why would you listen to experts, when
you can have a policy that is based on belief and feelings and
mythology?
I will read in full article 7 of the Convention on Psychotropic
Substances, because the Hon. Ann Bressington has asked whether
I am seeking to ignore the conventions. The article says:
In respect of substances in schedule I the parties shall:
(a) prohibit all use, except for scientific and very limited
medical purposes by duly authorised persons , in medical or
scientific establishments which are directly under the control
of their governments or specifically approved by them;
(b) require that manufacture, trade , distribution and possession
be under a special licence or prior authorisation;
(c) provide for close supervision of the activities and acts
mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b);
(d) restrict the amount supplied to a duly authorised person
to the quantity required for his authorised purpose;
(e) require that persons performing medical or scientific functions
keep records concerning the acquisition of the substances and
the details of their use, such records to be preserved for at
least two years after the last use recorded therein ; and
(f) prohibit export and import except when both the exporter
and importer are the competent authorities or agencies of the
exporting and importing country or region , respectively, or
other persons or enterprises which are specifically authorised
by the competent authorities of their country or region for
the purpose.
The requirement of paragraph 1 of article 12 for export and
import authorisations for substances in schedule II shall also
apply to substances in schedule I.
Clearly (f) has nothing to do with the issue of medical cannabis,
but, if anyone has listened to what I have just read out, there
is nothing in my bill that is inconsistent with that particular
convention. There is no picking and choosing, of which the Hon.
Ann Bressington has accused me.
The third convention is the UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic
in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988. That particular
convention has nothing to do with the personal use of marijuana;
it is about international trafficking of drugs by organised
crime. I note however that article 25 says:
The provisions of this convention shall not derogate from any
rights enjoyed or obligations undertaken by parties to this
convention under the 1961 convention, the 1961 convention as
amended and the 1971 convention.
Nevertheless, as the Hon. Ann Bressington has accused me of
picking and choosing, I take the opportunity to point out that
there are bigger fish than me attempting to alter some of these
conventions. In 2003, a committee of the European parliament
recommended repealing the 1988 convention. It found:
Despite massive deployment of police and other resources to
implement the UN conventions, production and consumption of
, and trafficking in , prohibited substances have increased
exponentially over the past 30 years, representing what can
only be described as a failure, which the police and judicial
authorities also recognise as such. ..the policy of prohibiting
drugs, based on the UN Conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988, is
the true cause of the increasing damage that the production,
of, trafficking in, and sale and use of illegal substances are
inflicting on whole sectors of society, on the economy and on
public institutions, eroding the health, freedom and life of
individuals.
This comes from a committee of the European Parliament. I think
most of us know (and I think we can tell from the reactions
to this bill) that politicians are mostly not brave enough to
question the myths about drugs that are the basis of so many
of our irrational drug laws. It is, therefore, highly significant
that a parliamentary committee should make this statement.
In addition to the three conventions that I have dealt with,
in June 1998 a special session of the United Nations adopted
the slogan 'A drug free world—we can do it!' with the
target to be reached after a 10-year war on drugs. You would
have to say that it must have been a joke because, 10 years
on, that war has failed abjectly. In fact, the use of drugs
has increased. It failed because the mindset that led to that
conference is one that treats drug use as a moral and a criminal
issue and not the health issue that it is.
At the time of that special session hundreds of MPs, doctors,
artists, mayors, lawyers, judges, journalists and academics
from 40 countries signed a letter to the then Secretary-General
of the UN, Kofi Annan, expressing concerns about where the war
on drugs was leading. Fifty Australians signed this statement,
including—and I hope members of both the Labor Party and
the Liberal Party are listening to this—former premiers
John Cain, Neville Wran and Rupert Hamer, observing that:
True surrender is when fear and inertia combine to shut off
debate, suppress critical analysis and dismiss all alternatives
to current policies.
It seems that once they are able to get away from the sensational
headlines and get hold of the facts, an increasing number of
people around the world are questioning the effectiveness of
the war on drugs.
