Cannabis' anti-aging properties

Stress Ages (grey haired presidents = evidence).  Cannabis is excellent for stress.  The world's most popular herbal remedy is a youth elixir.  Nailed it.

Calling All Quarter-Life Angsters

There’s a reason so many vets are homeless.  And Native Americans alcoholics.  And young gods in their primes dead.

Society sucks.

Subjectively, that is.  Objectively, this is the greatest country in the history of the universe.  Highest glass ceilings; plushest safety net (for those who choose to accept  charity from a hegemon).  But to some scarred souls, none of it is worth it.

Neizsche, first among many, described the phenomenon.  PTSD isn’t exactly the same as nihilism, but it’s similar.  Watch the supermarket scene in The Hurt Locker.  Read Into the Wild.  McCandliss was an old soul although a young naïve one, that is to say, a searcher.  His sister’s “childhood trauma from a broken home” explanation galls, because I believe I know her brother better than she did, which is sad; he wanted to taste the marrow, to paraphrase Robin Williams quoting Keating.  As did I, in my mid-twenties.  Twenty-seven, actually, was the epitome of my disaffectedness.  Like Morrison, Cobain, Hendrix, Joplin…

Once you’ve been exposed to the core; your soul flayed open; what we lemmings are striving so purposefully to achieve appears – subjectively – to be bullshit.

Fair enough.

I get jaded.  I get not wanting to participate in modern society if it means busting my ass to fit in with drones about whom I could give a sippy cup of diarrhea.

If you were Native American, would you choose to assimilate, to digest the colonizer’s ethos?  I’d shit on it.

If you were a rock god, at the absolute pinnacle of your power, would you fixate on the futility of your existence, and giggle at the finality of your death?

After inhaling the nectar, humdrum workaday living (which we all pressure each other to idealize, for some reason [we’re dependent upon one another for tax funded infrastructure development, so we enter into a mutual castration compact]) is noticeably bland.  Gimme flavor!  Gimme vivid! Something which stimulates my spirit, otherwise no thank you.

The Buddha is considered to have become enlightened.  Subjectively, of course.  His main message was: become willing to give it all up.

Hindus believe anyone can become enlightened.  Millions of Indians are holy men; you can be too.

Give it all up, and catapult yourself out of your comfort zone – just don’t give up.  Choose existentialism.  Choose transcendentalism.  Find your Purpose; don’t let anyone else tell you what it is.  Except maybe a Shaman.

To give it all up is to make a great sacrifice; the closest-to-guaranteed way I know to launch one’s self on a spiritual trip.

Buy a one-way ticket with the last of your cash.  Bring a backpack, and gifts.

Or not.  Ok but be warned:  You may be your own best bullshitter but you can’t fake it forever.  Your superego’s mission is to drown out your id.  But your iGod will out if you let it.  Let it, before you regret it.  Be the god of your life in your prime; refuse to be anyone’s bitch until you’re good and ready to surrender to the bliss of monochrome oblivion.

First and hopefully last words on Trump

I hate to even mention his obnoxious dumb ass because I'd rather he just disappear off my radar, however since he's the current GOP frontrunner I can't not comment on Trump's offensive ethos, to wit: if you're smart you must be rich and if you're rich you must be smart.

(I refuse to respond to his comments about Mexican-American immigrants - I can't stoop that low without wrenching my back.)

Here's what I know:

Many of the most enlightened beings I've met been humble ascetics, by choice.

The decisions I've made in my own life which have enriched my existence immeasurably while impoverishing me financially are those I regret the least.

Not everyone born into privilege is a rocket scientist (Bush II, anyone?); many "self-made-men" simply luck into it (see: the inventor of the paperclip).

The donald isn't just wrong, though, or I wouldn't be writing this - far more caustically, he is full-on declaring that struggling lower and middle class men and women are in their situations because they lack IQ, not because people are in any way a product of their circumstances.  Talk about ignorance! Talk about an inability to see through the eyes of one's potential constituents!

Typical entitled Anglo-Aryan rhetoric, easily dismissed.  Except, for some reason, it's not been - yet.

I'm flabbergasted that Trump is apparently striking a chord with my fellow countrymen, that he is in the news so much, that he's considered a serious contender for the most respected job in this or any other country.  Are we the people, who figuratively have the entire world in the palms of our hands, really so impressed by this circus act, this bully who arrogantly crows on and on about how he is everyone's "better"?  Or (please o please) isn't our impulse to watch him, to goad him, to spur him on, more akin to that which causes us to rubberneck car wrecks?

