November 21, 2009 – Chemicals found in cannabis leaves can be used to stop prostate cancer cells. The researchers hope that cannabis leaves can be used as a remedy for the treatment of prostate cancer.

After focusing on the network on human cancer cells,Ines Diaz-Laviada and colleagues from the University of Alcala in Madrid, also investigated the effects of the chemicals on canabis leaves on mice and the fact that the substance is capable to reduce the cancer growth significantly.

The study is published in the British Journal of Cancer. Now in the world of research, there have been many studies that examine the medical uses of cannabinoids, the chemical substance found in cannabis.

This experts focused on the research done over the years devoted to seeking the best care in dealing with cancer in humans.

“This is an interesting study that opens the way to develop a potential drug. But this is only new in the early stages, “said Lesley Walker, Director of Cancer Information, Cancer Research UK, England.

She also explained that this does not mean that the men who use cannabis can automatically avoid prostate cancer.

The cannabinoids substances are investigated by the Spanish team which is requested to conduct the research in the fight against prostate cancer. This substance can block the receptors, the entrance of molecules, which is on the tumor cell surface. It is able to stop tumor cells to break away and growing.

“These chemicals can stop the division and the development of prostate cancer cells.” Source.

Nawal Ali came from Somalia in 1994. (Photo: Penny Stephens)

She has also heard it in the condescension of would-be do-gooders, and she has seen it manifested in the depression and anxiety of its victims.

”People often feel isolation after a [racist] incident,” says the 20-year-old, whose family came to Australia in 1994. ”They feel marginalised and excluded from society.”

Bur Ms Ali is determined to fight discrimination. She works at RISE, the Refugees Survivors and Ex-Detainees drop-in centre in Flinders Lane.

Her experiences tally with the findings of a new report released yesterday by VicHealth, which found that racism is unhealthy as well as socially disruptive.

The report, written for VicHealth by Melbourne University’s Dr Yin Paradies, reviewed 300 studies that showed strong links between racial discrimination and health problems, and calls for more workplace-based education programs.

Health problems may come in the form of stress or depression, or be the result of violence, or manifest as heart problems, smoking, obesity and diabetes.

”In the last 10 years, a lot of work has gone into looking at racism as a determinant of health,” Dr Paradies said. ”There are

[anti-racism] programs around but there are no evaluations – we just don’t know what works.”

He said a lot more could be done to encourage empathy and dispel false beliefs in the workplace. Research had found it was more effective to change people’s behaviour, then let their attitudes follow, rather than try to change attitudes first, he said.

VicHealth chief executive Todd Harper said Victoria had a great record of fostering cultural diversity, but indigenous and overseas-born Victorians were still reporting high rates of discrimination.

Source: The Age

November 17, 2009 – ‘Sam’ is a 10 year-old California boy who lives with his Dad, Mom, and sister Lucy. Sam has autism. From age two until eight, Sam’s disorder made him violent and aggressive. His parents Steve and Angela were truly living a nightmare, every day.

“He got to the point where he was hurting other children, when he was in school, or in public places,” Angela explains to KTLA News. “We’d be in line at the store, and he’d just bolt and hit another child in the face without any warning at all.”

Sam’s Dad remembers all the tough days. “One time he pulled down a TV, he knocked over furniture. I had to put him in a hold for a whole hour. His body was just spasming, so I lay there just crying, and holding him.”

Sam’s parents worked with expert doctors, who recommended a succession of conventional prescription medications — like Risperdal and a host of others. But Sam just gained 20 pounds, and he became even more dangerous.

“His behavior was getting worse,” Angela recalls. “And we were scared. He was getting bigger, stronger, now that he was 20 pounds heavier from the Risperdal.”

“It was the saddest thing,” Steve says. “The child we’d grown to love was gone. When you talked to him, looked at him, he’d just disappeared.”

Finally, at their wit’s end, and faced with the very real prospect of needing to institutionalize their son, Sam’s parents decided to try something unconventional…and controversial. Last year they began treating Sam with medical marijuana.

“If you think about it, it’s the perfect drug for that kind of behavior, very calming,” Angela says.

Steve and Angela got a recommendation from a medical cannabis doctor. They told Sam’s pediatrician about their plan. And Steve grew Sam’s new medicine in their back yard. From the marijuana flowers Steve grew, he could make a concentrated form, what people refer to as ‘hash.’

Steve showed us a ball of hash, roughly ¾ inch in diameter, representing roughly four months of doses for Sam. Steve softens the cannabis with heat, then takes what appears to be just a speck of pot — Sam’s ‘dose’ for the day.

And from the very start, the cannabis was a godsend for Sam’s family. “The first time we did it, we wanted to see if it would work at all,” Steve recalls. “It was an amazing experience, I’ll never forget it, as we watched what happened, it was like ‘He’s back!’ It was like all this anguish, pent-up rage and aggressiveness went away — it just calmed him down.”

While KTLA visited the family, we watched Steve put Sam’s daily dose in a piece of melon and take it to him. Within roughly 20 minutes, the effects were clear. Where earlier Sam had been animated and antsy, after eating his speck of hash Sam became calm, relaxed, and social.

Could Sam’s story help others? Respected Los Angeles-area pediatrician Chris Tolcher says we don’t know enough about cannabis for kids.

“I think for all the parents out there whose children may have autism,” Tolcher says, “I think the message here is that this is intriguing information that needs more research before we can confidently say that marijuana is a safe and effective treatment for autism complications.”

But for one California family, medical marijuana has literally been an answer to their prayers and a homecoming for their son. “It was a medication with the result we’d been hoping for, for so long,” Steve says.

Angela agrees. “He was happy again, smiling, laughing. There was the boy we’d lost for so long, who we wondered if we’d ever see again.

“It just feels like I have more control to help my son,” Steve says. “We don’t depend on doctors, who may have the best intentions, but they don’t know what Sam needs.. I want do what’s best for my son. And I’ll do whatever I can for him.” Source.

Tea is often promoted for its health benefits, including antioxidants, cancer prevention, lowering of cholesterol and blood pressure, stress reduction, antimicrobial activity, and promoting overall well-being. Tea comes in many varieties, including green tea, white tea, black tea, oolong tea, pu-erh tea, and others.

Health Benefits of Tea – How These Effects Vary Among Different Types of Tea
By of years ago in ancient China as medicine used to treat various illnesses; over hundreds of years, tea gradually shifted first towards being viewed as a general tonic for good health, and then developed into being viewed a beverage as it is today.

Tea comes in many varieties, ranging from the least-processed white tea, to unoxidized but generally steamed or pan-fired green teas, through intermediate oolongs, fully-oxidized black teas, and aged pu-erhs. Each of these broad types comes in dozens if not hundreds of varieties, and within each variety, individual teas vary greatly from one estate, farm, or factory to another, and even from one year to the next (as they are influenced by variable factors such as weather). Different teas can have remarkably different flavors, aromas, and other characteristics. Not surprisingly, they have widely variable health benefits as well.