When laws are not working in this state we look to see why it
is so and then we amend the laws, and so it should be with conventions.
The UN is, in some respects, like a parliament but writ large.
Just as we amend legislation so, too, at the international level,
should our representatives amend international conventions as
new knowledge and new situations emerge. The 1961 convention,
for instance, was amended in 1972. The 2006 UNODC World Drug
Report stated:
Either the gap between the letter and spirit of the Single Convention,
so manifest with cannabis , needs to be bridged , or parties
to the Convention need to discuss refining the status of cannabis.
So the debate is on, and has been on for a number of years now.
My bill is about the use of cannabis for medical purposes but
I did note that the Hon. Ann Bressington's contribution wandered
far and wide to cover all drugs and not even in a medical context—which
is what this bill is about. By doing that she was able to introduce
many red herrings. I do not intend to address those red herrings.
I want to address the issue of medical marijuana. In her speech
the Hon. Ann Bressington seemed excited by the fact that the
AMA in South Australia does not support the use of cannabis
for medical purposes, as if she had revealed something that
I had been concealing. To the contrary, on the first occasion
when I introduced this bill, two months earlier than the bill
we are debating today, I mentioned twice that this was the case.
The Hon. Ann Bressington says that she contacted the Multiple
Sclerosis Society in Adelaide to ask whether it supported the
use of medical marijuana, and of course it said no. Organisations
such as this are dependent, at least in part, upon government
funding, and when the government of the day has a so-called
'tough on drugs' policy it makes it difficult for many people
in those organisations to speak out. That the Multiple Sclerosis
Society said no does not diminish the fact that many people—
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I rise on a point of order. The honourable
member is implying that organisations lied to the parliament.
They knew it was a parliamentary—
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. I.K. Hunter): What is your point
of order?
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: That the honourable member is implying
that organisations out there have lied.
The ACTING PRESIDENT: There is no point of order; sit down.
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Thank you for your protection, Mr Acting
President; I may call on it again if the voice behind me keeps
interjecting. The fact that the Multiple Sclerosis Society said
that it does not support the use of medical marijuana does not
diminish the fact that many people with multiple sclerosis use
cannabis to alleviate their symptoms. The evidence of the capacity
for cannabis to relieve symptoms of many illnesses is growing—and
yes, as some members have said, the evidence is sometimes anecdotal.
This is because, in a catch 22 situation, it is sometimes difficult
for researchers to undertake work at universities because ethics
committees say to them, 'This is an illicit substance; therefore,
we will not approve your research.' However, despite those restrictions
being in place at some institutions, in other scientific and
open-minded institutions questioning is powering away.
Here in South Australia we go back as far as 1971 when we had
a Royal Commission into the Non-medical Use of Drugs, known
as the Sackville report. In July 1995 a select committee of
this parliament—comprising one Democrat, two Labor and
two Liberal MPs—unanimously recommended the regulated
availability of cannabis with strict controls, and this included
a trial for medical purposes. Still in South Australia, we had
Mike Rann's drug summit in 2002, the recommendations of which
he has mostly ignored.
The policies we have in place in South Australia are much more
likely to push our children into the arms of drug lords. Successive
governments have handed over the supply of cannabis to organised
crime, increasing their profitability along the way—the
exact opposite of what a wise drug policy would do. We have
to begin recognising that the opposite of 'tough on drugs' is
not 'soft on drugs' but 'sensible on drugs'. That is what I
am; I am 'sensible on drugs'.
A number of speakers raised the hoary chestnut of a cannabis
psychosis link. There are claims—I think they have been
made in this chamber a number of times on numerous bills—that,
as a result of the use of hydroponic cannabis, we now have a
much stronger version than the backyard version. However, when
you think about it, members in this place have been responsible
for that happening by making it tougher for people to grow their
own plants. Those people then go out and buy it off the streets,
and they buy the hydroponically-grown cannabis. So if members
have a concern that the cannabis is growing stronger they should
look to themselves, because they have created the situation—in
fact, most of the members in this chamber are responsible for
that situation. I would hardly describe this as successful policy.
