tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10310438151251546992024-03-14T09:16:33.575-07:00GMO Cannabis WatchA Watchful Eye On The State Of Bio-Technology Within The Cannabis Industry.RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-92091190473970587412019-04-21T09:53:00.002-07:002019-04-21T09:53:52.778-07:00Is cannabis cultivating into a bio-threat to national security?<div class="hfeed site" id="page" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: auto; padding: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div class="site-content" id="content" style="backface-visibility: hidden; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px auto 1em; max-width: 81.25em; padding: 0px 0.625rem; transition: transform 0.25s ease-in-out, -webkit-transform 0.25s ease-in-out; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div class="content-area" id="primary" readability="123.626" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<main class="site-main" id="main" readability="182.186" role="main" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><article class="full-view post-2856537 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-guest-commentary category-opinion tag-cannabis tag-column location-california location-lake-county print_status-default print_section-opinion" id="post-2856537" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><header class="entry-header article-header" style="border-bottom-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 3px; box-sizing: inherit; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; float: none; font: inherit; justify-content: space-between; margin: 2em 0px -2.25em; padding: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; width: 340px;"><div class="header-title-area" readability="6" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; z-index: 1;">
<div class="headline-area" readability="7" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 340px;">
<div class="headlines" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<h1 class="entry-title" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; display: inline-block; font-family: Lora, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.9375em; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; letter-spacing: -0.03em; line-height: 1.1; margin: 0px 0px 0.26667em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 340px;">
<span class="dfm-title" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Kiczenski: Is cannabis cultivating into a bio-threat to national security?</span></h1>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</header><div class="article-content" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; display: flex; font: inherit; justify-content: space-between; margin: 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div class="article-content-wrapper" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 340px;">
<div class="header-features default" readability="6.5" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 3em 0px 2em; vertical-align: baseline; width: 340px;">
<div class="meta" readability="-17" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(200, 196, 192); border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 3px; box-sizing: inherit; display: flex; flex-direction: column; float: none; font: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px 0px 1em; vertical-align: baseline; width: 340px;">
<div class="byline" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 0.9375em; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 1.71429; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
By <a class=" author-name" href="https://www.record-bee.com/author/ron-kiczenski/" rel="author" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #3f51b5; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1.7; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; text-transform: uppercase; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Posts by Ron Kiczenski">RON KICZENSKI</a> |</div>
<div class="time" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 0.8125rem; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: 1.42857; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<time datetime="2019-04-19 06:00:24" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">April 19, 2019 at 6:00 am</time></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="article-body" readability="195" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 340px;">
<div class="body-copy" readability="355" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.03125em; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; letter-spacing: -0.01em; line-height: 1.63636; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<em style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Ron Kiczenski is a resident of Lucerne.</em></div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Are you the kind of person who takes it seriously when a Director of National Intelligence reports (in his February, 2016 report) to the Senate on possible national security threats, as in this April 25, 2016 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, by Daniel M. Gerstein, called “How genetic editing became a national security threat.” Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper sent shock waves through the national security and biotechnology communities with his assertion, in his Worldwide Threat Assessment testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, that genome editing had become a global danger. He went so far as to include it in the report’s weapons of mass destruction section, alongside threats from North Korea, China’s nuclear modernization, and chemical weapons in Syria and Iraq. The new technology, he said, could open the door to “potentially harmful biological agents or products,” with “far-reaching economic and national security implications.”.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
If you’re concerned about consuming or the labeling of GMO products, or you’re a consumer of “legal cannabis” products, or maybe you’re just a citizen who cares about national security, it might be concerning to you that the wave of cannabis legalization laws, as in Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and more recently in California, do not require licensed cannabis cultivators to disclose information about genetically engineered cannabis (GEC, aka GMO cannabis, genetically edited cannabis, bio-engineered cannabis, genetically modified cannabis, and recombinant DNA cannabis, etc).</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Washington State spokesperson Brian Smith said the lack of federal regulations for genetically engineered cannabis (GEC) was the reason for Washington’s missing regulations.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Colorado’s spokesperson Shannon Grey wrote that “Currently, there are no guidelines outlined in either the Medical Marijuana Code or the Retail Marijuana Code specific to genetically engineered marijuana.”, and that Colorado “aligned with federal guidelines wherever possible”, but gave no further reason for the missing GEC regulations.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
In California, then Lt. Gov Gavin Newsom formed the “Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana policy” which was “formed in light of the likelihood that a marijuana legalization initiative will be placed on the 2016 California ballot, and that serious and thoughtful analysis must be conducted in order to identify significant policy challenges and offer possible solutions.”, and according to it’s web site, “The Commission is comprised of leading policymakers, public health experts and academics from across the state and the nation that have done significant work and research related to marijuana.”.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Yet, according to Rebecca Forée the Communications Manager for the CalCannabis Cultivation Licensing at the California Department of Food and Agriculture,”The California Department of Food and Agriculture’s cannabis cultivation regulations do not require licensed cannabis cultivators to disclose information about heirloom or genetically engineered varieties of cannabis.” The reason given for California’s lack of regulation was that “Proposition 64, the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative, was enacted by the voters of California in 2016 and did not include those identification requirements for licensed commercial cannabis cultivators.”.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Many California cannabis growers and medical cannabis consumers claim to have expressed concerns of imminent danger of being permanently or irreversibly harmed in some way by the lack of regulations concerning genetically engineered cannabis to then Lt. Governor Newsom’s Blue Ribbon Commission, but insist they were “ignored and written off.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The newly elected Governor Gavin Newsom’s Office did not respond when asked for comment on why the Commission failed to include recommendations for GEC(genetically engineered cannabis) regulations.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The reason for Oregon’s missing GEC regulations according to state spokesperson Mark Pettinger, was that along with the lack of federal regulations, they had “higher priorities.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The one apparent common thread to have had some influence in every states process to create cannabis legalization laws is an organization called the Drug Policy Alliance. The DPA came into being in 1993 at the behest and funding of billionaire George Soros who has also had a long history of investment holdings in the biotech industry. When attorney Dave Kopilak, lead author writing Oregon’s 2014, measure 91, was asked why no GEC regulations, he responded with reasons why they didn’t want to complicate the ballot, and that they needed DPA financial backing, and at one point he simply stated that “George Soros doesn’t just go handing out checks.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The DPA remained silent when given multiple opportunities to comment on the this article and the missing GEC regulations.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
In December of 2018, Canadian researchers at the University of Toronto announced they had completed mapping the cannabis genome.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Canada does regulate for GEC, according to Christine at Media Relations, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Government of Canada, who wrote “The Government of Canada considers issues of safety to be of the utmost importance and maintains a regulatory system for products of agricultural biotechnology that provides appropriate risk-based oversight of plant products in Canada.” Christine also noted that “In Canada, all plants are eligible for protection under the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, this includes genetically modified Cannabis plants.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
“To date the PBR Office has received 8 applications for Cannabis varieties”, but so far “No genetically engineered cannabis has been authorized by CFIA.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The prevailing concerns of many growers seems to be that genetically engineered cannabis will cross pollinate and contaminate or “pollute the genetics of heirloom cannabis”.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Medical cannabis consumers have expressed the same concerns as growers, along with the added concern of possible harmful side effects of consuming a genetically engineered product.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Some growers exhibit enthusiasm about the potentials of GEC, while others following the non official “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy claim they are already gene editing to achieve “certain traits,” yet are not required to disclose genetic modifications to state government or to the public.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
While this apparent breech in US bio-security is seemingly overlooked, billions of dollars are being spent into the long chain of “legal” cannabis related commerce in the United States. Medical and recreational consumers, the industry and it’s workers, even stock market investors will all be impacted in some way when the of lack of GEC regulations and the apparent resulting national security threat to all Americans becomes more publicly understood.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
So at this point you might be asking, what are the feds doing about all this?</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Considering that according the US government “The FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety and proper labeling of all plant-derived food and feed, including those developed through genetic engineering.”, my first call was to the FDA. The public affairs person at the FDA did not want to be quoted, but did say that the FDA had no jurisdiction over cannabis whatsoever, and that the DEA was the authority with jurisdiction, and so began the quest for federal oversight.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Contacting the DEA resulted in Barbara Carreno, Public Affairs Officer, DEA Headquarters, responding after a week in contemplation by the DEA legal team, to indicate that “DEA does not have jurisdiction or authority to regulate the genetic engineering of cannabis.”, she also wrote back that “the USDA’s Animal and Plant Inspection Service is tasked with that.”, and offered this apparent observational comment that “no one at any level appears to be regulating this”.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Rick Coker, Public Affairs Specialist, at the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services, responded that “If APHIS Determines that a organism is not a plant pest, then the GE organism is not subject to the regulatory requirements of 7 CFR part 340, however, other federal regulations may still apply.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Considering the national security implications it made sense to contact the NSA, here was the response from Greg Julian, Media Relations Chief, NSA/CSS Public Affairs, Strategic Communications, “Thanks for reaching out to the National Security Agency. However, you’ve got the wrong Agency as we have no oversight of this matter. I suggest you contact Health and Human Services,” in other words the FDA.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Being right back where I started with the FDA, I tried again and sent multiple email requests for comment as well as leaving phone messages, but there was no response.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
At this point you might be asking how did we get to this point? It would be pointless to try and blame anyone quoted in this story, or any other Government employees who are for the most part simply trying to do their jobs according to the laws that elected representatives hand them.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Going back to the origins of the how and why, it becomes clear that Congress created the CSA (Controlled Substances Act), which provided for the authority to schedule substances to be restricted to varying degrees from public use. The problem here is that the CSA allows for scheduling natural plants as “controlled substances.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
This Congressional overreach in authority has resulted in numerous consequences aside from the current jurisdictional quagmire manifested into an apparent clear, present, and ongoing bio-threat to the national security of the United States as well as our continental neighbors, and possibly the world. The foremost consequence of scheduling natural plant life, is that it nullified an American’s self evident, naturally endowed, basic human right to access, grow, and use natural plants. At this point in America, to legally grow so much as a carrot you are exercising a “civil right,” not a human right. So in effect the Congress scheduled a basic human right into obscurity.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Because the basic human right was disparaged by Congress, we lost access to critically invaluable resources, and incalculable trillions to the economy over the many decades of malfeasance. The 1938 Popular Mechanics article “New Billion Dollar Crop,” described a coming boom to agriculture at the promise of new technology to process an age old crop, and transforming its economic potential into unimaginable numbers for 1938. Congress extinguished any chance at fulfilling the predictions of the Popular Mechanics article by enacting the Marijuana Tax Act, which was the first reach at disparaging this basic human right to access, grow, and use natural plants.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
There’s no shortage of folks to blame for all this because we are all to blame.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Lawmakers and their constituents have used the “stoner” vs. “refer madness” mentality to simply kick the issue back and forth in a diversion to maintain the status quo for decades, leaving the mess for future generations.<br style="box-sizing: inherit;" />I think the founders of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution would agree that we as citizens have also been sorely to blame in our lack of due diligence to maintain our naturally endowed rights.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Instead of howling for civil rights and legalization, folks should have been rereading the Declaration and engaging the Constitution in federal court in effort to restore and protect their basic human rights through case law, but they haven’t.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
In America, if you have no basic human right to access, grow, and use natural plants, then there is no basis in law by which to protect natural plants or the broader natural heritage from cross pollination contamination from plants that have been bio-engineered, privately patented, and enjoy the full scope of protection under intellectual property laws.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
The most relevant question remains, how do we fix this mess?</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
At some point Congress will step in and remedy the issue of unregulated GEC through some federal legislation that legalizes cannabis to some degree by removing it from the CSA, but even that would be a further misstep and would continue to divert from the root cause and the problem will continue.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
For example Oregon attorney Dave Kopilak relayed that some people in Oregon intend on floating a measure to legalize psilocybin mushrooms, also a schedule 1 controlled substance. If “magic” mushrooms were legalized in Oregon, then we are right back in the same circumstances of no federal oversight or regulations for bio-engineering “shrooms.” In other words, DEA has exclusive jurisdictional authority over all schedule 1 “substances.” Any natural life form listed as a schedule 1 controlled substance is outside the jurisdictional oversight authority of federal agencies that regulate for gene editing or GMO’s. Therefore, as long as natural life forms are considered to be schedulable under the CSA, we will continue to have this gap in the law and this bio-threat problem will likely be reoccurring.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
It is unlikely Congress will correct their own mistake of scheduling away our human right to access, grow, and use natural plants, and so it seems just as unlikely that Congress will move on behalf of present or future generations to protect the genetic integrity of our natural heritage from cross pollination contamination with privately patented and protected bio-engineered life.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
So it looks like the only way to get America back on track is through relentless civil litigation that begins with challenging governments assumed authority to schedule natural plant life or any natural life forms whatsoever, and moving forward on the basis that such overreach has disparaged a self evident fundamental natural human right.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Once the basic human right to access, grow, and use natural plants is restored and protected, it thereby would establish the basis for litigating to protect the genetic integrity of natural heirloom plants and all of our natural heritage from this present and ongoing bio-threat of cross pollination contamination forever polluting the natural gene pool we all swim in.</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
I guess we should round everything off by circling back to a last stop at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. When asked who’s doing what about the apparent breech in national security, Barry Borie, Media Spokesperson, ODNI/Office of Strategic Communications wrote back “I believe you will find what you’re looking for in the 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment, page 16.” Here’s what page 16 of the 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment had on the topic: “Rapid advances in biotechnology, including gene editing, synthetic biology, and neuroscience, are likely to present new economic, military, ethical, and regulatory challenges worldwide as governments struggle to keep pace. These technologies hold great promise for advances in precision medicine, agriculture, and manufacturing, but they also introduce risks, such as the potential for adversaries to develop novel biological warfare agents, threaten food security, and enhance or degrade human performance.”</div>
<div style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Mr. Borie wrote one more sentence: “As we strived for maximum transparency in the report, we won’t be able to offer more than this.”</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<footer class="article-footer" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 2em 0px 3em; padding: 1.25em 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="footer-meta" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; font: inherit; justify-content: space-between; margin: 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div class="footer-meta-content" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div class="tags" style="align-items: center; border-bottom-color: initial; border-bottom-style: initial; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: rgb(200, 196, 192); border-top-style: solid; border-width: 1px 0px 0px; box-sizing: inherit; display: flex; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2em; padding: 1em 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<ul style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; vertical-align: baseline; z-index: 1;"><br /></ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</footer></article></main></div>
</div>
<footer class="site-footer" style="backface-visibility: hidden; background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; display: flex; flex-direction: column; font-family: Lato, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 90px; transition: transform 0.25s ease-in-out, -webkit-transform 0.25s ease-in-out; vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="footer-menus-wrapper" style="border-bottom-color: rgb(31, 30, 28); border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 5px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<ul class="footer-menus" id="footer-menu" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; flex-direction: column; font: inherit; height: 144px; list-style: none; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 81.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; transition: height 0.25s ease-in-out; vertical-align: baseline; width: 360px;">
<li class="menu-item menu-item-type-custom menu-item-object-custom menu-item-has-children menu-item-109" id="menu-item-109" style="align-items: flex-start; background-color: transparent; border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; font: inherit; justify-content: flex-start; list-style: none; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-align: left; transform: translate(0px, -252px); transition: transform 0.25s ease-in-out, -webkit-transform 0.25s ease-in-out; vertical-align: baseline; width: 360px;"><ul class="footer-menu" style="align-items: flex-start; border-bottom-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; box-sizing: inherit; display: flex; flex-direction: column; font: inherit; justify-content: flex-start; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0.625em; position: relative; transform: translateY(-100%); transition: transform 0.25s ease-in-out, -webkit-transform 0.25s ease-in-out; vertical-align: baseline; width: 360px; z-index: 4;">
<li class="menu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-113" id="menu-item-113" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.625em 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; transition: opacity 0.25s ease-in-out; vertical-align: baseline; width: auto;"><a href="https://www.record-bee.com/jobs/" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Jobs</a></li>
<li class="menu-item menu-item-type-custom menu-item-object-custom menu-item-114" id="menu-item-114" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0.625em 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; transition: opacity 0.25s ease-in-out; vertical-align: baseline; width: auto;"><a href="https://www.gomnlt.com/dfm/record-bee/?utm_source=record-bee&utm_medium=navweblink&utm_campaign=dfm" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Free</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</div>
</footer></div>
<div class="adsbox" id="TestAdBlock" style="border: 0px; bottom: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: absolute; vertical-align: baseline; z-index: -1;">
</div>
<img id="06db9294" src="https://asset.pagefair.com/adimages/textlink-ads.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; display: block; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; height: 100px; left: -1000px; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; max-width: 100%; padding: 0px; position: absolute; top: -1000px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 100px;" /><br />
<div id="mobile-adhesion" style="background: rgb(240, 240, 240); border-bottom-color: initial; border-bottom-style: initial; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-top-style: solid; border-width: 1px 0px 0px; bottom: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; height: 50px; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: fixed; vertical-align: baseline; width: 360px; z-index: 9999;">
<button class="close-mobile-adhesion" style="-webkit-appearance: none; background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: url("/wp-content/client-mu-plugins/src/Ads/assets/css/../img/close_54x54.png"); background-origin: initial; background-position: center center; background-repeat: initial; background-size: contain; border-color: initial; border-style: none; border-width: initial; box-sizing: inherit; content: ""; cursor: pointer; font-size: inherit; height: 27px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; right: 20px; text-indent: 2000px; top: -12px; width: 27px; z-index: 99999;">Close</button><div class="dfp-ad dfp-mobile_adhesion" data-ad-unit="mobile_adhesion" data-google-query-id="CPzrrLLS4eECFU9jfgodrowADg" id="div-gpt-ad-mobile_adhesion" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-size: 1rem; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px auto; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-align: center; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div id="google_ads_iframe_/8013/record-bee.com/opinion/guest-commentary_9__container__" style="border: 0pt none; box-sizing: inherit; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 360px;">
