Mad at Ad

What and who are the “Santa Barbara Medicinal Cannabis Education Services,” ???. Sound pretty legit...NOT! I am wondering what the Independents response to this is? I guess it is whoever has the most money for advertisement revenue wins? These are some pretty outlandish claims for this wonder drug.

While this "suppliment" seems pretty outlandish, I applaud the Indy for printing this guys response letter of concern.

Gary,
Thanks. My thoughts too.

Anyone that thinks the Indy is a "legitimate factual newspaper" has not been reading the paper for very long. Caveat emptor to the max...
Never the less, I agree with the letter because the pro marijuana folks have become as intellectually dishonest as the government that has largely forbidden legitimate research into the real attributes, or lack thereof, of marijuana and it's active properties. Marijuana is widely purported to be curative for a comically wide range of dissimilar conditions, diseases, and pathologies. Most of these "cures" are based upon anecdotes which have no place in science.
I am a medical researcher.
I am for decriminalization and potential legalization of marijuana.

Supercool be outraged all narrow-minded Neanderthals. Sorry of the actual Science does not back up your Prohibitionist and cruel anticannabis agendas. I personally live to piss you people off.
As someone who was privy to the production of this piece, it was created by solid, ethical professionals that I doubt any of the above naysayers could hold their own against in any arena of thought, accomplishment and yes, compassion.
And if one truly believes that the SB Independent is not "legitimate factual newspaper" then why do you read it (much less bore us all with your endless comments?)

Then we look forward to volume two of slanted pro marijuana advertisements; rather than a clear scientific research paper with a full commentary. This article is clear. There is no “Santa Barbara Medicinal Cannabis Education Services”. No one can find them. Who is so wrought with anxiety that they had to spend this money and hide behind a fictitious name like that?
If you are a medical researcher then you can access the medical research that has been done abroad; outside of the USA. We are not the only creditable scientists in the world and not the only people interested in the chemical compounds in THC. Your problem is that you don’t understand organic chemistry and the fact that synthesized THC compounds are available by prescription and works. So it is legal; Marinol (Dronabinol-generic). The research has been done and the chemicals that attach to the receptor sites are in Marinol. The advertisement is as Gary said. Legalize pot, criminalize tobacco and hand out unmeasured doses of pot to be used upon discretion? Good medicine comes in a prescribed dose with a warning label.

The letter brings up another--and ignored aspect of this debate which is the medical value of pot. Having said that I DO know of a woman who benifitted from marijuana. She had cancer (which ultimately killed her) but the marijuana she used to treat the side effects of the cancer treatment made her life bearable. That's what I know.

Re-legalize it and keep the medical debate going.

Wow Ken,
I think it's the short marijuana smokers I see with their buckets under my horse, trying to catch his urine. So they can drink it and get taller. After all, synthetic human growth hormones were developed from horse urine, but pot heads are purists and researchers; synthetics just won’t do.
With the kind of bovine fecal matter research you were privy to, I am sure that what I have written not only stands up, but caused you or someone to fork out $$$. It started with hemp and all you proved it's only about marijuana. You are as transparent as the sick advertisement. My horse likes apples.
I don’t think anyone is pissed off; it’s too dumb for that. They are just making their point, which you dislike. You are pissed off. Read what you wrote. Have a warm cup on a cold winters night and grow up.

Excepting myself, I find it interesting that all the pro-medicinal cannabis commentators provide testimonies while the anti crowd provides insults and hysteria.
All the science presented in the piece is peer reviewed.
I also find it disturbing that one anonymous commentator claims to be a scientist (medicinal?) yet advocates expensive manmade pharmeceuticals (patented chemical compounds) vs the relatively cheap medicinal cannabis. It makes me wonder if they are shill for the pharmeceutical lobby.

KV-After three days on the crack pipe it's time to put it down and grab the bong. You too can then delight in the three demonstrable "cures" available from cannabis use: pain reduction/suppression; appetite stimulation; and chilling out lil' dude.
Another Progressive spewing vitriol at anyone that disagrees with their emotional platitudes...

