State Board Releases Position on Medical Marijuana
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('State Board Releases Position on Medical Marijuana');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

State Board Releases Position on Medical Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on May 24, 2010 at 19:51:56 PT
By Diane Cochran of The Gazette Staff
Source: Billings Gazette
Bozeman, MT -- Doctors who staff mass medical marijuana clinics could be disciplined by the Montana Board of Medical Examiners under a policy the board adopted last week.Recommending a course of treatment after a brief consultation and without any follow-up does not meet the standard of care expected of Montana physicians, board members decided. They approved by unanimous vote a position paper that will allow them to sanction doctors for providing substandard care to medical marijuana users.
That could include signing medical marijuana authorization forms at traveling clinics or over the Internet."The Board of Medical Examiners takes no position on the general suitability of marijuana in the treatment of medical disorders, but does have an obligation to protect the public by ensuring that physicians provide medical services via a bona-fide physician-patient relationship that meets the generally accepted standards of care," the paper states.The Medical Marijuana Act permits doctors to certify that patients could be helped by marijuana, but it does not mean providers "can let all medical ethics and judgment go out the window," said Dr. Anna Earl, vice president of the board."It’s our job to make sure good medicine is still taking place," Earl said during the board’s meeting on Thursday.Many Montana physicians, including members of the medical examiners board, are skeptical that a doctor at a mass clinic has the time to learn enough about a patient to justify authorizing medical marijuana use.At large clinics in Billings and elsewhere, doctors have churned through as many as 400 people in a day.The board’s position paper lays out steps that doctors are expected to take before recommending any course of treatment and states plainly that it unlikely those steps can be taken at mass medical marijuana clinics."The Board cautions physicians that a mass screening format or group evaluations, whether for student athletes or those desiring medical marijuana, inherently tend towards inadequate standards of care," the paper states.Under the voter-approved Montana Medical Marijuana Act, Montanans can apply to the state Department of Public Health and Human Services for a medical marijuana card if a doctor has signed a form authorizing them to do so.The intent behind the 2004 initiative was to allow people with terminal illnesses or a handful of debilitating diseases to get permission from their doctors to use medical marijuana, said Tom Daubert, an advocate who led the charge to legalize medical marijuana in Montana.But that is not what has happened."I feel somewhat that I owe you folks an apology," Daubert said during the medical board’s public comment period. "Even those of us who helped write the law . agree with law enforcement and others that a lot of what we’re seeing is not what was intended or envisioned."Daubert said he was as concerned as board members were about mass clinics.The identities of doctors staffing the clinics usually are kept secret, and often they are not Montana residents.Still, they must have Montana licenses to sign authorizations, and that means the Board of Medical Examiners can sanction them.Also on Thursday, board members discussed at length whether doctors who authorize patients to use marijuana should provide follow-up care."We wouldn’t say, ‘Here, take 400 grams of aspirin and come back in a year,’ " said Dr. Arthur Fink.But the Medical Marijuana Act states explicitly that marijuana cards are good for one year, leaving little room for physicians to require patients to come back for follow-up visits.In the end, the board decided to ask the Legislature to change the law so that doctors can authorize marijuana use for periods of time that are less than one year. They will also ask lawmakers to allow doctors who have signed authorizations to rescind them.Source: Billings Gazette, The (MT)Author: Diane Cochran of The Gazette StaffPublished: Monday, May 24, 2010Copyright: 2010 The Billings GazetteContact: speakup billingsgazette.comWebsite: Medical Marijuana Archives 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 

Comment #16 posted by Paint with light on May 26, 2010 at 21:26:29 PT
closing scenes
1000's of zombies come out of the earth and start attacking all the evil prohibitionists.We can all imagine the faces of departed drug warriors for our side being the zombies.Final scene.John Walters House.The Zombies led by "Jack" descend on Walter's house as the camera pans up to a star filled sky with the words..."In the end.....the good guys always win."Legal like alcohol.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by Paint with light on May 26, 2010 at 21:08:51 PT
Good compilation."President Nixon, unhappy with the commissions findings, promptly buried the Commissions Report,......".I had visionss of a graveyard with dreadlock zombies wearing "Schaffer Commission Rules!" t-shirts rising out of the earth.The night of the living dread.Keep up the fight.Legal like alcohol. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by runruff on May 26, 2010 at 07:53:10 PT
And there is this......