Just try to imagine for a second, if you will, the donald holding high level diplomatic discussions with Putin or Netanyahu, for example.  Somehow, I just don't see how shouting over the top of them and calling them idiots and whatever other names he could think of would result in a positive net gain for our nation.

He's unstable, not someone we can count on for anything other than shock-value soundbytes.  He'd make a horrible president, no question about it.

C'mon people, ain't politics meant to mean something more than entertainment?

The real question is: what does it say about the state of the Grand Old Party that none of the fifteen other candidates compares favorably to him?!

Gay Marriage, what next? Oh that slippery slope...

Same-sex marriage has won.  “Definition of Marriage” traditionalists’ best argument didn’t meet the rational basis test, much less any stricter scrutiny requirements potentially on deck.  Now then…  What about that slippery slope argument Scalia and his ilk railed so vehemently against?

As I recall, it went something like this:  If we let a man marry a man or a woman marry a woman how could we prevent a man marrying two women, or three people marrying each other, or a couple marrying a couple, or a grandmother marrying her grandson, or a retard marrying a broomhandle or a collie?

(That language isn't mine, it's Republicans')

C’mon, even the slipperiest slopes get tacky.  I’ll guarantee you that it shall be slightly tougher to stop a throuple from tying the knot henceforth than it has been.  Incest, though, has always been and will continue to be distinguishable not just on religious grounds but on “health and welfare” grounds [1]. Everyone who has taken freshman genetics understands the risks of truly “unnatural” intercourse.

Neither the nation nor the state can prefer one religion over another.  Nevertheless, the Mormons got railroaded by Lincoln, look it up!  He also suspended Habeus Corpus!  Father of our nation, what?

For all of its avowed commitment to the separation of Church and State, our nation has always been a Christian one, "under [the Bible]" with liberty and justice for the domesticated.

Both the Latter Day Saints and Mohammed's Men believe in the sanctity of polygamy.  But radical mainstream conservatives demonize those "others'" faith as un-American. [2]

Before today, any swinging couple with a good lawyer could marry another down couple in all meaningful ways except assigning federal government benefits; it’s just that sometimes those government benefits are the best (social security, pensions, immigration).  That is separate, but NOT equal. Unacceptable.

Why should the fed care if various claimants split their hard-earned, well-deserved benefits as they choose?  What, they anticipate being rendered incompetent by the slightly more complicated paperwork?

Although a man can have a sexual relationship with a broomhandle or a collie, this can’t be the only reason we’re granting people marriage licenses.  Neither can procreative ability be.  Thus, a grandmother can legally marry a man young enough to be her grandson in every state today (without being required to submit proof of her fertility).  On a completely related note:  one of the best reasons to let gays wed is that they’re dying to adopt needy kids into often prosperous, surely stable loving homes- do you dare to contest homosexual people’s ability to epitomize family values?

That is to say, Don’t you know it’s better for kids to have mas responsible, committed, loving, concerned, invested adults around than menos? 

Indeed, I say,

Why not consensual polygamy?

Where're the Lesbians 4 Libertarians t-shirts!  Homos, why don't you heart sluts!  (C’mon: polys need your support, you’re a dominant democgraphic now, after such a long brutal epic struggle to victory!  Way to go, congrats on all your success!  Won’t you be empathetic, in turn?  Don’t you remember how it was?  Help your fellow outsasts.  Or wouldn't that be "just"?)

At least co-habitation is no longer prohibited in Utah - thanks Kody Brown.  Many ancient and modern societies both abroad and at home actually encourage it.

God forbid we respectfully ponder our forebears’ conclusions; just because they were wrong about a few things don't mean they had pittance IQs.

 

Big family=successful model.  Tried and true.  Tell me I'm wrong.

Law of contracts dictates parties should have the freedom to promise what they like, so long as they possess the capacity to give informed consent and it’s not otherwise illegal.

Marriage is a contract; it should be governed by contract law (no coercion, unconscionability, impossibility, etc.), not majority values - that's tyranny, man!  

And yet,

Plural marriage will remain illegal for at least another generation (I predict). 

Eventually, though, tribe mating will rear its chillaxed head, because so many "normies" are doing it.

By 2099 each man woman and child will be required to work 5 hours per month minimum, nobody more than 10/week max; all arbitrary boundaries will be erased like an etch-a-sketch. 

[1] States' police powers allow them to pass laws for benefit of their citizens, interestingly, the U.S. Congress does not have any police powers, but not to worry; it has apparently convinced the Court that the Commerce Clause is basically unlimited, so it now feels it has carte blanche to legislate however it wishes.  Federalists rightly argue that the founding fathers intended the powers of the federal government to be limited.  To be fair, however, they never could have conceived of the modern United States, with its 300 million citizens.  The game has changed since then, fundamentally.

