Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
RainDog
RainDog's Journal
RainDog's Journal
October 26, 2013
FDA Approves Investigational Trials Assessing Cannabidiol for Pediatric Epilepsy
It looks like Sanjay Gupta's report on the medical benefits of cannabis for one particular devastating form of epilepsy has helped to fast track a study at the FDA - or at least make their refusal unconscionable.
http://www.pharmacychoice.com/news/article.cfm?Article_ID=1120411
Oct. 24th -
The US Food and Drug Administration has approved (http://www.beyondthc.com/comes-now-epidiolex-fda-approves-ind-studies-of-cbd/) two clinical trials to assess the efficacy of cannabidiol (http://blog.norml.org/2008/10/09/is-there-anything-cbd-cant-do-then-why-is-it-illegal/) (CBD), a nonpsychoactive plant cannabinoid, in the treatment of intractable pediatric epilepsy. The two approved trials will take place at New York Medical School and at the University of California at San Francisco, according to an online report in the journal O'Shaughnessy's. (http://www.beyondthc.com/about/) The cannabidiol formulations in the trials will be provided by British biotechnology firm GW Pharmaceuticals, (http://www.gwpharm.com/) which produces organic cannabinoid extract medicines, including Sativex.( http://www.gwpharm.com/Sativex.aspx)
Cannabidiol has been documented to possess a variety (http://projectcbd.org/) of therapeutic properties in preclinical models, including anti-epileptic activity. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22696383) Clinical trials have shown the oral administration of CBD to be "safe and well tolerated" (http://blog.norml.org/2012/09/05/study-non-psychotropic-cannabinoid-proven-to-be-safe-in-humans/) in healthy subjects.
In recent months, several national broadcasts have highlighted (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/) the use of CBD-rich oils to treat seizures associated with a pediatric form of intractable epilepsy known as Dravet Syndrome.
October 25, 2013
Marijuana Compounds Can Kill Some Cancer Cells: Study
Studies continue to indicate anti-cancer properties for cannabinoids. Again, this is not about smoking cannabis, but about moving cannabis from a Schedule I designation so that more studies on the potential medical uses for cannabinoids can proceed without interference from drug warriors who have a stake in protecting turf, not scientific and medical inquiry.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/marijuana-cancer_n_4158865.html
A scientist in the United Kingdom has found that compounds derived from marijuana can kill cancerous cells found in people with leukemia, a form of cancer that is expected to cause an estimated 24,000 deaths in the United States this year.
"Cannabinoids have a complex action; it hits a number of important processes that cancers need to survive," study author Dr. Wai Liu, an oncologist at the University of London's St. George medical school, told The Huffington Post. "For that reason, it has really good potential over other drugs that only have one function. I am impressed by its activity profile, and feel it has a great future, especially if used with standard chemotherapies."
During the study, Liu and his team grew leukemia cells in a lab and cultured them with increasing doses of the six pure cannabinoids, both individually and in combination with each other. His study says the six cannabinoids were CBD (Cannabidiol), CBDA (Cannabidiolic acid), CBG (Cannbigerol), CBGA (Cannabigerolic acid), CBGV (Cannabigevarin) and CBGVA (Cannabigevaric acid). Liu and his team then assessed the viability of the leukemia cells and determined whether or not the cannabinoids destroyed the cells or stopped them from growing.
..."Cancer is an umbrella term for a range of diseases that fundamentally differ in their cellular makeup, [and] which occur as a result of disturbances to growth controls," Liu said. "Chemotherapy works by disrupting these dysfunctional growth signals. Therefore, any cancers that have these profiles should respond to the chemotherapy. It just so happens that a number of cannabinoids can target these very same mechanisms that make cancer what it is, and so any cancer that exhibits these faults should respond well to cannabinoids. The flip side is, of course, that other cancers may not have these same genetic faults and so cannabinoids may not work as well."
"Cannabinoids have a complex action; it hits a number of important processes that cancers need to survive," study author Dr. Wai Liu, an oncologist at the University of London's St. George medical school, told The Huffington Post. "For that reason, it has really good potential over other drugs that only have one function. I am impressed by its activity profile, and feel it has a great future, especially if used with standard chemotherapies."
During the study, Liu and his team grew leukemia cells in a lab and cultured them with increasing doses of the six pure cannabinoids, both individually and in combination with each other. His study says the six cannabinoids were CBD (Cannabidiol), CBDA (Cannabidiolic acid), CBG (Cannbigerol), CBGA (Cannabigerolic acid), CBGV (Cannabigevarin) and CBGVA (Cannabigevaric acid). Liu and his team then assessed the viability of the leukemia cells and determined whether or not the cannabinoids destroyed the cells or stopped them from growing.