ARGUMENT: Free Exercise of Religion Is A Fundamental Right in ArizonaThe defendant presents claims under ARS 41-1493.01 st. seq., Exhibit E, and the Article 20 Ordinance of the Arizona Constitution, Exhibit F. The State of Arizona and the US Constitution, specifically grants a high degree of protection to the free exercise of religion, pursuant to these statutes and constitutional provisions. The Arizona FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION Act (FERA), prohibits the Government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, “even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” except when the Government can “demonstrate that application of the burden to the person (1) [furthers] a compelling government interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of further­ing that . . . interest,” ARS 41-1493.01 (Exhibit E). Furthermore, ARS 41-1493.01 (d) provides that “A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. A party who prevails in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover attorney fees and costs”. The Article 20 Ordinance to the Arizona Constitution, Sections 1 and 13 state, “The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of this state. First. Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured to every inhabitant of this state, and no inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person and property on account of his or her mode of religious worship, or lack therof. (Arizona State Constitution Article 20, Section 1). Thirteenth. This ordinance is hereby made a part of the Constitution of the state of Arizona, and no future constitutional amendment shall be made which in any manner changes or abrogates this ordinance in whole or in part without the consent of Congress. (Arizona State Constitution Article 20, Section 13). Exhibit F .The defendant presents a claim of exemption from the general prohibition of the use of Marijuana pursuant to these Arizona statutes and constitutional provisions. Recently, in Arizona v. Hardesty, Exhibit G, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a defendant in a criminal case could make an affirmative defense to charges, if they possessed marijuana for religious use. However, in Hardesty, the Court noted that Mr. Hardesty was operating a motor vehicle at the time he was cited, and that the state had compelling interest in preventing drivers from operating a vehicle and using marijuana, even if it was for religious purposes. In contrast, the facts in the instant case show that the defendant was not engaged in any sort of behavior which could ever threaten public health and safety. He was smoking, in an area where people are permitted to smoke. That is all that occurred. See Defendants Affidavit and Declaration of Religious Sentiment, Exhibit H. Finally, the defendant requests this Court take Judicial Notice of the mandatory Oath’s of Office of all parties involved, regarding the sworn duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and The Constitution of The State of Arizona.  In the event this court finds it lacks jurisdiction to grant this motion, the defendant requests the court dismiss the related complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by runruff on May 26, 2010 at 07:50:45 PT
Here is one a federal judge needs to hear.
