-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
The Big Lie
- Thread starter vta
- Start date
Above the law??
Above the law??
Although this is not FED level lying...it's still lying and deserves a shout.
Iowa Rep. Baudler’s lie to obtain medical marijuana deemed ethical
By "Radical" Russ Belville
I also lied to my optometrist...
I don't really need these glasses.
Ha! See why we need to ban LensCrafters?
Hey, you kids, get off my lawn!
We told you the story of Iowa Rep. Clel Baudler who hates medical marijuana so much that he went to California and lied about his medical condition in order to obtain a doctor’s recommendation for medical marijuana. This stunt, you see, proves how awful medical marijuana would be for Iowa, despite the fact that Iowa has never considered and would never consider a medical marijuana program as lax as California’s.
An Iowa citizen, Mike Pesce, filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Baudler.
That seems fairly reasonable to me. After all, in California, lying to a doctor to fraudulently obtain a medical marijuana recommendation is a crime worthy of a $1,000 fine or six months in jail for a first offense.
Baudler, naturally, didn’t think his lie was a criminal act because of who he was lying to:
Maybe Baudler hasn’t gotten the memo that food is Oriental, people are Asian. But cut the 71-year-old some slack; he thinks there are statutory limits on tattoos:
Well, the ethics board has reviewed the Baudler case and come to a unanimous decision:
Above the law??
Although this is not FED level lying...it's still lying and deserves a shout.
Iowa Rep. Baudler’s lie to obtain medical marijuana deemed ethical
By "Radical" Russ Belville
I also lied to my optometrist...
I don't really need these glasses.
Ha! See why we need to ban LensCrafters?
Hey, you kids, get off my lawn!
We told you the story of Iowa Rep. Clel Baudler who hates medical marijuana so much that he went to California and lied about his medical condition in order to obtain a doctor’s recommendation for medical marijuana. This stunt, you see, proves how awful medical marijuana would be for Iowa, despite the fact that Iowa has never considered and would never consider a medical marijuana program as lax as California’s.
An Iowa citizen, Mike Pesce, filed an ethics complaint against Rep. Baudler.
That seems fairly reasonable to me. After all, in California, lying to a doctor to fraudulently obtain a medical marijuana recommendation is a crime worthy of a $1,000 fine or six months in jail for a first offense.
Baudler, naturally, didn’t think his lie was a criminal act because of who he was lying to:
Maybe Baudler hasn’t gotten the memo that food is Oriental, people are Asian. But cut the 71-year-old some slack; he thinks there are statutory limits on tattoos:
Well, the ethics board has reviewed the Baudler case and come to a unanimous decision:
So apparently there is no ethical problem found in Iowa lawmakers lying or publicly admitting to breaking other state’s laws. Good to know.
Why is pot illegal in the first place? This whole subject just aggravates me so much.
somehow if we could all get together and raid the DEA
It may be illegal in IA but it grows as a ditch weed in MANY corn fields. Don't ask me why I left the west to check out the flat land, but I did. There were anti abortion billboards everywhere, but when we finally stop the rent a car for a photo op with corn, there was cannabis EVERYWHERE.
No lie, but the 71 year old must not get out much in his home state.
17 years olds have a constitutional right to strip in IA. Gays have the right to marry, but god forbid you try to smoke the stuff that grows right along side the corn.
No lie, but the 71 year old must not get out much in his home state.
17 years olds have a constitutional right to strip in IA. Gays have the right to marry, but god forbid you try to smoke the stuff that grows right along side the corn.
Koroz
Member
The lyrics of a poet to those who have no voice
and a couple that hit home for me because of the things my son is going through at school with the drone producing non inspiring "test factory" that school has become. He is a creative mind who has no inspiration in math or science, yet his ability to create stories from thin air that can fill a book in minutes to drawing comic books that started at the age of 3.. it isn't enough for them. He won't be a "good enough" producer to society if he doesn't grasp math so they want to hold him back...
