Be Careful Not to Criminalize Fantasies

The power of fantasy lies in the capacity to explore, without restriction, the inner recesses and outer limits of our psyche. For many, it is enough to have the imaginary encounter, and it need never be breathed to another soul. For others, the desire to explore the fantasy takes hold and pushes us to seek like-minded explorers with whom we can share our innermost desires. In our everyday lives we are limited by morality, legality and prevailing social mores, but we are free to dive into rich and florid — or even lurid — fantasies safely in our minds.

For those who have explicit fantasies that seem outside of the sexual “norm,” there can be a great deal of shame and guilt associated with the exploration of these themes, even in the privacy of one’s own thoughts. Some shun these desires as “deviant” and seek to banish them. For others, the drive to manifest the fantasy is irresistible. The longing for validation can motivate people to overcome strict upbringings, banish guilt and shame, and find camaraderie. It can push them to find or create space where those desires won’t be judged, but instead shared. It can be an incredible relief to know you’re not “the only one” with your particular “kink.”

With negotiation and consent, it can be healthy to discuss and explore explicit fantasies that seem outside of the sexual norm.

Many people find such a safe space in an online community where all the participants share fantasies of extreme sexual adventure. The communities should be all about consent: all parties consent to be a part of the conversation, and, if there is any thought that the secret desire should manifest, consent must be explicit, ongoing and mutual.

Fantasizing is healthy. Talking about fantasies with others can be healthy. Negotiating and fulfilling fantasies with consenting parties can be healthy. None of this should be illegal. But planning to fulfill your fantasy upon an unwitting stranger without his or her consent has no place in the practice of consensual BDSM. Objectifying other human beings – making them the fodder for your fantasies – is not necessarily a violation of consent. However, if the fantasy is to manifest, mutual consent, negotiation and personal safety are of paramount importance.

Manifesting an “edgy” fantasy is something that is negotiated and proceeds only if all parties involved actively consent to participate. In the BDSM realm, the gray area between fantasy and reality is full of negotiation: mutual expression of desire, consent, agreements to terms of safety, arrangements for after-care, etc. For instance, if I have a fantasy of being overpowered and ravaged, it absolutely does not mean that I have a desire to be abducted and sexually assaulted by a stranger. That fantasy might simply be a daydream I use to explore my own private pleasure. And yes, I may even choose to explore it with another consenting partner. However, transparency in motive and careful negotiation of how to bring the fantasy to fruition is absolutely necessary.

By seeking out like-minded people online and offline, you increase the opportunity to bring a secret desire to reality – blissful, risky, exhilarating and healthy reality.

Mollena Williams, an alternative sexuality educator and blogger, is a co-author of “Playing Well With Others: Your Field Guide to Discovering, Exploring and Navigating the Kink, Leather and BDSM Communities.”

Danny Danko on CNBC talking facts and futures

On today’s episode of ‘Squawk on the Street’ on CNBC, HIGH TIMES senior cultivation editor Danny Danko spoke to the hosts about yesterday’s announcement that the federal government will respect states’ rights in relation to recreational and medical cannabis. Watch him discuss the potential economic impact, best practices and future of a budding (and progressively legal) industry.

 

http://www.hightimes.com/watch/danny-danko-talks-pots-potential-cnbc

LET FREEDOM RING…

The Federal Government is making their place clear (er). We are happy to read the following document released just today:

Click to access 3052013829132756857467.pdf

Our favorite line:

YEAH, YOU LIKELY MISUSED FEDERAL RESOURCES….just like we’ve yelled for decades now. END PROHIBITION.

Our heart goes out to all of our family members, friends and all beings who have been adversely effected by the misuse of the powers that be. Think of all the patients who needed this medicine, would’ve been cured, found comfort in the worst of times and appetite when going through the thick of it.

So many states have legalized….yet there are many more that need to get with the program. Ahem, Texas. (the place of Ganja Vibe‘s inception)

This fight will continue and if the truth shall set you free, then as GOD as my witness…..We Will Win!

Skeptics take note. To the commercial public,  the freedom fighters in our nation, who are ballsy enough to come out of the underground, are walking on water. We need you to WAKE UP.

Other related links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-administration-will-not-preempt-state-marijuana-laws–for-now/2013/08/29/b725bfd8-10bd-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboPN

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/justice-medical-marijuana-laws/2727605/

~ HeatherB

VICTORY! Harborside Health Center, World’s Largest Medical Pot Dispensary, Wins Battle To Avoid Shutdown

A federal magistrate on Monday ruled that the Harborside Health Center located in Oakland and San Jose, Calif., can continue to operate, despite a bid by federal prosecutors to shut it down. Harborside is widely considered the world’s largest medical cannabis dispensary.

The ruling comes as the latest move in a larger battle over the fate of medical marijuana dispensaries in California, where shops operating in full compliance with state law have come under pressure from the federal government.

Harborside’s landlords have called on the court to order an immediate halt of cannabis sales at their properties in Oakland and San Jose on the grounds that the activity is illegal under federal law. Meanwhile, the city of Oakland, which last year received more than $1 million in tax revenue from Harborside, has filed suit against the federal prosecutors to challenge the forfeiture action.

Chief Federal Magistrate Maria-Elena James ruled that it is the role of the government — not Harborside’s landlords — to determine whether the business should be shut down for its alleged violation of the Controlled Substances Act.