The fact that you claim to have had a hand in the piece in question explains volumes. Even funnier is your pronouncement that "all of the science presented in the piece was peer reviewed"; your personal counter attendant at the cannabis outlet does not qualify as "peer review" except that that person is probably your peer and he/she reviewed your purchase. And the manual that came with your bong does not qualify as a peer reviewed journal. I'm not sure about your crack dealer so I will not comment...

In part, I make a living reading peer reviewed medical journals, zeroing in on new phenomena, and then figuring out what is bs and what is legitimate. Normally I get paid by academic institutions and sometimes by industry, about equally split between US and international entities.

I read the Indy for amusement and local articles, not science. You need to expand beyond the Indy and FOX News...

KV. "I also find it disturbing that one anonymous commentator claims to be a scientist (medicinal?) yet advocates expensive manmade pharmeceuticals (patented chemical compounds) vs the relatively cheap medicinal cannabis." Pharmeceuticals are covered by insurance pot is not.
The “Hansen Hokey Stick Global Warming Model” was peer reviewed and the peers failed to notice that Hansen model omitted the oceans of the world in the model. That was 73% of the earth’s surface and the primary driving force of the earth’s weather systems; more science fiction. Is that the kind of peer review you want for your family’s personal economic investments? I think so, based on your health peer review for your medicine.

So did I imagine the palliative benefits it provided for the family friend suffering from cancer?

Is my lack of a college degree in the medical field a preclusion to my being able to say that marijuana has medicinal benefits?

I didn't know I had to be a doctor to make such an observation.

Forgive my digression but for whatever it's worth I've had four family members impacted (on separate occasions) by drunk drivers (my dad injured, two cousins maimed, and another's wife was killed) but I've had no family members impacted by people smoking pot. I'm just sayin'...

For the record my "involvement" in this piece is so minimal as to be practically nonexistent. I certainly did not wish to appear to be taking credit for other people's hardwork ect.
My points remain:
a) If this supplement upset (or outraged) you to the point of writing a letter about it- with everything else happening in the world- then you are either extremely sheltered and naive or just plain mentally ill.
b) If you yourself are publishing anonymously, you are hypocrite for criticizing others for doing the same.

c) I've also seen cannabis be of tremendous help to people with AIDS, cancer, many many other conditions. And edibles are especially crucial for many patients, who shouldn't be smoking!

Based on JW's post, we shouldn't trust anything that comes from the Scientific World. Or just not what doesn't conform to "JW"'s personal beliefs. That post just re-enforced my suspicion that JW is less a scientist and more a corporate hack who now wishes to question the validity of climate change. "Family"s economic investments"? HA! Most would've said family's health and safety but we all have our own priorities.

bc-You're too clear a thinker to be pointing those last two emails at me so I will assume that you did not.
My first post clearly states the KNOWN and PROVABLE benefits of pot, albeit in some un-medically vernacular. My BELIEF is that marijuana, or it's constituent components, are ideally suited for safe and efficacious palliative care. The research generally supports this because of the demonstrable pain reducing, appetite stimulation, and calming effects(getting stoned).
We don't need to rehash the legality of pot. My position is clear.
We don't need to rehash the argument of pot vs alcohol.

I never tell anyone to not have their own personal faith statements. I do remind people not to confuse those faith statements with empirical fact.

Marijuana as a treatment for binge drinking, I like that one.

What I really want to know is how much marijuana is actually sold to people that have cancer and how much is sold to people that really just want to get high?

Marijuana DOES have legitimate medical uses. But, really, how many users are actually using it to treat these medical conditions?

I read the Independent online in Chicago, anybody know how I might have a look at the ad in contention?

Stop whining and put together your own article summarizing the LEGITIMATE research on marijuana. It DOES have medical uses that oral synthetics like Marinol don't meet.

I'm too busy trying to find jw's horse so that I can get some miracle growth elixir/urine to spend the time raising funds for an advertisement in the Indy telling the objective facts about marijuana.
Just for fun; I am still FOR the decriminalization/possible legalization of marijuana IN SPITE of the religious zeal and proselytizing of the pro pot lobby...

