Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

8 Anti-Marijuana Politicians To Watch Out For
Marijuana legalization might be making strides, but there’s still work to be done. Like voting out these anti-marijuana politicians.

Marijuana legalization has gained a lot of traction in the last few years. Recreational marijuana is now legal in eight states, with the potential for more to be added to the roster. Some politicians have been warming up to the idea of legalizing marijuana. But there is still an abundance of anti-marijuana politicians.

If you’re hoping to help in the legalization of marijuana, you’re going to want to know who not to vote for.

1. Pete Sessions (Texas/Republican)

Wikipedia

The list of anti-marijuana politicians starts with a powerful figure that has a lot of control over legislation.

Politico calls Pete Sessions “Washington’s most powerful anti-pot official,” and rightfully so.


Despite the growth in public support of legalization, Sessions doesn’t believe that cannabis should be legal recreationally or medicinally.

He strongly believes that marijuana is a gateway drug. He stated as such in his speech during the U.S Department of Health and Human Services Region VI Opioid Summit at UT Southwestern on February 20.

With his position as chairman of the House Rules Committee, Sessions has the power to influence every legislation before it proceeds to the House floor. For the past two years, he has used this power to put off any cannabis-legislation that has come up for discussion.

This fall, Sessions will be attempting to defend his seat against a Democratic challenger. With the growing support of legalization, his views on marijuana may act as a downfall when the time comes to vote.

2. John Boozman (Arkansas/Republican)

Wikipedia

According to his campaign manager Chris Caldwell, Senator John Boozman has a track record of voting against marijuana reforms.

Rated an F on his designated NORML scorecard, Boozman believes that medicinal marijuana has created a “free for all” in which doctors are prescribing the drug for any ailment.

He also believes that many of his supporters agree with his stance against marijuana. He stated that the mail he receives is “very much opposed to doing this (medical marijuana) at the federal level.”

3. Mike Pence

Wikipedia

Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence, has not held back his dislike for marijuana. Just like Boozman, he strongly believes that weed is a gateway drug. One that will lead to users experimenting with harder substances.

In 2013, Pence refused to accept House Bill 1006 because of its clause to lower marijuana charges. Rather than lowering the charges, he fought back in an attempt to raise the penalties for cannabis possession to a Class B misdemeanor.

Despite the opinion of the majority of Hoosiers, Pence has done everything in his power to keep Indiana’s tough drug laws alive.

4. Marco Rubio (Florida/Republican)

Wikipedia

Former presidential candidate, Marco Rubio, has voiced his negative opinion of marijuana on many occasions.

During his campaign run in 2016, Rubio stated the following. He believed that there is no responsible way to smoke marijuana repeatedly. He compared the drug with the negative effects of alcohol abuse. And declared that it should be turned into a medicine rather than being used recreationally.

“There’s no positive impact to using marijuana,” he said at a campaign event in South Carolina. “Now, if there’s a medicinal use—if you can go to the FDA and prove that it helps with medicine, that’s fine. Then turn it into medicine.”

In 2014, Rubio was also quoted saying that he would be more comfortable with the idea of medicinal marijuana if it didn’t “have the elements that are mind-altering or create the high but do alleviate whatever condition it may be they are trying to alleviate.”

Although he is somewhat open to the idea of medicinal marijuana, Rubio is firmly against legalization.

5. Mark Kirk (Illinois/Republican)

Wikipedia

According to NORML, although he has not specifically discussed his views on medicinal marijuana, Mark Kirk favors “full restrictions on the drug.”

His biggest concern lies in young users and their academic success, stating that “burnouts” were “lower performing in their careers and their lives.”

Kirk has also introduced a bill that would increase prison sentences for marijuana trafficking if the pot had THC levels over 15%, and has spoken out against amendments to increase military veterans access to marijuana.

6. Mitch McConnell (Kentucky/Republican)

Wikipedia

Mitch McConnell strong opposing views on legalization are what lands him on our list of anti-marijuana politicians to watch out for.

In 2014, McConnell made a radio appearance at the University of Kentucky.

During his interview, he stated that legalizing marijuana “completely transform your society in a way that I think certainly most Kentuckians would not agree with.”

Opposing Democratic Senate candidate, Alison Lundergan Grimes, criticized McConnell for not recognizing the economic benefits of legalization, as proven by the outcome of Colorado’s legalization.


In a report by Roll Call, McConnell discussed his opinions on marijuana directly. “I don’t think an answer to this, honestly, is to go in a direction of legalizing any of these currently illegal drugs,” McConnell said.

“This whole movement in various parts of the country is a big mistake.”

Interestingly enough, McConnell is pro-hemp.

7. Deb Fischer (Nebraska/Republicans)

Wikipedia

Senator Deb Fischer is the only female to make our anti-marijuana politicians list. In June 2016, Fischer introduced a bill that would cut money from the Department of Justice if they didn’t comply and issue a plan to monitor state-level legalization and the transportation of the drug.

She claims that law enforcement officials throughout Nebraska informed her that the weed in Colorado is much more potent. They also discussed with her the variety of forms marijuana could come in, mentioning edibles such as gummy bears.

“This is dangerous for kids. I’m opposed to it,” Fischer was quoted saying.

8. Jeff Sessions

Wikipedia

Our list of anti-marijuana politicians would not be complete without Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. He once most famously noted that the Ku Klux Klan “was okay until I found out they smoked pot.”

Like most politicians on our list, Sessions believes in the “gateway drug” theory.

Last April, Sessions urged the government to relay the message that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

In another hearing, he brought up the fact that Lady Gaga said that she was addicted to marijuana. This was in an attempt to back up his theory that pot cannot be safer than alcohol.


Most recently, Sessions rescinded the Obama-era Cole memo, which instructed federal prosecutors not to prioritize prosecuting businesses, such as dispensaries, in states that had legalized cannabis.

Executive Director of NORML, Erik Altieri, issued a statement saying that “by rescinding the Cole Memo, Jeff Sessions is acting on his warped desire to return America to the failed beliefs of the ‘Just Say No’ and Reefer Madness eras.”

Final Hit: 8 Anti-Marijuana Politicians To Watch Out For
Although our list only consists of eight politicians, there are still many more that could be added. If you believe in the cause, it’s smart to educate yourself on the views of your representatives.

These politicians may stand firmly on their beliefs, but voicing your own opinions may go a long way. Get in contact with these representatives offices and challenge their views and beliefs. They may begin to listen as more voices join the conversation.

Despite the abundance of anti-weed politicians, there is still a long list of those who support it. Politicians who support the cause can be great allies. It is smart to also familiarize yourself with your representatives that are pro-pot and legalization.

 

[Baron23]

Power grids getting high on pot: States roll out laws to make cannabis industry more energy efficient

As marijuana legalization spreads to more states, one of biggest unanticipated impacts is on the power grid.

"In Denver, marijuana production predominately happens inside of warehouses," explained Colorado Harvest Company CEO Tim Cullen. "We have to recreate the sun in order to get marijuana plants to flower indoors."

Recreating the sun is extremely expensive, Cullen said while standing in one of his company's two grow houses. "This is a 10,000-square-foot facility and our electrical bill is about $10,000 a month."

Denver's Department of Public Health and Environment estimates that the marijuana industry accounted for 3.9 percent of the city's energy usage in 2016. That's about double the amount the industry used in 2014, when the country's first legal recreational pot sales first started in Colorado.

Denver's Department of Public Health and Environment estimates that the marijuana industry accounted for 3.9 percent of the city's energy usage in 2016. That's about double the amount the industry used in 2014, when the country's first legal recreational pot sales first started in Colorado. (Reuters)

Denver's Department of Public Health and Environment estimates that the marijuana industry accounted for 3.9 percent of the city's energy usage in 2016. That's about double the amount the industry used in 2014, when the country's first legal recreational pot sales first started in Colorado. (Reuters)

Thirty states have some form of legal medical marijuana and eight of those and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational pot. Recreational sales haven't started yet in every state where it's legal but as they do, and as other states consider legalization, the industry's power consumption will grow.

"The utility companies are concerned," according to Ron Flax, chief building official for Boulder County, Colo. "And this is something that we've been seeing around the country – concern about the increase in the load in the grid. Do they have the infrastructure to handle it?"

Boulder County has started a program to help pot producers help themselves, as well as the county, by cutting electricity costs. Under the voluntary Marijuana Energy Impact Offset Fund, the county charges a little over 2 cents per kilowatt hour used by growers.

"That money for the most part is going into helping us understand how the industry is using the energy and then teaching ways to maybe do it more efficiently."

"The reality is this industry has been in the shadows for a long time," said Derek Smith, executive director of the non-profit Resource Innovation Institute.

He said many newly legal operations are, "...using, in some cases, the same technology that was used in basements in the black market days just blown up to 50,000 square feet – very hot lights, very inefficient HVAC, very little ventilation."

Another problem is a lack of detailed analysis on precisely how energy is used in individual facilities. To help companies get a handle on that, the Resource Innovation Institute launched the Cannabis PowerScore website where growers input their operational data privately, and get detailed reports on what is working, what's not, and how they compare to other operations.

"This industry doesn't need to have a bad reputation for using a lot of energy. It needs to come together and collaborate, share data, share best practices,” Smith said, “and move to a more sophisticated level of production and commerce."

"In Denver, marijuana production predominately happens inside of warehouses," explained Colorado Harvest Company CEO Tim Cullen. "We have to recreate the sun in order to get marijuana plants to flower indoors." (REUTERS)

Massachusetts, where voters approved legal recreational weed last election, isn't waiting for the industry to get its act together. The state is planning to simply put a blanket limit on grow facilities of 36 watts per square foot of cultivation space.

Smith believes other states will follow suit.

"Oregon and California have made some legislative efforts to regulate energy and I think that's going to be an ongoing evolution in the industry," he said.

That is incentive for the industry to rein in its energy consumption, but Cullen said so is the bottom line.

"There are a lot of fixed costs in marijuana production,” Cullen said. “Electrical use is one place that we can be smarter about it and...find a competitive advantage."

 

[Baron23]

Wow, this is a pretty good hit list of politicians that I personally would LOVE to see out of office. Really, I have no objections to advocating replacement of all of them, Dem or Rep.

In particular, I would love to see Harris, of my state of Maryland, out of office.

And I dunno...there is just something about Wasserman-Schultz that makes my skin crawl (ok, that was not MJ related but still....she does...make my skin crawl, that is! LOL).