The extra strength is conjectured to be part of a link between
cannabis use and psychosis. I think it was about a month ago
that the Beckley Foundation published a report from the Global
Cannabis Commission. It was written by five leading marijuana
and drug policy researchers, including Benedikt Fischer of Simon
Fraser University in Vancouver, Peter Reuter of the University
of Maryland, and three Australians: Wayne Hall of the University
of Queensland; Simon Lenton of the National Drug Research Institute
at the Curtin Institute of Technology; and Robin Room of the
University of Melbourne. Added to getting some outside advice
and extra research were a number of other researchers, including
two members of the British government's Advisory Council on
the Misuse of Drugs, David Nutt, the incoming chair of the ACMD
and Professor of Psychopharmacology at Bristol University, and
Leslie Iversen, Professor of Pharmacology at Oxford University.
I will not read you much of this report, because it printed
out about three centimetres thick, but I will mention one comment
only from Iversen. He noted:
The lack of any evidence of increased rates of psychosis following
large increases in marijuana use ...' convinced [ the ACMD ]
that cause and effect has not been proven ' .
There is a link, but it is not a proven cause. Mark Weiser,
Director of the Department of Psychology at Sheba Medical Centre
in Israel, recently produced information on this. I will quote
the final sentence of an abstract of one of his papers. He states:
Thus an alternative explanation of the association between cannabis
use and schizophrenia might be that pathology of the cannabinoid
system in schizophrenia patients is associated with both increased
rates of cannabis use and increased risk for schizophrenia,
without cannabis being a causal factor in schizophrenia.
The ultimate rationale for the Hon. Ann Bressington's position
is a version of 'we are sending the wrong message to our young
people', yet we do not take that view when it comes to the nexus
between morphine and heroin. I have never heard it said that,
because morphine is used in hospitals to relieve severe pain,
we are placing children at risk; yet, the evidence of deaths
from different drugs shows that morphine is a far more dangerous
drug than cannabis.
The Hon. Ann Bressington asked whether anyone in this chamber
believes that their children or grandchildren would be better
off using drugs. It is a nonsense question. I do not believe
that anybody in this chamber would be, and it is certainly not
what I am about. This approach, while creating the impression
that I want children to use illicit drugs, is not what this
bill is about, either.
Once again, as I did when I introduced this bill in July and
again when I reintroduced it in September, I will explain what
this bill is about. I am not sure where the confusion lies.
The purpose of this bill is to allow a qualified medical practitioner
to sign a palliative cannabis certificate for a patient who
she or he deems could have symptoms of specified illnesses or
diseases palliated by the use of cannabis. I gave examples in
my speeches, on both occasions, of the sorts of conditions that
can have symptoms alleviated by cannabis. If the bill were to
pass, the government in its wisdom would determine which illnesses
this might apply to. This is a bill that amends the Controlled
Substances Act, and that has regulation making powers that could
accomplish that.
Had I gone through the process of specifying the illnesses,
the symptoms and the diseases, I am sure that would have been
used as another red herring to try to argue flaws in this bill;
so, I did not attempt to do that. I thought, this government,
should the bill pass, will work out maybe two or three that
it might be prepared to allow it to be used for.
The Hon. Ann Bressington gave an example of a doctor in the
US abusing the Californian legislation, I think, as proof that
we should not allow it here. That particular example she gave
concerned a doctor who prescribed cannabis to a young woman
with sore feet. Now, that does not in any way invalidate what
I am attempting to do in this legislation, because sore feet
would not comply. If the government came up with a list of regulations
of the conditions under which doctors would be able to give
a cannabis certificate, sore feet would not be on the list.
I have absolute confidence that Michael Atkinson, for example,
would not allow sore feet as one of the symptoms.
