but remember
green flag compliance training is not legal marijuana advocacy
green flag compliance guidelines are strict
green flag rules MUST be followed to obtain legal privilege

if you decide to accept the privilege
you must accept the responsibility

Advocacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Advocacy is the pursuit of influencing outcomes — including public-policy and resource allocation decisions within political, economic, and social systems and institutions — that directly affect people’s current lives. (Cohen, 2001)

Therefore, advocacy can be seen as a deliberate process of speaking out on issues of concern in order to exert some influence on behalf of ideas or persons. Based on this definition, Cohen (2001) states that “ideologues of all persuasions advocate” to bring a change in people’s lives. However, advocacy has many interpretations depending on the issue at stake, which can be different from this initial value-neutral definition.

//

Forms of advocacy

There are several forms of advocacy, which each represent a different approach in the way change is brought into society. One of the most popular forms is social justice advocacy.

Although it is true, the initial definition does not encompass the notions of power relations, people’s participation and a vision of a just society as promoted by social justice advocates. For them, advocacy represents the series of actions taken and issues highlighted to change the “what is” into a “what should be”, considering that this “what should be” is a more decent and a more just society (ib., 2001.) Those actions, which vary with the political, economical and social environment in which they are conducted, have several points in common (ib., 2001.) They:

• question the way policy is administered
• participate in the agenda setting as they raise significant issues
• target political systems “because those systems are not responding to people’s needs”
• are inclusive and engaging
• propose policy solutions
• open up space for public argumentation.

Some of the other forms of advocacy include:

• Ideological advocacy: in this approach, groups fight, sometimes during protests, to advance their ideas in the decision-making circles.
• Mass advocacy: is any type of action taken by large groups (petitions, demonstrations, etc.)
• Interest-group advocacy: lobbying is the main tool used by interests groups doing mass advocacy. It is a form of action that does not always succeed at influencing political decision-makers as it requires resources and organisation to be effective.
• Bureaucratic advocacy: people considered “experts” have more chance to succeed at presenting their issues to decision-makers. They use bureaucratic advocacy to influence the agenda, however at a slower pace.
• Legislative advocacy: legislative advocacy is the “reliance on the state or federal legislative process” as part of a strategy to create change.(Loue, Lloyd and O’Shea, 2003)
• Media advocacy: is “the strategic use of the mass media as a resource to advance a social or public policy initiative” (Jernigan and Wright, 1996.) In Canada for example, the Manitoba Public Insurance campaigns illustrate how media advocacy was used to fight alcohol and tobacco-related health issues. We can also consider the role of health advocacy and the media in “the enactment of municipal smoking bylaws in Canada between 1970 and 1995.” (Asbridge, 2004)
• Budget advocacy: Budget advocacy is another aspect of advocacy that ensures proactive engagement of Civil Society Organizations with the government budget to make the government more accountable to the people and promote transparency. Budget advocacy also enables citizens and social action groups to compel the government to be more alert to the needs and aspirations of people in general and the deprived sections of the community.

Different contexts in which advocacy is used:

• In a legal/law context: An ‘advocate’ is the title of a specific person who is authorized/appointed (in some way) to speak on behalf of a person in a legal process. See advocate.
• In a political context: An ‘advocacy group’ is an organized collection of people who seek to influence political decisions and policy, without seeking election to public office. See interest group.
• In a social care context: Both terms (and more specific ones such as ‘independent advocacy’) are used in the UK in the context of a network of interconnected organisations and projects which seek to benefit people who are in difficulty (primarily in the context of disability and mental health).
• In the context of inclusion: Citizen Advocacy organisations (citizen advocacy programmes) seek to cause benefit by reconnecting people who have become isolated. Their practice was defined in two key documents: CAPE, and Learning from Citizen Advocacy Programs. See Citizen Advocacy organisations.

Advocacy groups

Advocacy is led by advocates or, when they are organized in groups as is the case most of the time, advocacy groups. Advocacy groups as defined by Young and Everritt (2004, 5) are different from political parties which “seek to influence government policy by governing.” They are “any organization that seeks to influence government policy, but not to govern.” This definition includes social movements, sometimes network of organizations which are also focused on encouraging social change. Social movements try to either influence governments or, like the environmental movement, to influence people’s ideas or actions.

Today, advocacy groups contribute to democracy in many ways (ib., 2004.) They have five key functions:

• Give a voice to (misrepresented) citizen interests
• Mobilize citizens to participate in the democratic process
• Support the development of a culture of democracy
• Assist in the development of better public policy
• Ensure governments’ accountability to citizens.

In comparison to other countries and other the last thirty years, an increasing number (40 percent) of the Canadian population is member of an organization which has had an advocacy role and has tried to achieve political change. Such a level of participation is a positive indicator of the health of the democracy in Canada (ib., 2004.)