..."Cancer is an umbrella term for a range of diseases that fundamentally differ in their cellular makeup, [and] which occur as a result of disturbances to growth controls," Liu said. "Chemotherapy works by disrupting these dysfunctional growth signals. Therefore, any cancers that have these profiles should respond to the chemotherapy. It just so happens that a number of cannabinoids can target these very same mechanisms that make cancer what it is, and so any cancer that exhibits these faults should respond well to cannabinoids. The flip side is, of course, that other cancers may not have these same genetic faults and so cannabinoids may not work as well."
October 23, 2013
This article reminded me of the head of the IMF who recently proposed (SHOCK) that multinationals should be taxed.
Yes, the head of one of the most influential economic agencies in the world said every nation should tax the rich.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/tax-rich-imf-report-shocks-establishm
I would say this was a eulogy for Reaganomics.
Tax discussions without revenue from wealth comes from zombies.
Ending Extreme Poverty is a Matter of Political Will
http://washingtonspectator.org/index.php/Economics/do-we-need-another-rolls-royce-showroom.html#.UmhfbJSidnHThe new data from the Swiss banking giant Credit Suisse put the world’s total personal wealth, as of this past June, at $241 trillion, an all-time record. The world’s richest 1 percent currently hold 46 percent of global assets. The poorest half of global adults hold less than 1 percent.
About 1.2 billion people in the world today live on less than $1.25 a day, a state of affairs that researchers define as “extreme poverty.” Only 26 percent of these extremely poor have access to clean water, only 49 percent access to electricity.
“If we had a magic wand and could perfectly target every extremely poor individual,” World Bank researchers note, the world would need “approximately $169 billion per year” to end extreme poverty.
A graduated wealth tax that averaged 0.5 percent on all personal wealth over $1 million would raise about $500 billion annually, nearly triple the $169 billion needed to lift every soul on the planet out of extreme poverty.
About 1.2 billion people in the world today live on less than $1.25 a day, a state of affairs that researchers define as “extreme poverty.” Only 26 percent of these extremely poor have access to clean water, only 49 percent access to electricity.
“If we had a magic wand and could perfectly target every extremely poor individual,” World Bank researchers note, the world would need “approximately $169 billion per year” to end extreme poverty.
A graduated wealth tax that averaged 0.5 percent on all personal wealth over $1 million would raise about $500 billion annually, nearly triple the $169 billion needed to lift every soul on the planet out of extreme poverty.
This article reminded me of the head of the IMF who recently proposed (SHOCK) that multinationals should be taxed.
Yes, the head of one of the most influential economic agencies in the world said every nation should tax the rich.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/tax-rich-imf-report-shocks-establishm
Tax the rich and better target the multinationals: The IMF has set off shockwaves this week in Washington by suggesting countries fight budget deficits by raising taxes.
Tucked inside a report on public debt, the new tack was mostly eclipsed by worries about the US budget crisis, but did not escape the notice of experts and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
Guardian of financial orthodoxy, the International Monetary Fund, which is holding its annual meetings with the World Bank this week in the US capital, typically calls for nations in difficulty to slash public spending to reduce their deficits.
But in its Fiscal Monitor report, subtitled "Taxing Times", the Fund advanced the idea of taxing the highest-income people and their assets to reinforce the legitimacy of spending cuts and fight against growing income inequalities.
Tucked inside a report on public debt, the new tack was mostly eclipsed by worries about the US budget crisis, but did not escape the notice of experts and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
Guardian of financial orthodoxy, the International Monetary Fund, which is holding its annual meetings with the World Bank this week in the US capital, typically calls for nations in difficulty to slash public spending to reduce their deficits.
But in its Fiscal Monitor report, subtitled "Taxing Times", the Fund advanced the idea of taxing the highest-income people and their assets to reinforce the legitimacy of spending cuts and fight against growing income inequalities.
I would say this was a eulogy for Reaganomics.
Tax discussions without revenue from wealth comes from zombies.
