11703 Los Nietos Rd. [map]
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Hours: Mon-Wed 10am to 8pm, Thu-Fri 9am to 9pm, Sat 10am to 8pm, Sun 10am 6pm
Phone: 562-699-8960
Covers the following zip codes in Santa Fe Springs, California: 90605, 90670, 90671
If you know of an event that you feel should be listed on our calendar, please send details to info@mjdispensaries.com ~Thank You
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Santa Fe Springs Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Collectives and Cooperatives
The Springs Herbal Remedies
11703 Los Nietos Rd. [map]
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Hours: Mon-Wed 10am to 8pm, Thu-Fri 9am to 9pm, Sat 10am to 8pm, Sun 10am 6pm
Phone: 562-699-8960
Covers the following zip codes in Santa Fe Springs, California: 90605, 90670, 90671
11703 Los Nietos Rd. [map]
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Hours: Mon-Wed 10am to 8pm, Thu-Fri 9am to 9pm, Sat 10am to 8pm, Sun 10am 6pm
Phone: 562-699-8960
Covers the following zip codes in Santa Fe Springs, California: 90605, 90670, 90671
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
VIDEO: Concerned patient advocates speak out on dispensary ban at Westminster City Council Meeting
David and Marla James (of Americans for Safe Access) speak on a Medical Marijuana Ban at the Westminster City Council Meeting during public comment. February 23, 2011.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
EDITORIAL: No on Measure M - Medical Marijuana Sales Tax in Los Angeles
L.A.'s proposed tax on medical marijuana dispensaries would be an unfair and dangerous step.
Measure M is one of those voter initiatives that at first glance look a lot more straightforward than they really are. There are, after all, hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles — just look for the green crosses — that pay state sales tax but not city taxes. Measure M would make them pay their fair share and then some, by imposing a steep gross receipts tax. That sounds like a reasonable way to help the city avoid cuts in public services as it digs itself out of a budget hole. But it's a dangerous step.
State lawmakers and municipalities still haven't agreed on how to regulate a drug that the state considers medicinal and the federal government considers illegal, so cities are deciding for themselves. Several — including Oakland, Berkeley, Sacramento, San Jose and Long Beach — have already approved taxes similar to the one that would be imposed by Measure M. And yet the city attorney's office believes that Los Angeles "should not, and indeed legally cannot, allow and tax marijuana sales," and opines that passing Measure M "would be of little or no effect." How can that be?
At the heart of the question is whether or not medical marijuana dispensaries — or collectives, or cooperatives, or whatever they choose to call themselves — are for-profit operations. Back when Gov. Jerry Brown was California's attorney general, he issued an opinion that they can operate only as nonprofit cooperatives or collectives in which patients or their "primary caregivers" grow marijuana and supply other members. They can charge members for their cannabis, but only enough to cover their overhead costs. Yet Brown's opinion hasn't been tested in court, and there is no telling how many of California's storefront dispensaries are really operating as nonprofits. In December, the operators of a San Jose marijuana "collective" were charged with illegal sales and money laundering after police said they discovered two sets of books, one showing an operating loss and the other showing a profit of $222,238.
If marijuana collectives are genuinely nonprofits, they're exempt from city taxes. So why have Long Beach and other cities been able to tax them? Because to be considered tax-exempt charitable nonprofits, organizations have to register as such with the Internal Revenue Service, which is like sending a cable to the federal government to tell it you're distributing a product that Washington considers illegal. Very few, if any, medical marijuana facilities have done this, opting instead to pay local taxes.
Getting in bed with a quasi-legal industry has drawbacks. If city government became reliant on tax revenue from medical marijuana sellers, city officials would be less likely to pass ordinances restricting their operations and police would be less inclined to raid their establishments to check whether they're really running on a nonprofit basis. A decrease in such scrutiny would encourage more illegal for-profit dispensaries, which draw other kinds of crime. Prices for a drug that many people use to relieve suffering (even if others use it to get high) would rise, which is why legitimate patient advocates such as Americans for Safe Access oppose taxation measures.
We agree with Brown that medical marijuana should only be distributed by nonprofit cooperatives or collectives. If they're truly operating that way, it's unfair for the city to tax them, and if they aren't, they should be shut down rather than taxed. That's why we urge a no vote on Measure M.
Source: Los Angeles Times
State lawmakers and municipalities still haven't agreed on how to regulate a drug that the state considers medicinal and the federal government considers illegal, so cities are deciding for themselves. Several — including Oakland, Berkeley, Sacramento, San Jose and Long Beach — have already approved taxes similar to the one that would be imposed by Measure M. And yet the city attorney's office believes that Los Angeles "should not, and indeed legally cannot, allow and tax marijuana sales," and opines that passing Measure M "would be of little or no effect." How can that be?