Bill C.
I have met many terminally ill patients who have benefited from very dangerous prescription medications and marijuana. They all had one thing in common. They were dying and in pain. Keeping them comfortable with marijuana, tobacco, or the heaviest opiates until they pass are what many of those medications prescription are reserved for; and a blind eye turned to the other comforts they may find. So I believe you. These forums, articles, advertisements are all warm up for the next election, trying to get marijuana legalized. There will be pollsters getting ballot signatures soon. These forums are a place to hear emotional arguments so that a tactical advertising campaign can adjust their platforms before exposing larger scale campaigns. It’s amazing to me to see that the first laws written against drugs were against Chinese opium users. So it was an act of discrimination, racism and it was okay for white men to smoke opium. That has medical benefits. It’s a controlled substance. What the legalize marijuana people do not understand is that if it the federal government agrees with them then marijuana will not be available at a dispensary, you will have to go to a pharmacy and you won’t be able to grow it. There are several chemical compounds that can be extracted from the bark of trees and plants that are legal to have in your garden. It is illegal to extract and possess the narcotic or hallucinogen from those plants. The marijuana people don’t understand that controlled substances are not under the state’s constitution, it is a matter for the federal government. You have to change the US Constitution to allow states to legalize their own drugs; make their own drug laws.

Italiansurg: "Caveat emptor to the max..."

The thing about Caveat Emptor is that it means "Buyer Beware" in it's simplest definition. The Indy is free. You get what you pay for :) henry

"Give us the true facts as accepted by the medical and scientific professions!"
-- Gary Breitweiser

So what were the untrue facts?

I would have been more interested in Gary's letter had he explained why he thinks, for example, the research related to binge drinking is "untrue" or offensive. He could easily have found the paper here and told us why:

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/neur...

I don't see any evidence that Breitweiser's "outrage" (his word, not mine) is based on any investigation of his own. While biology and medical research are not my fields and I have not read UCSD's paper, the organizations involved in that research appear legit. UCSD produces many grads for the health care and bio-tech industries while Elsevier is a well known and respected publisher in the sciences and engineering (I own some of their titles).

Plus the board of the journal itself appears qualified (certainly not a bunch of non-degree'd bloggers):

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/neur...

So where's the beef?

It would be great if that research leads to some kind of treatment for alcoholics suffering from nervous system damage. If the drug is based on a cannabinoid, synthetic or otherwise, so what?

p.s. The insert is an ad, not an article written by the Indy. I'll admit, it does have some interesting claims for the curious to follow up on (and I credit the ad sponsors for providing the necessary attributions so we can do the follow up if we want to).

I think most of you morons posting here endlessly should smoke a fat one and up the shuck fut. Re-legalize it, tax the shyt outta it, make it available to those who need it, and leave alone those who wanna numb their brains recreationally. I do none of the above, so save your unclever retorts for your bongwater.

As a never-user (who continues to be so) of pot I actually got nothing against it, in fact it has indirectly helped me in multiple ways.
I just want to say thanks to all those job applicants that were too zoned out to make it to the job interview, thus paving a clear path for me to take that job.
I also want to thank all my good friends in the sports I've done for taking the time to take a bongload or 2 before a competitive event to take the edge off enough to guarantee me a win.
But seriously, based on those types of scenarios, I do have to say that in cases of anxiety & chronic pain pot does have some value.
But then there's the fact that we already have medicinal pot, it's called Marinol, a synthetic form of 1,9-d-THC.
I gotta go w/ Draxor on this: "Re-legalize it, tax the shyt outta it, make it available to those who need it, and leave alone those who wanna numb their brains recreationally."
The ONLY problem I got is w/ somebody who wakes, bakes & gets behind the wheel of a car :) henry

hank-I'll look up the Latin translation of "grabber and digester of free left wing newspapers beware" and get back to you with the info.

"Concoquere et susceptor liberi sinistro cornu cave ephemerides."
Well, @ least I think that's the translation from what little Latin I know, let me check w/ the translate program.
In Espanol it would be "agarrador y digestionador de periodicos gratis comunistas, cuidado." :) henry

Get a room guys.

Mussolini, Bormann, and Bautista strike again.

I too gotta agree with Dr. Draxor and Hank on this one although I would probably go even further and get the government out of it entirely.

No wonder Latin is a dead language...

I don't, strictly speaking, strike anywhere anymore. I'm just here and discreetly divisive.

KenV: "Get a room guys."