You have to remember that, under this legislation, when a doctor
has given out a cannabis certificate, that doctor has to provide
to the authorities a copy of the cannabis certificate within
seven days of issuing it.
If he or she lies about what has been done, they face a fine
of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up two years. Throwing
in a story about one aberrant doctor in California does not
in any way negate what this bill is trying to do. Most doctors
are responsible. Every now and then irresponsible ones come
along and they are dealt with by the Medical Board and in some
cases they are dealt with by our courts system.
The Hon. Ann Bressington says that the evidence is not there
to support the palliative use of cannabis. I draw attention
to a statement incorporated in the citizen's right of reply
in yesterday's Hansard from Dr David Caldicott, who was—
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: On a point of order, sir, if I cannot
make a response to that right of reply, why can the honourable
member? It's not to be debated.
The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! What is your point of order, Ms
Bressington?
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: That she is bringing up something outside
this debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT: Your point is relevance?
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: That's it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT: I rule against it—there is no point
of order.
The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I am sure you would.
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Dr David Caldicott in that statement
accused the Hon. Ann Bressington of grossly misrepresenting
science and called upon this chamber to ensure that a modicum
of scientific honesty be maintained. There is not too much to
ask in granting those particular requests but, despite what
the Hon. Ann Bressington says, the reality is that the evidence
for the palliative use of cannabis keeps growing.
Just one week ago new research from Ohio University, albeit
on rats at this stage, revealed that cannabis may be able to
delay the onset of Alzheimer's. They found that cannabis cut
inflammation in the brains of the rats and that it could even
trigger production of new neurones in the brain.
One of the more interesting things I have come across (and a
lot of people in the world who have been trying to get legal
medical marijuana are very angry about this) was uncovered only
two months ago. It turns out that the US government has a patent
on cannabis.
The Hon. A. Bressington: Why?
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Oh, wait until you hear the answers,
Ms Bressington.
The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: No, no, wait and hear. US Patent No.6630507
was issued on 7 October 2003. It has been kept hidden for five
years, and it has only been the assiduous work of people trying
to get marijuana legalised for medical use that has uncovered
this. The application went in on 2 February 2001. Here is the
abstract:
Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties,
unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property
makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of
a wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic,
age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids
are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants,
for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic
insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative
diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and
HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil,
are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity
that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses
useful in the method of the present in vention. A particular
disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants
is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected
from the group consisting of H, CH3 and COCH3.
The inventors—and I dislike that word because it is like
a version of plant-variety rights—are: Hampson, Aidan
J.; Axelrod, Julius; and, Grimaldi, Maurizio. The assignee is
the United States of America, as represented by the Department
of Health and Human Services. So, the US government knows the
medical value of this substance.
I want to read also—this is quite extensive, but worthwhile
hearing—the definition of oxidative associated diseases.
These are some of the things with which cannabis can deal.
`Oxidative associated diseases ' refers to pathological conditions
that result at least in part from the production of or exposure
to free radicals, particularly oxyradicals , or reactive oxygen
species. It is evident to those of skill in the art that most
pathological conditions are multifactorial , and that assigning
or identifying the predominant causal factors for any particular
condition is frequently difficult. For these reasons, the term
'free radical associated disease' encompasses pathological states
that are recognised as con ditions in which free radicals or
ROS contribute to the pathology of the disease , or wherein
administration of a free radical inhibitor, scavenger or catalyst
is shown to produce detectable benefit by decreasing symptoms,
increasing survival , or providing other detectable clinical
benefits in treating or preventing the pathological state.