Green tea is widely touted as having a myriad of health benefits. Oolong tea (often spelled wu-long in this context) is often pushed as a dieting or weight-loss drink. Pu-erh tea is promoted as lowering cholesterol. White tea is often presented as having more antioxidants than other teas. Most of the sources making these claims are companies promoting their own products; they do not cite scientific studies backing their claims. While some of these claims about health effects are true, others can be misleading or even outright wrong.

Some of the most widespread and most misleading statements about tea are generalizations about one broad class (such as green, black, or white) being universally better than others are misleading. In reality, the health benefits vary much more among individual teas than they do among broad categories. Science firmly backs this perspective.

A 2005 article in the Journal of Food Science presented a study of the distribution of Catechins and other chemicals in 77 different teas. Catechins are the most well-known antioxidants in tea, and are well-established to have positive effects on health. Most of the teas studied were ones widely available in supermarkets in the U.S. The published study can be found here:

  rel=nofollow http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/handle/10113/1807

The results are astounding: among black teas, the tea with the most Catechins had over 12 times as much as the one with the least. Among green teas and others (including white and oolong) the factor was even larger. While green teas tended to have more Catechins than black teas, a number of black teas ranked higher than many of the green teas. Also, black tea contains theaflavins, antioxidants not found in green tea except in tiny traces. If we accept these measures as a good indicator of health value, this study firmly establishes that the health effects of tea must be addressed on the level of individual teas, not broad categories.

This seems to present a problem. If we are seeking health benefits such as antioxidants, and these benefits vary widely from one tea to the next, how are we to choose what to drink? An obvious long-term solution is for scientists to study and publish the antioxidant content of more teas, and also to continue researching and questioning the validity of various claims of health benefits. But until this is done, the best we can do is to explore drinking a wide variety of different teas…and perhaps more importantly, to be skeptical of bold claims and sweeping generalizations that are made without reference to rigorous scientific research.

Alex Zorach has an M.A. in statistics from Yale University, and is an avid tea drinker and the creator of [http://RateTea.net/]http://RateTea.net/, a website for rating and reviewing teas and learning about tea. [http://ratetea.net]Rate and Review Tea.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Alex_Zorach http://EzineArticles.com/?Health-Benefits-of-Tea—How-These-Effects-Vary-Among-Different-Types-of-Tea&id=3190285

November 2, 2009 – Carroll Fisher does not regularly use marijuana. But he’d like to. The retired 67-year-old Niles factory worker has never smoked a joint — except for trying one in his 20s — until July. That was three months after he was diagnosed with stage 3 lung cancer. He took a trip to Canada to visit friends and had the occasion, as he describes it, to smoke marijuana. Twice a day.

Feeling better
“I slept better. It gave me an appetite where as the chemotherapy takes it away,” he said about the drug, which is illegal in Canada. “It helped me with the pain,” he added.
When he returned to Michigan, where voters a year ago approved medicinal marijuana, he asked his cancer physician in Niles, Dr. Chil Kang, to sign the state form authorizing Fisher to use medicinal marijuana. “He won’t do it,” Fisher said. Nor will his eye doctor or his family practitioner, Dr. Douglas Tacket. “I can’t get anyone to sign it,” Fisher said.

Michigan’s law requires a licensed state physician to sign a certification form, authorizing the patient to grow up to 12 plants to use for medical purposes. The form is necessary for Fisher to obtain a registry card allowing him to use the drug. Greg Francisco, executive director of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association, is not surprised by Fisher’s problem. “Access to doctors (who will certify the form) is limited in Southwestern Michigan,” Francisco said.
“They’ve closed ranks and agreed behind closed doors not to write them,” he said.
That’s what Fisher has discovered.

Kang declined to be interviewed for this story. Tacket could not be reached for comment.
Francisco, of Paw Paw, Mich., said there are a few doctors in southwestern Michigan who will write the recommendation for their longtime patients who they have treated for years.
“But they are doing it quietly, and they aren’t taking new patients,” Francisco said.
Dr. Frank Lucido, a California physician with a practice in Berkeley, said it will take time before Michigan doctors will begin to embrace the new law. California approved marijuana for medicinal purposes more than a decade ago.

“They won’t feel comfortable with it because they don’t know the law. And they don’t know the value of cannabis,” he said. Lucido, who graduated from the University of Michigan Medical School, recently opened an office in East Lansing and he has a Web site — called drlucido.com — to help patients and doctors navigate medicinal marijuana uses and laws.

Fisher said he’s heard from other cancer patients that many doctors in Detroit will certify the state form, but Fisher said he would need to spend about $300 for a doctor’s visit and travel costs to drive to Detroit. “I shouldn’t have to do that,” he said.

Traveling doctors
There may be a remedy, said Francisco, but Fisher will have to wait. Since Michigan’s law was passed by a referendum on Nov. 4, 2008, a handful of traveling doctors have cropped up to help sign up patients. “They do an assessment. It’s not guaranteed,” said Francisco.
The cannabis clinics have stopped in St. Joseph. The last time Dr. Robert Kenewell of the Clinic for Compassionate Care was in St. Joseph was about two weeks ago, Francisco said.The Hemp and Cannabis Foundation, with Dr. Eric Eisenbud based in Southfield, Mich., also makes regional visits.

“I’ve been after them (the clinics) to do one in Niles,” Francisco added, because demand is high.
Francisco suggested Fisher go to the Web site MediJuana.com to find out where the doctors will be stopping next. Fisher said he is not trying to get on the marijuana bandwagon as an excuse to use the illicit drug. For him, marijuana improved his health, he said.

He went to Canada again for two weeks around Labor Day and smoked marijuana daily.
Fisher said his health improved radically. Each time Fisher has returned home he has gained back a few of the 26 pounds he has lost during 34 rounds of radiation and weeks of chemotherapy.
“I got my strength back. and my weight back. I was almost feeling normal,” said Fisher, who is 6 feet tall, when he returned home in September. He has since dropped down to about 166 pounds.

Daily doses
Every day Fisher takes about seven different drugs.
One helps his appetite, one minimizes pain, another helps him sleep, another helps him swallow, another reduces nausea. He said when he smoked marijuana, he didn’t need many of the medications he has been prescribed. “I wouldn’t have to take half of that,” he said, pointing to an assembly of pill containers lined up on his kitchen table. Fisher’s wife died two years ago and he has two grown daughters. “I am not a druggie,” he said about his desire to use marijuana as part of his treatment plan. “My daughter was worried about that,” he said.

She also has, he said, been worried that if he does obtain a registry card to grow marijuana, his home may be a target for desperate drug users. But Fisher said he’s not worried about that.
He sleeps with a shotgun near his bed. His biggest concern is getting through the next four weeks, when he visits Dr. Kang for weekly chemotherapy sessions. The drug leaves him feeling weak and sick. But now he has even another concern. He’s worried that since he has spoken to The Tribune, his doctors may treat him differently. He looks down to hide his tears.
“I’m sorry,” he said, as he reaches for a tissue.

