For some 35 years the United States federal government has been well aware that cannabis possesses potent anti-cancer and anti-tumor properties. And for the past three years, government-funded researchers have speculated that these qualities may offer “protective” effects against the onset of various types of cancer in humans, including lung cancer.

Yet to date, virtually no investigators have taken the time to assess marijuana’s potential anti-cancer effects in humans — until now.

In a clinical abstract just published online on the Cancer Prevention Research website, a team of U.S. investigators report that marijuana use, even long-term, is associated with a “significantly reduced risk” of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

A Population-Based Case-Control Study of Marijuana Use and Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
via nih.gov

Cannabinoids, constituents of marijuana smoke, have been recognized to have potential anti-tumor properties. However, the epidemiologic evidence addressing the relationship between marijuana use and the induction of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is inconsistent and conflicting. Cases (n = 434) were patients with incident HNSCC disease from nine medical facilities in the Greater Boston, MA area between December 1999 and December 2003. Controls (n = 547) were frequency matched to cases on age (+/-3 years), gender, and town of residence, randomly selected from Massachusetts town books.

… After adjusting for potential confounders (including smoking and alcohol drinking), 10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of HNSCC [odds ratio (OR)(10-<20 years versus never users), 0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.22-0.67]. Among marijuana users moderate weekly use was associated with reduced risk (OR(0.5-<1.5 times versus <0.5 time), 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.85). The magnitude of reduced risk was more pronounced for those who started use at an older age (OR(15-<20 years versus never users), 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30-0.95; OR(>/=20 years versus never users), 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.90; P(trend) < 0.001).

Our study suggests that moderate marijuana use is associated with reduced risk of HNSCC.

I’ve said this before but it bears repeating. What possible advancements in the treatment of cancer could have been achieved over the past 35 years had U.S. government officials, or for that matter members of the mainstream media, chosen to advance — rather than to suppress — clinical research into the anti-cancer effects of cannabis? It’s a shame we have to speculate; it’s even more tragic that tens of thousands of families must needlessly suffer while we do.

Earlier this year NORML requested your assistance to help us launch the first ever nationwide television ad campaign calling for the regulation of cannabis for adults. Because of your generous support, NORML was able to purchase over 7,500 ad buys in all 50 states on cable networks like CNN, CNBC, Fox News, Fuse, FX Networks, G4, MSNBC, CNN Headline News, and Spike TV. These ads were viewed by over 2.4 million households nationwide.

Today we are asking for your help so that we can once again make history.

For the past several weeks NORML has been negotiating with CBS radio to launch the nation’s first live talk radio show dedicated to all things cannabis: NORML SHOW LIVE: Marijuana Nation. That’s right, NORML is planning to take the talk radio world by storm – and we intend to smoke the competition!

NORML SHOW LIVE, will be hosted by Russ Belville – the voice of NORML’s daily podcast, the Audio Stash — and will air on ChatAboutIt.com, the next generation of talk radio. ChatAboutIt.com streaming online radio is powered by CBS radio and features original and cutting edge programming – available free over the internet or via download on your iPhone or Blackberry.

The cultural and political influence of talk radio is undeniable and is growing –- as is the popularity of streaming radio. Today, one in seven adults between the ages of 18 to 54 listens to online radio. This audience has more than doubled over the past four years and is expected to grow significantly in the future. NORML’s content and message naturally appeals to this demographic, which is frequently turning away from the mainstream media and turning to groups like NORML to obtain fact-based educational and political information about the world’s most popular plant.

However, before we launch this effort, we want to hear from you — the cannabis community. Please offer us your thoughts and suggestions regarding how we can make NORML SHOW LIVE: Marijuana Nation the premiere talk destination for activists and NORML supporters. I have no doubt that much of the success of this venture will be based on the active participation and support of our members and listeners.

Even more importantly, we need your donations to help defray the start-up costs associated with launching and publicizing NORML SHOW LIVE: Marijuana Nation. In the coming weeks we need to create an unprecedented “buzz” in the marijuana law reform community, and within the talk radio industry, about our new show. Specifically, we need to print and distribute flyers at upcoming events, such as the Seattle Hempfest, place online banners on marijuana-friendly websites, purchase advertising in talk-radio trade magazines, and pay for updated studio equipment and voice-over technology.