October 21, 2013
This aligns with the reality that Americans are more liberal than politicians realize. The Republicans really overshot their assumptions - or they just simply lied, like when Cruz said he polls showed support for his action.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/101674947
53% either support the ACA or say it's not liberal enough
http://freakoutnation.com/2013/10/21/53-percent-either-support-obamacare-or-say-its-not-liberal-enough-majority-want-john-boehner-replaced/A few excerpts to savor via CNN:
“According to the poll, just more than four in 10 say they favor the law, with 56% opposed to it. But of those opposed, 38% say they are against the law because they think it’s too liberal and 12% say it’s not liberal enough. That means that 53% either support Obamacare, or say it’s not liberal enough.
“We fought the good fight. We just didn’t win,” Boehner said at the end of the shutdown. And while he received a standing ovation at a closed gathering of House Republicans as the crisis came to a close, he may not see anything to applaud in the new poll.
“John Boehner fares just as badly as the GOP,” CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. “Sixty-three percent of all Americans think that Boehner should be replaced as Speaker of the House, a view shared by roughly half of all Republicans.”
The survey indicates that the approval rating for Congress remains near an all-time low. Only 12% of those questioned say they approve of the job Congress is doing, just two points higher than the historic low in CNN polling. And 86% give federal lawmakers a thumbs-down, also near the all-time high.
“According to the poll, just more than four in 10 say they favor the law, with 56% opposed to it. But of those opposed, 38% say they are against the law because they think it’s too liberal and 12% say it’s not liberal enough. That means that 53% either support Obamacare, or say it’s not liberal enough.
“We fought the good fight. We just didn’t win,” Boehner said at the end of the shutdown. And while he received a standing ovation at a closed gathering of House Republicans as the crisis came to a close, he may not see anything to applaud in the new poll.
“John Boehner fares just as badly as the GOP,” CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. “Sixty-three percent of all Americans think that Boehner should be replaced as Speaker of the House, a view shared by roughly half of all Republicans.”
The survey indicates that the approval rating for Congress remains near an all-time low. Only 12% of those questioned say they approve of the job Congress is doing, just two points higher than the historic low in CNN polling. And 86% give federal lawmakers a thumbs-down, also near the all-time high.
This aligns with the reality that Americans are more liberal than politicians realize. The Republicans really overshot their assumptions - or they just simply lied, like when Cruz said he polls showed support for his action.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/101674947
When we compare what legislators believe their constituents want to their constituents’ actual views, we discover that politicians hold remarkably inaccurate perceptions. Pick an American state legislator at random, and chances are that he or she will have massive misperceptions about district views on big-ticket issues, typically missing the mark by 15 percentage points.
What is more, the mistakes legislators make tend to fall in one direction, giving U.S. politics a rightward tilt compared to what most voters say they want. As the following figures show, legislators usually believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are. Our attitude measurements are most accurate on the questions about same sex marriage and universal health insurance – and in both instances the legislators’ guesses about their constituents’ views were 15-20 percent more conservative, on average, than the true public support for same-sex marriage or universal health care present in their districts.
Our study also found that politicians don’t learn in the normal course of events. After November 2012, we posed the same questions again to some candidates. Even after conducting campaigns and seeing the results, politicians did not arrive at more accurate perceptions of constituent views—not even those who had spent more time talking to voters. Much remains to be learned about why U.S. legislators think constituents are more conservative than they truly are, but researchers have found that politically active citizens tend to be wealthier and more conservative than others. Politicians who want to represent all the people in their districts need to keep this in mind.
What is more, the mistakes legislators make tend to fall in one direction, giving U.S. politics a rightward tilt compared to what most voters say they want. As the following figures show, legislators usually believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are. Our attitude measurements are most accurate on the questions about same sex marriage and universal health insurance – and in both instances the legislators’ guesses about their constituents’ views were 15-20 percent more conservative, on average, than the true public support for same-sex marriage or universal health care present in their districts.
Our study also found that politicians don’t learn in the normal course of events. After November 2012, we posed the same questions again to some candidates. Even after conducting campaigns and seeing the results, politicians did not arrive at more accurate perceptions of constituent views—not even those who had spent more time talking to voters. Much remains to be learned about why U.S. legislators think constituents are more conservative than they truly are, but researchers have found that politically active citizens tend to be wealthier and more conservative than others. Politicians who want to represent all the people in their districts need to keep this in mind.
October 21, 2013
So, how is the Republican Party going to handle the very real threat of another shut down confrontation in January? If they let the right wing run wild, they are going to destroy their party.
Reaping/sowing, etc. Republicans...