ARGUMENT: Frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free governmentArticle 2 Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution states that "Frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual rights and the perpetuity of free government." This fundamental principles clause protects against the erosion of citizens’ rights by reminding the government of the primacy of rights secured under the Arizona Constitution. The Arizona fundamental principles clause, establishes that the judiciary must interpret the state constitution with a strong reading in favor of property and individual rights, an absolute separation of powers, and a healthy respect for federalism. Doing so prevents erosion of fundamental constitutional rights.The text of the clause plainly warns that unless fundamental principles are adhered to, individual liberties will suffer. Given the detailed historical discourse indicating that the primary purpose of the Arizona Constitution is to protect the individual rights of citizens and that governments are often the source of infringement on those rights, it is questionable whether the Arizona judiciary should employ a standard presumptively in favor of legislative acts.The framers of the Arizona Constitution intended that the constitution would be the chief defender of citizens’ liberties. One study of the constitutional convention notes that the development of the Arizona Constitution was the "peculiar expression" of Arizonans’ "special attitudes and beliefs about what is fundamental" for their community. [John D. Leshy, "The Making of the Arizona Constitution," 20 Arizona State Law Journal 1, 112 (1988).] The framers of Arizona’s constitution held "more distrust than confidence in the use of authority." . [Leshy]. The framers were thoroughly skeptical of concentrating power in the hands of any institution. [Leshy]. Therefore, the Arizona Constitution limits the process and structure of government as "key controls on the tendency to abuse power." [Leshy]. The Arizona fundamental principles clause and the Arizona declaration of rights are key illustrations of these themes. The framers of Arizona’s constitution understood that the unique rights incorporated in their own constitution would be the sole protector of Arizona citizens from state government abuse. At least one historical source references Arizona’s fundamental principles clause as an accompanying safeguard of individual liberty. [John R. Murdock, The Constitution of Arizona (W.B. Conkey Company, 1935). Murdock explains that "each oncoming generation is apt to take too much for granted and to accept, unappreciatively, things as they are, forgetting the long struggle necessary to establish government by the people." [Murdock].The fundamental principles clause were designed to be constant reminders that state constitutions are the bulwarks of protection for individual rights. Fundamental principles remind the government of the primary reasons for its existence and establish a hierarchy of reasoning in constitutional jurisprudence.Article 2, section 2 of the Arizona Constitution, like the Declaration of Independence, provides further meaning — reserving political power to the people and permitting a government to exist "to protect and maintain individual rights." Thus, fundamental principles establish that certain constitutional principles enjoy foremost primacy among many constitutional guarantees.Knowledge of the true value of Cannabis conveys "self-evident" Natural Rights to utilize this essential and unique plant, which extend far beyond the rightful jurisdiction of any court. The power to prohibit any unique and essential Natural resource could never be within the reasonable jurisdiction of any court. Moral accountability for inducing such a universal degree of harm does not exist in government. Cannabis prohibition statutes are as extinctionistic as any law can be. The predictable behavioral result of prohibition is that a lot of peaceful people who recognize the true value of the Cannabis plant are marginalized, fined, and imprisoned, providing human feedstock for the lucrative "economics of punishment". In India, Mahatma Gandhi established the right to harvest salt from the sea, based on the same principles of fundamental human rights that dictate our right to utilize Cannabis. Prohibition of Cannabis violates people's most basic Natural right - the right to survive. See Expert Testifies Cannabis Helps Slow Aging Exhibit D.It is "self-evident" that no one needs permission from the government to survive. To concede this point violates Natural Laws that define morality. Any species that falls into disrespect for primarily significant Natural Laws will certainly devolve through spiritual fraud to eventual extinction. Cannabis has never been truly illegal because it is part of a more significant, ancient order which has been evolving on this planet for millions of years. Ours is a chronologically young, arrogant, self-centered species. To continue prohibition of Cannabis, in the face of current knowledge and understanding, is self-defeating and reckless to the point of being sociopathic. Mankind is a small part of a gigantic Natural Order, with a dangerously limited understanding of how the "Web of Life" works. The Cannabis plant's exceptional nutritional profile, remarkable agricultural characteristics, and extreme practical versatility, make Cannabis a critically determinate resource, which is essential for mankind to evolve sustainability within the primarily significant Natural Order. Fuels, food, herbal therapeutics, building materials, paints, varnishes, cloth, paper, plastics, rope...the list of products that can be made from hemp has been estimated to be between 25,000 and 50,000. This cannot be said of any other species.In the absence of moral accountability for the truth, there can be no legal obligation to obey extinctionistic "laws" prohibiting free cultivation, manufacture, and trade of the most valuable agricultural resource on the planet. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by runruff on May 26, 2010 at 07:48:58 PT
Another legitimate argument.