Sorry to go off topic a bit, but your post inspired me =D
Private Joker
Member
Read "the emperor wears no clothes"
Answer for CARE giver^
Answer for CARE giver^
G
Guest 88950
VTA
thx for all your post's even though they infuriate me.
dont believe the govt lies.............Think 4 Yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-chP1z-lLnI&feature=autoplay&list=QL&index=2&playnext=5
thx for all your post's even though they infuriate me.
dont believe the govt lies.............Think 4 Yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-chP1z-lLnI&feature=autoplay&list=QL&index=2&playnext=5
this melinda haag bitch...funny how her name is HAG...is violating her constitutional job and oath.
her job is to enforce the laws that the people voted for..now her personally belief system.
absolutely pathetic that 1, she says she will enforce despite being state legal and 2. that this bitch hasnt been fired for a serious overstep of her powers
her job is to enforce the laws that the people voted for..now her personally belief system.
absolutely pathetic that 1, she says she will enforce despite being state legal and 2. that this bitch hasnt been fired for a serious overstep of her powers
Sandnut
Active member
if you break it down, its all about money... lawyers, jurys,bail fees, police officers, dea, fbi, shrinks, jail-labor, jail guards, the companies that make inmates clothes, all of these live of the increase of crime > arrests, man the line is long....
not to talk about the losses for the huge medical corporations that have alot of power...
And the money earned from marijuana dealing goes back to society when they buy, cars,boats,homes,jewlery....list is so long
Dont know if im kinda off-topic just wanted to put that out there for those who aren't aware of it
@VTA.. love ur signature
not to talk about the losses for the huge medical corporations that have alot of power...
And the money earned from marijuana dealing goes back to society when they buy, cars,boats,homes,jewlery....list is so long
Dont know if im kinda off-topic just wanted to put that out there for those who aren't aware of it
@VTA.. love ur signature
If the Feds Get Their Way, Big Pharma Could Sell Pot -- But Your Dime Bag Would Still Send You to Jail
We should be very wary about the DEA allowing regulation and marketing of pharmaceutical products containing plant-derived THC.
TAKE ACTION
"[M]arijuana has no scientifically proven medical value." So stated the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on page six of a July 2010 agency white paper, titled "DEA Position on Marijuana."
Yet only four months after the agency committed its "no medical pot" stance to print, it announced its intent to allow for the regulation and marketing of pharmaceutical products containing plant-derived THC -- the primary psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.
But don't for a second believe the DEA has experienced a sudden change of heart regarding patients' use of the marijuana plant -- use that is now legal under state law in 15 states and the District of Columbia (although recently approved laws in Arizona, New Jersey, and Washington, DC still await implementation). Despite growing public support for medical marijuana legalization, America's top anti-drug agency remains resolute that these hundreds of thousands of medi-pot patients are no more than common criminals, and their herbal remedy of choice is nothing more than the "Devil's weed."
It's not public pressure that's motivating the agency to consider rescheduling an organic cannabinoid for the first time since the creation of the U.S. Controlled Substances Act of 1970. (Under this act, all prescription drugs are classified as schedule II, III, IV, or IV controlled substances, while all illicit substances are categorized as schedule I drugs.) And it's not the recent publication of a series of FDA-approved "gold standard" clinical trials affirming the plant's safety and efficacy that's prompting the agency into action. (The DEA has so far refused to acknowledge these studies even exist.) Rather, the agency's sudden call for regulatory change is inspired by far more politically influential forces: The DEA is responding to the demands of Big Pharma.
Rescheduling 'Dronabinol'
The DEA initially made public its desire to recognize the use of marijuana plant-derived pharmaceuticals in a "notice of proposed rulemaking," which appeared in the November 1, 2010 edition of the Federal Register.
The agency posted, "This proposed rule is issued by the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to modify the listing of the Marinol formulation in schedule III so that certain generic drug products are also included in that listing." (Marinol is the brand name for dronabinol, a prescription pill approved by the FDA in the mid-'80s that consists of synthetic THC in sesame oil and is encapsulated in a soft gelatin capsule.)