Sorry, I don't run that kind of operation :) henry

Just as I had suspected, there is no journalism on the global commodity of hemp seed products in this week’s Independent; Jan. 5, 2012.

This therefore concludes my theses, that hemp was the decoy for legalization of marijuana at the core issue of David Bearman’s article. I do know that a lot of people are really emotional about what I wrote.

I wish to you all the best, a healthy and a Happy New Year no matter your position. jw

Who said such an article was going to be printed? That sounds like a theses in itself....

A proposition that is maintained by argument; a thesis

The medical information in the centerfold is an educational gift to the people of santa barbara.
We should be happy for such clear referencing - you can look up the studies - it's all factually based scientific studies.

The independent makes you put in ‘advertisement’ at the bottom, so that the information wont be mistaken for their editorial is what they said.

It’s their protection - there is no advertising. This information, it seems, is only for the open-minded people that might benefit from cannabis one day.

It seems that the meanspirited and closed-minded nature of some of these writers may contribute to an illness that it seems, one day, won't be aided by cannabis, due to thier foolish, propagandized belief system.

Every 14 minutes of everyday, everyweek of every year people get legal drugs from the pharmacy and die according to the los angeles times – 9/17/2011

Why not get healed by nature, if you’re not hurting anyone.

Some people are fools – not the wise ones in the kings court, but just mondern day ignorant fools.
It’s truly a shame!

It is an advertisement, not journalism.

Pay attention.

How the hell do you think you get to read a free newspaper or website but without advertisements?!?!

KV,
"Who said such an article was going to be printed?" You said it, "in about a week all the misinformation you've posted here is about to be completely rebuked to Indy readers far and wide. Read it and weep. Your facts and figures are so false as to qualify your posts as Science Fiction."

Far and wide; Usually means a consortium of experts that would do this, to provide the facts that would impeach me.

I am not weeping. Nor do I take you serioulsly anymore. I expected an article with sound scientific values related to the original article would be written on point. There never was one. It was not as I had truely hoped, the education was certainly for me.

I've never cared if you've taken me seriously JW since I laugh at the inaccuracy and pomposity of your posts all the time. If you're the result of a Westmont education, I am glad I went to UCSB triply!
If one chooses to ignore the evidence that counters their claims, there is a little I or anyone can do except not waste our time.
The insert itself lists sources where you yourself can go verify instead of attempting to parse people's prior posts to soothe one's ego.

KV,
David Bearman wrote a dandy of an article about industrial hemp and I said in my first post that it was a maneuver to get marijuana legalized, all the blather has been about marijuana and you can’t see past this in our discussion. No one can. I have been posting regularly to point out that you, the article and industrial hemp have no veracity and you have projected your editorial impotence against me. My discussion has been very germane to staying with the Made in The USA article. There have been few if any people that have introduced a forensic debate on industrial hemp or what it is called hemp seed products, as a commodity. The lack of curiosity of people to enter that debate and join the marijuana movement is substantially clear. There is no real interest in hemp. The interest is in legalizing the plant marijuana; in all its varietals and clones. The disregard for the organic chemistry of how THC works in your body is similar to a light switch in a house. People think that all they do in flipping it on and then there is light. Good luck KV. Let there be light.

I went to the resources KV and read them all. The cannabanoids were injected into mice, the plant was taken apart at a molecular level and specific molecular strands from THC were taken out and used. Read them yourself if you can get past the organic chemistry. Laboratory experiments in organic chemistry . . .
This has been a very interesting dialog at times. I stand by the apricot as an example. The fruit is good. The inside of the seed can contain 200 mg of cyanide. Yet you would have the whole plant.

Medicine and organic chemistry does not work like that. In research the good molecules are separated from the ones that have no useful benefit.

This is the stumbling block for the marijuana plant. You however see it as something from nature as natural as a carrot. What about castor beans, cocaine, opium, heroin, lithium, Etc.?

"jw," has made this declaration a number of times, yet it will never make any sense:

"You however see it [marijuana] as something from nature as natural as a carrot. What about castor beans, cocaine, opium, heroin, lithium, Etc.?"

Cocaine, opium, heroin, and lithium (all synthesized from their sources) do not exist in the natural world in the same way a carrot and marijuana do.

