Need Some Weed? Just Check Twitter

[Renegade]

Monday, July 06, 2009

Some California pot sellers are living the high life this summer — because high-tech social-networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter are allowing them to legally swap street corners for the Internet.

"Just in! Baby Crunch, Spy Diesel and Critical Mass! Buy a quarter, get a gram," read the "tweets" listing the strains of pot available from the Los Angeles-based non-profit medical-marijuana dispensary Artists Collective, which also promises "free delivery."

Artists Collective has the biggest online presence, with a snazzy Web site, Facebook and MySpace pages and the Twitter feed. San Francisco's more staid The Green Cross has a MySpace page, but like Artists Collective lists its latest arrivals on its own Web site.

"We've been open for six months, and I've been doing this project for 18 [months], and only in the last two weeks with a Twitter account has anybody started paying attention to us," says Dann Halem, director of Artists Collective. "That sends a message — an important one — and it really has been, strangely enough, the fact that we're using Twitter that has opened the door."

California's Proposition 215 and Senate Bill 420 — of 4/20 fame — allow for the production, growth and sale of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

The Bush administration ruled that federal drug laws superseded them, and the Supreme Court agreed, leading to many arrests, but in March the Obama administration announced it would not seek prosecutions in situations where state and federal laws conflicted.

"The Bush administration did have a no-tolerance policy, and the federal government was doing more enforcement under the Bush administration," says Lt. Paul Torrent of the Los Angeles Police Department's narcotics division. "I have yet to see any official stance out of the new administration, so I — as many are — am waiting to hear what the new stance is."

But though delivery services can advertise their wares publicly, they aren't able yet to just offer up the goods, eBay-style, to the highest bidder.

"When a person calls us, what we do is contact their doctor and verify that they are a patient," Halem said. "Then they have paperwork that they need to fill out. We need to see their California I.D., and assuming that they jump through every hoop and everything is as it should be, then they are welcome to join our collective."

Once in the collective, members are good to go, gaining the right to grow and sell their own marijuana back to the dispensary for a profit — all of which raises eyebrows in other parts of the country.

"The whole state [of California] seems to be saturated with marijuana farms, and it's a marijuana economy, so if they want to do it, it doesn't bother me," says New Jersey personal-injury lawyer Nicholas Kowalchyn. "It's probably out of control already. That's why the state is in the predicaments it's in. They're all stoned on marijuana."

Halem disagrees, arguing that his organization has followed all state guidelines for managing the sale of medical marijuana, and is hoping to do some good by creating $10,000 grants for struggling writers, actors, musicians and performers with the money raised.

Torrent, the LAPD officer, points out that Artists Collective may be running a risk by promoting itself online.

"[Internet ads] would have the potential to increase the sales of marijuana," he says. "Sales of marijuana out of the collective, if they're not operating within the limits of being a non-profit organization ... are, by definition, in violation of state law."

Still, if the dispensaries play by the rules, Torrent says, the police will have no problem with them.

"Medical-marijuana collectives and clinics that are running within the boundaries of [Proposition] 215 are non-profit collectives that support people that have medical problems," he says. "I mean, that's what the Compassionate Use Act [another name for Proposition 215] was all about."

The conflict between federal and state law may soon be even greater. State Assembly Bill 390, introduced in March, would legalize the growing, sale and use of marijuana, as well as levy heavy taxes on all parties involved.

To Halem, it's only logical that progress is being made to take advantage of what he feels is one of the country's largest untapped resources.

"There is a $125 billion crop in this country right now, and it's illegal. A lot of that money is going to drug cartels," he explains. "If you take $125 billion and put it into the pockets of non-profit charities in the country, you can do enormous good. That's what we want to do with ours, and that's why we're being as aggressive digitally as we are."

Kowalchyn, the New Jersey lawyer, isn't convinced by California's accepting attitude toward the production and sale of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

"I don't think medical marijuana serves any medical purpose," he says. "I think it's a scam. I don't think it has any therapeutic effects. I don't think it has much in the way of painkilling effects. I mean, it's just an excuse for people to smoke marijuana. If they want to smoke marijuana then they should just smoke marijuana and not go through a charade of passing some law that permits them to do it on some bogus therapeutic basis. That's just my opinion."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530270,00.html

[Fiddlerdave]

"I don't think medical marijuana serves any medical purpose," he says. "I think it's a scam. I don't think it has any therapeutic effects. I don't think it has much in the way of painkilling effects. I mean, it's just an excuse for people to smoke marijuana. If they want to smoke marijuana then they should just smoke marijuana and not go through a charade of passing some law that permits them to do it on some bogus therapeutic basis. That's just my opinion."

I invite this blowhard to take one of the many prescription drugs that has similar side effects to Syrup of Ipecac, and find something that works as fast, as gently and as simply as marijuana does for most people to dispel the nausea that comes along with whatver positive effects the prescription drug is supposed to have.