[2] In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145,162 (1878), the Court opined that polygamy was "Non-Christian", and "more appropriate for Asians and Africans" than for Americans, and that, like human sacrifice, polygamy was not a legitimate spiritual practice which should trigger First Amendment protection.  Embarrassingly, this case remains good precedent today.  See, e.g, State of Utah v. Green, 2004 UT 76. (emphasis added)

Teachers should have to pass standardized tests themselves

Teachers who demonstrate mastery of their subjects should be compensated like professionals.

Talent must be wooed, especially to places like White Center, WA.  Ideally, all teachers statewide should be excellent.  Their teaching credentials say they are highly qualified, why not sit them down with a scantron and  see how they stack up, then compensate them according to their demonstrated proficiencies?  (At least partially,that is - the calculus should account too for subjective measures like instructional fluency, adaptability, ability to establish rapport and to motivate, cultural competency, and tenure should also be factored in.)

Teachers should be respected instead of sniffed at as underachieving presumptive pederasts (if one can't do, teach, many say; why else would one with other options choose such a poorly paid position?).

We should thank teachers every time we encounter them for their sacrifice, like we do soldiers.

Unfortunately, even for those who derive significant satisfaction simply from seeing the lightbulb pop on, the sacrifice is often too much.  The bureaucracy which keeps educators-by-calling from ever earning a decent wage, yet pays dinosaurs who ignore the individual requirements of their charges and deliver the same material year after year passionlessly by rote (Buhler...  Buhler...?) far more than they're worth, is enough to discourage most would-be-careerists.

Pay young (especially minority) rock star teachers who are willing to live and work in the neediest neighborhoods the six figures they're worth!  Replace all mailers-in whose professional skills are are covered in moss!  Or else let the whole system go private-charter.

Let the schools themselves compete, like businesses.

Forget the smaller class size argument (result: more mediocre-at-best mentors - albeit a perfect union outcome [unions are, of course, dominated by greyhairs - no wonder so many talented energetic young instructors wash out]) because one excellent mentor can enlighten 200 kids at a time. Especially in this digital age.

PAY GOOD TEACHERS GOOD!

Unions are anti-progressive; they incentivise doing the bare minimum not to get fired.

Sorry if you're a teacher and got offended by this rant; if it makes any difference, if you're decent at your job I'm not dissing you I'm praising you, indeed I'm in awe.

Grammar police: "Literally"

Will EVERYONE PLEASE stop using the word literally like literally every sentence? 

Especially cause y’all be using it so blatantly incorrectly. Also superfluously – and that too is quite literally annoying. ("Quite" literally - really?  As if there is another valid kind?)  

One properly uses the term literally only whilst contradicting an idiom. Such as: that pool is cool, literally (I don't mean neat-o, I mean temperature-wise), or gay bars are gay places, literally (i.e. they're happy and full of pep).

If you insist on continuing to use such a so-2014 term, please at least amend it to "like literally". As annoyingly valley girl as that turn of phrase is, at least it approximates accurate.

Thank you.

Which is the All-‘Mrrcan-er holiday, Black Friday or Thanksgiving?

Thanksgiving should be a two day holiday. Black Friday should not exist cause it’s disgusting. 

Binge-buying is the opposite of Thanksgiving; indeed it is antithetical to the whole idea of Thanksgiving. That Black Friday is what it is when it is makes us hypocrites.

As my immigrant wife says:  the United States would be a much better country if Thanksgiving were two days long. The idea is that Thanksgiving should be the biggest, most important holiday we have. We should really focus on giving thanks.

Thanksgiving is a uniquely ‘Mrrcan holiday. Therefore it should be our greatest. Right? Most people make it a four day holiday already - except for retailers of course. 

Due to a certain festering canker of a trend. 

Has Black Friday become the quintessential 'Mrrcan expression? 

Which better epitomizes our culture, Thanksgiving or Black Friday? 

Is what it means to be ‘Mrrcan: spend spend spend? Sure.  Course it is.  Feed like a pig watching football all day watching millions of ads then go out the next day and buy a bunch of crap you want don't need- is that what it means to give thanks?

Once upon a time the final Thursday in November was designated to be a day of appreciation for the indigenous of this land.  And we should be thanking them - for saving our ass. Also for the land I suppose, though we fought them fair and square for that. Except for the smallpox, etc. Let's just not think about that.

Americans spent $9.1 billion dollars "saving money" on "deals" this Friday- in addition to $3.2 billion on Thursday itself!