<iframe data-google-container-id="a" data-load-complete="true" frameborder="0" height="100" id="google_ads_iframe_/8013/record-bee.com/opinion/guest-commentary_9" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="google_ads_iframe_/8013/record-bee.com/opinion/guest-commentary_9" scrolling="no" style="border-style: initial; border-width: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: bottom;" title="3rd party ad content" width="320"></iframe></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="mg2Widget-newsletter-container" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; color: #3e3e3e; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
</div>
<div id="dml-root" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
</div>
<div class="pub_300x250 pub_300x250m pub_728x90 text-ad textAd text_ad text_ads text-ads text-ad-links" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; height: 1px !important; left: -10000px !important; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: absolute !important; top: -1000px !important; vertical-align: baseline; width: 1px !important;">
</div>
<iframe aria-hidden="true" frameborder="0" name="_ym_native" style="border-style: initial !important; border-width: 0px !important; bottom: 520px; box-sizing: inherit; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; height: 0px; left: 360px; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; opacity: 0; padding: 0px; position: absolute; vertical-align: baseline; width: 0px;" title="_ym_native"></iframe>RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com81tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-51793718645176232172014-04-25T14:16:00.000-07:002014-04-25T14:16:06.889-07:00AFFIDAVIT OF FACT<br />
AND NOTICE OF INTENT AND CLAIM OF RIGHT<br />
TO CULTIVATE, POSSESS, USE, TRANSPORT AND DISTRIBUTE HEMP<br />
<br />
Conrad Justice Kiczenski, herein known as Affiant, being first duly sworn upon oath does hereby declare and affirm the following facts:<br />
<br />
1. You are hereby given lawful notice that the plant called Hemp (Cannabis genus) is a vital natural-resource for food, clothing, medicine, fuel, and paper; a religious sacrament, as well as being a “Strategic and Critical Material” for “military”, “essential civilian”, and “industrial” purposes as documented in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, & F attached hereto, and as such is “accessible” and “protected” under International Law cited herein.<br />
<br />
2. You are hereby given lawful notice of Affiants intent to cultivate, possess, use, distribute and transport the plant known as Hemp (Cannabis genus).<br />
<br />
3. Affiant claims the right to carry out the foregoing intent under sanction of the following constitutionally ratified treaties (Pursuant to U.S. Const. Art. VI. Sec. 2):<br />
<br />
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11, Sections 1 & 2, Dec. 16, 1966, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm<br />
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Article 12, Section 1, Dec. 16, 1966, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm<br />
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18, Section 1, Dec. 16, 1966, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm<br />
United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide, Article II (c), Dec. 9, 1948, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/genocide.htm<br />
<br />
4. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, in Article 11, Sections 1 & 2, states:<br />
<br />
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right…<br />
<br />
2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programs, which are needed:<br />
<br />
(a) To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian systems in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources;<br />
<br />
(b) Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.<br />
<br />
4a. The interpretation for the right to adequate food, as given by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in General Comment Number 12 states:<br />
<br />
The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child…has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.<br />
The Committee considers that the core content of the right to adequate food implies:<br />
The availability of food in a quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals…Dietary needs implies that the diet as a whole contains a mix of nutrients for physical and mental growth, development and maintenance…Availability refers to the possibilities…for feeding oneself directly from productive land or other natural resources…<br />
Violations of the right to food can occur through…adoption of legislation or policies which are manifestly incompatible with pre-existing legal obligations relating to the right to food; SEE: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/%28Symbol%29/3d02758c707031d58025677f003b73b9?Opendocument<br />
<br />
4b. Affiant submit’s the following Exhibits as sufficient supporting evidence that Hemp qualifies as an “adequate food resource” and is therefore “accessible” under Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights:<br />
<br />
Pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12919, the “NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS” order, Section 901 (e) & (l), attached hereto as Exhibit A, “Hemp” is defined as a “food resource” and qualifies as a ‘‘Strategic and Critical Material’’.<br />
According to an excerpt from “Hempseed Nutrition” by Lynn Osburn, attached hereto as Exhibit B, a scientific analysis of hemp seed nutrition reveals that “Cannabis hemp seeds contain all the essential amino acids and essential fatty acids necessary to maintain healthy human life. No other single plant source provides complete protein in such an easily digestible form, nor has the oils essential to life in as perfect a ratio for human health and vitality. Hempseed is the highest of any plant in essential fatty acids.”.<br />
<br />
4c. Affiant submit’s the following Exhibits as sufficient supporting evidence that Hemp qualifies as an adequate resource for “clothing”, “military”, “essential civilian” and “industrial” purposes, as well as other necessary resources for attaining an “adequate standard of living” including “paper” and biomass for “fuel” and is therefore further “accessible” under Article 11, Section 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights:<br />
<br />
The transcript of a 1942 USDA film entitled “Hemp for Victory”, attached hereto as Exhibit C, states that “For thousands of years… this plant had been grown for cordage and cloth… For the sailor, no less than the hangman, hemp was indispensable…Indeed the very word canvas comes from the Arabic word for hemp…All such plants will presently be turning out products spun from American-grown hemp: twine of various kinds for tying and upholsters work; rope for marine rigging and towing; for hay forks, derricks, and heavy duty tackle; light duty fire hose; thread for shoes for millions of American soldiers; and parachute webbing for our paratroopers…hemp for mooring ships; hemp for tow lines; hemp for tackle and gear; hemp for countless naval uses both on ship and shore. ”.<br />
According to a Popular Mechanics Magazine article, VOL. 69 February, 1938 NO. 2, pp. 238-240, entitled “NEW BILLION-DOLLAR CROP”, attached hereto as Exhibit D, states that “Hemp is the standard fiber of the world. It has great tensile strength and durability. It is used to produce more than 5,000 textile products, ranging from rope to fine laces, and the woody "hurds" remaining after the fiber has been removed contain more than seventy-seven per cent cellulose, and can be used to produce more than 25,000 products, ranging from dynamite to Cellophane…The natural materials in hemp make it an economical source of pulp for any grade of paper manufactured, and the high percentage of alpha cellulose promises an unlimited supply of raw material for the thousands of cellulose products our chemists have developed…All of these products, now imported, can be produced from home- grown hemp. Fish nets, bow strings, canvas, strong rope, overalls, damask tablecloths, fine linen garments, towels, bed linen and thousands of other everyday items can be grown on American farms. ”.<br />
According to an Excerpt from "Energy Farming in America," by Lynn Osburn, attached hereto as Exhibit E, “BIOMASS CONVERSION to fuel has proven economically feasible, first in laboratory tests and by continuous operation of pilot plants in field tests since 1973. HEMP IS THE NUMBER ONE biomass producer on planet earth: 10 tons per acre in approximately four months.”<br />
<br />
5. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, in Article 12, Section 1, states:<br />
<br />
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.<br />
<br />
5a. The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, in their General Comment Number 14, interprets the right to health to mean the following:<br />
<br />
The right to health contains both freedoms and entitlements. The freedoms include the right to control one’s health and body… and the right to be free from interference… The entitlements include the right to a system of health protection which provides equality of opportunity for people to enjoy the highest attainable level of health… The Committee considers that indigenous peoples have the right to specific measures to improve their access to health services and care. These health services should be culturally appropriate, taking into account traditional preventive care, healing practices and medicines. States should provide resources for indigenous peoples to design, deliver and control such services so that they may enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals necessary to the full enjoyment of health of indigenous peoples should also be protected… In this respect, the Committee considers that development-related activities that lead to the displacement of indigenous peoples against their will from their traditional territories and environment, denying them their sources of nutrition and breaking their symbiotic relationship with their lands, has a deleterious effect on their health. By virtue of article 2.2 and article 3, the Covenant proscribes any discrimination in access to health care and underlying determinants of health, as well as to means and entitlements for their procurement. SEE: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/%28symbol%29/E.C.12.2000.4.En<br />
<br />
5b. Affiant submits the following Exhibit as sufficient supporting evidence that Hemp qualifies as a “traditional healing practice“, “medicine“ and “vital medicinal plant” that is “necessary to the full enjoyment of health” and therefore is “accessible” and “protected” under Article 12, Section 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights:<br />
<br />
Lester Grinspoon, M.D. and Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, in an article entitled “History of Cannabis as a Medicine” published on August 16, 2005, attached hereto as Exhibit F, documents the historical, technical and scientific knowledge of Cannabis’s extensive use as a medicine. Grinspoon quotes DEA Administrative law Judge Francis L. Young in a decision rendered on September 6, 1988, which states: “marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man…”<br />
<br />
6. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in Article 18, Section 1, states:<br />
<br />
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.<br />
<br />
6a. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in their General Comment Number 22, interprets the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion to mean the following:<br />
<br />
The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (which includes the freedom to hold beliefs) in article 18.1 is far-reaching and profound;<br />
Article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reason, including the fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that may be the subject of hostility on the part of a predominant religious community…<br />
The freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching encompasses a broad range of acts. The concept of worship extends to ritual and ceremonial acts giving direct expression to belief, as well as various practices integral to such acts, including the building of places of worship, the use of ritual formulae and objects, also such customs as the observance of dietary regulations, the wearing of distinctive clothing or headcoverings, and participation in rituals associated with certain stages of life. SEE: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/9a30112c27d1167cc12563ed004d8f15<br />
<br />
<br />
6b. Affiant believes that Hemp (Cannabis genus) is equivalent to the “plant of renown” mentioned in Ezekiel 34:29 and the “tree of life” mentioned in Revelation 22:1-2 of the bible, which state:<br />
<br />
And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more. -- Ezekiel 34:29<br />
On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit…And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. -- Revelation 22:1-2<br />
<br />
6c. Affiant believes in accordance with Genesis 1:29-30 of the bible, which states:<br />
<br />
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food…everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." -- Genesis 1:29-30<br />
<br />
6d. Affiant believes that Hemp (Cannabis genus) is a sacred “plant of renown” and “tree of life” given by the Creator to be used for the feeding, clothing, and healing of the nations of the Earth.<br />
<br />
6e. Affiant claims the right to manifest his foregoing belief in practice, through the act of cultivating, possessing, using, distributing and transporting Hemp (Cannabis genus).<br />
<br />
7. The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide, in Article II (c), states:<br />
<br />
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:<br />
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.<br />
<br />
7a. The Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court of July 6, 2000, in Article 6 (c), interprets what elements constitute “Genocide“ through “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”, and states:<br />
<br />
The term “conditions of life” may include, but is not necessarily restricted to, deliberate deprivation of resources indispensable for survival, such as food or medical services, or systematic expulsion from homes.<br />
SEE: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N00/724/27/PDF/N0072427.pdf?OpenElement<br />
<br />
7b. You are hereby given lawful notice that the plant called Hemp (Cannabis genus) is a critical food staple in Affiants vegetarian diet, as well as being a vital resource for Affiants clothing, medicine, paper, fuel as well other central necessities to Affiants way of life, and is therefore indispensable for Affiants health, adequate standard of living, spiritual practice and long-term physical survival.<br />
<br />
7c. Any action against Affiant and his family to confiscate Hemp harvests, blockade Hemp foodstuffs or other resources, any use of coercive measures to deter Hemp cultivation, possession, use, distribution, or transportation, including expulsion from homes or forced relocation into detention camps, will be considered a deliberate attack on Affiant and his families ability to sustain life and therefore an act of genocide pursuant to Article II (c) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide.<br />
<br />
8. You are hereby given lawful notice that Affiant grants you thirty (30) days to rebut the facts stated herein; If you fail to rebut the facts stated in this affidavit within the granted amount of time then Affiant will assume that you are in agreement with said facts, and that you acknowledge Affiants claim of right and intent to act as stated herein, as being valid and lawfully sanctioned.<br />
<br />
9. Affiant affirms under the penalty of perjury under all constitutional Laws of the State of California and the 50 States of the American Union, that all that is written in this affidavit is true and correct to the best of Affiants knowledge and understanding.<br />
<br />
Signed and Sealed:_____________________________ Dated:___________<br />
Natural Person - In Propria Persona - Conrad Justice Kiczenski<br />
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - WITHOUT PREJUDICE<br />
<br />
State of California<br />
Lake County<br />
<br />
Subscribed and affirmed before me on this ____________ day of ______________, 20________, by Conrad Justice Kiczenski, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the Person who appeared before me. Witness my hand and official Seal.<br />
<br />
Signature:__________________________________ <br />
<br />
<br />
Seal:RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-14785312528316019072014-03-09T11:49:00.001-07:002014-03-09T11:51:03.692-07:00The Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act of 2014The following Initiative was submitted on March 6, 2014, to the County Of Lake Registrar of Voters (California), to be reviewed for signature gathering to qualify for the November Ballot in Lake County. For More Information on how to volunteer for signature gathering call 707-274-9115.<br />
<br />
The People of the County of Lake, in the State of California, do hereby decree:<br />
<br />
'The Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act of 2014'<br />
<br />
An Ordinance to restore the natural Human Right to grow and use plants for the basic necessities of life. <br />
<br />
Whereas in the State of California, the People of the County of Lake do hereby Find, Declare and Ordain as follows:<br />
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for people to reaffirm and reestablish the fundamental human rights with which they are naturally endowed, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's origins entitle them, and to recognize a decent respect for the opinions of humankind, requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to come forward toward the reestablishment of those rights.<br />
We hold these truths to be self-evident: <br />
That all humans beings are created equal. That human beings are naturally endowed with certain rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to re-declare and reestablish the inherent human rights that would intrinsically correct such governmental negligence, and to reconstitute such in a form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.<br />
Therefore, in accordance with the 9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, <br />
Amendment IX:<br />
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.",<br />
and also in accordance with the California State Constitution, Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 21.: ..."This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.",<br />
and, also as consistent with County of Lake Ordinance No. 2267 in relation to private property rights, and, <br />
whereas disregard and contempt for certain human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of humankind, and, whereas in a world which human beings endeavor to enjoy freedom of speech and belief, and where freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of peoples everywhere, be it here proclaimed that it has become necessary to reaffirm and specifically re-constitute the self evident inherent freedom to grow and use plants as described herein: <br />
<br />
Section 1., Findings:<br />
<br />
That human beings are naturally endowed with the fundamental self evident right to have and grow the natural plants of this earth, and the naturally occurring seeds thereof, to be used for their own needs as individuals in pursuit of life and in effort to live, and that such basic human rights have been recognized and acknowledged to exist, and that these rights are held in perpetuity outside of the constitutional responsibility of a government to protect an individual's right to engage in commerce.<br />
<br />
Section 1.(a)<br />
<br />
That all County of Lake residents residing within the unincorporated areas of the County who exercise the rights described in Section 1. of this Act at their residence within said area, and are compliant with Section 2.(a), and are gardening outside (outdoors) or in a greenhouse (and not withstanding any generally applicable urgency ordinance(s) specifically relating to water conservation), are, as accorded in the paragraphs above, necessarily exempt from any County permitting or other County ordinances that would limit an individual's home gardening efforts or abilities in conjunction with Section 1.<br />
<br />
Section 1.(b)<br />
That any law, to the extent that it would specifically deny or disparage the human rights as described in Section 1. of this Act is unconstitutional by both the Federal Constitutions 9th Amendment, and also by the State Constitutions Article 1 Declaration of Rights, Section 21, and by the fact that such self evident human rights are held in perpetuity by the People.<br />
<br />
Section 2., Responsibilities: <br />
<br />
Should neighbor complaints that are not related to Section 2.(a) herein, or that are not related to a specific medically verifiable toxic health risk to the public arise as an official complaint to the County as a result of an individual(s) exercising the rights as described in Section 1., and Section 1.(a), (and not withstanding any effected party choosing to seek remedy and or reparations by way of litigation through civil proceedings), all the effected parties shall be directed to mediation provided for by the County of Lake, and if resolution between the effected parties cannot be achieved in a reasonable effort to mediate (to be determined by the appointed mediator), the effected parties shall then continue mediation at their own expense (to be equally divided between the effected parties) until a resolution between the parties can be agreed upon, or until one of the effected parties withdraws from the mediation. <br />
<br />
Section 2.(a) <br />
<br />
All who exercise the rights described in Section 1., and Section 1.(a) of this Act, shall take reasonable care to prevent environmental destruction, and are responsible to mitigate any possible foreseen negative impacts on the natural environments, and all persons who neglect such practices shall be subject to the authority designated under Section 2.(b) herein, but such remedies are to be used to help individuals come into compliance with this section and not to unreasonably burden individuals who exercise the rights described in Section 1.<br />
<br />
Section 2.(b)<br />
<br />
The County of Lake Environmental Health Department shall administer over individual circumstances that may arise related to Section 2. and Section 2.(a) herein, but all such administrative authority and compliance inquiries shall be restricted to circumstances where a verifiable neighbor (or resident of the county) complaint in writing and signed by the complainant has been officially registered with the county.<br />
<br />
Section 3., Special Circumstances:<br />
<br />
Any law, to the extent that it would specifically deny or disparage the Human Rights as described in Section 1. of this Act, (and not withstanding an individual in violation of using illegal gardening chemicals, including but not limited to, certain pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizers), is to be set aside unless it can be determined that the individual circumstance is occurring within the context of "commerce" related activities as defined herein, or if an individual's violation(s) of Section 2.(a) of this Act are to the extent of violating a criminal statute. <br />
<br />
Section 3.(a)<br />
<br />
This Act shall not apply in circumstances where (a) private rental or lease agreement(s) (contract) exist(s) pertaining to the occupancy and or use of any private land unless such is otherwise specifically enumerated within said agreement(s) (contract), or unless the agreement(s) (contract) does not specify any conditions or agreement pertaining to outside (or greenhouse) home gardening.<br />
<br />
Section 4., Definitions:<br />
<br />
(a) For the express purposes of this Act, the word "commerce" shall be taken to mean:<br />
The buying and selling of goods or services in any form, and in direct reference to the exchange of United States currency (or other such legally recognized tender) for such goods or services.<br />
<br />
(b) For the express purposes of this Act, the words phrased as "compliance inquiries" shall be taken to mean:<br />
A written and delivered inquiry, and an in person inquiry as to responding to (a) specific complaint(s), and to which access to inspect private property shall only be in circumstances where the respondent has voluntarily agreed to and granted such access, or where on an individual basis, a court order has provided for such access.<br />
<br />
(c) For the express purposes of Section 1. of this Act, the words phrased as "to be used for their own needs" shall be taken to mean: <br />
For use as food, medicine, fiber, fuel, building materials, environmental damage mitigation or other environmental concerns, privacy, aesthetics or ambiance, spiritual/religious requirement, (or other) basic necessities of life. <br />
<br />
(d) For the express purposes of Section 1. of this Act, the word "natural" and the words phrased as "naturally occurring" shall be taken to mean:<br />
Plant species and varieties of such that have evolved in nature through the traditional pollination and cross pollination processes, be that by wind/weather, or animal (including human) assistance.<br />
<br />
(e) For the express purposes of Section 1.(a) and Section 3.(a) of this Act, the word "greenhouse" shall be taken to mean:<br />
Any structure where the sun's light can penetrate at least 80% of the roof (ceiling or top) surface and that is intended for and used for growing plants in. <br />
<br />
Section 5., Severability:<br />
<br />
