Cannabis

@

 

The Georgia Guide Stones 

Marijuana Rights Resources

www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com

1990 HR 4079 proposed Gramm-Gingrich "National Drug and Crime Emergency Act"  1990 -

 

 Note: Appeals to the webmaster to be moved from the Red and Blue Lists to the Green  list will be ignored

 

Links Off Site:

The End Of The World

 

 

 

 

The theme is structure, organization and thee holy writ of law;

be a joiner and put it in writing:

http://www.thc-ministry.org/index1.htm

http://www.peyoteway.org/

Google these: "Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church"  "Marijuana and the Bible"

& this

"Fane of the Psilocybe Mushroom"

http://www.lawguru.com/users/law/attainder/

 

CASE NO. 87 CIV 4895
FILED JUL 10 1987
DOC 1 JUDGE GRIESA

COMPLAINT RECEIVED
MAR 30 1987
PRO SE OFFICE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
S.D. OF N.Y.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NASSAU A. COLISEUM, for himself and the
spurious class of persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
-against-
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ;
MARIO M. CUOMO, Governor of the State
of New York;
and ROBERT ABRAMS, Attorney General of
the State of New York,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT

PARTIES



1. Plaintiff above-named, NASSAU A.COLISEUM, resides in the Southern District of New York, with current mailing address: 86A5597, Drawer B, Stormville, NY 12582.
2. Defendant ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States pursuant to 28 USC s. 553(1), and more particularly the chairman of the United States Drug Enforcement Policy Board created by 21 USC ss. 1201-1202 charged with the responsibility of coordinating United States policies and all Federal efforts with respect to drug enforcement. Said ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES is additionally a proper party herein pursuant to 28 USC 2403.
3. Defendant MARIO M. CUOMO, Governor of the State of New York, is the chief executive officer of the State of New York charged with enforcement of its criminal laws, among other things.
4. Defendant, ROBERT ABRAMS, Attorney General of the State of New York, is a proper party pursuant to 28 USC 2403, Defendant.
5. The Plaintiff class would comprise all those persons explicitly or implicitly bound by the operation of the laws hereinafter set forth.

STANDING AND JURISDICTION




6. This action arises under Article I, Section 9, clause 3, and Article I, Section 10, clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States, as hereinafter more fully appears.
7. Plaintiff was sentenced in the County Court of the State of New York for Nassau County July 7, 1986 to an indeterminant term of imprisonment of from one to three years, upon the charge of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree in violation of Section 220.16 [4] of the Penal Law of the State of New York.
8. Plaintiff is eligible for "Conditional Release" March 26, 1987, but must sign the Conditions of Release - pursuant to Section 259(g) of the Executive Law of the State of New York, which
include the following:
"I will not behave in such manner as to violate the provisions of any law to which I am subject which provide (sic) for a penalty of imprisonment...
"I will not use or possess . . . any controlled substance without proper medical authorization."
9. This is an action to declare unconstitutional and void all those laws of the United States and the State of New York which criminalize the use, possession and/or distribution of controlled
substances as hereinafter more fully set forth, to which Plaintiff may be subject, and for further necessary and proper relief as upon said Declaration Plaintiff may be entitled.
10. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1331, 1343(3), 2201 and 2202.

