The Food and Drug Administration?

The mutual exclusion of business and politics has been decreasing for decades, however a new appointment once again renews my interest and distaste for such actions. The new FDA position of Deputy Commissioner of Foods is Michael Taylor, former Vice President of Public Relations at Monsanto Incorporated. Given Monsanto’s focus and expertise in the food industries of the world this seemed like a natural choice, he is well qualified for the position; however one must wonder about who’s interests he truly holds imperative.

Monsanto as a company has a long and storied record of abusing the public in the face of shareholder profits, safety be damned. DDT is a Monsanto invention, the banned pesticide which for decades was used liberally on the fields of America was the genesis of a major lawsuit citing negligence as the primary damage. Agent Orange used in Vietnam as a defoliant affected thousands of American troops while on the ground where it was being sprayed or deploying it themselves; not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese who still see it’s debilitating effects in their children, many of whom suffer birth defects.

Should we trust a man who’s primary duty at the largest international agrichemical and engineering firm be trusted with such delicate and public work? Knowing the methods needed to maintain a corporations image, even in the face of tremendous public outcry at home and abroad can surely be slated as an opponent to a transparent and honest government. His involvement with Monsanto need also be questioned while Mr. Taylor is no longer working there, it is doubtful he stopped holding stock in the company when he left creating even another ethical dilemma.

rBGH or Bovine Growth Hormone, a Monsanto engineered product that increases milk production in dairy cattle has been shown to cause cancer and is now banned in the E.U. and Asia. It is however still present in the milk we drink here at home, despite it’s notoriety and incredible danger to the public owing to its continued usage. Will the new Deputy Commissioner of Food help expel this danger, present in our food at the most fundamental level, from the diets of American citizens? Doubtful as Monsanto paid off (and lobbied) the FDA, University researchers and the public at large to ensure it’s continued sale to farms around the country.

Civil Service and the ownership of a Corporation are things that should remain mutually exclusive, the temptation to use either position’s interest for the other is far too great for anyone, let alone a former Vice President of a Corporation to deny themselves. What will happen with the FDA and our nation’s failing health, insane rates of obesity, and general predation by the companies who feed us? My bet is certainly not on the side of the public and now more than ever given the FDA’s new appointee.

What Drives Our Decision Making?

In our political world of pundits, commentators, anchors, writers, reporters, and even politicians themselves how does one drown out the incredible noise of ideas and divine for oneself what one believes? Can we truly? Are there forces out there that shape how our mind will think and ultimately come to action before we ourselves even do so?

Edward Bernays and his uncle, Sigmund Freud both proposed this idea and then took its affection to society as their own undertaking. Freud began his psychoanalysis research in earnest, attempting to see that which truly drives us and identify it so that we may become more self determining in our actions, despite our potentially unbridled subconscious whims and desires - posed to be inherent in all of us. Bernays, an astute journalist and writer took these studies (sent as a thank you for a box of Cuban cigars) and realized that if these drives could be identified, could they then be shaped by any sort of means?

Upon realizing the effect of propaganda during World War I and it’s tremendous ability to shift the publics opinions and even core values in times of crises was the proverbial light switch illuminating the ability of a party to use propaganda - and it’s rebranding public relations - to shape our wants and desires for us, disregarding empathic drives and even rational thought itself.

His first true hit was the usage of cigarettes as “freedom torches” a stand against mans expression of sexuality by his use of tobacco by women who by and large didn’t smoke, owing to prevailing social taboos. Inventing an association between an abstract - freedom - and concrete, cigarettes, Bernays almost single handedly produced an entirely new public, the smoker; a sexless, faceless entity that identifies with freedom above all; even health.

Seeing and knowing how our own wants and desires are created off our own inherent fears, alienation, inadequacy, and a lack of individualism can change who we are fundamentally and how we behave in society. Commercial ads use this very principal to lead us to consumerism, even in the face of economic hardship or even a lack of desire for a given product, and increasingly so do Politicians and those playing their game.

Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio host and personality is unparalelled in his influence as a private citizen. His show attracts a record audience for all radio programming, and his followers by and large are extensions of himself - acting even at odds of their own self interest in lieu of belonging to his political action network; his listeners and true holders of what America should be.