Landlords “are attempting to use a procedural rule in a civil forfeiture proceeding to bring what amounts to an enforcement action … against Harborside,” the 17-page ruling said. “This is a measure which the Government — the entity charged with enforcing the statute — has elected not to pursue.”

Judge James also declined to grant a motion from the City of Oakland to immediately prohibit the federal government’s legal efforts to close Harborside. A hearing is scheduled later this month to hear further arguments in the City of Oakland’s lawsuit.

Medical cannabis is currently legal in 18 states and the District of Columbia, but U.S. prosecutors have argued federal law — which forbids the substance — should take precedence.

Harborside’s lawyer, Henry Wykowski, underscored the importance of Monday’s decision.

“We are gratified that Judge James listened to and analyzed the parties’ arguments so thoroughly and has now rendered an opinion that will ensure Harborside has the right to present its case to a jury,” Wykowski said in a press release on Harborside’s website. “Despite the government’s efforts to shortcut the case, Harborside will now be able to fully defend itself at trial. That is all we had asked, and the court has now agreed. The stage is now set for a jury trial on the underlying issues of the litigation, which will probably take place in about one year.”



via Harborside Health Center, World’s Largest Medical Pot Dispensary, Wins Battle To Avoid Shutdown.

 

Medical Marijuana

This statement was adopted by the full Medical Board on May 7, 2004. For more information, please see our news release dated May 13, 2004.

On November 5, 1996, the people of California passed Proposition 215. Through this Initiative Measure, Section 11362.5 was added to the Health & Safety Code, and is also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The purposes of the Act include, in part:

“(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where the medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief; and

(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.”

Furthermore, Health & Safety Code section 11362.5(c) provides strong protection for physicians who choose to participate in the implementation of the Act. – “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.”

The Medical Board of California developed this statement since medical marijuana is an emerging treatment modality. The Medical Board wants to assure physicians who choose to recommend medical marijuana to their patients, as part of their regular practice of medicine, that they WILL NOT be subject to investigation or disciplinary action by the MBC if they arrive at the decision to make this recommendation in accordance with accepted standards of medical responsibility. The mere receipt of a complaint that the physician is recommending medical marijuana will not generate an investigation absent additional information indicating that the physician is not adhering to accepted medical standards.

These accepted standards are the same as any reasonable and prudent physician would follow when recommending or approving any other medication, and include the following:

History and an appropriate prior examination of the patient.
Development of a treatment plan with objectives.
Provision of informed consent including discussion of side effects.
Periodic review of the treatment’s efficacy.
Consultation, as necessary.
Proper record keeping that supports the decision to recommend the use of medical marijuana.
In other words, if physicians use the same care in recommending medical marijuana to patients as they would recommending or approving any other medication, they have nothing to fear from the Medical Board.

Here are some important points to consider when recommending medical marijuana:

Although it could trigger federal action, making a recommendation in writing to the patient will not trigger action by the Medical Board of California.
A patient need not have failed on all standard medications, in order for a physician to recommend or approve the use of medical marijuana.
The physician should determine that medical marijuana use is not masking an acute or treatable progressive condition, or that such use will lead to a worsening of the patient’s condition.
The Act names certain medical conditions for which medical marijuana may be useful, although physicians are not limited in their recommendations to those specific conditions. In all cases, the physician should base his/her determination on the results of clinical trials, if available, medical literature and reports, or on experience of that physician or other physicians, or on credible patient reports. In all cases, the physician must determine that the risk/benefit ratio of medical marijuana is as good, or better, than other medications that could be used for that individual patient.
A physician who is not the primary treating physician may still recommend medical marijuana for a patient’s symptoms. However, it is incumbent upon that physician to consult with the patient’s primary treating physician or obtain the appropriate patient records to confirm the patient’s underlying diagnosis and prior treatment history.
The initial examination for the condition for which medical marijuana is being recommended must be in-person.
Recommendations should be limited to the time necessary to appropriately monitor the patient. Periodic reviews should occur and be documented at least annually or more frequently as warranted.
If a physician recommends or approves the use of medical marijuana for a minor, the parents or legal guardians must be fully informed of the risks and benefits of such use and must consent to that use.
Physicians may wish to refer to the following CMA documents:

ON-CALL Document #1315 titled “The Compassionate Use Act of 1996”, updated annually for additional information and guidance – http://www.cmanet.org/bookstore/freeoncall2.cfm/CMAOnCall1315.pdf?call_number=1315&CFID=745764&CFTOKEN=27566287
“Physician Recommendation of Medical Cannabis”, Guidelines of the Council on Scientific Affairs Subcommittee on Medial Marijuana Practice Advisory – http://www.mbc.ca.gov/medical_marijuana_cma-recommend.pdf
Although the Compassionate Use Act allows the use of medical marijuana by a patient upon the recommendation or approval of a physician, California physicians should bear in mind that marijuana is listed in Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act, which means that it has no accepted medical use under federal law. However, in Conant v. Walters (9th Cir.2002) F.3d 629 the United States Court of Appeals recognized that physicians have a constitutionally-protected right to discuss medical marijuana as a treatment option with their patients and make oral or written recommendation for medical marijuana. However, the court cautioned that physicians could exceed the scope of this constitutional protection if they conspire with, or aid and abet, their patients in obtaining medical marijuana.