FACTS




11. The Congress of the United States [and Legislature of the State of New York] have determined that certain substances may be conducive to a state of physical, physiological, psychological or
even "psychic" dependence on the part of the user thereof. See House Report No. 91-1444, Sept. 10, 1970, USCCAN pg. 4573.
12. "Abuse" of such substances is said to occur when habitual use leads to a "lack of elf-control" on the part of the user with respect thereto, or the endangering of the public health, safety, morals or welfare. 21 USC 802(1), New York Public Health Law ss. 3300 et.seq.
13. Congress has additionally found that "Drug Abuse" as a whole seriously undermines individual and society well-being and health, threatens institutions, and contributes to crime and hardships
upon the Community, as well as any number of activities in the federal spectrum. 21 USC s. 1101 (2)(3)(4)(9), 1102(a).
14. The United States and the State of New York have thus embarked upon a comprehensive and all-inclusive program encompassing every act and activity which could possibly lead to the proliferation of illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, possession or diversion
of "controlled substances". 21 USC 801, 1101(8); NY Controlled Substances
Act, supra; PHL ss. 3300.
15. Substances are designated as "Controlled substances" by the Attorney General of the United States and the Congress on the basis of the history, patterns, apparent and/or evident potentials
of and for abuse, and resulting liability to the public. 21 USC 811(c); PHL 3306.
16. It is unlawful and mala prohibita to possess, manufacture, dispense or even abandon said controlled substances for any reason whatsoever, except in the course of recognized and professional medical or research practice as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the basis of a consensus of views of the American medical and scientific communities. 21 USC 801a, 802(8), 841, 844; NY PHL 3304, 3328, 3330; NY Penal Law 220.00(2), 220.03, 220.60.
17. Compliance with such exemptions or exceptions is an Affirmative Defense to any charges of violation of the Controlled Substance Laws aforesaid, with the burden of establishing innocence
of a Defendant upon such Defendant. 21 USC 885; NY PHL 3396(1).
18. Violations of certain of the Controlled Substance laws carry infamous penalties as severe as nearly any in the United States. 21 USC ss. 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 845a, 846, 847; NY Penal Law 220.05. 220.06, 220.09, 220.12, 220.16, 220.18, 220.21, 220.31, 220.34, 220.39, 220.41, 220.43, 220.60, 221.
19. Offenses involving distribution by adults to minors are in some cases subject to double penalties and, on a second offense, triple penalties as to like offenses between adults. 21 USC 845; [NY Penal Law 221, Marijuana].
20. Offenses occurring within 1000 feet of a public or private elementary or secondary school, with or without knowledge or specific intent of an accused, are likewise subject to double
and triple penalties, 21 USC 845a, under Federal law.
21. Attempts or conspiracies to commit offenses relating to [sale of] Controlled Substances are subject to the same punishment as the substantive offense, 21 USC 846; NY Penal Law 220.00(1), rather than State treatment as a reduced charge, Cf. NY Penal Law 115,
220.03 [attempted or conspiracy for possession still a lesser charge in
New York State].
22. Federal offenses involving "sophisticated" and "continuing" enterprises of 5 or more persons producing income or resources which are deemed "substantial" with respect to an accused, are subject to significant increases in penalties and loss of eligibility for probation and/or a suspended sentence. 21 USC 848.
23. Federal offenses involving Controlled Substances subject to forfeiture on probable cause any conveyance, vessel, craft, real property, vehicle, appurtenance or improvement known to have
been used or intended for any such offense in whole or in part, as well as investments of any direct or indirect income from such offense. 21 USC 854, 881(a)(b). Title to same vests in the United States except upon timely motion or proceeding instituted by a claimant and/or a stay of proceedings pending disposition of criminal charges, for good cause. etermination of the alleged commission of an act giving rise to forfeiture proceeds under civil rules rather than a presumption of innocence afforded a criminal Defendant. 21 USC 881 (h)(i).
24. Persons convicted at any time of cultivation of controlled substances in violation of Federal law are ineligible for certain Federal farming assistance. 21 USC 881 (h) (i).
25. New York State offenses involving controlled substances subject to certain special procedures before conviction, forfeiture to the State of all property, buildings, appurtenances, profits or proceeds obtained by sale or exchange of profits, resulting from or whose use in whole or in part contributed directly and materially to an alleged crime - or activity arising in a common scheme or plan including such alleged crime, even without a specifically identified accused. Such subject property may be held or even destroyed on a finding of "substantial probability" of prevailing on the issue of forfeiture, which is determined on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence", unless civil proceedings are stayed during any criminal and related action for cause. NY Civil Practice Law and Rules ss. 1310, 1311.
26. New York State offenses involving controlled substances also subject to forfeiture after conviction any vehicle, vessel or aircraft knowingly used to transport, conceal or further felonious possession or sale of such controlled substances, subject only to timely motion or
proceeding instituted by an interested and adverse party. NY PHL s. 3388, Civil Practice Law and Rules ss. 1311(7), 1327, 1352 .
27. Federal offenses involving controlled substances automatically subject an accused to an [expedited] hearing for cause to determine whether he or she may be detained without bail, at the
request of the United States. 18 USC 3142(f)(1)(c).
28. Federal offenses involving controlled substances subject a Defendant to possible conditions of imprisonment - not imposed on other offenders except in separately authorized proceedings
for good cause; restricting communications with certain persons except attorneys. 18 USC 3582(d).
29. The United States is not restricted by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs signed March 30, 1961 in New York City, USA, or the Convention on Psychotropic Substances signed February
21, 1971 in Vienna, Austria, from adopting alternative regulatory programs, less infamous than criminalization, for controlled substances. 21 USC 852.