Using his message of fear, scarcity, and the idea that government is not the proprietor of freedoms but instead the opponent; he taps into what has become the popular ideal that solely unbridled capitalism - this distortion of the “American Dream” is our lone path back to righteousness and true liberty. This message is at odds with his listeners own needs, Government subsidized healthcare, tax increases for those that do not have the public’s interest at heart, and the right of the minority to have an equal share.

But is this a lie? Have we been sold snake-oil? In a broad sense, yes - Corporations who by law may not care for the public have been given precedence in the political arena. Their voice and lobbying power outweigh those of the public for the simple fact that dollars have come to represent interest - and corporations along with their owners have more at their disposal than the entire American people. Why would such a state of affairs exist? Surely people must care about the functioning of democracy as intended; but this too even has fallen by the way side owing to sponsors and advertisers monopoly on our attention spans. We dare not even eschew consumerism for fear it may affect the economy - a large indicator of how “free” our society truly is and it’s success in doing so.

Consumerism has replaced any kind of activism, political debate, or issue as our main concern. If we lose the “freedom” to buy and sell at will all others will surely fall along with it; this is a patent fabrication by corporations, their lobbyists, and the politicians who remember their friends (and campaign financiers) when it does come time to decide what the fate of the populace is. This closed loop of consumerism as freedom, it’s necessity to preserve our economy and profit margins as indicators of this, and those who unceasingly push this message towards us must be reversed if we have any hope of returning to what may rightfully be called “Freedom.”

Week 11 Study Guide

I read “The Man Who Ate the GOP” by Michael Wolff for Vanity Fair

Please discuss the significance of the title of the essay.
It’s twofold, both a pun on Rushes weight and a truth that he holds more influence over the
GOP than it’s own leaders - even their elected ones.

What is the writer’s point in 50 words or less.

With Limbaugh’s brand of hyperpartisanship and his ability to moblize his followers he possesses the ability to swing the political tide he’s using an entertainment outlet to affect politics in ways that such outlets don’t normally.

Who is the writer’s audience? (You may consider the venue in which the essay was published.)

Well, considering the piece was written for Vanity Fair I’ll assume it’s coastal liberal elites.
Do you think the writer does a good job making his/her point? Explain.
Mr. Wolff does a wonderful job of discussing both Rushes incredible influence and the factors surrounding his ascent to this position without becoming too blantantly accusatory or too narrow in his piece’s scope.

These essays were all written in 2009. Do you know anything now in 2010 that sheds new light on the writer’s observations? How might that change the essay?

this is definitely an essay in the book that will remain relevant as long as rush does, examining his historical rather than present behaviors and story.
Please discuss at two new things you learned from the essay.
Rush Limbaugh has a Cochlear implant.
most of his audience is well beyond 60

What do you think was most interesting about the essay? Why?

the way rush both changed how radio personalities are compensated and also how his rise brought him more clout with his select audience who in turn use their loyalty to him to help him further his views.

Google the writer. Tell me more about him/her. Cite your sources.

Got his start, and still writes for New York Magazine and also is a frequent contributer to the Guardian in London.

sources:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/24762316
http://www.vanityfair.com/contributors/michael-wolff

Mr. Lehmann and District 4A

Tuesday my class had the opportunity to visit Richard Lehmann, the Republican Candidate for District 4A and John Persells opponent. Seated in a conference room we had his attention undivided, and asked him a few questions.

Mr. Lehmann answered us honestly and candidly, giving us all an idea about how he stands politically, personally, and how he feels he’s helped Bemidji since becoming mayor. Since his term began Lehmann feels he’s helped bring many businesses and by extension jobs because of the involvement of Home Depot, Walmart, and now Menards. However he feels that more is needed in tax reductions to truly incentivize and retain businesses in our town.

Small local businesses weren’t the center of his attention though, dismissing concerns about how Menards could affect local lumber yards. I question the wisdom however, knowing how large chains and their prices affect those who can’t compete on the economy of scale. While embracing large businesses do create jobs locally I can’t help but wonder why they’re being championed instead of businesses owned locally. It’s well known that the money Walmart makes doesn’t stay in Bemidji, save for what it pays and generates in taxes.