What really bugs me is that these are our elected representatives. Let me say that again: REPRESENTATIVES. So, that's why I don't care WTF THEY think about MJ legalization. Their responsibility is to represent the will and views of their electorate and it has been clearly demonstrated by referendum, legislation, and polls that all of the below are NOT representing their constituents desires. Once again, we have a group of politicians who are convinced that they know better than we and if we just let them control our lives, all will be well. My immediate reaction to that type of attitude is: FUCK YOU.

Please read this article and hopefully this will help guide you in the next election.


The top 8 anti-pot politicians up for re-election this year


It’s almost election season again, that time of year when you’re bombarded with ads for people you’ve never heard of. With legalization gaining traction across the country, the 2018 election is set to become the Marijuana Midterms.

“Not only are there more and more candidates coming out and branding themselves specifically as the “cannabis candidate” in their primaries,” says NORML Director Erik Altieri, “but incumbents and other well-known elected officials are starting to make marijuana law reform crucial and public aspects of their platform.”

The midterm election generally has a lower turnout because it doesn’t come with the flair and notoriety of a presidential campaign. But in recent years, it’s become clear that local politics is playing a larger role in the legalization movement than presidential politics ever has.

This November, some prohibitionist seats will be up for grabs in the election, like Maine Governor Paul LePage who has run the course on his term limits and could be replaced with pro-cannabis candidate State Rep. Diane Russell. While in the Texas election, voters will have the opportunity to unseat increasingly unpopular Senator Ted Cruz in favor of pro-cannabis candidate Beto O’Rourke.

With over 60 percent of all Americans in support of recreational legalization and over 90 percent supportive of medical, Altieri believes that cannabis has finally become “a political opportunity not a liability.” For those holding out, he continued, “sometimes the best way to send a message is to make them pay for it at the ballot box.”

So we combed through all 50 states to find the most important cannabis races to watch during the election on November 6, 2018.

1. Arizona - Republican Congressman Paul Gosar

Rep. Paul Gosar is up for election in August. Photo by District One Detroit – D1 via Facebook
Primary Election Date: August 28, 2018.

Republican Congressman Paul Gosar is a thorn in the side of Arizona cannabis activists. In 2014, he proposed a bill targeted at recipients of government assistance programs called the No Welfare for Weed Act or HR 4142. The bill was based on the premise that welfare and food stamp recipients use federal assistance to purchase marijuana and was tabled when a similar bill was passed.

More recently in 2016, Gosar was a vocal opponent of the ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana in Arizona because it would “protect a commercial industry that profits from expanded drug use.” Arizona became the only state to vote against a ballot question to legalize recreational marijuana.

His Democrat opponent, David Brill, a physician, has come out in support of medical marijuana and has featured it as a part of his election platform on veterans.

“Some Veterans, whom I have treated, reported that use of cannabis with a state medical marijuana program helped them to reduce their opioid dose for chronic pain without adverse effects on their function, lifestyle or family,” Brill said.

Brill has also spoken out against the Department of Justice, calling its anti-cannabis policies a waste of law enforcement resources.

“Legalizing and taxing marijuana is an ethical and economic path forward that will help all of us,” he wrote. “An individual’s freedom and choice with what they do with their own body should not be interfered with.”

2. California - Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein

Senator Dianne Feinstein has been anti-pot her entire political career. She’s up for election in June. Photo of Senator Dianne Feinstein via Facebook
Primary Election Date: June 5, 2018

The list of anti-cannabis statements made by Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein is almost as long as her political career. In fact, it spans her entire political career, from her time as Mayor of San Francisco to her 26 years in the Senate. Feinstein is one of the last hold-outs among California Democrats. She was the only high-profile figure to openly oppose the recreational legalization measure in 2016 and has opposed nearly all forms of drug reform, from medical marijuana in the 1990s to sentencing reform in 2014.

In 2015, Feinstein joined Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa to write a letter to then-Attorney General Eric Holder condemning local efforts to legalize and fretting that states were losing their will to enforce federal law. Feinstein has even voted against protections for medical marijuana states, now known as the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment, in 2014 and 2015.

When it comes to Senator Feinstein, Altieri says that “it is highly unlikely she will move in our direction in any substantial way and given that her only real opposition in the general election is fellow Democrat Kevin de Leon, who is absolutely supportive of federal reform and full legalization, there really is nothing to lose by backing his candidacy and showing the electoral power of the marijuana movement on Election Day.”

Leon is currently the President of the California Senate and has, by contrast, been an advocate for cannabis. He’s shown some support for asset forfeiture restrictions and helped pass legislation which allows cannabusinesses to file their taxes in cash without fear of legal prosecution.

“Win or lose,” Altieri says, voters who care about cannabis should turn out. “It might be the wake-up call that Senator Feinstein needs to finally have her “come to Jesus” moment on marijuana policy.”

3. Florida - Democrat Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) held a press conference to announce that she was introducing legislation in Congress that would require background checks for purchasers of ammunition on March 26, 2018 in Pembroke Pines, Florida. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Primary Election Date: August 28, 2018

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is one Rep who probably wishes her name would stay out of the headlines, especially prior to an election. Not only was she at the center of the 2016 DNC email scandal, she was also exposed in a 2015 Politico article which showed correspondence between her and cannabis advocate and lawyer John Morgan.

In those emails, Wasserman Schultz offered to change her stance on medical marijuana if Morgan would take back what he had said about her in the media. Morgan responded with: “she is a bully. I beat bullies up for a living.”

The Congresswoman’s opposition to medical marijuana is allegedly linked to the funding her campaign received from the liquor industry. In her last bid for re-election, that amounted to a $15,000 contribution from Southern Wine & Spirits and $10,000 from the National Beer Wholesalers Association.

When asked about cannabis in a 2016 interview with the New York Times, Wasserman Schultz said, “I just don’t think we should legalize more mind-altering substances if we want to make it less likely that people travel down the path toward using drugs.”

Her Democrat challenger, Tim Canova, on the other hand, received NORML’s endorsement in his unsuccessful bid against her in 2016. Canova has returned to challenge Wasserman Schultz in the August primary election, for which voters must be registered by July 30th.

Canova supported the unsuccessful 2014 medical marijuana referendum. He claims not to take any contributions from corporate interests at all and, according to Open Secrets, the majority of his funding comes from individual donors.

Even Wasserman Schultz’s Republican opponent Joe Kaufman supports legalization, including in his platform which says “medical marijuana is not an issue of social conduct or moral decay; it is a matter of compassion.”

Kaufman’s policy is inspired by his mother who suffers from MS. He believes his mother’s opioid-based treatment could be replaced with marijuana.

But Kaufman only supports the medicinal use of cannabis, saying that it should be treated like other controlled medicinal substances. He also proposes that the tax revenue from marijuana be used to fund addiction services and mental health.

4. Georgia - Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga

Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., right, speaks with actor John Slattery before the start of The Creative Rights Caucus event on “Anatomy of a Movie,” in the Hart Senate Office Building on Wednesday, June 8, 2016. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
Primary Election Date: May 22, 2018

Even though progress toward legalization has been slow in Georgia, it’s sorely needed in their local communities. The state’s Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, has some of the country’s most disproportionate marijuana arrests.

That’s where Republican Congressman Doug Collins comes in. In a 2012 Facebook post from his first election, Collins opposed legalization writing, “Legalizing marijuana is NOT part of our conservative Northeast Georgia values.”

In the race for the Republican nomination, against journalist Martha Zoller, both candidates ran websites devoted to attack ads. Collins’ site featured an ad which called Zoller “crazy” on a range of issues. Among them was a quote attributed to Zoller which said: “I think a lot of people are looking at [legalizing cannabis] I mean, we tax cigarettes and liquor.”

In addition to his anti-cannabis campaigning, Collins has repeatedly voted against veterans access to medical marijuana. Most recently, in the Summer of 2017, he opposed the Veterans Equal Access amendment as a member of the House Rules Committee.

His potential Democrat opponent, Josh McCall, a teacher from Gainesville, has included medical marijuana in his election platform saying: “Physicians know the risks of Marijuana, and they also know that it is the best medicine for certain illnesses. Making Medical Marijuana legal in all states would help address the opioid crisis and it would give doctors another option in dealing with chronic pain.”

McCall has been endorsed in the election by Georgia’s Our Revolution, the offshoot of Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign. He has been openly critical of his own party and cited Sanders’ campaign as an inspiration for his own.

5. Illinois - Republican Governor Bruce Rauner

Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, a strong oppositionist of recreational marijuana, will face a pro-legalization candidate in his state’s upcoming election. Photo of Bruce Rauner via Facebook
Primary Election Date: March 20, 2018

The race for the governorship of Illinois comes just as the state’s legislature is being pressured to consider full legalization. So whoever wins the election will either veto or sign a bill that reaches his desk. While the state’s primary election has come and gone, Illinois is now left with a clear choice between one pro and one anti-legalization candidate.

Current Republican Governor Bruce Rauner helped to implement the state’s current medical marijuana program but has since fought against expanding treatment beyond the current list of qualifying conditions. On recreational legalization, Rauner is a clear prohibitionist.

“I do not support legalizing marijuana. I think that’s a mistake,” he told the Chicago Sun-Times in December. “You know there’s a massive human experiment going on in Colorado and California and other places. We should see how that’s impacting lives and addiction and hurting young people before we make any decision about it here.”

Rauner, who has vowed to veto any cannabis legalization bill that reaches his desk, is running against pro-legalization businessman JB Pritzker in the election. In his March 20 victory speech, Pritzker called for Illinois to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana and his run for the Democratic Party nomination was all about making sure that message was heard.

His first appearance before reporters in 2018 was held in front of a dispensary where Pritzker spoke about criminal justice reform and a legalization platform that would intentionally include entrepreneurs of color.

“While Rauner, Trump and Sessions want to take the nation backward, I think it’s time for Illinois to move forward,” Pritzker said in his speech. “Our state should legalize marijuana. This is yet another moment our governor should stand up against Donald Trump.”

It was this election platform which helped Pritzker beat his Democrat Challenger, Chris Kennedy, who opted for the more cautious approach of calling for further cannabis studies.

6. Maryland - Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD)

WASHINGTON, DC – JULY 10: Doctor as well as Congressman Andy Harris (R-MD), with policy staffer John Dutton, right, speaks to engineers at the Modeling and Simulation Expo on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on Thursday, July 10, 2014. Rep. Harris represents Maryland’s 1st Congressional District of Maryland. One of his challengers in the upcoming election, Allison Galbraith, has said she would not interfere with marijuana legislation. (Photo by Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Primary Election Date: June 26

The Race for Maryland’s first Congressional District is an opportunity to rid Congress of one of its most devout prohibitionists. That man is Republican Congressman Andy Harris who has stood in the way of cannabis reform in Washington DC for years.