Motion To Dismiss And To Declare Statutes / Ordinances Unconstitutional For Violation Of Due Process; Free Exercise Of Religion Protected ; Personal Religious/ Medical Marijuana Use A Fundamental RightCOMES NOW the defendant, _______________, who moves this court to dismiss the charges in the above entitled matter. In support of this motion the Defendant submits the following arguments. ARGUMENT: The prohibition on Cannabis possession and related paraphernalia for personal use, generally, do not have a rational basis and, therefore, violate due process.Laws and Ordinances can be declared violative of due process because the factual assumptions underlying the law have been subsequently disproved. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall be . . . deprived of. . . liberty . . . without the due process of law. . . This, in turn, requires that criminal laws have a rational basis and are not arbitrary. Leay v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969). Laws that cannot meet this minimum rationality requirement are constitutionally infirm. See, Weinberger, 417 U.S. 528, 537 (1974); Delaware River Basin Commission v. Bucks County, 641 1087 (3d Cir. 1981). The inquiry is an evolving one, with the rationality of the law at issue judged by the currently available information, not just the information available to Congress, or a State Legislature, when it enacted the law. See United States v. Caroline Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153 (1938) ("The constitutionality of a statute predicated upon a particular state of facts may be challenged by a showing to the court that those facts have ceased to exist."); Castleton Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543, 547-48 (1924) ("regulations under the police power, although valid or presumed valid when made, may become arbitrary and irrational in the light of later events"). Rational relation test will not sustain conduct by state officials that is . . irrational, or plainly in error. 917 at 1 155. B. When Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq. in 1970, it did not make any specific findings regarding marijuana (Cannabis). Instead, it recognized that it was unsure about the harms associated with marijuana and its medical benefits. To supply the factual basis for its criminal prohibitions on marijuana, Congress convened a Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse in 1970. See H.R. Rep. No. 91-1444, P.L. 91-513, U.S. Code Cong. Admin. News 1970, pp. See EXHIBIT A - PART 5 of The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, commissioned by President Richard M. Nixon, March, 1972 .In the report, the Commission concluded that the public perception of the dangers of marijuana were "based much more on fantasy than on proven fact" and "the weight of the evidence is that marihuana does not cause violent or aggressive behavior, if anything, marihuana generally serves to inhibit the expression of such behavior." See Shafer, Raymond P. et al., Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Ch. (First Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Abuse, 1972); ("In essence, neither informed current professional opinion nor empirical research, ranging the 1930's to the present, has produced systematic evidence to support the thesis that marihuana use, by itself, either invariably or generally leads to or causes crime, including acts of violence, juvenile delinquency or aggressive behavior"). The Commission recommended the decriminalization of marijuana possession, finding: criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only with the greatest reluctance. Id. Furthermore, the Commission found that the constitutionality of marijuana prohibition was suspect, and that the executive and legislative branches had a responsibility to obey the Constitution, even in the absence of a court ruling to do so: While the judiciary is the governmental institution most directly concerned with the protection of individual liberties, all policy-makers have a responsibility to consider our constitutional heritage when framing public policy. The Commission concluded: "The existing social and legal policy is out of proportion to the individual and social harm engendered by the use of the drug." Id. President Nixon, unhappy with the commissions findings, promptly buried the Commissions Report, and an unconstitutional “War” was declared on the American people. Since that time, Federal, Sate and Municipalities have significantly ramped up enforcement efforts, especially as it applies to Marijuana. As a result the lives of many citizens have been destroyed. The Prohibition of Marijuana has enriched the black market, made thugs of police, shamelessly corrupted our justice system, violently accelerated the economics of scarcity, increased pollution, and franchised punishment. It is predictable that such a system would pervert social evolution to promote abuse of toxic, unevenly distributed and expensive chemicals, pharmaceutical drugs and alcohol.In November 2010, Arizona voters, as well as at least 10 other states will have ballot initiatives to allow medical medical, make marijuana the lowest law enforcement, or in the case of California, implement total and complete LEGALIZATION. Based on polling and surveys, nearly all of these initiatives are expected to be approved by the voters. Anticipating voter approval in November, on February 18th, 2010, The Arizona Senate Finance Committee, voted to subject medical marijuana to the state's 5.6 percent sales tax. SEE EXHIBIT BIn light of what is known about marijuana in 2010, the federal, state and municipal marijuana laws are clearly irrational, and violate due process, both because they rely upon commission findings that refute them, and they deprive citizens of fundamental natural inalienable rights without accomplishing their original purpose. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by runruff on May 26, 2010 at 07:46:16 PT
Dr. Dan, should it look something like this?