This is an editorial from the Orangeville Citizen, dated October 8th of this year, which is pretty balanced in our view. Remember, these are the people who are at “ground zero” for the Shelburne/Melancthon/Amaranth developments, where a number of people are reporting poor health as a result of exposure to wind turbines, and where some families have been bought out.

Here’s the editorial.

Wind energy remains merely part of the solution
THE MIND BOGGLES at the prospect of building a single wind power project in Lake Erie that’s more than 30 times the 132- megawatt capacity of the Melancthon Wind Farm, currently Ontario’s largest such project. Yet that’s what the Dufferin project’s owner, Canadian Hydro Developers Inc., now plans to accomplish.

Canada’s largest independent developer of wind-energy projects is acquiring rights to the 4,400-megawatt “offshore wind prospect” from Utah-based Wasatch Wind Inc. The nearly 900 wind turbines to be erected in the shallowest of the Great Lakes would produce enough power at peak to meet the current needs of about 2 million homes.

Although the prospect might be welcome news at Queen’s Park, where the governing Liberals have been pushing hard to have more wind farms built in the province, it raises some serious questions as to how best to meet Ontario’s long-term electricity needs.

At present, the provincial government stands committed to phase out all coal-fired power production within the next five years and at present has no plan to invest in any new nuclear power plants. And it will be at least 2014 before the first stage of the Lake Erie project would be on stream.

Although it’s clearly a “green” form of energy production, wind power has serious drawbacks in the area of predictability.

Historically, predictability was a problem for Ontario only when it came to predicting long-term needs. A failure to predict the surge in power demands after the Second World War led to a severe power shortage, and in the 1970s the failure of demand to meet expectations led to just as serious an over-supply of generating capacity and the need to cancel some projects and slow the construction of others.

With wind power, the real problem is the inability to predict a project’s output beyond a few days because of the vagaries of meteorology. And even the largest wind project will produce little or no power on a hot, humid day when the demand for electricity peaks but there’s nothing more than a slight breeze.

In the circumstances, there should be no doubt that Ontario’s long-term power needs should be met by a sophisticated combination of base-load and peaking generators.

As we see it, any viable plan should include at least two new nuclear projects, conversion of the remaining coalfired plants to use natural gas, and the strengthening of inter-provincial grids to permit large-scale imports of power produced in Manitoba, Quebec and Labrador.

Instead of carrying out its plan to close the 4,000-megawatt Nanticoke Generating Station on Like Erie, the McGuinty government ought to set in motion the progressive conversion of its eight units to natural gas.

Although a few years ago such a conversion would not have made much sense economically, natural gas being so expensive and supplies being deemed so limited, that situation has changed dramatically with the discovery of huge untapped resources in shale deposits, not to mention the proven deposits in the Canadian Arctic.

And it just so happens that a lot of natural gas can be stored naturally in the Lake Erie basin.

Since the Hydro One transmission grid already provides for 4,000 megawatts of output from Nanticoke, it would seem fairly logical that the combination of the Lake Erie wind farm and conversion of Nanticoke to gas would leave the province with a new type of base-load capacity that would shift from wind to natural gas depending on the wind velocity.

The argument for two new nuclear plants would be based in part on the economic benefits to Canada of being able to prove anew the superiority of Candu technology in terms of safety as well as reliability.

However, any twinning of the 3,600- megawatt Darlington nuclear plant and addition of a new-generation Candu plant at the Bruce Generating Station would clearly require a risk-sharing agreement between the federal and provincial governments similar to those involved in the pioneering Douglas Point and Pickering A stations. (Such agreements would limit consumers’ exposure to cost overruns and poor performance.)

As for the interprovincial transmission grids, there should be little doubt that over the long haul the best means of keeping Ontario’s retail electricity prices competitive with those of other jurisdictions would lie in long-term contracts for power from new hydroelectric projects in Labrador and Northern Manitoba. But the challenge will be to get that power to Ontario consumers safely and economically through use of the latest transmission technology.

Of course, the one big unknown is the future level of demand for electricity, given the uncertainty relating to the provincial economy and the conflicting impacts of power-saving technologies and breakthroughs in battery technology that would confirm the future of electric vehicles.

Clearly, wind and solar will have a role to play, but both have their limits.

Johnsburg Survey Summary Updated 4/2/09

Residents of the Johnsburg, WI area who live within one half mile of at least one wind turbine were asked to complete a written survey. Forty six per cent returned the survey, many with additional comments. Here is a summary of the 219 responses that were received. Note: residents live in the midst of the Blue Sky/Green Field Wind Farm in east central Wisconsin – 88 Industrial Wind Turbines scattered across 10,600 acres of rolling farmland in Fond du Lac County. 

1. A.    If you could do it over, would you have turbines on your property or near your home?

           60% said NO, including 30% of those currently hosting a turbine.

1. B.     What problems have you encountered?
2. TV, radio reception – 57% (124) now have a problem with TV or radio reception
3. Shadow Flicker – 52 % (113) stated they have a problem with shadow flicker
4. Noise – 50 % (108)  stated yes, noise is a problem
5. Look of the landscape – 49% (108) dislike the new views
6. Cell phone reception – 30% (66) now have cell phone reception problems
7. Construction concerns – 21% (47) cited problems during the installation
8. Impact on plants and animals – 11% (25) indicated problems

1. C.    Would you approve an expansion for more turbines in your area?   (Phase II)

      63% said NO, including 26% of the respondents that indicated they already host a turbine.

1. D.    How far should a turbine be placed from a home?

            62% indicate a setback should be 1/2 mile or more; only (22%) support the Wisconsin Public         Service Commission setback of 1,000 ft.

1. E.     When asked about building or buying a home, 71% said not closer than 1/2 mile to a turbine.

1. F.     What Health problems does your family experience that you attribute to the turbines?

      33% indicated at least one of the following problems: Sleep Loss; Headaches; Nausea; Stress;      or Seizures, with 25% stating their sleep was disturbed at least once per week.

1. G.    In addition to these impacts on humans, 30% indicated negative effects on pets, farm animals or wildlife.

 H.    How do you think the wind farm has affected your property value? 58% stated their property lost value. Estimates of loss ranged from 10% to 60%.

 Typical Comments also received from those responding are listed by subject area: (3/30/2009)

 #1: I know we need alternate energy sources, but we were told they (turbines) were not noisy and they are extremely noisy. 

 #2: Very noisy, cannot open my windows in the spring, summer or fall.

#9: I think land owners and homeowners should do their homework before jumping at the almighty $Dollar. They (turbines) are an eyesore for the nice community we used to have.  My advice, don’t go through it, you’ll be sorry. In summer I cannot open windows due to the noise. People come to visit and they cannot believe people have to put up with them (turbines).

#23: Who will buy our home now?  Why can’t someone help us now before the next 40 turbines go up in the same area?  Farmers signed a contract under the table – we had no say in anything.  We can’t build a shed – it was too big so they say- but they can approve of these damn, good-for –nothing wind farms.  Closed windows – still can hear them damn things.  Tell people to fight back before it’s too late.