If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. The People of the County of Lake hereby declare that we would have adopted this Act irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof. RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-11380952341461555542011-10-22T12:29:00.000-07:002011-10-22T12:33:11.134-07:00$1.5 million to Cannabis RFID "Seed-to-Sale" Tracking SystemSOURCE:<br /><a href="http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/10/medical_marijuana_seed_to_sale.php">http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/10/medical_marijuana_seed_to_sale.php</a><br /><br />In August, the Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division awarded a $1.5 million contract to Franwell Inc. to institute a seed-to-sale marijuana tracking method for Colorado MMJ enterprises using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology. And while the system isn't expected to be in place until early 2012, at least one advocate is raising alarm about expense and the possible creation of new crimes. Should operators be worried?<br /><br />According to a Franwell release about the Colorado contract, "RFID tracking of marijuana will capture information on the approved 6 plants allowed per patient, each stage of plant growth, distribution and final sale. Whether a patient requires smokeable product or marijuana infused products (MIP) such as ice cream or salsa, RFID will track that patient's product and allowance in accordance with state regulations."<br /><br />READ MORE: <a href="http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/10/medical_marijuana_seed_to_sale.php">http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/10/medical_marijuana_seed_to_sale.php</a>RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-86571912353854414592011-10-21T19:02:00.000-07:002011-10-21T19:12:46.774-07:00Why We Must Ban GM CannabisSOURCE: <br />http://www.celebstoner.com/201110218771/blogs/misc/why-we-must-ban-gm-cannabis.html<br /><a href="http://www.celebstoner.com/201110218771/blogs/misc/why-we-must-ban-gm-cannabis.html"></a><br />Why We Must Ban GM Cannabis<br />By David Malmo-Levine<br /><br />For those who pay attention to the history of medicine, it is clear that cannabis has been one of the major raw materials - if not THE major raw material - and one of the major medicines - if not THE major medicine - of humanity.<br /><br />And for those who pay attention to the history of cannabis economics, it is clear that throughout human history there has always been a small minority of people who attempt to justify exclusive distribution rights of this raw material and medicine.<br /><br />The latest version of this attempt is genetically modified cannabis. “Genetic modification” - also called “GM," "genetically modified organisms," “GMO” and "transgenic" - is a process by which genes from one living thing are spliced together with another, in a manner that nature would not allow to occur on its own – as opposed to “breeding," which is speeding up a natural selection process with human selection but still limited to what could possibly happen over time in nature.<br /><br />There is no consensus in the scientific community that genetically modifying a plant helps farmers increase their yield in any way or that GM crops are safe for human consumption or environmentally friendly or pose no threat to global food security, but nearly everyone agrees that it does allow a monopoly on the selling of that particular seed, allows the producers to justify a patent, and allows those who hold the patent to sue those who grow the plants without paying for the seeds - even if the GM pollen drifted onto the field of the farmer in question.<br /><br />Up here in Canada we’ve seen how a farmer’s rights to collect and replant their own seed has been totally destroyed by the courts, who sided with Monsanto. Take the highly publicized case or Percy Schmeiser, a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan who specializes in breeding and growing canola. He became an international symbol and spokesperson for independent farmers' rights and the regulation of transgenic crops during his protracted legal battle with Monsanto Company. He was the subject of the 1999 film, David Versus Monsanto.<br /><br />In 1997, Monsanto's genetically modified Roundup Ready Canola plants were found in Schmeiser's field. Before planting his 1998 crop, Schmeiser was informed that Monsanto believed he had grown Roundup Ready canola in 1997. In the summer of 1998, the canola in Schmeiser's fields was found to be Roundup Ready canola. Monsanto subsequenty sued Schmeiser for patent infringement. Ultimately, a Supreme Court 5-4 ruling found in favor of Monsanto - that their patent was valid and there was infringement. The publicity around the case focused on whether Monsanto would be held responsible for “genetic engineering crop contamination." This issue was, not considered by the courts. The patent infringement finding was based solely on the determination that Schmeiser had recognized the cross-contamination, and knowingly went on to collect the crossbred seed, then replant and harvest it the next year. No punitive damages or the costs of the technology use fee were awarded to Monsanto, as the Supreme Court also ruled 9-0 in Schmeiser's favor that his profits were exactly the same with or without the presence of the Roundup Ready Canola.”<br /><br />Schmeiser said of his battle with Monsanto: "Farmers should be concerned about this judgment as they now may lose their ability to continue with this practice. I believe that this ruling is an injustice and Parliament must act to ensure that farmers' rights are protected. The playing field between farmer rights and the bio-tech companies rights has been tilted towards the companies with this decision."<br /><br />Monsanto introduced GM crops to the United States back in 1996. The largest share by far of the GMO crops planted globally are owned by Monsanto, which holds at least 70% market share for most major GM crop seeds.<br /><br />The first mention of the possibility of cannabis being genetically modified I could find was cited in a document leaked to Cannabis Culture back in 2000, which read in part: "Cannabis seeds from Monsanto are almost definitely genetically engineered. Genetically engineered plants can be patented, and it is in Monsanto's best interest to hold a patent on any seed they sell. Seed patents ensure that companies like Monsanto can continue to profit from seeds from year to year, as farmers are legally bound to buy patented seeds from the patent holder rather than simply store them from the last year's crop.”<br /><br />The Repeal Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 does not ban GM cannabis, but rather one of its stated goals is to “make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial,and research purposes."<br /><br />The Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act of 2012 (RMLW) will ban GM cannabis completely. Read the wording closely and see if you can find any wiggle room that would allow any corporation to grow GM cannabis:<br /><br />“Experimentation, development, research, testing, cultivation, sales or possession of genetically-modified (GMO) marijuana, hemp and its seeds shall be banned throughout the state of California.”<br /><br />Once it is in place, it will take another initiative to "unban" GM cannabis in California, and such an “unbanning” would be unlikely to appeal to voters.<br /><br />It is vitally important that RMLW passes to: 1) prevent Monsanto from taking over the cannabis industry in the same way they’ve taken over many other crops (and perhaps hold the human race hostage by controlling the entire food supply); 2) maintain the genetic integrity of the plant; 3) protect the cannabis farmer from artificial dependence (not to mention the destruction of their livelihood); 4) prevent a “Roundup Ready” version of cannabis being developed that will allow even more massive amounts of herbicides to kill the soil microbes and poison the consumers of hemp seed; 5) decrease the quality and the yield of cannabis products, not least of which being the medicinal constituents; and 6) set a good example for other U.S. states and other countries to follow.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif<br /><br />For those who would like to learn more about genetic modification, I suggest checking out the films, The World According to Monsanto and The Corporation - it's as a good crash-course introduction about GM. When watching the GM segments of each film, try and picture what would happen to the cannabis farmer and the cannabis consumer if it was them - and not the soy or corn or rice farmer or consumer - suffering from the scourge of GM.<br /><br />The RMLW petition drive begins Nov. 1. If you'd like to help out, please contact us here: <a href="http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/contact/">http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/contact/</a><br /><br />David Malmo-Levine is one of the authors of RMLW and is a longtime contributor to Cannabis CultureRadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com128tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-25906302721631308102011-07-20T13:04:00.000-07:002011-07-20T19:18:12.873-07:00"World's Most Useful Plant" Cannabis Targeted for GMO Bug Attack"World's Most Useful Plant" Marijuana Targeted for Biological Bug Attack <br /><br /> July 24th 2004<br />SOURCE: <a href="http://www.onlinepot.org/medical/bugattack.htm">http://www.onlinepot.org/medical/bugattack.htm<br /></a><br /><br />MORE INFO: <a href="http://ghostchild.org/a/agent-green-bio-agent_post827.html">http://ghostchild.org/a/agent-green-bio-agent_post827.html</a><br /> <br /> An OnlinePot News Report Exclusive!<br /><br />OK folks now for the Bad News they have All Ready Field Tested These Insects!<br />About 10 months ago a Grower in Hawaii Emailed me reporting that the<br />Night before. 2 Government Huey Choppers had hovered low over his marijuana<br />crop & Began dropping some unknown insects onto his crop, By the time daylight<br />had come every bud on his marijuana plants had been chewed OFF the stocks & were<br />laying on the ground! At the Time all I could do was pass the word to a friend who is a <br />Reverend from the AAMC email list who lives in Hawaii, to look out & ask around the <br />other growers. Well 10 months later we all now know the answers to what really<br />went on that dark Hawaiian night, <br /><br /><br /> Genetically Engineered Insect Attack<br /><br /> & What Happens If These Bugs Mutate <br /> & Decide To Start Eating More Then Just Pot Plants?<br /><br /> A Dark Day For All Plant Kind<br /><br /> Chris K. Webmaster<br /> <br /> Paul J. von Hartmann<br /> Project P.E.A.C.E.<br /> Planet Ecology Advancing Conscious Economics<br /><br /> FOR RELEASE: June 10, 2004<br /><br /> U.S. Congress Heads Up ARS Project:<br /> "World's Most Useful Plant" Targeted for Biological Attack<br /><br /> Even as medical 'marijuana' patients and the hemp foods industry are<br />racking up Supreme Court victories against the U.S. Drug Enforcement <br />Administration (DEA); even as Canadian and European<br /> farmers are cranking up Cannabis production to keep pace with public<br />demand for industrial hemp oils, resins, fiber and cellulose; even as Cannabis <br />is being recognized as being "the world's most useful plant," researchers at U.C. <br />Davis are indulging in "Reefer Madness," preparing to<br /> infest North America with insect pest species from Eurasia.<br /><br /> Since 1999 the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Research Service (ARS)<br />has been preparing to attack the 'marijuana' plant, targeted for "classic biological control"<br />in 2005. "Secure facilities" have already been built in California, where scientists<br />will grow 'marijuana' in order to study the eating habits of various Eurasian agricultural pests.<br /><br /><br /> According to the ARS annual report for 2003, "The problem is quite<br />serious as marijuana is a controlled substance in the United States and is often grown and sold<br />illegally. It is relevant to local and national law enforcement agencies and was initiated through<br />Congressional mandate." The Department of Agriculture's report continues, "Research was initiated<br />on this project at the request of Congress and the State Department to identify new biologically<br />based methods of controlling marijuana. Cooperating foreign institutions in Italy, Russia,<br />China and Kazakhstan conducted both field and literature surveys for natural enemies of<br />Cannabis sativa and selected two primary candidates, Psylliodes attenuata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)<br />and Cardipennis rubripes (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) to begin further host-specificity<br />and biology research on."<br /><br />According to the ARS report, "walk-in plant growth chambers" were constructed<br />at Davis last year, that "allow 'marijuana' to be grown under secure conditions and<br />used in quarantine." DEA certification was expected to occur in the fall of 2004. "These plants<br />will be used in the final stages of testing for the effectiveness and environmental safety of<br />selected biological control agents. This should lead to the availability of new biological control<br />agents for this narcotic plant." [sic]*<br /><br /> Faced with such monumental conflict of reason, and accelerating deterioration<br />of our environment, at some point people must ask themselves several questions.<br />First, it seems imperative to question the underlying motivations of a drug policy<br />that, after almost seventy years, has had only tragic, counter-productive results for the Earth's<br />environment, human economics and social evolution. Creation of a black market economy<br />is the most obvious and predictable result of any prohibition. "Forbidden fruit" is always<br />more expensive, leading inevitably to violence and corruption of police and politicians.<br /><br /> When a critical agricultural resource is prohibited for three generations, the destructive<br /> illusion of a "free market economy" is even more dangerous, insidious and persistent. Industries<br /> that would otherwise succumb to the laws of fair economic competition, have become<br /> institutionalized, dominating the evolution of human values. Our generation is approaching the<br /> end of that dead end road, fighting for limited energy resources when we could have been farming<br /> biofuels all along. By devaluating the most useful and potentially abundant organic agricultural<br />resource on the planet, and inducing a prolonged condition of essential resource scarcity,<br />mankind has been diverted from a course of sustainable energy development. After three<br />generations of Cannabis prohibition, degenerative, anti-natural imbalances in economics have<br />steered a toxic course for our social and political structures as well. Teetering precariously<br />on the edge of synergistic collapse, the very real possibility of extinction looms in our foreseeable,<br />predictably tragic future.<br /><br /> The absence of balancing influence, inherent to a free market, has institutionalized anti-natural values to<br /> desperate extremes. Such mad science as is happening at Davis, being directed against humankind's best<br /> hope for sustainability, is clearly agricultural espionage carried out by a chemically vested government,<br /> subverting the best interests of its own people. Unsustainable values, combined with the unpredictable<br /> instability of atmospheric carbon imbalance, are no longer theory, capable of being characterized as<br />"gloom and doom" scenarios. Scientists agree that global warming is a real and present danger, even if<br /> political front men for toxic industries would have us believe otherwise, in the interest of protecting<br /> the short-term bottom line. Corporate influence of political leadership, the economics of punishment<br /> at home and abroad, and the market dynamics of chemical industrial food and fuel production, has<br /> engendered corruption blurring the lines between industry and government.<br /><br /><br /> At U.C. Davis, government science is being employed by hemp's economic<br />competitors to strengthen the advantage that chemical industry already enjoys, <br />over agricultural solutions and common sense. As conditions of imbalance increase<br /> it is critical to assess the impact that corporate/political hybridization is having in <br />perpetuating a self-serving prohibition.<br /><br /> After decades of conclusive studies and clinical reports in many countries,<br />identifying Cannabis as "the safest therapeutically active substance known to man," which<br />holds considerable benefits for mankind, it is inevitable to conclude that government health concerns<br />used to justify prohibition are not to be taken seriously. In fact, considering all available credible science,<br /> it is obvious that prohibition only serves to increase profits for multi-national corporations<br /> protecting chemical-industrial interests against competition from agriculturally-<br />based industries.<br /><br /> It is common knowledge that there are many substances approved by the<br />U.S. government, that are much more dangerous to people's health than 'marijuana.' Alcohol and<br />tobacco are America's primary recreational drugs, far more lethal and addictive to both users<br />and non-users than 'marijuana.' Chemical pharmaceuticals and even some foods that are<br />commonly consumed with deadly result are readily available to people who choose to assume the risks<br />associated with them. Even peanuts can kill. Obviously, realistic concerns for public health and<br />safety have nothing whatever to do with 'marijuana' prohibition.<br /><br /> Cannabis prohibition is clearly motivated by industries concerned with the plant's potential to<br /> compete in a truly "free market" economy. More than ever it is essential to understanding which<br /> industries and corporations currently control the present "un-free market," exercising<br /> disproportionate economic influence, usurping control of the American government, leads to more<br /> questions.<br /><br /> The petroleum industry and the pharmaceutical industry are two of the<br />most obvious competitors. Americans pay the highest drug prices in the world. Annual spending<br />for pharmaceuticals, is up to $250 billion, doubling every five years. More than 120,000 people<br />die every year in the U.S., from "legal drugs" taken in accordance with their doctor's prescription.<br />Virtually everything that is being made from petroleum hydrocarbons, can be made better,<br />cheaper, and with less pollution using Cannabis, a carbohydrate.<br /><br /> Less obvious, but equally powerful are the soybean industry with interests<br />tied to biotech and chemicals for agricultural. Monsanto controls more than 80% of the<br />biotech industry, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer pharmaceutical. These are the economic<br />forces driving prohibition, through political influence and lobbying groups such as<br />Partnership for a Drug Free America.<br /><br /> It's no secret that America's second generation oil president is the petroleum & pharmaceutical<br /> industry's favorite son. The CEO of Pfizer donated $200,000 to Bush's campaign this year. Other<br /> blatant examples, of government officials serving billions of dollars worth of prohibitionist<br /> interests on behalf of chemically-dependent industries, abound. In America's present<br /> administration there are no fewer than six top ranking officials, directly associated with<br /> Monsanto, including the Supreme Court Judge who put GW Bush in office (Clarence Thomas), the<br /> U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman), the Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld), the<br /> U.S. Secretary of Health (Tommy Thompson), Chairman of the House Agricultural<br />Committee (Larry Combest) and Attorney General John Ashcroft.<br /><br /> "The Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), a coalition of militant peasant groups, has called<br /> for a boycott of Monsanto products. KMP is attempting to block the use of the genetically<br /> modified YieldGard Bt-corn and is protesting Monsanto's interests in the United States-led war<br /> on Iraq. Rafael Mariano, KMP chair, said the program boycott on Monsanto products is part of a<br /> civil disobedience campaign to protest against US industry's attacks on the Iraqi people. "The<br /> US military campaign to topple the Iraqi leadership was for the benefit of US war industries<br /> like the US-based Monsanto, the proponent of the genetically engineered Bt-corn in the country<br /> and manufacturer of Agent Orange...Monsanto is no less than a war industry,<br /><br />" Mariano said.<br /><br /> Mariano further stated that it was a "clear mockery" that US President<br />Bush launched the strike on Iraq under the pretext of disarming it of its weapons of mass destruction,<br />because the US itself is the primary producer of weapons of mass destruction. The forest products industry<br /> is another cash cow tied to chemical production. Recent estimates put the potential market for hemp paper<br /> at between $15 to $30 billion a year worldwide. About 20 paper mills around the world use hemp fiber,<br /> with an estimated annual world production volume of 120,000 tons. This represents about .05 percent of<br /> all paper. India and China dominate this potentially vast market. In the U.S., the "green" paper industry<br /> (including recycled and natural fibers) accounts for about $20 million in a $230 billion industry.<br /><br /> Expanded use of agricultural crops and other tree-free materials for paper would not only spare<br /> trees but would also produce paper with minimal environmental impact from the chemicals used to<br /> manufacture paper. In the U.S., hemp food products are a small but fast-growing sector of the<br /> natural foods industry, with annual sales of about $5 million. Canadian farmers seeded 3,800<br /> acres of hemp in 2002 and harvested about two million pounds of the crop. In 1994, President Clinton<br /> signed Executive Order 12919, specifically identifying hemp as a "strategic food resource" subject to<br /> "essential civilian demand." Consider that the nutritional value of Cannabis seed makes hemp the most<br /> nutritious and healing food on Earth. This is an inarguable fact, since Cannabis is the only common seed<br /> with three essential fatty acids (EFAs) in proper proportion for long-term consumption.<br /><br /> Cannabis seed is also the best available source of organic protein on the planet. Consider that<br /> neither the U.S. government, nor the United Nations, has any research projects, anywhere in the<br /> world, where Cannabis is being considered as a source of vegetable protein. Even in countries<br /> where it is perfectly legal to grow Cannabis, (even subsidized by the European Union in some<br /> places), there are no U.N. Food & Agriculture investigations being carried out. Not one.<br /><br /> Instead of growing organic Cannabis, humankind is growing soybeans for protein. This is a relatively poor choice, since there are several good reasons not to eat soybean, unless it is properly fermented. Also, from an agricultural perspective, soybean is much more difficult to grow than Cannabis, requiring substantial chemical application to suppress competition from weeds. Cannabis naturally defends itself against most insect pests, and crowds out competition from most weeds.<br /><br /> This and many other beneficial agricultural characteristics make Cannabis an excellent rotational crop, useful as a companion plant to help with cultivation of other crops, re-mineralization of nutrient-depleted soils, for preventing soil erosion, as a seasonal windbreak, and to break up compacted soils.Cannabis is such a valuable plant, capable of producing so many products, that it may not be possible for mankind to achieve sustainable existence on this planet without it. Certainly, without hemp the United States of America as we know it would not exist. As most people know by now, all of the founding fathers of this country were hemp farmers, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.<br /><br /> "Make the most of the hemp seed and sow it everywhere." --George Washington<br />(1794)<br /><br /> "We shall....want a world of hemp more for our own personal consumption."<br />- --John Adams (1783)<br /><br /> "Hemp is of first necessity....to the wealth and protection of the<br />country." --Thomas Jefferson<br /> (1791)**<br /><br /> "Hemp is an article of importance enough to warrant the employment<br />of extraordinary means in its<br /> favor."--Alexander Hamilton (1791)<br /><br /> Cannabis is capable of producing more food, fuel, medicines, fiber, cellulose, and resins<br /> organically, sustain ably than any other plant on Earth. Not only is it imperative to stop the<br /> waste of money and obviate the destructive impact of the research being done at U.C. Davis, it<br /> is as important to ask why this research has been allowed to continue for five years, in light<br /> of what is common knowledge about this critically important agricultural resource.<br /><br /> Such obvious abominations as the importation of invasive insect species from one continent to another, serve to make the absurdity and economic motivations of prohibition that much more blatant. As nothing else could, this plan to self-inflict a bio-terrorist attack on the world's best hope for sustainable agriculturally-based industry, should finally wake up America to the sinister character of corrupt economic forces that are running our government. Unless people recognize (before the election) the insidious<br /> predation of impacted economic forces, perverting the human economic structure, treasonous influences<br /> imbedded within our political fabric will continue to impose essential resource scarcity, capitalize on, and<br /> exaggerate the imbalances which result from it. <br /><br />Walt Kelly is as right as he ever-loving' was, "We have met the enemy and he is us."<br /><br /> * Note: While Cannabis can be "psychoactive" it is non-narcotic.<br /><br /> ** Thomas Jefferson even smuggled hemp seeds into the U.S. from China.<br /><br /><br /> #<br /><br /> Paul von Hartmann is an international freelance photojournalist, Cannabis<br />scholar, and Natural rights activist. This essay may also be found posted at the P.E.A.C.E.<br />blog entitled "Cannabis and Iraq: Why Prohibition Leads to War" http://cannabiswars.blogspot.com/<br /><br /><br /> Thursday, June 10, 2004<br /><br /> Paul J. von Hartmann<br /> Project P.E.A.C.E. Planet Ecology Advancing Conscious Economics<br /> http://www.webspawner.com/users/projectpeace/<br /> Contact: e-mail: projectpeace@yahoo.com<br /><br /> (c) PvH 2004<br /><br /> 1. Research Project: Classical Biological Control of Narcotic Plants<br /> http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=402468&showpars=true&fy=2003<br /><br /> 2.Medpot stars give for patients http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2569.html<br /><br /><br /> 3.Study Shows Therapeutic Benefits, No Adverse Effects in Long-Term<br />Marijuana Users<br /> http://www.infoimagination.org/ps/drug_war/articles/mj_study.html<br /><br /> 4. War foes urge boycott of US products http://www.geocities.com/kmp_ph/strug/032403.html<br /><br /><br /> 5. Asia Farm & Consumer Groups Denounce UN FAO Support for GMOs<br /> http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/asia052404.cfm<br /><br /> 6. Big Biotech Silencing Critics of Pesticides & GE Crops<br /> http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/bigbiotech060304.cfm<br /><br /> 7. Organic Consumers Association Campaigning for Food Safety, Organic<br />Agriculture, Fair Trade &<br /> Sustainability Millions Against Monsanto If you're talking about PCBs,<br /><br />Agent Orange, Bovine<br /> Growth Hormone, water privatization, biopiracy, untested/unlabeled<br />genetically engineered<br /> organisms, or persecuting small family farmers, you're talking about<br />the Monsanto Corporation.<br /> Monsanto's Government Ties http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.html<br /><br /><br /> 8. Scientists Demand Action on Invasive Species: National Environmental<br />Coalition on Invasive<br /> Species (NECIS) issued a "Call To Action on Invasive Species."<br /> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/invasive_species/page.cfm?pageID=1275RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-20671253744313253352011-07-17T10:35:00.000-07:002011-07-20T08:03:02.917-07:00GMO Hemp Monopolies & California's SB 676"Imagine if any farmer in the world could suddenly grow a magic plant whose fruit could feed every starving person, its fiber could clothe every freezing child, it could be burned as industrial biomass fuel, giving cheap electricity to every factory and small town in the world, its pulp could replace the need for wood building materials and paper, make natural cellulose plastic that is 10 times stronger than steel, and it could supply non-toxic methanol fuel for every car on the road today. According to Popular Mechanics in 1938, this miracle plant not only existed but had been known for more than 12,000 years as Cannabis (Hemp), and could completely reverse the painful death of American family farming since the Depression."