CAUSE OF ACTION




30. The United States and New York Legislative programs criminalizing the handling of controlled substances as aforesaid constitute Bills of Attainder and Pains and Penalties, prohibited in like
measure by the Constitution of the United States, Art.I, s. 9, clause 3 and Art. I, s. 10, clause 1, from being enacted by Congress and the State of New York, respectively; for the reasons set forth below.
31. The source of legislative concern over controlled substances aforesaid is the use and/or status of addiction to drugs admittedly beyond its competence to make criminal by legislative
act. Congress and the New York Legislature have nevertheless indulged in airy assumptions based upon "indicators" and the like, describing a menace more powerful and dangerous than any known natural or man-made adversary heretofore existing, but about which "too little is known"; not unlike dragons denounced by decree of a magistracy of Nottingham. 21 USC 1101(5), 1201 (2), (4-7). Said controlled substances acts are not "social surgery" in specific and vital areas of Legislative concern, but "strip mining" of entire social and demographic landscapes of the populace, as hereinafter described.
32. The Controlled Substances Acts aforesaid venture well beyond legitimate regulation of activities properly in the legislative domain or future activities for which past or present conduct may indicate undesirable characteristics or unfitness.
A. The ultimate rule sought to be established upon the state of indicators, etc. aforesaid
is a condition of habitual abuse of substances manifesting in a user's loss of self-control and/or conduct endangering the public health, welfare and morals, or future threat of same. Cf. 18 USC ss. 3142(c)(2)(I) and 3563(b) (8) ["excessive" use of drugs].
B. The adjudication of facts, and objective legal standard established by the controlled substances acts for the application of such rule by the executive and judicial branches, however, relates only to simple possession or distribution of controlled substances, acts not harmful in and of themselves; and authorizes conviction irrespective of any conduct, loss of self-control or finding of scienter endangering or threatening to the public health, safety or morals, and
welfare.
C. The acts make the subject of criminal legislation differences of opinion with the consensus of views of the "American medical and scientific communities". "Unaccepted" acts may still be "medical" in nature.
D. The acts vest judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative and quasi-administrative authority
over its "escape" provisions to licensed practitioners only incidentally answerable to sovereign citizens who are the ultimate source of all governmental authority.
E. Criminal legislation in the field of medicine generally, must be strictly applied only in specific instances involving serious individual danger, transgression against or threat to community values and welfare; because of the inalienable nature of men' and women's relationship to their own bodies and foods and preparations ingested thereinto. This is especially the case where an individual acts of his or her own free will and no outside practitioner is involved.
F. Because of the nature of substance abuse, even if designations of certain particular
substances as "potentially" subject to abuse were valid, the ultimate fact of abuse would still turn on individual and subjective considerations, in each specific case.
33. The Controlled Substances Acts, as aforesaid, constitute a legislative adjudication of guilt without judicial trial, upon the class of persons who may handle or use controlled substances.
A. The overbreadth of the programs criminalizing every act and activity which could possibly
lead to the proliferation of controlled substances, as described herein, tends to show, in and of itself, that Congress and the State of New York did not just merely summarize the characteristics and activities subject to legislation and valid regulation, in the acts' proscriptions, relative
to harmful abuse, aforesaid.
B. Furthermore, Congress and the Legislature of the State of New York have designated in no uncertain terms who possesses the characteristics and performs the acts causing the "Drug Abuse" problem in the United States, and to whom the ultimate rule of habitual and dangerous abuse should apply, irrespective of any conduct or scienter or intent on same's part, or other administrative or legislative determination.
C. The Acts' designation of present activities of simple possession or distribution of controlled substances, on its face and necessarily in its application, serves as a point of reference for the ascertaining of particular persons within the class attained rather than an operative element of harmful abuse to which legal consequences would optimally be attached, as
aforesaid.
D. The Acts condemn without trial as to the ultimate issue of harmful conduct or abuse, persons innocently in factions which are out of favor with the American medical and scientific community, under circumstances of simple past or present possession or distribution of controlled substances rendered obnoxious by the Acts.
E. The Acts' provisions relating to conspiracy, attempt, severe penalties, continuing enterprises, minors, proximity of schools, forfeiture, detention without bail and restricted
communications in prison are designed to reach individuals in the class attained rather than the calling of harmful abuse sought to be regulated by the Acts, on their face and necessarily in their application. Unique enforcement and prosecution provisions for drug offenses have been explicitly authorized, in addition, also because basic substantive provisions did not produce enough convictions. See, e.g. 21 USC 885(d), 886(b); P.L. 98-473, ss. 303-9; P.L. 91-513, s. 509(b), P.L. 96-359.
F. The designations of persons attained as described herein carry, connote and rule upon blameworthiness for the "Drug Abuse" problem in the United States and New York State, properly
ruled upon by and the province of the judicial branch of government according to law.
G. The designation of controlled substances by the Attorney General does not necessarily mean that evidence in a particular record of simple possession or distribution, even if unauthorized under the Acts, would support a verdict upon the undesirable and harmful conduct or abuse condemned by the Acts, as aforesaid, in such case.
H. To the extent that possession, use or distribution of controlled substances is authorized
by the Acts, said Acts remove the presumption of innocence otherwise attaching to such activities; by Legislative fiat. The presumption of innocence inheres in judicial notions of fundamental liberties engrafted by the Due Process clause, but for said Acts.
I. To the extent that the Acts set an objective standard of conduct for controlled substances applicable to all persons, same is not otherwise part of an overall valid regulatory program, as aforesaid; nor are the guidelines or authority for administering same or the standard itself, standing alone, capable of salvaging requisite Constitutional muster, herein.
34. The Controlled Substance Acts as set forth herein are notoriously, unquestionably and inherently punitive with respect to those attained, both on their face and as necessarily applied.
A. The Acts do not establish a reasonable program related to harmful drug abuse: invoke
criminal sanctions without a finding of scienter, and necessarily lend themselves to punitive and arbitrary application against the vast class of persons so attained; as aforesaid and herein shown.
B. The only non-punitive legislative purpose possibly ascribable to the Acts would be the regulation of actual drug transactions by the Department of Justice, and peace officers of New York State; which would thus involve excessive to the point of Draconian and singularly inappropriate means to achieve the alternate purposes assignable to the statute, and for which less restrictive and punitive means are abundantly available.
C. The history of the Acts and means employed therein are a classic example of Bills of
Attainder and Pains and Penalties.