Duh! Marijuana is not the same as a carrot either. You really don't get it. What a shame. If you understood the biomedical function and biotechnology of natural and artificial polymers then I would have a discussion of meaning with you. You don’t seem to.

Lithium does exist in mineral hot springs and is absorbed through the skin, not synthesized, but created from nature. You will never get it. You don’t want to, ignorance is bliss, so bliss out.

Burnett, we may be related if your name was change during the 16th century during the colonization of North America and your ancestor were Huguenots. Interesting . . .

*Go ahead and masticate a handful of cater beans and see that there is no need for a synthesized method of introduction to achieve the fatal result. Smoke some pot so you don’t puke. *Do not do this - it would be fatal. Point made that making hash is not synthesized it is distilled like many other drugs that are manufactured by cooking and brewing. A synthetic is a copy of a natural substance or a molecular man made chain of molecules that mimic natural biochemical’s.

You now forward a different argument, attempting to discuss relative toxicity.

No one is advocating eating castor beans.

But you , "jw" create these long, poorly-written, error-ridden comments in which your broad claims, when rebutted, are re-formed.

Such as your meaningless statement: "Medicine and organic chemistry does not work like that. In research the good molecules are separated from the ones that have no useful benefit."

What are "good" molecules? Research doesn't brand molecules "good," as science requires careful analysis and description, and broad words like good would be avoided. And "Medicine" doesn't work with organic chemistry; organic chemistry is a tool in the practice of Medicine.

You write too often, too fast, and with a stunning disregard for expressing yourself clearly.

I feel for you, "jw," I see an active mind working -- maybe even some good points to be made -- but you are sabotaging your efforts with crappy communication.

You are wrong. Organic chemistry separates molecular stands of molecules that can bind to receptor sites as synergistic, antagonistic or counteractive antagonistic properties for medicines to fight cancer and other diseases.

Would you have me speak in medical terms a layman could not understand at all? A plant, a sponge, fungi, a bacteria or mold may all have significant medical proofs within them. Yet the organic material in and of itself is worthless.

I have not changed my thesis or my chemistry. A molecule must the proper three dimensional structures for it to attach to anyone of your receptor sites. Weather it is a poison or something of medical benefit. This is Biochemistry 101. Human Physiology 101 and Organic Chemistry 101; take the 403 courses. What is good is realitve to the outcome of the experiment guidelines for the outcome of the thesis.

@jw
I have a background in medicine, scientific thought, biochemistry, nutrition, organic chemistry. I have followed the literature on cannabinoid research for years.

I have no idea what you are trying to say on this topic. The terms you are using don't resemble anything used in actual, credible scientific communications. You are not expressing your concepts well if you do indeed know what you are trying to say here. You are completely ignorant on the topic of medical cannabis.

I call BS on Sez_Me,
The three dimensional structures of nucleotides, proteins and other biochemical’s where it be fibrous, strands or globular protein or a mix of protein, myosin function at the cellular level as functions for signals for the cell to do something; it cannot attach unless the structure is a match. The cannabaniod system is directly affected by this fit. You are of not from a hard science background. You don’t understand that a star and a rectangle do not fit together. If you are unfamiliar with the basics of receptor site acceptance and enzyme amplification I can’t believe a word you say. A basketball fits in a hoop for a reason; explain the science metaphorically as to why this is important in the endocannabiniod synergy of the compounds in THC. Or do you work to provoke a continued discussion.

The new study that was released from UCSF and Alabama State had 5000 once a week users. I read the study. It seems to me that the conclusion to lung function, not cancer, is the same as lung rehabilitation. The exercise of breathing deeply, as in swimmers exercises, to increase lung function in that the deep breathing a hold of the breath kept the lung sacs open; “practiced” was the word used in the study. There was a sharp contrast in tobacco users in comparison to that of the marijuana users in the study. There was not a study related to cancer between the two groups. It was lung function only, marijuana used once maybe twice a week. Not a pack of tobacco a day. There was a warning for hard core marijuana users.

Sez_me
Better yet, why don’t you explain why an opiate does not affect the endocannabonoid receptor sites like marijuana.Explain benzenes, alcohol, amphetamines or cocaine? That would make it much more clear and you could then explain what the metabolites are in these cases in respect to the introduction of specific chemicals to the bodies physiological and biological empathetic receptor sites and how it activates the stimulation of natural biological synergy.