Thanksgiving should be about going out and buying anyone who has any indigenous blood at all a beer rather than a smorgasbord of self-gratification. The least we can do as wannabe mindful citizens is to boycott Black Friday; c’mon, man. Thanksgiving should be the greatest of all ‘Mrrcan holidays, y'all, a break from our all-consuming materialism!

Holder resigns! What this means for medical and recreational marijuana.

The next Attorney General of the United States will be in charge of enforcing all federal laws, including Nixon's Controlled Substances Act, which lists cannabis as a schedule 1 hallucinogen.

Holder has followed Obama's lead; he has been permissive of medical and recreational shops selling buds in the open.  But will the next guy be?  What we need is an act of Congress (or the Court), amending the anachronistic controlling legislation.  Until then-

The next guy may be a Mormon, or even worse, a Republican.  It's a good job Holder's resigning now, to give his boss time to hire and indoctrinate his replacement.

Regardless, one thing the new AG can't do is conscript local or state law enforcement officers to enforce his objectives.  And the crux of any law is the enforcement of it.  Short of expanding the DEA until it's larger than the military (or deputizing soldiers to make arrests), city governments will dictate policy - under the command and control of the people.

Blaze on.

On Being a Pot-Smoking American Hindu

No, I haven’t memorized the Vedas or the Bhagavad-Gita.  I like several of the stories contained in those entertaining texts, though—the Greeks spun pretty good yarns too.  But the fact that I don’t worship each holy-writ word of them like radical fundamentalists pedestal-place the Bible doesn’t make me not a practicing Hindu.

Indeed, Hinduism only became a text-based religion once the Brits took over. Hindus never considered themselves a "group" until they were forced by political reasons (exacerbated by the imposition of their colonizers’ parliamentary system) to other Muslims. 

Hinduism pre-dates books.  It was only the Brahmins who could read throughout most of history after all.  (Just as Catholic priests had a monopoly on the interpretation of the Word until Martin Luther recognized: one requires no conduit to God.)

The reason that there are 30,000,000 Hindu deities is that each individual spiritual practice developed independently.  Whatever made sense to thee was valid.  This truth is what resonates with me. 

I learned while living in India that the purpose of the Hindu “religion” is to get in touch with innergod i.  There exists no strict doctrine— Hinduism mandates no proscriptions, reeks not of blind faith.  Hinduism is, quite simply, pure self-seeking, utilizing timeless techniques.  

Hinduism is natural mysticism (rather than a carrot-and-stick social control mechanism) in all of its incarnations—and it is much aided by cannabis sativa.

Marijuana is stress-relieving and peace-inducing.  It is also a mind focuser, and a spiritual aid.  Meditation is an invaluable ritual, found in many faiths (chanting the Rosary produces quite the same effect - albeit muted - as does singing Hare Krishna) and ingesting THC incontrovertibly facilitates “zoning in”.  Shaivites[1] have known as much for dozens of centuries.

Music is important to my spiritual practice.  The sympathetic vibrating of the understrings of the sitar explains Aum to me, if i focus.  Being high helps me to hear it.

Many scholars opine that Jesus may have journeyed to India.  If he did, he probably ingested hashish with holy ascetics, and wrapped his mind around thier concept of enlightenment.  Then he returned, enlightened, and devoted himself to uplifting others, exactly as a bodhisattva would.

Easter falls on 4-20 this year.  Coincidence?

Q: WWJD?
A: Inhale.

All I know is: the more I booze drink, the less I practice my faith.  Whereas, the more I engage in augmented sadhana[2], the more I calm and center myself, and become able to critically re-evaluate paradigms.

On this doubly holy day I humbly suggest: marijuana can and should be used as a sacrament.

---

[1] Shiva devotees

[2]  Spiritual practice, such as meditation, often performed under the influence of cannabis in Hindu and Tantric traditions

OBAMA ISSUES EXECUTIVE ORDER, DECLASSIFIES POT!

Gotcha ; )

As long as you're here though, you may be interested in yesterday's post (below).

WHY THE FEDS REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE THE MEDICAL VALUE OF CANNABIS SATIVA and THE REASON IT REMAINS A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE and THE UNTENABLE NATURE OF THIS POSITION

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all.[1]

            

Really, that bit about “no currently accepted medical use” is completely ridiculous. 

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (a division of the National Institutes of Health):

“The marijuana plant contains several chemicals that may prove useful for treating a range of illnesses or symptoms, leading many people to argue that it should be made legally available for medical purposes.  Medical marijuana is not recognized or approved as medicine by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). But scientific study of the active chemicals in marijuana, called cannabinoids, has led to the development of two FDA-approved medications already, and is leading to the development of new pharmaceuticals that harness the therapeutic benefits of cannabinoids while minimizing or eliminating the harmful side effects (including the “high”) produced by eating or smoking marijuana leaves.”[2]

  

Put simply, the feds would rather back a pill derived from cannabis than the plant itself—one which takes all the “fun” [3] out of it.