[A.T. Hagan]

It's rather funny that it is becoming easier and easier to advertise marijuana and harder and harder to advertise tobacco.

.....Alan.

[Fiddlerdave]

Originally Posted by A.T. Hagan

It's rather funny that it is becoming easier and easier to advertise marijuana and harder and harder to advertise tobacco.

.....Alan.

One kills and sickens 100's of 1000's per year. The other kills just about nobody.

Maybe this change indicates a better contact with reality on the part of society.

[A.T. Hagan]

If people smoked as much marijuana as they do tobacco we'd see similar numbers of people sickened and killed. Combustion products inhaled deeply into the lungs are just bad no matter what the source. Marijuana produces tars just like tobacco does when it burns.

Trying to justify restricting one while endorsing the other is going to give you whiplash.

.....Alan.

[Fiddlerdave]

Originally Posted by A.T. Hagan

If people smoked as much marijuana as they do tobacco we'd see similar numbers of people sickened and killed. Combustion products inhaled deeply into the lungs are just bad no matter what the source. Marijuana produces tars just like tobacco does when it burns.

Trying to justify restricting one while endorsing the other is going to give you whiplash.

.....Alan.

Indeed, a similar amount of burning weeds of whatever source is bad for you. However, the AMOUNT of burning weed needed to accomplish a desired result does make a real difference in the actual average exposure. There are few who would consume marijauana like cigarettes.

It doe give our culture whiplash. However, there remains no commercial advertising of marijuana, with huge amounts still spent advertising tobacco.

[Malcolm]

Do you have a link???????????

[Fiddlerdave]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html

Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk
Tuesday , May 23, 2006

By Salynn Boyles


ADVERTISEMENT

People who smoke marijuana do not appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer, new research suggests.

While a clear increase in cancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users.

Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.

The findings surprised the study’s researchers, who expected to see an increase in cancer among people who smoked marijuana regularly in their youth.

“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD. “But we did not find any evidence for an increase in cancer risk for even heavy marijuana smoking.” Carcinogens are substances that cause cancer.

Tashkin presented the findings today at The American Thoracic Society’s 102nd International Conference, held in San Diego.


Boomers Reaching Cancer Age

The study population was limited to people who were younger than 60 because people older than that would probably not have used marijuana in their teens and early adult years.

“People who may have smoked marijuana in their youth are just now getting to the age when cancers are being seen,” Tashkin says.

A total of 611 lung cancer patients living in Los Angeles County, and 601 patients with other cancers of the head and neck were compared with 1,040 people without cancer matched for age, sex, and the neighborhood they lived in.

All the participants were asked about lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol, as well as other drugs, their diets, occupation, family history of lung cancer, and socioeconomic status.

The heaviest marijuana users in the study had smoked more than 22,000 joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 and 22,000 joints.

While two-pack-a-day or more cigarette smokers were found to have a 20-fold increase in lung cancer risk, no elevation in risk was seen for even the very heaviest marijuana smokers.

The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater their risk of developing lung cancer and other cancers of the head and neck. But people who smoked more marijuana were not at increased risk compared with people who smoked less and people who didn’t smoke at all.


The THC Connection

Studies suggest that marijuana smoke contains 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to lung cancer than cigarette smoke. Marijuana smokers also tend to inhale deeper than cigarette smokers and hold the inhaled smoke in their lungs longer.

So why isn’t smoking marijuana as dangerous as smoking cigarettes in terms of cancer risk?

The answer isn’t clear, but the experts say it might have something to do with tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is a chemical found in marijuana smoke.

Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging the death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors, Tashkin tells WebMD.

In a review of the research published last fall, University of Colorado molecular biologist Robert Melamede, PhD, concluded that the THC in cannabis seems to lessen the tumor-promoting properties of marijuana smoke.

The nicotine in tobacco has been shown to inhibit the destruction of cancer-causing cells, Melamede tells WebMD. THC does not appear to do this and may even do the opposite.

While there was a suggestion in the newly reported study that smoking marijuana is weakly protective against lung cancer, Tashkin says the very weak association was probably due to chance.

Cancer risk among cigarette smokers was not influenced by whether or not they also smoked marijuana.

“We saw no interaction between marijuana and tobacco, and we certainly would not recommend that people smoke marijuana to protect themselves against cancer,” he says.

[Ought Six]

A.T.H.:

"If people smoked as much marijuana as they do tobacco we'd see similar numbers of people sickened and killed. Combustion products inhaled deeply into the lungs are just bad no matter what the source. Marijuana produces tars just like tobacco does when it burns."

But is pot smoke as carcinogenic as tobacco smoke? If nicotene is a really potent carcinogen, then tobacco is more dangerous. Or maybe it is the other crap in cigarettes. Either way, assuming the risk is about the same is unfounded.
----------

"Trying to justify restricting one while endorsing the other is going to give you whiplash."

Agreed.