Transnational advocacy

Advocates and advocacy groups represent a wide range of categories and support several issues as listed on World Advocacy. The Advocacy Institute, a US-based global organization, is dedicated to strengthening the capacity of political, social, and economic justice advocates to influence and change public policy (Cohen, de la Vega & Watson, 2001.)

The phenomenon of globalization draws a special attention to advocacy beyond countries’ borders. The core existence of networks such as World Advocacy or the Advocacy Institute demonstrates the increasing importance of transnational advocacy and international advocacy. Transnational advocacy networks are more likely to emerge around issues where external influence is necessary to ease the communication between internal groups and their own 1 government. Groups of advocates willing to further their mission also tend to promote networks and to meet with their internal counterparts to exchange ideas (Keck and Sikkink, 1998.)

See also

• Ban Advocates – Cluster bomb victims advocating for a ban on cluster munitions
• Budget advocacy

References

• Asbridge, M. 2004. Public place restrictions on smoking in Canada: assessing the role of the state, media, science and public health advocacy. Social science & medicine 58(1):13-24.
• Cohen, D., R. de la Vega, G. Watson. 2001. Advocacy for social justice. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press Inc.
• Jerningan, D.H. and P. Wright. 1996. Media advocacy: lessons from community experiences. Journal of Public Health Policy Vol.17, No.3: 306-330.
• Keck, M.E. and K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international politics. Baltimore, MD: Cornell University Press.
• Loue, S., L.S. Lloyd, D. J. O’shea. 2003. Community health advocacy. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
• Young, L. And J. Everitt. 2004. Advocacy groups. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press

External links

• Public Affairs World The world’s first global news and information site on the subject of lobbying.
• Public place restrictions on smoking in Canada: assessing the role of the state, media, science and public health advocacy.
• How to advocate for yourself

Regulatory compliance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regulatory compliance describes the goal that corporations or public agencies aspire to in their efforts to ensure that personnel are aware of and take steps to comply with relevant laws and regulations.

Contents 1 International Compliance 2 Compliance in the USA 3 Compliance in Australia 4 Compliance in the UK 5 Definitions Related to Compliance 6 See also 7 External links

// <![CDATA[//

International Compliance

The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) produces international standards such as ISO17799. The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) produces international standards in the electrotechnology area.

Compliance in the USA

In general, compliance means conforming to a specification or policy, standard or law that has been clearly defined.

Corporate scandals and breakdowns such as the Enron case in 2001 have highlighted the need for stronger compliance regulations for publicly listed companies. The most significant regulation in this context is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act developed by two U.S. congressmen, Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley in 2002 which defined significant tighter personal responsibility of corporate top management for the accuracy of reported financial statements.

Compliance in the USA generally means compliance with laws and regulations. These laws can have criminal or civil penalties or can be regulations. The definition of what constitutes an effective compliance plan has been elusive. Most authors, however, continue to cite the guidance provided by the United States Sentencing Commission in Chapter 8 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

On October 12 2006, the U.S. Small Business Administration re-launched Business.gov which provides a single point of access to government services and information that help businesses comply with government regulations.

There are a number of other regulations such as GLBA, FISMA, and HIPAA. In some cases other compliance frameworks (such as COBIT) or standards (NIST) inform on how to comply with the regulations.

Compliance in Australia

Standards Australia revised the standard titled "AS 3806 - Compliance Programs". While many aspects of the original standard produced in 1998 standard appear in the 2006 version there are additional principles covered. The regulators in Australia continue to endorse and encourage (by regulation) the use of the standard when establishing a compliance framework.

The regulators are the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA).

Compliance demands in the superannuation industry continue to increase due to the new licensing regime implemented by APRA. The new licensing regime requires trustees of superannuation funds to demonstrate to APRA that they have adequate resources (human, technology and financial), risk management systems and appropriate skills and expertise to manage the superannuation fund. The licensing regime has lifted the bar for superannuation trustees with a significant number of small to medium size superannuation funds exiting the Industry due to the increasing risk and compliance demands.

Compliance in the UK

There is considerable regulation in the UK, some of which is from EU legislation. Various areas are policed by different bodies, such as the FSA (Financial Services Authority), Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Information Commissioner's Office and others.

Important compliance issues for all organisations large and small include the Data Protection Act 1998 and, for the public sector, Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Combined Code issued by the London Stock Exchange (LSE) is the Sarbanes-Oxley equivalent in the UK.

