Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take,
but by the moments that take our breath away.
Going Green: Should We Legalize Marijuana?
In today’s paralegal community, new issues and concerns regarding criminal justice are always appearing.
Right now, one of the key reasons for American citizens serving jail time has to do with laws and regulations surrounding the use and possession of marijuana.
It may be legal in 16 states, but in the other 32, it’s putting people in jail every day.
As a result, jails are overflowing, the money allocated for those serving time is rising, and yet illegal marijuana use remains as prevalent as ever.
As the economy flounders and tries to stabilize itself, it’s important to consider the social, judicial, and economic ramifications of legalizing marijuana.
Legalizing marijuana would turn one of the nation’s largest cash crops into something marketable, taxable, and regulated.
In considering whether or not to legalize, all factors seem it point in one direction:
It’s time for America to go green.
Created by: Online Paralegal Programs
Most Americans Want To Legalize Marijuana: New Poll
After 40 years, $1 trillion, US War on Drugs has failed to meet any of its goals
The Mexico drug war: Bodies for billions
Mexican Drugs, U.S. Markets
Legalization Will Reduce Crime, Free Up Police Resources
10 Little Known Facts in the Medical Marijuana Debate
The Mexico drug war: Bodies for billions
Study Says It’s Easier For Teens To Buy Marijuana Than Beer
Ten Major Health Benefits of Marijuana
Above the Ignorance of Above the Influence
Marijuana: a Chronic History Documentary
HIGH: The True Tale of American Marijuana (Full Documentary)
Chronic Future: Killing Cancer Premiered on April 5; Cannabis Science's CEO Dr. Robert Melamede and Filmmaker Henry Miller Weigh in on Its Success
Business WirePress Release: Cannabis Science Inc. – Thu, Apr 12, 2012 1:45 PM EDT
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--
Cannabis Science, Inc. (OTCBB: CBIS.OB - News), a pioneering US biotech company developing pharmaceutical cannabis products, is thrilled to provide an update on the premiere of Chronic Future: Killing Cancer, a film by Henry Miller and Cory Pritchard.
Cannabis Science Receives New Photos and Positive Feedback from Patient Three and an Oncologist about his Severe Squamous Cell Carcinoma
It tells the story of the attempt by Arizona's governor to close down medical marijuana dispensaries, and introduces patient after patient, with debilitating ailments, where medical marijuana has successfully treated the disease.
Cannabis Science's CEO, Dr. Robert Melamede, was interviewed for the film about the success the company has seen with patients self-administering cannabis oil to their squamous cell carcinomas, and reducing their tumor burden, even apparently eradicating tumors as determined by biopsy.
The film premiered April 5, 2012 in Scottsdale, Arizona, followed by 3 showings per day. The first five showings were sold out, with the following ones close to sold out.
Henry Miller states, "There were over 3,500 people who showed up for tickets throughout the day. We got 3 standing ovations for the very first showing.
Every state that has legal medical marijuana is part of our formula to fight for federal justice and their acknowledgement of scientific reality. We touched every state. I'm getting calls from people all over the world asking how they can get the film.
I haven't had one negative response.
[Dr. Melamede] is a genuine, sincere person; a beautiful soul. We couldn't ask for a better doctor to be representing this."
Miller has received calls from Japan, China, India, Russia, Great Britain, Germany, Australia, South Africa, France, and Canada.
In addition to the 3,500 viewers who showed up for tickets, the movie has caught the attention of celebrities such as Angelina Jolie.
Miller has "tweeted with Angelina Jolie, who saw the clips, and says she hopes it will end world hunger." Henry Miller hopes to be interviewed by Howard Stern, 60 Minutes, Good Morning America, Anderson Cooper, John Stewart, Oprah, David Letterman, and Jimmy Kimmel, just to name a few.
Miller says, "The celebrities are coming out and seeing what we're doing, and are willing to help us and support us."
Dr. Robert Melamede commented, "As evidenced by the demographics of the population attending the opening, it's quite apparent that medical marijuana has moved out of the counterculture and into the mainstream of well to do American citizens.
People have already contacted me about the availability of our treatment for skin cancer."
About Cannabis Science, Inc.
Cannabis Science, Inc. is at the forefront of pharmaceutical grade medical marijuana research and development. The second formulations will address the needs of patients choosing to use concentrated cannabis extracts to treat their ailments. Eventually, all Americans will have access to a safe and effective FDA approved medicine regardless of which state they live in.
To maintain that marijuana is a dangerous, addictive drug with no medical value is scientifically absurd. Cannabis medicines, with no effective lethal dose, are far safer than aspirin, acetaminophen, and most other OTC drugs that kill thousands of Americans every year.
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.
Forward Looking Statements
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, 1-888-889-0888
President & CEO
The following is a research lecture I attented today (April 13,2012) at the Universuty of Arizona's The 10th Biennial
Toward a Science of Consciousness
April 9-14, 2012 Tucson
Why Don't Psychopaths Believe in Dualism?
The Role of Opposing Brain Networks Anthony Jack (Case Western Reserve University, Cognitive Science, Cleveland, OH
In a theoretical paper linking the attribution of phenomenal consciousness to moral cognition, Robbins and Jack (Philosophical Studies, 2006) predicted that psychopaths would not perceive the problem of consciousness.
New experimental evidence is presented which supports this claim: in a group of undergraduates it was found that support for a naturalistic view of the mind is positively correlated with the primary psychopathic trait of callousness.
It appears that, at least for philosophically naive individuals, belief in mind-body dualism is driven by feelings of empathetic concern for others.
Work in cognitive neuroscience suggests a broad division between two brain networks essential for understanding the physical and the mental: The analytic network is
built around and upon brain areas involved in attention and spatio-visual processing.
It is engaged by a range of analytic tasks, including logical, mathematical and mechanical reasoning. The empathetic network is built around and upon brain areas that receive visceral inputs from the body and which are involved in emotional self-representation and self-regulation.
It is engaged by tasks that involve empathetic perspective taking. Many studies from numerous laboratories support this view, that different brain areas are involved in
thinking about minds and thinking about machines.
However, recent evidence suggests these networks are not only distinct, but are also mutually inhibitory. Engaging one network actively suppresses activity in the other network.
In other words, there appears to be a biological limitation on our ability to simultaneously engage in mechanical reasoning and empathetic perspective taking.
We can think about people using the analytic network, however when we do then we view others dispassionately, as mechanical objects that may serve instrumental purposes.
This contrasts with thinking about people using the empathetic network, which is associated with an emotionally connected view of others, as objects of moral concern.
The different ways of thinking about people afforded by the two networks is illustrated by imaging studies of dehumanizing and anti-social cognition, as well work in moral neuroscience.
Experiments on the neural basis of moral cognition demonstrate that competition between these networks determines response to some moral dilemmas.
Greater activation of the analytic network is associated with a willingness to intentionally harm someone in order to achieve the best overall outcome.
Greater activation of the empathetic network is associated with refusing to perform such an abhorrent action even though the overall outcome will be worse.
Endorsing a naturalistic worldview involves agreeing with the view people are *nothing but* machines.
Such a view may be read as implying that people can be best understood using the analytic network.
If the view is interpreted in this way, then empathetic individuals are likely to feel uncomfortable, since the analytic network suppresses empathetic perspective taking and feelings of moral concern.
This sense of discomfort will not arise for individuals that lack empathetic concern for others.
So, why don't psychopaths believe in dualism?
Their world view is not distorted by a sense of moral concern for others.
cognitive architecture; ascriptions of consciousness; dehumanizing