NORML SHOW LIVE intends to be the voice of the marijuana nation for the students, homemakers, retirees, soldiers, patients, professionals, and working people who demand equal treatment under the law and for an end to America’s longest and costliest war. For a one-time donation here of $100, $25, or even just $10, you can assure that your voice will heard by millions. Marijuana law reformers will no longer have to be dependent on the mainstream media; we can be a part of the mainstream media.

Finally, NORML SHOW LIVE is seeking advertisers! If you have a business or a product, and would like to utilize and cost-effective way to reach millions of listeners each week, please contact russ@norml.org or call toll-free 888-772-3422 to inquire about our discounted introductory ad rates.

NORML would like to thank you in advance for helping us make history — again.

NORML is proud to announce the formation of its first Caribbean territory chapter in the United States Virgin Islands. USVI NORML will be working to change marijuana laws in the territory to respect the residents and tourists who choose to consume cannabis responsibly.

Linda Adler, the founding executive director, is seeking to make the islands a prime destination for tourists from the mainland’s thirteen medical marijuana states, who lack protection for their medical use when vacationing (Hawaii’s medical marijuana law does not recognize medical recommendations from other states). “This is heavily about tourism,” she says. “We are planning to include wording that not only allows someone with a state issued medical card to come and use, but those world wide travelers that come to the Virgin Islands coming from legal countries will be able to get a temporary card for their stay providing they bring required documentation.

“Just the decriminalization aspect of what we are pushing will allow any tourist to partake and risk only a civil fine of about $150 for up to 2 oz. of cannabis,” Adler continues. “Tourism makes up 70% of the GDP for the USVI. We will, as a chapter, promote before and after the fact to the domestic and international pro-cannabis sectors, both for financial support to get the law changed, but then to promote safe tourism for the so-inclined tourists.”

Also a part of Adler’s plans, should they succeed with decriminalization in the islands, is the building of a NORML St. Thomas Hotel, a resort destination open only to NORML members (who may join at the front desk) that caters to the needs of cannabis-friendly clientele and returns a substantial donation for NORML annually.

Virgin Islands residents interested in joining with USVI NORML can contact Linda at lovingadler ‘at’ gmail.com. More information can be found on the web at myspace.com/usvinorml.

Here is an update from South Dakota where the judge who placed a one year gag order on South Dakota NORML’s Bob Newland not to publicly advocate for cannabis law reform whilst on probation for a minor cannabis offense has had to defend his sentencing and constitutionally-questionable limitations on Mr. Newland’s First Amendment rights to free speech; the right to peaceably assemble; petition the government for a redress of grievances.

To place this into sharper political context, in their first attempt two years ago, South Dakotan voters narrowly defeated a pro-medical cannabis initiative, 51%-49%.

Therefore, placing First Amendment restrictions on the state’s most vocal and notable cannabis law reform advocate for a minor cannabis offense sets a wretched legal precedent for personal freedom and political organizing in South Dakota.

To make matters worse, now an anti-drug state senator is gratuitously misleading the public by claiming that medical cannabis advocates in South Dakota are disingenuous:

“Judge Delaney was absolutely correct. To characterize Newland as an advocate for the legalization of marijuana for MEDICAL purposes is untrue. He is only interested in making marijuana available for his friends and others for recreational purposes, and perhaps financial gain.”

The voters of South Dakota need to run another pro-cannabis law reform initiative and pass it ASAP, making politicos like Adelstein and Judge Delaney eat crow—like hundreds of other politicos since the early 1990s who’ve opposed cannabis law reform, only to see voter-driven initiatives wash over them, and their opposition to these important–and popular–public law reforms.

——————————–

28 July 2009

Hello everyone,

I write today to tell a tale of an execrable and gratuitous lie told by SD State Senator Stanford Adelstein.