ARGUMENT: Marijuana's illegal placement in an incorrect schedule renders its status as a controlled substance a nullity.The State alleges that marijuana is a "controlled substance" when in fact marijuana's illegal placement in an incorrect schedule renders its status as a controlled substance a nullity. Based upon marijuana's current "accepted medical use in the United States", marijuana can no longer be in Schedule I. To be placed, or to remain, in Schedule 1, a substance must meet ALL of the following : the substance "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States", "has a high potential for abuse," and has "a lack of accepted safety for use . . . under medical supervision." United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483, 492 (2001). Since 1996 when California AND ARIZONA, recognized "accepted medical use", 14 States and The District of Columbia , have made the same determination that marijuana has "accepted medical use". 15 States currently have laws in place recognizing "accepted medical use" of marijuana and accept the safety of marijuana for medical use. Twelve states allows medical users to cultivate marijuana at home. See: Alaska: Alaska Stat. § 17.37.070(8) (2008); California: Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5 (2008); Colorado: Colo. Const. Art. XVIII, Section 14(b) (2007); Hawaii: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 329-121(3)(paragraph 3) (2008); Maine: 22 Maine Rev. Stat. §2383-B(5) (2008); Montana: Mont. Code Anno., § 50-46-102(5) (2007); Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 453A.120 (2007); New Mexico: N.M. Stat. Ann. § 26-2B-2 (2008); Oregon: Ore. Rev. Stat. § 475.302(8) (2007); Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws § 21-28.6-3(4) (2008); Vermont: 18 Vermont Stat. Ann. §4472(10) (2007); Washington: Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 69.51A.010(2) (2008). The fact is, Marijuana does not belong in ANY of the federal or state schedules. The only other substances one can manufacture at home are alcohol and tobacco, which are both specifically exempted from the act. Even back in 1970, marijuana was the only controlled substances which Congress expressed any doubt about including in the Controlled Substances Act. Additionally, in 1972, the "National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse" recommended that personal use and sharing of marijuana should not be criminalized. EXHIBIT A.Furthermore, the findings of a DEA ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, authorized under the Controlled Substances Act to make findings of fact, found that "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man." See EXHIBIT C. Because marijuana's placement as a Schedule 1 controlled substance is a legal nullity and the state has not acted in accordance with provisions of the Controlled Substances Act to move marijuana into any other schedule, marijuana cannot be legally considered to be a "controlled substance" for purposes of any state or federal laws or ordinances against it. The points made above are not and should not be construed simply as an argument that marijuana has "accepted medical use in the United States". Rather, they are offered to support the argument that marijuana is incorrectly and illegally placed as a controlled substance. Because marijuana has not been "moved" to an legally enforceable schedule within the CSA, its present scheduling results in a jurisdictional defect. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by Hope on May 26, 2010 at 02:57:01 PT
That's cool!Thank you.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by afterburner on May 25, 2010 at 23:29:30 PT
OT: Found Link to Whole Book: Psychedelic Prayers
Timothy Leary - Psychedelic Prayers (pdf document) free file download at{II − 7 [ page 13/49 ]Please Do Not Clutch At The Gossamer Web.All in heavenandon earth belowIs a crystal fabricDelicate sacred gossamer webGrabbing hands shatter itWatch closely this shimmeringmosaicSilent.....Glide inHarmony}
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by josephlacerenza on May 25, 2010 at 17:23:17 PT
Montana PBS: Cannabusiness
Have not seen it mentioned here yet. Tonight at 8pm, here in Montana, Channel 9 or look for it on their web site!!!