This seemed to highlight what I noticed as an apparent hypocrisy in Mr. Lehmann’s rationale. While being a staunch supporter of economic growth and our quality of life, he supports businesses that don’t provide a return on what they take from the community. It’s akin to following the recipe for a cake where the measure of each ingredient is ignored, and followed in name only.

Mayor Lehmann also felt that government should provide infrastructure, education, and a security to life. However if the taxes that support these services are slashed, and left to be fulfilled by the promise of more business, more jobs, and more taxpayers then I wonder how one can reconcile those two values. The invisible hand of economics doesn’t pave roads nor write on chalk boards. Curiously seatbelt laws and helmet laws for motorcyclists were the two best examples of evidence to the fact government is too involved in our lives.

Should it also be our freedom then to be a liability upon society? The social services Mr. Lehmann says make our city great, but also cost us too much money, are the ones that would respond to an accident caused or exacerbated by the two “freedoms” he cited. Who would pay for the ambulance, policeman and women, and for the road to be cleaned up?

The idea that by allowing people to become a larger liability to society through freedom is one that I disagree strongly with, that isn’t freedom except to be taken care of because of your “free” choice of danger.

Mr. Lehmann seems to be adept enough to act as mayor, but I question his wisdom for any other office higher than what he currently holds.

My Powerpoint Presentation

I actually presented this a few weeks ago, but here it is. 


(Click on the post title to download)


Proposition 19 in California.

John Persell

Tuesday, October 19^th State Senate District 4A candidate and incumbent John Persell came to speak to my Political Journalism Class. Running with the Democratic Farm Labor party he explained to us his beginnings in politics, his family life, what he feels government should be, and who he is as a politician and an individual.

Graduating from Bemidji State University with degrees in Biology and Chemistry John originally started showing an interest in civic leadership with his county water board, using his expertise running a water analysis facility north of Red Lake to build his decisions on policy. He stated frequently his review of peer reviewed literature when trying to gain insight to a particular issue, building hard empirical evidence to base his decisions; along with a  healthy dose of pragmatism.

Speaking plainly with an even tone and baritone register Mr. Persell wore flannel and broken in cowboy boots under a jacket for a local Eagles Club chapter. While being a scientist at heart one can’t help but pick up the somewhat rural feel and accompanying honesty to his speech and manner. Education, the youngest and oldest in society are the people the government needs to be watching out for, it shouldn’t be an overbearing influence in our free society; but if those two groups can be sheltered by their country with healthcare, a necessity in today’s global economy and education we can maintain our position as the greatest country on earth.

Economically speaking Mr. Persell feels the need for the United States to return to production of goods domestically as an imperative to the U.S. remaining competitive in our increasingly crowded global economy. Exporting so many of the goods we wish to consume to become imports weakens us, and despite it being a believer in free market he stressed the necessity of real production based here at home, expressing the belief that low prices are in fact somewhat artificial considering their expensive impact on our economic stability.

His most sincere point however was his addressing of so called “hate mail” he knows is sent out by the opposition party’s supporters. They accuse Mr. Persell of spending frivolously on projects far and near, being a “tax and spend” politician and essentially a shark attempting to tear at Bemidji. Stating with his usual steadiness he tells how in his district, his home for the better share of his life doesn’t receive this kind of campaigning.

Seeming as honest a politician as I’ve ever met, John Persell seems to be unafraid to tell you his views; however maintaining a friendliness that can’t be replicated easily.

This coming November is the District 4A race between John Persell, Democratic Farm Labor and Richard Lehmann, Republican Party Candidate.

Wikileaks - The New Whistleblowers

“The task of good journalism is to turn this material — who, when, where, how, how many — into something which emotionally engages people," – Jullian Assange in reference to the release of Afghan war docs to the NYT, Der Spiegel, The Guardian

Who is Jullian Assange? Where does Wikileaks get its information, and why does it even matter to a member of the “”public?” Most people who read their news offline with a cup of coffee have no idea what in the world a Wikileak is or why they should bother themselves with knowing, but quite the opposite is true, for Wikileaks is changing journalism, internet legislation, and most importantly – attitudes.