<br /><a href="http://www.jcrows.com/prouty.html">http://www.jcrows.com/prouty.html</a> <br /><br />Emerging from the bowels of the California state senate is a bill entitled SB 676, the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act. The LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST pertaining to this act states the following:<br />.<br />“This bill would revise the definition of "marijuana" so that the term would exclude industrial hemp, as defined… having no more than 3/10 of 1% [0.3%] tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the dried flowering tops… The bill would enact certain provisions relating to growing industrial hemp which would apply only in Imperial, Kern, Kings, San Joaquin, and Yolo Counties , except when grown by an established agricultural institution…”<br /><br />“The bill would require industrial hemp to be cultivated only from seeds imported in accordance with laws of the United States or from seeds grown in California from plants, cultivated plants, or plants grown by an established agricultural research institution. “ <br /><br />“The bill would require…the person growing the industrial hemp to obtain…a laboratory test of a random sample of the crop to determine the amount of THC… The bill would require that samples to perform the testing be taken in the presence of, and be collected and transported only by, an employee or agent of a laboratory that is registered with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration.”<br />[SEE: <a href="http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?bvid=20110SB67696AMD">http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?bvid=20110SB67696AMD</a>]<br /><br />SB 676 goes on to site California House Resolution 32, passed in 1999, which states:<br /><br />“Resolved, That the Assembly finds and declares that the Legislature should consider directing the University of California, the California State University, and other state<br />agencies to prepare studies in conjunction with private industry on the cultivation, processing, and marketing of industrial hemp.”<br />[SEE: <a href="http://www.votehemp.com/PDF/hr_32_19990816_introduced.pdf">http://www.votehemp.com/PDF/hr_32_19990816_introduced.pdf</a>]<br /><br />SB 676 - THC REGULATIONS FORCE FARMERS TO BE DEPENDENT UPON THE LIKES OF UC DAVIS, MONSANTO, DEA, NATIONAL GRANGE AND SCOTTS MIRACLE GROW FOR SEED.<br /><br />It is clear from reading the foregoing excerpts that California’s future Hemp industry, under SB 676, will be born from a limited number of exclusive ‘pilot’ programs, initiated by State Agencies in conjunction with ‘private industry‘, as well as universities such as UC Davis, and other ‘established agricultural institutions’. These institutions could include everything from the State and National Granges to Monsanto and Scotts Miracle Grow. If one thing is for sure it does not include small, independent farmers and collectives.<br /><br />It is also made clear that the only legal Cannabis strains that will be available for this new Hemp industry, are strains which have THC levels less then 0.3%, and which must be certified by a DEA registered laboratory. These strains would either have to be imported to California under DEA import licenses, or bred using defunct artificial breeding practices and/or genetic engineering. The reason for this is because there is no Cannabis growing in California that has a THC level less then 0.3%. All of California's strains have been bred for very high levels of THC. Furthermore, THC levels in Cannabis are unstable and hard to control, with increases as much as 100% in one generation being a common phenomena. [SEE: <a href="http://www.hempreport.com/issues/17/pdf/australia16.pdf">http://www.hempreport.com/issues/17/pdf/australia16.pdf</a>] <br /><br />It has also been shown that low THC varieties are much weaker and pest ridden compared to high THC strains. [SEE: <a href="http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha03209.html">http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha03209.html</a>] This could be due to the fact that THC has been shown to be a defensive mechanism in Cannabis. Everything from UVB radiation, drought, soil health, to insects and other pests all contribute to the environmental stress which increases THC production in Cannabis. [SEE: <a href="http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha01201.html">http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha01201.html</a>] THC is a UVB protectant for developing seeds, thus high THC varieties have been shown to produce much larger seed yields, with over 1 kilogram of seed per plant. [SEE:<a href="http://www.hempworld.com/hemp-cyberfarm_com/htms/research_orgzs/iha/ihagenetic.html">http://www.hempworld.com/hemp-cyberfarm_com/htms/research_orgzs/iha/ihagenetic.html</a>]<br /><br />With an understanding of the chemical ecology of Cannabis, we can see that limiting the production of THC can result in less yield, less vigor and less resistance to pests and diseases. Weakening the immunity of Cannabis serves to benefit the chemical agricultural establishment for it creates more of incentive for farmers to utilize pesticides, artificial fertilizers, and biotechnology to fight disease, rather then relying on the natural immunity of the plant.<br /><br />THC regulations serve as a bureaucratic tool to monopolize the Hemp industry. All known low THC varieties grow only in temperates north of the earths 45th parallel circle of latitude [SEE: <a href="http://www.hempworld.com/hemp-cyberfarm_com/htms/research_orgzs/iha/ihagenetic.html">http://www.hempworld.com/hemp-cyberfarm_com/htms/research_orgzs/iha/ihagenetic.html</a>] This is due to the low UVB radiation coming from the sun at those climates. California’s climate receives substantially higher amounts of UVB radiation then northern climates and thus drastic increases in THC levels are common. This makes the task of regulating THC very difficult. The result is that THC regulations effectively ban 100% of all Cannabis already being grown by California farmers, forcing farmers to be dependent on the agricultural establishment for seed.<br /><br />By barring high THC strains from being used for Hemp production, the only other strains available must be imported through a DEA license or breed by an established agricultural research institution like UC Davis. By further granting exclusive cultivation rights to ‘established agricultural institutions’, the state has effectively granted a Hemp monopoly to elite agricultural entities such as the National Grange (Who openly advocates for GMO Hemp research and cultivation) and Monsanto.<br /><br />Since the 1950’s, the USDA along with European governments have been using artificial and defunct breeding practices to lower THC production in Cannabis. The specific method used is called hermaphroditic or monoecious inbreeding. This is where female plants are forced to produce male flowers and inbreed with itself to produce seed, this is an effective way to lower THC production.<br /><br />Though there are many problems with monoecious varieties contaminating Californias Cannabis gene pool. The deleterious effects of inbreeding was first described in 1934 by Fleischman, who reported a 50% reduction in seed yeild. Bocsa in 1958 blamed inbreeding for losses of seed and fiber yield, short plant stature, shortened lifespan, production of sterile seed, and increase susceptibility to disease.<br /><br />Written and researched by Conrad Justice KiczenskiRadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com372tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-57987667957880642742011-07-16T08:21:00.000-07:002011-07-16T08:35:35.997-07:00IS MONSANTO GOING AFETR MEDICAL MARIJUANA MARKET WITH MIRACLE-GRO?SOURCE:<br /><a href="http://www.growswitch.com/blog/2011/06/monsanto-going-afetr-medical-marijuana-market-with-miracle-gro/">http://www.growswitch.com/blog/2011/06/monsanto-going-afetr-medical-marijuana-market-with-miracle-gro/http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif<br /></a><br />The thought of it is almost unimaginable, but many think that the company often referred to as the most “evil corporation” in history is now going after the medical marijuana market with Scotts Miracle-Gro.<br /><br />Please research and do your own investigation before using any chemicals or fertilizers, especially if it involves ANYTHING that you’re putting in your body or using medically. <br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />Scotts Miracle-Gro Looks to Help People Grow Marijuana</span> – by the Wall Street Journal<br /><br />By DANA MATTIOLI<br /><br />Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. has long sold weed killer. Now, it’s hoping to help people grow killer weed.<br /><br />Scott’s Miracle-Gro is hoping to cash in on the growing medical marijuana business. WSJ’s Dana Mattioli reports.<br /><br />In an unlikely move for the head of a major company, Scotts Chief Executive Jim Hagedorn said he is exploring targeting medical marijuana as well as other niches to help boost sales at his lawn and garden company.<br /><br />“I want to target the pot market,” Mr. Hagedorn said in an interview. “There’s no good reason we haven’t.”<br /><br />But the Marysville, Ohio, company relies on sales at three key retailers—Home Depot Inc., Lowe’s Cos. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc.—for nearly two-thirds of its revenue. With consumers still cautious about spending, the retailers aren’t building new stores as quickly as they used to, making growth for suppliers like Scotts harder to come by. Against that backdrop, Mr. Hagedorn has pushed his regional sales presidents to look for smaller pockets of growth, such as the marijuana market, that together could produce a noticeable bump in sales.<br /><br />Sixteen states have legalized medical marijuana, the largest being California and Colorado. The market will reach $1.7 billion in sales this year, according to a report by See Change Strategy LLC, an information data services company.<br /><br />While the report focuses on revenue from growers and dispensaries, Kris Lotlikar, president of See Change, said the market for companies selling hydroponic equipment and professional services is also thriving.<br /><br />“We see very good growth for these types of companies as the medical-marijuana business grows,” he said.<br /><br />via <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304665904576383832249741032.html">High Hopes at Miracle-Gro in Medical Marijuana Field </a><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO, GMO'S, AND MONSANTO:</span><br /><br />"1998 also saw Scotts branch out into GM technology, through the acquisition of 80% of Sanford Scientific Inc, “allowing researchers to create desirable varieties of plants with value-added traits far beyond the capabilities of conventional plant breeding techniques”.[7] Scotts also entered into a collaboration with the Monsanto company to “bring the benefits of biotechnology to the multi-billion dollar turfgrass and ornamental plants business.[8] Under the agreement, Scotts and Monsanto agreed to share technologies, including Monsanto's extensive genetic library of plant traits and Scotts' proprietary gene gun technology to produce 'improved' transgenic turfgrass and ornamental plants. Other acquisitions in 1998 included the US company EarthGro Inc. and the continental lawn and garden products company ASEF."<br /><br />"Scotts relationship with Monsanto became even cosier in 1999, when Scotts completed agreements with the company for exclusive US, Canada, UK, France, Germany and Austria agency and marketing rights to its consumer Roundup herbicide products. Scotts also purchased the remainder of Monsanto's lawn and garden business, which included the pesticide brand Ortho." <br /><a href="http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=367 ">http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=367 </a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Do You Think Monsanto is Helping Your Garden?</span><br /><br />by TAMARA<br /><br />Do we really want the creators of Agent Orange engineering our food? Surprised? Let me share their specialty is neurotoxin POISON. They have already contaminated over 70% of our food supply and infiltrated our political system. Yes indeed, the makers of Round Up and Scott’s Miracle grow are buying up patents to our seeds, our food, and our future. One of their former attorneys now works for our FDA helping to write a bill for their bovine hormone usage in our food supply.<br /><br />They do not have our best interests at heart. Their GMO foods are making us sick, their Round Up and Miracle Grow toxins are poisoning our earth and their profits are making THEM happy.<br /><br />Stand up and refuse to buy GMO foods. Mac and cheese for your kids? You might as well hand them poison because 80% of all pre packaged food in the US are GMO. Wondering about fertility rates being so low? Our seeds are becoming sterilized thanks to GMO foods and that trickles into our bodies.<br /><br />Don’t be fooled by Miracle Gro, produced by Scotts Company an arm of Monsanto. They are a billion dollar chemical company. It’s chemical based and it’s new Organic line is a Marketing ploy. There is no organic watch dog for gardening or cleaning products.<br /><br />It is INorganic and contains oh so good for us grow crystals made of chemical fertilizers. Scotts also makes Hyponex soil which was studied by Colorado State University and showed poor plant growth. Read the report here“<br /><br />Read the full article here via Daily Transformations: <a href="http://www.dailytransformations.com/do-you-think-monsanto-is-helping-your-garden/">http://www.dailytransformations.com/do-you-think-monsanto-is-helping-your-garden/</a>RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com126tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-87108712382588378452011-05-16T14:51:00.000-07:002011-05-16T14:59:27.017-07:00Cannabis Declared Endangered (Endangered Species Act)SOURCE:<br /><a href="http://thc-ministry.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6939">http://thc-ministry.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6939</a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgXqKKICUalfmbup7Z8QZ4Z9MkPw_lsZZ__s5puKaUuOfu98YbMR-d02zusc8XE_8iLeiSNUIw7xjyC-o1zUA3g8ShyphenhyphenLiw3FegcuuC_QvzkC809vkzoAUpUYnxEWfu81RRf1QrAQVW7kzr/s1600/esa1a.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 223px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgXqKKICUalfmbup7Z8QZ4Z9MkPw_lsZZ__s5puKaUuOfu98YbMR-d02zusc8XE_8iLeiSNUIw7xjyC-o1zUA3g8ShyphenhyphenLiw3FegcuuC_QvzkC809vkzoAUpUYnxEWfu81RRf1QrAQVW7kzr/s320/esa1a.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5607435232270111490" /></a><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDp9Tey9460bvpTYfQikBLSMSjrXo6gVgLStjes8W3ApSDRKGxpQiwTHU64C-Zyk_rH0JRU87XPEKFb1w576s-dNsP2BPlmJCo-5bJBmz7JyrgBTI_4RXI5WR3b4SsXfQ387dNvj2T9Rx1/s1600/esa1b.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 270px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDp9Tey9460bvpTYfQikBLSMSjrXo6gVgLStjes8W3ApSDRKGxpQiwTHU64C-Zyk_rH0JRU87XPEKFb1w576s-dNsP2BPlmJCo-5bJBmz7JyrgBTI_4RXI5WR3b4SsXfQ387dNvj2T9Rx1/s320/esa1b.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5607435688662142386" /></a>RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-53748695277116735762011-04-13T13:46:00.000-07:002011-04-13T13:52:04.395-07:00Just Say NO to GMO Hemp!Okay here's the situation as I understand it to the best of my impaired ability. In a few states farmers are finally standing up for themselves and banding together to be allowed to grow that which we have been waiting for all these long years. Good news, right? Oh how I wish! <br /><br />See, out of concern for the welfare of the women and children (like Waco), the Great White Fathers in WDC (and their Illuminati masters) have determined that the only hemp that civilization can tolerate are patented low to no THC varieties. <br /><br />So? Why not just grow the "safe, drug-free" hemp and get the ball rolling and a real hemp industry started in this country? Well for one thing, the low to no THC hemp sucks in every way. It's designed primarily to be a fiber crop but the plants are short and the fibers are real short. Most industries are wholly dissatisfied with the products and the results are disappointing at best. And because of terminator technology we can't use them for seed production. It gets worse. <br /><br />There is every reason to believe that they will export their multipurpose suckyness to every other cannabis variety unlucky enough to be anywhere downwind. (Remember the "Starlink" feed corn and the Canadian canola catastrophe?) THC is a UV blocker which protects developing hemp seed from damaging radiation. Low THC hemp mutates and rapidly loses its reproductive vigor. Exporting this characteristic or God forbid the Terminator trait through air borne pollen would rapidly lead to the demise of the species. <br /><br />Since they frankenfucked with the genetics I’m concerned about it being released into the environment at all. So please help me out here people whatta ya think we should do? I mean it's only the most important ally our species has ever had.<br /><br />By Uncle Tim<br />SOURCE:<br /><a href="http://hempevolutionnyc.tribe.net/thread/c90e0ced-8d3f-4021-9625-b69ebeca89a2">http://hempevolutionnyc.tribe.net/thread/c90e0ced-8d3f-4021-9625-b69ebeca89a2</a>RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-38309667582178361412011-03-13T14:20:00.000-07:002011-03-13T14:22:22.127-07:00DEA to legalize marijuana only for ‘Big Pharma'SOURCE:<br /><a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/23/dea-to-legalize-marijuana-only-for-big-pharma-group-claims/">http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/23/dea-to-legalize-marijuana-only-for-big-pharma-group-claims/</a><br /><br />A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) proposal to reclassify the main psychoactive chemical in marijuana as a Schedule III substance would allow pharmaceutical companies to market the drug while still penalizing common recreational use, according to marijuana law reform advocates.<br /><br />The main psychoactive chemical in marijuana, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is currently a Schedule I substance within the US Controlled Substances Act, the most restrictive schedule with the greatest criminal penalties.<br /><br />In November 2010, the DEA proposed reclassifying dronabinol, a synthetic THC, as a Schedule III substance, which would place it among substances such as hydrocodone and allow it to be dispensed with a written or oral prescription.<br /><br />"The DEA's intent is to expand the federal government's schedule III listing to include pharmaceutical products containing naturally derived formations of THC while simultaneously maintain existing criminal prohibitions on the plant itself," Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), wrote at AlterNet.<br /><br />With its proposal, the DEA is responding to the demands of large pharmaceutical companies, he claimed.<br /><br />Marijuana plants and THC extracts would remain illegal under the proposal, but companies would be able to purchase THC from a government-licensed provider to develop pharmaceutical products.<br /><br />"While the DEA's forthcoming regulatory change promises to stimulate the advent of legally available, natural THC therapeutic products... the change will offer no legal relief for those hundreds of thousands of Americans who believe that therapeutic relief is best obtained by use of the whole plant itself," Armentano added.<br /><br />"Rather the DEA appears content to try to walk a political and semantic tightrope that alleges: 'pot is bad,' but 'pot-derived pharmaceuticals are good.'"<br /><br />THC can help cancer patients regain their appetites and sense of taste, according to a study published on Wednesday.<br /><br />"This is the first randomized controlled trial to show that THC makes food taste better and improves appetites for patients with advanced cancer, as well as helping them to sleep and to relax better," Dr. Wendy Wismer, associate professor at the University of Alberta, said. "Our findings are important, as there is no accepted treatment for chemosensory alterations experienced by cancer patients."<br /><br />Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation to legalize the medical use of marijuana.RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-50402429193399839402011-02-12T17:22:00.000-08:002011-02-12T17:23:33.495-08:00Company makes GMO plant produce THCOakdale, CA: Scientists at Montsaint Genie Tech Inc. announced today that they have successfully transferred the gene segment that produces the psychotropic chemical THC in cannabis plants to many other common garden plants, including tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, carrots, and more.<br /><br />“We probably can put the THC segment into almost any plant in existence,” says lead scientist Rebeca Vale. “It’s a very simple process. We are starting work on oak and maple trees now.”<br /><br />Asked if the resulting plants could be used in ways similar to cannabis, Vale replied, “Well, you can’t make twine out of a tomato plant, but if someone were to dry it and smoke it, all of the medicinal and psychotropic effects of marijuana would be present. And what’s more, we have learned that tomatoes, in particular, actually produce more THC than cannabis itself.”<br /><br />But is it legal? “Actually, yes,” says Vale. “Our research qualifies as GMO ‘intellectual property’, as does the process itself. Since tomatoes and other plants are not illegal, a person would be well within the law to grow them and use them as they please.”<br /><br />Vale says that her company is working on a spray that will transfer the segment to many plants simply by spraying the leaves of seedlings.<br /><br />“It’s a very simple process,” she says. “Anyone can do it. We plan to start selling the spray – ‘Genie Mist’ – in a matter of weeks. One bottle will sell for five dollars and be capable of treating 6,000 seedlings.”<br /><br />But how do the tomatoes taste? “Scrumptious,” Vale says. “But, of course, they are best when roasted.”<br /><br />Source:<br />http://guspini.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/company-makes-any-plant-produce-thc-and-the-tomatoes-are-especially-yummy/RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-49369818035596247502011-02-12T17:18:00.000-08:002011-02-12T17:20:51.650-08:00GMO Bacteria makes THCGerman scientists use genetically-engineered bacteria to produce THC. Google translation of an article in Spiegel Online.<br /><br /> Kayser's team has now developed a method of producing the genetically engineered bacteria in the THC. "We have virtually copied the biosynthesis of the plant into a micro-organism," Kayser said in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE. The THC-production with another organism was possible for the first time worldwide.<br /><br /> THC is extracted from hemp grown in Germany, for growing and imports are legal. "Because the fibers contain less than 0.2 percent THC, the production process is correspondingly expensive," says Kayser. From the cannabis plant, which can contain up to 25 percent THC, the active ingredient may for legal reasons in Germany can not be won. <br /><br />SOURCE:<br />http://www.dosenation.com/listing.php?id=7686RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-33111922815788396782010-12-03T13:59:00.000-08:002010-12-03T14:11:48.444-08:00The Biotechnology of Cannabis SativaThe Biotechnology of Cannabis Sativa<br />Written by Sam R. Zwenger, April, 2009<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/14571756/The-Biotechnology-of-Cannabis-Sativa">http://www.scribd.com/doc/14571756/The-Biotechnology-of-Cannabis-Sativa</a><br /><br />Introduction<br /><br />Marijuana, whose scientific name is Cannabis sativa, is perhaps the most famous plant ever discovered by humans. Since its discovery it has been used by millions of people for both inducing pleasure and alleviating pain.Cannabis has a rich history, complex biology and a fascinating physiology.<br /><br />Molecular biology and plant biotechnology are only beginning to uncover the secrets of this plant. Scientists now have the opportunity to growCannabis plants in vitro (in a test tube or Petri dish), thereby being able to genetically modify these plants in dozens of ways. FluorescentCannabis, THC-producing roses,Cannabis that climbs like a vine, and phenomenal increases in branch number and flower size are only a few of the ways in which this plant can be enhanced through biotechnology. <br /><br /> The tools of biotechnology, such as DNA sequencing and gene cloning, are speeding up the reality that this highly controversial plant will continue to make an impact on human societies for generations to come. This book covers advances and techniques on how to grow plant tissue in vitro, genetically modify this tissue, and re-grow it in order to produce a transgenic Cannabis plant. Anyone who wants to know what the future holds for Cannabis sativa and marijuana should read this book. <br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyHu6KVBUdfjCs2l44XR2N4VGgXr2pcQbYDPzTv4XWuG9orM_pNLEtNhnqJp7Wg2ccJtd2uJ0isl0PTn1yHH4eYFPK3FNRCS5kkC4WTXVhAMksOfV-yPv4L4ExrQHQKdSVTwMQMHRsaJTm/s1600/gmo+cannabis.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 269px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyHu6KVBUdfjCs2l44XR2N4VGgXr2pcQbYDPzTv4XWuG9orM_pNLEtNhnqJp7Wg2ccJtd2uJ0isl0PTn1yHH4eYFPK3FNRCS5kkC4WTXVhAMksOfV-yPv4L4ExrQHQKdSVTwMQMHRsaJTm/s320/gmo+cannabis.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5546581811064841762" /></a><br /><br /> A Cannabis callus that has been genetically modified with the GFP gene is shown growing in a Magenta box. When its roots, shoot and leaves have further developed, it can be placed in soil and moved to a growth chamber.RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-9114974793898818012010-12-03T13:56:00.000-08:002010-12-03T13:59:00.159-08:00New GMO Plants Grow Pharmaceutical DrugsNew Genetically Modified Plants Grow Pharma Drugs<br />SOURCE:<br /><a href="http://consciouslifenews.com/genetically-modified-plants-grow-drugs/113036/">http://consciouslifenews.com/genetically-modified-plants-grow-drugs/113036/</a><br /><br />Chemists at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have developed a process of genetically engineering plants to produce synthetic compounds.<br /><br />The team of researchers, headed by Associate Professor Sarah O’Connor, added bacterial genes to the periwinkle plant, which enabled it to attach halogens (such as chlorine or bromine) to alkaloids, a class of compounds that are normally produced in the plant.<br /><br />“We’re trying to use plant biosynthetic mechanisms to easily make a whole range of different iterations of natural products,” said O’Connor. “If you tweak the structure of natural products, very often you get different or improved biological and pharmacological activity.”<br /><br />The research was funded by the American Cancer Society and the National Institutes of Health, and was published in the November 3rd online edition of Nature. This newly developed process creates plants that can literally grow synthetic pharmaceutical compounds, which pharmaceutical companies can then patent.<br /><br />The implications and uses of such advanced genetic manipulation of nature are sure to be many, the effects of which are yet to be seen.