August 03rd, 2017

We posted yesterday an article by a right wing HODGES about the CIA sponsored ISIS and MS 13 'terrorists' working globally to create civil unrest.  We have known this for several decades---it is not conspiracy theory --it is well documented--we want to shout out to WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% this is not a racist movement---it's goal is simply to ferment violent factional tensions between 99% of black, white, and brown citizens.  We have shouted often---it is only a small percentage of citizens---those 5% to the 1% with strong violent racist feelings whether against black citizens----against white citizens---against brown citizens. 

PLEASE DON'T BE FOOLED INTO THESE FACTIONS ---THAT 5% AND 1% WILL SIT BACK LAUGHING AT WE THE PEOPLE HARMING ONE ANOTHER OVER THE MESS CREATED BY GLOBAL WALL STREET PLAYERS.

We want to end this week by extending this planned violence and civil disorder with the OPIOID epidemic soaring in US and around the world.  Nothing sells PHARMA more than addiction.  Nothing breaks down society better than addiction ---yes, it is a global banking/CIA action with their 5% players.

We have stated often that it is the CIA and global banking behind much of the global gun and drug cartel movement into FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE development areas that create the unraveling of civil society-----and indeed that is what has happened in our US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES these few decades.  It now is slated to soar.


Harvard Study: Big Pharma, US Gov. Behind Opioid Epidemic
July 27, 2017 Sean Adl-Tabatabai News, US 5


A new Harvard study reveals how Big Pharma and federal government have colluded to allow the current opioid epidemic in the United States.

 
The study, entitled The Opioid Epidemic: Fixing a Broken Pharmaceutical Market, describes how the American public have been duped by the elites for more than 20 years.

“In this article, we argue that non-rigorous patenting standards and ineffectual policing of both fraudulent marketing and anticompetitive actions played an important role in launching and prolonging the opioid epidemic. We further show that these regulatory issues are not unique to prescription opioids but rather are reflective of the wider pharmaceutical market.”


Thefreethoughtproject.com reports: Researchers follow with a primer on the rise of opioid prescriptions and how pain became “the fifth vital sign.” By the 1990s, doctors realized that chronic pain was often ignored, and pain management became a hot topic. Physicians were urged to make greater use of opioids, with experts in the field downplaying the potential for misuse and addiction – a view largely based on experience with morphine.


But this was before OxyContin came along.


Purdue Pharma, recognizing that this newfound view of the medical establishment could be exploited, worked to develop an improved synthetic opioid. Their golden ticket was found with the extended-release oxycodone pill known as OxyContin, patented and approved by the FDA in 1995.
However, Purdue’s exclusive patent was based on corporate fraud and government ignorance.


Ads by Revcontent“Purdue was able to patent extended-release oxycodone in the United States despite the fact that its constituent elements—the active ingredient oxycodone and the controlled-release system Contin—had been developed decades earlier…Oxycodone was used in clinical practice in Germany as early as 1917, and was first introduced in the United States in 1939.”


Purdue’s angle was to develop a controlled-release version of oxycodone, banking on its success with the patented MS Contin for morphine. Here’s where the feds stepped in to help.


The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) initially rejected Purdue’s patent request for extended-release oxycodone, citing the combination as “obvious.” But Purdue responded with a statistical falsehood – which the company knew was false – and the patent office made an about-face, granting the 20 year patent for OxyContin.


Since then, the cozy relationship between Big Pharma and government has grown, with the pharma industry spending almost a billion dollars in ten years on lobbying federal and state governments and campaign contributions.


As the Harvard study notes, “low patenting standards” and “a history of tepid enforcement” provided incentive for Purdue to embark on a massive, fraudulent marketing campaign. With the guarantee of no competition provided by government, Purdue spent obscene amounts of money getting American hooked on their newly-patented product.


“Between 1996 and 2000, the company more than doubled its U.S. marketing team…In 2001, Purdue paid forty million dollars in bonuses tied to extended-release oxycodone…Purdue also invested heavily in analytics, developing a database to identify high-volume prescribers and pharmacies to help focus their marketing resources…Patients were offered starter coupons for a free initial supply of extended-release oxycodone, 34,000 of which were redeemed by 2001…Finally, Purdue hosted forty all-expenses-paid pain management and speaker training conferences at lavish resorts. Over five thousand clinicians attended, receiving toys, fishing hats, and compact discs while listening to sales representatives tout the alleged benefits of extended-release oxycodone…Purdue elevated the stakes, spending an estimated six to twelve times more promoting extended-release oxycodone than its competitor Janssen spent marketing a rival opioid…
Purdue’s efforts paid off. Between 1996 and 2001, extended-release oxycodone generated $2.8 billion in sales. From 2008 to 2014, annual sales exceeded $2 billion.”


It gets even worse.


As the patent expiration for OxyContin approached, Purdue developed an “abuse-deterrent formulation” of the drug, for which FDA granted a patent in 2010. Not satisfied with a simple new patent, Purdue filed a “citizen petition asking the FDA to refuse to accept generic versions of the original extended-release oxycodone formulation on safety grounds.” Incredibly, FDA also granted this to Purdue, “effectively preventing the marketing of low-cost, therapeutically equivalent products that might undercut Purdue’s incentive to continue to widely promote its new abuse-deterrent formulation.”


By the way, the “abuse-deterrent” OxyContin doesn’t really deter addicts, and it has fueled the explosive heroin epidemic as addicts seek out cheaper, black market alternatives. But Purdue is content making its billions off the patented drug.



While thousands of Americans die under a campaign of deception and greed, official Washington pretends to care with the occasional fine levied against pharma companies, including for false marketing by Purdue.
But no one ever goes to jail; no one in top management is ever held to account. The persons in “personhood” conveniently disappear when corporations get in trouble. And the fines? Mere pocket change compared to the revenues already made from the drugs involved.
“Rather than deterring fraudulent marketing, the penalties simply became a cost of doing business.”



The Harvard study provides much more insight into the fraudulent marketing practices of Big Pharma, the patent schemes enabled by federal government, how generic drugs are routinely stifled, and possible ways to address the injustice.


Some of the more sinister effects of the system include “hard switches” which force patients to go from one costly patented drug to another instead of generics. The use of “citizen petitions” by pharma corporations to slow generic drugs and keep prices high is a particularly insidious scheme.


The study notes that today, “Over four million Americans misuse opioids each month” at a societal cost of $80 billion annually. 300 million prescriptions were written in 2015 in the U.S., which has a population of 323 million. This is reflected in the fact that 80 percent of the world’s opioids are consumed in the U.S., which has 5 percent of the world’s population.