Wikileaks began in 2006 and is an international project that aims to make public documents of an otherwise secret nature. These can be Transportation Security Administration documents or highly encrypted (and deciphered) video of military personnel firing mistakenly upon journalists in Afghanistan. The most important stipulation being they must contain information of “political, diplomatic, or ethical interest” (1). Their most recent large release was that of 90,000 classified documents concerning the war in Afghanistan, concerning IED detection among other sensitive topics.

It’s spokes person – not founder – is Jullian Assange, a Canadian who along with other anonymous people make up the advisory board of Wikileaks. Their aim is to prevent access to information and the jailing of journalists for publishing information they believe to be in the public interest. He is a cunning computer expert (2) and is avowedly anti-war, and believes that by making sure the public is privy to the information he receives, will help to end it.

Many international government’s have shown an interest in what he publishes, lending verity to the source of the site’s content. Wikileaks is also at odds with the traditional mainstream media, collaborating to release the “Collateral Murder” video but also remaining divorced from the idea that it’s a news site. Assange himself has asserted that he’s not a journalist, but an activist. (3)

Is Wikileaks a new form of journalism? Surely they are at least media, as they believe wholy in the idea of an informed public, but they’ve also editorialized the content they’re sent, adding a fetching title “Collateral Murder” and adding in titles along with editing the footage into a youtube consumable format; asking the question of objectivity despite the video’s obvious relevance.

What Wikileaks may or may not be has yet to be seen definitively, they do however represent a radical departure from anything the world has known as “news” and are making the traditionalists of print media both angered and skeptical. One thing is known however, Wikileaks is here to stay.

(1)  http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks:Submissions

(2)  http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?printable=true

(3)  http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article7094231.ece

Proposition 19 and the Elephants in the Room

Lobbyists are a part of capitol hill much as the partisan blowhards that listen to them, but do lobbies ever become involved in state elections? And much more ones that are socially taboo? The answer is yes, and there has been a surprising amount of lobby interest from both companies and organizations opposing and supporting proposition 19 in California. “Big Alcohol” has been reported by (citation) the California state governments political finance website, stating the California Beer & Beverage Distributors donated $10,000 directly to No On Prop 19.

Interestingly enough however two breweries belonging to the association, Sierra Nevada Brewing Co. and Newcastle Brown Ale have both publicly expressed their want to be removed from a list of members, and in the case of Sierra Nevada from any future political actions the association undertakes.

 Almost a third of the money being donated to the campaign opposing Proposition 19 has been from Law Enforcement Organizations, spanning local and county departments to contribute along with the California Narcotics Officer’s Association. Knowing the parties responsible for the opposition of Proposition 19 must raise at least one question, do the aforementioned parties act out of public or self interest? Law Enforcement Organizations however exist in large part monetarily to the war on drugs, declared at any level of government. Billions of dollars are written into state and national budgets for drug law enforcement purposes. The stated purpose of law enforcement by definition is to enforce the laws people have determined for themselves out of appropriate legislatures, not enact the laws in their view, should they even expect to hold one as an instrument of justice.

Is voting against Proposition 19 just? Allowing people the ability to self determine what should be legal in one’s private residence; ending asset forfeiture that funds LEO directly out of drug war legislation, reducing their operating budget and ability to do their “business.” But wouldn’t allowing Officers to act in ways more positively effective to society instead of wasting time persecuting a benign substance be the sure answer? In a strictly utilitarian sense, assuming an increase in protection from criminal elements would result out of increased police attention to them; one would conclude certainly a vote in support would appear imperative. However in speaking dollars and cents and ease of persecution Marijuana makes an incredibly appealing target; wide usage, minority base, easy convictions of non-dangerous and non-violent offenders from courts facing ever increasing pressure to alleviate crime. Why not go for the most obvious criminals one can legislate

Big Alcohol doesn’t face a similar dilemma in stated purpose, owing no allegiance to justice nor the public outside of a business interaction. However in coming out against legislation against another “sin” often the subject of weepy commercials that champion their illegality would rally at the cause of another societal vice? Perhaps not in terms of competition for the all important market’s time spent engaged in a businesses wares it does represent significant competition. Studies conducted as well as surveys suggest that people would willingly trade off alcohol for marijuana; however pending upon legislation the choice is either available or will remain a monopoly for alcohol.