In late 2014, Harris threw a permanent wrench in the capital city’s legalization efforts when he included a provision in the city’s budget. It’s because of Harris that DC is still wrestling with a policy that makes possession and home grows legal, but leaves DC with no dispensaries or other options for residents to legally purchase cannabis.

In the middle of his 2014 crusade, Harris sent out a letter to reporters opposing pro-cannabis mayoral candidate David Catania. In the letter, Harris spoke out against decriminalization, claiming it would be harmful to the city’s youth.

“Passing marijuana decriminalization bills for teenagers is not the way to lower D.C.’s shamefully high rate of drug abuse among teenagers and certainly not the way to create a job-skill environment to deal with skyrocketing teen unemployment in the District, especially among minority youth,” the letter read.

More recently, Harris has taken what looks like positive steps toward a more cannabis-friendly policy by supporting the Medical Marijuana Research Act, a bill which could loosen federal restrictions on obtaining cannabis for research purposes. But his motivations behind that support actually just further displayed his opposition to full legalization.

“As a physician, I believe [the research is ] going to show it’s really not helpful in a whole lot of diseases,” he told Rolling Stone. “And in fact what will be shown to be helpful—as has been [shown] in a lot of the diseases where it’s useful—are actually not the whole marijuana plant but purified components of marijuana, like CBD or THC.”

Harris’ only potential opponent to have made a public statement on the issue is Democrat challenger Allison Galbraith who has tweeted that she would not interfere with marijuana legislation if elected.

7. New York - Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo

Photo of Andrew Cuomo by Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York via Flickr
Primary Election Date: June 26, 2018

Much like Senator Feinstein, current New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has become something of a fixture in his party despite his historically anti-cannabis sentiment.

“It’s a gateway drug, and marijuana leads to other drugs and there’s a lot of proof that that’s true,” Cuomo told Politico in 2017, “There’s two sides to the argument. But I, as of this date, I am unconvinced on recreational marijuana.”

Unlike Feinstein, however, Cuomo has shown that he’s open to the idea of legalization, having proposed funding in his most recent budget to conduct a “feasibility study” on legal cannabis in the state of New York. While he hasn’t actually provided specifics, or an exact dollar amount, for this study, Altieri believes that the Governor is not beyond redemption.

“In the case of politicians like Cuomo,” he says, “what we need to do is continue to educate him through citizen lobbying and apply pressure on the campaign trail by continually making this an issue at debates, town hall meetings, and other public appearances.”

For the time being, this seems to be New York’s only option in the election since Cuomo’s Republican challengers are firmly in the prohibition camp and his Democrat challenger, Cynthia Nixon, has yet to speak out publicly on the issue.

8. Texas - Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas

Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, speaks with reporters as he leaves the House Republican Conference meeting in the basement of the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2015. Sessions faces two potential Democrat candidates in the upcoming midterm election, both of whom have more liberal views on cannabis than he does. (Photo By Bill Clark/Roll Call)
Primary Election Date: May 22, 2018

Texas has a lot to offer this election season, but perhaps the most coveted prize for cannabis reformers will be the seat of the state’s 32nd Congressional District, which is currently held by House Rules Committee Chairman and Republican Congressman Pete Sessions.

As chair of a committee which decides which bills hit the House floor for debate, Sessions has actively prevented marijuana reform efforts from making any progress.

“Marijuana is an addictive product,” Sessions said in January, “and the merchants of addiction make it that way. They make it to where our people, our young people, become addicted to marijuana and keep going.”

Most recently, Sessions blocked an amendment put forward by Colorado Democratic Congressman Jared Polis which would have protected legal marijuana states from prosecution by the Department of Justice.

Both of Sessions’ potential Democrat challengers, Colin Allred and Lillian Salerno, have told Politico that they support medical marijuana, though neither have explicitly made it a part of their platform. Allred and Salerno became the final two candidates in the race for their party’s nomination on March 6th.

In a recent questionnaire, Allred clarified his position on marijuana saying: “The VA is an integrated healthcare provider that knows what veterans need, but it requires more resources to make sure that no veteran has to wait for the care they need. Part of that care should be the legalization of medical marijuana and cannabis as a non-addictive alternative to opioids and to treat PTSD and other battlefield injuries.”

A runoff election, which is scheduled for May 22nd, will determine which of the two candidates run against Sessions.

 

[Baron23]

Hell yeah, we support legal MJ....we are too frakin old to run from the cops anymore. haha


Poll: Older people support medical marijuana, not full legalization

The use of medical marijuana with the blessing of a doctor gets full-throated support from a wide majority of people over the age of 50 across the nation.

But only 40% of the 2,007 people polled by the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation support cannabis use for any reason, according to results from the poll released Tuesday morning.

Those nationwide results might be troubling for a coalition of groups pushing a November ballot proposal for full legalization of marijuana for recreational use in Michigan.

If voter turnout is low and the more reliable population of older voters keeps up its tradition of casting ballots in high numbers, “it will be a lot closer and it could lose,” said Bernie Porn, president of the Lansing-based polling firm EPIC/MRA.

A poll he did in February for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) also revealed some wariness among older voters for fully legalized marijuana, with 49% of people over the age of 65 opposed and 46% in favor. When the demographic is 50 or older, the support for legalization grows to 46% while opposition is 42%.

More on Freep.com:

Marijuana legalization effort vaults a hurdle with no outside challenge to signatures

Michigan medical marijuana dictionary: Words you should know

But overall, the poll of 600 Michigan voters revealed 61% backing the proposal and among younger voters, the support was through the roof with 87% of people between the ages of 18 and 34 backing the legalization proposal.

“There’s something going on in terms of pushing registration of younger voters, whether it revolves around the gun issue and the Parkland students or other issues,” Porn said, referring to the students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, who have been energized to fight for more gun control after a shooting at the school in February left 17 students and teachers dead. “And in all the states that have been holding elections so far, the turnout has been pretty strong especially among young people and women.”

Dr. Preeti Malani, the University of Michigan director of the poll and specialist in the treatment of older patients, said that while only 6% of the people who responded to the U-M poll used medical marijuana, 80% said it should be available for people with a doctor’s recommendation and 70% said they would be open to talking with their doctor about using cannabis to help with a serious medical condition.

But 66% said the government should do more research on marijuana’s health effects, both good and bad.

“The public is viewing medical marijuana as a reasonable option and health care needs to acknowledge that and catch up,” she said. “Clinicians need to ask their patients about the use of medical marijuana, particularly in older patients, because there is not a type of person who uses marijuana. It’s very mainstream.”

Malani said she has concerns about how medical marijuana is being distributed, without specific instructions from doctors, but with the advice of people who work in medical marijuana dispensaries.

“The bar is pretty low for getting a card to go into a marijuana shop. Somebody in the pot shop is going to say what people should be using and there’s not a lot of standardization,” Malani said. “If people are using this, it behooves us to try and study it. And the people in the poll were supportive of more research to help determine things like dosing.”

As the state Board of Canvassers considers the petition signatures to determine whether there are enough from valid voters to qualify for the November ballot, the forces both for and against legalized marijuana are beginning to gear up.

Scott Greenlee, president of the Healthy and Productive Michigan political action committee, which is opposed to the ballot proposal, has begun doing presentations to groups across the state saying that his stance against the ballot measure has nothing to do with medical marijuana, only recreational use.

“I get it that the perception is out there that if it’s on the ballot, it will pass. That’s incorrect,” he told a small group of Oakland County Republicans last week. “But it’s a horrible idea, and the more opportunity I have at education, the more people who come out against it.

"That 60% who say they support it are very uneducated numbers. And as we all learned in last presidential election, polls are not really accurate, so we’ve got a job to do,” he added, calling the ballot proposal “Big Tobacco, Part 2.”

He cites opposition from business organizations like the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and many in law enforcement and faith-based groups, “and that adds up to a pretty large number who will make their voices heard.”

But the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol, which gathered the signatures to put legalization on the ballot, said the opposition is merely spreading myths that the voters will see through.

“I’m always concerned with the opposition in the context of this campaign because we know there is going to be big money funding the marijuana myths that we’ve heard for years,” said Jeff Irwin, the coalition’s political director. “Folks are running around saying the sky is falling in all the other states. And it’s just not believable because it’s just not true.”

Josh Hovey, spokesman for the coalition, said that the older Michiganders are obviously an important constituency in the November election.

“Once people see the details of our proposal — that we follow best practices from other states and include strict regulation and enforcement — they’ll see that this is a reasonable and well-thought-out proposal, and they’ll support it.”

 

[Baron23]

New survey shows majority of seniors support medical marijuana

Now that a survey shows majority of seniors support medical marijuana, doctors and others who work with seniors must mobilize to ensure they get the best care.

The University of Michigan (UM) reports that a new survey shows majority of seniors support medical marijuana.

The university released findings from its National Poll on Healthy Aging on Tuesday. AARP and Michigan Medicine, the academic medical center at UM, sponsored the study.

The poll surveyed a representative sample of 2,007 Americans aged 50-80.

The Poll

Dr. Preeti Malani of the University of Michigan specializes in treating seniors and was the director of the poll. She said that while not many older Americans have used cannabis medicinally, they are open to the idea.

“While just six percent of our poll respondents said they’d used marijuana for medical purposes themselves, 18 percent said they know someone who has,” Dr. Malani said.

“With medical marijuana already legal in 29 states and the District of Columbia, and other states considering legalizing this use or all use, this is an issue of interest to patients, providers and policymakers alike.”

Four out five poll respondents said that they supported medical marijuana when it is prescribed by a doctor. Forty percent also said they would support allowing all cannabis use.

Nearly a half–44 percent—replied “definitely yes” when asked if they would consult their doctor about medical marijuana if they had a serious condition that might respond well to it. More than a quarter said they probably would do so.

Seventeen percent were unsure, while only 13 percent said they definitely would not.

Alison Bryant, Ph.D. is the senior vice president of research at AARP. She noted that two-thirds of those polled said the government should conduct more research on medical marijuana.

“Although older adults may be a bit wary about marijuana, the majority support more research on it,” Bryant said. “This openness to more research likely speaks to a desire to find safe, alternative treatments to control pain.”

Many Seniors Seeking Relief From Pain

Many of those surveyed believe that cannabis has at least some potential to treat pain, a malady common in seniors. While almost one-third said that marijuana is definitely effective for pain, 38 percent believe it probably is.

However, 48 percent believe that prescription pain medicines are more effective than cannabis. Only 14 percent think that medical marijuana is more effective than pharmaceutical painkillers. But more than one-third of those polled believe the two work equally well.