The misuse of opioids is a not a simple issue, and personal choice is of course involved. But the above numbers point to something much bigger going on.
As the Harvard study confirms, Big Pharma has exploited the enormous addiction potential of opioids to prey upon the American populace for decades — made possible by a federal government with blatant disregard for the well-being of citizens.

__________________________________________
Who was behind the OPIUM WARS over centuries? THOSE OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1% FREEMASONS----the UK HAS A STRONG HISTORY TO THIS WARFARE.

When REAL left social progressives shouted against LEGALIZING MARIJUANA now---this is the problem. An orchestrated movement by global 1% to create these conditions if civil faction and violence. The MS-13 'gangsters' as with other groups identifying as 'gangsters' have long ties with global banking installation of Foreign Economic Zones through civil unrest. We have been seeing all that movement in US cities these few decades.

Global PHARMA is of course profiteering not only from the addictive conditions of OXYCODON----but the black market distribution structure both real cartels and government sponsored cartels just as with military weapon global distribution structures.

Baltimore is ground zero for this because global Johns Hopkins is tied to BUSH/CHENEY/BLACKWATER/CIA/AFGHANISTAN KARSAI ---

SEE WHY WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% NEED TO FIGHT IN US CITIES TO MAKE CHANGE THESE GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AND GLOBAL IVY LEAGUES LIKE JOHNS HOPKINS AND HARVARD.

Global IVY LEAGUEs like Harvard and Hopkins love to come out with these public health reports 30 years after these epidemic structures being built. Of course NOW the epidemic is soaring and yes, OPEN BORDERS/FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE CALLED SANCTUARY CITIES is the root to installing this breakdown to civil society.

Of course controlled medicinal use of OXYCONTIN help many citizens---it is the breakdown in regulation, oversight, and containment of these PHARMA that made for these global black markets. It is the same as dumping hundreds of billions of US weaponry in third world nations knowing there is no control mechanism stopping global weapons cartel distribution. A SALE IS A SALE IN GLOBAL WALL STREET LIBERTARIAN NEO-LIBERALISM----DO ANYTHING TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS.


Asia Pacific

Reports Link Karzai’s Brother to Afghanistan Heroin Trade

By JAMES RISENOCT. 4, 2008  New York Times


The First and Second Opium Wars


by Kallie Szczepanski
Updated June 14, 2017
01
of 03The Opium Wars
British East India Company and Qing Chinese army uniforms from the Opium Wars in China. Chrysaora on Flickr.com

First Opium War:




March 18, 1839 - August 29, 1842.




Also called the First Anglo-Chinese War.




Casualties: 69 British troops, approximately 18,000 Chinese soldiers.




Results: Britain gets trade rights, access to five treaty ports, and Hong Kong.




Second Opium War:




October 23, 1856 - October 18, 1860.




Also known as the Arrow War or the Second Anglo-Chinese War, although France joined in.




Casualties: Western powers, approximately 2,900 killed or wounded. China, 12,000 - 30,000 killed or wounded.




Results: Britain gets southern Kowloon. Western powers get extraterritorial rights, trade privileges. China's Summer Palaces looted and burned.




Background to the Opium Wars:




In the 1700s, European nations such as Britain, the Netherlands, and France sought to expand their Asian trade networks by connecting with one of the major sources of desirable finished products - the powerful Qing Empire in China. For well over a thousand years, China had been the eastern end point of the Silk Road, and source of fabulous luxury items. European joint-stock trading companies, such as the British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company (VOC), were eager to elbow their way in on this ancient exchange system.




The European traders had a couple of problems, however. China limited them to the commercial port of Canton, did not allow them to learn Chinese, and also threatened harsh penalties for any European who tried to leave the port city and enter China proper. Worst of all, European consumers were crazy for Chinese silks, porcelain, and tea, but China wanted nothing to do with any European manufactured goods. The Qing required payment in cold, hard cash - in this case, silver.




Britain soon faced a serious trade deficit with China, as it had no domestic silver supply and had to buy all of its silver from Mexico or from European powers with colonial silver mines. The growing British thirst for tea, in particular, made the trade imbalance increasingly desperate. By the end of the 18th century, the UK imported more than 6 tons of Chinese tea annually. In half a century, Britain managed to sell just £9m worth of British goods to the Chinese, in exchange for £27m in Chinese imports. The difference was paid for in silver.




However, early in the 19th century, the British East India Company hit upon a second form of payment that was illegal, yet acceptable to the Chinese traders: opium from British India. This opium, primarily produced in Bengal, was stronger than the type traditionally used in Chinese medicine; in addition, Chinese users began to smoke the opium rather than eating the resin, which produced a more powerful high. As usage and addiction increased, the Qing government grew ever more concerned. By some estimates, as many as 90% of the young males along China's east coast were addicted to smoking opium by the 1830s. The trade balance swung in Britain's favor, on the back of illegal opium smuggling.



02
of 03First Opium War

Click for larger image. The British ship Nemesis battles Chinese junks during the First Opium War. E. Duncan via Wikipedia

In 1839, China's Daoguang Emperor decided that he had had enough of British drug smuggling. He appointed a new governor for Canton, Lin Zexu, who besieged thirteen British smugglers inside their warehouses. When they surrendered in April of 1839, Governor Lin confiscated goods including 42,000 opium pipes and 20,000 150-pound chests of opium, with a total street value of some £2 million. He ordered the chests placed into trenches, covered with lime, and then drenched in sea water to destroy the opium. Outraged, British traders immediately began to petition the British home government for help.




July of that year saw the next incident that escalated tension between the Qing and British. On July 7, 1839, drunk British and American sailors from several opium clipper ships rioted in the village of Chien-sha-tsui, in Kowloon, killing a Chinese man and vandalizing a Buddhist temple. In the wake of this "Kowloon Incident," Qing officials demanded that the foreigners turn over the guilty men for trial, but Britain refused, citing China's different legal system as the basis for refusal. Even though the crimes took place on Chinese soil, and had a Chinese victim, Britain claimed that the sailors were entitled to extraterritorial rights.




Six sailors were tried in a British court in Canton. Although they were convicted, they were freed as soon as they returned to Britain.




In the wake of the Kowloon Incident, Qing officials declared that no British or other foreign merchants would be allowed to trade with China unless they agreed, under pain of death, to abide by Chinese law, including that outlawing the opium trade, and to submit themselves to Chinese legal jurisdiction. The British Superintendent of Trade in China, Charles Elliot, responded by suspending all British trade with China and ordering British ships to withdraw.




The First Opium War Breaks Out




Oddly enough, the First Opium War began with a squabble amongst the British. The British ship Thomas Coutts, whose Quaker owners had always opposed opium smuggling, sailed into Canton in October of 1839. The ship's captain signed the Qing legal bond and began trading. In response, Charles Elliot ordered the Royal Navy to blockade the mouth of the Pearl River to prevent any other British ships from entering. On November 3, the British trader Royal Saxon approached but the Royal Navy fleet began firing on it. Qing Navy junks sallied out to protect the Royal Saxon, and in the resulting First Battle of Cheunpee, the British Navy sank a number of Chinese ships.