[Please see post for December 3, 2009: Thinking of leasing land for wind turbines? No going back if you do.]

We spend millions a year on procedures that bleach our teeth whiter than pearls, but many don’t put in the less than 5 minutes a day it takes to floss. The result: At least 23 percent of women between 30 and 54, and 44 percent of women over 55, have severe gum (or periodontal) disease, reports the American Academy of Periodontology. This is a serious bacterial infection that attacks the tissue surrounding one or more teeth and the bone supporting them. It’s the number one cause of tooth loss in the United States, but it’s far from just a cosmetic issue: When periodontal bacteria enter the bloodstream, they can cause chronic inflammation. Researchers believe that such simmering infections in the body may up your risk of heart disease, stroke, cancer, and even premature birth. Women in particular need to pay close attention to gum health. “Flossing is so critical because the hormonal changes that occur in women during puberty, pregnancy, and menopause cause the oral bacteria that lead to gum disease to grow more readily,” says David Schneider, DMD, a Chevy Chase, MD, periodontist.

 The Fix: Floss at least once a day. Treat it like any other part of your routine you’d never skip, like brushing your teeth or showering. Here’s a reminder how-to from the American Dental Association: Take about 18 inches of floss and wind it around the middle fingers. Hold a few inches of the floss tightly between thumbs and forefingers. Guide the floss between your teeth, using a gentle rubbing motion. When the floss reaches the gum line, curve it into a C shape against one tooth, and gently slide it into the space between the gum and the tooth. Hold the floss tightly against the tooth. Gently rub the side of the tooth, moving the floss away from the gum with an up-and-down motion. Repeat this for every tooth.

Source:  Prevention Magazine

October 15, 2009 – In a recent interview, Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske talks about his job and his previous statements on marijuana.

Being in such a high profile job isn’t easy. Just three months after taking over, Kerlikowske found himself in a controversy when he said that marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit.

Kerlikowske said he wishes he would have been more clear that he was referring to smoked marijuana.

“It’s been very clear from the FDA that smoked marijuana doesn’t have medicinal effect. When it comes to other things, that may have a benefit. We’ll let science answer that question and I think it’s still being resolved.”

Kerlikowske’s office plans to release the nation’s new drug strategy sometime in February.

He said Americans will notice a shift towards more treatment-oriented programs.

“More people are dying from overdoses than from car crashes and gunshot wounds. This is something parents can prevent.”

Watch the video:

We understand that a number of residents in North Gower are only just now realizing the extent of the proposal for industrial wind turbines in the area. There was a public notice about it earlier this year, but it was placed in the Ottawa Citizen advertising a public meeting to be held in downtown Ottawa on a late winter night… not sure how many people went to that one.

There was, to the best of our knowledge, no public announcement when the proposal changed, i.e., from 10 turbines in one area, west of the village proper, to 5 there and 5 more scattered throughout the village area. (This was likely done so the project could employ the minimum setback of 550 meters.)

If you are new to this issue there is plenty to read: go to

http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com

for an overview of the Ontario situation and to see that there are 34 other municipalities concerned about or actively protesting proposed industrial turbine developments.

In North Gower, the issues are these:

-there are many reports of health effects from the constant noise from industrial wind turbines and some residents in other areas of Ontario have had to have the wind developers buy their properties; while there are relatively few studies showing that turbines affect health, there are also few studies showing that they ARE safe

-to our knowledge there is no other proposed industrial turbine project that is so close to homes and businesses as this one is

-because of the proximity to houses, the property value of those houses may decline—significantly. One estimate is that North Gower property values could decline by as much as $30 million. (Cost of the project? 30 million)

-wind energy is not necessarily “green”. In fact it is an unreliable source  of energy and the wind turbines themselves USE energy. The construction process is very destructive, requiring new roadways, and many tons of concrete. Transporting the huge components by truck is very disruptive, polluting and expensive.

-North Gower is an area of limited wind potential, according to the Canada Wind Atlas. There are many other areas in the province with more wind. And fewer houses.

-proponents of renewable energy, such as Dr David Suzuki, emphasize that renewable energy projects must be properly sited, to avoid doing more harm than good

-the claim that wind turbines create jobs is a myth. Initially, there are construction jobs but after that, there is one or two jobs per 10 turbines

-wind turbines cannot really contribute significantly to Ontario’s power supply. Wind is unreliable and the turbines do not perform efficiently. Many perform at only 12-20% of their potential.

-wind turbines do affect the environment: they can disturb the water table, bats and birds fly into them to their death (note that Prowind was carrying out bird migration studies in August and September. And, what month is this, when there are constantly geese flying overhead?).

-industrial wind turbines affect the rural landscape. Why locate a development so close to a village when there is plenty of uninhabited land nearby? (Keep asking yourself that question)

That’s it for now: reject any claims that North Gower residents are guilty of NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard); this project has the potential to affect residents, the environment, wildlife and livestock negatively.

We say again: who is benefitting from this proposal? Not the residents of North Gower (there is no free electricity for you), not the citizens of Ottawa, and not the people of Ontario.

This article posted on Treehugger.com caught my eye.  Obviously more research is needed, but the studies are adding up.  I think we can all agree that air pollution is a problem. Fortunately, air pollution is a problem that we can ALL do something about simply by changing a few habits. To learn more about what you can do to improve our air, visit the Clean Air Partnership web site www.cleanairpartnership.info.

Canadian Study Shows Air Pollution May Trigger Appendicitis

(from treehugger.com by Michael Graham Richard, Ottawa, Canada)

What? How?
We all know that air pollution is a bad thing. Not good for your lungs, not good for your heart. Asthmatics, children and older folks are particularly at risk. But a new Canadian study claims that air pollution is also increasing the risk of appendicitis in adults. Even short-term exposure to air pollution could have an effect.

Dominant Theory on Appendicitis
So far “the dominant theory of the cause of appendicitis has been obstruction of the appendix opening, but this theory does not explain the trends of appendicitis in developed and developing countries. Appendicitis cases increased dramatically in industrialized countries in the 19th and early 20th centuries, then decreased in the middle and late 20th century, coinciding with legislation to improve air quality. The incidence of appendicitis has been growing in developing countries as they become more industrialized.”

Methodology
The researchers identified 5191 adults who had been admitted to hospital with appendicitis between Apr. 1, 1999, and Dec. 31, 2006. The air pollutants studied were ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and suspended particulate matter of less than 10 µ and less than 2.5 µ in diameter.

They then used government data on air pollution to figure out the level of exposure to various pollutants of the people with appendicitis. “They found correlations between high levels of ozone and nitrogen dioxide and the incidence of appendicitis between age groups and genders.” More men than women were found to have the condition, possibly because more men work outside, giving them a higher exposure to air pollution on “bad air quality” days.

What Now?
Now that a correlation has been found, researchers will try to figure out how air pollution could trigger appendicitis. They suspect that the pollutants may trigger inflammatory responses, but further studies will be necessary to figure out the causality (if any).