i] The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-513) and the Rockefeller Drug Laws of 1972 in New York State (Laws 1973, c.276, 277, 278) were unabashedly retaliatory and vindictive in their direction towards the "hippie" drug "sub-culture", so pronounced in the reform movements of the Vietnam-era which aroused heated passions culminating in the 1968 Chicago "police riot" at the Democratic Convention and the
1971 "re-capture" of Attica State prison in Wyoming County, NY, in which latter action 24 inmates and 9 civilians were killed; with which the legislatures were intimately acquainted; and which laws partook of nothing other than marked spoils of party triumph.

ii] Such laws and even subsequent amendments of the Federal laws have been motivated by hate, fear, prejudice, jealousy, spite and vindictiveness in order to deprive and suspend so many of the "troublemakers" as necessary, of their political and civil rights, to the extent of identifying them by general description, and creating an oligarchy or aristocracy of a small
number of partisans to retain the democratic franchise, in absentia, if necessary.

iii] The Acts substantially impose infamous punishments,banishments, disenfranchisements, disqualifications, near loss of citizenship, and forfeiture of property upon members of a group of persons embracing a particular medical philosophy and/or ideology and/or acting a certain way, to the displeasure of Congress, and who are thought to present a threat to the national security
and welfare; as aforesaid.

iv] The Acts impose an affirmative and at times insurmountable burden to seek a cure for substance abuse, and indeed stress - rather - the punitive purposes of deterrence, prevention, retribution, isolation and correctional rehabilitation, if available.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF




WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court enter a Declaratory Judgment in his favor, declaring void the Controlled Substances Acts set forth herein, as contrary to the manifest
tenor of the Constitution; and upon further hearing grant such necessary and proper relief and costs to which Plaintiff may be entitled and as to the Court may seem just, equitable and proper.

Dated: Stormville, NY
March 25, 1987

 

Respectfully submitted,


/s Nassau A. Coliseum
Nassau A. Coliseum, 86A5597
Pro Se Plaintiff
Drawer B
Stormville, NY 12582

 

VERIFICATION




STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS) SS:
I, NASSAU A. COLISEUM, do hereby affirm under penalty of perjury and pursuant to the laws of the United States, that I am the named plaintiff in the foregoing Complaint, that I have read the same and know the contents thereof, and the allegations contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Dated: March 25, 1987
Stormville, NY

 

Signed,


/s Nassau A. Coliseum

NASSAU A. COLISEUM

 

 

Judge Griesa
87 CIV 6300
AUG 31 1987

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NASSAU COLISEUM,

Plaintiff,

-against-

RAYMOND F. BURGHARDT,

Defendant.

 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER




Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this action against the above-named defendant seeking to compel him to perfrom certain official acts in his capacity as Clerk of this Court.1
Plaintiff seeks injuctive relief and unspecified money damages. We grant plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiff fails to state facts alleging a Federal constitutional or statutory violation of his rights. He alleges that a complaint he submitted to this Court along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis dated March 26, 1987, was never assigned a docket number or a judge. However, plaintiff admits he received an acknowledgement letter from the Pro Se Office of this Court dated March 30, 1987, as well as a follow-up status letter dated April 10,1987. The records of this Court indicate that plaintiff's complaint was docketed on July 10,1987 as Coliseum v. United States Attorney General, No. 87 Civ. 4895 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (TPG), and dismissed sua sponte. Therefore, the plaintiff has already received the relief he seeks in the instant complaint, and the issue is moot.
Accordingly, the complaint, filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. s.1915(a), is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-09 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
It is frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. s.1915(d). We certify that any appeal from this order in forma pauperis is not taken in good faith because such an appeal would be frivolous. 28 U.S.C. s.1915(a); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.

/s Thomas P. Griesa

THOMAS P. GRIESA

Acting Chief Judge
Dated: New York, New York
August 27, 1987

1 We note that plaintiff is improperly seeking an order of this Court directing itself to take certain action. The appropriate procedure for plaintiff to pursue is to seek a writ of mandamus from the United States Court of Appeals, a step he has already taken.
 

 There really is a Mr. Nassau A. Coliseum.  I have met him.
 
 - the webmaster
 
The Fair Trial Security, as filed, was based the document above.
 

The American Psychiatric Association has in their seal the portrait of Dr.
Benjamin Rush. He was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He wrote:

 "Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come
when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship... the
Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for medical
freedom as well as religious freedom." - Benjamin Rush M.D.

The undercover dictatorship has long been here and, like an addict, craves more power: A bill, HR 4079, once co-sponsored in 1990 by Representative Newt Gingrich and Senator Phil Gramm, would have opened the way for American concentration camps to be built, and thereafter permit the state to round up suspected drug users, and anyone else having knowledge of them,  and force them to work as slave labor for the state.

Medical Marijuana

Dutc

January 22, 2003

Re: the Medical Marijuana Bill

 

I would like to thank the committee today for the chance to expand upon my remarks in order to refute the erroneous impression left by certain speakers at the hearing in December that cannabis is pharmacologically identical to alcohol or opiates. In fact, alcohol and opiates act through the glutamate pathways; they are pro-inflammatory, like nicotine, as opposed to cannabinols, which down-regulate glutamate and inflammation. You will remember what I said before about marijuana's anti-carcinogenic properties. There are studies that show smoking pot produces "precancerous" cellular alterations. Prohibition supporters often claim marijuana smoke has even more cancer causing compounds than does tobacco smoke. However, this claim is based on the tar content of cannabis LEAVES. Cannabis users do not smoke leaves; the BUDS contain only 30% as much tar as tobacco.