Specifically, the DEA's intent is to expand the federal government's schedule III listing to include pharmaceutical products containing naturally derived formations of THC while simultaneously maintain existing criminal prohibitions on the plant itself. "The DEA has received four petitions from companies that have products that are currently the subject of ANDAs (abbreviated new drug applications) under review by the FDA," its post reads. "While the petitioners cite that their generic products are bioequivalent to Marinol, their products do not meet schedule III current definition provided above. Therefore, these firms have requested that 21 CFR 1308.13(g)(1) be expanded to include naturally derived or synthetically produced dronabinol."
By contrast, any use of the plant or plant-derived cannabinoids by the public will remain criminally prohibited. "THC, natural or synthetic, [will] remain a schedule I controlled substance," DEA spokesman Rusty Payne affirmed to the Washington, DC publication, The Daily Caller, in February. "Under the proposed rule, in those instances in the future where FDA might approve a generic version of Marinol, that version of the drug will be in the same schedule as the brand name version of the drug, regardless of whether the THC used in the generic version was synthesized by man or derived from the cannabis plant."
Who Stands to Gain?
Of the four petitioners cited in the DEA's notice of intent, two are companies seeking to market synthesized THC pharmaceuticals similar to Marinol. According to a March 17, 2010 letter to the DEA from Howard Koh, assistant secretary for health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, representatives from Barr Laboratories (now Teva Pharmaceuticals, the largest generic drug manufacturer in the world) and Insys Therapeutics (a biotech specializing in anti-emetic drugs) both have synthetic-THC products in their pipeline. "In both of these petitions, the Petitioners assert that their generic drug products have a similar chemical properties, composition, and therapeutic value as those of Marinol," the letter states. (In 2008, Par Pharmaceuticals of New Jersey became the first company to receive FDA approval for a generic version of Marinol.)
A third petitioner -- the Canadian-based Cobalt Pharmaceutical -- is seeking to bring an organic THC based drug to market. "Cobalt is developing a generic drug product that references Marinol [and is] requesting that the product be placed into schedule III," states a June 1, 2010 letter from Koh. "This drug product contains naturally-derived dronabinol dissolved in sesame seed oil and encapsulated in a gelatin capsule at three dosage strengths (2.5 mg, 5mg, and 10mg per dosage unit.)" If successful, Cobalt would become the first company since the passage of the federal Marihuana Tax Act in 1937 to legally market a prescription drug in the United States containing natural marijuana plant compounds.
Though not named as a specific petitioner, another major pharmaceutical company that would stand to benefit financially from the legalization of plant-derived THC is the former Mallincrodkt Baker (now Avantor), a worldwide producer of biotherapeutic agents. Testifying under oath in the 2005 administrative legal challenge Craker v. DEA, federally authorized pot farmer Mahmoud ElSohly revealed that he possessed a contract with the Big Pharma firm to provide it with organic THC extracts. Mallincrodkt desired the extracts, Elsohly explained, because they -- like Cobalt -- wished to bring a Marinol-like pill comprising of actual THC to the U.S. market.
Another member of Big Pharma that stands to benefit from the DEA's pending change is Bionorica Worldwide, a German-based company founded in 1933 that specializes in manufacturing plant-derived pharmaceutical products. In 2009, a company representative affirmed in a story on AlterNet.org that Bionorica was seeking U.S. FDA approval for both a plant-derived version of Marinol as well as a sublingual THC spray.
The United Kingdom's GW Pharmaceuticals would also no doubt welcome the DEA's call for rescheduling. GW Pharma is the manufacturer of Sativex -- a oral spray containing plant-derived extracts of the cannabinoids THC and CBD (cannabidiol). The spray is presently available in Canada and the United Kingdom, but could not be legally marketed in the U.S., even with FDA approval, until its natural cannabinoid compounds are reclassified under federal law.
