Amigula Incorporated -- The World's First Publicly Traded Medical Marijuana Company

Beverly Hills, Calif. -- Amigula Incorporated (OTC:AMJL), the world's first publicly traded medical marijuana company, today announced that several Hollywood agents and management groups have been working with their clients at the bequest of Amigula Inc., negotiating contracts with "Super Stars" willing to endorse medical marijuana as a viable medicinal therapy for a variety of extreme illnesses, including multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, arthritis, glaucoma, AIDS, nausea - chemotherapy, anxiety and stress, as well as for several other dysfunctions.

"We approached several well-known talent agents and managers to request that they approach their talent and present our cause and opportunity to them. Some of the stars wished us well and declined at first, then called their agents back after thinking things over and said 'Let's talk,'" said Warren Eugene, president, Amigula Inc.

"We require a star who is well known and trusted by a geriatric and maturing population. We require someone to educate people with us. There is so much by way of misconception and myth surrounding marijuana; it needs a star to assist us in getting the message right. That message is a simple one -- that marijuana is an excellent alternative homeopic therapy for those truly suffering and requiring medications. We are an agricultural pharmaceutical company on a mission to do good for others.

"So that's when it hit me, what about stars who have excelled at fighting for others with illness. These stars are heroes to millions of people the world over.

"One star actually did a TV episode where she smoked marijuana. She is of the right age and high quality to endorse our company and products. We are pursuing her. There are several stars who would be naturals for us.

"Some have had to personally battle major illness; they had to go through treatment for illness and could empathize with millions of other people requiring therapeutic relief.

"There will be many stars, before too long, who will come to our side and join us in this important quest, of that I'm certain. It's still early; we just got started a few months ago. I'm confident that things will work out well for us. This is history in the making," said Eugene.

Amigula Inc. -- has recently completed the purchase of 51% of Medical Cannabis Inc. and has announced their plans to file as a reporting issuer. The company plans to list on a major exchange beginning with an application for a listing on the American Stock Exchange (AMEX) or Nasdaq, as well as several European exchanges. The company views the current prohibition of marijuana as similar to that of alcohol, beer and tobacco. Canada's marijuana crop alone is estimated at $4 billion to $7 billion. If a single company controlled it, it would be larger than Canada's oil and gas business and agricultural industries.

On October 7, 2003, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that business and individuals be allowed to grow and supply medical marijuana, effectively relieving the Canadian government of its often criticized and fairly unsuccessful attempts. Health Canada "permitted persons" (exemptees) can now pay Amigula to grow marijuana for them. The ruling makes it easier for sick people to get marijuana by allowing them easier access -- more choice and fair prices. The company has a mandate to develop and improve the medical marijuana business worldwide and is on the acquisition and consolidation trail of other legal licensed marijuana operations with notable international brands.

When the liberal Berkely rejects medical marijuana, onmyfeet declares a victory.

The Berkeley chapter of International Students in Action http://www.emory.edu/NFIA/about/students/aboutsia.html
- a large, student-run anti-drug coalition dedicated to reducing drug use on college campuses and countering the drug legalization movement at the university level - gave Berkeley City Manager James Keene’s report on medical marijuana resounding support today, in a letter to the City Manager that was signed by students.

The Berkeley chapter of International Students in Action, formerly Citizens for a Drug-Free Berkeley, has lobbied the council for the past 3 years to approach medical marijuana measures with caution. The report, released Friday, marked the first time that the Berkeley City Manager recommended to the council that medical marijuana in Berkeley not be followed through.

"It cannot be emphasized enough how gigantic a setback this is for drug legalization advocates," exclaimed Kevin Sabet, President of International Students in Action and twice elected Student senator at Berkeley. "At the same time, it’s a time of celebration for those who think medicine should be determined by science instead of anecdote, for those who know all drug use to be destructive, and for those who correctly saw this medical marijuana measure as a wolf in sheep’s clothing."

I tried to post this to onmyfeet but he is gone.