The poll also asked questions about the differences in the ease of dosing between cannabis and traditional medications. Forty-one percent believe it is easier to control dosage with medication. Only 21 percent believe it is easier to dose medical marijuana.

Respondents were also asked about potential negative effects of the two types of medicine. More than half said that pharmaceuticals have more unwanted side effects, while 48 percent believe that they are more addictive.

New Survey Shows Majority of Seniors Support Medical Marijuana

Dr. Malani said that healthcare professionals should take note of seniors’ attitudes toward medical marijuana when planning or regulating care.

“These perceptions of relative safety and efficacy are important for physicians, other providers and public health regulators to understand,” she said.

Dr. Malani also said that doctors should be asking their patients about marijuana use. However, the study found that only one in five physicians actually do so.

 

[momofthegoons]

Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

The Drug Enforcement Administration takes billions of dollars in cash from people who are never charged with criminal activity, according to a report issued today by the Justice Department's Inspector General.

Since 2007, the report found, the DEA has seized more than $4 billion in cash from people suspected of involvement with the drug trade. But 81 percent of those seizures, totaling $3.2 billion, were conducted administratively, meaning no civil or criminal charges were brought against the owners of the cash and no judicial review of the seizures ever occurred.

That total does not include the dollar value of other seized assets, like cars, homes, electronics and clothing.

These seizures are all legal under the controversial practice of civil asset forfeiture, which allows authorities to take cash, contraband and property from people suspected of crime. But the practice does not require authorities to obtain a criminal conviction, and it allows departments to keep seized cash and property for themselves unless individuals successfully challenge the forfeiture in court. Critics across the political spectrum say this creates a perverse profit motive, incentivizing police to seize goods not for the purpose of fighting crime, but for padding department budgets.

Law enforcement groups say the practice is a valuable tool for fighting criminal organizations, allowing them to seize drug profits and other ill-gotten goods. But the Inspector General's report "raises serious concerns that maybe real purpose here is not to fight crime, but to seize and forfeit property," said Darpana Sheth, senior attorney of the Institute for Justice, a civil liberties law form that has fought for forfeiture reform.

The Inspector General found that the Department of Justice "does not collect or evaluate the data necessary to know whether its seizures and forfeitures are effective, or the extent to which seizures present potential risks to civil liberties."

In the absence of this information, the report examined 100 DEA cash seizures that occurred "without a court-issued warrant and without the presence of narcotics, the latter of which would provide strong evidence of related criminal behavior."

Fewer than half of those seizures were related to a new or ongoing criminal investigation, or led to an arrest or prosecution, the Inspector General found.

"When seizure and administrative forfeitures do not ultimately advance an investigation or prosecution," the report concludes, "law enforcement creates the appearance, and risks the reality, that it is more interested in seizing and forfeiting cash than advancing an investigation or prosecution."

The scope of asset forfeiture is staggering. Since 2007 the Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture Fund, which collects proceeds from seized cash and other property, has ballooned to $28 billion. In 2014 alone authorities seized $5 billion in cash and property from people -- greater than the value of all documented losses to burglary that year.

In most of the seizures examined by the Inspector General, DEA officers initiated encounters with people based on whether they met certain criteria, like "traveling to or from a known source city for drug trafficking, purchasing a ticket within 24 hours of travel, purchasing a ticket for a long flight with an immediate return, purchasing a one-way ticket, and traveling without checked luggage."

Some of the encounters were based on tips from confidential sources working in the travel industry, a number of whom have received large sums of money in exchange for their cooperation. In one case, officers targeted an individual for questioning on a tip from a travel industry informant that the individual had paid for a plane ticket with a pre-paid debit card and cash.

Most individuals who have cash or property seized by law enforcement do not dispute the seizure. There's no right to an attorney in forfeiture proceedings, meaning defendants must foot the bill for a lawyer themselves. In many cases, forfeiture amounts are so small that they're not worth fighting in court.

Forfeiture cases are also legally complex and difficult for individuals to win. Forfeiture cases are brought against the property, rather than the individual, leading to Kafkaesque case titles like United States v. $8,850 in U.S. Currency and United States of America v. One Men's Rolex Pearl Master Watch.

While criminal proceedings assume the defendant's innocence, forfeiture proceedings start from the presumption of guilt. That means that individuals who fight forfeiture must prove their innocence in court.

For these reasons, many defendants don't bother disputing forfeitures. The Inspector General's report, however, finds that those who do often get at least a portion of their cash returned. Only one-fifth of people who had their cash seized by the DEA disputed the seizures in court. But among those who contested the seizure, nearly 40 percent ended up getting all or some of their cash returned, suggesting that the DEA's forfeiture net ensnares many individuals not involved in wrongdoing.

In a written response to the Inspector General, the Department of Justice said it had "significant concerns" with the report, noting that global criminal enterprises launder trillions of dollars annually and calling asset forfeiture "a critical tool to fight the current heroin and opioid epidemic that is raging in the United States."

It also took issue with the Inspector General's analysis of the 100 DEA cash seizures it examined, saying more of them were connected with criminal activity than the report suggested.

The Inspector General stood by the report and dismissed the Department's concerns as "assumptions and speculation." The Drug Enforcement Administration did not respond to a request for comment.

"Nobody in America should lose their property without being convicted of a crime," said the Institute for Justice's Sheth. "If our goal is to curb crime, we should simply abolish civil forfeiture" and only forfeit property after a criminal conviction is obtained, she added.

 

[Baron23]

When I saw the title of this article, my first thought was who the hell paid for a study of the obvious.


Study warns sky-high marijuana taxes drive consumers back to the black market

How governments levy taxes on the marijuana industry is not only affecting how businesses structure themselves, but also may have an impact on the cannabis black market, a new report has found.

While a boon for private enterprise, marijuana also has been a significant revenue opportunity for governments.

Many already have raked in millions in tax dollars and fees. Colorado alone has taken in more than $500 million in taxes and fees since recreational marijuana became legal in 2014.

California governments are projected to take in as much as $1 billion annually in taxes and fees with recreational marijuana sales starting this year.

However, tax policy on marijuana varies between the states. Taxes range from a 37 percent excise tax (Washington) to a 3.75 percent excise tax (Massachusetts).

A new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that tax policy has a dramatic impact on businesses and, if raised too high, could drive consumers to the black market.

Gross Receipt Tax

The National Bureau of Economic Research study looked at Washington, where recreational marijuana sales started in July 2014.

The state initially charged a gross receipts tax, which the study found led to inefficient vertical integration among many businesses.

Here’s why. The gross receipts tax levied a 25 percent tax on marijuana at every step along the supply chain. Cultivators, producers and retailers all were hit with the tax.

While state law did not allow retail to integrate with businesses in the other two areas, many cultivators merged with producing operations, attempting to skip one level of taxation.

Recognizing the issue, Washington lawmakers reformed the state’s taxes and began charging the 37 percent excise tax on marijuana sales.

With the tax incentive removed, companies can organize however is the most efficient operation based on their specialization.

However, the report also noted that “consumers bear 44 percent of the additional retail tax burden.” Which raises another issue.

Price-elastic

Price-elastic -- or its inverse, price-inelastic -- is a term that describes consumer sensitivity to price changes. At what price point will consumers in large numbers stop buying a product?

With 44 percent of Washington's excise tax burden passed on to consumers, the report found that in the short term, there was not much of a change.

However, after a period of a few weeks, sales dropped. The Tax Foundation, in an opinion piece on the report, said the drop “could indicate that marijuana still faces significant competition from black market sales.”

The foundation has long warned about raising taxes too high on marijuana (or anything, really). They noted that Colorado found a 30 percent tax rate “did not sufficiently reduce the black market.”

Most governments, watchful of events in Colorado, now aim for an excise tax rate between 10 and 25 percent. Colorado currently charges a 15 percent excise tax rate, in addition to the 2.9 percent sales tax levied on all sales in the state.

 

[Baron23]

Appeals Court Says Feds Can Enforce Marijuana Law on Federal Land in Legal States

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A U.S. appeals court says a law that bans the Justice Department from prosecuting some medical marijuana users and dispensaries does not apply to marijuana operations on federal land.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday rejected an appeal by two men charged in federal court with growing marijuana in Northern California on property controlled by the Bureau of Land Management.

The 9th Circuit has previously held that Congress barred federal prosecutions of medical marijuana businesses in cases where no state laws were broken. A three-judge panel of the court said Thursday, however, that lawmakers did not prevent the federal government from enforcing its marijuana law on federal land even when no state laws may have been violated.

 

[Baron23]

Feds Want Input On Marijuana Reclassification

The Trump administration is asking Americans for input on whether marijuana should be reclassified under international drug control treaties to which the U.S. is a party.

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

Currently, under both U.S. law and global agreements, marijuana sits in the most restrictive category of Schedule I. Domestically, that means it is not available for formal prescriptions and research on its effects is heavily restricted. Globally, it means that nations signed onto drug treaties are not supposed to legalize cannabis.

But now, the United Nations World Health Organization is set to launch a review of the current international classification of marijuana, THC, cannabidiol and other related compounds and preparations, and it wants input from member nations. In turn, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is asking "interested persons" to submit comments that can inform the country's position on the issue before it weighs in with the UN.



Specifically, FDA is inviting input on the "abuse potential, actual abuse, medical usefulness, trafficking and impact of scheduling changes on availability for medical use of" cannabis and its compounds, the agency wrote in a Federal Register notice scheduled to be published on Monday.

WHO's Expert Committee on Drug Dependence will meet in June to discuss marijuana's classification and will then make pre-review recommendations to the UN secretary-general about conducting a more in-depth analysis. Following that process, depending on the findings, cannabis could be rescheduled internationally, which would provide momentum to efforts to change marijuana's status under the laws of the U.S. and other countries.

Last year the body pre-reviewed CBD, a non-psychoactive cannabis compound found to be have medical benefits, and recommended that it be subject to further analysis. The substance, which is not currently listed under international schedules but is considered Schedule I in the U.S., "has been demonstrated as an effective treatment of epilepsy in several clinical trials" and "is generally well tolerated with a good safety profile," the WHO pre-review found.

"There is no evidence of...any public health related problems associated with the use of pure CBD," the committee wrote.

Marijuana itself has never been subject to formal review since first being placed in Schedule I of the international agreement enacted in 1961, FDA notes in the new Federal Register notice.

Public comments are due to the FDA by April 23.

Last month, UN Secretary-General António Guterres used a speech before the body's narcotics commission to tout the drug decriminalization law his home country of Portugal enacted when he was prime minister.

But also last month, the UN’s drug enforcement body issued a report warning countries not to legalize marijuana.