Ironically, the federal government itself also stands to benefit financially from rescheduling. After all, under the U.S. government's existing monopoly on marijuana production -- a monopoly that was upheld in 2009 when the DEA rejected its own administrative law judge's decision in Craker -- no domestic-based pharmaceutical company wishing to develop products derived from organic THC could legally acquire the necessary extracts without first contracting to purchase those compounds from the federal government's sole pot farm, located at the University of Mississippi at Oxford and headed by ElSohly.
While the DEA's forthcoming regulatory change promises to stimulate the advent of legally available, natural THC therapeutic products -- and will also likely encourage the development of less expensive yet similarly synthetic alternatives to Marinol -- the change will offer no legal relief for those hundreds of thousands of Americans who believe that therapeutic relief is best obtained by use of the whole plant itself. Rather the DEA appears content to try to walk a political and semantic tightrope that alleges: "pot is bad," but "pot-derived pharmaceuticals are good."
It's a position that would appear to be scientifically untenable, and one that will do little to bridge the existing gap between the public's demand for a rational medical marijuana policy and the federal government's desire to maintain a criminal prohibition that lacks any rational basis whatsoever.
Preacher
Member
You know when the patent on Marinol expires? Four days from now, I shit you not. Amazing how they start talking seriously about naturally extracting prescription THC for the very first time in Marinol's twenty-eight year history just days before the patent protection that allows them to make a profit well over the high operating costs of synthesizing runs out.
I don't think they're even trying to hide the bullshit any more.
Edit: if I'm interpreting that correctly, an individual could legally get on the generic bandwagon... if he could muster the same legal resources and qualifications as a corporation to clear all the red tape.
I suggest homeschooling...our public schools are nothing more then mere sharades to create the peons needed for the menial tasks in our society. The teachers only care about less work for more pay and tenure. The principals and super intendents are only intrested in higher scores for more funding. It is an institution designed for children to memorize information for only enough time to pass a test and then to dismiss it as rubbish. Our schools are a fucking joke... unless your paying tuition, its more than likely they are going to daycare rather then any form of higher learning.
Author: Sam Morrison, The Leader-Post
THE NEW PROHIBITION: FROM THE INSIDE OUT
The drug war is an issue filled with almostunending controversy -and how to broach the issue, even more so. This sad state of affairs mainly manifests itself in the demonization of drug use, which is partially precipitated by the rule of law, but also by otherwise ideological barriers.
How the decision to make the possession and use of mind-altering substances, synthetic and natural, a punishable act is beyond even the most crafted and intellectual minds -unless a largely conjectural argument is allowed to form one's opinions.
In the interest of a largely benign act, an insurmountable degree of opposition to these absurd laws has been under way for the better part of 40 years. Artists, pundits, actors, comedians, lawyers, politicians, scientists, students, law enforcement and even religious fanatics have all voiced their anger at the discriminatory and unbalanced statutes that prevent acquisition and consumption of inherently nontoxic and even beneficial substances.
From the summer of love to the days of insurrection to now -the days of discussable complacence -a prolonged and biased recognition of the use of drugs has been at the center of this sideshow act. It is almost an amazing feat that authority has managed to stymie further investigation into psychedelic, and otherwise mindbending, materials. Research should continue, and allowance of personal preference should never be modified or policed.
When one recognizes what "drugs" are, then it becomes clear they are tools for altering perceptions or probing the nature of mind and the varying degrees of awareness. These substances either inhibit or exacerbate the natural perception systems in the body by binding to neurotransmitter receptors on the body's cells, eliciting a desired or less-than-welcome effect. These effects, however, are not from the drug; they are merely allowed to come to the front of experience and guide one's mentation by posing as, or imitating, the endogenous neural chemicals, like serotonin, dopamine, etc.
To create a comparable distinction for nondrug users, let's consider a few seemingly contra-dictory positions that contribute to the continuance of drug enforcement.
As consumerist fashion becomes widely accepted, more and more scents and perfumes seem to be popping up, like malignant skin cells. Most of these seemingly harmless chemical concoctions actually are made from petroleumbased substances and have a nature that is even more devious.