Definitions Related to Compliance

Compliance data is defined as all data belonging or pertaining to enterprise or included in the law, which can be used for the purpose of implementing or validating compliance. It is the set of all data that is relevant to a governance officer or to a court of law for the purposes of validating consistency, completeness, or compliance

See also

• Chief Compliance Officer
• Compliance and ethics program
• Business Motivation Model. A standard for recording governance and compliance activities
• Enforcement
• Law enforcement agency
• Call Report
• Category:Law enforcement templates by country or region
• Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics
• Health Care Compliance Association

External links

• Business.gov, Official U.S. Government Portal for Complying with Regulations.
• RCA, RCA is a nonprofit-organization that provides firms with an all inclusive resource to effectively manage the escalating Operational Risk Management and Compliance environment.
• Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE)
• Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA)
• Open Compliance & Ethics Group (OCEG), OCEG is a nonprofit organization that provides numerous resources for corporate governance, risk management, compliance and business ethics.
• European Project COMPAS, European Project COMPAS - Compliance-driven Models, Languages, and Architectures for Services; funded by the EU 7th Framework Programme Information and Communication Technologies Objective.
• Microsoft Resources, Microsoft resources for corporate governance, risk management, compliance.
• International Association of Risk and Compliance Professionals (IARCP), The International Association of Risk and Compliance Professionals (IARCP).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_compliance"

Categories: Regulatory compliance

compliance brings privilege

Marijuana legalization

expected to go to ballot in California

Opponents of a plan to legalize marijuana for personal possession in California have conceded that supporters of the measure are likely to get their proposal on a statewide ballot, the New York Times revealed in a longer story about possible legalization Wednesday.

California lawmakers are taking up a bill that would legalize, tax and regulate marijuana, a first in the United States. Officials estimate the bill could bring in an additional $1.4 billion a year, a huge sum of money in a state bedeviled by financial woes.

While the “legislature is uncertain, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has indicated he would be open to a “robust debate” on the issue,” the Times wrote.

Perhaps equally important, the paper adds:

California voters are also taking up legalization. Three separate initiatives are being circulated for signatures to appear on the ballot next year, all of which would permit adults to possess marijuana for personal use and allow local governments to tax it. Even opponents of legalization suggest that an initiative is likely to qualify for a statewide vote.

All of us in the movement have had the feeling that we’ve been running into the wind for years,” said James P. Gray, a retired judge in Orange County who has been outspoken in support of legalization. “Now we sense we are running with the wind.”Proponents of the leading ballot initiative have collected nearly 300,000 signatures since late September, supporters say, easily on pace to qualify for the November 2010 general election. Richard Lee, a longtime marijuana activist who is behind the measure, says he has raised nearly $1 million to hire professionals to assist volunteers in gathering the signatures.

“Voters are ripping the petitions out of our hands,” Mr. Lee said.

Despite widespread support, however, the bill would almost certainly run into thorns with federal law, which classifies marijuana as an illegal substance. Some supporters are encouraged, though, by the Obama Administration’s announcement that they will not prosecute those involved in the medical marijuana trade.

Lee, the organizer, says he intends to spend $20 million on a campaign to win passage of the measure.

Numerous states have already decriminalized personal possession of small amounts of marijuana, though none have legalized it.

certified dealer education

kamala

make this the green flag rules for california

as the next attorney general

jerry

support these green flag rules

in your unofficial run for govenor

++++++++++++++++++++++++

amend the 2010 california attorney general

compassionate care guidelines to read:

make all compassionate care participants take

green flag rules compliance education training annually

like this dmv list of  schools for car dealer pre-licensing

make all caregivers hold a green flag rules license

like this dmv licensed salesperson required in the car sales industry

make all green flag caregivers post a bond

like this bond requirement for licensed car dealers

make all green flag caregivers submit fingerprints

like this fingerprint requirement for dmv licensed salespersons

make all green flag caregivers obtain local zoning approval

like this property use verification form from the dmv

green flag rules will generate green flag compliance

plus a whole network of folks

to monitor and teach green flag compliance

as a matter of fact

why not just add it to the dmv with special green flag funding

from obama and holder

a model green flag rules compliance program

for the nation to follow

you might need a willis to see which way this wind will blow

gina

green flag compliance = certified dealer

October 21st, 2009 ·

From CalFreedom.net:

The U.S. Justice Department on Monday issued new guidelines telling prosecutors they “should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.”  Below is a roundup of reactions from libertarians. At the end is a must-see video from Reason TV in which Drew Carey reports on the ongoing efforts of the Obama Justice Dept. to sentence Californian Charles Lynch to five years in prison for dispensing marijuana to the parents of a teenage cancer victim.

The Libertarian Party: This is a small step in the right direction. The federal government currently wastes tremendous resources in the War on Drugs, creating a huge, vicious, violent black market. This new policy will reduce the damage and destruction, and it will hopefully end some of the unjust prosecution of peaceful medical marijuana providers and patients.  The LP has long called for the repeal of laws that criminalize the medicinal or recreational use of drugs.