<br /><br />Sources: http://www.eurekalert.org/, http://www.naturalnews.com/RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-13194981731451475022010-12-03T13:47:00.000-08:002010-12-03T13:52:35.275-08:00Killing Cannabis with GMO FungiKilling Cannabis with mycoherbicides<br />SOURCE:<br /><a href="http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/hemp/iha/jiha6101.html">http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/hemp/iha/jiha6101.html</a><br /><br />John M. McPartland<br />VAM/AMRITA, 53 Washington Street Extension, Middlebury, VT 05753, USA<br />e-mail: john.mcpartland@vtmednet.org, phone: 802-388-0575, fax: 802-382-8845<br /><br />David West<br />GamETec, 363 S. Warren Street, Prescott, WI 54021, USA<br /><br /> McPartland, John M. and David West 1999. Killing Cannabis with mycoherbicides Journal of the International Hemp Association 6(1): 1, 4-8. Last year, researchers were funded by the U.S. government to create fungi that destroy drug plants, including marijuana (Cannabis). The fungi will be genetically engineered. Controversies surrounding this "new solution" for the war on drugs are discussed, including the ethics of exterminating plant species that have occupied central roles in human culture for thousands of years. The importation of foreign fungi into new habitats is fraught with unpredictable environmental pitfalls; exotic pathogens can spread from their intended targets to other organisms. All known pathogens of marijuana also attack hemp; exterminating drug plants will probably spell the demise of the valuable and resurgent fiber and oil-seed crop. Genetically transformed fungi are genetically unstable and mutate easily. Fungi with recombinant DNA may reproduce with native fungi and create new strains of virulent, transgenic pathogens. Once these pathogens are released in the environment, they cannot be recalled. In summary, research involving transgenic pathogens of Cannabis is a dangerous misuse of biotechnology, and should be the subject of an immediate moratorium.<br /><br /> Figure 1. Healthy marijuana seedling (C) flanked by plants exposed to pathogenic fungi (P.g. and M.p.).<br /><br />Introduction<br /> The U.S. Congress recently appropriated $23 million dollars to fund a "new solution" for the war on drugs. The new solution attacks drugs at their source — the drug plants. Researchers say they can eliminate drug plants with fungal pathogens. The fungi would be genetically engineered to kill only coca plants (Erythroxylon sp.), opium poppies (Papaver sp.), and marijuana (Cannabis sp.).<br /> Rep. Bill McCollum, who introduced the appropriation bill, described the tactic as "a silver bullet in the drug war" (Fields 1998). The development of transgenic coca and opium pathogens began several years ago, but previous appropriations were relatively small (the 1998 budget was $2.58 million). This year McCollum expanded the program to include marijuana, and moved the budget’s decimal point to the right.<br /> A fungal weapon (Fig. 1) for the war on drugs is not new. Millions of dollars were spent in the 1970s in a world-wide search for fungi which would attack coca (Lentz et al. 1975), poppies (Schmitt and Lipscomb 1975), or marijuana (Ghani et al. 1978). It was a strange era for plant pathologists. While researchers around the globe attacked the pathogens of poppies and hemp, US-funded scientists reversed the strategy — they attacked poppies and hemp with these same pathogens (Doctor 1986).<br /> Renewed interest in fungal pathogens for the "war on drugs" is of great concern. The law-enforcement lobby wishes to exterminate three plant species that have occupied central roles in human culture for thousands of years. Are the targeted plants inescapably evil? Are there no alternative means for reducing their dangers to humans? Reported herein are the ethical and scientific controversies pertinent to this issue, framed for consideration by academia, state and federal government agencies, and others interested in genetically engineered organisms, biological control, and the drug war (Cook et al. 1996).<br /><br />Killer fungi<br /> Experiments with fungi to control plants began in the late 1960s. The initial targets were noxious agricultural weeds that had been accidentally imported from one region of the world into another, where they became more aggressive because their natural enemies were often absent. Hence, the classical strategy for biocontrol of weeds involves the importation of natural enemies from their native ranges. Classical biocontrol generally enjoys wide approval and is used by organic agriculture, although the strategy does have its critics (Howarth 1991).<br /> Classical biocontrol of marijuana was originally envisioned by Arthur McCain in 1970 (Shay 1975). McCain, a professor at the University of California-Berkeley, suggested, "Just introduce a couple of pounds [of a pathogenic fungus] into an area, and while it wouldn’t have much of an effect the first year, in several years it would spread throughout the country with devastating results" (Zubrin 1981). In reality, however, classical biocontrol rarely extirpates a weed, it merely reduces the weed population to a low level (Watson 1991). Reduction without eradication is acceptable for most agricultural weeds, but is unacceptable for "zero tolerance" drug control, which seeks the complete eradication of a crop.<br /> The other biocontrol strategy, inundative release, is also called the mycoherbicide approach. This strategy releases massive amounts of fungal spores upon target plants. The mycoherbicide approach can totally eradicate a field of drug plants. This approach, however, utilizes a delivery system similar to that of chemical herbicides — such as hovering over clandestine fields in a helicopter while releasing the control agent. Thus the mycoherbicide approach, compared to the current herbicide strategy, is equally expensive, exposes pilots to equal danger as they hover over fields, and may require retreatment of annual crops. The mycoherbicide approach is not the suggested "silver bullet."<br /><br />Fear of foreigners<br /> The importation of foreign fungi into new habitats is fraught with controversy. Once a self-perpetuating fungus has been released, it is impossible to recall or control (Lockwood 1993). Despite host-range testing to identify potential nontarget hosts, exotic fungi can spread from their intended targets to other plants. The entire flora of a continent may ultimately be exposed, especially if the fungus produces wind-borne spores (Auld 1991). Because of this concern, only two exotic fungi have ever been intentionally imported into North America—Puccinia chondrillina and Puccinia carduorum.<br /> Fear of "collateral damage" to nontarget plants is justified. When Puccinia xanthii, considered a selective pathogen of Xanthium weeds, was imported into Australia from North America, the fungus spread to sunflowers (Helianthus annuus) and Calendula officinalis (Auld 1991). Native fungi sold as mycoherbicides may also spread to new hosts after release. For example, Colletotrichum gloesporioides f. sp. aeschynomene (Collego®), one of only three mycoherbicide fungi commercially available in the U.S., has a wider host range than originally determined, including several economically important legumes (TeBeest 1988).<br /> The situation with insects is comparable to that with fungi. Turner (1985) estimated that 21% of biocontrol insects intentionally introduced into North America have spread to non-target native plants. For instance, the beetle Chrysolina quadrigemina was imported into North America to kill weedy St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum), but it subsequently moved to the ornamental species Hypericum calycinum (Turner 1985). Howarth (1991) described nearly 100 cases where errant biocontrols have driven non-target hosts to extinction, mostly in island ecosystems. Howarth claimed that more species extinctions have been caused by biocontrols than by pesticides.<br /> Non-target hosts at greatest risk to exotic biocontrol fungi include:<br /><br /> 1.<br /><br /> plants phylogenetically related to the target species,<br /> 2.<br /><br /> plants with secondary compounds or morphological features similar to the target species,<br /> 3.<br /><br /> plants attacked by fungi related to the biocontrol fungus,<br /> 4.<br /><br /> plants never exposed to the biocontrol fungus,<br /> 5.<br /><br /> plants whose fungal pathogens are unknown (Watson 1991). <br /><br /> The study of fungus-host specificity is site-dependent. That is, each potential release site has its own unique flora, fauna, and climatic conditions. Sites with a high degree of biodiversity, such as Amazonia, are teeming with potential non-target hosts. Studies of tropical sites are very complicated and become susceptible to errors of tremendous consequence. The potential spread of fungi away from release sites must also be taken under consideration. Biocontrol agents do not recognize international boundaries, yet host specificity studies rarely consider non-target hosts in neighboring countries (Lockwood 1993).<br /> In the case of pathogens of Cannabis, the non-target host at greatest risk, because of its close phylogenetic relationship to Cannabis, is hop (Humulus lupulus). At least 10 fungal pathogens are known to mutually infect Cannabis and Humulus (McPartland 1992). The next closest relatives are the Urticaceae (members of the nettle family) and the Moraceae (mulberry family), with which Cannabis shares at least 20 fungal pathogens (McPartland 1992).<br /><br />The species debate<br /> The non-target host at greatest risk is Cannabis itself. Within the genus we find plants cultivated for drugs (marijuana), or for fiber or seed (hemp), as well as feral plants. How closely related are these plants? Some taxonomists describe marijuana and hemp as completely separate species (Schultes et al. 1974), whereas other taxonomists say they are the same species, Cannabis sativa (Small and Cronquist 1976).<br /> This "species debate" achieved semantic importance during the 1970s (Small 1979). Drug libertarians promoted the polytypic approach and cited marijuana as Cannabis indica to argue that statutes written against Cannabis sativa did not apply to marijuana. Conversely, law enforcement agencies have maintained that the genus is monotypic. Now, to rationalize the mycoherbicide approach, law enforcement appears to have reversed its position. Semantics aside, most fungi that attack marijuana also attack hemp (McPartland 1995b, 1995c, 1997, McPartland and Cubeta 1997).<br /> Clearly, the greatest concern surrounding biological control is host specificity. Consider Pseudoperonospora cannabina, a marijuana pathogen promoted by biocontrol researchers (Zabrin 1981, McCain and Noviello 1985). P. cannabina may be identical to Pseudoperonospora humuli, a pathogen of hemp and hop (Hoerner 1940). McPartland (1995d) investigated several fungi that were originally described as specific pathogens of Cannabis, but under closer scrutiny, turned out to be misidentifications of widespread pathogens that attack many hosts (for example, "Pleosphaerulina cannabina" turned out to be Leptosphaerulina trifolii, "Stemphylium cannabinum" = Stemphylium botryosum, "Sclerotinia kauffmanniana" = Sclerotinia sclerotiorum).<br /><br />Genetic engineering<br /> Wishing to improve host specificity and toxicity of fungal pathogens, researchers are now turning to genetic engineering (Brooker and Bruckart 1996). The use of transgenic organisms, however, elicits a new set of concerns (Levin and Israeli 1996). These are concerns that resulted in the Asilomar moratorium on genetic engineering of human pathogens.<br /> Genetic engineers have recently been investigating a coca pathogen, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. erythroxli (Sands et al. 1997, Nelson et al. 1997). F. oxysporum f. sp. erythroxli was selected for coca eradication because it caused natural epidemics in Peru and on the former Coca-cola plantation on Kauai, where "containment of the fungus proved challenging" (Sands et al. 1997). Fusarium oxysporum is well known to bioengineers, and previous researchers successfully inserted toxin genes into the species (Kistler 1991). Nevertheless, Gabriel (1991) considered it "unwise" to clone a toxin gene into a necrotrophic pathogen (such as F. oxysporum). He argued that such a pathogen might gain unexpected fitness and radically expand its host range, "a potentially dangerous experiment." Fusarium species can produce a variety of toxic metabolites known as trichothecenes, which gained some notoriety for their reputed use in biological warfare ("yellow rain"). F. oxysporum is known to cause systemic infections in humans (Rippon 1988).<br /> Genetically transformed fungi have unstable genotypes, making mutations more likely. Experiments have shown F. oxysporum spontaneously mutates its transgenic DNA (Kistler 1991). Furthermore, F. oxysporum utilizes parasexual coupling, and at least 5% of its genome consists of transposons, or moveable pieces of DNA (Kistler 1997). Parasexuality and active transposable elements would facilitate the transfer of recombinant DNA to native fungi, potentially creating new strains of virulent pathogens. The wheat pathogen Puccinia graminis, for instance, hybridizes with other fungi on wild grasses, giving rise to offspring with increased virulence (Luig and Watson 1972, Burdon et al. 1981). This fact is not cited by proponents of biocontrol with rust fungi (Cook et al. 1996).<br /> "Gene flow" has been more thoroughly studied in plants than fungi. Levin and Israeli (1996) documented five examples of spontaneous gene flow from crops to native plants, which resulted in new or worse weeds. The introgression of engineered genes from transgenic crops to related weed species has been demonstrated (Brown & Brown 1996), and may arise after just 2 generations of hybridization and backcrossing (Mikkelsen et al. 1996).<br /> Currently, testing for gene flow is not standard procedure during the evaluation of transgenic organisms. This could be accomplished by crossing engineered fungi with related fungi (particularly if the fungi reproduce sexually, and especially if they are heterothallic fungi). Several generations of crossed hybrids are evaluated in serial host studies. Testing for gene flow is especially imperative for biocontrols which have been genetically manipulated to resist fungicides. Researchers have transformed Colletotrichum gloesporioides f. sp. aeschynomene (Collego®) with a gene for fungicide resistance (Brooker and Bruckart 1996). Imagine if this fungicide-resistant gene introgressed into Histoplasmosis capsulati or other human pathogens commonly found in agricultural areas!<br /><br />The species question, round two<br /> Another Fusarium species, F. oxysporum f. sp. cannabis (Fig. 2) is the primary candidate to kill marijuana (Hildebrand and McCain 1978, Noviello et al. 1990) and feral hemp in the American Midwest (Shay 1975). Researchers promote F. oxysporum as a marijuana mycoherbicide because they claim that hop, (Humulus lupulus), is not susceptible to fusarium wilt (McCain and Noviello 1985). However, they overlooked "Hops wilt" caused by F. oxysporum in Australia (Sampson and Walker 1982).<br /> F. oxysporum f. sp. cannabis was originally isolated from hemp cultivars in Italy, by researchers who believed "...the wilt disease and its pathogen have not been previously described" (Noviello and Snyder 1962). In fact, these researchers missed many previous descriptions of this wilt disease (Dobrozrakova et al., 1956, Rataj 1957, Ceapoiu 1958, Czyzewska and Zarzycka 1961, Barloy and Pelhate 1962, Serzane 1962). All previous descriptions attributed hemp wilt disease to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum. This fungus is morphologically identical to F. oxysporum f. sp. cannabis, but has a very broad host range (e.g., cotton, mung beans, pigeon peas, rubber trees, alfalfa, soybeans, coffee, tobacco and many other plants).<br /> McPartland (1995a) proposed that F. oxysporum f. sp. cannabis may be a misidentified pathotype of F. oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum. Similarly, the fungus causing tobacco wilt, originally named F. oxysporum f. sp. nicotianae, proved to be a race of F. oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum (Armstrong and Armstrong 1975). According to Kistler et al. (1998), F. oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum consists of at least 10 vegetative compatibility groups (VCGs). Comparing F. oxysporum f. sp. cannabis with the genotype of F. oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum can be accomplished with VCG studies using nit mutants.<br /><br /> Figure 2. Microscopic spores of Fusarium oxysporum, a potential mycoherbicide of Cannabis.<br /><br />Conflicting interests<br /> U.S. regulations have prevented the testing of bioengineered fungi in the field (Brooker and Bruckart 1996). But regulatory oversight is lacking in Peru and Colombia (Levin and Israeli 1996). Exigencies generated by the drug war metaphor could dangerously rush these fungi into deployment.<br /> Moreover, saboteurs or irresponsible scientists could breach regulatory barriers, as occurred in Montana where several bioengineered organisms were illegally released around 1987 (Roberts 1987). In Australia, saboteurs illegally introduced the fungus Phragmidium violaceum to control European blackberry (Rubus fruticosus). Weedy R. fruticosus was spreading across pastures and impeding Australian cattle ranchers. The government had previously rejected ranchers’ requests to import P. violaceum, because of economic objections from commercial blackberry growers and beekeepers. Wind-borne spores of illegally introduced P. violaceum dispersed rapidly across the continent, and the fungus now infests at least four Rubus species (Watson 1991).<br /> The Australian debacle illustrates how biocontrol may impact competing interests. The first U.S. drug czar, Carlton Turner, recognized that target plants may be considered noxious weeds by one group, and valuable crops by another group (Turner 1985). St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) is an excellent example. H. perforatum was previously branded a noxious weed. But now it has become the second-best-selling herbal medicine in the U.S. — $121 million dollars of H. perforatum was sold last year, and producers are predicting a severe shortage of this raw material (Brevoort 1998).<br /> Consultants to the European and Canadian hemp industry face a dilemma. Ecologists endorse classical (non-engineered) biocontrol organisms as potential replacements of chemical pesticides (McPartland 1984, Doctor 1986). Physicians praise the safety of biocontrols over paraquat and other synthetic herbicides (McPartland and Pruitt 1997). Nearly 20 years ago, these reasons guided the decision to search for classical biocontrols against marijuana (McPartland 1983). But times have changed. Hemp cultivation has resurged in western Europe, the former USSR, and China. Last year the Canadian government allowed farmers to grow hemp for the first time in 50 years — 251 farmers successfully harvested 5,930 acres (Cauchon 1998). Have our neighbors to the north been explicitly informed of the "Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act" spearheaded by Rep. McCollum? The development of transgenic mycoherbicides against marijuana would endanger hemp cultivation, permanently. Hemp is usually a pest- and disease-tolerant crop requiring little or no pesticide for cultivation. It has been characterized as "an environmentally friendly crop for a sustainable future" (Ranalli 1999). Hemp should not be endangered, and research involving transgenic pathogens of Cannabis should be halted. Moreover, the use of genetically engineered pathogens as a weapon in "the drug war" should be re-evaluated.<br /><br />Acknowledgements<br /> We thank David Morris and two anonymous phytopathologists for reviewing and improving our manuscript.<br /><br />References<br /><br /> *<br /><br /> Armstrong, G. and J. Armstrong 1975. Reflections on the wilt fusaria. Annual Review of Phytopathology 13:95-103.<br /> *<br /><br /> Auld, B. A. 1991. "Economic aspects of biological weed control with plant pathogens," in TeBeest, D. O. [Ed.] Microbial Control of Weeds Chapman & Hall, New York:262-273.<br /> *<br /><br /> Barloy, J. and J. Pelhate 1962. Premières observations phytopathologiques relatives aux cultures de chanvre en Anjou. Annales des Épiphyties 13:117-149.<br /> *<br /><br /> Booker, N. L. and W. Bruckart 1996. "Genetically engineered fungi in agriculture" in Levin, M. A. and E. Israeli [Eds.] Engineered Organisms in Environmental Settings CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL:149-163.<br /> *<br /><br /> Brevoort, P. 1998. The booming U.S. botanical market. HerbalGram 44:33-46.<br /> *<br /><br /> Brown, J and A. P. Brown 1996. Gene transfer between canola (Brassica napus L. and B. campestris L.) and related weed species. Annals Applied Biology 129: 513-522.<br /> *<br /><br /> Burdon, J. J., D. R. Marshall and N. H. Luig 1981. Isozyme analysis indicates that a virulent cereal rust pathogen is a somatic hybrid. Nature 293:565-566.<br /> *<br /><br /> Cauchon, D. 1998. Canadian hemp isn’t going to pot. USA Today 17(17)(7 Oct 1998):13-14.<br /> *<br /><br /> Ceapoiu, N. 1958. Cinepa, Studiu monografic. Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romine. Bucharest. 652 pp.<br /> *<br /><br /> Cook, R. J. et al. 1996. Safety of microorganisms intended for pest and plant disease control: a framework of scientific evaluation. Biological Control 7:333-351.<br /> *<br /><br /> Czyzewska, S. and H. Zarzycka 1961. Ergebnisse der bodeninfektionsversuche an Linum usitatissimum, Crambe alyssinica, Cannabis sativa und Cucurbita pepo var. oleifera mit einigen Fusarium-Arten. Instytut Ochrony Roslin, Reguly, Polen. Report No. 41:15-36.<br /> *<br /><br /> Dobrozrakova, T. L. et al. 1956. "Cannabis sativa L." in Opredelitel’ Bolesni Rasteniî, Moscow:242-248.<br /> *<br /><br /> Doctor, B. 1986. Interview with John McEno. Sinsemilla Tips 6(1):33-34, 84-85.<br /> *<br /><br /> Fields, G. 1998. U.S. might enlist fungi in drug war. USA Today 17(28)(22 Oct 1998):1.<br /> *<br /><br /> Gabriel, D. W. 1981. "Parasitism, host species specificity, and gene-specific host cell death," in TeBeest, D. O. [Ed.] Microbial Control of Weeds Chapman & Hall, New York:115-131.<br /> *<br /><br /> Ghani, M., A. Basit and M. Anwar 1978. Final Report: Investigations on the natural enemies of marijuana, Cannabis sativa L. and opium poppy, Papaver somniferum L. Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Pakistan station. 26 pp. + 12 illus.<br /> *<br /><br /> Hildebrand, D. C. and A. M. McCain 1978. The use of various substrates for large scale production of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cannabis inoculum. Phytopathology 68: 1099-1101.<br /> *<br /><br /> Hoerner, G. R. 1940. The infection capabilities of hop downy mildew. J. Agric. Res. 61:331-334.<br /> *<br /><br /> Howarth, F. G. 1991. Environmental impacts of classical biological control. Annual Review Entomology 36:485-509.<br /> *<br /><br /> Kistler, H. C. 1991. "Genetic manipulation of plant pathogenic fungi" in TeBeest, D. O. [Ed]. Microbial control of Weeds Chapman & Hall, New York:152-170.<br /> *<br /><br /> Kistler, H. C. 1997. Genetic diversity in the plant-pathogenic fungus Fusarium oxysporum. Phytopathology 87:474-479.<br /> *<br /><br /> Kistler, H. C. et al. 1998. Systematic numbering of vegetative compatibility groups in the plant pathogenic fungus Fusarium oxysporum. Phytopathology 88:30-32.<br /> *<br /><br /> Lentz, P. L., B. R. Lipscomb and D. F. Farr 1975. Fungi and diseases of Erythroxylon. Phytologia 30:350-367.<br /> *<br /><br /> Levin, M. and E. Israeli 1996. "General overview of releases to date" in Levin, M. A. and E. Israeli [Eds.] Engineered organisms in environmental settings, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL:13-39.<br /> *<br /><br /> Luig, N. H. and I. A. Watson 1972. The role of wild and cultivated grasses in the hybridization of formae speciales of Puccinia graminis. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 25:335-42.<br /> *<br /><br /> Lockwood JA. 1993. Environmental issues involved in biological control of rangeland grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) with exotic agents. Environmental Entomology 22:503-518.<br /> *<br /><br /> McCain, A. H. and C. Noviello 1985. Biological control of Cannabis sativa. Proceedings, 6th International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds:635-642.<br /> *<br /><br /> McPartland, J. M. 1983. Fungal pathogens of Cannabis sativa in Illinois. Phytopathology 72:797.<br /> *<br /><br /> McPartland, J. M. 1984. Pathogenicity of Phomopsis ganjae on Cannabis sativa and the fungistatic effect of cannabinoids produced by the host. Mycopathologia 87:149-153.<br /> *<br /><br /> McPartland, J. M.. 1992. The Cannabis pathogen project: report of the second five-year plan. Mycological Society of America Newsletter 43(1):43.<br /> *<br /><br /> McPartland, J. M.. 1995a. Cannabis pathogens VIII: misidenfications appearing in the literature. Mycotaxon 53:407-416.<br /> *<br /><br /> McPartland, J. M. 1995b.Cannabis pathogens X: Phoma, Ascochyta and Didymella species. Mycologia 86: 870-878.<br /> *<br /><br /> McPartland, J. M. 1995c. Cannabis pathogens XI: Septoria spp. on Cannabis sativa, sensu strico. Sydowia 47:44-53.<br /> *<br /><br /> McPartland, J. M. 1995d. Cannabis pathogens XII: lumper’s row. Mycotaxon 54:273-279.<br /> *<br /><br /> McPartland, J. M. 1997. "Krankheiten und Schädlinge an Cannabis," in Symposium Magazin, 2nd Biorohstoff Hanf Technisch-wissenschaftliches Symposium. Nova Institut, Köln, Germany:37-38.<br /> *<br /><br /> McPartland, J. M. and M. A. Cubeta 1997. New species, combinations, host associations and location records of fungi associated with hemp (Cannabis sativa). Mycological Research 101:853-857.<br /> *<br /><br /> McPartland, J. M. and P. L. Pruitt 1997. Medical marijuana and its use by immunosuppressed individuals. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 3(3):39-45.<br /> *<br /><br /> Mikkelsen, T. R., B. Andersen and R. B. Jørgensen 1996. The risk of crop transgene spread. Nature 380:31.<br /> *<br /><br /> Nelson, A. J. et al. Genetic characterization by RAPD analysis of isolates of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. erthroxyli associated with an emerging epidemic in Peru. Phytopathology 87:1220-1225.<br /> *<br /><br /> Noviello, C. and W. C. Snyder 1962. Fusarium wilt of hemp. Phytopathology 52:1315-1317.<br /> *<br /><br /> Noviello, C. et al. 1990. Lotta biologica contro Cannabis sativa mediante l’impiego di Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cannabis. Annali della Facolta di Scienze Agrarie della Universita degli Studi di Napoli, Portici 24:33-44.<br /> *<br /><br /> Ranalli, P. [Ed.] 1999. Advances in Hemp Research. Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY. 272 pp.<br /> *<br /><br /> Rata,j K. 1957. Skodlivi cinitele pradnych rostlin. Prameny literatury 2:1-123.<br /> *<br /><br /> Rippon, J. W. 1988. Medical Mycology, 3rd ed. W.B.Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA. 797 pp.<br /> *<br /><br /> Roberts, L. 1987. New questions in Strobel case. Science 237:1098-8.<br /> *<br /><br /> Sampson, P. J. and J. Walker 1982. An annotated list of plant diseases in Tasmania. Dept. of Agriculture, Tasmania, Australia 121 pp.<br /> *<br /><br /> Sands, D. C., et al. 1997. Characterization of a vascular wilt of Erythroxylon coca caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. erythroxyli forma specialis nova. Plant Disease 81:501-504.<br /> *<br /><br /> Schmitt, C. G. and B. R. Lipscomb 1975. Pathogens of elected members of the Papaveraceae — an annotated bibliography. USDA-ARS Northeastern Region Report No. 62. USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD. 186 pp.<br /> *<br /><br /> Schultes, R. E., W. M. Klein, T. Plowman and T. E. Lockwood 1974. Cannabis: an example of taxonomic neglect. Bot. Mus. Leaflet. Harv. Univ. 23:337-367.<br /> *<br /><br /> Serzane, M. 1962. "Kanepju - Cannabis sativa L. Slimibas." in Augu Slimibas, Praktiskie Darbi. Riga Latvijas Valsts Izdevnieciba, Lativa USSR.: 366-369.<br /> *<br /><br /> Shay, R. 1975. Easy-gro fungus kills pot among us. The Daily Californian, March 14:3.<br /> *<br /><br /> Small, E. 1979. The species problem in Cannabis. Volume 2: semantics. Corpus Information Services Ltd. and Agriculture Canada. Ottawa. 