>> Sunday, February 23, 2014
I have to do this. HAVE TO. It's long, sorry.
We have heard so many incredibly circular, hypocritical and down right DUMB arguments against the treatment we want for Bug. I have to list them...and the truth of course. Not MY version of the truth just THE truth. You'll see.
Marijuana is bad.
Ok...I'll give you this one. Show me ONE study that supports Marijuana INCREASES productivity. I prefer to not sit around and stare at fruit but I DO NOT condemn those that do. Their choice. I don't do it, never have and never will. Free will. Don't harm anyone and I won't slap you.
This is Marijuana.
Nope. Sorry. That SLANG was promoted and subsequently accepted as fact in the Tax Act of 1937. There IS no Marijuana Plant. It is ALL Cannabis . Since it is ALL Cannabis we must turn to the law to define the difference between Hemp and the psychoactive plant. THAT comes into play with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Hemp Industries Association in 2004 which states:
"[T]hey (DEA) cannot regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or derived from marijuana-i.e. non-psychoactive hemp is not included in Schedule I. The DEA has no authority to regulate drugs that are not scheduled, and it has not followed procedures required to schedule a substance. The DEA's definition of "THC" contravenes the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and cannot be upheld"
Based on this ruling, the DEA began to issue exemptions for Hemp grown outside of the United States. Or so we hear. Either way, Hemp importation has continued and occasionally, tests are run on some of the products to ensure they have very low THC, but not every batch, and not every country. The DEA admits that the courts are contradictory in this regard making enforcement extremely difficult.
Enter the Agricultural Act of 2014. Which defines Hemp.
"(2) INDUSTRIAL HEMP.—The term ‘‘industrial
16 hemp’’ means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any
17 part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a
18 delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not
19 more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis. "
That pretty much ends that, doesn't it?
It is not safe.
This is baffling. Truly. It's psychoactive cousin has NEVER been blamed for a death, stupidity, yes, deaths; no. And as far as the 'long term side effects' CBD itself has been shown to have NO impact. High THC exposure does, but NOT CBD. Do you doubt this? Well, you might, if you weren't researching the HELL out of it to ensure it will not hurt your child. But if you actually DO THE RESEARCH you find this very interesting study .
Which brings up this: IF it is not safe, as claimed, why, based on everything that is holy, would you want us to give our children a HIGHER dose? Even under an FDA program? That would be reckless wouldn't it?
But since you bring it up...are any of the AED's my son has already taken, safe? EVERY Doctor that we talk to admits: no. And yet, they STILL bring up that this isn't safe. It has a better safety profile than ANY AED. Please, stop saying that. Read the research before you speak, please.
There is a Pharma product, you should use that.
Yep, we wanted to. We can't. It is not available to us. And until I am contacted by a Doctor running one of their programs and told MY SON is enrolled (he is signed up for 3) then it is NOT an option, is it? Which would mean, he has to wait at least 3 years and not the 5 months we are looking at waiting. And we come back to: IF it is not safe, as claimed, why would you want us to give our children a HIGHER dose?
You are asking the legislature to regulate a drug or be involved in healthcare.
Again: this is not a drug. This is a Hemp product that has been confused as a drug. You can not patent a plant. That would be like taking a patent out on a tomato or potato or asking the legislature to let you eat the tomato/potato. It's legal to eat the tomato already, we just want to make sure that because you can make the poison nightshade from the tomato plant that we won't be arrested for possessing it.
Tomatoes are from the genus Solanum L. - nightshade
And as for the healthcare statement: We are asking you to STAY out of it. MY son's Doctor, the specialist, the researcher, the man that EVERY other Doctor in the State and out of the State that my son sees, defers to for his epilepsy treatment, supports this. He wants to treat his patients with this. He is completely on board. Doctors have different opinions but to say Doctors do NOT support this is just simply not the case. They do, just not SOME Doctors, but they are NOT the specialists he needs so they are not important to his care and need to stay out of this. They don't stop by and provide input when he is in the hospital in Status. When he is in Status, I don't see them jumping up and down to get involved in his care. So why now?
We are asking the legislative body to run an IRB study or give UofU permission to do so:
GW will file a lawsuit:
The product would ALREADY violate patent law and GW would ALREADY be filing cease and desist notices to the Realm of Caring. GW has over 100 Million Dollars to spend on development for Epidiolex, I am sure they can afford a patent attorney. No, we will NOT be sued if Realm of Caring is not ALREADY being sued, it's not as if the product infringes on the patent by GW in Utah but not Colorado.