First, on Monday, July 27, the following story appeared in the Rapid City Journal

Judge defends marijuana sentence
Jack Delaney imposed a gag order on political activist Bob Newland

By Kevin Woster, Journal staff | Monday, July 27, 2009

The well-known public advocate for the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes had previously pleaded guilty to felony possession of the drug. And Delaney wanted to make the sentence sting without imposing an unduly harsh prison term on a 60-year-old man with a relatively clean criminal record.

So in essence, he told him to shut up for a year about one thing: medical marijuana, and an ongoing campaign to bring the issue to another public vote in 2010.

Delaney sentenced Newland to one year in Pennington County Jail but suspended all but 45 days under a set of stipulations that included weekly drug tests, random searches and a one-year ban on public advocacy for medical marijuana.

Delaney rejects assertions by some that he was imposing his personal beliefs on medical marijuana through the sentence.

“I have no concern whatsoever about whether medical marijuana is legalized,” Delaney said during an interview with the Journal in his office. “The important thing was to have a sentence crafted to impose a penalty on Mr. Newland that was significant to him.”

The advocacy ban was an infringement on Newland’s First Amendment rights. Delaney doesn’t deny that. But neither does he consider it more onerous or any less appropriate than many other infringements imposed as part of felony sentences.

The random searches Newland faces in the next year would be violations of his constitutional rights, but for the felony plea. Felons can face otherwise unconstitutional firearms restrictions and the right to associate with certain people or go to certain establishments, Delaney said.

“We restrict speech as well in a lot of protection orders, or in divorces, where in some cases the parties’ freedom to speak to one another may be limited,” he said.

And given the fact that the maximum penalty for Class 6 felony marijuana possession was two years in prison and a $4,000 fine, Newland’s sentence could be considered light by others who face similar charges, Delaney said. He was particularly concerned about younger minority defendants who might get a longer jail term for the same crime.

“I’m sitting there faced with a gentleman who is older, well known, who is thought by many to be considerably more well off than he is, and he is seeking a sentence that is going to be considerably more lenient that what they (minority defendants) might receive,” Delaney said. “So my thought was that I have to take something from him that is as valuable or maybe even more valuable than his freedom.”

Delaney settled on what he calls the “partial infringement of speech,” as well as limits on his freedom of association in support of medical marijuana. Newland may still meet in private with medical marijuana advocates to plan the medical-marijuana campaign. But he cannot appear publicly in or speak on or for the campaign.

“I’m taking away a legal right of the person to associate,” Delaney said. “I’m taking away his liberties. But not nearly as much as if he were in jail.”

Typical sentences for the same felony possession charge range from 45 days to 120 days in jail, Delaney said. But many of those who receive such sentences have more criminal marks on their record, he said.

Delaney has received about 40 e-mails commenting on the verdict, with many critical of the ban on speech and public involvement in the medical marijuana campaign. Many of the e-mails came from people active in the medical marijuana movement, he said, and some engaged in “name calling.”

Others, however, were more understanding when Delaney explained his rationale.

“All felonies are serious crimes, and they have a wide range of impacts on anybody who’s a felon,” he said. “This is unusual. And if it hadn’t been Bob Newland, it wouldn’t have had the same impact.”

Contact Kevin Woster at 394-8413 or kevin.woster@rapidcityjournal.com
*************

In the online “Comments” on this story, Sen. Adelstein said this (reprinted as written, bad grammar and spelling intact):

Judge Delaney was absolutely correct. To characterize Newland as an advocate for the legalization of marijuana for MEDICAL purposes is untrue. He is only interested in making marijuana available for his friends and others for recreational purposes, and perhaps financial gain.

I met with him at the Capitol in Room 411, (or maybe 412) during the session to offer, to assist for MRDICAL purposes in a Bill, as Chair of Health and Human Services. I said that I would only do so if there were 3 (three) simple changes in the legislation he was proposing.

1. There would be a required prescription from and MD legally authorized to issue drug prescription

2.The prescription could only be given if either there was no FDA drug that would accomplish the same as the marijuana or that drug cost three more times the cost of the pot.