Contemporary medical research is focusing on two main cannabinoids, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). 

According to NIDA:

“THC stimulates appetite and reduces nausea (and there are already approved THC-based medications for these purposes[4]) but it may also decrease pain, inflammation, and spasticity. CBD is a non-psychoactive [meaning: it doesn’t get you high] cannabinoid that may also be useful in reducing pain and inflammation, controlling epileptic seizures, and possibly even treating psychosis and addictions.

Research funded by the NIH is actively investigating the possible therapeutic uses of THC, CBD, and other cannabinoids to treat autoimmune diseases, cancer, inflammation, pain, seizures, substance use disorders, and other psychiatric disorders.”[5]

To paraphrase: While cannabinoids do seem to be totally awesome, we just need some more time (and money) to conduct some more research[6].

Officially:

“The FDA requires carefully conducted studies in large numbers of patients (hundreds to thousands) to accurately assess the benefits and risks of a potential medication. Thus far, there have not been enough large-scale clinical trials showing that benefits of the marijuana plant (as opposed to specific cannabinoid constituents) outweigh its risks in patients with the symptoms it is meant to treat.”[7]

Nevertheless, several prominent physicians, Dr. Sanjay Gupta and Dr. Andrew Weil for instance, wholeheartedly support the use of marijuana as a medication.

And not just for cancer, multiple sclerosis, and AIDS patients.

Stress is a legitimate medical issue, isn’t it? Laughter is in itself a medicine, say most of us…

Any integrative medicine practitioner worth his salt is over the moon about the benefits of meditation.  Cannabis sativa has been used as a meditation aid in India for dozens of centuries.  Yoga, by the way, was invented in India, by the best of us.  Bhang heads.

Regarding that point.  

Is cannabis really one of the “most dangerous drugs of all”?  Does the DOJ actually believe joint smokers behave like heroin addicts?  Um, more like they’ve had a few beers, bud.

What are the specific risks of ingesting the marijuana plant (as opposed to its specific cannabinoid constituents)?

According to NIDA:

“The known safety concerns of marijuana include impairment of short-term memory; altered judgment and decisionmaking; and mood effects, including severe anxiety (paranoia) or even psychosis (loss of touch with reality), especially following high-dose exposures. Marijuana also significantly reduces motor coordination and slows reaction time, which makes it very dangerous to use before driving a car. Additionally, although we do not yet know whether marijuana smoking contributes to lung cancer risk, it can cause or worsen other respiratory problems such as bronchitis or chronic cough. 

Growing evidence is showing that marijuana may be particularly harmful for young people: It may cause long-term or even permanent impairment in cognitive ability and intelligence when used regularly during adolescence, when the brain is still developing.

      Another safety concern is that, contrary to common belief, marijuana can be addictive.”[8]

Let’s investigate each of these “known safety concerns” in turn. 

First off, they’re right, being high is like dreaming awake—although one makes brilliant connections and transcends the training of one’s superego (which enables one to critically examine one’s paradigms), pot sucks re: short-term memory.  That’s why it’s important for a stoner to always carry a notebook or a Dictaphone.  That’s why musicians can never exactly replicate a jam.  And an expressionist painter could never paint it exactly that way again.  Cannabis fosters inspiration, which is by nature ephemeral, and impossible to recall.

Next, pot does alter one’s judgment and decisionmaking—in a good way.  One sees the beauty in things instead of trudging through one’s mundane routines while high on THC (as opposed to CBD); one chooses to respectfully interact with one’s fellow man, instead of fight him.

Does weed make one paranoid?  Only where it’s illegal.  Does it cause loss of touch with reality?  Rather, the opposite.

Clearly, one should not drive (or operate heavy machinery) stoned—even if one’s natural inclination is to drive 20 miles an hour under the speed limit (as opposed to recklessly, like on alcohol, which makes one feel invincible [in addition to uninhibited and irresistible]—how’s that for loss of touch with reality?), but, as has been opined countless times by minds keener than mine, in this regard (indeed, in all ways) marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol is.  Yes, cannabis should be regulated—like liquor is.

It is illogical to prohibit marijuana smoking because it might contribute to lung cancer risk when tobacco use is allowed.  Similarly, although cannabis, like anything good, can be addictive, it is far less addictive than nicotine (or alcohol, or schedule II analgesics like Vicodin).

But the feds’ main concern, of course (and rightly so) is the kids.