 

[Baron23]

Legal Pot Is Linked to Less Crime
A new study suggests it also decreases other types of drug use, including binge drinking.

Drugs and crime: The two phenomena have been linked for so long that many assume one inevitably leads to the other. Attorney General Jeff Sessions insists legalizing marijuana can inspire violent activity, while some in Colorado have linked legal pot to that state's increase in crime.

Fear-mongering? New research suggests as much. It provides evidence that legalizing cannabis in the state of Washington led to a significant decrease in criminal activity.

America is debating "the costs and benefits of a legal drug market," writes a University of Bologna research team led by economist Davide Dragone. "An increase in crime does not appear to be a plausible cost."

The study, published in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, takes advantage of a two-year window (2013 and 2014) when recreational marijuana was legal in Washington, but illegal in the adjacent state of Oregon.

The researchers focused on counties on either side of the state border—10 in Oregon, and 11 in Washington—comparing crime statistics and data on alcohol and drug consumption.

They report legalizing pot "caused a significant reduction in rapes and property crimes on the Washington side of the border in 2013–14, relative to the Oregon side, and relative to the pre-legalization years 2010–12."

These drops were quite sizable: "It reduced rapes by between 15 and 30 percent (between two and four occurrences per 100,000 inhabitants), and thefts by between 10 and 20 percent (between 60 and 100 per 100,000 inhabitants."

Not surprisingly, the researchers report consumption of pot increased after smoking it became lawful. But the change in the law apparently decreased use of other drugs, and specifically reduced binge drinking.

The results echo those of another study released in January, which found the rate of violent crime fell in counties close to the United States-Mexico border after marijuana was legalized for medical purposes.

These latest findings offer no evidence as to why the change in law is having a positive effect, but the study's authors offer four possible explanations.

First, and most obviously, they note that, for most users, pot produces "a state of relaxation and euphoria," which presumably "reduces the likelihood of engaging in violent activities." (Unless you count brutally ripping open potato-chip bags during a bad case of the munchies.)

"Second, this effect is reinforced if cannabis is a substitute for violence-inducing substances such as alcohol, cocaine and amphetamines," they write—a dynamic confirmed by their data.

"Third, the legalization of recreational marijuana may induce a reallocation of police efforts away from cannabis pushers and consumers, and towards other types of offenses," they note. And finally, it "may have reduced the role of criminal gangs and small criminals in local cannabis markets."

The researchers call this "first-pass evidence" of a link between legal pot and lower crime rates; more studies are needed. But at the very least, it suggests that, if they intend to slow this trend, anti-pot crusaders will need to come up with better scare tactics.

It's doubtful the frightening specter of higher home prices will cut it.

 

[Baron23]

"According to the US Drug Enforcement Administration, cannabis has no medical use."

"So far, only one cannabis-based drug has been approved via the traditional drug-approval route, which involves working closely with multiple regulatory agencies including the DEA and FDA. That drug, known by its generic name dronabinol, is designed to treat some of the negative side-effects of chemotherapy and AIDS, such as nausea, loss of appetite, and weight loss. It is made using lab-produced versions of THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana."

Harvey 'Big Daddy' Pollitt: What's that smell in this room? Didn't you notice it, Brick? Didn't you notice a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room?

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Tennessee Williams​

Pharmaceutical giants are sidestepping US marijuana restrictions to research cannabis-based drugs

Getting marijuana-based drugs approved in America is no easy task.

According to the US Drug Enforcement Administration, cannabis has no medical use.

Until two years ago, all domestic research on the drug had to rely on rotting samples from a single, well-secured weed facility at the University of Mississippi.

Today, researchers who want to grow marijuana have to apply for a license in a convoluted process that can take years.

Only a single cannabis-based drug has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to date — and it contains CBD, a non-psychoactive compound in marijuana that is not responsible for its characteristic high.

But as researchers are only beginning to uncover, marijuana — with its roughly 400 compounds, each of which is potentially responsible for a distinct effect — has a wide variety of potential medical applications, from relieving pain and nausea to reducing the symptoms of rare diseases like childhood epilepsy. And these benefits are emerging just as scientists are uncovering huge downsides to traditional medications like opioids.

Some are lending their support to Canadian marijuana startups growing their products in countries like Colombia; others are applying for permits to import marijuana extracts like CBD and THC; still others are obtaining approval in Europe first and hoping that validation gives them an edge during the difficult FDA approval process.

Cannabis startups are among a handful of 'resident' startups at the Johnson & Johnson incubator in Canada JLabs headquarters in Toronto. Johnson & Johnson Labs Toronto At Johnson & Johnson's JLabs in Toronto, scientists and entrepreneurs follow a gleaming steel road towards shared workspaces separated only by clear glass walls. Pops of bright blue honeycomb print and creative lighting imbue the center with a sense that change is right around the corner.

It was here, roughly a year ago, that the pharmaceutical giant welcomed the first marijuana startup into its JLabs Innovation network, an ecosystem designed to give budding companies access to the resources and leadership they need to get off the ground. JLabs accepted a second cannabis company, Vapium Medical, as a resident about three months later.

The first was Avicanna, a Toronto-based biotech company focused on medical cannabis.

As part of the JLabs ecosystem, Avicanna gets access to lab space, a Johnson & Johnson mentor, and the recognition they need to recruit top-notch scientists and researchers. In exchange, Johnson & Johnson get a chance to work with an innovative company and invest if and when they see fit.

"Partnering with JLabs allowed us to obtain a lot of credibility," Aras Azadian, Avicanna's CEO, told Business Insider. "It's also a great atmosphere to work in and to bring others in."

Avicanna's Pura Elements product lineup. Avicanna Before getting accepted as a JLabs resident (after applying for the third time), Avicanna was a fledgling startup, Azadian said. But that changed when the company joined JLabs.

In just over a year, the company went from a staff of five to 17 in Canada and 30 in Colombia, where the company grows and harvests the marijuana that goes into its products — which thus far include a series of patches, creams, and sprays that will be sold under the Pura Elements brand. Azadian said he expects a selection of those products to be available in dispensaries in California, where marijuana is legal, by the end of this year.

Azadian says that while Johnson & Johnson isn't yet invested financially in Avicanna, just being in the space significantly raises the chances that the pharmaceutical giant might eventually take that leap.

"Since we're part of their ecosystem it's much more convenient to cooperate and collaborate — a lot more so than to start working with new company," Azadian said. "I think we've positioned ourselves well to be a good fit for them."

Avicanna's initial product lineup will go to US dispensaries in states where marijuana is legal, like California.

But Azadian is hopeful that the company's research with scientists at the University of Toronto, including tests in cells and mice and eventual clinical trials in humans, will bolster their next line of products, which are geared towards treating medical conditions like eczema. Avicanna also hopes to eventually launch sustained-release capsule formulations aimed at pain relief.

"I think with our approach — strictly looking at this from a medical perspective with a team of some of the best scientists on board — I'm excited to see where this goes," Azadian said.

Other pharma companies are looking to study cannabis by importing extracts.

Instead of going the incubator route, several small pharmaceutical companies are applying for federal permits to import cannabis extracts like CBD and THC.

Those companies include Virginia-based research group Sanyal Biotechnology, a contract-based drugmaker that focuses on liver diseases and was spun out of Virginia Commonwealth University in 2015; and Noramco, a Delaware-based drugmaker that focuses on medications used to treat illnesses including ADHD and addiction as well as pain.

Both companies filed reports in March with the DEA's federal register to import cannabis extracts; Noramco also applied for a permit to import whole plant material.

Sanyal's decision to import cannabis extracts comes from a recent partnership with Ontario-based cannabis drug company Revive Therapeutics. Last year, Revive reached out to Sanyal to inquire about testing CBD for its potential effects on autoimmune hepatitis, a chronic disease in which the body's immune system attacks the liver.

Around that time, Sanyal applied for a permit with the DEA to study CBD; but the company has yet to be cleared to import the extracts.

Rebecca Caffrey, Sanyal's CEO, told Business Insider that while she understands the need for approval, the application and permitting process has seemed excessive at times. If they don't recieve the required permits by this summer, Sanyal may need to refer Revive back to Canada where another lab will take over the research.

"We've just been going through all these hoops," Caffrey said. "I understand why they have to have these restrictions, but it does make it hard to do business."

Only one cannabis-based drug has the FDA's stamp of approval AbbVie's Marinol is the only cannabis-based drug currently approved in the US.

So far, only one cannabis-based drug has been approved via the traditional drug-approval route, which involves working closely with multiple regulatory agencies including the DEA and FDA.

That drug, known by its generic name dronabinol, is designed to treat some of the negative side-effects of chemotherapy and AIDS, such as nausea, loss of appetite, and weight loss. It is made using lab-produced versions of THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

Chicago-based Abbott Pharmaceuticals spinoff AbbVie got approval for its dronabinol formulation, which is in pill form and called Marinol, by making the case that it offered advances where no other adequate therapies existed. Arizona-based drug company Insys Therapeutics also recently received approval for a liquid version of dronabinol that treats the same conditions.

The next company to secure FDA approval for a cannabis-derived drug could be the UK-based pharmaceutical company GW Pharmaceuticals, which recently secured approval for clinical trials in just four US states via its American subsidiary Greenwich Biosciences. In December, the company secured "priority review" for its epilepsy drug, Epidiolex, which could fast-track the typically multi-year approval process.

Still, the road ahead for GW is long — the company expects approval only as early as the summer of 2018. Notably, the drug contains only CBD, so there is no chance of getting users high.

"There's certainly demand for these products," Avicanna's Azadian said, "but we're still dealing with a strictly stigmatized industry."

 

[momofthegoons]

THE COUNTRY THAT PIONEERED WELLNESS IS ADOPTING CANNABIS AS A CURE

Zurich, Switzerland

For centuries, Switzerland has led the way when it comes to what we now call “wellness,” peddling the healing powers of crisp Alpine air, clear blue skies, and fine Swiss botanicals.

In the 1800s, Alexander Spengler, a German refugee working as a country doctor in the remote hamlet of Davos, developed a spa where victims of tuberculosis were prescribed walks in the brisk mountain air, marmot-fat chest rubs, and frigid showers. At the turn of last century, Maximilian Oskar Bircher-Benner fought disease with a raw-food diet, giving rise to Switzerland’s still-popular version of overnight oats, Bircher Muesli. And of course Johanna Spyri’s children’s book of the same era depicted a little girl, Heidi, whose illness was healed by Swiss herbs and mountain air.

Today, those healing herbs might well include cannabis.

Cannabidiol—the non-psychotropic chemical compound of cannabis that’s also known as CBD—is catching on in the now-global wellness community as a treatment for anxiety, joint pain, PTSD, menstrual cramps, insomnia, nausea, seizures, inflammation, and more. In Switzerland’s cities, the stuff has quickly become ubiquitous—standard fare in pharmacies, convenience stores, and a new crop of dispensaries. Unlike THC, the most famous of cannabinoids for its ability to get us high, CBD promises mental and physical benefits without the giggles, paranoia, or couch-lock.

In downtown Zurich, a convenience store advertises Swiss cannabis, hemp foods, and pre-rolled joints. Beside the cash register at a nearby pharmacy, a display bearing a photograph of a white-haired man wearing a placid smile in a field of marijuana contains CBD-enhanced moisturizer, and glass dropper bottles of tinctures that a pharmacist reports are popular with older customers who suffer from joint pain.

In 2011, a new Swiss law made room for the sale of cannabis containing less than 1% THC. (By way of comparison, the popular marijuana strain Blue Dream contains around 20% THC.) And in the last couple years, businesses selling this type of marijuana with only extremely light psychotropic effects have been multiplying. There were just five registered companies in Switzerland manufacturing or trading CBD in January 2017, according to the Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger. Eleven months later there were 410, estimated to bring in about CHF 60 million (about $62 million) for the year.

Swiss adaption has been quick, and now tourists are starting to catch on too, says Ramin Stricker, a shopkeeper at Marry Jane, a second-story shop in Zurich’s cobblestoned Old Town. “When we opened the store, nobody from the US knew what CBD was,” he says. “Now after six months, every second person knows.”

With a well-lit, white-walled space and a sign outside advertising “finest Swiss cannabis,” Marry Jane looks like a smaller version of the dispensaries now commonplace in US states like California and Oregon, where marijuana is now legal for recreational use. But in Zurich, none of the cannabis flowers, pre-rolled joints, baked goods, tinctures, salves, or soft drinks will get you particularly high. Instead, strains such as White Widow and Super Silver Haze are marketed by their varying percentages of CBD.

“Mostly people decide by the taste,” says Stricker, noting that Super Silver Haze might have a familiar flavor to people who’d smoked citrusy, THC-rich Haze strains in Amsterdam, adding that the shop has customers between ages 18 and 80. “I think it’s a good step that the people know the plant from another side.”

At least in Zurich, where the friendly pharmacist selling CBD drops alongside shampoo and throat lozenges was particularly refreshing, there seems to be little stigma attached to it. It would be nice to say the same in the US. Maybe someday, our Ricola cough drops will contain fine Swiss cannabis.

 

[Baron23]

Medical Marijuana’s ‘Catch-22’: Fed Limits On Research Hinder Patients’ Relief

By the time Ann Marie Owen turned to marijuana to treat her pain, she was struggling to walk and talk. She also hallucinated.

For four years, her doctor prescribed the 61-year-old a wide range of opioids for her transverse myelitis, a debilitating disease that caused pain, muscle weakness and paralysis.

The drugs not only failed to ease her symptoms, they hooked her.

When her home state of New York legalized marijuana for the treatment of select medical ailments, Owens decided it was time to swap pills for pot. But her doctors refused to help.

“Even though medical marijuana is legal, none of my doctors were willing to talk to me about it,” she said. “They just kept telling me to take opioids.”

While 29 states have legalized marijuana to treat pain and other ailments, the growing number of Americans like Owen who use marijuana and the doctors who treat them are caught in the middle of a conflict in federal and state laws — a predicament that is only worsened by thin scientific data.

Because the federal government classifies marijuana a Schedule 1 drug — by definition a substance with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse — research on marijuana or its active ingredients is highly restricted and even discouraged in some cases.

Underscoring the federal government’s position, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar recently pronounced that there was “no such thing as medical marijuana.”

Scientists say that stance prevents them from conducting the high-quality research required for FDA approval, even as some early research indicates marijuana might be a promising alterative to opioids or other medicines.

Patients and physicians, meanwhile, lack guidance when making decisions about medical treatment for an array of serious conditions.

“We have the federal government and the state governments driving a hundred miles an hour in the opposite direction when they should be coming together to obtain more scientific data,” said Dr. Orrin Devinsky, who is researching the effects of cannabidiol, an active ingredient of marijuana, on epilepsy. “It’s like saying in 1960, ‘We’re not going to the moon because no one agrees how to get there.’”

The problem stems partly from the fact that the federal government’s restrictive marijuana research policies have not been overhauled in more than 40 years, researchers say.

Only one federal government contractor grows marijuana for federally funded research. Researchers complain the pot grown by the contractor at the University of Mississippi is inadequate for high-quality studies.

The marijuana, which comes in a micronized powder form, is less potent than the pot offered at dispensaries, researchers say. It also differs from other products offered at dispensaries, such as so-called edibles that are eaten like snacks. The difference makes it difficult to compare the real-life effects of the marijuana compounds.

Researchers also face time-consuming and costly hurdles in completing the complicated federal application process for using marijuana in long-term clinical trials.

“It’s public policy before science,” said Dr. Chinazo Cunningham, a primary care doctor who is the lead investigator on one of the few federally funded studies exploring marijuana as a treatment for pain. “The federal government’s policies really make it much more difficult.”

Cunningham, who received a five-year, $3.8 million federal grant, will not be administering marijuana directly to participants. Instead, she will follow 250 HIV-positive and HIV-negative adults with chronic pain who use opioids and have been certified to get medical marijuana from a dispensary.

“It’s a catch-22,” said Cunningham, who is with the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. “We’re going to be looking at all of these issues — age, disease, level of pain — but when we’re done, there’s the danger that people are going to say ‘Oh, it’s anecdotal’ or that it’s inherently flawed because it’s not a randomized trial.’’

Without clear answers, hospitals, doctors and patients are left to their own devices, which can result in poor treatment and needless suffering.

Hospitals and other medical facilities have to decide what to do with newly hospitalized patients who normally take medical marijuana at home.

Some have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach, said Devinsky, who sometimes advises his patients to use it. Others ban its use and substitute opioids or other prescriptions.

Young adults, for instance, have had to stop taking cannabidiol compounds for their epilepsy because they’re in federally funded group homes, said Devinsky, the director of NYU Langone’s Comprehensive Epilepsy Center.

“These kids end up getting seizures again,” he said. “This whole situation has created a hodgepodge of insanity.”

The Trump administration, however, has resisted policy changes.

Last year, the Drug Enforcement Administration had been gearing up to allow facilities other than the University of Mississippi to grow pot for research. But after the DEA received 26 applications from other growers, Attorney General Jeff Sessions halted the initiative.

The Department of Veterans Affairs also recently announced it would not fund studies of using marijuana compounds to treat ailments such as pain.

The DEA and HHS have cited concerns about medical supervision, addiction and a lack of “well-controlled studies proving efficacy.”

Patients, meanwhile, forge ahead.

While experts say they don’t know exactly how many older Americans rely on marijuana for medicinal purposes, the number of Americans 65 and older who say they are using the drug skyrocketed 250 percent from 2006 to 2013.

Some patients turn to friends, patient advocacy groups or online support groups for information.

Owen, for one, kept searching for a doctor and eventually found a neurologist willing to certify her to use marijuana and advise her on what to take.

“It’s saved my life,” said the retired university administrative assistant who credited marijuana for weaning her off opioids. “It not only helps my pain, but I can think, walk and talk again.”

Mary Jo, a Minnesotan, was afraid of being identified as a medical marijuana user, even though she now helps friends navigate the process and it’s legal in her home state.

“There’s still a stigma,” said Mary Jo, who found it effective for treating her pain from a nerve condition. “Nobody helps you figure it out, so you kind of play around with it on your own.”

Still, doctors and scientists worry about the implications of such experimentation.

In a sweeping report last year, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine called on the federal government to support better research, decrying the “lack of definitive evidence on using medical marijuana.”

The national academies’ committee reviewed more than 10,000 scientific abstracts related to the topic. It made 100 conclusions based on its review, including finding evidence that marijuana relieves pain and chemotherapy-induced nausea. But it found “inadequate information” to support or refute effects on Parkinson’s disease.

Yet those who find that medical marijuana helps them can become fierce advocates no matter what their doctors say.

Caryl Barrett, a 54-year-old who lives in Georgia, said she decided to travel out of state to Colorado to treat her pain from her transverse myelitis and the autoimmune disease neurosarcoidosis.

“I realized it worked and I decided to bring it back with me,” she said. “I broke federal law.”

Georgia, meanwhile, permitted limited medicinal use of marijuana but did not set up dispensaries. As a result, patients resort to ordering it online or driving to another state to get it.

The conflict in the law makes her uneasy. But Barrett, who had been on opioids for a decade, said she feels so strongly about it working that “if someone wants to arrest me, bring it on.”

Others experience mixed results.

Melodie Beckham, who had metastatic lung cancer, tried medical marijuana for 13 days in a clinical trial at Connecticut Hospice before deciding to quit.

“She was hopeful that it would help her relax and just kind of enjoy those days,” said her daughter, Laura Beckham.

Instead, it seemed to make her mother, who died in July at age 69, “a little more agitated or more paranoid.”

The marijuana “didn’t seem effective,” nor did it keep her mother from hitting her pain pump to get extra doses of an opioid, her daughter said.

The researchers running the trial at Connecticut Hospice spent two years getting necessary approvals from the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the DEA.

Started in May, the trial has enrolled only seven of the 66 patients it plans to sign up because many patients were too sick, too close to death or simply couldn’t swallow the pills. So far, the trial has shown “mixed results,” said James Prota, director of pharmacy for the hospice.

Researchers point out they are still exploring the basics when it comes to marijuana’s effects on older adults or the terminally ill.

“We just have no data on how many older adults are using medical marijuana, what they are using it for and most importantly what are the outcomes,” said Brian Kaskie, a professor at the University of Iowa’s College of Public Health. “It’s all anecdotal.”

Kaskie, who specializes in public policy and the aging, received grants from the state of Colorado and the Chicago-based Retirement Research Foundation to survey the use of medical marijuana by older Americans.

In many quarters, there’s a growing appetite for solid information, he said.

“When I first started this, my colleagues joked we were going to find all the aging hippies who listen to the Grateful Dead,” said Kaskie, who has been studying medicinal marijuana for years. “Now, they’re starting to realize this is a legitimate area of research.”

Twenty researchers received marijuana from the federal program last year, which was more than any previous year since 2010, according to NIDA statistics.

In a recent funding announcement, the National Institutes of Health requested grant applications to study the effects of marijuana and other drugs on older adults and pain.

NIH, however, continues to funnel much of its funding into studying the adverse effects of marijuana, researchers said.

Although NIH acknowledged in one of the announcements that some research supports “possible benefits” of marijuana, it emphasized “there have not been adequate large controlled trials to support these claims.”

 

[momofthegoons]

"Although the medication appears to have an increased risk of liver injury, it could be managed, the report said." Okay... am I reading this right? The FDA has approved a drug made from cannabis that appears to have an increased risk of liver injury? Then ffs... why not just use cannabis itself? Why do they feel they need to 'fix' something that already works in it's natural state?

Drug Made From Cannabis Plant Gets Backing From FDA Staff
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...om-cannabis-plant-gets-backing-from-fda-staff
An experimental medication that could become the first drug derived from a marijuana plant approved in the U.S. received a boost from Food and Drug Administration staff.

The treatment’s maker, U.K. company GW Pharmaceuticals Plc, provided “substantial evidence” of the drug’s effectiveness, FDA staff said in a report released Tuesday. The medication would treat seizures associated with two rare forms of epilepsy that typically affect children, according to the report. Although the medication appears to have an increased risk of liver injury, it could be managed, the report said.

GW Pharma’s American depositary receipts rose 4.5 percent to $126 in early trading in New York.

Later this week, a meeting of outside agency advisers will weigh in on the treatment.

The drug is made from a compound in the marijuana plant called cannabidiol, a different chemical from tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which gives marijuana its euphoric effect.

Strawberry Flavored
The treatment, which GW Pharma hopes to market under the name Epidiolex, is produced in the U.K. from a plant that has been bred to have a high cannabidiol, or CBD, content, Chief Executive Officer Justin Gover said in an interview earlier this month. The chemical is purified and made into a strawberry-flavored oral solution, he said.

Approval could help pave the way for other cannabis-based drugs, Gover said.

“Epidiolex, if approved, will mark a sea change in the acceptability of cannabinoids as therapy,” he said.

Twenty-nine states and Washington, D.C., have passed laws legalizing medical marijuana. FDA approval would provide patients with a consistent therapy that likely will be covered by insurance, Gover said.

20 percent of children with Dravet syndrome die before reaching adulthood, according to the National Institutes of Health.

The FDA has approved a few drugs made from synthetic cannabinoids, including Insys Therapeutics Inc.’s Syndros for loss of appetite in people with AIDS and nausea caused by chemotherapy. Insys is developing a cannabidiol oral solution for a severe type of epileptic seizure known as infantile spasms, and childhood epilepsy defined by staring spells where the child isn’t aware or responsive.

The FDA is expected to decide whether to approve GW Pharma’s drug by June 27. The agency will first discuss the drug with advisers on Thursday.

GW Pharma is studying the medication to treat other diseases, including infantile spasms.

 

[BD9]

made from cannabis that appears to have an increased risk of liver injury? Then ffs... why not just use cannabis itself? Why do they feel they need to 'fix' something that already works in it's natural state?


GW Pharma’s American depositary receipts rose 4.5 percent to $126 in early trading in New York.

Because of this;

GW Pharma’s American depositary receipts rose 4.5 percent to $126 in early trading in New York.

Money is more important than people.

 

[Fat Freddy]

It's Official! Curing Patients Is Bad for Business

NOTE: Have a bowl or pan nearby after reading to catch your vomit!!

 

[BD9]

It's Official! Curing Patients Is Bad for Business

NOTE: Have a bowl or pan nearby after reading to catch your vomit!!

Damn! That was a hard one to like @Fat Freddy. Thank you for posting this.

The obvious suggestion: Could you possibly make the drug a bit less effective, so that people would need to continue to take it on an ongoing basis, so you would be able to generate more money?

The company says no.

The imagined response: Well, if you insist on making a drug that cures with one dose, we would recommend charging a king's ransom for it. Could we propose that you charge $1 million for a course of treatment?

Do you think such a figure is exaggerated?

Early this year, Spark Therapeutics introduced its new drug (Luxturna) for a rare form of blindness. It promises a cure with a single dose. The price tag is $425,000 per eye. That means $850,000 for a cure.

And it gets worse.

In 2012, a company called uniQure N.V. marketed Glybera (tiparvovec) for the treatment of lipoprotein lipase deficiency at a price of $1.6 million per treatment. After one patient in the entire world was treated, no one seemed excited about prescribing the overpriced drug, and the company did not renew its marketing license.

 

[Baron23]

"Although the medication appears to have an increased risk of liver injury, it could be managed, the report said." Okay... am I reading this right? The FDA has approved a drug made from cannabis that appears to have an increased risk of liver injury? Then ffs... why not just use cannabis itself? Why do they feel they need to 'fix' something that already works in it's natural state?

Drug Made From Cannabis Plant Gets Backing From FDA Staff
An experimental medication that could become the first drug derived from a marijuana plant approved in the U.S. received a boost from Food and Drug Administration staff.

The treatment’s maker, U.K. company GW Pharmaceuticals Plc, provided “substantial evidence” of the drug’s effectiveness, FDA staff said in a report released Tuesday. The medication would treat seizures associated with two rare forms of epilepsy that typically affect children, according to the report. Although the medication appears to have an increased risk of liver injury, it could be managed, the report said.

GW Pharma’s American depositary receipts rose 4.5 percent to $126 in early trading in New York.

Later this week, a meeting of outside agency advisers will weigh in on the treatment.

The drug is made from a compound in the marijuana plant called cannabidiol, a different chemical from tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which gives marijuana its euphoric effect.

Strawberry Flavored
The treatment, which GW Pharma hopes to market under the name Epidiolex, is produced in the U.K. from a plant that has been bred to have a high cannabidiol, or CBD, content, Chief Executive Officer Justin Gover said in an interview earlier this month. The chemical is purified and made into a strawberry-flavored oral solution, he said.

Approval could help pave the way for other cannabis-based drugs, Gover said.

“Epidiolex, if approved, will mark a sea change in the acceptability of cannabinoids as therapy,” he said.

Twenty-nine states and Washington, D.C., have passed laws legalizing medical marijuana. FDA approval would provide patients with a consistent therapy that likely will be covered by insurance, Gover said.

20 percent of children with Dravet syndrome die before reaching adulthood, according to the National Institutes of Health.

The FDA has approved a few drugs made from synthetic cannabinoids, including Insys Therapeutics Inc.’s Syndros for loss of appetite in people with AIDS and nausea caused by chemotherapy. Insys is developing a cannabidiol oral solution for a severe type of epileptic seizure known as infantile spasms, and childhood epilepsy defined by staring spells where the child isn’t aware or responsive.

The FDA is expected to decide whether to approve GW Pharma’s drug by June 27. The agency will first discuss the drug with advisers on Thursday.

GW Pharma is studying the medication to treat other diseases, including infantile spasms.

And the Fed government continues to fail to reconcile MJ as being Schedule 1, with no medical application, with the fact that at the same time they are approving drugs that are in fact derived from cannabis. Hell....if we could get our government to talk out of only two sides of its mouth we might be able to get somewhere. sigh

 

[Baron23]

Posting this here as "oh, but what about the children" is one of the rallying cries of SAM and rest of the dedicated anti-cannabis.

Well, this knocks one of those pins out from under those fact challenged people.

Youngs don't have to worry about smoking too much weed
A meta-review shows there are no long-term cognitive effects from using marijuana.

Marijuana causes brain cells to die, concluded a Tulane researcher in 1974. Dr. Robert Heath breathlessly warned media that “we seem to be playing with dangerous, dangerous stuff,” when it comes to weed. Not only were his findings debunked by later studies, it turns out the doctor had pumped marijuana smoke through gas masks attached to the monkeys’ faces. Asphyxiation caused the death of brain cells in the poor monkeys – not cannabis.

Even so, the myth that marijuana makes people dumb continues to endure. These days, anti-cannabis advocates warn about weed’s “likely connection with cognitive decline.”

But a new study in JAMA Psychiatry “found little evidence for more severe effects with cannabis use at earlier ages.” The research, led by University of Pennsylvania researcher Dr. J. Cobb Scott, sought to get to the bottom of the issue with a meta-analysis of 69 studies that examined cannabis use by young people. More than 2,100 marijuana users who averaged about 20 years old were included.

“In light of the changing perceptions of cannabis use and an evolving policy landscape surrounding cannabis, understanding [its] potential risks… is of paramount importance,” wrote the researchers.

The study found that heavy cannabis use is indeed associated with a small reduction in cognitive functioning in young people, but these reductions disappeared once users abstained from marijuana for 72 hours.

While individual studies may offer conflicting conclusions, meta-analyses that look at all the research as a whole are able to draw broader conclusions. Even with the link between cannabis and reduced cognitive functioning, the association “may be of questionable clinical importance for most individuals,” wrote the researchers.

The conclusion “is not surprising,” said Paul Armentano, the Deputy Director of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws. In an email, Armentano pointed out studies on twins that failed to find any cognitive declines due to adolescent marijuana use.

“These findings… dispute the long-standing ‘stoner-stupid’ stereotype,” he said.

Researchers emphasized that additional “large-scale longitudinal studies are needed.” But perhaps prohibitionists should refocus their efforts on the negative effects of alcohol use over cannabis.

 

[Baron23]

"Although the medication appears to have an increased risk of liver injury, it could be managed, the report said." Okay... am I reading this right? The FDA has approved a drug made from cannabis that appears to have an increased risk of liver injury? Then ffs... why not just use cannabis itself? Why do they feel they need to 'fix' something that already works in it's natural state?

Drug Made From Cannabis Plant Gets Backing From FDA Staff
An experimental medication that could become the first drug derived from a marijuana plant approved in the U.S. received a boost from Food and Drug Administration staff.

The treatment’s maker, U.K. company GW Pharmaceuticals Plc, provided “substantial evidence” of the drug’s effectiveness, FDA staff said in a report released Tuesday. The medication would treat seizures associated with two rare forms of epilepsy that typically affect children, according to the report. Although the medication appears to have an increased risk of liver injury, it could be managed, the report said.

GW Pharma’s American depositary receipts rose 4.5 percent to $126 in early trading in New York.

Later this week, a meeting of outside agency advisers will weigh in on the treatment.

The drug is made from a compound in the marijuana plant called cannabidiol, a different chemical from tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which gives marijuana its euphoric effect.

Strawberry Flavored
The treatment, which GW Pharma hopes to market under the name Epidiolex, is produced in the U.K. from a plant that has been bred to have a high cannabidiol, or CBD, content, Chief Executive Officer Justin Gover said in an interview earlier this month. The chemical is purified and made into a strawberry-flavored oral solution, he said.

Approval could help pave the way for other cannabis-based drugs, Gover said.

“Epidiolex, if approved, will mark a sea change in the acceptability of cannabinoids as therapy,” he said.

Twenty-nine states and Washington, D.C., have passed laws legalizing medical marijuana. FDA approval would provide patients with a consistent therapy that likely will be covered by insurance, Gover said.

20 percent of children with Dravet syndrome die before reaching adulthood, according to the National Institutes of Health.

The FDA has approved a few drugs made from synthetic cannabinoids, including Insys Therapeutics Inc.’s Syndros for loss of appetite in people with AIDS and nausea caused by chemotherapy. Insys is developing a cannabidiol oral solution for a severe type of epileptic seizure known as infantile spasms, and childhood epilepsy defined by staring spells where the child isn’t aware or responsive.

The FDA is expected to decide whether to approve GW Pharma’s drug by June 27. The agency will first discuss the drug with advisers on Thursday.

GW Pharma is studying the medication to treat other diseases, including infantile spasms.

Check this shit out, Mom...especially the second article on cost. I can't express my contempt for this situation...I just don't have the words.

"Epidiolex is essentially a pharmaceutical-grade version of cannabidiol, or CBD oil"​

So, MJ is illegal and has no valid medical purpose but a pharma derived (not synthesized but derived as in extracted) from MJ is fine as long as its sold for $30-60K/year. Fuckers would charge for the air we breath if they could get away with it.
Make me wish I was religious and believed in hell where all of these fuckers belong.

US experts back marijuana-based drug for childhood seizures

WASHINGTON (AP) — A medicine made from the marijuana plant moved one step closer to U.S. approval Thursday after federal health advisers endorsed it for the treatment of severe seizures in children with epilepsy.

If the Food and Drug Administration follows the group’s recommendation, GW Pharmaceuticals’ syrup would become the first drug derived from the cannabis plant to win federal approval in the U.S.

The 13-member FDA panel voted unanimously in favor of the experimental medication made from a chemical found in cannabis — one that does not get users high. The panelists backed the drug based on three studies showing that it significantly reduced seizures in children with two rare forms of childhood epilepsy.

“This is clearly a breakthrough drug for an awful disease,” said panel member Dr. John Mendelson, of the Friends Research Institute in Baltimore, Maryland.

The drug carries a potential risk of liver damage, but panelists said doctors could monitor patients for any signs. More common side effects included diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue and sleep problems.

FDA regulators are due to make their decision by late June. Approval would technically limit the drug, called Epidiolex, to patients with hard-to-treat forms of epilepsy. But doctors would have the option to prescribe it for other uses and it could spur new pharmaceutical research and interest into other cannabis-based products.

More than two dozen states allow marijuana use for a variety of ailments, but the FDA has not approved it for any medical use. The FDA has approved synthetic versions of another cannabis ingredient for other medical purposes.

Several patients and parents at Thursday’s meeting spoke about the benefits of Epidiolex. Sam Vogelstein, 16, said he experienced daily seizures — at times more than 100 per day— before enrolling in a study of the drug.

“I just went to South Africa for two weeks without my parents on a school trip,” said Vogelstein, who lives in Berkeley, California. “I would not have been able to do that if I had not tried this medication.”

It’s not yet clear why the medicine reduces seizures.

Epidiolex is essentially a pharmaceutical-grade version of cannabidiol, or CBD oil, which some parents have used for years to treat children with epilepsy. CBD is one of more than 100 chemicals found in the cannabis plant and it doesn’t contain THC, the ingredient that gives marijuana its mind-altering effect.

CBD oil is currently sold online and in specialty shops across the country, though its legal status remains murky. Most producers say their oil is made from hemp, a form of cannabis that contains little THC and can be legally farmed in a number of states for clothing, food and other uses.

It’s unclear how FDA approval of a CBD drug would affect products already on the market. Executives for the British drugmaker GW Pharmaceuticals say their goal is to provide a more standardized, research-backed version.

“We’re not looking to impact the availability of other products on the market,” GW executive Steve Schultz said before the meeting. “Our goal is to provide an additional option for patients and physicians who desire a purified version of CBD for treatment of seizures.”

The company declined to comment on the price of the drug before the approval decision. Wall Street analysts estimate it could cost more than $25,000 per year.

___

GW hasn’t released pricing information for Epidiolex; however, analysts have estimated patients could pay between $30,000 to $60,000 per year if their insurance plans don’t cover the costs.

GW Pharmaceuticals’ CEO talks Epidiolex, future of cannabidiol medicine
“It is by far the most important product that we are developing today.”


This is a make-or-break spring for GW Pharmaceuticals and its billion-dollar investment in a cannabidiol-based drug.

The London-based firm aims to develop the first FDA-approved medicine from plant-derived cannabis compounds. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration could decide as early as June 27 whether Epidiolex, a CBD oral solution, could be prescribed to patients with rare epilepsy conditions.

And as GW prepares for a Thursday hearing of a FDA advisory committee, it appears the odds are in the company’s favor.

Epidiolex this week received a positive review from FDA clinicians. The agency isn’t obligated to follow recommendations from the clinical briefing or even the advisory committee, but positive reviews put Epiodiolex on good footing.

CBD could be in the fast lane to Colorado pharmacies

• Marijuana-based anti-seizure drug shows strong study results

• CBD, TBD: Cannabinoids on local grocery shelves, but for how long?

• “A significant event”: CBD-based pharma drug Epidiolex presented to FDA for approval

• Race for CBD medication breakthrough: Is pharma firm’s boon the hemp industry’s doom?

The Cannabist spoke with GW Pharmaceuticals CEO Justin Gover In advance of Thursday’s hearing for an update on Epidiolex’s progress, his perspective on the medicine’s potential, his views on the future for cannabinoid pharmaceuticals, and how an FDA-approved CBD drug could affect the booming business of cannabis extracts.

“We consider ourselves to be world leaders,” he said. “Our job is to stay in that position as long as we can.”



Hearing playbook

The fact that Epidolex is derived from the cannabis plant, adds a “layer of interest” that GW is prepared to address, Gover said.

Epidiolex would be a first-of-its-kind drug, so the scheduled committee hearing — in this case the Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee hearing — was not unexpected, he said.

“(Our) focus will be on the patient population and whether this meets the standard for a new treatment,” he said.

GW’s intends to demonstrate Epidiolex’s safety and efficacy was adequately characterized, explain the level of unmet need, detail the rigor of the pre-clinical and clinical studies and discuss the quality of the evidence, Gover said. Ultimately, GW wants to convey its responsibility to patients 2 years of age and older who experience these rare and debilitating seizure syndromes, he said.

Public comments are being accepted until 12 a.m. Eastern on Thursday, and the meeting also will be accessible via webcast.

As Epidiolex goes, so does GW
The coming days and week compose a “transformative moment” for the pharmaceutical company that has been toiling away at cannabindoid research since 1998, Gover said.

“I think it’s fair to say that this product, it stands apart from the rest of our portfolio,” he said. “It is by far the most important product that we are developing today.”

GW hasn’t released pricing information for Epidiolex; however, analysts have estimated patients could pay between $30,000 to $60,000 per year if their insurance plans don’t cover the costs.

The payout for GW could be significant: Some analyst forecasts have put Epidiolex’s peak annual sales between $1 billion and $3 billion. During GW’s last fiscal year, the company generated $11 billion in revenue, mostly attributed to sales of THC-CBD Multiple Sclerosis drug Sativex, which is approved for sale in more than a dozen countries outside the U.S.

The big break for GW would be entering the U.S. market with Epidiolex and following that up with a slew of other cannabinoid-centric medicines — including Sativex, he said.

“We’re very much planning for success,” Gover said.

GW has gone all in: Gover moved to California three years ago to head the infrastructure build-out and clinical development progression for Epidiolex. The company has invested roughly a $1 billion in the yet-to-be approved medicine.

“We remain confident the drug will be approved,” he said.

And if it’s not, he added, then the question becomes, “Why is it not?”

“I find it very hard to envision a situation where we would not continue to plan on a basis of Epidiolex ultimately being approved,” he said.

Acquisition play
Questions have been raised as to whether GW will be able to successfully launch Epidiolex on its own.

A report in EP Vantage, the financial news site of biotech research firm Evaluate Group, noted that GW remains a rumored acquisition target.

“The group has been busy building its commercial team and will be targeting 4,000-5,000 doctors in the US, a big undertaking for a small company,” according to the EP Vantage report.

Gover brushes off the suggestion.

“We have the resources we need,” he said, referencing $300 million recently raised from a secondary public offering to support Epidiolex’s commercialization.

The company has the financial resources and the human resources — build-up over the last couple of years — to make sure we have epilepsy expertise throughout the organization, he said.

“Nobody knows cannabinoid science better than we do,” he said. “We’re very much going at it alone and very happy to do so.”

Crowded marketplace?
Epidiolex, if approved, won’t be the only CBD product on the market.

CBD-rich oils and extracts derived from marijuana and hemp are a big business in the U.S., totaling $367 million in sales in 2017 and projected to surpass $1.2 billion in 2022, according to Hemp Busines Journal data.

Hemp Farming Act of 2018 introduced by Sen. Mitch McConnell

• This struggling oil and gas company will soon sell you CBD-infused personal care products

• Ex-NFL and NHL pros: Cannabis is good medicine

• Hemp dog biscuit bakers use CBD to ease dogs’ pain

• Is CBD the “wonder-elixir” for Generation Anxious?

But the legality of those products is tenuous.

Sales of marijuana-derived CBD extracts are limited to respective state-legal programs. Hemp industry members and attorneys say hemp-derived CBD stands on solid legal grounds; however, federal and state agents view the products as illicit.

As Epidiolex chugs along through the FDA process, extracts makers have wondered if the medicine’s approval and eventual rescheduling will upend the booming market.

GW officials have repeatedly told The Cannabist — and even Colorado legislators — that their firm does not plan to interfere with existing hemp and marijuana businesses. Gover reiterated those stances.

“We don’t seek to intrude on other people’s business or limit other people’s business,” he said.

GW’s intent is to develop a tested and safe pharmaceutical medicine that can serve a significant unmet need — patients 2 years and older who suffer from the rare seizure conditions, Gover said.

If Epidiolex is approved, GW will continue full steam ahead on moving through its pipeline of cannabindoid therapies in addition to evaluating Epidiolex for other conditions, he said.

“Frankly, the approval of Epidiolex is almost the beginning of Chapter 2,” Gover said.