Article continues at CalFreedom.net

green flag compliance ++ we make it simple for you

//

MARINA DEL REY, CA — 10/21/09 — Medical Marijuana, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: MJNA) is currently offering Informational Seminars in Mendocino County, CA. These one hour seminars will culminate in an initial series of two day paid seminars beginning November 6 &7, 2009 at the Discovery Inn in Ukiah, California hosted by MMI CEO and King of Pot, Bruce Perlowin, who was featured in CNBC’s most watched television documentary “Marijuana Inc.”Among significant topics to be covered are clarification of State, City and County laws and ordinances governing Medical Marijuana collectives in regard to dispensaries and cultivation. This is tied into Medical Marijuana, Inc.’s transparent patent pending Tax Remittance and Closed Loop Inventory Tracking Systems to ensure total compliance. Also discussed are the cottage industries that will sprout from the core medical marijuana industry beyond cultivation and collectives; cannabis kitchens and bottling companies, testing facilities, distribution and logistics, delivery services, security and more.

REVENUE

The seminar series signals a significant new revenue stream for MMI as schedules will expand to the other 13 states where Medical Marijuana use is legal. In addition to the fees earned initially at the 2 day seminar, MJNA will continue to earn income as these attendees go on to open collectives and use the MJNA tax collection and tracking systems.

An additional revenue stream that MMI will offer is turnkey solutions to those interested in going on to the next step. Paramount to the turn key solution is the ability to cultivate. To that end, MMI will offer grow solutions in part or whole including hydroponic and airponic indoor systems and peripherals. MMI’s paid seminar attendees are likely to take advantage of in-house expertise and materials.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC.’S TURNKEY COLLECTIVE SOLUTION

Medical Marijuana, Inc.’s Turnkey Collective Solution ensures that collectives operate within the guidelines of all laws and regulations regarding the tracking of the marijuana from grow cycle to final distribution. By employing Medical Marijuana, Inc.’s closed loop tracking system, it can be shown to authorities and collectives alike that the source of their supply was an active member of the collective. Medical Marijuana, Inc.’s Regulatory Module provides officials with a comprehensive reporting tool that allows them to remotely audit the industry in real time to ensure regulations are being properly followed. This audit function can be performed online and remotely from the regulators desktop anywhere in the world, making the process more efficient and cost effective for governments to monitor and regulate the industry. Medical Marijuana, Inc. believes that tools to regulate the industry and collect tax revenue are necessary to gain nationwide acceptance and legalization of medical marijuana. Further, Medical Marijuana’s Tax Remittance Platform could not only cost-effectively implement the necessary infrastructure to collect on every sale made within city limits by licensed collectives and collect those taxes on a daily basis, but eliminate the cash problem by using a tax remittance, credit, debit, or proprietary card. The POS system automatically recognizes the collective’s tax ID number, state and local tax rates and then provides Automated Clearing House settlement of the taxes and routes the amount to the City’s appointed financial institution. Taxes can be collected on a daily basis, providing an economic windfall for the city of Los Angeles and any other municipality recognizing the advantages of this model.

Tax Collection

The Stored Value Platform System will provide verifiable solutions to manage the difficult task of revenue and taxation collection. The customers of the dispensary are issued a plastic debit card or medical revenue card. The ease of access to certifiably secure transactions lessens the risk of loss at each level of the transaction.

Internal Management

All collectives/dispensaries in the U.S. are cash businesses. This presents a number of challenges. Dispensary owners risk employee theft and possible competition for sales with unsupervised employees. Our stored value system also eliminates the legal and practical risks of carrying cash.

Solutions

Medical Marijuana, Inc. is developing a suite of solutions to deliver an efficient and secure infrastructure for the Medical Marijuana Industry that will provide the tools to industry operators to effectively manage their businesses with the confidence that they are in full compliance.

ABOUT MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC.

Medical Marijuana, Inc. is the first public company to recognize the vast and unequaled opportunities that exist in the rapidly expanding medical marijuana industry. The scientific recognition of marijuana as a powerful medicine, and as an effective, non-narcotic pain reliever, has brought legalized marijuana use to the forefront of mainstream discussion thus opening the door for safe and lucrative investment opportunities.

certified dealer education

Medical Pot: Don’t Forget the Pain

My Turn
By Diana L. Chapman

On the marijuana front – it’s so strange to say that because in my lifetime I never thought I’d be defending its use – I received e-mails from Santa Barbara to Arizona.