According to NIDA:

“(Marijuana) use has been increasing among young people since 2007, corresponding to a diminishing perception of the drug’s risks that may be associated with increased public debate over the drug’s legal status.” [9]

Sorry about that.

Given that many medical professionals seem to agree, I am willing to grant that “when [marijuana] is used heavily by young people, its effects on thinking and memory may last a long time or even be permanent.”[10] (my emphasis.)

Indeed, it is someone disconcerting to learn that “a large long-term study in New Zealand showed that people who began smoking marijuana heavily in their teens lost an average of 8 points in IQ between age 13 and age 38.”  However, it is imperative to note that, according to the same study: “Those who started smoking marijuana in adulthood did not show significant IQ declines.”[11]

The Director of the NIDA recently issued the following statement:

“Some teens are no doubt hearing and being influenced by marijuana’s many outspoken advocates, who claim that the drug does not deserve continued Schedule I status and that decades of prevention messaging have overstated its dangers. The ongoing public conversation over medical marijuana may contribute to the impression that, since some people use marijuana therapeutically, it couldn’t be that harmful.

Given the increases we are seeing in marijuana use among this age group, it is more crucial than ever to challenge the impression many of them have that marijuana is a benign, unfairly demonized substance.”[12]

Basically:  Pot might make kids stupider, thus the Just Say No campaign must continue, so we must continue to keep it Schedule I listed.

Setting aside for a moment the undeniable evidence that is the long list of brilliant thinkers who are proud members of the Marijuana Majority[13] since the government's own scientists admit that smoking marijuana as an adult does not lead to cognitive regression, it is nevertheless appropriate to criticize any “preventive messaging” campaign that insists on continued Schedule 1 designation.  

That is, a mixed message would not be hypocritical.  Pot is for grownups, like lots of things are (like alcohol is).  Kids aren’t idiots, they get it.  But when you claim it’s psychoactive like peyote and LSD and addictive like heroin you completely lose your credibility.

Even more imperatively: keeping marijuana illegal encourages black markets, and black marketeers don’t give a shit to whom they sell – including kids.


It does not follow from NIDA's reasoning that adults should be prohibited from using cannabis.

---

[1] Source: http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml

[2] http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana-medicine

[3] The psychoactive chemicals of marijuana are precisely what engender creativity, mindfulness, interconnectivity, and dialogue, i.e., the “spiritual” uses of the plant.

[4] Dronabinol and Nabilone are used to treat nausea caused by chemotherapy and weight loss caused by AIDS

[5] http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana-medicine

[6] One of the best threads woven into Initiative 502 (which legalized recreation cannabis in Washington state) was the dedication of a percentage of tax revenue to research.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] http://www.drugabuse.gov/about-nida/directors-page/messages-director/2013/02/challenging-marijuana-myths

[13] Carl Sagan, Steven Colbert, Bill Maher, etc. (marijuanamajoirty.com)

Hawk Yeah!

Well I'd say that was pretty convincing.

A total team complete game domination.  An old school asswhupping.

Tough to pick a Super Bowl MVP.  Like the '85 Bears, it had to go to someone on the defense. Malcolm Smith was in the right place at the right couple of times (just like he was to seal the NFC championship); got no qualms that they gave it to him.  But it was the guys getting up in Old Manning's face who really deserved it.  They got Peyton's jersey plenty dirty (as New England couldn't).

And the offense, which kept cranking out 1st downs, deserves a ton of credit for keeping the other guys' most prolific offense in history off the field. Under-respected receivers Baldwin and Kearse got to taste end zone glory - the latter's spinning, defender-shucking romp was simply awesome - way to go, local kid!  As did Lynch, unlike his predecessor in Beast-dom, the late great Walter Payton.

Yes, this team and its players deserves to be compared with all-timers.

Percy Harvin finally earned his millions... in twelve electric seconds.  Richard Sherman was so good he played himself out of the limelight, for once.  Russell Wilson far outshined a first-ballot hall of famer.  The list goes on and on.  Every man contributed, every single Seahawk left it all on the field.

John Schneider, the man who put it all together, got plenty of well-deserved credit - when is the last time an exec got so much press?  So did coach Carroll, who mentioned to the 12th man over and over (as did commissioner Goodell, and Paul Allen, and everyone else).  I expect he led the guys through some new age meditation mumbo jumbo in the days prior or whatever - goddamn hippy, he'll never win in this league... right?

What a win for the city of Seattle.  Expectations were sky high all season, and our boys in blue lived up to every one of them.  Won the division.  Won home field.  Eliminated our rivals for the NFC crown.  Then, on the biggest stage of them all, executed an epic beat down.