Montana PBS
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Hope on May 25, 2010 at 15:05:15 PT
Dr. Dan
Maybe we will get there eventually."It should be removed from the schedule altogether, placed in the same category as saw palmetto and St. John's wort--herbs that have medical use but do not require a doctor's supervision."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Dr Dan on May 25, 2010 at 14:28:53 PT
Dicey Issue
Here's the rub: federally, cannabis is still a schedule 1 substance. Yes, it does not belong in that category, but there it is. Here's the definition of a schedule 1 drug:(1) Schedule I.—(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.Okay, now here's the deal: everyone with half a brain or more who has done any kind of research on this substance knows the following: (1) It has a low potential for abuse, and (2) it has many currently accepted medical uses in treatment in fourteen of the United States (and counting). These are indisputable facts . . . which leaves us with the third identifier for a schedule 1 substance."There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." I know that those of us who are knowledgeable are aware that cannabis is safer than aspirin, and more wholesome than many of the foods Americans put into their bodies on a daily basis. But that is not how the state board sees it. They look at that part of the DEA scheduling and assume that because cannabis is now accepted for medical use in states like Montana and California, those states now have to develop some kind of protocol for "safely administering" cannabis to medical patients. Because the scheduling itself places cannabis (wrongfully, I know) in the "dangerous" category, the state feels the need to regulate its medical use and adopt protocols for doctors to follow to make sure that cannabis is being used properly for the ailments it seeks to treat. To neglect to adopt some kind of protocol, to their way of thinking, will potentially open them up to lawsuits.So, I see why they want to have some sort of protocol. Think of it this way: if one has a chronic condition such as high blood pressure, patients are required to go to their doctors periodically (usually every 90 days or so) to have their blood pressure monitored and to see if the prescribed medication is working. If the medication is not working, the doctor will try another medication, or the doctor will increase the dosage of the current medication. If the patient does not go to the doctor, he or she forfeits his or her right to obtain the prescription for the medication that the doctor is required by law to monitor. The legislature is saying that cannabis should be held to the same standard. That's all. If I were in need of cannabis for medical purposes, I would expect my doctor to do some sort of follow-up to make sure that the cannabis is doing the job it is intended to do, and if it is not, I would hope that the doctor would be knowledgeable enough to suggest a different strain that might be more helpful in meeting my needs.The problem is, of course, the scheduling itself. I understand where the state board is coming from, but I also recognize that the real elephant in the room is the scheduling of cannabis. It should be removed from the schedule altogether, placed in the same category as saw palmetto and St. John's wort--herbs that have medical use but do not require a doctor's supervision. If that were the case, we would not have the "need" for these state boards to meddle in the issue at all--and they would have no grounds for doing so.Dr. Dan
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by BGreen on May 25, 2010 at 12:23:37 PT
Right On, Sister!
Right on and amen to that!The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Storm Crow on May 25, 2010 at 10:42:53 PT
You hit the nail on the head! My rural county has mobile medical units and they may see a patient once and prescribe what is needed for an extended period of time! They certainly do not "build a relationship with them"! Just another "It may be legal, but Ya Caaaaaaaaaaan't have it". When will they stop treating the American public like we are feeble-minded children! I am an ADULT, and fully capable of making my OWN decisions, thank you kindly! And I imagine most of you feel the same! I do not need City Councilmen, the police or even doctors telling me how to think about, or use, a safe herbal medicine which is far safer than most prescription drugs, and even aspirin! 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by dongenero on May 25, 2010 at 07:16:46 PT
Montana - mobile medical clinics
I wonder if they are planning to punish doctors that staff any mobile medical clinics or just the ones that recommend the "new" medical substance that is unfavored by the Montana Board of Medical Examiners. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Brandon Perera on May 25, 2010 at 02:16:49 PT:
If people know how to drink! it shouldnt
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by The GCW on May 24, 2010 at 22:38:40 PT
Should alcohol be banned in all national parks (Canada)during long weekends?  
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment