MySpace


Cannabis Sanctuary

Paul Smalley


Last Updated: 12/19/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: Married
Age: 40
Sign: Cancer

City: SAN DIEGO
Country: US
Signup Date: 10/27/2008

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
Saturday, December 19, 2009 

Category: News and Politics
Friday, December 18, 2009 
Daniela PerdomoAlterNet - December 14, 2009.

The Tax & Regulate Cannabis 2010 campaign has just achieved a major victory in its efforts to legalize marijuana for all adults in California -- they have gathered the signatures necessary for inclusion on the state's November ballot.

"This is the next step to sane cannabis policies and the end to the hypocrisy and unjust prohibition of cannabis," pot entrepreneur Richard Lee told me Monday morning. He is the co-proponent and a major sponsor of the Tax Cannabis initiative and the force -- and money -- behind Oaksterdam, the successful marijuana-friendly section of Oakland.

This win means that Californians will be the first in the nation to decide whether they believe marijuana ought be taxed and regulated for all adults over 21, much the same way alcohol is.

The drug reform movement's eyes will be on California next year, because many advocates believe that if the initiative passes, many other states could follow.

Support for marijuana legalization is at an all-time high, with polls ranging from 44 to 52 percent national support. In California, where marijuana has been legalized for medical use since 1996, 56 percent support legalization.

This may be why the campaign's organizers were able to gather so many signatures -- nearly 700,000 -- so quickly. Lee tells me the signature-gathering effort was launched only two months before they had achieved that massive number, although legally they were allotted five months to come up with the signatures. Lee collected a couple hundred himself.

Dale Sky Clare, the executive chancellor of Oaksterdam University, says there were at least 3,000 petitioners collecting signatures -- and they didn't have to work too hard to sell the cause. "Usually, before someone signs a ballot petition, they want to read it, see what it’s about, ask questions. But in our case, people didn’t even have to finish hearing the sentence -- 'legalize marijuana' was enough," Clare laughs.

By the last week of November, Tax Cannabis had handily exceeded the 433,971 required signatures it needed for ballot qualification and ended the petitioning stage of its campaign.

Clare and Lee share a celebratory and hopefully soothing joint as they field a barrage of calls from the mainstream media. They'll officially submit the signatures sometime in February, I hear Lee tell one reporter, so that they qualify for the November ballot instead of the one in June, which is expected to have a less favorable voter turnout....

Sunday, December 06, 2009 
http://freeculturemag.com/?p=661
By James Lang

With all the political hair-pulling and media sensationalizing over medical cannabis, it’s easy to forget that at the center of the matter is compassion—the concept of caring for those in need of care. 

Very quietly, in private homes and offices and coffeehouses across Southern California, a growing band of committed activists are working—often at great personal risk—toward fulfilling the original intent of the state’s Compassionate Use program. And while so many others are reaping huge financial benefits from cannabis, these unassuming foot soldiers are giving their all for free. 

The Cannabis Sanctuary is a 100-member-strong organization that works to provide cannabis medicine to qualified patients who can’t afford it. Every day, field workers for the sanctuary’s individual charters (chapters presently exist in San Diego and the Inland Empire, and are starting up in Los Angeles and Orange County) fan out to deliver medicine to the region’s most needy patients—the chronically ill, the destitute, the bed- and wheelchair bound. The members take nothing for their service but gratitude. 

The sanctuary is a secular offshoot of the San Diego-based Ministry of Hope, a church founded three years ago by the Rev. Paul Smalley. The church’s doctrine is based on the teachings of Christ, Buddha and Baruch Spinoza—a 17th-century philosopher who believed, among other things, that God and nature were the same. As such, the ministry teaches, cannabis is a sacrament with the power to save and heal the world. “Spinoza had a take on nature that didn’t distinguish between nature and God,” Smalley says. “If you destroy something natural, you’re destroying a piece of God.” 

Cannabis, says Smalley, is unique among other natural gifts in that—aside from its medicinal benefits—it’s a highly renewable and environmentally-friendly source of energy, fiber and food. The ministry believes that the wholesale conversion to cannabis-based industries would eliminate the single biggest threat to God/nature—global warming. 

Realizing that the ministry’s religious leanings might prevent many from hearing its core message of environmentalism and helping the less fortunate, Smalley and others formed the Cannabis Sanctuary about a year and a half ago. The sanctuary promotes many of its parent’s environmental and charitable ideals, but is entirely nonreligious in its mission and purpose. 

I sat down recently with Smalley and three of the five members of the Inland Empire Cannabis Sanctuary, whose natural leader is a 38-year-old Gulf War Marine veteran named Donovan. Donovan, his wife Theresa and friend and sanctuary member Jerry asked that their last names not be used.

Donovan came home from the war a lance corporal and permanently disabled by a back injury from rappelling out of helicopters. Doctors with the Veteran’s Administration prescribed him dozens of opiate-based medications for his injuries, but he eventually gravitated to cannabis as a better way to treat symptoms related to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and back pain. 

“I talked to the VA doctor about prescribing cannabis, and he just shot down the idea,” he says. “Then I was told I had terminal cancer.” 

Donovan was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer associated with asbestos exposure. He says his doctors told him he had two months to live and scheduled him to start treatment—in three months... 

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE: http://freeculturemag.com/?p=661



Saturday, December 05, 2009 

I'm trying to bring awareness to my friend's pending medical marijuana case where an undercover officer posed as a fully documented medical marijuana patient.

Donna Lambert's website is http://thcompassion.org/

Donna's trial date is February 22



Donna Lambert Speaks out after Jackson Verdict

ImStoned | MySpace Video


Tuesday, November 10, 2009 
MARK FRAUENFELDER

Narc Who Got High WEB2 1009.jpg

From Robert Arthur's blog, Narco Polo.
An excerpt from The New Prohibition: Voices of Dissent Challenge the Drug War, the book that includes Richard Mack's story:
Ted and I were different. He smoked, he drank, at times he used marijuana, and his morals were not in line with my Mormon background. But he was a good man. He cared about his children, and he was a hard worker. He was loyal and understanding, and he had a great sense of humor .... Why were we arresting people, some really decent people, for smoking marijuana? Should we arrest all the "Teds" in the country? Take his sports car, ruin his career, give him an arrest record and some jail time, and maybe overall just teach him a lesson? (pp. 13-14)
The Narc Who Got High: What In The Heck Is The Big Deal?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 
By Steve FoxAlterNet

Anti-pot propaganda drives most people to drink alcohol instead. But booze is far more dangerous than marijuana.

Professor David Nutt didn’t play the game. As the chief drug policy advisor in the British Government, an unspoken part of his job description was to help maintain a public fiction about marijuana – or cannabis, as it is known in the U.K. and other parts of the world.  Specifically, he was expected to further the misperception of cannabis as a substance worthy of being classified and prohibited in a manner similar to more dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine.  

He made a big mistake at the end of last month. In a lecture at King’s College in London, he spoke honestly – and truthfully – about the fact that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and urged the government to factor the relative harms of substances into their policy-making.  Moreover, he accused the British government of ignoring the evidence about the true harms of cannabis in order to reclassify the drug and increase penalties for possession.  

Reacting with the logic and reason of pub patron after last call, Home Secretary Alan Johnson immediately demanded that Prof. Nutt resign as the head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. He said Prof Nutt had "crossed the line between offering advice and … campaigning against the government on political decisions."   

More accurately, Prof. Nutt crossed the line between deceiving citizens and being honest with them.  The home secretary, a former member of Parliament, is no doubt comfortable with a little verbal jousting over public policy decisions. What he could not abide by was a top ranking official threatening the anti-cannabis mythology embraced at the very top level of government. Based on Nutt’s fateful bout of truthfulness, Johnson said he had “lost confidence” in Nutt as an advisor...

READ FULL STORY HERE:
Sunday, November 08, 2009 
By Jag Davies, Alternet
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/143729/letting_the_science,_not_the_politicians,_decide_about_marijuana/

The federal govt. is still blocking the process that would allow the marijuana plant to be brought to market as a prescription medicine.

In the commotion surrounding the Obama administration's favorable recent medical marijuana policy memo, a crucial part of the story has gone untold: For decades, the federal government has effectively blocked the standard Food and Drug Administration (FDA) development process that would allow for the marijuana plant to be brought to market as a prescription medicine, and -- so far -- President Obama is continuing this policy.

This frustrating reality belies the recent pronouncements of pundits and policymakers implying that the FDA has already dismissed the medical benefits of marijuana or that proponents have simply failed to explore FDA approval. Nothing could be further from the truth.

While there is a plethora of scientific research establishing marijuana's safety and efficacy, the specific clinical trials necessary to bring the marijuana plant to market as a prescription medicine are brazenly obstructed, not by the FDA, but by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Largely out of public view, for more than four decades DEA and NIDA have blocked drug development research by maintaining a government monopoly on the supply of marijuana that can legally be used in research.

You see, marijuana remains the only Schedule I drug that DEA prohibits from being produced by private laboratories for scientific research. Although DEA has licensed multiple privately-funded manufacturers of all other Schedule I drugs, it permits just one facility, located at the University of Mississippi, to produce marijuana for research purposes. This facility, under contract with NIDA, holds a literal monopoly on the supply of marijuana available to scientists, including researchers seeking to conduct FDA-approved studies of the plant's medical properties - studies that, of course, squarely conflict with NIDA's mission to study drug abuse. NIDA has refused to provide marijuana for two FDA-approved studies, and for six years has refused to sell 10 grams for non-human research into marijuana vaporizers...

READ FULL STORY HERE:
Thursday, November 05, 2009 

Poisoning from prescription drugs has risen to become the second-largest cause of unintentional deaths in the United States, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, researchers found that deaths from prescription drugs rose from 4.4 per 100,000 people in 1999 to 7.1 per 100,000 in 2004.
This increase represents a jump from 11,000 people to almost 20,000 in the span of five years.

Among the 20,000 that died, more than 8,500 – double the number from 1999 -- were from "other and unspecifieddrugs."

Psychotherapeutic drugs, like antidepressants and sedatives, nearly doubled from 671 deaths to 1,300.

Age-wise, the biggest jump was among people aged 15 to 24, which the CDC report says relates to recreationalprescription drug use and a jump in cocaine use.

However, all other age groups except the elderly over-75 group saw increases of more than 35 percent on a per 100,000 scale in prescription drug deaths – including a nearly 90 percent jump for the late Baby Boomer generation (ages 45 to 54) and a more than 90 percent for people aged 55 to 64. Mike Adams, a consumer health advocate and outspoken critic of pharmaceutical companies, said that the drug industry is freely killing Americans.

"The entire drug industry, including the monopolistic drug giants and their FDA co-conspirator, has clearly become the single greatest threat to the health and safety of the American people," Adams said. "And yet the FDA continues to push more drugs onto more Americans than ever before, all while pretending these drugs are safe and effective when, in reality, they are neither. Today's pharmaceutical industry is a massive fraud being perpetrated against the American people, propped up by illegal trade practices, monopolistic behavior and outright criminal behavior on the part of the FDA."

One caveat of the report is that the data used did not allowsuicides to be separated from other drug deaths, meaning there may be inherent errors because it was impossible to tell after death the intent or reason for a person's death from prescription drugs.

"Some of these deaths might have been suicides, although not classified as such, and some deaths categorized as suicides or of undetermined intent might have been unintentional and therefore not analyzed in this study. The extent of this error is not known," the report states.

However, statistics from the web site suicide.org state that in 2001, nearly 5,200 deaths came from self-poisoning, which includes not only abusing prescription drugs but also overdosing on over-the-counter drugs and ingesting lethal chemicals.
The CDC report can be read in full at this link.
Saturday, October 31, 2009 
READ FULL STORY HERE: http://www.newsweek.com/id/220497 Get Involved: http://pitbullrescuesandiego.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pit-Bull Problem America's most-maligned dog wants to be sweet and docile, but well-meaning humans mess it all up.  
By Joan Raymond | Newsweek A 10-acre stretch of land just outside Los Angeles is pit-bull Nirvana. It's called Villalobos Rescue Center and it's run by Tia Maria Torres, an unabashed pit-bull lover. Torres has found homes for thousands of pits since the rescue opened its doors 15 years ago. Some of these animals were abandoned. Some were shelter dogs slated for euthanasia. Others were confiscated in drug busts or fighting rings. And some—like Mouse, a small white pit bull—are victims of nature, the so-called Hurricane Katrina dogs of New Orleans.
My Take
It's a 24/7 job, but Torres gets help from a posse of volunteers, her four children, and six ex-cons, who she calls her "pit bulls on legs." Her work is chronicled in a new six-part documentary, Pit Bulls and Parolees, airing on Animal Planet, the first of which premiered on Friday night. You'd have to carry a cold heart to not feel something for what these dogs have endured.
But I have a problem with pit bulls. And it has more to do with the two-legged creatures holding their leashes (if there is a leash).
Because of their sheer numbers—estimates show that there are anywhere from 5 million to 10 million pit-bull-type dogs in the U.S. today, out of about 61 million total dogs—pits have become the dog du jour for a lot of people, not just gangbangers and wannabe thugs who use a pit as proxy for toughness. About 20 percent of dogs in ASPCA shelters are pit mixes.
I've seen those who adopt these dogs for all the wrong reasons. The fearful might get a pit because they want a great guard dog. (Pits make lousy guard dogs. A well-bred pit is just too human-friendly to protect your property.) Some get a pit because Rachael Ray has one and they want to rescue a dog. (Why didn't you take up cooking instead of getting a dog that you know nothing about?) And the trendiest pet owners spend thousands of dollars for a "blue" pit because the dogs are rare. (No, they aren't, and you just got swindled by an unethical breeder who contributed to the overpopulation problem.) But pets aren't purses, and people who jump into pit-bull ownership without the requisite training and education can often do more harm than good. That's why when I see a pit off-leash and I'm walking Turk, my 20-pound schnoodle, I'm scared.
Torres knows all about the pit bull's people problem. "Oh, my God, I see it all the time," she says. "Some of these people are completely clueless. They get a pit and then they want to get rid of it if it grabs and shakes a toy and barks. They don't understand why it loves everybody, but scraps with dogs. It's insane. And it's hurting the pit bull...Let's face it: pit bulls are public enemy No. 1. That's quite a comedown for a pup once considered "America's dog." They were owned by the likes of Helen Keller and Teddy Roosevelt, and when I was a kid, a wiry American pit-bull terrier named Sam endured the indignity of being called a "horsy" as he pulled me around in a wagon on an upstate New York farm. But in talking with pit-bull experts, it's clear that some current owners are too easy to spook, are too ill-informed, and have unrealistic expectations of what pit bulls can do.
Friday, October 30, 2009 
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2009/10/chronic_city_san_diegans_want.php
By Steve Elliott

It's a classic case of disconnect between public policy and public opinion. As District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis continues with her medical marijuana dispensary crackdown in San Diego, a new poll indicates that a hefty majority of city residents favor leaving the pot shops open and regulating them.

About 77 percent of San Diego's adult residents agree that the city has an obligation to ensure convenient access to medical marijuana and 69 percent say the drug should be treated like any other prescription drug.

Only 9 percent want to completely ban the dispensaries.

Dumanis received heavy publicity for saying there are "no such things" as legal marijuana dispensaries, despite state law. A voter initiative, Prop 215, legalized medical marijuana in California in 1996, and SB 420 clarified and expanded the law in 2003.

According to president John Nienstedt and research analyst Elizabeth Shield of poll-takers Competitive Edge, San Diegans, even while supporting safe access for medical marijuana patients, tend to oppose legalizing recreational marijuana use. Forty-seven percent say they would vote against a measure to legalize and 40 percent would support it. Eleven percent say they are unsure how they'd vote.

Contrary to the picture painted by Dumanis of residents being unhappy about the prevalence of dispensaries in their neighborhoods, 43 percent have no idea whether there is a dispensary near them. Only 8 percent are aware of a medical marijuana dispensary in their neighborhood, and 48 percent believe their neighborhood has no dispensary.

The regulations with the strongest support -- more than 80 percent -- among San Diegans are 1) requiring employees and managers of dispensaries to be fingerprinted and undergo a criminal background check by law enforcement; and 2) requiring dispensaries to be 1,000 feet from schools and youth facilities.

Also receiving strong support, with more than two-thirds of those polled favoring, were requiring notification letters to be sent to nearby residents during the dispensary permitting process; prohibiting dispensaries from locating in residentially zoned areas; and requiring dispensaries to be non-profit organizations.

More than half (57 percent) disagree that medical marijuana dispensaries are associated with Mexican drug cartels, an accusation heard frequently from anti-pot zealots like Dumanis.

Almost half (45 percent) of those polled admit having tried marijuana at some point in their lives. Of those who have tried pot, 28 percent admitted using it in the past year. Of those who have used pot in the past year, 43 percent say they are medicinal users. Almost two-thirds (65 percent) of those who say they use pot medically buy it at a dispensary or via a door-to-door delivery service. 

The poll results will be presented on Friday to an 11-member advisory task force created by the San Diego City Council to help establish guidelines for the use of medical marijuana in the city.

San Diego, like many cities, has no land-use guidelines controlling where marijuana collectives or cooperatives may or may not be located.

In September, at least 33 people operating marijuana dispensaries were arrested in San Diego County raids that also shut down 14 storefront dispensaries, including 11 in San Diego. Dumanis assembled SWAT-style strike forces of San Diego Police, San Diego County Sheriff's officers, DEA agents, and IRS agents to descend on the dispensaries, make arrests, seize cash and weed, and disrupt the local medical marijuana distribution system.

The poll, done on behalf of keepcomingback.com, a Web site for substance abuse and addiction problems, queried  505 randomly selected adults and was conducted Oct. 14-17 by the aforementioned San Diego-based Competitive Edge Research and Communication. Competitive Edge has worked in the past for news organizations and political candidates.

San Diego Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Survey (PDF)