Via CMAJ, Science Daily

October 5, 2009 – An Objective, Brief, and Ethical Exploration of a Law Prohibiting Marijuana

Marijuana is illegal, but should it be? That is a question that remains unanswered. The road to the illegalization of marijuana began in 1937 when the Marihuana Tax Act was passed. While it didn’t make the drug illegal, it made it very dangerous to deal with the substance. It wasn’t until the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 that marijuana became a schedule 1 narcotic, making it illegal. In order to be declared a schedule 1 narcotic, a substance must meet the following criteria:

(A) The drug or other substance has 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.

In this article we will explore the function of drug laws, how that function relates to marijuana, and whether or not a law prohibiting marijuana is ethical and fair. In addition to the guidelines offered by the CSA, we will include our own reasons for controlling a substance, which are:

(A) The drug induces severe psychological affects, which cause unpredictable behavior that may endanger the user and those around them.

(B) Use of the drug could lead to crime.

(C) Use of the drug can lead to severe health problems.

The opposition to marijuana (in the modern day) stems largely from fears in regards to the possible psychological and physical health effects of the drug. Some claim that marijuana causes permanent damage to brain, hindering a person’s cognitive skills over time. Others note personality changes such as loss of motivation, paranoia, and addiction.

Studies have shown the fears regarding personality to be justified. However, the general consensus is that the people most affected by marijuana in terms of addiction and personality changes, are people who began using the drug before the age of 18, a period in a child’s life that is important to their psychological and social development. In fact, 10-14% of marijuana users suffer from addiction problems and withdrawal that is comparable to nicotine withdrawal, says University of Vermont associate professor and director of its Treatment Research Center, Dr. Alan J. Budney (Carroll).

According to the National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA) marijuana can have lasting effects on a user’s daily life. The following is taken from NIDA’s information page of marijuana:

Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana has the potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person’s existing problems worse. In one study, heavy marijuana abusers reported that the drug impaired several important measures of life achievement including physical and mental health, cognitive abilities, social life, and career status. Several studies associate workers’ marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers’ compensation claims, and job turnover.

As for physiological health effects, the three main concerns are in regards to the brain, the heart, and the lungs. As mentioned earlier, many opponents to marijuana use claim that the drug causes permanent damage to the brain. Many studies dispute this notion, but we will cover that in more depth when we get to the pro-marijuana portion of this paper. Instead, we will focus on the areas in which scientific studies have been able to confirm potential health risks.

Research has shown that the risk for a heart-attack increases within the first hour of marijuana use. This happens because of an increase in blood pressure and heart rate. In addition to heart concerns, marijuana poses a threat to the respiratory system as it is carcinogenic and users tend to hold smoke in their lungs longer. While it was originally believed that marijuana smoke caused cancer new studies have proven otherwise, some even saying that the active ingredient in cannabis, THC, may be able to help prevent certain kinds of cancer (NIDA).

Nevertheless, the debate on medicinal marijuana has caused an increase in the amount of research regarding the drug, many of which have ended with surprising conclusions. In 15 different studies, varying from 3 months to 13+ years, scientists observed regular marijuana users and non-users to determine if there was any damage to the brain as a result of use. All of the studies conclusively proved that marijuana does not damage the brain permanently as previously believed. Other studies have produced similar results (WebMD).

Igor Grant, MD and lead researcher for the previously mentioned studies makes sure to mention that the participants were all adults and that the results would most likely be different if it was a 12 year old user, whose nervous system is still developing (WebMD).

In regards to addiction, ”Everything is relative,” said Dr. Donald Jasinksi, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins medical school and director of the Center for Chemical Dependence at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. ”Does it destroy as many lives as alcohol? No. Does it kill as many people as cigarettes? No. Does it have as many deaths associated with it as aspirin overdose? No. (Carroll).”

While studies have shown a percentage of marijuana users to suffer from addiction to the drug, it is a small percentage of the population and an argument can be, and has been, made that anything can be addictive based on the emotional attachment a person has to an activity. The withdrawal period is far less severe than that of alcohol and other drugs. The NIDA has found that the average withdrawal begins after 1 day of abstinence, peaks at 2-3, and subsides after a week or two (NIDA).

As far as physical health effects, respiratory problems appear to be the only one that both sides agree on, but advocates of marijuana contend moderate use of the drug is less severe than cigarette use as cigarette users tend to smoke multiple cigarettes a day. Furthermore, alternative means of marijuana consumption such as eating it or using a vaporizer lower the amount of carcinogens that enter the lungs. Even more surprising, studies conducted in Italy and Britain have found that THC might be useful in fighting off bacteria (Fountain).

With the amount of studies that have been conducted on marijuana since the 1950s, and the nature of their findings, it is shocking as to why a collective conclusion has not yet been reached in regards to the legality issue of the substance. Based on the above information and the criteria established earlier for determining whether a substance should be controlled or not, we will systematically explore the ethical validity of a law prohibiting the use, growth, and sale of marijuana.

First, we must define the telos or function of a law. Certainly, most will agree that the function of a law is to protect the majority of the population from a dangerous element of society. If that is the function of a law then we must examine the societal effects of the illegalization of marijuana versus the potential dangers.

As a result of the prohibition of marijuana, millions of Americans have been arrested and entered into the justice system, with 872,721 people being arrested in 2007, 89% for simple possession (NORML). The number is a 5.2% increase from 2006, with the annual number of marijuana arrests rising steadily on a yearly basis (NORML).

The majority of people arrested for marijuana are non-violent offenders with no previous criminal record. This means they pose no threat to society. So what is the law protecting the population from? Themselves? This seems to be the case since the law has damaged more lives through legal troubles than it protected since most marijuana users do not use the substance and go on crime sprees.

If the law’s function is meant to protect people from the health risks associated with the population then we must once again return to the studies conducted on the issue. While marijuana, like anything, has negative effects, it appears that overall it is no more dangerous than many legal substances such as alcohol, cigarettes, aspirin, etc. In the WebMD article, which talks about Igor Grant’s research regarding the effects of marijuana on the brain, Lester Grinspoon, MD, a retired Harvard Medical School psychiatrist who studied medicinal marijuana use since the 1960s and wrote two books on the topic, says that while Grant’s finding provide more evidence on its safety, “it’s nothing that those of us who have been studying this haven’t known for a very long time.”

“Marijuana is a remarkably safe and non-toxic drug that can effectively treat about 30 different conditions,” he tells WebMD. “I predict it will become the aspirin of the 21st century, as more people recognize this. (WebMD)”

While many credible minds in the scientific community warn about the dangers of marijuana use on people under the age of 18, the consensus seems to be that it is relatively safe to use for adults, especially when used in moderation.

If it poses little danger to a person’s health, brings joy to those who use it, and its users are not prone to criminal behavior, what is the function of a law prohibiting marijuana? If, as a law, it is to protect the population from an assumed danger, is it serving that function? The answers to those questions are for the reader to determine based on the evidence and analysis presented within this paper, in addition to any evidence found independently. Source.