Defending pot was not one of my priorities – until I got sick.  Now I understand the need and chided two of our Los Angeles attorneys, City Attorney Carmen Trutanich and  the County District Attorney Steven Cooley  last week for spending a fortune to start to seize and shut down outlets claiming they were illegal operations under federal law – even though the state has approved it. Those who emailed ran the gamut, complaining that dispensaries handed out marijuana willy-nilly or others contended it should be legalized  to cut down on illegal sales in the brutal drug world.

Both points are valid.

So I need to make this clear – I only defend the herb’s legalization for medicinal reasons which I wrote about in one of my earlier CityWatch column.   I know what it means to be attacked by a chronic illness and why some would want to use the herb to reduce debilitating symptoms that box them around daily.

President Barack Obama last week unofficially told federal prosecutors and agents to back off the dispensaries that are legally dispensing under state laws.

Meanwhile, our local attorneys continue to wage a campaign against the number of pot outlets, somewhere in the neighborhood of 800 plus in Los Angeles County – and are working to shut them down. I argued  that they need to be concerned about those who need it. Santa Barbara resident Sharon Byrne e-mailed that “You missed the point why they are cracking down.”

A few emails later, we realized that somewhere in the middle lies the truth. For Sharon, an endless number of such dispensaries opened in her area and what’s driving her crazy are the youth bringing pot to school, telling administrators that it’s legal. Some are hanging out at dispensaries.

“Clearly, our dispensaries are not all about serving compassionate intent,” she wrote.

“We had a ‘marijuana mile’ march here three weeks ago, and we walked past seven dispensaries within one mile. At one of the dispensaries, the people working there littered the sidewalk with pro-pot flyers, and handed them to the kids and marchers as we passed. I thought it odd that they didn’t mention compassion, or the number of patients with dreaded diseases they’ve helped. No, they were simply pushing pot, and it is this I have a problem with.

“It’s unfortunate, but in the case of Los Angeles, and here in my hometown of Santa Barbara, dispensaries that promote recreational use do bring crime to their area,” she added. “There were 16 armed robberies at dispensaries in Los Angeles last month, and an armed extortion at a dispensary here. Cities are correct in watching out for their residents and nearby businesses if dispensaries opening in their vicinity cause issues.”

My Long Beach friend reported the opposite reaction to two marijuana outlets, that took over run-down liquor stores that often brought crime to her neighborhood. The marijuana dispensaries opened, fixed up the buildings and cleaned up the neighborhood, she said. As far as she concerned, it was refreshing.

The legalization of the drug makes complete sense, if you ask one Los Angeles attorney, who worked as a former probation officer. It’s the only way, he believes, to win against the mafia and gang members who sell these drugs underground – and make a fortune.

He further debated the wasteful spending that goes into prosecuting those caught with marijuana.

The attorney, who asked not to be named, currently represents a homeless man who had less than .06 of an ounce of marijuana – which was prescribed to sooth his mental illness. To prosecute him, the city ran up charges of $10,000, which points out the futility, the attorney said, when the real war is with the illegal drug trade.

“I only have two criminal cases right now,” he emailed. “One is a drug case for .06 ounces  of hash for a schizophrenic homeless person who had a medical Marijuana letter. The city and county has spent over $10,000 on this case if you add up the time of the courts, the Twin Towers, the DA.”

He added he was pleased that Los Angeles Judge James C. Chalfant struck down the city’s ban on new medical marijuana centers last week, citing that the city used an expired ordinance and failed to follow state laws.

“It is nice to hear that some law enforcement officers realize that the income from drugs benefits organized crime,” he continued. “Gangs like MS-13 are no longer mere gangs as we know gangs.  They are international crime syndicates, and Carmen T wants to help them keep their drug profits high.

When push comes to shove, Carmen T places his time and energy into supporting the profits of organized crime and does nothing to help kids. Make no mistake about it.   LA’s new war on pot will have one definite effect  — protecting the profits of organized crime.”

On one side of the coin (Oh, I love clichés), we are in the year 2009 – and conservatives need to accept that this plant has improved the life of those struck down with diseases. On the other side, eager entrepreneurs and those interested in having a free-for all use of the drug for fun need to get their feet planted firmly to the ground.

We need to make it a law that marijuana can only be used with a legal prescription to fix the current blurry lines of the laws that exist. Currently, a person only needs only a letter of recommendation.

Trutanich  and Cooley undergoing this war seems extraordinary considering the scores of much uglier issues that Los Angeles faces, such as foster children being murdered. Where are those attorneys to protect those children? I want to know.

To top it all, one resident in Arizona wrote thanking me for the defense for those who are ill.

”Thanks for such an insightful look into the benefits of marijuana use for medicinal purposes,” the writer emailed, asking not to be identified. “As a two-time cancer treatment patient, (once in 2001 and again in 2007) I don’t think anyone has any idea what we go through with the nausea thing.