At the heart of the question is whether or not medical marijuana dispensaries — or collectives, or cooperatives, or whatever they choose to call themselves — are for-profit operations. Back when Gov. Jerry Brown was California's attorney general, he issued an opinion that they can operate only as nonprofit cooperatives or collectives in which patients or their "primary caregivers" grow marijuana and supply other members. They can charge members for their cannabis, but only enough to cover their overhead costs. Yet Brown's opinion hasn't been tested in court, and there is no telling how many of California's storefront dispensaries are really operating as nonprofits. In December, the operators of a San Jose marijuana "collective" were charged with illegal sales and money laundering after police said they discovered two sets of books, one showing an operating loss and the other showing a profit of $222,238.
If marijuana collectives are genuinely nonprofits, they're exempt from city taxes. So why have Long Beach and other cities been able to tax them? Because to be considered tax-exempt charitable nonprofits, organizations have to register as such with the Internal Revenue Service, which is like sending a cable to the federal government to tell it you're distributing a product that Washington considers illegal. Very few, if any, medical marijuana facilities have done this, opting instead to pay local taxes.
Getting in bed with a quasi-legal industry has drawbacks. If city government became reliant on tax revenue from medical marijuana sellers, city officials would be less likely to pass ordinances restricting their operations and police would be less inclined to raid their establishments to check whether they're really running on a nonprofit basis. A decrease in such scrutiny would encourage more illegal for-profit dispensaries, which draw other kinds of crime. Prices for a drug that many people use to relieve suffering (even if others use it to get high) would rise, which is why legitimate patient advocates such as Americans for Safe Access oppose taxation measures.
We agree with Brown that medical marijuana should only be distributed by nonprofit cooperatives or collectives. If they're truly operating that way, it's unfair for the city to tax them, and if they aren't, they should be shut down rather than taxed. That's why we urge a no vote on Measure M.
Source: Los Angeles Times
NEWS: MMDS Acquires Patent for Medical Marijuana Patch
The Patch will be marketed under the trademark TETRACAN and is expected to be available at medical marijuana dispensaries across the United States by year's end.
MMDS future plans include development of manufacturing facilities in Europe for worldwide distribution of TETRACAN to jurisdictions which accept TETRACAN as a holistic, therapeutic adjunctive for management of chronic pain due to arthritis, the side effects of chemotherapy, multiple sclerosis and other chronic conditions.
The TETRACAN Medical Marijuana Patch is the first exclusively controlled and clear departure from marijuana's age-old delivery modality of smoking, and therefore (i) will block any black market product proliferation and non-taxable profiteering; and (ii) will open the door for MMDS research and development of other purely holistic products and delivery modalities.
MMDS is currently in discussions with The Medicine Wheel Project LLC for the distribution of TETRACAN and future associated derivatives in the Medical Marijuana States of California and Colorado.
Walter Cristobal, the Patch's inventor and a member of the Santa Ana Pueblo Tribe of New Mexico, stated, "I am excited to be working with MMDS to finally be able to bring the Patch and other new delivery systems like creams, gels and oils to people and animals in need of chronic pain management."
"MMDS is pleased to be working with Walter Cristobal to help him develop his innovative ideas as MMDS advances the research and development of TETRACAN holistic, therapeutic products," stated Jim Alekson, ADG Market Focus spokesperson for MMDS. "Through the advocacy and marketing efforts of MMDS, TETRACAN will become the dominant identity for Medical Marijuana across the United States and throughout the world." Mr. Alekson further stated that "The industry needs to shed the word 'marijuana,' focus on the holistic, therapeutic pain relief benefits of topical applications and through focused marketing efforts within the 15 Medical Marijuana States, eventually become acceptable to mainstream American society."
About Medical Marijuana Delivery Systems LLC:
MMDS is a company devoted to the advancement, research and development of medical marijuana delivery modalities under the trade name TETRACAN.
About The Medicine Wheel Project LLC:
The Medicine Wheel Project LLC is a company devoted to the advocacy of Medical Marijuana and advancement of a Medical Marijuana Industry-Wide Association aggregating substance and power in a unified national voice. For additional information, visit http://www.themedicinewheelproject.blogspot.com
SOURCE Medical Marijuana Delivery Systems LLC
Monday, February 21, 2011
NEWS: Joe Grumbine Talks About a Natural Stress Reliever Through Cannabis
Joe has been helping others heal with plant-based medicines far longer than the general public has understood the healing benefits of one of his most popular plants: cannabis.
A natural stress reliever, cannabis was used in his tinctures years ago when he first discovered an ancient recipe and saw how the liquid was a unique delivery method for those who needed the plant but didn’t know any other way to get it other than by smoking it.