It was the first in a long string of disastrous defeats for Qing forces, who would lose battles to the British both at sea and on land over the next two and a half years. The British seized Canton (Guangdong), Chusan (Zhousan), the Bogue forts at the mouth of the Pearl River, Ningbo and Dinghai. In mid-1842, the British also seized Shanghai, thus controlling the mouth of the critical Yangtze River as well. Stunned and humiliated, the Qing government had to sue for peace.




The Treaty of Nanking




On August 29, 1842, representatives of Queen Victoria of Great Britain and the Daoguang Emperor of China agreed to a peace treaty called the Treaty of Nanking. This agreement is also called the First Unequal Treaty because Britain extracted a number of major concessions from the Chinese while offering nothing in return except for an end to hostilities.




The Treaty of Nanking opened five ports to British traders, instead of requiring them all to trade at Canton. It also provided for a fixed 5% tariff rate on imports into China, which was agreed to by the British and Qing officials rather than being imposed solely by China. Britain was accorded "most favored nation" trade status, and its citizens were granted extraterritorial rights. British consuls gained the right to negotiate directly with local officials, and all British prisoners of war were released. China also ceded the island of Hong Kong to Britain in perpetuity. Finally, the Qing government agreed to pay war reparations totaling 21 million silver dollars over the following three years.




Under this treaty, China suffered economic hardship and a serious loss of sovereignty. Perhaps most damaging, however, was its loss of prestige. Long the super-power of East Asia, the First Opium War exposed Qing China as a paper tiger. The neighbors, particularly Japan, took note of its weakness.



03
of 03Second Opium War

Click for larger image. Painting from Le Figaro of French commander Cousin-Montauban leading a charge during the Second Opium War in China, 1860. via Wikipedia

In the aftermath of the First Opium War, Qing Chinese officials proved quite reluctant to enforce the terms of the British Treaties of Nanking (1842) and the Bogue (1843), as well as the similarly odious unequal treaties imposed by France and the United States (both in 1844). To make matters worse, Britain demanded additional concessions from the Chinese in 1854, including the opening of all China's ports to foreign traders, a 0% tariff rate on British imports, and the legalization of Britain's trade in opium from Burma and India into China.




China held off these changes for some time, but on October 8, 1856, matters came to a head with the Arrow Incident. The Arrow was a smuggling ship registered in China, but based out of Hong Kong (then a British crown colony). When Chinese officials boarded the ship and arrested its crew of twelve on suspicion of smuggling and piracy, the British protested that the Hong Kong-based ship was outside of China's jurisdiction. Britain demanded that China release the Chinese crew under the extraterritoriality clause of the Treaty of Nanjing.




Although the Chinese authorities were well within their rights to board the Arrow, and in fact the ship's Hong Kong registration had expired, Britain forced them to release the sailors. Even though China complied, the British then destroyed four Chinese coastal forts and sank more than 20 naval junks between October 23 and November 13. Since China was in the throes of the Taiping Rebellion at the time, it did not have much military power to spare to defend its sovereignty from this new British assault.




The British also had other concerns at the time, however. In 1857, the Indian Revolt (sometimes called the "Sepoy Mutiny") spread across the Indian subcontinent, drawing the British Empire's attention away from China. Once the Indian Revolt was put down, however, and the Mughal Empire abolished, Britain once again turned its eyes to the Qing.




Meanwhile, in February of 1856, a French Catholic missionary named Auguste Chapdelaine was arrested in Guangxi. He was charged with preaching Christianity outside of the treaty ports, in violation of the Sino-French agreements, and also collaborating with the Taiping rebels. Father Chapdelaine was sentenced to beheading, but his jailers beat him to death before the sentence was carried out. Though the missionary was tried according to Chinese law, as provided for in the treaty, the French government would use this incident as an excuse to join with the British in the Second Opium War.




Between December of 1857 and mid-1858, the Anglo-French forces captured Guangzhou, Guangdong, and the Taku Forts near Tientsin (Tianjin). China surrendered, and was forced to sign the punitive Treaty of Tientsin in June of 1858.




This new treaty allowed the UK, France, Russia, and the US to establish official embassies in Peking (Beijing); it opened eleven additional ports to foreign traders; it established free navigation for foreign vessels up the Yangtze River; it allowed foreigners to travel into interior China; and once again China had to pay war indemnities - this time, 8 million taels of silver to France and Britain. (One tael is equal to roughly 37 grams.) In a separate treaty, Russia took the left bank of the Amur River from China. In 1860, the Russians would found their major Pacific Ocean port city of Vladivostok on this newly-acquired land.




Round Two




Although the Second Opium War seemed to be over, the Xianfeng Emperor's advisers convinced him to resist the western powers and their ever-harsher treaty demands. As a result, the Xianfeng Emperor refused to ratify the new treaty. His consort, Concubine Yi, was particularly strong in her anti-western beliefs; she would later become the Empress Dowager Cixi.




When the French and British attempted to land military forces numbering in the thousands at Tianjin, and march on Beijing (supposedly just to establish their embassies, as set out in the Treaty of Tientsin), the Chinese initially did not allow them to come ashore. However, the Anglo-French forces made it to land and on September 21, 1860, wiped out a Qing army of 10,000. On October 6, they entered Beijing, where they looted and burned the Emperor's Summer Palaces.




The Second Opium War finally ended on October 18, 1860, with the Chinese ratification of a revised version of the Treaty of Tianjin. In addition to the provisions listed above, the revised treaty mandated equal treatment for Chinese who converted to Christianity, the legalization of opium trading, and Britain also received parts of coastal Kowloon, on the mainland across from Hong Kong Island.




Results of the Second Opium War




For the Qing Dynasty, the Second Opium War marked the beginning of a slow descent into oblivion that ended with the abdication of Emperor Puyi in 1911. The ancient Chinese imperial system would not vanish without a fight, however. Many of the Treaty of Tianjin's provisions helped to spark the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, a popular uprising against the invasion of foreign peoples and foreign ideas such as Christianity in China.




China's second crushing defeat by the western powers also served as both a revelation and a warning to Japan. The Japanese had long resented China's preeminence in the region, sometimes offering tribute to the Chinese emperors, but at other times refusing or even invading the mainland. Modernizing leaders in Japan saw the Opium Wars as a cautionary tale, which helped spark the Meiji Restoration, with its modernization and militarization of the island nation. In 1895, Japan would use its new, western-style army to defeat China in the Sino-Japanese War and occupy the Korean Peninsula... events that would have repercussions well into the twentieth century.