NEW CNN poll - Majority do not want Republicans in control of House
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/21/politics/cnn-poll-gop-boehner-shutdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t1...more than half the public says that it's bad for the country that the GOP controls the House of Representatives, according to a new national poll conducted after the end of the partial government shutdown.
...The poll was conducted Friday through Sunday, just after the end of the 16-day partial federal government shutdown that was caused in part by a push by House conservatives to try and dismantle the health care law, which is President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement.
According to the survey, 54% say it's a bad thing that the GOP controls the House, up 11 points from last December, soon after the 2012 elections when the Republicans kept control of the chamber. Only 38% say it's a good thing the GOP controls the House, a 13-point dive from the end of last year.
...The poll was conducted Friday through Sunday, just after the end of the 16-day partial federal government shutdown that was caused in part by a push by House conservatives to try and dismantle the health care law, which is President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement.
According to the survey, 54% say it's a bad thing that the GOP controls the House, up 11 points from last December, soon after the 2012 elections when the Republicans kept control of the chamber. Only 38% say it's a good thing the GOP controls the House, a 13-point dive from the end of last year.
So, how is the Republican Party going to handle the very real threat of another shut down confrontation in January? If they let the right wing run wild, they are going to destroy their party.
Reaping/sowing, etc. Republicans...
October 13, 2013
The IMF is speaking out against the Republican Party. While in D.C.
IMF suggests nations tax the rich to lower deficits
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/11/international-monetary-fund-strongly-suggests-countries-tax-the-rich-to-fix-deficit/Tax the rich and better target the multinationals: The IMF has set off shockwaves this week in Washington by suggesting countries fight budget deficits by raising taxes.
“We had to read it twice to be sure we had really understood it,” said Nicolas Mombrial, the head of Oxfam in Washington. “It’s rare that IMF proposals are so surprising.”
Guardian of financial orthodoxy, the International Monetary Fund, which is holding its annual meetings with the World Bank this week in the US capital, typically calls for nations in difficulty to slash public spending to reduce their deficits.
But in its Fiscal Monitor report, subtitled “Taxing Times”, the Fund advanced the idea of taxing the highest-income people and their assets to reinforce the legitimacy of spending cuts and fight against growing income inequalities.
The IMF is speaking out against the Republican Party. While in D.C.
October 7, 2013
h/t to boing boing - http://boingboing.net/2013/10/07/tsa-may-allow-in-flight-mariju.html?utm_content=buffereb3dd&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Buffer
TSA may allow legal mj on legal-to-legal flights
http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/10/tsa-may-allow-marijuana-on-plane/It’s never technically altogether legal to fly on commercial airlines with weed because the airports all fall under federal jurisdiction, and marijuana is still illegal under federal law. However, TSA policy and anecdotal reports suggest that passengers who travel between states in which they can legally use pot are likely to be allowed to fly.
The reason is that although TSA reserves the right to ruin your day if they so choose, their official policy on drugs is to refer them to local law enforcement. So if the passenger has authorization to use medical marijuana, or if he or she is flying between Washington and Colorado, where possession of the drug even for recreational purposes has been legalized, local law enforcement isn’t going to intervene.
According to a statement on the TSA web site:
The reason is that although TSA reserves the right to ruin your day if they so choose, their official policy on drugs is to refer them to local law enforcement. So if the passenger has authorization to use medical marijuana, or if he or she is flying between Washington and Colorado, where possession of the drug even for recreational purposes has been legalized, local law enforcement isn’t going to intervene.
According to a statement on the TSA web site:
TSA security officers do not search for marijuana or other drugs. In the event a substance that appears to be marijuana is observed during security screening, TSA will refer the matter to a law enforcement officer....
h/t to boing boing - http://boingboing.net/2013/10/07/tsa-may-allow-in-flight-mariju.html?utm_content=buffereb3dd&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Buffer
October 7, 2013
What's the difference between bribery and funding for politicians?
Since the Koch brothers' businessman's network worked with Republicans to create this current crisis, and since you can bet they are protecting their positions in regard to any economic fallout if (tho it seems like when) the House refuses to fund the govt. debt - which will have international repercussions...
anyway, members of the House can be impeached for bribery, treason, high crimes, etc...
why isn't it bribery when a small group of businessmen act in their interest to the detriment of the majority of the people of this nation?
Since bribery is defined as The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.
...
it seems that the way elections are funded are themselves bribery.
Can someone explain the difference between the current set up and bribery?
