Pharma Market Protection- confirmed by No on 3 in Massachusetts

No on 3- an anti MJ legalization lobbyist group reveals prohibition is all about Pharmaceutical market protection- telling us that Sativex is ok while supporting maintaining the ban on natural MJ

http://mavotenoonquestion3.com/the-joke-is-on-us-or-is-it/

The first video is a throw back to major quacks as Harvey Wiley who banned the non carcinogenic Opium and Coca leaf, for the sake of protecting markets in pharmaceuticles and cigarettes. Plants as medicine are bad- nevermind the Bible's Book of Genesis. But pharmaceuticals are good- so much so that they must be protected by mis-defining people possessing or growing their own as "crime". Such is the big money reason behind such sorry excuses of politicans as Obama-Romney's contempt for public opinion and basic decency, debasing the judicary as accomplices to a costly and ongoing criminal mercantilism.

Cannabis Oil for Curing Cancer- the Medical Marijuana Next Front

Man treating his leukemia with Cannabis Oil ACQUITTED by JURY of MJ Possession Charges




http://www.koaa.com/news/marijuana-patient-uses-pounds-of-marijuana-for-ounces-of-cancer-cure-/#!prettyPhoto/0/

Stating the Obvious- Pills Safer Than Powders

easier to take measured does- contrast pills with say the salt shaker let alone powder sugar!

yet another example of the drug war undermining safety -- under some false jesuitical 'puritanism' disregarding actual safety for the sake of protecting say the crops that adorn the columns of teh U.S. Capitol building -- while promoting more problematic modes of consumption, not only from plants to concentrates, but concentrates in doses measured rather than un-measured

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2012/sep/04/danes_want_heroin_pills_addicts

http://cphpost.dk/news/national/heroin-pills-way


afternoon addition- from the above link:

Health Minister Astrid Krag (Socialistisk Folkeparti) has proposed that heroin in pill form be made available to addicts. Heroin abusers can currently receive the drug free from the state, but only as an injection.

Citing a new report from Sundhedsstyrelsen, Krag said it was time to offer a choice.
"With tablets, we get a tool that lessens the risk of incorrect dosages, injuries and incidences of cancer," Krag told Politiken newspaper. The health minister expects that the pills could be available in 2013.

 

Health Minister Astrid Krag 

Hmm.  heroin and cancer.   This has received some comments, from the first link above:

natural is best

by Paul Pot (not verified), September 05, 2012, 03:37am

 

How does injection heroin lead to cancer?
The opiates are actually amazingly safe, especially when compared to alcohol.
Legalize drugs entirely and let people who like opiates have the choice of smoking opium which is far safer than either injection or pills.

Funny how one of the safest

by sbkw1983 (not verified), September 05, 2012, 10:27am

Funny how one of the safest (if not the safest) classes of drugs (opiates/opioids) is also one of the most physical dependency forming.

It's also my favorite drug type, because over the years that I've been using, I've never had to deal with any sort of disease or disorder directly or indirectly caused by the use of said drug (with the exception of addiction).

What I'm trying to say is, I'm confused as to how opiates/opioids are carcinogenic. First time I ever heard of anything of the sort.

I hope Danish Health Minister Astrid Krag has not been bullied or threatened by U.S. drug policy lawmakers or law enforcement such as the DEA. They have been known to pull this type of shit. Yet when another country asks them to amend one of their laws - usually for a good reason - they're basically told to fuck off.

---

Perhaps this claim is a Freudian slip about the drug "laws" as what they really are- an extremely costly and continuing criminal scheme of anti opium, coca and cannabis agricultural mercantilism to protect cigarettes- THE product that used as directed takes nearly 500,000 lives annually.

US Green Jill Stein- We would actually use science to determine which drugs are dangerous and which ones are not.

http://www.isidewith.com/blog/43316191-interview-with-jill-stein

Are you in favor of legalizing all drugs or just marijuana?

We would do something revolutionary. We would actually use science to determine which drugs are dangerous and which ones are not. That means right off the bat marijuana and hemp are removed from the list of dangerous substances because these are not dangerous substances in relative to other unregulated substances including nicotine and alcohol. We would start with the legalization of marijuana and transform the drug system from a criminal system to a public health system. If people have issues of dependency which would apply to legal drugs as well as illegal drugs including alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and heavier drugs they need to be treated within the public health system. These are psychological problems not criminal problems. If you don't treat the problem it only aggravates it and compounds it with issues of public safety and criminal violence that are associated with the illegal drug culture.

 

 

She needs to also talk about Opium and Coca, though such a science based approach would also legalize these as well.

Mitt Romney's Selective Compassion

 

Ted and Pat Oparowski, citing Romney's compassion of visiting their young son with cancer.

The boy died.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2012/08/31/vt_couple_says_romney_helped_ill_son_before_death/

MONTPELIER, Vt.—A Vermont couple says they're grateful to Mitt Romney for helping them and their terminally ill son decades ago when he was suffering from cancer.
 

Speaking Thursday at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., Ted and Pat Oparowski, of Randolph, tenderly recalled how Romney befriended their 14-year-old son David as he was dying of cancer in the late 1970s.
 

Pat Oparowski said they would "be ever grateful to Mitt for his love and concern."
 