Works Cited

Carroll, Linda. “Marijuana’s Effects: More Than Munchies.” New York Times 22 Jan. 2008.

“872,721 marijuana arrests in 2007, up 5.2% from 2006.” NORML. 15 Sept. 2008. NORML. 22 Oct. 2008 .

Fountain, Henry. “Marijuana Ingredient May Fight Bacteria.” New York Times 5 Sept. 2008: F3.

“Info Facts – Marijuana.” National Institute of Drug Abuse. June 2008. National Institute of Drug Abuse. 22 Oct. 2008.

Kirchheimer, Sid. “Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn’t Damage Brain.” WebMD. 1 July 2003. WebMD. 22 Oct. 2008 .

October 3, 2009 – Yesterday, on the Today show, Matt Lauer interviewed the editor of Marie Claire magazine and another woman about the use of marijuana among female professionals. This interview was inspired by an article on the same subject in the current issue of Marie Claire entitled, “Stiletto Stoners.”

Neither the interview nor the story contained any serious “reefer madness” claims, as mainstream articles about marijuana use usually do. Rather, these were straightforward conversations about women who simply use marijuana at the end of the day to unwind and relax, either by themselves or with their friends or families.

Interestingly, there was a common theme running through all of the interviews in the article and on the Today show: these women not only enjoy using marijuana, but they consistently described it as a preferred alternative to alcohol. In a sense, they were saying, “Society accepts that people are going to have a drink — or many drinks — after work to unwind. I don’t want to do what society suggests I do. I find marijuana to be a more enjoyable and less detrimental alternative, and that it is why I use it instead.”

It is hard to overstate the importance of this burgeoning “Stiletto Stoner” movement. Of course, for decades there have been hard-working professionals who would hit a joint or a bong after work or on the weekend. Perhaps you knew people like this yourself, but considered them to be more of an exception to the rule. Or you thought they were hiding some “dirty little secret.” Maybe you had your own dirty little secret.

The zeitgeist-shifting aspect of this media coverage is not simply that these women are “coming out of the closet” — although that is great on its own; it is that they are uniformly asserting their desire to use marijuana instead of alcohol because of its relative benefits. One woman noted that she feels better the next morning when she uses marijuana instead of alcohol; another mentioned that marijuana is cheaper than alcohol.

You see, if we are going to change marijuana laws in this country, we need the public to see marijuana for what it is: a relatively benign intoxicant that millions of Americans use instead of alcohol for recreation and relaxation.

As things stand, despite the fact that marijuana is objectively less harmful than alcohol, we steer people toward alcohol instead. We do it through our laws, as well as through employment policies and professional licensing standards. The disincentives to using marijuana openly, in a manner similar to alcohol, are evident in the Marie Claire article itself. The women in that piece may have come out of the closet, but they did so using fake names. And the “stiletto stoner” interviewed on the Today show did so in the dark to conceal her identity.

It is time for people to stand up and defend the right of all Americans to use marijuana instead of alcohol, if that is what they prefer. That is the underlying motivation behind Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?, a book I co-authored with Steve Fox of the Marijuana Policy Project and Paul Armentano of NORML. The book not only includes background information about marijuana and alcohol, but also includes talking points useful in convincing friends and family members that people should not be punished for making the safer choice.

Whether you are a stiletto stoner, briefcase bong-hitter, or sympathetic abstainer, it is time to bring this entire conversation out of the shadows. Thanks to Marie Claire and the Today show for getting this ball rolling. Now, let’s keep the momentum going.

Mason Tvert is the executive director of Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER) and the co-author of Marijuana is Safer: So why are we driving people to drink? (Chelsea Green, August 2009).

Source.

September 29, 2009 – The National Institute of Drug Abuse has set aside $3,000,000 to “support research studies that focus on the identification, and preclinical and clinical evaluation, of medications that can be safe and effective for the treatment of cannabis-use and cannabis-induced DISORDERS, as well as their medical and psychiatric consequences.”

They state “Cannabis-related disorders (CRDs) including cannabis abuse or dependence and cannabis induced disorders (e.g., intoxication, delirium, psychotic disorder, and anxiety disorder) are a major public health issue. Cannabis use includes marijuana, hashish, and other tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) containing substances.”

Looks like they are going to spend 3 million dollars creating a drug to heal the DISORDERS created by the best drug the planet ever gave us. It seems we have to keep Big Pharma happy…at whatever cost, and that means we need to turn cannabis use into a major public health issue. Source

Once again, NOT the change people voted for.

Write to the President:

Write to your representatives:

Today is the day that Ontario announces new requirements for setbacks etc for industrial wind turbine installations.

More later…

Since the onset of the health and structural effects being caused by the suspect Chinese drywall in many US homes, legislators are working hard to organize solutions and find answers.

As of September 11, 2009, the commission has received 1,192 incident reports about drywall from 24 states. Florida holds the highest number of complaints, followed by Louisiana and Virginia.

New Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman Inez Tenenbaum said her agency hopes to issue a report on indoor air quality and health assessments in homes with Chinese drywall in late October.

Recently an internal commission task force made an investigative trip to China to meet with industry and government officials. Details of their investigation are yet to be reported.

Currently there is no official ban on the product in the US, but the public and industry awareness alone from the publicity Chinese drywall has stirred, has all but stopped it from being ordered, used and imported. Once all agency’s investigations have been conducted, measures may be taken to ban the product entirely.

The investigative task force put together by Tenenbaum has conducted air sampling field work in 50 homes and hopes to release a report by late October with initial air sampling test results and a preliminary health assessment.

Special attention is being given to this issue in the House. “It’s making many families in Florida sick. Families should not have to worry that building materials in their homes emit toxic fumes”, said Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Tampa.

In conclusion, there is no conclusions yet! The legal, legislative and agency processes ARE hard at work to provide the people with answers and solutions. In October we will no more, and which way this issue is headed. Stay tuned to our blog!

Jamie Bullock

The Burish & Serena Team

www.USA-FloridaHomes.net

A friend who lives in the Grey Highlands area of Ontario and who works in Shelburne sent us a copy of an ad that appeared in the local weekly paper. Titled: “Guess what wind power opponents? ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’ doesn’t exist” the ad copy then goes on to say that the British National Health Service (NHS) had reviewed the work of Dr Nina Pierpont and concluded that there is “no conclusive evidence that wind turbines have an effect on health or are causing the set of symptoms described here as ‘wind turbine syndrome’. The study design was weak, the study was small, and there was no comparison group.”

In fact, the NHS Knowledge Services group did say this in an article on their news website, BUT they also acknowledge that Dr Pierpont herself confirms this was only a preliminary study done to indicate the need for further work, which the NHS agreed with. The NHS went on to say “It is physically and biologically plausible that low frequency noise generated by wind turbines can affect people.” They also describe what they would like to see in future studies.