________________________________________________

No one knows these global banking drugs, guns, and government systems than our black global Wall Street pols and players. 

MOST OF WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% KNOW THIS.

This is why from a PUBLIC HEALTH standpoint we are MAD AS HECK with the same BLAME GAME OF POOR CITIZENS forced to live in these poor communities with economic policies deliberately creating economic stagnation and unemployment and cartels moving everything and anything in and out our our US cities. 

LET'S MAKE STRICTER GUN LAWS DIRECTED AT THESE POOR CITIZENS---THAT'S THE ANSWER.

The REAL public health response to US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE soaring drug and gun violence is STOP MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS AND GLOBAL LABOR POOL policies-----that global Johns Hopkins. global Wall Street Baltimore Development, Greater Baltimore Committee, Baltimore Urban League, Baltimore Urban Institute, Baltimore NAACP, and FAKE 5% RELIGIOUS LEADERS push as hard as they can.

We cannot address these drug issues without DOING ALL THIS first.  Who created the sweet deals with GLOBAL PHARMA in passing Affordable Care Act---who is dropping GLOBAL PHARMA and US weapons these few years in record amounts?  Obama, Hillary as Secretary of State, AND CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA global Wall Street then building billions of dollars in NEW FUNDING for new products to REHABILITATE our addicted citizens and citizens caught in the middle of gun violence.

REAL left social progressives have long supported legalization of recreational drugs like marijuana BUT we recognize the SERIOUSNESS OF SOARING DRUG ADDICTIONS NOW not needing yet another global corporate market for these drugs. The REAL left social progressive policy for allowing use of MEDICINAL MARIJUANA would be government controlled distribution WITH OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY=====all these 5% to the 1% whether black, brown, or white want with today's legalization is profits directed to these same global 1%----



Black Lawmakers Call for Special Session in Maryland


Black lawmakers in Maryland care calling for a special session, after a bill designed to create diversity ownership in the state's developing medical marijuana industry failed to pass in the session's closing minutes.

April 12, 2017, at 3:58 p.m.

MORE

Black Lawmakers Call for Special Session in Maryland









Delegate Cheryl Glenn, a Baltimore Democrat who chairs the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland, calls for a special session to approve additional licenses to grow medical marijuana to create diversity ownership of businesses in Maryland's developing industry during a Wednesday, April 12, 2017 news conference in Baltimore. State Sen. Joan Carter Conway, D-Baltimore, is standing next to Glenn at left. Attorney Billy Murphy is standing behind Glenn at right, and Del. Nick Mosby, D-Baltimore, is standing behind Glenn at left. (AP Photo/Brian Witte) The Associated Press


By BRIAN WITTE, Associated Press


BALTIMORE (AP) — Black lawmakers in Maryland on Wednesday called for a special session of the state legislature, after a bill designed to create diversity ownership in the state's developing medical marijuana industry failed to pass in the regular session's chaotic closing minutes this week.



Del. Cheryl Glenn, a Baltimore Democrat who chairs the Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland, described the last minutes of the legislative session Monday night as "a well-orchestrated plan to defeat the bill." She said the black caucus, which includes 50 of the General Assembly's 188 members, supports the legislation.
"I am heartbroken, and I'm angry and that is not going to be resolved unless we have a special session and unless we right this wrong," Glenn said at a news conference with attorneys and caucus members.


Together, Glenn said, the caucus will show their displeasure in next year's session — an election year — if nothing is done.


"We're talking about generations of African Americans who have been disproportionately impacted by the marijuana laws in this country, and now that we have medical marijuana legal in the state of Maryland, what the legislature is saying to us, what the leadership is saying to us is that African Americans will not be allowed to have licenses," Glenn said. "No, that is not acceptable."


The measure that died on the House floor midnight Monday would have allowed seven more licenses to grow marijuana in the state, in addition to 15 now allowed by law. Two of the new licenses would have gone to two companies that are now suing the state, because they were bumped out of the top 15 companies named as finalists after a state commission abruptly said it needed to increase geographic diversity. The bill also would have allowed five more licenses to create diversity ownership, after a disparity study.


Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, could call a special session of the legislature. Maryland lawmakers also could petition the governor to call a special session, if a majority of members in the House and Senate agree to do so.


House Speaker Michael Busch said Wednesday he would support passing legislation "that would address the inequities in the medical cannabis industry, with new licenses awarded after a disparity study," if the governor called a special session. The speaker also called on the state's medical marijuana commission not to issue any new licenses until the issue is resolved.


"Given the cloud that has hovered over this entire program and the 2017 legislative session, we must be entirely transparent and give the public confidence in the decisions that we make," Busch, an Anne Arundel County Democrat, said.


Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller said he supports a special session either by call of the governor or by the General Assembly, if an agreement is in place to quickly pass the bill that the House agreed to support late Monday night but could not get through in the final moments.


"In order to resolve all of the problems surrounding the flawed rollout of the program, I would support the rare event of a one-day special session as I believe we could expeditiously pass a bill representing what was eventually supported by both chambers but that the House could not get passed by midnight on sine die," Miller, a Calvert County Democrat, said.


Shareese Churchill, a spokeswoman for the governor, said the matter is between the speaker and the Senate president.
"This is between the president and the speaker, and it appears they are moving even further apart," Churchill said Wednesday.


Maryland first decided to allow medical marijuana in 2013, but the effort stalled because the law required academic medical centers to run the programs, and none stepped forward. The law was later revised, but further delays have resulted from intense interest in a market that stands to be lucrative, largely due to the fact that the law will allow wide patient access.

___________________________________________
'Davis said more than 60 percent of people with gun convictions in the city since the start of 2016 have had more than half of their sentences suspended'.

“We should treat violence as a public health issue,” he said.
He argued that mandatory minimums do not decrease crime'.


We showed recently where Baltimore City special forces SWAT teams and now with police cameras we have already seen TWO cases reviewed just recently where police officers are ACTIVELY PLANTING DRUGS AND GUNS. The US Justice Department knows this----our Maryland States' Attorney knows this ---our Baltimore City Attorney KNOWS THIS has been happening for decades in Baltimore.

Enforcing laws surrounding illegal possession of any weapon is NOT a bad thing. We would COMMEND our BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR for enforcing US RULE OF LAW for all criminal activities especially the billion dollars each year stolen in fraud by global Baltimore Development, Greater Baltimore Committee, global Johns Hopkins EXECUTIVES ----just being TOUGH ON OPEN GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AND CORPORATE FRAUD in Baltimore would send that billion to each community to create small businesses and jobs for those citizens forced into black market drugs and guns and becoming addicted.