Oxidative associated diseases include, without limitation, free
radical associated diseases , such as ischemia, ischemic reperfusion
injury, inflammatory diseases, systemic lupus erythematosis,
myocardial ischemia or infarction, cerebrovascular accidents
( such as thromboembolic or haemorrhagic stroke ) that can lead
to ischemia or an infarct in the brain, operative ischemia,
traumatic haemorrhage (for example, a hypervolemic stroke) that
can lead to CNS hypoxia or anoxia, spinal cord trauma, Down's
syndrome, Crohn's disease, autoimmune diseases (e.g. rheumatoid
arthritis or diabetes), cataract formation, uveitis, emphysema,
gastric ulcers, oxygen toxicity, neoplasia, undesired cellular
apoptosis, radiation sickness and others.
The present invention is believed to be particularly beneficial
in the treatment of oxidative associated diseases of the CNS
because of the ability of the cannabinoids to cross the blood
brain barrier and exert their antioxidant effects in the brain.
In particular embodiments, the pharmaceutical composition of
the present invention is used for preventing, arresting or treating
neurological damage in Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease
and HIV dementia, autoimmune neurodegeneration of the type that
can occur in encephalitis, and hypoxic or anoxic neuronal damage
that can result from apnea, respiratory arrest or cardiac arrest
and anoxia caused by drowning, brain surgery or trauma such
as concussion or spinal cord shock.
What is interesting about that list is that many of those illnesses,
symptoms and conditions that I have just read out that this
patent recognises can be treated with the use of cannabinoids
are exactly the conditions that the people who are trying to
get medical marijuana are treating when they can get hold of
the cannabis to treat those symptoms. To tell us that the science
is not there is totally inaccurate.
The Hon. A. Bressington: Who says that?
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: As a means—
The Hon. A. Bressington: Who said the science is not there?
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: You did.
The Hon. A. Bressington: I did not.
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: You did.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. I.K. Hunter): Order! The Hon. Ms
Kanck knows better than that. Do not respond to interjections.
We will be here all night otherwise.
The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:
The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order!
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would
be inclined to wonder, after finding out that the US has sat
on this patent now for five years—given that they have
continued to pursue people who use marijuana and, in some cases,
in some countries, that has resulted in some extraordinary penal
provisions—why they have kept it quiet. You would have
to wonder why it is—
The Hon. A. Bressington: It's on the public record.
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: It is on the public record, Ms Bressington,
and that is why I am reading it and making sure it is on the
record here so that members know that this is the case.
The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Mr Acting President, I wonder whether
you could give me some protection from this person behind me.
I am finding it a little difficult to—
The ACTING PRESIDENT: I would like to but I have almost given
up trying. The Hon. Ms Bressington will allow the Hon. Ms Kanck
to finish her contribution in silence. It would help us all.
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Thank you, Mr Acting President. It does
seem strange to me that the United States is pursuing people
who use cannabis, making it illegal in so many countries with
all of those penal provisions, yet they have a patent out like
this. You have to think: if you could stop people growing it
and they can start putting their version of it (whatever it
is) onto the market, then they have the market sewn up to deal
with all of those conditions.
I think it is important to also recognise the cost that is associated
with the pharmaceutical drugs; that is, the ones that are provided
to us by drug companies. As a means of dealing with nausea,
for instance, for people with cancer or AIDS, the use of cannabis
is highly effective. Pharmaceutical anti-nausea drugs cost something
like 100 to 1,000 times more than marijuana for a sufferer.
In this case there is not even a taxpayer subsidy if we were
to pass this bill. It would cost the taxpayer zilch.
I know that there is a reasonable number of MPs across the board
in Australia who support drug law reform. I do not know what
the numbers are at the moment, but going back two or three years
ago I was aware of about 12 members in this parliament who were
members of the Australian Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform.
What is needed now is courage. Having been in the firing line
a few times for statements that I have made about drugs, because
I am advocating drug law reform, I know that it takes courage.
In the hope of assisting future legislators, I draw attention
to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Drug
Strategy Household Survey. It has asked these particular questions
twice: in 2004 and 2007. There has been a slight increase for
both answers in that three-year period. I believe the sample
number was 23,000, so for those who understand statistics, that
is a highly significant database to draw on.