Source: MedicalMarijuana411.com
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Change We Can Believe In? Not for Medical Marijuana Research
by Paul Armentano
It was nearly two years ago that the Obama White House issued its "Scientific Integrity" memorandum stating, "Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration."
Those of us involved in marijuana law reform welcomed the memo -- which came just months after the American Medical Association called for "facilitating ... clinical research and [the] development of cannabinoid-based medicines" -- and we hoped that it would stimulate the commencement of long-overdue human studies into the safety and efficacy of medical cannabis.
Those hopes were snuffed, however, when a representative from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the agency that oversees 85 percent of the world's research on controlled substances, reaffirmed its longstanding "no medi-pot" policy to The New York Times. "As the National Institute on Drug Abuse, our focus is primarily on the negative consequences of marijuana use," a spokesperson told the paper in 2010. "We generally do not fund research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana."
A review of the U.S. National Institute of Health website clinicaltrials.gov shows that NIDA's kibosh on medical marijuana trials continues unabated. Though an online search of ongoing FDA-approved clinical trials using the keyword "cannabinoids" (the active components in marijuana) yielded me 65 worldwide hits, only six involved subjects's use of actual cannabis. (The others involved the use of synthetic cannabinoid agonists like dronabinol or nabilone, the commercially marketed marijuana extract Sativex, or the cannabinoid receptor blocking agent Rimonabant).
Of the six, two of the studies have already been completed: "Opioid and Cannabinoid Pharmacokinetic Interactions" and "Vaporization as a Smokeless Cannabis Delivery System," both of which were spearheaded by researchers (primarily Dr. Donald Abrams) at the University of California at San Francisco.
The four remaining studies are still in the "recruitment" phase. Of these, only two pertain to the potential medical use of cannabis: "Cannabis for Spasticity of Multiple Sclerosis," which is taking place at the University of California at Davis and is likely the final clinical trial associated with the soon-to-be-defunct and defunded California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research and "Cannabis for Inflammatory Bowel Disease," led by researchers at the Meir Medical Center in Israel.
Of the remaining studies, one focuses on the detection of cannabinoids and their metabolites on drug screens, while the other, entitled "Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Risk Taking and Decision Making Tasks," seeks to establish pot-related harms, hypothesizing that subjects "demonstrate poorer decision-making abilities and increased risk-taking behaviors" after smoking marijuana.
So much for the AMA's demand for clinical cannabis research.
By contrast, preclinical (animal) trials assessing the therapeutic efficacy of cannabinoids are occurring at a record pace. A keyword search on the search engine PubMed using the term "cannabinoids" yielded over 1,300 published papers in 2008, some 1,700 papers in 2009 and another 1,200 published last year.
While many of these studies highlight the ability of cannabinoids to manage a wide range of symptoms, even more intriguing are the results indicating the potential of cannabinoid intervention to halt the development of serious diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease and multiple sclerosis. Nevertheless, without abrupt changes at the highest levels of government -- changes that do not appear to be forthcoming despite this administration's public demand for "scientific integrity" -- scientists will indefinitely lack the human follow-up data necessary to adequately answer societal questions regarding cannabis safety, efficacy and proper dosage.
"Change we can believe in?" Not when it comes to studying pot.
Source: The Huffington Post
It was nearly two years ago that the Obama White House issued its "Scientific Integrity" memorandum stating, "Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration."
Those of us involved in marijuana law reform welcomed the memo -- which came just months after the American Medical Association called for "facilitating ... clinical research and [the] development of cannabinoid-based medicines" -- and we hoped that it would stimulate the commencement of long-overdue human studies into the safety and efficacy of medical cannabis.
Those hopes were snuffed, however, when a representative from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the agency that oversees 85 percent of the world's research on controlled substances, reaffirmed its longstanding "no medi-pot" policy to The New York Times. "As the National Institute on Drug Abuse, our focus is primarily on the negative consequences of marijuana use," a spokesperson told the paper in 2010. "We generally do not fund research focused on the potential beneficial medical effects of marijuana."
A review of the U.S. National Institute of Health website clinicaltrials.gov shows that NIDA's kibosh on medical marijuana trials continues unabated. Though an online search of ongoing FDA-approved clinical trials using the keyword "cannabinoids" (the active components in marijuana) yielded me 65 worldwide hits, only six involved subjects's use of actual cannabis. (The others involved the use of synthetic cannabinoid agonists like dronabinol or nabilone, the commercially marketed marijuana extract Sativex, or the cannabinoid receptor blocking agent Rimonabant).
Of the six, two of the studies have already been completed: "Opioid and Cannabinoid Pharmacokinetic Interactions" and "Vaporization as a Smokeless Cannabis Delivery System," both of which were spearheaded by researchers (primarily Dr. Donald Abrams) at the University of California at San Francisco.
The four remaining studies are still in the "recruitment" phase. Of these, only two pertain to the potential medical use of cannabis: "Cannabis for Spasticity of Multiple Sclerosis," which is taking place at the University of California at Davis and is likely the final clinical trial associated with the soon-to-be-defunct and defunded California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research and "Cannabis for Inflammatory Bowel Disease," led by researchers at the Meir Medical Center in Israel.
Of the remaining studies, one focuses on the detection of cannabinoids and their metabolites on drug screens, while the other, entitled "Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Risk Taking and Decision Making Tasks," seeks to establish pot-related harms, hypothesizing that subjects "demonstrate poorer decision-making abilities and increased risk-taking behaviors" after smoking marijuana.
So much for the AMA's demand for clinical cannabis research.
By contrast, preclinical (animal) trials assessing the therapeutic efficacy of cannabinoids are occurring at a record pace. A keyword search on the search engine PubMed using the term "cannabinoids" yielded over 1,300 published papers in 2008, some 1,700 papers in 2009 and another 1,200 published last year.
While many of these studies highlight the ability of cannabinoids to manage a wide range of symptoms, even more intriguing are the results indicating the potential of cannabinoid intervention to halt the development of serious diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease and multiple sclerosis. Nevertheless, without abrupt changes at the highest levels of government -- changes that do not appear to be forthcoming despite this administration's public demand for "scientific integrity" -- scientists will indefinitely lack the human follow-up data necessary to adequately answer societal questions regarding cannabis safety, efficacy and proper dosage.
"Change we can believe in?" Not when it comes to studying pot.
Source: The Huffington Post
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
VIDEO: Former cannabis collective operator would like some answers from San Diego City Council
Adela Falk, during "public comment", poses some unanswered questions to the members of the San Diego City Council regarding their stance on medical marijuana collectives in San Diego, California. [City Council Meeting on February 15, 2011]
NEWS: California Medical Marijuana Industry Seeks to Operate "FOR PROFIT"
In California, medical marijuana dispensaries are required by state law to operate as non-profit "collectives" of legal medical marijuana patients who simply cover the costs of distributing the plant or edible products made from it. In the aftermath of dozens of raids on dispensaries that were illegally profiting from the sale of marijuana over the last year, the medicinal marijuana industry is calling for new laws that would allow dispensaries to operate as for-profit enterprises.
Many industry advocates are saying the raids happened as a result of vague California laws that do not clearly define proper accounting procedures for dispensaries, allowable salary levels, or illegal profiting. The Sacramento Bee reports the opinion of one Hollywood attorney specializing in marijuana cases who said: "Unfortunately 'profit' isn't defined, and there is no definition of 'nonprofit.'" And Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) says that the radically different approaches to dispensaries- which are allowed to operate in some cities, but are raided in others- shows the need for clear, statewide regulations to create a more "cohesive response."
In addition to clearer statutes, lawmakers, advocates, and industry leaders are calling for the creation of some kind of statewide oversight panel to regulate marijuana dispensaries. Sacramento lawyer, George Mull is lobbying the State Legislature to create what he's calling a "California cannabis commission" to oversee all of California's dispensaries. If the state adopts some of these measures, especially permitting California dispensaries to operate as for-profit businesses, it will end up creating rules similar to those in Colorado, another state notorious for its booming medical cannabis industry.
I actually spent the month of January in Colorado, using some of my time there to investigate its medical marijuana laws and policies. I found the medicinal marijuana industry booming in the sleepy city of Boulder, Colorado, nestled among the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. I saw many (often creatively-decorated) dispensaries nearly everywhere I travelled. My good friend and host for the month, a graduate student at the University of Colorado, even showed me a campus coupon book, which contained coupons from a local dispensary for a "FREE JOINT" with any purchase, and "$10 OFF YOUR NEXT QUARTER OUNCE." I laughed and said:
"So this is what we can look forward to if marijuana becomes legal for recreational use everywhere else over the next few years."
Despite marijuana's strictly medicinal use as far as the law is concerned, the for-profit status of Colorado dispensaries is apparent in the conspicuous commercialization of the plant there. Suppliers and licensed physicians who can charge for clinic visits also seem all-too-eager to cash in on the profits by making it easy to get a physician's recommendation for a medical marijuana card. But is commercializing the drug no better than street "drug-dealing" as one California state official commented? Big pharmaceutical companies make enormous profits from an assortment of legitimate medicines every year.
The question is: why should cannabis be any different? And if it shouldn't be, is a whole new regulatory agency the best way for California to address the problem of raids on marijuana profits, especially as it works to streamline government to address a budget in severe crisis?
Source: California Independent Voter Network
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