THIS IS THE OUTRAGE OVER MORE AND MORE AND MORE REGRESSIVE AND REPRESSIVE LAWS PRETENDING TO ADDRESS WHAT ALL KNOW IS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE.

If 60% of gun convictions are overturned it just might be that evidence showed PLANTING OF DRUGS AND GUNS by police----let's blame the corruption in police department FIRST AND FIX THAT---before we jail more and more Baltimore citizens perhaps also victim to this same police corruption.

IF WE KNOW MOVING FORWARD US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES has a goal of mass unemployment----a goal of mass deepened impoverishment-----there is a goal of planned civil unrest that will be driven by a narco-type gun war------why on earth do we focus on poor individuals?

For those trying to make this a racist issue-----these kinds of civil unrest by rogue governments have been happening globally ----it is a global 1% and global banking behind all these societal ills----and yes, those DASTARDLY 5% TO THE 1% WHITE, BROWN, AND BLACK GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS AND PLAYERS. Don't get mad at 99% of WE THE PEOPLE---hold that 5% black, brown, and white citizens ACCOUNTABLE.


For those trying to make this a racist issue-----these kinds of civil unrest by rogue governments have been happening globally ----it is a global 1% and global banking behind all these societal ills----and yes, those DASTARDLY 5% TO THE 1% WHITE, BROWN, AND BLACK GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS AND PLAYERS. Don't get mad at 99% of WE THE PEOPLE---hold that 5% black, brown, and white citizens ACCOUNTABLE.

This breakdown of US civil society is tied to these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA dismantling all that is public, deregulating, and refusing to enforce US RULE OF LAW----THAT IS THE PROBLEM.


Baltimore leaders propose mandatory sentence for illegal gun possession

• By Kevin Rector and Luke Broadwater The Baltimore Sun (TNS)
• Jul 14, 2017

Baltimore leaders on Friday proposed a mandatory one-year sentence for illegal gun possession within 100 yards of a school, park, church, public building or other public place of assembly within the city.

The bill would prevent any part of the one-year sentence from being suspended, and preclude those with such convictions from receiving parole.
Mayor Catherine Pugh said she’d like to do more to restrict guns, but “this is what we can do locally” without changing state law.

Pugh acknowledged that there is a church or a school “on nearly every corner” in the city, and said “as it relates to this legislation, that’s a good thing.”

Police Commissioner Kevin Davis praised the bill as a much-needed change to help the city address its soaring violence. The city is on pace to surpass 300 homicides for the third year in a row. Before 2015, that mark hadn’t been reached in Baltimore since the 1990s.
Davis said more than 60 percent of people with gun convictions in the city since the start of 2016 have had more than half of their sentences suspended. He said the city does not have a problem with legal gun owners, but with illegal gun offenders intent on committing violent crime who are not afraid of being caught with a deadly weapon.


“It’s about holding the right people accountable,” he said.

PLEASE DO HOLD THE RIGHT PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE---LOOK UP THE ECONOMIC LADDER.

Davis noted that the restriction of the measure to illegal gun possession within a certain distance of specific locations is what makes the provision legal under Maryland law. Broader changes to gun sentencing would require legislation at the state level — which Davis has sought unsuccessfully for years.


Assistant Attorney General Kathryn Rowe wrote that such a bill “would be permissible” in a July 5 letter to Delegate Curt Anderson, a Democrat who is chairman of the city’s House delegation in Annapolis.


City Council President Bernard C. “Jack” Young said he would introduce the bill on Monday. He said it would serve “as a tool to help get the most dangerous and violent repeat offenders off the streets of Baltimore.”
Young said mistakes have been made in the past implementing mandatory minimum sentences for low-level, nonviolent drug offenses rather than taking a public health approach to drug addiction. But he said people walking around with illegal guns are “people on the verge of shattering the hopes and dreams of another family in Baltimore,” and need to be dealt with more harshly.


Pugh, Davis, Young and Anderson were among a broad coalition of elected officials and other law enforcement, business and religious leaders who gathered to announce the bill at City Hall on Friday. The group also included state Sen. Joan Carter Conway, chairman of the city’s Senate delegation; and Donald C. Fry, president and CEO of the Greater Baltimore Committee.


They said the effort within the city would be followed by a push to pass even harsher penalties for illegal gun possession during the next legislative session in Annapolis.
City Council members there in support of the bill were Leon F. Pinkett III, Isaac “Yitzy” Schleifer, and Robert Stokes Sr. Other council members voiced their opposition to the bill Friday, including Ryan Dorsey and Kristerfer Burnett.


Dorsey said the legislation should not be fast-tracked.
“This is not something that we should decide on overnight,” he said. “It’s going to disproportionately impact black people and communities negatively. I haven’t seen any evidence that mandatory minimums actually deter any sort of crime.”
Burnett said the city would be better off increasing funding for Safe Streets and schools to combat violence.



“We should treat violence as a public health issue,” he said.
He argued that mandatory minimums do not decrease crime.

“We are under a lot of pressure right now from community members living in neighborhoods experiencing violence to do something,” Burnett said. “I don’t want to minimize their fears, but we have a responsibility to enact good policy as well.”


Some criminal justice reform advocates and defense attorneys also expressed opposition to the bill.
Councilman Brandon Scott, chair of the public safety committee, said he believes there are good intentions behind the bill, but he also has some concerns that must be discussed as he and his colleagues consider the legislation.


“We know mandatory minimums have been specifically shown to overwhelmingly impact poor black people, and in Baltimore we know that we have an unfortunate abundance of poor black people, particularly poor black men who have already been impacted by mandatory minimums,” Scott said. “We have to figure out how to make sure that those violent repeat offenders who feel comfortable carrying guns are being punished, but at the same time we cannot have things that are going to make things worse when you’re talking about the grand scheme of young poor black people in our city.”


Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby, whose office often strikes plea deals with gun offenders in which the offenders receive sentences of less than a year in prison, was not at the press conference.


In response to questions about the bill and its potential impact on plea negotiations, her office released a statement that did not mention the bill. It said Mosby is “committed to holding criminals who wreak havoc in our city accountable for their actions and support all efforts intended to strengthen gun control.”


Pressed again for her position on the bill, her office did not respond. Pugh said Mosby had expressed general support for the bill but had some issues with it, but she declined to define those issues.


Under the proposed bill, judges would not be allowed to suspend any of the one-year sentence, and those convicted would not be eligible for parole. However, they still would not necessarily serve a year in prison.
Inmates in Maryland convicted of non-violent crimes – which include gun possession unrelated to drug dealing or a violent act – earn what are known as “diminution credits” that cut their time in prison for good behavior, education attained behind bars and other work activities. The amount of time depends on the type of credits the inmate receives, but such credits often result in significant portions of sentences being cut.