These "perfumes" are sprayed or applied to a surface so as to let the liquid contact air and evaporate.
As these substances evaporate and rip the hair from one's nostrils upon inhalation, they actually elicit a perceptual response in another being.
Now, how can a substance that enhances creativity, spiritual and artistic, creates a ethereal film between one and one's experience, and generally betters the lives of the people who use it, be more condemnable than a vastly unknown chemical amalgam that forces perceptions onto another being?
In the interest of space restraints, the author must resist from "talking toxicology" as this mere word can stir up so much information that an entire entry can be written of various toxicological problems in regard to controlled and uncontrolled, over-the-counter or prescribed, medicines.
These problems with social convention need to be seriously addressed before we find ourselves in a predicament with no way to justify it. Already, many are waking up to the explicitly authoritarian stance on the subject, but this isn't enough. Millions of lives ruined, in order to keep a truth and fact suppressed, just to masquerade as an intelligent and well-adjusted society.
THE NEW PROHIBITION: FROM THE INSIDE OUT
The drug war is an issue filled with almostunending controversy -and how to broach the issue, even more so. This sad state of affairs mainly manifests itself in the demonization of drug use, which is partially precipitated by the rule of law, but also by otherwise ideological barriers.
How the decision to make the possession and use of mind-altering substances, synthetic and natural, a punishable act is beyond even the most crafted and intellectual minds -unless a largely conjectural argument is allowed to form one's opinions.
In the interest of a largely benign act, an insurmountable degree of opposition to these absurd laws has been under way for the better part of 40 years. Artists, pundits, actors, comedians, lawyers, politicians, scientists, students, law enforcement and even religious fanatics have all voiced their anger at the discriminatory and unbalanced statutes that prevent acquisition and consumption of inherently nontoxic and even beneficial substances.
From the summer of love to the days of insurrection to now -the days of discussable complacence -a prolonged and biased recognition of the use of drugs has been at the center of this sideshow act. It is almost an amazing feat that authority has managed to stymie further investigation into psychedelic, and otherwise mindbending, materials. Research should continue, and allowance of personal preference should never be modified or policed.
When one recognizes what "drugs" are, then it becomes clear they are tools for altering perceptions or probing the nature of mind and the varying degrees of awareness. These substances either inhibit or exacerbate the natural perception systems in the body by binding to neurotransmitter receptors on the body's cells, eliciting a desired or less-than-welcome effect. These effects, however, are not from the drug; they are merely allowed to come to the front of experience and guide one's mentation by posing as, or imitating, the endogenous neural chemicals, like serotonin, dopamine, etc.
To create a comparable distinction for nondrug users, let's consider a few seemingly contra-dictory positions that contribute to the continuance of drug enforcement.
As consumerist fashion becomes widely accepted, more and more scents and perfumes seem to be popping up, like malignant skin cells. Most of these seemingly harmless chemical concoctions actually are made from petroleumbased substances and have a nature that is even more devious.
These "perfumes" are sprayed or applied to a surface so as to let the liquid contact air and evaporate.
As these substances evaporate and rip the hair from one's nostrils upon inhalation, they actually elicit a perceptual response in another being.
Now, how can a substance that enhances creativity, spiritual and artistic, creates a ethereal film between one and one's experience, and generally betters the lives of the people who use it, be more condemnable than a vastly unknown chemical amalgam that forces perceptions onto another being?
In the interest of space restraints, the author must resist from "talking toxicology" as this mere word can stir up so much information that an entire entry can be written of various toxicological problems in regard to controlled and uncontrolled, over-the-counter or prescribed, medicines.
These problems with social convention need to be seriously addressed before we find ourselves in a predicament with no way to justify it. Already, many are waking up to the explicitly authoritarian stance on the subject, but this isn't enough. Millions of lives ruined, in order to keep a truth and fact suppressed, just to masquerade as an intelligent and well-adjusted society.