 

Recent scientific studies have shown that cancer-causing effects are specifically due to nicotine. In fact, nicotine through nicotine receptors in the airways protects cells damaged by the carcinogens found in tobacco smoke from dying. Cells that are genetically damaged by carcinogens and protected from dying are the cells that go on to become cancer cells. The question becomes will pot smokers develop lung cancer as do cigarette smokers, but perhaps at a slower rate.

 

In this regard, established facts on the impact of marijuana on the immune system must be considered. The immune systems has specific cannabinoid receptors (CB2) that are distinguishable from the neurological variety (CB1). Stimulation of the CB2 receptor plays an important role in what is known as "immune deviation". The immune system can typically respond in either of two general patterns known as a th1 or a th2 cytokine response. Cannabinoids cause the immune system to deviate to a th2, anti-inflammatory response. In contrast, tobacco smoke has opposite pharmacological properties and results in a pro-inflammatory response. The pro-inflammatory response is characterized by free radical production which will exacerbate any carcinogens in the smoke. Pro-inflammatory response amplifies tobacco's carcinogenic potential whereas marijuana's anti-inflammatory response intrinsically reduces the carcinogenic potential of smoking. Consistent with epidemiological studies which do not bear out cannabis carcinogenesis, tobacco causes lung cancer whereas marijuana does not.

 

In the middle of the last century, cannabis was commonly compared to alcohol; indeed--you heard it's action described in December as an "anesthetic--like being drunk." The claim was made then that cannabis has no real efficacy in the management of pain whatsoever. But a simple review of the literature shows this is not true at all.

 

Mammalian tissues contain at least two types of cannabinoid receptor, CB1 and CB2, both coupled to G proteins. CB1 receptors are expressed mainly by neurones of the central and peripheral nervous system whereas CB2 receptors occur centrally and peripherally in certain non-neuronal tissues, particularly in immune cells. The existence of endogenous neurotransmitters for cannabinoid receptors has also been demonstrated. CB1 receptors are involved in nociceptive pain and both CB1 and CB2 receptors are involved in inflammatory hypersensitivity. Furthermore, cannabinoids produce analgesia by modulating rostral ventromedial medulla (RVM) neuronal activity in a manner similar to, but pharmacologically dissociable from, that of morphine. They also show that endogenous cannabinoids tonically regulate pain thresholds in part through the modulation of RVM neuronal activity. These results show that analgesia produced by cannabinoids and opioids involves similar brainstem circuitry and that cannabinoids are indeed centrally acting analgesics with a new mechanism of action. Furthermore contralateral thalamic cannabinoid CB receptors are upregulated after unilateral axotomy of the tibial branch of the sciatic nerve, a rat model of chronic neuropathic pain, implying  that cannabinoid CB receptor 1 upregulation contributes to the increased analgesic efficacy of cannabinoids in chronic pain conditions. These findings suggest that marijuana-induced antinociception is mediated through a CB1-receptor mechanism of action and are consistent with the notion that 9-THC is mainly responsible for this effect. These results also strongly suggest that the cannabinoid CB receptor is expressed presynaptically and that the activation of these receptors by synthetic cannabinoid CB receptor agonists or low concentration of anandamide results in inhibition of transmitter release from nociceptive primary sensory neurons. High concentrations of anandamide, on the other hand, increase the frequency of miniature excitatory postsynaptic currents recorded from substantia gelatinosa neurons. The possibility that antinociception can be mediated by cannabinoid receptors other than CB1 and CB2 receptors, for example CB2-like receptors, is also discussed as is the evidence firstly that one endogenous cannabinoid, anandamide, produces antinociception through mechanisms that differ from those of other types of cannabinoid, for example by acting on vanilloid receptors, and secondly that the endocannabinoid system has physiological and/or pathophysiological roles in the modulation of pain.*

 

The relevance to these hearings of an effective means of pain management that is anti-inflammatory, and not pro-inflammatory, is that many auto-immune conditions currently being treated with opiates, like M.S. or arthritis, respond so much better to cannabis because the last thing these patients need is something that masks the pain while making their auto-immune inflammatory response worse! But the physician partisans of opiates, as you heard in December, are rather hostile to the input of individual patients, and prefer to focus on the putative negative impact of medical marijuana on public health. Gabriel Nahas has even opined that "so-called medical marijuana patients" are really candidates for methadone maintenance.

 

Considered from the public health standpoint, cannabis is more often than not a replacement for alcohol and other drugs. When cannabis use goes up, alcohol use goes down. And because the cannabis effect is NOT incapacitating like alcohol intoxication (every single study to date shows no significant impairment of driving, for instance) the effect of the substitution of cannabis is the save lives. Economists Frank Chaloupka and Adit Laixuthai, at the University of Illinois at Chicago, estimate that cannabis decriminalization would reduce youth traffic fatalities by 5.5 per cent, youth drinking rates by eight per cent and binge-drinking rates by five per cent. Other evidence suggests we would see similar declines in emergency-room drug and alcohol cases.