Satanic Barbarians;

There's POT in them thar hills behind downtown Satanic Barbaria.

Everyone is doin' it - almost.

So why the protest?

Worried about our youth?

Too late doncha think!

Worried about our adults?

Where are the adults?

What ever you do - don't vote for Obama.

Vote for the resident Pro Surfer Tom Curren.

Never worked a day in his life.

He should know how to run Satanic Barbaria!

JW. You are great at telling people you have never met what they do or don't know... kind of ignorant (on your part) don't you think?

Archer,
I have not met Sez_me. I do not know who they are nor do I know you. Sez_me, a person I do not know, said, “The terms you are using don't resemble anything used in actual, credible scientific communications.” Yes they are if you are researching how the body works; period. It’s used to describe technically, how a molecular strand can work to fight diseases or improve health/longevity. Athletes that used HGH that was undetected were busted by this science. The HGH metabolites stuck to the test, which was accidently, developed, to trap the metabolites even in the minutest amounts.

I have “not told” that person. I called BS. I asked for a scientific example. What I did was give that person known scientific domains, in the context of this discussion, to explain better. They are credible scientific communications in physiological and biological fields of study.
"jw"

If you took zoology or biology life science classes as 101 courses you would understand what my argument was on a basic level. We have to start with life and an organism and how it procreates. The reason why a dog and a cat cannot mate is a flat start. As far as Botany goes there is a reason why you can’t grow cucumber on a pine tree even though they both have pollen. So we have sperm and pollen, fauna and flora. The DNA structure is a molecular stand. That strand can be manipulated now. However, plants and mammal DNA have not been branches do not fit. Certain molecules and there shapes when introduced to your endocrine system depend on the three dimensional shape of the molecule as to where it will bind to a receptor site an enzyme or free radicals. That’s all I have to say. Put a puzzle together if you don’t want to take a class.

yes disney all the way and I think you get it. keep it simple; a square won’t go into a tri-angle and no one needs to explain it. because the other guys don't want real science. old school “electric company” explanations. thanks toto. say hi to dorothy and gravity is a consent value in physics. enjoy your tornado

I am celebrating 33 years of regular pot smoking. No medical need here, just a little pleasure. And yes I do have a job. No criminal history, even have a degree. I don't touch those other stupid drugs. Nothing unique here.

Check out the U.S. Government Patent and Trademark Office website, uspto.gov. First, search for Patent # 6630507, Oct. 7, 2003, assigned to the US Department of Health and Human Services: CANNABINOIDS AS ANTIOXIDANTS AND NEUROPROTECTANTS - it describes the use of cannabinoids in treating stroke, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, traumatic brain injury, cardiovascular disease, Down's syndrome, etc, etc, with all research documented (the News Press has had this patent number for several months). Search for thc, cbd, etc, for additional patents. Check out Cannabis Sciences, otc CBIS, for cannabis used in curing skin cancer (basal cell, squamous) - their products are available to Colorado mmj patients.
I'm not happy that the ad listed no references, since they're sure available. I don't know why, but my guess is that this is a very pricey ad, and adding all references would have added pages to the ad and the research would have been incomprehensible to most people.
Cannabis was removed from the U.S. Pharmacopia in 1941 because hemp competed with wood pulp (major investors William Randolph Hearst (Harry Anslinger's uncle) and Dupont Chemical) in the manufacture of paper, and was legal and used by the grandparents and parents of many baby boomers.
Check out Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) for info on the economic threat of legalization of cannabis to cops and court-ordered drug treatment providers who depend on income from cannabis arrests.

jw, you talk alot but don't say anything worthwhile.

I really have no idea of what concept you are trying to express since you are doing a piss poor job of it. Triangles and basket balls? That's not how cannabinoid receptors work in the human body.

Ignorance and blow hardedness is all I read coming from you so I'm not going to waste my time with you verifying my credentials, experience and background. You are ignorant on the topic and the more you yak, the more it shows.

Riceman: Haven't you heard pot can lead to other, more dangerous drugs?...such as alcohol?