3. The marijuana could only come from one or two sites approved and inspected by the SD Dept of Health

He and his friends in the room flatly rejected all three saying that anyone could grow the stuff for anyone else at any time that it was needed

I walked out of the room, knowing that they had no true interest in the help for people with pain and/or suffering. I of course opposed their bill vigorously and it did not even get to the House floor.

Newland is and should be treated as a common felon. The Judge was correct from stopping his phone posturing, I only wish that it was for more than a single year.

Stan Adelstein, State Senator District 32

The details of the meeting as described by Adelstein are a lie. You can read the true story at the decorum Forum Blog, and you can comment there or at the Journal “Comments” site above.

Best regards,

Bob Newland
24594 Chokecherry Ridge Rd
Hermosa SD 57744
605-255-4032
newland@rapidcity.com

[Editor's note: This post is excerpted from this week's forthcoming NORML weekly media advisory. To have NORML's media advisories delivered straight to your in-box, sign up for NORML's free e-zine here.]

The consumption of cannabis, even long-term, has a “minimal” impact on brain function, according to a systematic literature review just published online by the journal Psychological Medicine.

An international team of investigators from the United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil, Australia, and Switzerland conducted a systematic review of the effects of cannabis on brain structure and function.

Authors wrote, “We reviewed literature reporting neuroimaging studies of chronic or acute cannabis use published up until January 2009. … Sixty-six studies were identified, of which 41 met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-three were functional (SPECT/PET/fMRI) and eight structural (volumetric/DTI) imaging studies. … Only three of the structural imaging studies found differences between users and controls.”

Investigators concluded, “Minimal evidence of major effects of cannabis on brain structure has been reported,” noting that marijuana users and controls perform similarly on cognitive tasks.

According to a 2001 study published in the journal Archives of General Psychiatry, long-term cannabis smokers who abstained from pot for one week “showed virtually no significant differences from control subjects (those who had smoked marijuana less than 50 times in their lives) on a battery of 10 neuropsychological tests.” Investigators added, “Former heavy users, who had consumed little or no cannabis in the three months before testing, [also] showed no significant differences from control subjects on any of these tests on any of the testing days.”

Kerlikowske Finds Ideology

7/24/09, 12:34 am EST
This is a major disappointment:

Obama’s drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske hit the road this week to rail against the perils of pot:

“Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit,” he said at an appearance in Fresno, California.

This is a striking departure from what Kerlikowske told me in an interview in May.

Because of the restrictive terms the Vice President’s office imposed on our interview, I’m not at liberty to quote the drug czar directly.

But when I asked Kerlikowske for an example of how he hoped to bring sound science back to Office of National Drug Control Policy, he told me that science would answer whether smoked marijuana has any medical benefit.

That’s a question that science answers, he told me, not ideology.

From this week’s comments, it appears it took just two more months on the job for Kerlikowske’s openness to scientific uncertainty to snap shut in a fit of ideological conviction.

Tim Dickinson

[Editor's Note: Do an online search on 'marijuana' and 'legalization'. One word: momentum. Further evidence is found today with the front page story about medical cannabis and the 'NORMLization' of cannabis in general in America's business newspaper of record. The article partly profiles NORML board member Dale Gieringer and former NORML director Richard Cowan.

BTW, check out the online photos and videos in the original article.]

With ‘Med Pot’ Raids Halted, Selling Grass Grows Greener
By JUSTIN SCHECK and STU WOO

JULY 23, 2009

—————
LAKE FOREST, Calif. — Sellers of marijuana as a medicine here don’t fret about raids any more. They’ve stopped stressing over where to hide their stash or how to move it unseen.

Now their concerns involve the state Board of Equalization, which collects sales tax and requires a retailer ID number. Or city planning offices, which insist that staircases comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act. Then there is marketing strategy, which can mean paying to be a “featured dispensary” on a Web site for pot smokers.

After years in the shadows, medical marijuana in California is aspiring to crack the commercial mainstream.

“I want to do everything I can to run this as a legitimate business,” says Jan Werner, 55 years old, who invested in a pot store in a shopping mall after 36 years as a car salesman.