October 4, 2013
here's a non-pdf version - http://www.democracyjournal.org/arguments/2013/09/politicians-think-american-voters-are-more-conservative-than-they-really-are.php
When we compare what legislators believe their constituents want to their constituents’ actual views, we discover that politicians hold remarkably inaccurate perceptions. Pick an American state legislator at random, and chances are that he or she will have massive misperceptions about district views on big-ticket issues, typically missing the mark by 15 percentage points.
What is more, the mistakes legislators make tend to fall in one direction, giving U.S. politics a rightward tilt compared to what most voters say they want. As the following figures show, legislators usually believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are. Our attitude measurements are most accurate on the questions about same sex marriage and universal health insurance – and in both instances the legislators’ guesses about their constituents’ views were 15-20 percent more conservative, on average, than the true public support for same-sex marriage or universal health care present in their districts.
Our study also found that politicians don’t learn in the normal course of events. After November 2012, we posed the same questions again to some candidates. Even after conducting campaigns and seeing the results, politicians did not arrive at more accurate perceptions of constituent views—not even those who had spent more time talking to voters. Much remains to be learned about why U.S. legislators think constituents are more conservative than they truly are, but researchers have found that politically active citizens tend to be wealthier and more conservative than others. Politicians who want to represent all the people in their districts need to keep this in mind.
Our findings also suggest that progressive groups might be able to use a simple lobbying strategy—just let legislators know the truth about what their constituents think and want! Most of the time, legislators will discover that their constituents are more liberal than they suppose. Would that lead to policy change? It is an open question, but some research suggests that public opinion can influence what politicians do. Perhaps helping representatives perceive their constituents correctly could pave the way for public policies closer to what Americans really want.
Americans are more liberal than either Republican or Democratic pols realize
here's a non-pdf version - http://www.democracyjournal.org/arguments/2013/09/politicians-think-american-voters-are-more-conservative-than-they-really-are.php
When we compare what legislators believe their constituents want to their constituents’ actual views, we discover that politicians hold remarkably inaccurate perceptions. Pick an American state legislator at random, and chances are that he or she will have massive misperceptions about district views on big-ticket issues, typically missing the mark by 15 percentage points.
What is more, the mistakes legislators make tend to fall in one direction, giving U.S. politics a rightward tilt compared to what most voters say they want. As the following figures show, legislators usually believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are. Our attitude measurements are most accurate on the questions about same sex marriage and universal health insurance – and in both instances the legislators’ guesses about their constituents’ views were 15-20 percent more conservative, on average, than the true public support for same-sex marriage or universal health care present in their districts.
Our study also found that politicians don’t learn in the normal course of events. After November 2012, we posed the same questions again to some candidates. Even after conducting campaigns and seeing the results, politicians did not arrive at more accurate perceptions of constituent views—not even those who had spent more time talking to voters. Much remains to be learned about why U.S. legislators think constituents are more conservative than they truly are, but researchers have found that politically active citizens tend to be wealthier and more conservative than others. Politicians who want to represent all the people in their districts need to keep this in mind.
Our findings also suggest that progressive groups might be able to use a simple lobbying strategy—just let legislators know the truth about what their constituents think and want! Most of the time, legislators will discover that their constituents are more liberal than they suppose. Would that lead to policy change? It is an open question, but some research suggests that public opinion can influence what politicians do. Perhaps helping representatives perceive their constituents correctly could pave the way for public policies closer to what Americans really want.
September 13, 2013
Here we go...
D.C. Councilman to introduce mj legalization Sept. 17th
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/councilman-introduce-bill-legalizing-marijuana-article-1.1450972D.C. councilman David Grosso plans to introduce legislation Sept. 17 that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana in the city — with a dance with Mary Jane possibly replacing the played-out Potomac two-step.
"If we're going to have alcohol legal in this country, I don't see any reason why we couldn't have marijuana legal," Grosso said — bluntly.
The bill will outline a plan for regulating and taxing marijuana sales and create licensing requirements for the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration, Grosso told The Washington Times.
Grosso, who is still working on the bill, thinks a few attempts might be needed before the legislation passes, but hopes this first round will spark a debate.
"If we're going to have alcohol legal in this country, I don't see any reason why we couldn't have marijuana legal," Grosso said — bluntly.
The bill will outline a plan for regulating and taxing marijuana sales and create licensing requirements for the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration, Grosso told The Washington Times.
Grosso, who is still working on the bill, thinks a few attempts might be needed before the legislation passes, but hopes this first round will spark a debate.
Here we go...
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: 2002
Number of posts: 28,784