According to state corrections officials, the city bill would have to explicitly state that such defendants are ineligible for diminution credits to ensure they served an entire year. It does not currently do so.
On Friday, Anderson, Pugh and other legislators said they would return to Annapolis in the next session to argue for even stricter penalties for gun possession — including a five-year mandatory sentence for an illegal gun possession conviction.


“We’ll be adamant about the passage of the legislation,” Conway said.
Davis has spent years arguing for such penalties at the state level, lobbying legislators in Annapolis without success. However, opposition to such changes may be thawing.


In an interview with The Baltimore Sun on Friday, State Sen. Bobby Zirkin, a Baltimore County Democrat who is chair of the Senate’s Judicial Proceedings Committee, said he will back a change to state gun laws this session.
Zirkin said he will support a bill that makes illegal gun possession statewide a felony with a mandatory, non-suspendable minimum sentence. He has not decided what he thinks that minimum should be, or if he will agree with Davis and others in the city that it should be five years.


Zirkin said the city is free to pass its own local ordinance in the meantime, but he does not think the law change at the state level should be restricted to the city.
“I don’t want people to think that it’s OK to carry illegal guns in my jurisdiction,” he said. “A criminal penalty like that should be statewide.”
Changes to state gun laws have traditionally received pushback from legislators who represent more rural communities.


Zirkin himself has previously balked at such changes, saying he supports judicial discretion in sentencing. On Friday, he said still believes in judicial discretion as a philosophy, but the “outrageous” level of violence in Baltimore has softened his stance.


“This is an emergency situation and I’m willing to try anything at this point,” he said. He said he was speaking only for himself, not for any other members of his committee.
He also said a change in the gun law will not save Baltimore alone.
“If anybody thinks that’s all it’s going to take, they’re kidding themselves,” he said.
_________________________________________
Global Johns Hopkins loves to use play on words for its approach or LACK OF IT to public health------we called out EVERGREEN HEALTH SYSTEM as using the term for global PHARMA killing the ability to send valuable PHARMA to generics.

Below we see yet another play on medical terms------GATEWAY COMMUNITY happens to be tied to global Johns Hopkins patent machine BIOTECH PARK.  We have discussed in detail the breakdown in MEDICAL PHARMA AND MEDICAL DEVICE safety these few decades and this is now SOARING GLOBALLY------the global vaccine issue is only ONE SUCH.



"In dollar terms, there is more construction activity under way now than there has been since the project's beginning," says Andy Frank, special adviser to JHU President Ronald J. Daniels on economic development, and the university's lead liaison to East Baltimore Development Inc., a nonprofit organization formed by the city and state in 2003 to lead the transformation of the once-blighted area'.


EAST BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT has been a taxpayer-funded building of a global corporate Johns Hopkins business park.  FREE MONEY FOR EXTREME WEALTH AND PROFIT almost all of which was moved to these projects ILLEGALLY.

Below we see a DESIGNER COMMUNITY just for global Johns Hopkins.  As with University of Maryland Medical Center with its GLOBAL BIOTECH PARK the entire development centers on recruiting global labor pool both high-skilled and low-skilled to live and work around this campus----the AFFORDABLE HOUSING is simply student and temporary global labor pool housing----it has nothing to do with 99% of Baltimore citizens.  The only job creation for local citizens always tends towards impoverishment wages.


JHU supports $10M effort to bring jobs to Baltimore


Published a day ago
Over the past year, Johns Hopkins University has played an integral role in bringing a nationwide program designed to boost small businesses to Baltimore and helping it flourish. Today, program partners Goldman Sachs and Bloomberg Philanthropies announced a five-year, $10 million commitment to continue the program in Baltimore. Johns Hopkins will serve as the host site for the program, which will welcome a new cohort of 30 small-business owners beginning in November.



People without addictive personalities can smoke marijuana as a recreational drug without chances of addiction----but THE US is in the midst of an addiction CRISES------

Gateway drug theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It has been suggested that Tobacco and other drugs be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since June 2016.Gateway drug theory (alternatively, stepping-stone theory, escalation hypothesis, or progression hypothesis) is a comprehensive catchphrase for the medical theory that the use of a psychoactive drug can be coupled to an increased probability of the use of further drugs. Possible causes are biological alterations in the brain due to the earlier drug and similar attitudes of users across different drugs (common liability to addiction). Scientific investigation of the possible causes is considered important for health policy concerning education and law making.

GATEWAY DRUG THEORY DEFINES GLOBAL PHARMA'S APPROACH TO PRODUCT SALES AND MARKETING.


Is marijuana a gateway drug?

Some research suggests that marijuana use is likely to precede use of other licit and illicit substances46 and the development of addiction to other substances. For instance, a study using longitudinal data from the National Epidemiological Study of Alcohol Use and Related Disorders found that adults who reported marijuana use during the first wave of the survey were more likely than adults who did not use marijuana to develop an alcohol use disorder within 3 years; people who used marijuana and already had an alcohol use disorder at the outset were at greater risk of their alcohol use disorder worsening.47 Marijuana use is also linked to other substance use disorders including nicotine addiction.


Early exposure to cannabinoids in adolescent rodents decreases the reactivity of brain dopamine reward centers later in adulthood.48 To the extent that these findings generalize to humans, this could help explain the increased vulnerability for addiction to other substances of misuse later in life that most epidemiological studies have reported for people who begin marijuana use early in life.49 It is also consistent with animal experiments showing THC’s ability to "prime" the brain for enhanced responses to other drugs.50 For example, rats previously administered THC show heightened behavioral response not only when further exposed to THC but also when exposed to other drugs such as morphine—a phenomenon called cross-sensitization.



These findings are consistent with the idea of marijuana as a "gateway drug." However, the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, "harder" substances. Also, cross-sensitization is not unique to marijuana. Alcohol and nicotine also prime the brain for a heightened response to other drugs52 and are, like marijuana, also typically used before a person progresses to other, more harmful substances.


It is important to note that other factors besides biological mechanisms, such as a person’s social environment, are also critical in a person’s risk for drug use. An alternative to the gateway-drug hypothesis is that people who are more vulnerable to drug-taking are simply more likely to start with readily available substances such as marijuana, tobacco, or alcohol, and their subsequent social interactions with others who use drugs increases their chances of trying other drugs. Further research is needed to explore this question.

____________________________________________
We saw in last article that CORPORATE MEDICAL DATA saying legalized marijuana is lowering OPIATE ADDICTIONS. The data from public universities before taken by corporations has always identified marijuana as a GATEWAY drug---that is why legalization has been held at bay---well, we don't have public interest universities or laws---we have MAXIMIZING GLOBAL CORPORATE PROFITS ANYWAY THAT GLOBAL 1% CAN data.
Don't be fooled-----these global corporations below will get that marijuana market and it is a GATEWAY DRUG for those increasing populations of citizens becoming ADDICTED-----

The idea we will collect tax revenue from global corporations that haven't paid a bit of corporate tax these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ----is ridiculous.