State voters decreed back in 1996 that Californians had a right to use marijuana for any illness — from cancer to anorexia to any other condition it might help. But supplying “med pot” remained risky. The ballot measure didn’t specify who could sell it or how. The state provided few guidelines, leaving local governments to impose a patchwork of restrictions. Above all, because pot possession remained illegal under U.S. law, sellers had to worry about federal raids.

But in February, the Justice Department said it would adhere to President Barack Obama’s campaign statement that federal agents no longer would target med-pot dealers who comply with state law. Since then, vendors who had kept a low profile have begun to expand, and entrepreneurs who had avoided cannabis have begun to invest.

Some now are using traditional business practices like political lobbying and supply-chain consolidation. Others are seeking capital or offering investment banking for pot purveyors. In Oakland, a school offers courses such as “Cannabusiness 102″ and calls itself Oaksterdam University, after the pot-friendly Dutch city. As shops proliferate, there are even signs the nascent industry could be heading for another familiar business phenomenon: the bubble.

Medical use of pot now is legal in 13 states. It is also facing some resistance. New Hampshire’s Democratic governor, John Lynch, vetoed a med-pot bill this month, citing inadequate safeguards. Los Angeles, which passed a moratorium on new dispensaries in 2007, is trying to close a loophole that has led to an explosion of new ones.

John Lovell, a lobbyist for the California Peace Officers’ Association, objects to “the notion that marijuana is safe and can be used for any and all purposes to heal any and all ailments,” adding: “There are 34 different elements in marijuana smoke that are shared with tobacco.” He and others also complain about the ease with which patients can get pot recommendations from certain doctors.

Still, at a time of deep recession, the med-pot business is attracting career switchers. Mr. Werner was the sales manager of a Chrysler dealership, and dismayed with the collapse of car sales. He had a doctor’s recommendation to smoke pot, for pain from a spinal condition. One day a car-dealer friend, Bill Shofner, who also had a pot recommendation (for migraines), suggested: Why not become pot vendors?

Each invested $40,000. Following state guidelines, they set up as a nonprofit, called Lake Forest Community Collective, from which they would draw salaries.

It is on the second floor of a strip mall in the Los Angeles suburb of Lake Forest that also houses Mexican restaurants and a Peet’s Coffee shop. A customer first encounters a brightly lit front room with a security window and an Obama poster, then is buzzed into a vestibule with an ATM. Beyond that is a spotless room with glass cases displaying pot in pill bottles.

Scribbled on a board are prices, from $10 to $25 a gram, for different strains: Sour Diesel, Purple Urkel, Bubba Hash. Sour Diesel is popular, says a volunteer, and “really potent.”

This still is a far cry from, say, Amsterdam, where pot remains illegal but authorities are so tolerant that pot is available in coffeehouses.

In California, pot sales, legal and illegal, are estimated to total $14 billion a year. Medical marijuana makes up maybe an eighth of that, says Dale Gieringer, director of the state’s chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. He estimates the state has three million pot smokers, including 350,000 with doctors’ recommendations.

Full Story

Reuters columnist Bernd Debusmann ‘gets it.’

In a society awash in alcohol, he dares to ask the pivotal question:

Why do our laws embrace and celebrate the use of alcohol, an intoxicant that directly contributes to tens of thousands of deaths annually and countless social problems, while stigmatizing and criminalizing the use of cannabis, a substance that is incapable of causing lethal overdose and is associated with far fewer societal costs?

Driven to drink by marijuana laws?
via Reuters: The Great Debate

Tough marijuana laws are driving millions of Americans to a more dangerous mood-altering substance, alcohol. The unintended consequence: violence and thousands of unnecessary deaths. It’s time, therefore, for a serious public debate of the case for marijuana versus alcohol.

That’s the message groups advocating the legalization of marijuana are beginning to press, against a background of shifting attitudes which have already prompted 13 states to relax draconian laws dating back to the 1930s, when the government ended alcohol prohibition and began a determined but futile effort to stamp out marijuana.

Of course, I can’t help but blush when Bernd highlights my forthcoming book, Marijuana Is Safer, as the inspiration behind his astute analysis.