Hawk Yeah!

Hawks Win! Seahawks triumph over 9ers in epic fashion! Too many huge plays to remember!

Super Bowl XL was too big for us, we weren’t ready.  But these '13 Hawks is.  Defense wins NFC Championship, the headlines will read tomorrow.  They only tested Sherman twice all evening; his interception assist in the end zone was ridiculous, obviously the play of the game.  Or was it, even?

I can think of six other candidates which deserve consideration.  The first is the heave to Baldwin which set up the Seahawks’ only points of the first half.  Because that showed Russell wasn’t cowed.  The next is Marshawn’s beast burst with that Walter Payton kick move; sweet as every flavor of Skittles at once.  How is that corporation not paying that man?  Who is his agent, that he’s doing “Stop Freakin’, Call Beacon” instead of national “Taste the Rainbow” ads.  Third best play of the game was the fourth down hail mary touchdown to Kearse; easily the best play of any other game.  Fourth was Kaepernick running and slinging, it has to be said: dude’s an incredible athlete – but I prefer Russell’s head.  That 9ers defense was all over number 3 all night, he had to scramble backwards like his video game avatar just to get rid of it and hopefully avoid intentional grounding.  Aldon Smith got after our QB, it has to be said.  Which is why I’m looking forward to the Super Bowl.  I don’t think Denver’s got half San Fran’s defense.  And Old Manning, for whom I have nothing but the ultimate respect (his hall of fame career and his demeanor as a role model family man have inarguably exceeded any football aficionado’s hopes for someone to look up to), is gonna have to run for his life against this pumped up D-FENSE!

3 takeaways in the 4th quarter, nuff said.  Especially that gamewinner - damn!  Who deserved the game ball? Everyone.  Blue’s D-Line dominated, stuffed Gore, and the secondary the pass completely.  Yes, we did let that Irish bitch loose a few times but held firm when it counted.  Like after that first-play fumble.  Important that the D held then, and indeed, kept us in the game throughout the 1^st half.  Easily could’ve gotten out of hand there in the 2^nd quarter. 17-3, 24-3 at the intermission.  Offense wa’nt doing shit at the beginning, but I love we kept poundin it with Skittle Beast (damn he got a sweet skittle skip – and he stiffarmed A.Smith to the ground that time too, changed -5 into +2) and it opened up a couple times.  You could tell it was going to after he got ten to start the second half.  Then he busted that great one.  Place went nuts.  Then you could smell a fumble coming, and it almost happened three times but Kaepernick zipped that lazer beam to quiet us, kinda.  Then Baldwin returned that kick almost to the house!  89’s second huge play of the night.  Best play candidate because with it the Hawks regained the momentum.  What’s number six?  The 2 delay of games attributable to the 12trh man?  Very possibly.  Maybe it was that S.F. assistant’s cheap shot on the sideline – fire and fine that fucker – maybe it was that long Hauschka kick that made our hated archrivals need a touchdown to win it in our house.  Maybe it was the plays their quarterback didn’t make with his legs because of the halftime adjustments by our Defensive Coordinator.  Maybe it was one of several forgotten third-down conversions (mostly to Baldwin) with which we retained possession.  But how can anyone deny the heroics of Navarro Bowman, who got his leg broken but held on to the ball at the goal line; whose martyrdom was somehow not reviewable / challengeable.  An injustice.  I like that Marshawn, in a soccer-like gesture, gave the ball right back, out of sportsmanship.  Did y’all notice that?  Or maybe you thought it was Karma.

C’mon Skittles.  Give the man a contract.

C’mon D.  Win us one more.

Go hoist that trophy,

Bring it home, Hawks. 

'Lone Survivor' : Long Game High Ground

That pretty young Afghan boy with the big eyes pondering why we decided to take the humanitarian route, that decidedly 'brown' Arab kid practicing our words; think about that.  

Those villagers helping Marky Mark were cool and made sense, as did the inevitable military brotherhood tripe – which is probably indubitably accurate.

Hollywood personalizing the soldiers with enhanced peccadillos was obvious, so too was the call for more hardware on the ground and in the air (subtext: it all could’ve been avoided given more "defense" contracts).  

But really, the movie was all about the importance of making an impression upon the next generation of our enemies’ doormats.  

Those few hero marines who perished in combat because they followed the rules of engagement wouldn’t want to be thought of as martyrs, except to their loved ones (by whom they inevitably will be). They were just doing their jobs, obeying the directive of their commander-in chief.

Because they’re Frogmen – Hoo-rah!  Maybe they were even actually cowards come crunchtime, who knows, who cares?  There’s no declassified evidence regarding any of this shit.  But that wouldn’t make for such a saleable story.  Hey, at least they put themselves there, which is more than one can say for the 99%.