Which begs the question, who exactly are the “Ontario Highlands Friends of Wind Power”? Who can afford weekly display ads in the paper, and who has the resources to create an artfully amateur-looking website at www.windisgood.ca? Turns out, the “Friends” is one Robert Knox, who has been involved in wind energy development since the late 1990s, and who is behind the original development in the Shelburne/Melancthon area. (This is the area where 12 homeowners were recently bought out by the power authority and forced to sign agreements that they would not speak about the terms of their deals.)

On his website, Knox loves to quote David Suzuki as a proponent of wind power, but once again, he is cleverly excerpting to his advantage. On the subject of wind power generation Dr Suzuki has insisted: “…wind farms, like any development, need to be sited properly and appropriately. Environmental assessments must be conducted and wind farms placed in areas where they can have the greatest positive effect with the smallest environmental footprint. After all,the whole point of clean energy is to reduce our environmental burden not make it worse.” (Suzuki Foundation, May 13, 2005)

Mr Knox is still working toward developments in the Dundalk area of Ontario. He’s out to save the world, he says, from people who object to wind developments because they are thinking “local” not global. (Read more about Robert Knox here: http://www.meafordexpress.com/meafordexpress/article/134727)

Again to North Gower: the benefits are going to the wind development company and the associated landowner; North Gower is not an area of very significant wind potential; the proposed development is adjacent to a number of homes and in fact will affect almost every resident of the village in some way; health effects of the constant noise and vibration have not been adequately explored; and the cost-benefit analysis of wind power generation do not indicate that the expense is worth it.

Like we have said, it’s worth it to somebody, but not the citizens of North Gower or of Ottawa, or Ontario.

Tim Hudak, newly minted leader on the Ontario Conservative party, is finding his political footing and developing his stance on policy issues. Just a few days ago, he said he thought the current government is wasting its time on “green” energy alternatives. Here’s the story from the Niagara Falls Review.

“It’s an affordable, reliable and emissions-free source of electricity,” Hudak said during a speech to the Ontario Energy Association’s annual conference at a Niagara Falls hotel Thursday.

Earlier this year, the Liberals suspended the process for building a new nuclear generator.

Hudak, the Niagara MPP who replaced John Tory as Conservative leader in June, said his party is starting now to develop its energy policy for the 2011 election. He warned that Liberal energy policy has been based on the party’s loyalty to special-interest groups more than on fact. “We can’t afford to let politically motivated decisions derail long-term planning in the energy sector any longer,” Hudak said.

Since 2003, Ontario’s Liberals have made the harnessing of hydroelectricity and wind power, as well as conservation measures the hallmarks of their plan to keep the lights on in Ontario.

“The sun does not always shine. The wind does not always blow. Accordingly, we cannot pursue green-energy policy at any price,” Hudak said. (c) Niagara Falls Review, 2009

September 16, 2009 – The more research they do, the more evidence Ohio State University scientists find that specific elements of marijuana can be good for the aging brain by reducing inflammation there and possibly even stimulating the formation of new brain cells.

The research suggests that the development of a legal drug that contains certain properties similar to those in marijuana might help prevent or delay the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. Though the exact cause of Alzheimer’s remains unknown, chronic inflammation in the brain is believed to contribute to memory impairment.

Any new drug’s properties would resemble those of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the main psychoactive substance in the cannabis plant, but would not share its high-producing effects. THC joins nicotine, alcohol and caffeine as agents that, in moderation, have shown some protection against inflammation in the brain that might translate to better memory late in life.

“It’s not that everything immoral is good for the brain. It’s just that there are some substances that millions of people for thousands of years have used in billions of doses, and we’re noticing there’s a little signal above all the noise,” said Gary Wenk, professor of psychology at Ohio State and principal investigator on the research.

Wenk’s work has already shown that a THC-like synthetic drug can improve memory in animals. Now his team is trying to find out exactly how it works in the brain.

The most recent research on rats indicates that at least three receptors in the brain are activated by the synthetic drug, which is similar to marijuana. These receptors are proteins within the brain’s endocannabinoid system, which is involved in memory as well as physiological processes associated with appetite, mood and pain response.

This research is also showing that receptors in this system can influence brain inflammation and the production of new neurons, or brain cells.

“When we’re young, we reproduce neurons and our memory works fine. When we age, the process slows down, so we have a decrease in new cell formation in normal aging. You need those cells to come back and help form new memories, and we found that this THC-like agent can influence creation of those cells,” said Yannick Marchalant, a study coauthor and research assistant professor of psychology at Ohio State.

Marchalant described the research in a poster presentation Wednesday (11/19) at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Washington, D.C.

Knowing exactly how any of these compounds work in the brain can make it easier for drug designers to target specific systems with agents that will offer the most effective anti-aging benefits, said Wenk, who is also a professor of neuroscience and molecular virology, immunology and medical genetics.

“Could people smoke marijuana to prevent Alzheimer’s disease if the disease is in their family? We’re not saying that, but it might actually work. What we are saying is it appears that a safe, legal substance that mimics those important properties of marijuana can work on receptors in the brain to prevent memory impairments in aging. So that’s really hopeful,” Wenk said.

One thing is clear from the studies: Once memory impairment is evident, the treatment is not effective. Reducing inflammation and preserving or generating neurons must occur before the memory loss is obvious, Wenk said.

Marchalant led a study on old rats using the synthetic drug, called WIN-55212-2 (WIN), which is not used in humans because of its high potency to induce psychoactive effects.

The researchers used a pump under the skin to give the rats a constant dose of WIN for three weeks – a dose low enough to induce no psychoactive effects on the animals. A control group of rats received no intervention. In follow-up memory tests, in which rats were placed in a small swimming pool to determine how well they use visual cues to find a platform hidden under the surface of the water, the treated rats did better than the control rats in learning and remembering how to find the hidden platform.

“Old rats are not very good at that task. They can learn, but it takes them more time to find the platform. When we gave them the drug, it made them a little better at that task,” Marchalant said.

In some rats, Marchalant combined the WIN with compounds that are known to block specific receptors, which then offers hints at which receptors WIN is activating. The results indicated the WIN lowered the rats’ brain inflammation in the hippocampus by acting on what is called the TRPV1 receptor. The hippocampus is responsible for short-term memory.

With the same intervention technique, the researchers also determined that WIN acts on receptors known as CB1 and CB2, leading to the generation of new brain cells – a process known as neurogenesis. Those results led the scientists to speculate that the combination of lowered inflammation and neurogenesis is the reason the rats’ memory improved after treatment with WIN.

The researchers are continuing to study the endocannabinoid system’s role in regulating inflammation and neuron development. They are trying to zero in on the receptors that must be activated to produce the most benefits from any newly developed drug.

What they already know is THC alone isn’t the answer.

“The end goal is not to recommend the use of THC in humans to reduce Alzheimer’s,” Marchalant said. “We need to find exactly which receptors are most crucial, and ideally lead to the development of drugs that specifically activate those receptors. We hope a compound can be found that can target both inflammation and neurogenesis, which would be the most efficient way to produce the best effects.”