The case for adding a compare-and-contrast dimension to the debate is laid out in a statistics-laden book to be published next month entitled “Marijuana is Safer, So why are we driving people to drink?” The authors are prominent legalization advocates – Steve Fox of the Marijuana Policy Project, Paul Armentano of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and Mason Tvert, co-founder of SAFER (Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation).

“The plain and simple truth is that alcohol fuels violent behaviour and marijuana does not,” Norm Stamper, [Editor's note: Stamper is on NORML's advisory board] a former Seattle police chief, writes in the foreword of the book. “Alcohol … contributes to literally millions of acts of violence in the United States each year. It is a major contributing factor to crimes like domestic violence, sexual assault and homicide. Marijuana use … is absent in that regard from both crime reports and the scientific literature. There is simply no causal link to be found.”

I’ll be providing folks with further information regarding Marijuana Is Safer in the coming days and weeks. (The book is expected to hit stores by mid-August). But for now, why not join the vibrant discussion taking place on Reuters.com on whether pot prohibition is driving America to drink?

Yes, we know that the Drug Czar is required by law to lie, but given the abysmally low standards set by Gil Kerlikowske’s predecessor we certainly expected better than this.

Drug czar: Feds won’t support legalized pot
via The Fresno Bee

The federal government is not going to pull back on its efforts to curtail marijuana farming operations, Gil Kerlikowske, director of the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, said Wednesday in Fresno.

… “Legalization is not in the president’s vocabulary, and it’s not in mine,” he said. … “Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit.”

Most folks visiting this blog ought to recognize Kerlikowske’s first bit of hyperbole; after all, this isn’t the first time the Czar has admitted to possessing a severely limited vocabulary. It’s Kerlikowske’s second allegation — an outright lie — that truly has people flabbergasted. And with good reason.

Hundreds of scientific studies in peer-reviewed journals now document the therapeutic utility of cannabis. That’s why thirteen states, encompassing more than 25 percent of the US population, have legalized the physician-supervised use of pot. To add insult to injury, the Drug Czar was visiting a medical marijuana state (California) when he made his asinine remark.

Then again, the Kerlikowske is stunted by his limited vocabulary. So perhaps he is unable to read the findings of the hundreds of studies presently available in the scientific literature. But is that any excuse to deny what is taking place in front of his eyes?

For instance, a new study published in the Journal of Opioid Management just days prior to Kerlikowske’s foot-in-mouth speech affirms:

“Clearly, there is a growing acceptability of the therapeutic practice of medicinal cannabis use amongst organized medicine groups. … Estimates indicate that in 2008, approximately 7,000 American physicians have made such authorizations for a total of approximately 400,000 patients.”

So which is it Gil? Are more than 7,000 US physicians really all just snake-oil salesmen? Are 400,000 US patients actually just suffering from one massive placebo effect? Or are you sir, just like your predecessor, simply full of sh*t?

[Editor's note: This post is excerpted from this week's forthcoming NORML weekly media advisory.]

Oakland voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the nation’s first ever business tax on retail marijuana sales.

According to preliminary election results, approximately 80 percent of Oakland voters approved the new tax (which appeared on the ballot as Measure F), which imposes an additional tax for “cannabis businesses” of $18 for every $1,000 of gross receipts beginning January 1, 2010.

Presently, Oakland’s medical cannabis dispensaries are taxed at the same rate as other retail sales businesses ($60 per year for the $50,000 of gross receipts, plus $1.20 for each additional $100,000).

Four dispensaries are licensed by the Oakland City Council to sell and dispense medical marijuana.

According to a financial analysis by the Oakland City Auditor, Oakland’s new cannabis business tax will generate an estimated $300,000 in additional annual tax revenue.

Representatives from the Oakland City Council, the California Nurses Association, and the dispensary community publicly advocated for the new tax, which had no formal opposition.

“The passage of this first-in-the-nation tax further legitimizes cannabis-based enterprises in Oakland and elsewhere,” NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said. “These outlets are contributing to the health and welfare of their local communities, both socially and now economically. At a time when many municipalities  are strapped for tax revenues and cutting public services it is likely that public officials in other cities will begin considering similar proposals.”