Marijuana as “Medicine” - Just what the M.D. / Ph.D. / J.D. ordered

Marijuana as “Medicine”

Just what the M.D. / Ph.D. / J.D. ordered

I am a Seattle lawyer with chronic back pain and a history of S.A.D.  I suffer from spinal arthritis and a genetic predisposition to alcoholism.  I have been prescribed Oxycontin, Hydrocodone, Prozac, and Wellbutrin and told not to mix them with booze.  Frustrated by my constantly knotted bowels, nervous terror, and desire to jump off a bridge, I decided to seek an umpteenth opinion.  On the advice of my metaphysician, I recently filled a medical marijuana prescription.  It’s made all the difference in the world.

It has been one year since we Washingtonians passed Initiative 502.  The medical marijuana industry stands to lose big from regulation when it finally kicks in next Spring; indeed, the only people I know who voted no were MMJ distributors.  We patients will be fine; the new scheme only expands our rights.  Vendors, on the other hand, must become state-licensed.  There are currently hundreds of untaxed, unregulated pot shop shops in Seattle.  Only 21 in-city licenses will be issued.  Here’s hoping that such a paucity of legal suppliers will indeed be able to decrease black market demand, and that industry experts (i.e., medical marijuana collectivists) will overcome their paranoia about having cameras recording every inch of their operations 24-7, and file the paperwork to go legitimate.

D.C. told Olympia: “We’ll back off and wait to see what happens if you promise to thwart the black market, and keep it from kids” – goals which the DEA has unequivocally not itself achieved in its protracted war on its own minority citizens.  The cost of zero-tolerance over the years has been incalculable.  But I digress.

The federal government continues to classify THC as a schedule 1 hallucinogenic.  It’s on par with LSD because the other Washington recognizes no benefits.  Anyone who witnessed San Fran in ‘68 can probably imagine a balancing test in which mind-altering (read: subconscious-outing) chemicals are perceived to be threatening to the establishment.  And to be fair, THC is de-square-ifying.  On the other hand it confers certain benefits. 

Because the debate lacks empirical evidence, I, as one of the few people in the world with permission to walk around with a joint in my pocket, feel duty-bound to relate my iota of experience. 

Here’s what my addiction looks like:  I come home from my job stressed.  My back and neck hurt.  I desire to unwind.  Rather than ten fingers of scotch, I pour myself a half-cup of chilled lemon water into a double-percolated glass-blown hookah pipe.  Then I select exactly the right strain of cannabis for my needs, play some evocative music, stretch out on floor pillows like the Cheshire Cat, and light up.  Occasionally (usually on weekends) I take a whole day to check in with myself; I find that self-psychoanalysis facilitates good mental health.

Why doesn’t Obama just order the FDA to conduct a clinical trial?  Because he knows what the results would be.  And then he’d have to comment.  But he doesn’t really give a darn – it’s only pot. 

Leave it to the states, says our judicious leader, re-delegating to we grantors of his power our 10^th Amendment rights.

Herb might adversely affect adolescents’ brains say medical professionals.  Okay, restrict it to adults; that (kind of) works with alcohol.  Prosecute street deals.

Black marketers are businessmen; they have bottom-lines, like everyone else.  Cut deeply enough into their profits and they cannot continue to function.  Take away their weed sales, and they will have to shut down their entire operations, including distributing to minors bath salts and meth. 

Now the only guys who will sell weed to kids are SOL.  Shucks, maybe they’ll have to look for a 9-5 gig.

Interestingly, prior criminal convictions for marijuana related offenses will not preclude entrepreneurs from applying for the grower, processor and distributor licenses now available.  Which seems correct – after all, what other job can a convicted brother get?

In my opinion, in this case, federal interests will be excellently served by regulation at the state level.  And the economics of the idea is sound: tax the profits; conserve – indeed, increase – our monetary resources for use on more pressing problems.  Furthermore, society in general will profit from the more equitable treatment of its tan men.  Legislation which produces discriminatory results is per se unconstitutional.[1]

We’ll have to wait and see how it all plays out.  But I for one vow to continue to use medical marijuana even if the federal government does step in.  Because bud is kind for what ails me, way mellower than anything else.  And as a citizen it is my right to civilly disobey unjust laws and try to catch a court case.

---

[1]  The appearance of anomalous district boundaries was sufficient to state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause for racial gerrymandering. [DeWitt v. Wilson, 856 F. Supp. 1409, 1412 (D. Cal. 1994)]. (Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/racial-gerrymandering/)