Posts Tagged ‘Chronic Clan’

Marijuana Anthem – ?
What If God Smoked Cannabis – ?
Growing Marijuana In My Yard – Ben Scales
Ain’t Never Been To Spain – Three Dog Night
Gimme Da Weed! – Chronic Clan
Whole Lotta Weed – Project Pat
Marijuanaville – ?
Marijuana – Nirvana
Smoke Some Marijuana – Pennywaise
Beer vs Pot – Bill Hicks
Legalize it! – my song….LOL
On Coast – Supraluxe

Share this article

420 Minneota Radio

Today I play music and talk about Cannabis

Waiting For The Day By TrenchTown

Gimme Da Weed By Chronic Clan

Ganja Wise – Yuya

Protect Yourself – PeleJa

Senate Republicans seek repeal of minors’ consent for health care

By Andy Birkey | 03.28.11 | 7:48 am

Senate Republicans have included a provision in a health and human services omnibus bill that would repeal Minnesota’s minors’ consent laws. Those laws, first enacted in 1971, allow Minnesotans under the age of 18 to access mental and physical health care, as well as substance use care. The bill would strip those laws from the books and only allow a minor to seek those services in the case of incest. The Minnesota Department of Health, the Mayo Clinic, the American Academy of Pediatrics and teen pregnancy prevention groups all testified in opposition.

The debate over minors’ consent has typically been over abortion. Anti-abortion rights groups have been attacking such laws through legislation and lawsuits over much of the past decade. Minnesota’s neighboring states allow minors’ consent for testing for sexually transmitted diseases, but not for birth control. If the proposed bill became law, it would be one of the most restrictive in the country.

The bill was supported by the Minnesota Family Council, whose president, Tom Prichard, testified at Friday morning’s Senate judiciary committee meeting. He blamed the law for a rise in sexually transmitted infections, depression and drug use.

“Kids aren’t happier,” he said. “We believe that isolating minors from the parents isn’t making things better. These are enormous life-changing issues.”

But it was physicians who noted that the law serves to protect adolescents.

Dr. Ann Edwards, a pediatrician speaking on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said that minors’ consent removes potential barriers to medical care.

She told the story of a teen whose stepfather had been raping her and had concerns that that teen would have trouble seeking resources without her parents knowing.

“All our children deserve the very best,” she said. “I must urge you not to pass Senate file 1017.

Dr. Patricia Simmons, on behalf of the Mayo Clinic, agreed. “We don’t want to do anything that discourages adolescents from getting help.”

Simmons said that health care workers have an obligation to encourage teens to involve their parents in medical matters. In every instance she knew of in her practice teens have heeded that advice and brought their parents into the discussion, she said.

Brigid Riley of the Minnesota Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Prevention and Parenting said the law has been an important tool for the state. “The statute has helped Minnesota achieve the lowest teen pregnancy rate on record, and it’s been an important tool for medical providers for four decades now.”

She added, “The statute allows a health care provider to provide care confidentially, but it doesn’t require them to.”

However, Republican Sen. David Hann, (R-Eden Prairie), the bill’s author, said when his teen child was going through a rough time, he was not allowed access to his child’s records.

“What this really is about is that there should be a presumption that parents make decisions for their minor child,” he said.

DFL Sen. Barb Goodwin of Columbia Heights, who has worked in childrens’ mental health services, said repealing the law could have dangerous consequences. “If we are going to pass anything that is going to create an issue where even one child’s life is gone because they wouldn’t get the help they needed, I think that’s wrong.”

The bill passed the committee along party lines on Friday. A version of the bill has been included in the Health and Human Services omnibus bill.

Laurence Maroney Charged With Marijuana Possession, Escapes Weapons Charge

The St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office yesterday charged NFL player Laurence Maroney with marijuana possession following a January 17 arrest outside a Rick Ross concert.

Maroney, 26, was pulled over in an Infiniti SUV that police said was blocking traffic outside Chaifetz Arena. Police then detected marijuana smoke coming from the vehicle. A search of the car produced marijuana and several handguns. Maroney, according to his publicist, has a concealed carry permit.

Yesterday prosecutors said they’ve “determined that no Missouri gun laws were violated.” They did, however, have enough evidence to charge Maroney and four others (Glenn Elton Gant, 27; Michael G. Brown, 22; Lavel L. May, 25; Royce R. Spann, 26) with possession of under 35 grams of marijuana.

The charge is a misdemeanor, punishable by one day to one year in prison and up to $1,000 in fines or probation. No word yet on how Maroney and others will plead.

Maroney, a 2003 graduate of Normandy High School, played three seasons for the University of Minnesota before being drafted in 2006 as a first-round pick to the New England Patriots. This year, Maroney was traded to Denver where he played a limited role as running back, seeing action in just four games.

NCI offers explanation for changes to its medical marijuana database entry

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has now published online an explanation for changes made to its treatment database entry on cannabis that The American Independent previously reported on.

The explanation states that the information available in NCI’s so-called “PDQ” (Physician Data Query) summaries are not treatment recommendations and are not representative of any federal policy.

The full text of the explanation:

The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.

In writing Cancer Information Summaries, PDQ Editorial Boards review current evidence. They do not make recommendations. Their work is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary on Cannabis and cannabinoids does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. The summary statement represents an independent review of the literature; that review is not influenced by NCI or any other federal agency.

In light of the attention garnered by the PDQ summary statement on Cannabis and cannabinoids, reviewers for the summary on the PDQ Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Editorial Board reexamined the recently posted statement and decided to change the wording, in order to clarify the meaning that the Board originally intended to convey and to correct several possible misinterpretations. The changes made and the rationales for them are:

  • In the General Information section, the wording was revised to make clearer that Cannabis is not approved by the FDA for any medical use.
  • In the General Information section, a sentence was replaced to add clarification. The CAM Board lead reviewers realized that the previous wording could have been misinterpreted as being a recommendation for prescribing Cannabis, which was not the intent of the Board. In addition, the current evidence for the antitumor properties of Cannabis is discussed only in the context of laboratory studies and not in research involving human subjects. It is discussed only in the summary section titled Laboratory/Animal/Preclinical Studies.
  • In the last sentence of the Adverse Effects section under Cannabinoids, the words “severe or abrupt” were added for clarification.

Readers of the PDQ Cannabis and Cannabinoids summary should note that no changes were made to the Overall Level of Evidence for Cannabis and Cannabinoids section. This section provides levels of evidence related to the use of cannabinoids and Cannabis.

As part of the regular process for all PDQ Editorial Boards, the CAM Editorial Board plans to further review the literature and discuss other potential revisions to the summary.

As the explanation mentions, there is now a further revision to the summary of cannabis. It states:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved the use of Cannabis as a treatment for any medical condition. To conduct clinical drug research in the United States, researchers must file an Investigational New Drug (IND) application with the FDA.

An IND application is the first step in initiating clinical trials that can lead to FDA approval of a drug. While the new sentence is certainly by no means intended to be an official endorsement of seeking FDA approval of medical marijuana, it’s interesting to note that the concept of applying for IND approval is even acknowledged. The FDA stopped discontinued IND trials of marijuana in 1991 because of the glut of people seeking legal, FDA-approved access to the drug.

Share this article

Get Adobe Flash player