156 pp.<br /> *<br /><br /> Small, E. and A. Cronquist 1976. A practical and natural taxonomy for Cannabis. Taxon 25:405-435.<br /> *<br /><br /> TeBeest, D. O. 1988. Additions to host range of Colletotrichum gloeosporiodes f. sp. aeschynomene. Plant Disease 72:16-18.<br /> *<br /><br /> Turner, C. E. 1985. "Conflicting interests and biological control of weeds," in Proceedings 6th International Symposium Biological Control of Weeds: 203-225 .<br /> *<br /><br /> Watson, A. K. 1991. "The classical approach with plant pathogens," in TeBeest, D. O. [Ed.] Microbial Control of Weeds, Chapman & Hall, New York:3-23.<br /> *<br /><br /> Zubrin, R. 1981. The fungus that destroys pot. War on Drugs Action Reporter: June 1981:61-62. <br /><br /> Editor’s Note<br /><br />For additional reading on this timely subject see; Kleiner, Kurt 1999 "Operation Eradicate" in New Scientist Sept. 11 with the accompanying editorial and Hogshire, Jim 1998 "The Drug War’s Fungal Solution?" in Covert Action Spring issue.RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-52657983945562349432010-12-03T13:43:00.000-08:002010-12-03T13:46:34.001-08:00The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 and the Birth of a Synthetic EconomyThe Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 and the Birth of a Synthetic Economy<br />Written and Copywritten by KT Botanicals<br /><a href="http://ktbotanicals.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/the-marihuana-tax-act-of-1937-and-the-birth-of-a-synthetic-economy/">http://ktbotanicals.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/the-marihuana-tax-act-of-1937-and-the-birth-of-a-synthetic-economy/</a><br /><br />The date was August 2nd, 1937 whereby a relatively empty 75th congress instituted the “Marihuana Tax Act of 1937,” after a mere 30 minutes of debate. While this act did not criminalize cannabis or hemp as it is commonly thought, it did call for heavy taxation, strict regulation, and introduced harsh penalties for those who did not adhere to it. Nonetheless, the key figures that advocated for the passing of this act had strong social, political, and economic motives towards eliminating hemp altogether. This paper will discuss the social, political, and economic motives of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 and will demonstrate how the key figures behind this act paved the way for the new synthetic economy of the 1950’s which has forever changed the American way of life.<br /><br />Before the synthetic boom of the 40’s, and the pharmaceutical boom of the 50’s, much of the world including America, depended upon natural products like hemp for their everyday needs such as foods, medicine, building materials, clothes, paint, and even fuel. Jack Herer, author of “The Emperor Wears No Clothes,” the number one best selling hemp book of all time, writes: <br /><br />“In fact, eighty percent of our economy depended on hemp for paper, fiber and fuel, 125 years ago. At that time, it took 300 man-hours to harvest an acre of hemp, but with the invention of the brand new hemp decorticator in the 1930s, it only took 1-1/2 to 2 hours. This is equivalent to reducing the labor burden from $6,000 down to $40 per acre, in today’s money. Keep in mind that the cotton gin of 1793, reduced the man-hours from 300 hours down to 2 hours to harvest and clean an acre of cotton.” [1]<br /><br />Armed with the invention of the hemp decorticator, America was staring in the face of the 20th century industrial revolution; the great depression was fading, alcohol prohibition was repealed, and now an already billion dollar industry was about to explode on the already good wartime economy.<br /><br />The hemp-based economy was looking very bright, optimistic, and extremely profitable for Americans. However, in 1937, the largest ammunitions manufacturer in America, DuPont Industries, had announced exciting new developments in the chemical-based synthetic field. These developments included plastics made from coal and oil, a sulfur based paper making processes, as well as the man made textile, Nylon. DuPont Industries had just one problem: Hemp already had a tight grip on the markets for plastics, paper, textiles, fuels, medicines, and with the invention of the hemp decorticator, their relatively expensive synthetic products would not stand a chance in the American marketplace. A law such as the Marihuana Tax Act would eliminate hemp from the competition by heavily taxing all medical and non-medical sales of hemp from the farmers to the end users. As DuPont had predicted in its 1937 annual report, “Radical changes from the revenue raising power of government would be converted into instruments for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganisation.”[2] Indeed, America was unknowingly well on its way to being forced to accept a radical new economy, as well as a radical change in their ideas of industrial and social organization. It was as if DuPont Industries had known something that the rest of America did not.<br /><br />DuPont Industries’ primary financial support came from the 6th largest bank in America, Mellon bank, which was owned by the United States Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon.[3] Andrew Mellon invested very heavily into DuPont’s patented sulfur –based process of converting wood fiber into usable paper. According to a 1938 article that appeared in both Popular Mechanics and Mechanical Engineering magazines entitled “New Billion Dollar Crop,” hemp produces 4 times as much usable pulp per acre than trees.[4] Not only do hemp fields outperform trees in pulp production, hemp is also a renewable resource (unlike trees), as hemp can grow up to 20 feet tall or more in one growing season.[5] The article also states that paper alone was a billion dollar industry in America at the time, and that 80% of American paper was imported.[6] Despite these facts, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, and owner of the 6th largest bank in America, Andrew Mellon continued to invest in DuPont’s sulfur-based paper making process. It was as if DuPont Industries and Andrew Mellon had known something that the rest of America did not. <br /><br />In 1930, Andrew Mellon had appointed his niece’s husband, Harry Anslinger, to be the first director of the Federal narcotics Bureau.[7] Anslinger had previously been the Assistant Prohibition Commissioner for the Bureau of Prohibition. However, when Mellon saw that the Alcohol prohibition days were numbered, Mellon used his power to appoint Anslinger to a new office for the sake of his niece’s financial security. Anslinger eventually went on to secretly write the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 for two years before he sent a copy to Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina, who introduced the Act in Congress on April 14, 1937.[8] Anslinger secretly worked on the act without consulting the American Medical Association or law enforcement agencies for fear of having it shot down by doctors, farmers, law enforcement, and businessmen. At the hearings, congress called upon William C. Woodward of the American Medical Association to be present for the hearings. Woodward opposed the act saying, ”We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for two years without any initiative, even to the profession, that it was being prepared”[9] Indeed the act would have been shot down, had congress and the American people known that they were about to outlaw the number one cash crop of the American economy, hemp. Woodward goes on to explain, “No medical man would identify this bill with a medicine until he read it through, because marihuana is not a drug, simply a name given to cannabis.”[10]<br />Anslinger, with the help of William Randolph Hearst, had effectively duped the American people as well as the United States congress into outlawing cannabis hemp by simply renaming it ‘marihuana’. <br /><br /> William Randolph Hearst is arguably one of the most powerful men in American history. Hearst who owned almost every major newspaper in the country had a heavy investment in the timber industry to support the trillions of pages in his newspapers and did not want to see hemp ruin his investments.[11] Hearst began a new form of political and social influence called ‘yellow journalism’, which he used against hemp in 1898 when he lost 800,000 acres of timber land to Poncho Villa in the Spanish American War.[12] Hearst then, had a hatred for Mexicans and through the use of his media monopoly, associated marihuana usage with lazy Mexican immigrants which in turn shaped American’s negative views on both Mexican immigrants and ‘marihuana’. In the 1930’s Hearst’s campaign shifted from the lazy Mexican who abused marihuana, to the violent Negros that abuse marihuana, rape white women, and create the satanic music that Americans now appreciate as jazz and soul.[13] The Hearst smear campaign was one of the worst and most inaccurate campaigns in history. It was also one of the most effective. By the time Anslinger’s bill was sent to congress, even congress believed that marihuana was a powerfully addictive and very dangerous narcotic that should be outlawed for the sake of public safety. Little did they know that they were about to outlaw hemp, the billion dollar cash crop that would have began the 20th century equivalent of the industrial revolution. <br /><br /> The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 solidified the foundations for the new synthetic economy of the mid 40’s to early 60’s by eliminating hemp from the marketplace. The heavy taxation and strict fines made it a risky business to cultivate, distribute, prescribe, or manufacture hemp based products forcing many farmers, businesses, and consumers to accept the new wave of a synthetic based economy. The future of the American economy was now in the hands of a select few unscrupulous elitists, DuPont, Mellon, and Hearst. As a result, the synthetic market exploded as synthetics became popular in almost every application imaginable replacing their natural predecessors. In an article that appeared in Popular mechanics, the president of DuPont explains, “Synthetic plastics find application in fabricating a wide variety of articles, many of which in the past were made from natural products… the chemist has aided in conserving natural resources by developing synthetic products to supplement or wholly replace natural products.”[14] These were truly the golden years of synthetic science. Scientists were well funded and well paid, synthetics were proving to be reliable and cost effective, and the American people were open and accepting to the synthetic movement.During the 1940’s the United States Armed forces were tremendously invested in synthetic markets in an effort to make their war machines cheaper, faster, lighter, and more reliable. After Pearl Harbor, the rubber supply lines from South East Asia were constantly being disrupted and other exporters of natural rubber such as South America could not fulfill the wartime need for rubber.[15] It came to a point where the United States Military was going to have a graveyard of useless and tireless cars, trucks, and planes.[16] As time was dwindling to correct the American rubber shortage, the United States Government met with the industry leaders, including the Goodyear Tire Company, to formulate a cost effective synthetic rubber that could meet the high demands of the military.[17] By 1945, the American government had shelled out more resources developing synthetic rubbers than they had developing the atomic bomb![18] Not only was the Government concerned about their military program, but they were also concerned with the average American family who had come to depend on rubber tires for their automobiles. If Americans could not drive to work due to a shortage in rubber tires and gaskets, the American economy would fail at a very inconvenient time. The American military also relied very heavily on synthetic lubricants for their increasingly complicated highly refined aviation engines. Synthetic lubricants could withstand higher temperatures for longer periods of continuous use without losing viscosity, allowing the air force to evolve from small turbo-props to jet fighters that could travel faster than the speed of sound.<br /><br /> The 1940’s and 1950’s also saw an immense increase in the usage of synthetic pesticides such as DDT. Prior to the 1940’s, pesticides were limited to a few botanicals such as pyrenthium and rotenone, as well as a few inorganic pesticides such as copper, sulfur, and arsenic.[19] All of which proved to be both effective and generally well tolerated with a high safety rating and very few incidents. The ‘second generation pesticides’ of the 1940’s, were mostly synthetic because they were cheap to synthesize, more effective against a wider range of pestilences, and had a perceived low toxicity to mammals. DDT was often called the miracle pesticide due to its ability to increase crop yields.[20] Soon the petrochemical companies found the pesticide market to be a very profitable way to dispose of their toxic byproducts such as hydrocarbons and organophosphates, which became the dominant chemicals for controlling pests over the next several decades.[21] As the market became dominated with synthetic pesticides, the research and development of organic pesticides came to a standstill and organics were unable to compete in the open market with their synthetic counterparts.<br /><br />Medicine was also rapidly adopting the synthetic approach during the 1940’s and 1950’s. Up until the early 1950’s, several of the leading pharmaceutical companies continued to market and sell botanical medicines, which had been effectively employed for thousands of years by every culture throughout recorded history. However, botanical medicines like hemp were quickly on their way out as their synthetic pharmaceuticals counterparts began to overtake the market. In the early 1950’s, pharmaceutical manufacturers shifted their primary focuses from selling botanical medicines to researching, developing, and marketing potent synthetic chemicals. For example, by the end of the 1950’s, Smith Kline & French, a large pharmaceutical firm, had cut their line of botanical products down to less than 60, whereas in the 1920’s they had stocked over 15,000 botanical products.[22] However Americans were enjoying many of the positive aspects that the new synthetic medicines had to offer. <br /><br />James Harvey Young, PhD, author of The Medical Messiahs: A Social History of Health Quackery in Twentieth-Century America, explains the tremendous immediate heath benefits that synthetic medicines had made available to the American people:<br /><br />“Life expectancy at birth in the United States had been 60 years in 1937, when sulfanilamide appeared. By 1956 it had risen to almost 70 between 1938 and 1950 as between 1921 and 1937. Infants, children, and young adults had benefited most. The death rate from childhood diseases had tumbled 90 per cent. Almost as dramatic were declines in the death rates for influenza-pneumonia and for infectious diseases.”[23]<br /><br />Austin Smith, the scientist that is recognized today as the pioneer of human embryonic stem cells, rhetorically asked in 1959, “How much value can we place on 3.2 million American lives?…These are the lives that can be attributed in large part to the chemical revolution in medicine.”[24] The synthetic economy was beginning to change every aspect of the American way of life, it was even saving lives.<br /><br />Through pharmaceuticals, synthetics were changing the way that Americans looked, lived, felt, thought, and behaved. Synthetics were revolutionizing industries, strengthening the military, increasing agricultural productivity, saving lives, while simultaneously rocketing America’s economy to an all-time high. By the early 1960’s, natural products were a thing of the past and synthetics now had now absorbed the markets of its natural predecessors. As DuPont Industries had eerily predicted in 1937, “Radical changes from the revenue raising power of government would be converted into instruments for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganization.” For better or for worse, the economic, political, and social motifs of DuPont, Andrew Mellon, and William Randolph Hearst, resulted in the birth of the synthetic economy had left America forever changed.<br /><br />SOURCE:<br /><a href="http://ktbotanicals.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/the-marihuana-tax-act-of-1937-and-the-birth-of-a-synthetic-economy/">http://ktbotanicals.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/the-marihuana-tax-act-of-1937-and-the-birth-of-a-synthetic-economy/</a><br />[1] Jack Herer, The Emperor Wears No Clothes Ah Ha Publishing Company; 11th edition (November 2000) pp 23.<br /><br />[2] Ibid. pp 29.<br /><br />[3] Colby, Gerard. DuPont Dynasty. (Secaucus NJ: Lyle Stuart, 1984) pp. 238-239<br /><br />[4] "New Billion-Dollar Crop" Popular Mechanics Feb 23. 1938. pp. 238-239.<br /><br />[5] Lower, George A., “Flax and Hemp: From the Seed to the Loom”, Mechanical Engineering, Feb. 26, 1937. pp. 282-283.<br /><br />[6] Ibid.<br /><br />[7] “Harry J. Anslinger” All Experts: About.com < http://experts.about.com/e/h/ha/Harry_J._Anslinger.htm> Last Accessed 10/21/2006.<br /><br />[8] N.O.R.M.L. “Still Crazy after all These Years, Marijuana Prohibition 1937-1997” August 2, 1997<br /><br />[9] Ernest L. Abel Marijuana The First 12,000 Years (New York: Plenum 1980) Pp. 244<br /><br />[10] Ibid.<br /><br />[11] Ibid. pp 29<br /><br />[12] Ibid. pp 29<br /><br />[13] Ibid. pp 28<br /><br />[14] Lammot DuPont quoted in Popular Mechanics, June 1939. pp. 805.<br /><br />[15] “The Synthetic Rubber Project” Science Reference Services (linked from library of Congress) <http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/trs/trschemical_rubber.html> Last accessed 10/21/2006.<br /><br />[16] Ibid.<br /><br />[17] Ibid.<br /><br />[18] Ibid.<br /><br />[19] Robert Hatherill, Ph.D, “Commercial Agriculture: Facts and Figures” Environmental Studies<br />Program, University of California at Santa Barbara. <http://www.vegsource.com/articles/chemical.farming.htm> Last accessed 10/21/2006.<br /><br />[20] “DDT Ban Takes Effect” The Environmental Protection Agency Website <http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/01.htm> Last accessed 10/21/2006.<br /><br />[21] Ibid.<br /><br />[22] R.T. Stormont, “From Alchemy to Antibiotics,” FDC Law Jnl., 11 (Feb. 1956), 98-99<br /><br />[23] James Harvey Young The Medical Messiahs: A Social History of Health Quackery in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1967) pp. 356-357.<br /><br />[24] Ibid.RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-68912501780554171752010-11-27T12:07:00.000-08:002010-11-27T12:18:28.880-08:00Weeding out marijuana: Researchers close in on engineering recognizable, drug-free Cannabis plantWeeding out marijuana: Researchers close in on engineering recognizable, drug-free Cannabis plant<br />SOURCE:<br /><a href="http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2009/UR_CONTENT_130681.html">http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2009/UR_CONTENT_130681.html</a><br />Contacts: Peggy Rinard, College of Biological Sciences, (612) 624-0774<br />Patty Mattern, University News Service, (612) 624-2801 or mattern@umn.edu<br /><br /><object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6zXcraaXAMo?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6zXcraaXAMo?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br /><br />MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (09/14/2009) —In a first step toward engineering a drug-free Cannabis plant for hemp fiber and oil, University of Minnesota researchers have identified genes producing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive substance in marijuana. Studying the genes could also lead to new and better drugs for pain, nausea and other conditions.<br /><br />The finding is published in the September issue of the Journal of Experimental Botany. Lead author is David Marks, a professor of plant biology in the College of Biological Sciences.<br /> <br />The study revealed that the genes are active in tiny hairs covering the flowers of Cannabis plants. In marijuana, the hairs accumulate high amounts of THC, whereas in hemp the hairs have little. Hemp and marijuana are difficult to distinguish apart from differences in THC.<br /> <br />With the genes identified, finding a way to silence them—and thus produce a drug-free plant — comes a step closer to reality. Another desirable step is to make drug-free plants visually recognizable. Since the hairs can be seen with a magnifying glass, this could be accomplished by engineering a hairless Cannabis plant. <br /> <br />The researchers are currently using the methods of the latest study to identify genes that lead to hair growth in hopes of silencing them. <br /> <br />“We are beginning to understand which genes control hair growth in other plants, and the resources created in our study will allow us to look for similar genes in Cannabis sativa,” said Marks.<br /> <br />“Cannabis genetics can contribute to better agriculture, medicine, and drug enforcement,” said George Weiblen, an associate professor of plant biology and a co-author of the study.<br /> <br />As with Dobermans and Dachshunds, marijuana and hemp are different breeds of the same species (Cannabis sativa), but marijuana contains much more THC than hemp, which is a source of industrial fiber and nutritious oil.<br /> <br />Hemp was raised for its fiber — which is similar to cotton but more durable — in the United States until legislation outlawed all Cannabis plants because they contain THC. Today, marijuana contains as much as 25 percent THC, whereas hemp plants contain less than 0.3 percent.<br /> <br />Hemp was once a popular crop in the upper Midwest because it tolerates a cool climate and marginal soils that won’t support other crops but, after drug legislation, hemp fiber was replaced by plastic and other alternatives. Recent popular demand for hemp products has led some states to consider the economic and environmental benefits of hemp. North Dakota legislation aims to reintroduce it as a crop, and Minnesota is considering similar legislation. At the same time, California and other states permit the medicinal use of marijuana. <br /> <br />“I can’t think of a plant so regarded as a menace by some and a miracle by others,” says Weiblen, who is one of the few researchers in the United States permitted to study Cannabis genetics. In 2006, Weiblen and colleagues developed a DNA “fingerprinting” technique capable of distinguishing among Cannabis plants in criminal investigations. <br />Tags: College of Biological SciencesRadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com31tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-48360378234761610152010-11-27T12:05:00.000-08:002010-11-27T12:07:53.575-08:00National Grange wants only GMO hemp — with strong-arm enforcementNational Grange wants only GMO hemp — with strong-arm enforcement<br />By Adam Eidinger VoteHemp.com - March 18th, 2010<br />SOURCE: <a href="http://www.westcoastleaf.com/?p=854">http://www.westcoastleaf.com/?p=854</a><br /><br />One of the nation’s leading farming organizations passed a bizarre new policy statement in support of industrial hemp farming, but only if it is genetically modified (GMO) and retains cannabis prohibition with very heavy law enforcement.<br /><br />The National Grange of the Order of Patron of Husbandry, known simply as “The G r a n g e , ” made the statement in November at its annual m e e t i n g , against the urging of advocacy groups such as Vote Hemp that GMO hemp is offensive and unnecessary because varieties of the cannabis with low THC are widely available in Canada and elsewhere.<br /><br />The Grange policy statement states: “The National Grange supports research, production, processing and marketing of industrial hemp as a viable agricultural activity. We do not in any way support or condone the growth or use of marijuana as a hallucinogen.<br /><br />“We support strict enforcement of all laws that currently ban the production and sale of marijuana or that classify all species of cannabis as a Class 1 controlled substance in the US. We oppose amending these laws as the primary means of promoting industrial hemp production.<br /><br />Instead we urge further research and application of existing biotechnology techniques to develop genetically modified industrial hemp that will be biologically incompatible with all other forms of cannabis or marijuana.<br /><br />We further urge that genetically modified industrial hemp contain distinct chemical markers that will quickly and easily identify industrial hemp varieties using low cost and accurate on-site testing methods for the purpose of contract compliance, law enforcement and as evidence in court.”<br /><br />Since organic products must not be made with GMO crops, Vote Hemp is concerned that GMO hemp envisioned by The Grange would undermine the already strong demand for certified organic hemp seed while alienating organic consumers who make up the core of demand for hemp food and body care products produced in North America.<br /><br />Furthermore, no GMO hemp has been developed and with the prospect of the Dept. of Justice finally recognizing state hemp farming laws as they recently did with medical marijuana laws, the GMO hemp envisioned by The Grange would be irrelevant to the current market demand for hemp seed, oil and fiber now valued at $360 million in annual sales according to the Hemp Industries Association.<br /><br />Vote Hemp representatives speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the issue, say “If GMO hemp were developed to be ‘biologically incompatible’ with marijuana it would only benefit marijuana growers who have real concerns of cross pollination between high THC marijuana and low THC hemp.” Outdoor marijuana growers fear cross pollination and ultimately seeding of their crop. “Ironically, The Grange states it does not support changing marijuana laws and is arguing for a policy that ostensibly would protect marijuana growers from cross-pollination while alienating their customers in the natural marketplace who want non-GMO hemp,” says the Vote Hemp spokesperson.<br /><br />Vote Hemp has worked with members of National Farmers Union (NFU), The Grange, and the American Farm Bureau to get pro-hemp resolutions passed. NFU members will be presenting pro-hemp resolutions at their annual meeting this March, which already passed on the state level. New NFU president Roger Johnson is the former Agriculture Commissioner from North Dakota and a strong supporter of hemp farming. Vote Hemp worked closely with Roger Johnson and North Dakota state legislators to pass bills, promulgate farming regulations, and issue the first state hemp farming licenses in 2008.<br /><br />As a result of those North Dakota state licenses being issued to state Rep. Dave Monson and Wayne Hauge, Vote Hemp was able to assist them in filing for Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) licenses and then later filing suit for the right to grow hemp under state license without permission from DEA. The decision on the farmers appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was not in favor of the farmers who are currently weighing their options and plan to push for DEA approval of their license applications.<br /><br />March 18th, 2010 | Category: HEMP, NATIONAL, WORLD NEWSRadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-2540380778316877342010-11-27T10:17:00.000-08:002010-12-02T08:09:44.345-08:00High Times, (DEA) Operation Green Merchant & the Cannabis CupWritten by Joseph R. Pietri - Wednesday, November 24, 2010<br /><br />SOURCE:<br /><a href="http://dankglassworks.com/HighTimesOperationGreenMerchantCannabisCup.aspx">http://dankglassworks.com/HighTimesOperationGreenMerchantCannabisCup.aspx</a><br /><br />On March 20th 1985 David Watson was busted for growing in Santa Cruz, California, Watson a junior member of the Sacred Seed collective. The Sacred Seed bank collective was created in the 1940’s, most original members long gone or well into there 70’s, a generation or more older than I, I’m 63, and have been in Cannabis trade 50 years and I can only speak from my 50 years experience of fighting the drug war.