Source: Ohio State University

This article reprinted in full with permission from the 3 Monkeys Guide to Health. The original article can be found here:

September 15, 2009 – The politics and policies of drug prohibition are a failure primarily because they are not effective in actually prohibiting people from obtaining and using drugs, and also because the evidence supporting those policies are weak.

Here are a few rebuttals to the main arguments used in favor of prohibition.

Argument 1: The fact that drugs are illegal keeps many people from trying them, and out of harm’s way. Legalization now would contribute to many more people using drugs.

In the UK, as in many countries, the real clampdown on drugs started in the late 1960s, yet government statistics show that the number of heroin or cocaine addicts seen by the health service has grown ever since – from around 1000 people per year then, to 100,000 today. It is a pattern that has been repeated the world over.

Argument 2: If current policies are not successful at prohibition, stricter policies should be enacted.

A second approach to the question is to look at whether fewer people use drugs in countries with stricter drug laws. In 2008, the World Health Organization looked at 17 countries and found no such correlation. The US, despite its punitive drug policies, has one of the highest levels of drug use in the world (PLoS Medicine, vol 5, p e141).

Argument 3: A halfway approach, which would decriminalize possession of drugs, is doomed to fail since the lack of effective punishment will encourage more people to try drugs.

While dealing remains illegal in Portugal, personal use of all drugs has been decriminalised. The result? Drug use has stayed roughly constant, but ill health and deaths from drug taking have fallen. “Judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalisation framework has been a resounding success,” states a recent report by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC.

The Law Of Unintended Consequences comes into play as a result of prohibitionist policies. Black market items are generally very profitable, and young people may get sucked in with dreams of fast cash. Ironically, prohibition is often sold as being “for the children”.

Most drug trafficking happens through large criminal enterprises, which are also involved in murder, corruption, and kidnapping. Nearly 4,000 people have been killed this year (so far) in Mexico’s drug wars.

So what’s the alternative? There are several models for the legal provision of recreational drugs. They include prescription by doctors, consumption at licensed premises or even sale on a similar basis to alcohol and tobacco, with health warnings and age limits. If this prospect appals you, consider the fact that in the US today, many teenagers say they find it easier to buy cannabis than beer.

Accusations of evidence suppression happen everywhere, from Big Tobacco to Big Pharma, and it is rightly shocking when lives are at stake. Why are citizens willing to elect and re-elect politicians who enact policies running contrary to evidence sometimes composed by Big Government itself? Aren’t lives at stake here too?

In 1944, Mayor LaGuardia commissioned a report which was titled “The Marihuana Problem in the City of New York”. The report was written up by the New York Academy of Medicine.

This study is viewed by many experts as the best study of any drug viewed in its social, medical, and legal context. The committee covered thousands of years of the history of marijuana and also made a detailed examination of conditions In New York City. Among its conclusions: “The practice of smoking marihuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word.” And: “The use of marihuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction, and no effort is made to create a market for those narcotics by stimulating the practice of marihuana smoking.” Finally: “The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marihuana smoking in New York City is unfounded.”

A primer on the issues at play here and a must read is The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, by Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine.

The recommendations in this report included:
# Stop emphasizing measures designed to keep drugs away from people.
# Stop increasing the damage done by drugs.
# Stop misclassifying drugs.
# Stop viewing the drug problem as primarily a national problem, to be solved on a national scale.
# Stop pursuing the goal of stamping out illicit drug use.
# Consumers Union recommends the immediate repeal of all federal laws governing the growing, processing, transportation, sale, possession, and use of marijuana.
# Consumers Union recommends that each of the fifty states similarly repeal its existing marijuana laws and pass new laws legalizing the cultivation, processing, and orderly marketing of marijuana-subject to appropriate regulations.
# Consumers Union recommends that state and federal taxes on marijuana be kept moderate, and that tax proceeds be devoted primarily to drug research, drug education, and other measures specifically designed to minimize the damage done by alcohol, nicotine, marijuana. heroin, and other drugs.
# Consumers Union recommends an immediate end to imprisonment as a punishment for marijuana possession and for furnishing marijuana to friends.*
# Consumers Union recommends, pending legalization of marijuana, that marijuana possession and sharing be immediately made civil violations rather than criminal acts.
# Consumers Union recommends that those now serving prison terms for possession of or sharing marijuana be set free, and that such marijuana offenses be expunged from all legal records.

There are many more major studies of drugs and drug policy like the above two available for free from the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy.

Unfortunately, the idea that banning drugs is the best way to protect vulnerable people – especially children – has acquired a strong emotional grip, one that politicians are happy to exploit. For many decades, laws and public policy have flown in the face of the evidence. Far from protecting us, this approach has made the world a much more dangerous place than it need be. Source.

Effect of caffeine

Caffeine is a substance that provides a series of stimulating effects, which depend to a greater or lesser extent on the individual characteristics of each person:

* Reduces feelings of fatigue and sleepiness.
* Increases mental processing capacity.
* Increases coronary flow and exerts a vasodilator action.
* It stimulates gastric acid secretion.
* Has a strong diuretic effect.

Interestingly, the speed with which the body absorbs the caffeine varies greatly depending on the person. On average, our body absorbs the caffeine within 3 hours but this margin may vary depending on alcohol consumption, taking contraceptives or pregnancy. However, advisable to consult a specialist if in doubt.

Although caffeine has been attributed to a number of adverse health effects, with current scientific knowledge, we can say categorically that moderate coffee consumption in healthy people, three to four cups, depending on the type of coffee, is perfectly acceptable. Thus, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of United States in 1958 ranked as the caffeine as a substance generally recognized as safe and in 1987 reaffirmed its position that normal caffeine intake, the order of 300 mg / day healthy adults, no risk to health.

The process of decaffeination of green coffee is the elimination of caffeine in coffee. Nestlé is confident in its own natural decaffeination process based on the use of water as a means to solubilize the caffeine while preserving all the aroma and flavor.

This process involves the extraction of caffeine from green coffee with water and final drying until a moisture content equal to the origin of green coffee. This process ensures a minimum content of caffeine and keep all their aromatic properties.

For those who can not tolerate caffeine, we recommend you enjoy a good cup of decaffeinated coffee, instant or roasted.

There is a very little town in one of the windiest portions of the state of Missouri, itself a fairly windy state, that is the US’ first wind-powered municipality.

Worth looking at, and comparing to the proposal for North Gower.

Stats: population just over 1300 over 488 square miles.

Number of wind turbines: 4, at 250 feet tall each

Capacity: 1.25 megawatt

Production: 13 million kwh (what Rockport needs–extra is sold to the power authority)

Location: on agricultural land in the Loess Hills, several km away from the actual town.

North Gower: somewhat larger population at about 2,000. Proposal is for a possible 13 turbines at 626 feet tall, 2 megawatt capacity, minimum setback is 550 meters

So, Rockport demonstrates the usefulness of wind energy and at the same time, ethical placement of the turbines.

See photo below, of three of their four turbines.

No houses!