So again, for a few decades small business owners are allowed to become startups and VOILA that market is taken by global corporations----as now with marijuana. Global addiction crises meets legalizing a GATEWAY DRUG MARIJUANA.

This is the difference between PUBLIC HEALTH CARE AND PROFIT-DRIVEN, PREDATORY PRIVATE HEALTH SYSTEMS-----public universities provide public interest medical data-----public health departments KNOW the dangers of predatory and profiteering medicine and CONTROL IT WITH OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY.



The War on Weed Part II: Monsanto, Bayer, and the Push for Corporate Cannabis


Posted on July 7, 2016 by Ellen Brown

California’s “Adult Use of Marijuana Act” (AUMA) is a voter initiative characterized as legalizing marijuana use. But critics warn that it will actually make access more difficult and expensive, squeeze home growers and small farmers out of the market, heighten criminal sanctions for violations, and open the door to patented, genetically modified (GMO) versions that must be purchased year after year. 



As detailed in Part I of this article, the health benefits of cannabis are now well established. It is a cheap, natural alternative effective for a broad range of conditions, and the non-psychoactive form known as hemp has thousands of industrial uses. At one time, cannabis was one of the world’s most important crops. There have been no recorded deaths from cannabis overdose in the US, compared to about 30,000 deaths annually from alcohol abuse (not counting auto accidents), and 100,000 deaths annually from prescription drugs taken as directed. Yet cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled substance (“a deadly dangerous drug with no medical use and high potential for abuse”), illegal to be sold or grown in the US.



Powerful corporate interests no doubt had a hand in keeping cannabis off the market. The question now is why they have suddenly gotten on the bandwagon for its legalization. According to an April 2014 article in The Washington Times, the big money behind the recent push for legalization has come, not from a grassroots movement, but from a few very wealthy individuals with links to Big Ag and Big Pharma.



Leading the charge is George Soros, a major shareholder in Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company and producer of genetically modified seeds. Monsanto is the biotech giant that brought you Agent Orange, DDT, PCBs, dioxin-based pesticides, aspartame, rBGH (genetically engineered bovine growth hormone), RoundUp (glyphosate) herbicides, and RoundUp Ready crops (seeds genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate).



Monsanto now appears to be developing genetically modified (GMO) forms of cannabis, with the intent of cornering the market with patented GMO seeds just as it did with GMO corn and GMO soybeans. For that, the plant would need to be legalized but still tightly enough controlled that it could be captured by big corporate interests. Competition could be suppressed by limiting access to homegrown marijuana; bringing production, sale and use within monitored and regulated industry guidelines; and legislating a definition of industrial hemp as a plant having such low psychoactivity that only GMO versions qualify. Those are the sorts of conditions that critics have found buried in the fine print of the latest initiatives for cannabis legalization.


Patients who use the cannabis plant in large quantities to heal serious diseases (e.g. by juicing it) find that the natural plant grown organically in sunlight is far more effective than hothouse plants or pharmaceutical cannabis derivatives. Letitia Pepper is a California attorney and activist who uses medical marijuana to control multiple sclerosis. As she puts it, if you don’t have an irrevocable right to grow a natural, therapeutic herb in your backyard that a corporation able to afford high license fees can grow and sell to you at premium prices, isn’t that still a war on people who use marijuana?


Follow the Money to Uruguay



Monsanto has denied that it is working on GMO strains. But William Engdahl, author of Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, presents compelling circumstantial evidence to the contrary. In a March 2014 article titled “The Connection Between the Legalization of Marijuana in Uruguay, Monsanto and George Soros”, Engdahl observes that in 2014, Uruguay became the first country to legalize the cultivation, sale and consumption of marijuana. Soros is a major player in Uruguay and was instrumental in getting the law passed. He sits on the board of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), the world’s most influential organization for cannabis legalization. The DPA is active not only in the US but in Uruguay and other Latin American countries. Engdahl writes:



Studies show that Monsanto without much fanfare conducts research projects on the active ingredient in marijuana, namely THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), in order to genetically manipulate the plant. David Watson of the Dutch company Hortapharm has since 1990 created the world’s largest collection of Cannabis seed varieties. In 1998, the British firm GW Pharmaceuticals signed an agreement with Hortapharm that gives GW Pharma the rights to use the Hortapharm cannabis for their research.


In 2003 the German Bayer AG then signed an agreement with GW Pharmaceuticals for joint research on a cannabis-based extract. In 2007, Bayer AG agreed to an exchange of technology with . . . Monsanto . . . . Thus Monsanto has discreet access to the work of the cannabis plant and its genetic modification. In 2009 GW Pharmaceuticals announced that it had succeeded in genetically altering a cannabis plant and patented a new breed of cannabis.



Monsanto could have even greater access to the Bayer/GW research soon. In March 2016, Monsanto approached the giant German chemical and pharmaceutical company Bayer AG with a joint venture proposal concerning its crop science unit. In May, Bayer then made an unsolicited takeover bid for Monsanto. On May 24th, the $62 billion bid was rejected as too low; but negotiations are continuing.


The prospective merger would create the world’s largest supplier of seeds and chemicals. Environmentalists worry that the entire farming industry could soon be looking at sterile crops soaked in dangerous pesticides. Monsanto has sued hundreds of farmers for simply saving seeds from year to year, something they have done for millennia. Organic farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to prevent contamination of their crops by Monsanto’s GMOs.



In Seeds of Destruction, Engdahl quotes Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon’s Secretary of State. Kissinger notoriously said, “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” Engdahl asserts that the “Green Revolution” was part of the Rockefeller agenda to destroy seed diversity and push oil- and gas-based agricultural products in which Rockefeller had a major interest. Destruction of seed diversity and dependence on proprietary hybrids was the first step in food control. About 75% of the foodstuffs at the grocery store are now genetically manipulated, in what has been called the world’s largest biological experiment on humans.



Genetic engineering is now moving from foodstuffs to plant-based drugs and plant-based industrial fibers. Engdahl writes of Monsanto’s work in Uruguay:


Since the cultivation of cannabis plants in Uruguay is allowed, one can easily imagine that Monsanto sees a huge new market that the Group is able to control just with patented cannabis seeds such as today is happening on the market for soybeans. Uruguay’s President Mujica has made it clear he wants a unique genetic code for cannabis in his country in order to “keep the black market under control.”



Genetically modified cannabis seeds from Monsanto would grant such control. For decades Monsanto has been growing gene-soybean and GM maize in Uruguay too. George Soros is co-owner of agribusinesses Adecoagro, which planted genetically modified soybeans and sunflowers for biofuel.