 

Now since any state medical marijuana measure enacted under George Bush is DOA, and since I notice that Chairman Lentol is sponsoring a companion piece of legislation which toughens penalties for repeat sale, perhaps it is time to consider that simply relaxing the laws on possession and distribution that are now on the books would have more practical benefits for medical patients, especially persons living with AIDS in New York City.

 

Consider that 25% of all misdemeanor cases in New York on an average day are for simple possession of small amounts of marijuana. 90% of these are youths or Black and Latino inner city residents.**  A review of the AIDS statistics reveals that these neighborhoods have rates of 846 to 3354 of HIV infection per hundred thousand. But since narcotic enforcement tends to focus on the same, familiar population of drug users, the percentage of people with AIDS or hepatitis C who are locked up and kept from complying with their regimen of medications is far higher than the 1 to 4 % these statistics suggest. Considering that it's almost impossible to go through Central Booking without being exposed to at least one homeless person with drug-resistant tuberculosis, no system could be devised which would more exacerbate the AIDS crisis.

 

The answer is to bite the bullet, do what Great Britain is doing, and sanction casual marijuana possession with a verbal warning and confiscation. No ticket, no jail time, no fingerprinting on the remote chance that out of thousands detained, you'll catch one actual criminal.

 

The second problem is that unlike methadone, there is no provision under your contemplated legislation for access to cannabis for people who don't have a life-threatening condition but--like the methadone client--can't or won't quit using. Since methadone is arguably the more toxic substance, the only explanation is that the state intends that people be strung out on harder, more addictive drugs: opiates, alcohol and tobacco. This makes no sense, and the solution is to change the law to punish--not repeat sale--but the use of the market in cannabis to introduce neophytes to harder drugs. The stiffer penalties would come into play wherever cannabis was found commingled with cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc. Over time, the public health benefits of this approach are enormous, as we may see from the several decade experience of the Netherlands.

 

According to Dutch government factsheets, for instance, out of the total population of 727,000, Amsterdam has around 5,100 hard-drug users. The primary thrust of policy is to discourage the use of drugs, and to combat the trade in drugs. The authorities also seek to minimise the risks incurred by drug users and to reduce as far as possible the nuisance factor for the general public. In the context of use, Amsterdam's drug policy differentiates between hard and soft drugs, i.e.: cannabis is available, but at locations where no other illicit substances may be sold, and this "market separation" is strictly enforced. Of some 5,100 hard-drug users, around 2000 are of Dutch origin, with some 1,350 having roots in former colony of Surinam, the Netherlands Antilles and Morocco. Around 1,750 users come from other European countries, mainly Germany and Italy. The total number of hard-drug users is steadily decreasing, while their average age is rising, from 26.8 years in 1981 to 39 years in 1999. In the same period the total number of drug users under 22 years of age dropped from 14.4 percent to 1.6%.

 

In terms of the AIDS crisis, there is no question that cannabis consumption is not implicated in the spread of the virus, whereas the U.S. failure to get a handle on its needle-drug problem has supplied the vector for almost half of all HIV infections in New York City. For that reason, instead of trying to carve out an exception to the system for the severely ill and dying [which exception recalcitrant narcs will no doubt flout with help of the Feds anyway], you should CHANGE THE SYSTEM to protect the public health--removing the threat of arrest for very sick in the process.

 

___________________________________________________________________

 

*  CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors are implicated in inflammatory pain N. Claytona,b, F.H. Marshallc, C. Bountraa,b, C.T. O'Shaughnessyc,* aDepartment of Neurology, GlaxoWellcome Research and Development Ltd, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage SG1 2NY, UK bDepartment of Rheumatology, GlaxoWellcome Research and Development Ltd, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage SG1 2NY, UK cDepartment of 7TM Receptors, GlaxoWellcome Research and Development Ltd, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage SG1 2NY, UK Received 1 March 2001; received in revised form 12 October 2001; accepted 23 October 2001

 

Abstract

The cannabinoid agonist, HU210 has been evaluated in vivo in nociceptive and inflammatory pain models in the rat. The ED50 for the antinociceptive (increasing mechanical withdrawal threshold) effect was 0.1 mg/kg 2 1 i.p., and for anti-hypersensitivity and anti-inflammatory activity was 5 mg/kg 2 1 i.p. (in the carrageenan model). The selective CB1 antagonist, AM281 (0.5 mg/kg 2 1 i.p.) reversed effects of HU210 (10 and 30 mg/kg 2 1 i.p.) in both nociceptive and inflammatory models of hypersensitivity. The selective CB2 antagonist, SR144528 (1 mg/kg 2 1 i.p.) antagonised effects of HU210 (30 mg/kg 2 1 i.p.) in the carrageenan induced inflammatory hypersensitivity. The CB2 agonist, 1-(3-Dichlorobenzoyl)-5-methoxy-2-methyl-(2-(morpholin-4-yl)ethyl 2 1H-indole (GW405833) inhibited the hypersensitivity and was anti-inflammatory in vivo. These effects were blocked by SR144528. These findings suggest that CB1 receptors are involved in nociceptive pain and that both CB1 and CB2 receptors are involved in inflammatory hypersensitivity. Future studies will investigate effects on identified inflammatory cells within the inflamed tissue to further elucidate the role of cannabinoid receptors.