She said Romney, who they knew through their church in Massachusetts, spent time in the hospital with their son, helped the boy write a will and bought him fireworks that were eventually set off in Maine.
 

She said Romney also gave the boy's eulogy at his funeral.

 

Here un-cited is the issue of freedom of medicine and diet.   What about Romney's stance at our freedom of medicine and diet in chosing whatever agents we can afford for treating cancer?  Whether some pharmaceuticle.  Or some plant.

 

 



Consider the use of Cannabis Oil for treating cancer as promoted in the video- Run From the Cure


   

Considering all of the Republican Party lip service to fiscal sanity, is not it strange they are so in favor of continuing the big government boondoogle of drug prohibition against people growing their own medicinal plants, for the sake of a price-market support-protection for more expensive synthetic pharmaceuticel (patentable) drugs?

Drug War Cigarette Mercantilism

http://southmallblogger.blogspot.com/2012/08/drug-war-cigarette-mercantilism.html

 

 

 

Missing the Opportunity

O'Reilly makes a valuable mis-step/half-truth, which Nadelmann neglects to answer

"cocaine and meth incapacitate" (3:23)

Nadelmann could have at least mentioned the interply of pharmakokenetics and prohibition's iron law regarding Opiates and Cocaine in shifting markets to infinitely more concentrated forms of drugs and more problematic modes of drug taking.   For instance cocaine is a stimulant alkaloid found in small amounts in Coca leaves, as are caffeine and nicotine respectively in Coffee/other beverages and Tobacco.  But how much of the later two are consumed in white powder form, essentially unmeasured, of unstandardized potency, and in modes of taking that invite overdosing leading to the very incapacitation O'Reilly cites.   Do a tiny line of cocaine hci or chrystal meth and perhaps one is still within a range of enhancement -- aka a milder effect not interfering with life but rather the role of a gentle uplift.  But do a slightly larger amount, and they do interfere, like with cocaine crossing the threashold to where one does not want to hear music, and prefer to be alone or silent.   And they are easy to over-do in these concentrated forms.   So why Mr. Reilly do you insist upon a scheme that makes Opiates and cocaine only available in their dangerous forms, and which only really bans the safe forms?  

Imagine replacing Coffee with white powder caffeine.   Imagine replacing Coffee drinking with caffeine powder sniffing - or smoking or shooting.   Look at the caffeine overdose stories of those that have killd themselves with recklessly large doses of white powder caffeine, akin to BLAST.

http://www.possessedbycaffeine.com/2011/07/blast-caffeine-powder.html

 

Why is it ok to make cocaine powder and crack highly proftable and inefficent uses of police resources, while really banning only the safe and effective products such as VIN MARIANI?

Why is it ok to ban Coca/VIN MARIANI?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/12/us-drugs-un-bolivia-idUSBRE82B0QH20120312

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/19/us-bolivia-coca-idUSTRE70I0G920110119

 

Yet it is ok to permit the mass sales of cigarettes and other Tobacco products.  Nevermind that they are more physically addictive than heroin, and are most chronically deleterious, taking nearly half a million lives every year in the U.S., and over 6 million annually word-wide.

Especially so.  Why are these Tobacco products and alcohol the two classes of substances EXEMPTED from ingrediant retail labeling?   The initial 1906 U.S. Food and Drugs Act was predicated upon labeling some drugs, such as opiates and cocaine - but not others such as caffeine and nicotine.  Indeed it exempted Tobacco from its regulatory jurisdiction, by limiting such to substances listed in the U.S. Pharmacopeia which de-listed Tobacco in 1905, nevermind that this regulatory authority was vested with the U.S. Department of AGRICULTURE.   Wow!  the USDA gets to ban anything it declares as deleterious to health, yet could not regulate Tobacco- and apparantly was never challenged in a suit over this denial of equal protection under the law.  

Coca is the safest stimulant.

Tobacco is the most dangerous.

Why the hell is Coca illegal and Tobacco legal?  

Who decided that we had to ban Coca so that people could not go to the trouble of chemically processing it into concentrated cocaine, so that they no long had the option of Coca products, but only concentrated cocaine and Tobacco products?

What was the social costs of the 20th century ban on Coca and this protection of Tobacco and cigarettes?  Given their overlapping uses, the fact that the U.S.D.A. was exploring the feasibility of growing Coca in the U.S., that the U.S. had taken control of the Panama Canal project in 1903 to be completed in 1914 that would have significently shortened Coca supply lines from Peru to North Atlantic markets, and the U.S.D.A.'s stated concern specifically over the use of coca as a 'Tobacco Habit Cure', the drug war was anything other than about protecting the public's health.

That's a crime that's got to end.

Sadly, drug policy reform organizations as the Drug Policy Foundation now Drug Policy Alliance act fearful of addressing this point.

They act in defference to protecting existing markets, as part of Ira Glasser's 300 Year time frame to go as slow as possible, such as down-selling "harm reduction" as clean needles and safer crack pipes, bit don't talk about the parent plant drugs of Opium and Coca- nevermind their listing in the 1914 U.S. Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.  It is as if they were being yoked, perhaps in part by being feed some exceptionally questionable advice.

Drug War Cigarette Mercantilism
http://southmallblogger.blogspot.com/2012/08/drug-war-cigarette-mercantilism.html