They were asked two questions: one was assessing how they felt
about a change in legislation permitting the use of marijuana
for medical purposes. In 2004 the percentage in support was
67.5 per cent, going up to 68.6 per cent in 2007, and then when
they were asked whether they supported a clinical trial for
people to use marijuana to treat medical conditions, in 2004
it went from 73.5 per cent of the survey respondents to 73.6
per cent. So, there is actually extraordinary support out there
in the community.
I offer that to members here. If you are one of those who is
a member of the Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform, you
can go out on a limb and know that the public supports you.
Yes, you will get the bigots who will go on to an Adelaide Now
website and write virulent stuff, and you might even get some
people in here who will say virulent stuff, but the public is
behind you if you do it.
This is a compassionate measure. I ask why we should deny people
who have exhausted all other pharmaceutical measures what might
be the only drug left that might work for them. That seems to
me to be inhumane. Under this legislation, if somebody uses
it and it does not work then the medical practitioner who has
given the cannabis certificate can revoke it.
When I introduced this bill two months ago I began by saying,
'This bill is not about how we approach illicit drugs, rather
it is about how we ought to use science to assess the medical
benefit of a drug, in this case cannabis.' Some of the speeches
we have heard opposing this measure have not brought that science
to bear in their arguments and that is unfortunate. We cannot
make our decisions based on reports from Channel 9, for instance,
which was cited by one of the speakers.
Ultimately, the science is there. The international conventions
say that we must make such drugs available for medical use.
The US government, because it knows just how good the palliative
use of cannabis is, has patented it. The public is behind the
use of medical marijuana. All that is missing now is courage
by politicians. Unfortunately, I know that this bill is going
to fail when it goes to the vote because within this chamber
and within this parliament we lack that widespread courage.
Second reading negatived.
Medical Cannabis Information
Be sure to Bookmark the Hemp Embassy Website
as many of these links take you offsite.
US Patent No.6630507 was issued on 7 October 2003. It has been
kept hidden for five years, and it has only been the assiduous
work of people trying to get marijuana legalised for medical
use that has uncovered this. The application went in on 2 February
2001. Here is the abstract:
"Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties,
unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property
makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of
a wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic,
age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids
are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants,
for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic
insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative
diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and
HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil,
are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity
that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses
useful in the method of the present in vention. A particular
disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants
is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected
from the group consisting of H, CH3 and COCH3."
The inventors—and I dislike that word because it is like
a version of plant-variety rights—are: Hampson, Aidan
J.; Axelrod, Julius; and, Grimaldi, Maurizio. The assignee is
the United States of America, as represented by the Department
of Health and Human Services. So, the US government knows the
medical value of this substance.
In 14 states of the USA you can be prescribed cannabis for
cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency
virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis C, amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, agitation of Alzheimer's
disease, nail patella, or the treatment of these conditions.
Patients are also offered legal protection if they have a chronic
or debilitating disease or medical condition or treatment of
said condition that produces one or more of the following: cachexia
or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea;
seizures, including but not limited to those characteristic
of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including
but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.
Canada seems to lead the world
with its medical cannabis. Lots of good information on this
site. Click on the banner.
A note on eating cannabis.
If you take it orally (Eating cookies, cakes, etc), you could
be in for quite a ride. The liver metabolises THC into 11-OH-*9-THC,
a compound three times more psychoactive. Oral cannabis is a
powerful, almost psychedelic experience, which can be very uncomfortable
if you're not expecting it. The effects are slower to come on
(1 to 2 hours) and last considerably longer (around 4 hours).
Different people have different experiences. While one person
might go to sleep, another might smile and laugh excessively,
while another might have a panic attack. These are classic responses
but they are by no means definitive. Experiences vary. If smoking
cannabis makes you nervous or agitated, then
consuming cookies (and indeed other temporarily mind altering
drugs) may be inadvisable.
Do not assume cookies from different sources are of the same
strength. Even different batches from the same source can vary.