“This last time around, surgery was not an option for me so the cancer had to be eradicated solely with chemo and radiation.  It wasn’t pleasant considering the tumor was at the base of my tongue.  My entire mouth, tongue, gums, throat and cheeks were burnt and swollen.  I lost almost 60 lbs.

We don’t have to mention pain, do we?”

(Diana L. Chapman was a journalist for 15 years with the Daily Breeze and the San Diego Union. She can be reached at

hartchap@cox.netorvisit

certified dealer education

// <![CDATA[//

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.--(Business Wire)--
Cannabis Science Inc. (OTCBB: CBIS) an emerging pharmaceutical cannabis company
is very pleased to announce that has added four prominent attorneys, who
specialized in marijuana-related cases, to its Policy Advisory Board, as medical

marijuana legalization moves closer with President Obama`s New Medical Marijuana
Policies and initiatives.

Cannabis Science Inc., President & CEO, Dr. Robert Melamede Ph.D., stated, "We
will continue to add teams of industry experts to our Company. We are honored

that our Policy Advisory Board is expanding with some of the nation`s top
medical marijuana attorneys. Obviously, we are operating in an area where the
laws are evolving very rapidly, and we are pleased to have so many experienced

attorneys on board, helping steer the company through these complex and evolving
opportunities for us. More professionals will be added who are expert in other
relevant fields, such as FDA procedures and state and federal laws. These new

outstanding additions to the CBIS team will provide the Company with an expanded
base of knowledge to build on. As noted yesterday, the new policy means that
state compliant intrastate research in Colorado, California and other states

with medical marijuana laws are now protected from federal prosecution."

The four new additions to the Cannabis Science Policy Advisory Board

Robert Raich

Robert A. Raich practices law in Oakland, California, and is a graduate of

Harvard University and the University of Texas School of Law. He is one of the
most respected attorneys in the area of medical marijuana. He is General Counsel
of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, and was one of the attorneys in the

U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop. and
another federal medical cannabis case. He is a member of the California Attorney
General's Medical Marijuana Task Force (Chairman, Caregiver Issues

Subcommittee).

Sean T. McAllister

Sean T. McAllister is a public interest attorney with offices in Denver and
Summit County. Sean has been involved with drug policy reform efforts for over a
decade. He serves as the Chair of the Board of Directors of Sensible Colorado.

Sean is a lifetime member of the NORML Legal Committee. He is a member and Board
member of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar. He helped start the Colorado Bar
Association Criminal Sentencing Project in 2005 to focus on criminal justice and

drug policy reform. Recently, Sean was appointed to the Governor`s Drug Policy
Task Force, which is working on reducing drug-sentencing laws to save the state
money while maintaining public safety. Along with Brian Vicente, Sean recently

founded the Canna-Business Institute designed to educate dispensary owners and
caregivers on how to legally operate medical marijuana businesses in Colorado.

Warren Edson

Warren Edson is an experienced criminal defense lawyer in Colorado, having taken

part in over 1,000 trials. He is also one of the organizers of Colorado's
Medical Marijuana Law, Amendment 20, and is a Lifetime Member, NORML Legal
Committee, and is a member, Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, and the National

Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and is a Board Member, Colorado NORML.

Robert J. Corry, Jr.

Robert J. Corry, Jr. is a Denver-based civil rights and criminal defense
attorney, specializing in medical marijuana, who has successfully litigated

several high profile cases around the country. He is admitted to the bars of
Colorado, California, and Washington, D.C., federal courts in these
jurisdictions, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Corry earned his law

degree from Stanford University.

About Cannabis Science, Inc.

Cannabis Science, Inc. is at the forefront of medical marijuana research and
development. The Company works with world authorities on phytocannabinoid

science targeting critical illnesses, and adheres to scientific methodologies to
develop, produce, and commercialize phytocannabinoid-based pharmaceutical
products. In sum, we are dedicated to the creation of cannabis-based medicines,

both with and without psychoactive properties, to treat disease and the symptoms
of disease, as well as for general health maintenance.

This Press Release includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of

Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Act
of 1934. A statement containing works such as "anticipate," "seek," intend,"
"believe," "plan," "estimate," "expect," "project," "plan," or similar phrases

may be deemed "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Some or all of the events or results
anticipated by these forward-looking statements may not occur. Factors that

could cause or contribute to such differences include the future U.S. and global
economies, the impact of competition, and the Company's reliance on existing
regulations regarding the use and development of cannabis-based drugs. Cannabis

Science, Inc. does not undertake any duty nor does it intend to update the
results of these forward-looking statements.