<br /><br /><br />A month later, Watson, now traveling as Sam Selezny arrived in Amsterdam in the company of Ed Rosenthal. In his baggage, were the research from the sacred seed collective, and 250,000 cannabis seeds. Ed Rosenthal introduced Sam Selezny as David Watson to everyone who was anyone at the time on the Dutch scene. Which was very small compared to what it is today.<br /><br /><br />Surviving members still question how Watson managed to pull this off? A collective member states that Watson was a junior member, had nothing to do with creating Skunk or`haze strains attributed to Skunk-man as he is now known. Original Skunk had the real skunk spray smell, impossible to mask.<br /><br /><br />The first time I met Skunk-man at the 2007 cup his first comment to me was that I blew his cover due to a chapter in my book King of Nepal The Ice Wars edition? He even put up wanted posters for me at the cup calling me a snitch. On the scenes I came from if was a snitch I’d be dead long ago.<br /><br /><br />By the time you finish this article you may realize that Sam Selezny aka David Watson aka Skunk-man started as a DEA undercover agent, whose undercover career makes Donnie Brasco pale when compared, since he finally became a DEA licensee and ”private contractor” with the power to make the agency move against competitors and anybody in his way and to cut deals with Bayer, Monsanto, and the Dutch and English Government. Ed Rosenthal’s duped by Watson as well? Rosenthal was the cultivation expert at High Times at that time.<br /><br /><br />Was Watson/Selezny working undercover to bring Sacred Seed collective down? Then used Ed Rosenthal to develop his Skunk-man cover and go deeper undercover in Amsterdam?<br /><br /><br />Did Rosenthal make his fortune from selling our scene to the Dutch due to Reagan drug war policy, which shut down ol skool, and any High Times competitor upstart? At what point did Ed Rosenthal realize that Skunk-man was DEA undercover?<br /><br /><br />Neiderweit went from shit to shineola with the introduction of the sacred seed collective’s seed bank, now renamed Cultivator’s Choice.<br /><br /><br />In 1987 Steven Hager was named the new editor for High Times. Operation Green Merchant was also created in 1987 the brainchild of DEA agent Jim Stewart. The target being High Times, and Sensimilla Tips, as well as the blossoming Indoor grow industry. Sensimilla Tips, the all time best grow magazine was put out of business. In 1989, raids were conducted in 46 states on grow shops and wholesalers. The only one to remain unscathed was High Times, amazingly?<br /><br /><br />Operation Green Merchant worked many angles. One that they pulled off in Hawaii was they opened a grow store in Kona, partied, smoked and got to know some growers,. They offered growers a deal, we will give you seeds, nutrients, what ever you need, you grow the product and bring it here where we will ship it to your people, you collect the money and pay us a share. Only a few went for the deal at first, that went super smooth, all packages arrived safely, monies paid, and the share given to grow shop. 2nd year everyone jumped on board, they busted people from Kona to Brooklyn, You can only imagine the numbers, 100’s of folks lost everything, many went to prison.. Nearly all busted in 46 States came from information seized from High Times and Sensimilla tips, hell all they needed to do was read the magazine, which is how DEA Jim Stewart came up with the idea for Green Merchant, shooting fish in a barrel. At this point was High Times compromised? Or?<br /><br /><br />In 1987 Hager went to Amsterdam to interview Nevil of the Seed Bank, while there he meets the Skunk-man, who relates tales to him about harvest festivals in Santa Cruz and suggests having a Cannabis Cup in Amsterdam as a yearly event. The Skunk-man spins his web and Hager is taken in, from this point on everything stated by either Skunk-man or his partner Robert C Clarke is taken as fact, Remember Rosenthal is cultivation editor, and Clarke used to write under R. Connoisseur at High Times as well. Hager being a newbie was enthralled by the lies coming from this trio. At this point cannabis history starts to be rewritten by High Times.<br /><br /><br />In 1988 the first Cannabis Cup was held and lo and behold Cultivators Choice wins for Skunk #1. Imagine what an intelligence bonanza the Cannabis Cup, where every grower comes to judge the best strains and buy seeds. The database created a DEA agent’s wet dream. Funny things started to happen around Amsterdam, seems as if a lot of Cultivators Choice competition were being busted, and even Skunk-man’s own warehouse grows are busted as well but he remained untouched, took his money to Luxemburg and returned to go on, while everyone else went to jail.<br /><br /><br />In 1990, Nevil Shoenmakers who was also targeted by Green Merchant for his seed bank, was not extradited by Holland but was arrested in Australia, where his lawyer in court records noted that the police had dossier on Nevil as well as everyone who was anyone on the Dutch scene, and that they were complied by Sam Selezny, now known as David Watson AKA Skunk-man. This is public knowledge in Amsterdam, noted by Dutch crime investigator Mario Lap. Lap investigated Selezny/ Watson as well as Ed Rosenthal. Skunkman according to Hager in High Times article sold seeds to Nevil.<br /><br /><br />You have to wonder if the Cannabis Cup an idea the Skunk-man proposed, had been an operation of Green Merchant? How best for DEA to get information on growers than to open a seed bank in Holland, create a cannabis cup, and even win the 1st cup awarded?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Every top grower in the world goes to Amsterdam for the Cannabis Cup, a bonanza of information for DEA and law enforcement around the globe. One has to wonder when Rosenthal and Hager realized that Skunk-man was DEA undercover? Without a doubt Skunk-man had his claws in High Times, who printed his every word as if gospel.<br /><br /><br />Everyone busted but High Times, the smell of sulfur coming to my nose, certainly not true skunk. Had a deal been struck between Government and High Times and so they could remain in business? Since this time much of what has been written by High Times is in fact fantasy made up by the Skunk-man to build up his mystique as well as his cover. The Haze brothers a figment of Skunk-mans imagination, a play created for stoners in order to hype their products. Frankly I shouldn’t blame the Dutch so much for fraud as Skunk-man was the one who taught the Dutch the ropes and they fear him, as we fear DEA here. It’s beyond question that the Skunk-man has been a source of information to police agencies around the globe.<br /><br /><br />1994 David Watson/ Selezny was issued a cannabis research license for Hortapharm R & D along with his partner Robert C. Clarke aka R. Connisseur, above legitimate Universities and PHD’s due to the strong endorsement of DEA, instead of extraditing him back to Santa Cruz for that grow bust in 1985? To this day he is one of two companies allowed to import cannabis products into US, and the only supplier licensed by DEA to supply seeds of predictable quality for research. In a 1998 interview in UK Journal, he stated that Hortapharm only wants to produce sterile females, to protect the genetic copyright? He has sent botanist’s around the globe to contaminate and collect inbred landrace strains, in order to confuse origin in order to claim intellectual copyright. Now he claims to have the largest library of medicinal cannabis seeds in the world. In other words he patented the munchie effect amongst others. Wherever you go on the planet you will find skunk gene pool, this is a war crime, to contaminate the original medical strains so as to be able to call them your intellectual property is obscene. Just as the making of Mother Nature’s healing plants illegal is a war crime, so is the research Hortapharm is doing. Instead of extraditing Watson back to Santa Cruz for his 1985 grow bust, he was praised and supported by DEA.<br /><br /><br />In 1997 the inventor, Reinhard Delp introduced the Ice Water Method at the 97 Cannabis cup and it was off to the races, the most copied and ripped off formula in Cannabis history, and who designed and created the fraud? Skunk-man with Clarke, Mel Frank and High Times. He did this in order to confuse the origin of the patent.<br /><br />During the 97 Cup Reinhard had offers promising the world for an exclusive license for the method patent pending by “an English Pharmaceutical outfit”, he did a comparison test for them with a bigger machine, where he trashed a Pollinator as to quality and quality, but finally refused the “exclusive” and insisted on real “publishing”, for immediate use for everybody.<br /><br /><br />At the end of the 97 Cup Hortapharm set up a meeting with Reinhard where Clarke demanded “we can’t publish that” and asked why, responded “the people can not handle it, it is too strong.” Unaware of the “powers” of Hortapharm, the inventor told Clarke that he was full of it and they had a “fall out”. Reinhard never wanted to play monopoly with characters like Hortapharm, Bayer or Monsanto.<br /><br /><br />The meeting happened at Bill Barth’s place, a much liked, very outspoken fellow, equally unimpressed by Clarke at the meeting. The inventor was later told that Bill passed away in his sleep.<br /><br /><br /><br />Crazed by their money and the power they had due to their DEA connection, High Times and most European Cannabis publications in their pocket, Hortapharm’s Watson and Clarke set out to erase the introduction of the Xtractor 420 and the Ice-Water-Method on the 97 Cannabis Cup from Cannabis history. One year later Mila, who just broke a license contract with Reinhard was now the proud owner of the Hemp Hotel, received a government grant to develop her invention and Clarke was marketing Mila and her new invention: the Ice-O-lator. But Mila was stupid enough to sell her “new creation” with the instructions she received with the XTR 420.<br /><br /><br />Another glitch in the scam: some journalistic conscience managed to record the event from 1997, simply explaining the new Method in High Times May 98 issue.<br /><br />In his book Clarke spins the Ice-Water-Method back to the old unsuccessful “Sadu Sam Secret” Recipe, which Ed Rosenthal did not mention anymore in a 96 High-Times article about Hash, even though he was selling the recipe on a 900 fax years earlier. Clarke streamlined the recipe for his book, cold water became “chilled”, Mila was introduced as the Lady Of Hash and the 1997 XTR 420 was otherwise blacked out of the Media. “No limit”- Skunkman approaches the inventor in e-mails, boasting about 10 000 square meter grows, claimed to have designed Mila’s and the Canadian “Bubble man’s”, Mark Richardson’s inventions and threatens legal action, “prior artwork” and “what have you”.<br /><br /><br />In May 2009 Reinhard’s financial lifelines grobots.com and icecold.org got busted by the DEA, the company and home vandalized, company inventory destroyed, all private and company money taken. (treatingyourself.com, issue 19 “Update”) He does not stop to sue them for patent infringement. Also taken was the Cannabis Collective’s seedbank, ten pounds high quality Cannabis seeds from landrace strains -sounds familiar?<br /><br /> <br />Skunkman stole the method like the strains he had stolen, created GW Pharmaceuticals on the promise of the Ice-Water-Method and hoped to control all cannabis based medicines. In fact Sativex was created from Thai genetics, I wonder how the Thai government feels about that since cannabis has 8400year history as medicine in Thailand?<br /><br /><br />Watson due to his control of information has been able to pull scam after scam as an endorsement from High Times is all you used to need in this business. He knows that young stoners and medical patients have no cannabis knowledge and that he can sell anything he wants, the frauds have had a tremendous effect on the quality of medicine produced. At the same time he has been a mentor to the Dutch who now play from the same deck of control of information.<br /><br /><br />I know by now you have reached the WTF moment in this article, how much more stinky is this going to get? Let’s face it no corporation has more at stake that cannabis continues to be illegal, so that only they can produce cannabis based medicine than GW Pharmaceuticals, now part of Bayer. GW not only bought strains from Hortapharm but also funds botanical research. They paid to collect medicinal strains around the globe while contaminating them with skunk strain to confuse origin. By doing this they legally could shut down all medical grows for infringing on intellectual property of GW and Hortapharm. Does the GW stand for Guy &Watson? When asked now, that GW made it, they inform that Watson and Clarke are no longer with them.<br /><br /><br />WTF, talk about quantum leap, from being wanted for a grow bust in Santa Cruz, to being the CEO of Hortapharm, with 5 DEA licenses and partners with GW and Bayer.<br /><br /><br />Dude, not only did the the DEA seedbank win the 1st cannabis cup, but last year Danny Don’t Know, the new cultivation expert at High Times, named the DEA seed-bank Cultivators Choice as the all time greatest seed-bank. Then went on to state that Skunk-man was the founder of Sacred seeds, when that collective can be traced back to shortly after prohibition in 1937. There is no foundation of truth from Danny Don’t Know nor from High Times when it comes to Skunk-man, they were duped, hoodwinked, bamboozled, led down a trail of tears.<br /><br /><br />From setting up grow shops to operating seed banks in Holland is no quantum leap in information gathering during Operation Green Harvest. Or that some of their assets from that time, continue to provide information to this day.<br /><br /><br />Worse thing of all is that for the past 22 years or more everything written on cannabis is written in support of frauds these people created. So they have you spending more for growing less. That the quality of cannabis and cannabis seed has gone down from what ol skool medical imports were originally is without doubt. The best cannabis was grown during the golden age of Cannabis 1840-1940, when it was legally farmed for medicinal use, Sacred Seeds sought to preserve those strains.<br /><br /><br />September 2010, Danny Don’t Know states that High Times has no connection to Skunk-man. Wow has he changed his tune, but is it the truth? No, Robert C Clarke, partner of David Watson - Skunk-man in Hortapharm and GW Pharmaceuticals, continues to promote fraud.<br /><br /><br />In a special issue of High Times that basically introduces new products to consumers. Clarke brought the bubble bag fraud full circle again, calling it a new innovative technique, basically using the same information they used when they introduced these frauds in 1998-2000. They have a new generation of young stoners and medical patients with no cannabis knowledge to cheat.<br /><br /><br />Here are 3 photographs that show the fraud for what it is:<br /><br />(SEE: <a href="http://dankglassworks.com/HighTimesOperationGreenMerchantCannabisCup.aspx">http://dankglassworks.com/HighTimesOperationGreenMerchantCannabisCup.aspx</a>)<br /><br />1.Here you see resins glands at bottom of glass, valuable oils and terpenes floating on top, and on top of that water floating, clear separation seen. You lose immediately 30-40% using either 25 or 33 micron catch bag. From this point you should have gone to coffee filter 5 micron, but you don’t make money selling paper coffee filters. Everything about bags works against and retards the Ice Water technique, the US patent was granted in 2000, but for Europe and Canada only in 2006 (!). Every time you add a bag on top of the 2 bag system you can add a dilution, in a 9 bag system you have diluted formula a dozen times. What they neglected to tell you is that Mother Nature does all the work for you. The ice method made sieving and all forms of processing cannabis obsolete.<br /><br />2.In Clarke’s article he states nylon sieving bags as new innovative technique. Well thank Soumi La Valle for leaving us his great work on Hashish. Here circa 1979 you see a Lebanese cannabis worker holding her 70- micron sieve. This is the final sieve used in making the finest Lebanese hashish, they started with metal window screen to remove seeds and stems and that material they processed threw 3 sizes of nylon sieves the 1st being 150 micron –120 micron-70 micro being the last sieve used to make 00 hashish the finest. . They attached this Lebanese technique to the Ice Method and called it new innovative technique, when reality the Ice method made sieving obsolete. They told you to grind up your material, why? As in the ice water environment leaves become flexible, fiber matter stays intact, and resin glands fall off with simple agitation. What they don’t tell you is that the method releases the oils in trichomes, and that the bags have no way of collecting them, flavor, taste, aroma lost. Clarke calls it a new innovative technique, when sieving of Hashish goes back to Alexander the Great in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon, and is one of the oldest techniques used by Chinese farmers in Asia going back 1000’s of years, before nylon they used silk, metal sieves were introduced in the 19th century and are still in use in Afghanistan to this day. What’s funny is that all the grow gurus never show you the Lebanese technique, as that would expose the fraud. <br /><br />3.This is a photo of the back of a Lebanese hash factory and those mounds are leftover cannabis from the hash making process. I can reprocess that left over material, and give you more and better hashish than you made to begin with, because everything under 70 micron was left behind. I can do the same with any material run threw any bag system, flavor, aroma, taste I will recapture using correct technique.<br /> <br />All these years the same people have profited enormously due to the illegality of cannabis.. The very people who claim to be Free Da Weed are actually working to keep it illegal so only they can profit. The learning curves and misinformation these people have put out never ceases to amaze me.<br /><br /><br />Treating Yourself recently did an interview with Nevil, who is now living in Perth. Navil stated that not only had Skunkman written a dossier on him for DEA, but was recently offered a deal from his bail jumping charge from 1990, stemming from Operation Green Merchant. Auzzies would drop charges if Nevil would allow Skunkman access to his genetics, so that he could get their DNA and track crops around the globe. He refused.<br /><br /><br />The Cannabis Cup has the stink of Skunkman and operation Green Merchant, who knows how many folks have been arrested and sent to prison due to intelligence gathered at the High Times Cannabis Cup in Amsterdam.<br /><br /><br />By Joe Pietri<br /><br /><br />Editor's Note: This article was originally written for Treating Yourself Magazine. It was pulled from publication, however for various alleged reasons. Treating Yourself takes the position that the article brought "serious legal risk". Author Joseph Peitri claims the Publication has fallen prey to "Dutch Marketing Fraud". Peitri published the article on his Facebook page, referenced below, for the education of others, and later asked it to be published by this editor and others. It has raised a lot more questions about the origins about some of the deepest Drug War Criminals, as well as, some of the most respected cannabis industry Proponents, and their connections claimed above. There is no doubt that additional research needs to be completed on many of the issues contained within. Below is a list of references that will help you get started on your search for the truth. Feed your mind, and don't be selfish. Please share your discoveries and help educate others about the evermore secret plant, cannabis. <br /><br /><br />References:<br /><br /><br />Article Prop 19 Monsanto and GMO Terminator Cannabis<br /><br />The Octopus Conspiracy , S. Hager<br /><br />Investigative Reports by<br />Bas Barkman and Gert Hage, Holland<br />Mario Lap, Dutch Alcohol and Drug Institute<br /><br />www.Icecold.org archives<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/search.php?q=Nevil%20Shoenmakers&init=quick&tas=0.6211888465684465#!/note.php?note_id=151508324895363">http://www.facebook.com/search.php?q=Nevil%20Shoenmakers&init=quick&tas=0.6211888465684465#!/note.php?note_id=151508324895363</a><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/search.php?q=Nevil%20Shoenmakers&init=quick&tas=0.6211888465684465#!/jpietri">http://www.facebook.com/search.php?q=Nevil%20Shoenmakers&init=quick&tas=0.6211888465684465#!/jpietri</a> <br /><br />SOURCE:<br /><a href="http://dankglassworks.com/Documents/High%20Times%20Operation%20Green%20Merchant.pdf">http://dankglassworks.com/Documents/High%20Times%20Operation%20Green%20Merchant.pdf</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=151508324895363&id=1155882610">http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=151508324895363&id=1155882610</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/jpietri">http://www.facebook.com/jpietri</a>RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com56tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-61925323219745059482010-11-27T08:41:00.000-08:002010-11-27T10:57:22.265-08:00Feminized Seed: The Terminator Technology of Cannabis<strong>Feminized Seed: The Terminator Technology of Cannabis</strong><br />Researched and Written by Conrad Justice Kiczenski - September, 2010<br /><br />We live in a very pivotal point in time that will lay the foundation for the future of the Cannabis plant.<br /><br />The so-called Cannabis legalization movement has become divided into two main groups of interest.<br /><br />The first group consists of most people in the grassroots movement. They are sincere in that they would like to see Cannabis absolutely legalized and free for all to access.<br /><br />On the other hand, the second group is made up of some of the most powerful individuals and corporations in the world. This spans through a wide range of economic interests which include international banks, military intelligence, petro-chemical industries, pharmaceutical monopolies, and especially transnational bio-tech seed companies whose main goal is to corner the Cannabis market and build a patent monopoly over every aspect of Cannabis from plant varieties, medicinal compounds, to even Cannabinoid ratio’s and breeding techniques. Further control is being intentionally implemented by disseminating patented varieties of the Cannabis species that have been artificially manipulated to genetically block the reproduction of seeds, protecting genetic copyrights and forcing growers to be dependent on a seed monopoly. Government and industry are working together to control and regulate the Cannabis species through a process of prohibition, regulatory, tax and licensing schemes, artificial plant breeding, Genetic Engineering, and patent monopolies.<br /><br />The core players in this second group are the HortaPharm R&D Company, GW Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Incorporated, Monsanto, Drug Policy Alliance, billionaire financier George Soros, as well as the United States Government via the Drug Enforcement Agency and numerous other individuals, organizations, research labs and universities around the continent.<br /><br />Billionaire George Soros is the financial muscle behind the modern Cannabis reform movement, he is credited for being instrumental in the creation of organizations such as the Drug Policy Alliance, in which he is a standing director of, as well as many Cannabis reform organizations and efforts across the U.S.. Soros has been so influential in this movement that the Founder of NORML has expressed the deep gratitude that the movement owes to Soros for his finances.<br /><br />The fruition of this Cannabis reform movement is embodied in the upcoming California initiative called Proposition 19: the control, regulate and tax Cannabis act of 2010. On the Drug Policy Alliance website, they state that they are a leading advocate for prop 19 in California. DPA’s board of directors has included a president and chairman of the federal reserve bank, deputy directors of the defense department and the CIA, members of the Carlyle Group, IBM, the Rockefeller Foundation, and of course George Soros who is a major shareholder in the Monsanto corporation as well as other major petroleum industries. <br /><br />This act is being hyped as the Cannabis legalization act when in fact this initiative allows prohibition to continue subtly under both federal and state law; implementing strict regulation, taxation, and controls over the common people; while granting a licensing monopoly for various corporate interests to corner the Cannabis market.<br /><br />For example, under proposition 19, it is still prohibited to sell Cannabis strains, medicines and/or seed unless you are a licensed dealer.<br /><br />This gives a monopoly for the major distribution of Cannabis seeds to those who have acquired a dealers license. <br /><br />An article bunking many of the myths of prop 19 states the following:<br /><br />“Myth: Anyone can obtain a license to legally sell cannabis and compete in the market."<br /><br />"Fact: Few people will be able to compete in the multibillion-dollar marijuana market if the initiative passes. This is because the licensing process, engineered in Oakland, is exceptionally restrictive. Of the more than a thousand dispensaries operating in California until a recent L.A. crackdown, only a handful were licensed. In Oakland, the city that’s setting the precedent in the tax cannabis push, a license costs $30,000. Per year. Not to mention the rigorous application process, in which even well-established, law-abiding dispensaries have been denied."<br /><br />"Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend of capping the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate (in Oakland, that number is four). This all but guarantees that the average, small-time Cannabis grower will be shut out of this multibillion-dollar industry, concentrating the profits of the potential economic boon in the hands of a small minority of wealthy entrepreneurs who are already making moves to monopolize the industry. Under this initiative, the Cannabis industry will not be a free market in which everyone has a chance to compete. Instead, the initiative could mark the beginning of the corporatization of Cannabis.”<br />SEE: <a href="http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html">http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html</a><br /><br />One has to wonder, if proposition 19 is to create a statewide Cannabis commercial industry under these terms, where are the majority of seeds going to come from that will initiate this new industry?<br /><br />Its interesting to note that under federal law, which is superior to any State initiative and which county governments are subject to by way of DEA subsidy contracts, the only seeds that could be attained legally in the U.S. for this newly regulated industry are from those entities which have acquired a DEA license to import and/or produce Cannabis within the U.S..