While a corporation must act in it’s self interest, a consumer should also be compelled to do the same and boycott alcohol producers and indeed parties involved in opposing what an individual stands for, in personal freedom and at least from that of a corporations; not individual or public, interest. Corporations ultimate fealty is to that of owners or shareholders, not the public, not the individual’s best interest; surely one would defend the public and an individual’s interests before those of a select party or group. I would hope at least the voters of California do.

                                                                         

Why Should I Care?

Prop 19 is a California issue, it’s doubtful currently that any kind of national action will be taken as a result of the measure’s potential passing or failure. However it remains an issue that does affect people like you and me everyday. Federal raids on Marijuana dispensaries haven’t stopped patients who are in some cases students like you and yet in others people just like your parents or grandparents are still being prosecuted federally. The press releases have stopped being published by the DEA, our president has stated publicly that he enacted a directive to stop federal raids in states where it has been deemed legal. And yet things like what is shown here: http://youtu.be/RbwSwvUaRqc (NSFW Audio)

            

The raid shown in the video was conducted in Columbia, Missouri on suspicion of marijuana dealing, without any credible evidence police gained a warrant allowing them to perform the raid at night, while children were present in the home. Can one even imagine the thoughts in the minds of the children, and their parents and even neighbors while witnessing such incredible force deployed against a citizen in his own home. Even if you are opposed to legalization, it would seem to me that an opposition to this kind of police behavior especially in light of what the charges brought against the assumed were; a single piece of paraphernalia and an amount of marijuana that is below the threshold of a misdemeanor in Columbia’s city limits (1).

           

Legalization, even if currently flawed in it’s debut is still a necessary step forward in order to end the expenditure, fiscally and emotionally of all those who are on both sides of this supposed “war” on citizens, combating their private actions and assumed personal right to freedom. Billions of dollars every year are spent on law enforcement, training, prosecution, and the housing of non-violent offenders in increasingly privatized prisons(2,3). If citizens do not make a stand, nation wide to show they approve such legislation for those they do not even know nor where they might even live we may never see an end to such action by our government.

            

What is right is not always legal, and what is legal is not always right; knowing this Proposition 19 seeks to end at least in one state the prosecution and wanton destruction brought about by the illegality of a simple plant that with a long history of both therapeutic and recreational usage has shown itself to be safe, enjoyable, and readily available despite it’s prohibition. We must, at the behest of sounding panegyric support this measure nation wide and hope that California may serve as an example of what responsible adults can self determine for themselves and also what can happen if marijuana no longer must be associated with those elements of society we wish were not inherent at present. (4)


(1)http://web.archive.org/web/20080112054253/http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2005/11/10/marijuana-law-gets-new-review/


(2)  http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/economiccons/fact_economic.cfm


(3)  http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/62


(4)  http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/09/15/prop-19-cops-law-enforcement-support-marijuana-legalization/

Does Mainstream Media Even Care?

Proposition 19 Beat

How is Mainstream Media Covering it?

Proposition 19 which is only a California issue currently hasn’t received much in the way of mainstream media attention, despite the veritable blizzard Proposition 8 and even the state’s own budgetary concerns received. What does this mean for voters in California and even other states who’s voters are possibly considering similar action in their own states.

         

I searched The New York Times website, Foxnews.com, MSNBC.com, and CBS.com for stories of the ballot initiative. NYT turned up only one article, focusing on black voter’s split between supporting and opposing the measure. A black pastor in California fiercely opposes the issue, citing his own struggle with drug addiction and fears for others similar plights if the drug were legalized completely. (1) However he faces opposition from the NAACP which supports the measure on grounds that it will help alleviate the disparity in arrests and prosecutions of blacks on Marijuana charges, as compared to other races. (2)

            

CBS.com had a few pieces on the subject, mostly focusing on the split of California voters themselves on the issue, citing a recent poll that indicates those who are pro-prop 19 still trail slightly behind those who oppose it. They also mentioned the concern of many voters that if California does in fact pass the bill will the state be in jeopardy of losing federal funds for a variety of causes, from highway to employment; expressing worry that because of 1999s Drug Free Workplace act California businesses might face federal pressure. (3)