Know thyself. Stay in your comfort zone. Try half a cookie
first, and self-assess.
Medical Cannabis Feature Story: CLICK
HERE to play the Real Video file of the interview
with Smolder.
This interview is with Smoulder - a unique individual who has
cerebral palsy, and suffers that little bit more because of
the prohibition of cannabis. This Interview was made in 1999
at the People's Drug Summit in the Domain, in Sydney.
Smoulder is concerned that cannabis is
not legal and he would like to be able to smoke before getting
into bed each night so he can get a good sleep.
It may be difficult to understand Smoulder's
speech and Australian accent, as the traffic around the Domain
is very loud, so read the text of what he says here first.
Smoulder's message is clear and uncomplicated;
the truth.
He believes people in this country must be free to grow and
to smoke marijuana.
Smoulder: "I get very angry and can't understand
why people are not free to smoke openly and freely in Australia".
Lucy: "and what sort of difference would
it make to your life if cannabis was legal and you were able
to just get it any time you needed it, without any hassle"?
Johanne: "He still needs someone to roll
because he can't roll".
Smoulder: "I would be happy to have my
own; I can barely afford to pay rent, run a car and buy my drugs.
It is very unfair".
Johanne and Lucy: "It is unfair, it is very unfair".
Despite his apparrent disability, and difficulty with
speech, Smoulder has no mental impairment, and is actually a
very intelligent individual with a unique slant on life that
has grown from his varied experiences with institutions and
able bodied humanity.
He walks like a drunken sailor, it takes much time
and patience to learn to understand his words, and he can barely
light his joints, but he can climb into the specially built
four wheel drive he uses, and drive as well as anyone. He often
helps people out of bogs or move house, and has a very organised
mind. When you take the time to know him, he is inspirational
and your own everyday problems look insignificant by comparison.
Medical Marijuana: Whole Plant Better
Than Isolated Components in Pain Relief, Italian Study Finds
Scientists at the University of Milan have published a study
finding that whole-plant marijuana extracts provide better relief
for neuropathic pain than isolated components of the plant,
like THC alone. The research is an intervention in the ongoing
debate between medical marijuana supporters and herbal and alternative
medicine advocates on one side and the US government, some politicians,
and the pharmaceuticalized medicine industry on the other.
The use of a standardized extract of Cannabis sativa... evoked
a total relief of thermal hyperalgesia, in an experimental model
of neuropathic pain,... ameliorating the effect of single cannabinoids,"
the investigators reported. "Collectively, these findings
strongly support the idea that the combination of cannabinoid
and non-cannabinoid compounds, as present in extracts, provide
significant advantages... compared with pure cannabinoids alone."
USA Congressional drug warriors like Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN)
have long argued that marijuana is not a medicine and that any
medicinal compounds in the plant should be isolated or synthesized,
as is the case with Marinol, which contains one of the hundreds
of cannabinoids found in the plant. The DEA takes a similar
approach.
But this latest research only adds to the evidence that that
position is mistaken.
The Gallery at Cannabisculture.com
Cooking with Cannabis. So far, we've got a few nice recipes.
... This one is an
old-time favorite from the 1954 Alice B. Toklas Cook Book,.
HASCHICH FUDGE ... www.cannabisculture.com/gallery/cook/cook.html
- 34k
AAMC: Cooking with Cannabis
Chili Con Cannabis. Chuey’s Chewy Oatmeal/Raisin Delight
NEW and IMPROVED!
Coma Cookies NEW! Cooking Means Cash. Ginger Snap Heaven. Green
Garlic Toasted ... www.letfreedomgrow.com/recipes/ - 14k
cannabis cooking recipes
Marijuana, cannabis, hemp all describe the same plant cannabis
sativa. Unbiased
information about marijuana, cannabis, and hemp. (Goes to Home
page - navigate to link) www.disabilityuk.com/cannabis/
cannabis_cooking_recipies.htm" - 54k