 2001 Elsevier Science Inc.  All rights reserved.
Keywords: CB1; CB2; Cannabinoid receptors; Inflammatory pain

An analgesia circuit
activated by cannabinoids

Ian D. Meng*, Barton H. Manning*, William J. MartinĘ
& Howard L. Fields*ę
Departments of *Neurology, Ę Anatomy and ę Physiology, and the W. M. Keck
Foundation Center for Integrative Neuroscience, University of California,
San Francisco, California 94143-0114, USA
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Although many anecdotal reports indicate that marijuana and its

active constituent, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC),
may reduce pain sensation1,2, studies of humans have produced
inconsistent results3-6. In animal studies, the apparent pain

suppressing effects of delta-9-THC and other cannabinoid

drugs7-12 are confounded by motor deficits13,14. Here we show

that a brainstem circuit that contributes to the pain-suppressing

effects of morphine15 is also required for the analgesic effects of

cannabinoids. Inactivation of the rostral ventromedial medulla

(RVM) prevents the analgesia but not the motor deficits produced8
by systemically administered cannabinoids. Furthermore, cannabinoids
produce analgesia by modulating RVM neuronal activity
in a manner similar to, but pharmacologically dissociable from,

that of morphine. We also show that endogenous cannabinoids

tonically regulate pain thresholds in part through the modulation

of RVM neuronal activity. These results show that analgesia

produced by cannabinoids and opioids involves similar brainstem
circuitry and that cannabinoids are indeed centrally acting

analgesics with a new mechanism of action.

Z . European Journal of Pharmacology 415 2001 R5-R7
www.elsevier.nlrlocaterejphar
Rapid communication

Cannabinoid CB receptor upregulation in a rat model of chronic 1 neuropathic pain
Angela Siegling, Heiko A. Hofmann, Dirk Denzer, Frank Mauler, Jean De Vry )
CNS Research, Bayer AG, Aprather Weg 18a, D-42096, Wuppertal, Germany

Received in revised form 24 January 2001; accepted 26 January 2001

 

Abstract

Although cannabinoids are known to be more effective analgesics against chronic rather than acute pain, the mechanism underlying this phenomenon is still unclear. We report now that contralateral thalamic cannabinoid CB receptors are upregulated after unilateral 1 axotomy of the tibial branch of the sciatic nerve, a rat model of chronic neuropathic pain, and hypothesize that cannabinoid CB receptor 1 upregulation contributes to the increased analgesic efficacy of cannabinoids in chronic pain conditions. q2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All
rights reserved.

Drug and Alcohol Dependence 63 (2001) 107-116

The pharmacological activity of inhalation exposure to marijuana smoke in mice

Aron H. Lichtman a,*, Justin L. Poklis b, Alphonse Poklis a,b, David M. Wilson a,
Billy R. Martin a

a Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, MCV Campus, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University,P.O. Box 980613, Richmond, VA 23298- 0613, USA

b Department of Pathology, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth Uniersity, Richmond, VA 23298- 0613, USA
Received 2 August 1999; accepted 21 April 2000

Abstract

Although the majority of cannabinoid users smoke marijuana, the preponderance of laboratory animal research is based on administration of 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (9-THC) or other cannabinoid agents via injection. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of inhaling marijuana, or ethanol-extracted placebo smoke in the mouse model of cannabinoid activity by assessing inhibition of spontaneous activity, antinociception, catalepsy, and body temperature. In order to determine dosimetry, blood levels of 9-THC were obtained following either marijuana exposure or intravenous injection of 9-THC. Inhalation exposure to marijuana produced dose-related increases in antinociception and catalepsy, with estimated ED50 doses of 9-THC of 2.4 and 3.8 mg/kg, respectively. However, hypothermia and locomotor depression occurred in both the placebo- and marijuana- exposed mice. The CB1 receptor antagonist, SR 141716A antagonized the antinociceptive effects of marijuana

(AD50=0.6 mg/kg), but only slightly decreased marijuana-induced catalepsy, and failed to alter either the hypothermic or locomotor depressive effects. In contrast, SR 141716A antagonized the antinociceptive, cataleptic, and hypothermic effects of intravenously administered 9-THC in mice that were exposed to air alone, though all subjects exhibited locomotor depression, possibly related to the restraint. In accordance with reports of others, these data suggest that exposure to smoke alone has pharmacological consequences. Our findings also indicate that marijuana-induced antinociception is mediated through a CB1-receptor mechanism of action and are consistent with the notion that 9-THC is mainly responsible for this effect. © 2001
Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.elsevier.com/locate/drugalcdep

Z . European Journal of Pharmacology 429 2001 93-100
www.elsevier.comrlocaterejphar
Review