Cannabis Science Inc.
Dr. Robert J. Melamede, President & CEO, 1-888-889-0888
info@cannabisscience.com

www.cannabisscience.com
or
Peter Glaser, Investor Relations, 1-954-687-3717
info@cannabisscience.com
www.cannabisscience.com

certified dealer education

Congratulations!

The New Federal Guidelines

are a Victory for Patients

This morning, the U.S. Department of Justice issued new guidelines on medical marijuana. These guidelines are a big victory for medical marijuana patients. There is still much more work to be done, but this is a great step in the right direction.

The Federal guidelines are directed at U.S. Attorneys in states that have adopted medical use laws. In the words of US Attorney General Eric Holder:

“It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal.”

Thank you for helping make this happen. Your emails, phone calls, and activism helped shift the debate in America!

For the first time, the US Department of Justice is formally advising prosecutors not to interfere with medical marijuana patients in medical marijuana states. This is a big deal.

We will continue to work with President Obama, the Justice Department, and the U.S. Congress to establish a comprehensive national policy, but it’s good to know that in the meantime states can implement medical marijuana laws without interference from the federal government.

It is worth remembering that during the Bush Administration, there were more than 200 federal raids in California alone. Even now, the federal government is prosecuting more than two dozen medical marijuana cases in which defendants are prevented from using medical evidence.

There is much more work to be done. But thank you for helping us get this far.

Sincerely,

Steph Sherer
Executive Director
Americans for Safe Access

P.S. As we continue our work, we could use your help. Consider making a contribution to ASA today.

certified dealer education

The Obama administration threw a bone to the lunatic, fringe left a few days ago. The memo to federal prosecutors in medical marijuana states has garnered hearty applause from Greenwald and the Marijuana Policy Project.

When elected, Obama said that federal raids on state-law legal marijuana cultivation and distribution would end. The didn’t, not by a long shot, and the reasoning was that the feds would continue to prosecute people who violated state and federal laws. That boils down to everyone, no matter their standing under state law. The latest memo simply tells prosecutors that it’s not a good use of their time to bring charges against those abiding by their State’s law.

So hold your applause. This memo amounts to nothing, which is precisely what’s it’s meant to amount to while simultaneously making Obama look like a good guy.

The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels.

Note the Department’s commitment, “in all States”. I have to wonder what credentials Congress possess that enables it to determine how dangerous any drug is, as if that august body was known for its deep, careful thinkers and scientists. Furthermore, according to everything i’ve ever read, drug scheduling is under the purview of several departments that are all within the executive branch. That’s how Congress established the system when it determined which drugs were dangerous and which drugs weren’t. So the President could order the DEA, HHS and the FDA to review the scheduling of a drug and force Congress to be along for the ride.

Yes, marijuana trafficking is the single largest source of revenue for Mexican drug cartels. That’s because it’s illegal. I thought supply and demand was like the American catechism. Restricting supply only pushes prices, and hence profits, up. This idea that further restricting supply will somehow diminish cartel profits flies in the face of everything Ronald Reagan and common sense taught me…not that the two necessarily intersect.

As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities [catching druggies] should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. …prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.

So according to the Obama administration, if you’ve got cancer or aids and your supplier is giving you marijuana for free that’s ok. But just because someone is in full compliance with his State’s law is no protection. In other words, “Hey, don’t make us look like assholes by arresting someone who’s got six months to live.”

The administration produces a list of characteristics that should suggest prosecution. Some of them make sense, but there’s always a catch. “Evidence of money laundering activity” makes the list. As any monetary gain from the sale of marijuana is criminal under federal law, just about any use of marijuana proceeds could be considered money laundering. And if you don’t think that the DEA won’t see that argument, you’re high.

This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.

Get the picture?

Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.

It should be clear by now that there’s nothing in this memo worthy of applauding. Sure it’s a step in the right direction, but that only deserves the response, “It’s about damned time.”

The administration has the power to start the ball rolling on significant drug reform. Rescheduling would end the entire “debate”. Judging by election in results in states where a marijuana referendum was on the ballot in 2008, dope is a lot more popular than hope. There’s no political risk to Obama at the voter level. The voters who would be angered by the move won’t be voting Democratic before the second coming in any case. There are a at least few million who would probably vote for the politician who reforms marijuana laws regardless of anything else the politician does. The youth vote would basically deify such a politician.

Big time donors like the pharmaceutical industry wouldn’t like it, which might indicate who’s side the President is on, but see above and ask yourself if it would even matter for the one more election he can win.