CBS proves Gray Lady slants its opinion polls

Posted: March 19, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Earlier this week, CBS New posted the results of the most recent New York Times-CBS News poll on its website. It was doubly good news for President Bush. CBS broke the results down into two articles carrying the following headlines: "Poll: Bush Moves Ahead of Kerry" and "Poll: Few Favor Same-Sex Marriage."

The results posed a challenge for the Times. Do they report the good news for President Bush on its front page, as they generally do with their other polls or do they reach into their bag of dirty tricks? I'll give you one guess.

Here's the headline the Times used to report the results on its front page (March 16, 2004): "Poll Shows Concerns About Course of U.S."

Regular readers of this column know I've written a book on how the Times regularly manipulates opinion polls to reflect poorly on President Bush. The Times slants the polls in two ways: by manipulating the questions they ask and by manipulating the answers they get. Here, once again, they employed both techniques.

The poll showed that in a race among Bush, Kerry and Ralph Nader, President Bush zoomed ahead of Kerry by 8 full percentage points. Without Nader, the Times called the race "effectively tied," but the poll showed Bush leading 46 to 43 percent. Should Kerry pull ahead by three percentage points, we'll see whether the Times calls the race "effectively tied." The survey also showed that 59 percent of the public agreed with President Bush's proposal for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.

In other words, Bush's on a roll! Yet, the times opened the article with the distorted conclusion that, based on nothing I could find in the survey questions or answers, it is "a time of growing concern among Americans that the nation is veering in the wrong direction." This, the Times concluded, again with no basis in the data, was a troubling sign for President Bush's re-election prospects.

In fact, no where in the New York Times nor on the CBS News website is there evidence that anyone was ever asked by the survey whether they think there is "growing concern" about the "direction" of the country. If Americans are feeling the country is going in the wrong direction, could it be the result of liberal agenda to permit gay marriages? But, of course, that's not a question addressed by the poll.

It is a classic propaganda technique to seek out Republicans who could be quoted, or manipulated into being quoted, as saying something against Bush or his policies on the theory that attacks against Bush are much more credible if they come from Republicans than from partisan Democrats. Naturally, then, the article quoted three Republicans saying something negative about the Bush campaign. Of course, the Times couldn't find a single Democrat to say anything negative about John Kerry. Imagine that!

While 59 percent agreed with Bush's proposal for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, an astounding 78 percent were against allowing same sex marriages – 78 percent! That was the real news of this poll, yet the result was buried in the last line of the article and twisted in a way that actually sounds like it was good news for the same-sex marriage movement:

And while the public supports an amendment to allow marriage between only a man and a woman, 22 percent said they supported gay marriage while another 33 percent said they supported permitting gay couples to form civil unions.

Huh? That's horrible news for the gay community. I happen to support civil unions and I'm shocked by these results.

More important, how could the Times possibly conclude that the newsworthiness of these results was the country's "wrong direction" and that it was bad news for Bush?

The Times then tried to tie Bush's opposition to same-sex marriages – which the poll suggest is quite mainstream – to ideological extremism.

After a month in which Mr. Bush called for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, he is viewed in sharply ideological terms.

But the poll showed only 50 percent of the public view President Bush as a "conservative." This is astoundingly low, because George Bush actively labels himself as "compassionate conservative." Meanwhile, as Kerry avoids the term "liberal" at all costs, an amazing 39 percent of the public consider him a "liberal." And Bush's attempts to label Kerry, and Kerry's attempts to avoid the label, have only just begun.

There's more. The Times asked whether the use of images from 9-11 (where 3,000 Americans died) should be used in the campaign. But where's the question about the use of images from Vietnam for political purposes? John Kerry has been exploiting the deaths of 57,000 American soldiers for political purposes, but where's the question? Is it appropriate to use in political commercials images from a war in which 57,000 Americans lost their lives?

The Times asked whether or not "Bush's policies" reduced the number of jobs. What about asking whether or not the Clinton recession reduced the number of jobs? Or whether or not the devastating impact of 9-11 on the economy reduced the number of jobs?

Jayson Blair's book is out, but his lies pale in comparison to the lies and distortions spewing forth from today's news pages of the New York Times.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.