Possible mechanisms of cannabinoid-induced antinociception in the spinal cord
Valerie Morisset a, Jatinder Ahluwalia a,b, Istvan Nagy b, Laszlo Urban a,)
a NoŐartis Institute for Medical Sciences, 5 Gower Place, London, WC1E 6BN, UK
b Department of Anaesthetics, Imperial College, Faculty of Medicine, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, 369 Fulham Road, London, SW10 9NH, UK
Accepted 27 July 2001

Abstract

 Anandamide is an endogenous ligand at both the inhibitory cannabinoid CB receptor and the excitatory vanilloid receptor 1 VR1 . The CB receptor and vanilloid VR1 receptor are expressed in about 50% and 40% of dorsal root ganglion neurons, respectively. While all vanilloid VR1 receptor-expressing cells belong to the calcitonin gene-related peptide-containing and isolectin B4-binding sub-populations of nociceptive primary sensory neurons, about 80% of the cannabinoid CB receptor-expressing cells belong to those sub-populations. Furthermore, all vanilloid VR1 receptor-expressing cells co-express the cannabinoid CB receptor. In agreement with these findings, neonatal capsaicin treatment that induces degeneration of capsaicin-sensitive, vanilloid VR1 receptor-expressing, thin, unmyelinated, nociceptive primary afferent fibres significantly reduced the cannabinoid CB receptor immunostaining in the superficial spinal dorsal horn. Synthetic cannabinoid CB receptor agonists, which do not have affinity at the vanilloid VR1 receptor, and low concentrations of anandamide both reduce the frequency of miniature excitatory postsynaptic currents and electrical stimulation-evoked or

capsaicin-induced excitatory postsynaptic currents in substantia gelatinosa cells in the spinal cord without any effect on their amplitude.

These effects are blocked by selective cannabinoid CB receptor antagonists. Furthermore, the paired-pulse ratio is increased while the postsynaptic response of substantia gelatinosa neurons induced by a-amino-3-hydroxy- 5-methylisoxasole-propionic acid AMPA in the presence of tetrodotoxin is unchanged following cannabinoid CB receptor activation. These results strongly suggest that the cannabinoid CB receptor is expressed presynaptically and that the activation of these receptors by synthetic cannabinoid CB receptor agonists or low concentration of anandamide results in inhibition of transmitter release from nociceptive primary sensory neurons. High concentrations of anandamide, on the other hand, increase the frequency of miniature excitatory postsynaptic currents recorded from substantia gelatinosa neurons. This increase is blocked by ruthenium red, suggesting that this effect is mediated through the vanilloid VR1 receptor. Thus, anandamide at high concentrations can activate the VR1 and produce an opposite, excitatory effect to its inhibitory action produced at low concentrations through cannabinoid CB receptor activation. This dual, concentration-dependent effect of anandamide could be an

important presynaptic modulatory mechanism in the spinal nociceptive system. q2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Progress in Neurobiology 63 (2001) 569-611
Cannabinoid receptors and pain
Roger G. Pertwee *
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Medical Sciences, Uni6ersity of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB 25 2ZD, Scotland, UK

Received 9 February 2000

Abstract

Mammalian tissues contain at least two types of cannabinoid receptor, CB1 and CB2, both coupled to G proteins. CB1 receptors are expressed mainly by neurones of the central and peripheral nervous system whereas CB2 receptors occur centrally and peripherally in certain non-neuronal tissues, particularly in immune cells. The existence of endogenous ligands for cannabinoid receptors has also been demonstrated. The discovery of this 'endocannabinoid system' has prompted the development of a range of novel cannabinoid receptor agonists and antagonists, including several that show marked selectivity for CB1 or CB2 receptors.

It has also been paralleled by a renewed interest in cannabinoid-induced antinociception. This review summarizes current knowledge about the ability of cannabinoids to produce antinociception in animal models of acute pain as well as about the ability of these drugs to suppress signs of tonic pain induced in animals by nerve damage or by the injection of an inflammatory agent.

Particular attention is paid to the types of pain against which cannabinoids may be effective, the distribution pattern of cannabinoid receptors in central and peripheral pain pathways and the part that these receptors play in cannabinoid-induced antinociception. The possibility that antinociception can be mediated by cannabinoid receptors other than CB1 and CB2 receptors, for example CB2-like receptors, is also discussed as is the evidence firstly that one endogenous cannabinoid, anandamide, produces antinociception through mechanisms that differ from those of other types of cannabinoid, for example by acting on vanilloid receptors, and secondly that the endocannabinoid system has physiological and:or pathophysiological roles in the modulation of pain.

© 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

www.elsevier.com:locate:pneurobio

Dr. Robert J. Melamede
Chairman, Biology Department
Room 232
University of Colorado
1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway
PO Box 7150
Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150

rmelamed@uccs.edu
719 471-1447 H

719 262-3135 W

-------------

**  A May 2000 Human Rights Watch report, Punishment and  Prejudice, found that the rate at which African-American men are sentenced to state prison for drug crimes is thirteen times greater than the rate at which Euro-American men are sentenced for similar offenses.  The Bureau of Justice Statistics has further disclosed that one in three African-American men aged 20-29 are now under some kind of correctional supervision.

 

 

www.theGeorGiaGuidestones.com

  2002-2003