But there almost certainly won’t be any movement on a relatively simple problem with a pretty straight-forward solution that would have positive benefits in other areas of concern like health care and the economy. With the ability to legally cultivate marijuana there are probably a lot of unemployed American facing foreclosure who might attempt an entrepreneurial response to the death of the American Dream. Places like Southeastern Kentucky would have a valuable cash crop, and they probably wouldn’t need so much tax-funded aid. Hell, folks in those places might even start thinking that Obama ain’t so bad after all.

Never mind the taxation question. Enforcing taxation will be even more difficult than enforcing criminalization. Let the money flow through the real economy and accept that it will trickle up. Smart states will establish retail distribution licensing similar to the existing structure for alcohol. It will raise local and state revenues; keep control over the retail sector; and be subject to sales tax. We’ll just have to take our chances on person-to-person transactions being claimed as miscellaneous income. Regardless, that money will be spent and serve the greater economy.

Plenty of savings can be found by not wasting tax dollars on prosecution and incarceration of marijuana cases. And i’ll bet that law enforcement will still have plenty to do.

The answer is simple and frankly, the question is stupid. So you’ll have to forgive me if i hold my applause until the end…though i might not be able to hold them if some intrepid journalist asks the President if he thinks it would have been better for the nation if he’d been convicted of his youthful indiscretions and never gotten to be President. Clearly you can smoke pot and grow up to be President, you just can’t get caught doing it.

From Obama,

sanity on marijuana policy

Steve ChapmanOctober 22, 2009

In 1973, Robert Randall was going blind from glaucoma when he discovered that smoking marijuana seemed to help his condition. That didn’t matter to police when they found the Washington, D.C., resident growing cannabis and arrested him. Preferring to keep his sight, Randall sued the federal government, arguing that he was entitled to smoke pot as a “medical necessity.”

It was a far-fetched argument — but it worked. In 1976, a court ruled in Randall’s favor. Before long, the federal government found itself in the strange position of supplying marijuana to him and a handful of other patients under a “compassionate use” program.

The compassion didn’t go very far. President George H.W. Bush stopped the acceptance of new patients into the program in 1992 rather than admit all those annoying AIDS victims, insisting that it sent a dangerous message to young people.

The real danger, of course, was the message that government policy on cannabis was ignorant and irrational. But since then, one president and one drug czar after another has furiously resisted efforts to allow therapeutic use of the drug no matter how helpful it may be to the sick and dying.

Until now. This week, the Justice Department kept a promise made by candidate Barack Obama when it announced that henceforth, “it will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana.”

The change is not only historic but humane and intelligent, two adjectives rarely applied to federal drug policy. Science has established that cannabis has useful properties for the treatment of various diseases, countless physicians have endorsed it, and 14 states have allowed sick people access to marijuana. But for three decades, the people in charge of drug policy in the federal government didn’t give a rat’s bottom.

In 1996, after California voters approved a medical marijuana law, President Bill Clinton’s administration fought it every step of the way — filing lawsuits to close cannabis buyers clubs, threatening to strip the licenses of doctors who recommended marijuana to patients and denouncing the entire program as “a Cheech and Chong show.”

President George W. Bush’s administration stuck to the same course. It raided California dispensaries and went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in a successful effort to crush the notion — the conservative notion, come to think of it — that states should have the power to set their own policy on pot.

But before long, the idea had caught on not just in hippy-dippy California but in less fashionable places like Alaska, Maine, Michigan and Montana. Some 75 percent of Americans think doctors should be permitted to prescribe cannabis. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws reports that in 33 state referendums since 1992, voters have embraced liberalization 30 times.

Most of the time, the two major parties are about as different as Coke and Pepsi. But last year, they presented a stark contrast on this issue. Republicans denounced the use of marijuana as medicine, while Democrats lined up to criticize the prevailing federal policy. Obama took a clear position, declaring it “entirely appropriate” for physicians to prescribe cannabis and pledging, “What I’m not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.”

But as opponents of the Iraq war, “don’t ask don’t tell” and Guantanamo know, a promise made by Obama is not exactly money in the bank. This time, though, he deserves full credit for doing what he said he would do, repudiating a bipartisan legacy of pigheaded stupidity.

What’s more, Obama may not stop there. Some reformers expect the administration to agree to let a scientist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst grow cannabis for research on its medical potential — something the Bush administration opposed, lest the research contradict its ideology.

During the campaign, Obama also indicated he favors scrapping a 21-year-old policy that forbids cities from using federal money to finance needle-exchange programs to block the spread of AIDS, and the House voted last summer to lift the ban. The White House drug czar has even solicited advice from critics of the drug war, whom previous drug czars saw as deranged.

Robert Randall, who died in 2001, might have been surprised to hear the federal government admit the possibility that it was wrong about marijuana. He probably wouldn’t have been surprised that it took 33 years.

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune’s editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman

schapman@tribune.com

compliance brings privilege