Other commentators express similar concerns. Natural health writer Mike Adams warns:


[W]ith the cannabis industry predicted to generate over $13 billion by 2020, becoming one of the largest agricultural markets in the nation, there should be little doubt that companies like Monsanto are simply waiting for Uncle Sam to remove the herb from its current Schedule I classification before getting into the business.


In a 2010 article concerning Proposition 19, an earlier legalization initiative that was defeated by California voters, Conrad Justice Kiczenski noted that criminalization of cannabis as both industrial hemp and medical marijuana has served a multitude of industries, including the prison and military industry, the petroleum, timber, cotton, and pharmaceutical industries, and the banking industry. With the decriminalization of cannabis, he warned:
The next stage in continuing this control is in the regulation, licensing and taxation of Cannabis cultivation and use through the only practical means available to the corporate system, which is through genetic engineering and patenting of the Cannabis genome.



AUMA: Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

Suspicions like these are helping to fuel opposition to the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), a 2016 initiative that would rewrite the medical marijuana laws in California. While AUMA purports to legalize marijuana for recreational use, the bill comes with so many restrictions that it actually makes acquisition more difficult and expensive than under existing law, and makes it a criminal offense for anyone under 21. Critics contend that the Act will simply throw access to this medicinal wonder plant into the waiting arms of the Monsanto/Bayer/petrochemical/pharmaceutical complex. They say AUMA is a covert attempt to preempt California’s Compassionate Use Act, Proposition 215, which was passed in 1996 by voter initiative.


Prop 215 did not legalize the sale of marijuana, but it did give ill or disabled people of any age the right to grow and share the plant and its derivatives on a not-for-profit basis. They could see a doctor of their choice, who could approve medical marijuana for a vast panoply of conditions; and they were assured of safe and affordable access to the plant at a nearby cooperative not-for-profit dispensary, or in their own backyards. As clarified by the 2008 Attorney General’s Guidelines, Prop 215 allowed reimbursement for the labor, costs and skill necessary to grow and distribute medical marijuana; and it allowed distribution through a “storefront dispensing collective.” However, the sale of marijuana for corporate profit remained illegal. Big Pharma and affiliates were thus blocked from entering the field.


At the end of 2015 (effective 2016), the California state legislature over-rode Prop 215 with MMRSA – the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act of 2015/16 – which effectively rewrites the Health Code pertaining to medical marijuana. Opponents contend that MMRSA is unconstitutional, since a voter initiative cannot be changed by legislative action unless it so provides. And that is why its backers need AUMA, a voter initiative that validates MMRSA in its fine print. In combination with stricter California Medical Association rules for enforcement, MMRSA effectively moves medical marijuana therapy from the wholistic plant to a pharmaceutical derivative, one that must follow an AUMA or American Pharmaceutical Association mode of delivery. MMRSA turns the right to cultivate into a revocable privilege to grow, contingent on local rules. The right to choose one’s own doctor is also eliminated.

Critics note that of the hundreds of millions in tax revenues that AUMA is expected to generate from marijuana and marijuana-related products, not a penny will go to the California general fund. That means no money for California’s public schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, roads and other infrastructure. Instead, it will go into a giant slush fund controlled by AUMA’s “Marijuana Control Board,” to be spent first for its own administration, then for its own law enforcement, then for penal and judicial program expenditures.


Law enforcement and penalties will continue to be big business, since AUMA legalizes marijuana use only for people over 21 and makes access so difficult and expensive that even adults could be tempted to turn to the black market. “Legalization” through AUMA will chiefly serve a petrochemical/pharmaceutical complex bent on controlling all farming and plant life globally.


_______________________________________________
The idea the global 1% are pushing to legalize marijuana in Foreign Economic Zones around the world to curb OPIATE ADDICTION is ludicrous.GLOBAL 99% addictions are soaring because of total dismantling of societal structures around the world with global banking frauds, FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE global labor pool enslavement and distribution, and an orchestrated RE-EDUCATION GLOBAL CULTURAL CHANGE TO ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE.


The Global Epidemic of Addiction
April 24th, 2013 |



It can be easy to live in a bubble and think that the addiction problems that we see so often are confined to the Americas. Factually, this is not true – addiction is a global crisis.



Whether someone is suffering from an addiction to heroin or methamphetamine, or drinks far too much, there are countries where the statistics are staggering. All in all, if you’re an addict, you may do well to avoid some of these countries for a while. Ranging from the smack-plagued Afghanistan to boozy England, the world is full of dangerous places for addicts.



Countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia are plagued by problems with heroin. This is not surprising, given that 90 percent of all European heroin originates in Afghanistan, as it is the world’s top producer of opium.


Iran is right in the middle of the world’s opiate smuggling route, which no doubt plays a role in the country’s spike in drug addiction. Russian youth have a raging problem with intravenous drug use, and the country imports one-quarter of the world’s heroin. (Pan)



Unfortunately, places like this also turn into nests for HIV and other communicable diseases to spread like wildfire, and there are also fewer than necessary rehabilitation programs to counteract the epidemic of drug addiction. However, the Middle East is far from the only place that struggles with addiction.



If you would like to see an example in places that are otherwise less troubled, the UK and Australia house an incredible number of alcoholics. The United Kingdom suffers huge financial consequences due to alcohol-related sicknesses and deaths. In fact, it is estimated that the UK has around 34,000 deaths directly related to the bodily effects of alcohol, not counting the indirect deaths related to alcohol, such as accidents (Fowler). Australia has staggering numbers of alcohol-related deaths as well, averaging 1 in 10 deaths per-day.


And now, let us take a look at home – the good ol’ US of A.
The United States, as well as France, has prescription pill problems, possibly stemming from the indiscretion of doctors who handle addictive substances. However, the U.S. also is one of the world’s top consumers of cocaine and crystal methamphetamine, despite having ready access to treatment and recovery. The French house more pharmacies per-person than any other European country, and also take an enormous amount of tranquilizers – 78 tranquilizers per 1,000 persons (Fowler). Simply put, this is not a problem that belongs to any one country.


These are just a few of the countries that are suffering from some of the most severe addiction crises. That is not to say that there’s one place that is safer than another to be using drugs, as addiction clearly does not discriminate based on geography, socioeconomics, or language.


It is important to be aware, especially as addicts, of where the most prominently troubled places are so that we can mentally prepare ourselves when visiting those countries. It is when we are unaware and unprepared that the trouble comes roiling in. Drugs are available everywhere, but they may not have the same prominence in every place you visit.


More importantly however, it is time that we are truly aware how large of an issue addiction is. It is a global epidemic, not a problem that simply affects our corner of the world.