It’s slightly concerning to see such little national attention divided to both our most populous state and one where the issue of Marijuana has received an amazing amount of attention from it’s own residents. Not to mention the amount of news media coverage devoted to increasing drug violence both on the borders of our country and even within it. Just last week a man in Winona was arrested for growing marijuana on his property, the article stating he had a “cloning laboratory” and quoting police as saying he was beyond personal use, “an educated grower” seemingly a menace to society as indicated by the reporter but apparently kind enough to name one of his plants “Don.” (4)

Given the serious national problems brought about by the illicit substance in question it would be my hope that more news media highlights what many hope will be one state’s action towards alleviating both the law enforcement, financial, and even violence problems associated with it’s illegality and accompanying incentive for an unsupervised underground market.

(1)  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/us/20pot.html?scp=7&sq=&st=nyt

(2)  http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/07/naacp.marijuana.support/index.html?iref=allsearch

(3)  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/08/ap/politics/main6846202.shtml

(4)  http://www.winonadailynews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_f89c72f6-b89e-11df-b7e3-001cc4c002e0.html

Proposition 19 In Brief

In 1996 California was the first state in the United States and the first province outside of the Netherlands to legalize Marijuana for adult consumption. The piece of legislation, Proposition 215, stated the following purpose;

“To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where the medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief. “ – Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (1)

After California passed their legislation, other states followed but none were quite like California’s system with state regulated dispensaries operating as legitimate businesses paying taxes and obeying city and county rules governing their operations. Federal raids however continued because while legal under state legislation, federal law still holds Cannabis as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classifying it according to these criteria,

“(1) Schedule I. -        

 (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.        

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted       medical use in treatment in the United States.       

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or       other substance under medical supervision.” (2)

            

Medical Marijuana failed to be the societal pariah its opponents hailed it as, becoming the national model for how Marijuana legalization could work, and work well in addition to showing that Cannabis is safe and effective medicine for a wide variety of illnesses and conditions. The process for obtaining this medicine however could still begin and end within the pages of an issue of “High Times” magazine, which regularly lists physicians that specialize in issuing recommendations for Cannabis use, and there’s even an iPhone app to find Dispensaries.

            

Given the liberal attitude and incredible popularity of the medicinal marijuana program it isn’t necessarily surprising that this November voter initiative proposition 19 was voted onto the ballot. Proposition 19 aims to legalize and decriminalize the recreational consumption of Cannabis by adults 21 and over. The bill is being met with both likely and unlikely opponents however, including the NAACP whose official stance is pro-prop 19, NORML or the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws as well, but while many large organizations are being lending their influence in support many dispensaries and the farmers who in a legal grey area, supply them with their pharmaceuticals.

           

Dispensaries are concerned about the impending flood of competition from both individuals deciding to grow their own instead of relying on the existing system of recommendations, dispensaries, and growers all of whom already face growing pressure by both county and local governments to either relocate away from schools, churches, and parks or revoking their licenses to operate entirely. Growers along with Physicians have also expressed concern; one grower Mike Boutin posted to his facebook page,

“Mike Boutin again wants to remind everyone: Look around your residence" how many other smokers do you see? Okay, now ask yourself if a 5x5 is gonna solve your problems. p19 is a trojan horse designed to drive you to your new dealer, weedmart. If this thing passes, you better start doing some stretches, so when asked to "bend over" you won't pull anything.” (3)

           

Their concerns pertaining to both the commercialization of the somewhat cottage industry at this point, and from a physicians standpoint the worry that with legalization will also come corporations who copyright or modify a proven medicine, akin to two medicines “Sativex” and “Marinol” both relying on Deltaninetetrahydrocannibinbol to medicate their patients, as well as opening the prescription or recommendation of such medicine to any physician, not just those who specifically target the minority market currently present.

            

Come November it will be interesting to see what will become of voter initiative Proposition 19; will it become the evolution of the people’s will expressed in Proposition 215 in 1996 which legalized Medicinal Marijuana, or will it be brought down by it’s critics and opponents?

Sources:

(1)  http://www.canorml.org/prop/patientsguide.htm#prop

(2)  http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/21C13.txt

(3)  http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=1170687711