<br /><br />DEA Cannabis import licenses have been monopolized by a relatively few number of entities. The entities that can legally provide medicinal Cannabis seeds are limited to the University of Mississippi’s Cannabis research program, HortaPharm R&D Company, and GW Pharma. These are the only legal sources to attain medicinal Cannabis seeds from within or without the U.S.. A little research into these entities shows that they are heavily influenced by the bio-tech seed industry. Mainly from the corporations known as Bayer and Monsanto.<br /><br />Other then the University of Mississippi’s Cannabis research program, which is tied through contract with an affiliate of Monsanto to develop patented Cannabis compounds, as well as allegedly deriving its Cannabis seeds from Monsanto (SEE: <a href="http://community.kpfz.org/node/17">http://community.kpfz.org/node/17</a>) the only other legal source to import medicinal Cannabis seeds in the U.S. is from a partnership between GW Pharmaceuticals and HortaPharm.<br /><br />R.C Clarke is a co-founder of HortaPharm, who in 1981 wrote in Marijuana Botany: An Advanced Study:<br /><br />“At this time it seems unlikely that a plant patent would be awarded for a pure-breeding strain of drug Cannabis. In the future, however, with the legalization of cultivation, it is a certainty that corporations with the time, space, and money to produce pure and hybrid strains of Cannabis will apply for patents. It may be legal to grow only certain patented strains produced by large seed companies. Will this be how Government and industry combine to control the quality and quantity of "drug" Cannabis? (pg.38)”<br /><br />Clarke also wrote the following:<br /><br />"Does the slight recombination of a plant's genetic material by a breeder give him the right to own that organ- ism and its offspring? Despite public resistance voiced by conservation groups, the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 was passed and currently allows the patenting of 224 vegetable crops. New amendments could grant patent holders exclusive rights for 18 years to distribute, import, export and use for breeding purposes their newly developed strains. Similar conventions worldwide could further threaten genetic resources. Should patented varieties of Cannabis become reality it might be illegal to grow any strain other than a patented variety, especially for food or medicinal uses. Limitations could also be imposed such that only low-THC strains would be patentable. This could lead to restrictions on small-scale growing of Cannabis; commercial growers could not take the chance of stray pollinations from private plots harming a valuable seed crop. Proponents of plant patenting claim that patents will encourage the development of new varieties. In fact, patent laws encourage the spread of uniform strains devoid of the genetic diversity which allows improvements. Patent laws have also fostered intense competition between breeders and the suppression of research results which if made public could speed crop improvement. A handful of large corporations hold the vast majority of plant patents. These conditions will make it impossible for cultivators of native strains to compete with agribusiness and could lead to the further extinction of native strains now surviving on small farms in North America and Europe. (pg.4)"<br /><br />Its ironic that after Clarkes prophetic words in the 1980’s, he went on to partner with David Watson to start HortaPharm, who in partnership with GW Pharma and Bayer incorporated, are building patent monopolies on Cannabis compounds, processes and plant varieties, as well as developing and patenting Cannabis strains that block the reproduction of viable seeds.<br /><br />GW Pharma adopts an aggressive approach to securing intellectual property rights to protect techniques and technologies involved in the development program. Protection is sought in the areas listed below:<br /><br />• Plant variety rights<br />• Methods of extraction patents<br />• Drug delivery patents<br />• Patents on compositions of matter for delivery of cannabis<br />• Methods of use patents<br />• Design copyright on devices<br />• Trademarks”<br /><br />GW States on their website:<br />“In the last few years our intellectual property portfolio has developed considerably. The patent portfolio has more than doubled in size and comprises 42 patent families, within these families there are numerous granted patents both in the UK and in various territories around the world. GW has also developed a trademark portfolio of 21 UK registered trademarks with equivalent marks registered in many other territories around the world. GW also holds nine registered design rights and nine plant variety rights.”<br /><br />It appears that "Patents on compositions of matter for delivery of cannabis" means "Patents on cannabinoid ratios".<br /><br />Their ratio is 51% CBD and 49% THC<br /><br />Under current U.S. law, A plant patent can be granted by the Government to any inventor who has invented or discovered and asexually reproduced practically any distinct or new variety of plant. The grant, which lasts for 20 years from the date of filing the application, protects the inventor's right to exclude others from asexually reproducing, selling, or using the plant so reproduced.<br /><br />A small handful of Cannabis varieties literally make up the pillars in which the entire cannabis industry is built upon. Its easy to see how a partnership between DEA enforcement and federal licensing laws, State licensing laws, HortaPharm R&D Company (which holds the largest Cannabis strain library in the world), and the streamline patent machine known as GW Pharma, Bayer and Monsanto could easily lead to a patent monopoly over Cannabis strains within the U.S., Bringing the words written by R.C. Clarke in the 1980’s to a frightening reality.<br /><br />This is especially true with the introduction of Cannabis seeds and pollen similar to Monsanto’s terminator seed technology, which is being developed and patented by GW Pharmaceuticals. These seeds are commonly known as feminized seeds, and represent the beginning of David Watsons vision to create varieties that produce only “one-off sterile females” which can not reproduce viable seeds. It works like this:<br /><br />Prohibition and regulation of Cannabis in the U.S. leaves growers with a very small space to grow Cannabis for medicine. The best medicine comes from female plants. On the average, 50% of Cannabis seeds will be female, the rest will be male which do not produce the desired medicine and are therefore usually removed. This process wastes valuable growing space to the grower. So in order to get the most out of a small space grow, there is an incentive to increase the number of female plants so that growing space can be used more efficiently. Dutch seed companies have exploited this incentive and claim to have developed seeds which will have a higher percentage of females. The companies who market these seeds call them ‘feminized seeds’ and describe them as follows:<br /><br />“Female marijuana seeds have been created to satisfy the need to have only female plants out of seeds. Below we will give you a technical explanation of how we do this."<br /><br />"The X and Y chromosomes naturally determine the sex of a plant. Male plants carry xy chromosomes while a seed with xx chromosomes will become a female plant. To produce seeds carrying only xx chromosomes a selected female plant is forced by chemicals to produce male flowers. The pollen from these flowers contain only x chromosomes. When this plant then inbreeds with itself through self-pollination, the plant will produce 100% female seeds."<br /><br />Dutch Passion says "it's a lot harder to produce feminized seeds than regular cannabis seeds, and has to be careful about feminizer technology and its resultant pollen. As with Terminator Seed technology utilized by greedy corporations like Monsanto (the company has designed food crops that produce sterile seeds, forcing farmers to buy new seeds from Monsanto every year), plants grown from feminized seeds cannot reproduce naturally; at best, they can be cloned."<br /><br />"If you are growing Cannabis so you can produce your own seeds, Dutch Passion's feminized varieties are not for you. “<br /><br />These kinds of seeds are not marketable in places like Amsterdam because there is less regulation of Cannabis cultivation, and therefore no need for these types of growing methods. With proposition 19 allowing a mere 5 by 5 square feet of growing space per residence or parcel, this is an ideal environment to pressure growers to rely on feminized seeds.<br /><br />One article on this subject wrote the following:<br />“The concern that should be made aware is the fact that natural male plants and their pollen will be moving out of production in lure of chemically treated female inbreeding. This will cause repercussions with breeding in the long run and possibly cause serious diseases or infertility to future generations. At this stage there are no long term studies so it is impossible to foresee or predict. But for the moment people run to buy feminized seed “<br /><br />“The future repercussions of serious diseases and infertility, based on the increasingly popular trend of feminized seed is not something one should take lightly when dealing with a plant that, prior to the feminized seed trend, was successful in spreading itself across the globe for thousands of years via means of natural male to female sexual reproduction.”<br /><br />An investigation into the origin of feminized seeds leads to the Dutch seed industry, particularly to David Watson and HortaPharm, the article goes on to say:<br /><br />“One has to wonder just how deep Hortapharms connections run in the marijuana industry itself in connection with cornering the Dutch cannabis seed industry and ultimately providing lines of alleged highly select varieties through the feminization seed trend in an effort to stifle the global cannabis seed trade with varieties of cannabis which may open the door for genetic bottlenecking through means of inbreeding depression, which may also lead to serious diseases and even infertility later down the line!”<br /><br />“With the increasing demand for feminized seed, which leads to intersexed or hermaphroditic varieties which can theoretically easily pollinate localized and indigenous populations of cannabis through anemophily, the opportunity for agricultural interest to then seize control over crops accidentally or otherwise pollinated by genetically patented strains becomes another tool in which corporative interest use to further monopolize an already shrinking gene pool. A reality which has already played itself out in courtrooms across Middle America with other popular agricultural crops such as maze, where cultivators are sued and suffer financial hardship due to the discovery of genes on their property from crops protected by genetic patent which one way or another managed to find themselves into the seed these unsuspecting farmers used to plant their garden or farm with that season. So Just say no to feminized seed!”<br /><br />The feminized seed phenomena is being fueled by two incentives, one is the pressure put on growers through strict prohibition and regulation of Cannabis cultivation, the other is to block the reproduction of seeds to protect genetic copyrights in patented varieties.<br /><br />The real threat to Cannabis and Cannabis growers is not merely prohibition through Drug Enforcement and licensing laws, but prohibition through plant variety patent laws which serve to create legal monopolies over the Cannabis industry.<br /><br />The real tenants that the legalization movement should be striving for is not only absolute legalization and free access, but an abolition of plant patent laws. This is the only path to attain true legalization and freedom of access to the Cannabis species. Yet because the legalization movement has been heavily financed by major shareholders in the global bio-tech seed patent industry, this has fueled a trend far removed from legalization, and heavily towards an absolute private corporate monopoly of the Cannabis genome.<br /><br />ALSO SEE:<br /><a href="http://www.dutch-passion.co.uk"><a href="http://">http://www.dutch-passion.co.uk</a></a><br />CORPORATE TAKEOVER:<br /><a href="http://www.mrnice.nl/forum/showthread.php?p=62491">http://www.mrnice.nl/forum/showthread.php?p=62491</a>RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com382tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1031043815125154699.post-53186365012138401912010-11-27T08:10:00.000-08:002010-11-27T10:58:04.622-08:00PROPOSITION 19, MONSANTO, AND GMO TERMINATOR CANNABIS<strong>PROPOSITION 19, MONSANTO, AND GMO TERMINATOR CANNABIS</strong><br />Researched and written by Conrad Justice Kiczenski - September, 2010<br /><br />An article by D.M. Murdock written in August 2010 and entitled “Why hemp could save the world” states:<br /><br /><strong>“Hemps prohibition has led to untold suffering around the globe. If we—the global human population—had been able to grow the miracle plant hemp (Cannabis genus) locally and to use it for local industries and businesses, including and especially for fuel, we would never have needed to be addicted to oil, for one, an addiction that is at the root of much misery. We would never have allowed ourselves to be lorded over by international oil-mongers whose crimes against humanity have become legion, including wholesale invasion of other lands and slaughter of countless people.”<br /><br />“None of this oil-related horror—along with the deplorable degradation of the environment globally—would have occurred if hemp had not been prohibited but had been used wisely and intelligently as a major foundation of human society. Indeed, hemp-based economies could still save the human world, while hemp planting could go a massively long way in rescuing the natural world as well.”<br /><br />“It is said that hemp has up to 50,000 uses, from fiber to fuel to food, but I'll just provide a taste here:”<br /><br />“In modern times, hemp has been used for industrial purposes including paper, textiles, biodegradable plastics, construction, health food, fuel, and medical purposes.”<br /><br />“Hemp is one of the faster growing biomasses known, producing up to 25 tons of dry matter per hectare per year, and one of the earliest domesticated plants known. “<br /><br />“One highly important use of hemp has been in detoxifying nuclear waste, as demonstrated by experiments in the Ukraine, for example, on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Moreover, hemp fuel could actually replace the dangerous and costly nuclear power industry.”</strong>SEE: <a href="http://www.examiner.com/freethought-in-national/why-hemp-could-save-the-world">http://www.examiner.com/freethought-in-national/why-hemp-could-save-the-world</a><br /><br />The agenda of the government in its policies against Cannabis have always been to deprive the people access to the plant, while maintaining control over it for the governments own self-interest. This self-interest extends to a multitude of industries including the prison and military industry, the petroleum, timber, cotton, and pharmaceutical industries, as well as the entirety of the banking and corporate establishment which has become empowered through disconnecting people from their one true source of independence and sustenance, the Earth. Cannabis prohibition has served to redirect human evolution from that of a decentralized agrarian lifestyle and natural economy, to a centralized petro-chemical military dictatorship controlled through the artificial economic will of private banks and other trans-national corporate interests.<br /><br />The next stage in continuing this control, is in the regulation, licensing and taxation of Cannabis cultivation and use through the only practical means available to the corporate system, which is through genetic engineering and patenting of the Cannabis genome.<br /><br />To achieve this end, the foundation is already being laid in the form of California’s upcoming initiative on the 2010 ballot. This initiative is called Proposition 19: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.<br /><br /><strong>The leading advocate for Proposition 19 is the organization known as the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA). The DPA is the leading organization spearheading the reform of Cannabis policies in the United States, and has been made up of some of the most powerful and influential characters in today’s global petro-bio-chemical-military-banking-industrial complex.<br /><br />Some of the Directors of DPA include the following:<br /><br />Paul Adolph Volcker is an Honorary Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) whose career is closely associated with that of the Federal Reserve Bank. He was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1975-1979, governing board member of the Federal Reserve in 1979, and was Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979-1987.<br /><br />Volcker is believed to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and served as Undersecretary of the Treasury from 1969-1974 before his time with the Federal Reserve. Volcker is chairman of Wolfensohn & Co. and has ties to Chase Manhattan Bank. He is also linked to the Brookings Institute, as well as being an Honorary Trustee at the Aspen Institute, chairman of the Group of 30, and on the board of the Institute for International Economics.<br /><br />Frank Charles Carlucci III is an Honorary Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations since at least 1995. His government service included positions as Deputy Secretary of Defense from 1980-1982 and Deputy Director of the CIA from 1978-1980.<br /><br />Carlucci is a director on United Defense Industries (the United States' largest defense contractor), which is owned by the Carlyle Group, a merchant bank based in Washington, D.C., of which Carlucci is the chairman. Carlucci joined Carlyle in 1989.<br /><br />Before returning to Government service, Carlucci was Chairman and CEO of Sears World Trade, a business he joined in 1983. He was President Ronald Reagan's National Security Advisor in 1987 and Secretary of Defense from 1987 to 1988.<br /><br />Nicholas Katzenbach is an Honorary Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and became General Counsel of the IBM Corporation from 1969 until 1986.<br /><br />Mathilde Krim is a standing Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and was a Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation in 1980.<br /><br />George Soros is a standing Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and is Chairman of Soros Fund Management. Soros was among the highest paid hedge fund managers in 2009, taking home about $3.3 billion. At the end of 2009, he owned about $6.95 billion distributed among 697 stocks.<br /><br />Soros’ top 5 investment shareholdings are in gold, Petrobras petroleum company, Hess Corp petroleum company, Monsanto corporation, Citigroup Inc., and Suncor Energy Inc.(petroleum company).<br /><br />That’s right, George Soros, who is famous for being one of the most powerful and influential persons in world economics and whose speculations alone are said to have ‘broke the Bank of England‘, is one of the key directors for the organization that is leading the charge to regulate, control and tax Cannabis in California. All the while George Soros is one of the major shareholders in the worlds largest GM Seed bio-technology corporation known as Monsanto.</strong><br /><br />The Monsanto corporation brought you things like Agent Orange, Terminator Seeds, Monsantos Round-up ready Herbicide, and Genetically Modified and Patented Organisms made from Soybean, Corn, and Cotton to name a few. Genetically engineered crops entered the market in 1996 and to this day around 90% of all Soy, Corn, and Cotton grown in the U.S. have been Genetically Engineered and patented by a handful of bio-chemical corporations, with Monsanto owning 90% of all GMO patents.<br /><br />The value of the Cannabis plant as an industry, without factoring in the value of Cannabis as a food or medicine, was estimated to be in the billions in 1938 by an article published by Popular Mechanics Magazine at that time, so its no wonder why one of Monsanto’s major shareholders would have in interest in advocating for one of the main tenants of prop 19, which is to “Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes” and to “adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry”. Prop 19 is doing nothing less then opening the floodgates for Monsanto and other petro-chemical, GMO seed and pharmaceutical corporations to commercialize, regulate, control and tax Cannabis through genetic engineering, patenting and licensing.<br /><br />Monsanto and the Drug Policy Alliance are not the only entities leading the charge to regulate Cannabis through genetic engineering. As published in the September 2009 issue of the Journal of Experimental Botany, Researchers from the College of Biological Science of the University of Minnesota have identified the genes in the Cannabis plant that produce tetra-hydro-cannabinol (THC), claiming in a press release that it is “a first step toward engineering a drug-free Cannabis plant”. George Weiblen, an associate professor of plant biology and a co-author of the study, said “Cannabis genetics can contribute to better agriculture, medicine, and drug enforcement”.<br /><br />George Weiblen conducts his research under a permit granted by the DEA to import Cannabis from outside of the U.S. The two sources from which these imports come from are the Kenex corporation based in Ontario Canada and the HortaPharm corporation based in Amsterdam. These two corporations are two of the very few entities which have acquired a DEA permit to import Cannabis into the United States. The history and role of these corporations illustrate the potential of Genetic Engineering in the global Cannabis market.<br /><br />Kenex corporation initiated its research program on industrial hemp in 1995 in cooperation with Ridgetown College of University of Guelph in Ontario. A research license was granted by Health Canada to proceed with the program. The scope of the project was expanded in 1996 making it the largest hemp research project in Canada.<br /><br />It is interesting to note that Kenex’s research program on hemp was initiated at the University of Guelph, which is also home to 24 ag-biotech research facilities, and is heavily funded by the ag-biotech industry, including research funds from Monsanto corporation, Bayor Incorporated, Dupont, Syngenta and Dow Chemical corporation to name a few.<br /><br /><strong>The University of Guelph Impact Study in 2007 states:</strong><br /><strong>“Multi-national companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayor Crop Science, and Semex have set up in Guelph because of the ability to closely interact with research and the ease of access to human, capital, and government resources, as well as the ability to attract investment.”</strong><br /><br />The University of Guelph has recently genetically engineered and patented the genome of a pig, which they have trademarked the EnviroPig. The University of Guelph has also recently partnered with the Monsanto corporation to genetically engineer a Glyphosate-resistant ragweed, and has contributed significant research and development into genetically engineering strains of Soybean crops. Some of the first Genetically Engineered Canadian bred Soybeans were developed at the University of Guelph, including the GMO Soybean strain called ’OAC Bayfield’. GE Soybean research at the University of Guelph has been vitally important to the growth of the GMO Soybean industry.<br /><br />On January 2, 2003, the Guelph Mercury reported the following:<br /><br /><strong>“Since the Canadian hemp ban was lifted in 1998, researcher Peter Dragla of the University of Guelph's Ridgetown College has been selecting and breeding hemp plants to meet industry needs. Now, besides working on varieties with lower levels of tetra-hydro-cannabinol (THC)… he's striving to develop hemp breeds with larger seeds.”</strong><br /><br />After Kenex corporations Hemp industry was born in a partnership with the Ridgetown college of the University of Guelph, Kenex became Canada’s largest Hemp producer and Supplies Hempseeds for food to companies like Nutiva, based in California.<br /><br />One of the only other international companies which has acquired a permit to import Cannabis into the U.S. from the DEA is known as the HortaPharm R&D company based out of Amsterdam.<br /><br />HortaPharm was founded in the late 1990’s by a man named David Watson.<br /><br />David Watson is credited for developing some of the most widely used Cannabis strains in the world, including his famous strain called Skunk #1 which was imported and used in George Weiblens research to develop GE Cannabis strains at the University of Minnesota.<br /><br />An article from: <a href="http://www.cannabisfarmer.com/web/node/39 ">http://www.cannabisfarmer.com/web/node/39 </a> reports the following on Mr. David Watson:<br /><br /><strong>“Are your expensive Dutch female (Cannabis) seeds hard to clone, or when you try to breed them, all you get are hermaphrodites?”<br /><br />“Thank Dr Frankenbeanstein, aka the Skunkman, whose real name is David Watson.”<br /><br />“At a 1997 Vancouver Hemp conference, Watson spoke of his research. His main focus was to stop growers from cloning nor being able to create any seeds from strains being bred in Amsterdam. The funding for this research came partially from the Dutch Government, the rest from the DEA. Watson had been busted for growing in Santa Cruz California on March-20-1985 and resurfaced in Amsterdam to start his seed company Cultivator’s Choice. DEA supported the Watsons application for a license to grow for research in Holland, even though they should have been extraditing him back to Cali for his 1985 Santa Cruz grow bust! DEA endorsement was so strong that he was the first to be granted a permit in Holland when several universities and domestic research groups with PHD’s and legitimate reasons for research were denied! The Dutch government even supplied three greenhouses for Watson to do his heinous experiments, while normal Dutch growers lost all of their equipment and had to serve murder-like sentences at that time! Dutch seed companies have become the Monsanto of the cannabis seed industry, and hope to make us all seed junkies at $20 a seed.!”<br /><br />“The license gave Watson control over what researchers are allowed access to pedigreed seeds of predictable quality! The object is to patent up every possible combination of cannabinoids with efficacy for every possible disease they can treat, and every possible genetic sequence! Once ready to make the move, they will shut down every medical cannabis grower for patent fraud”<br /><br />“Monsanto terminator technology is being applied to Cannabis by (David Watson) at Hortapharm in Holland.”</strong><br />SEE: <a href="http://www.cannabisfarmer.com/web/node/39">http://www.cannabisfarmer.com/web/node/39</a><br /><br />The following article published in the UK Independent on September 27, 1998, Interviewed Mr. Watson on the intent of his research in Cannabis with his company HortaPharm:<br /><br /><strong>"It looks like dope, but really it's hope," explains David Watson. What he means is that many of these plants have been specifically bred not to produce an intoxicating resin or hashish. Indeed, HortaPharm hopes to thwart the aims of the average recreational user.”<br /><br />The team is already close to finding their own commercial Holy Grail - seeds that will produce a one-off, female, seedless crop of plants with no psychotropic effects for the consumer. Why, you might ask, would they want to do that?<br /><br />HortaPharm is only interested in developing female plants that are sterile, but this is not just to protect their genetic copyright. "If a plant is not kept busy producing seeds, all its energy can go into resin production," says Watsons Dutch colleague and biochemist Etienne de Meijer.<br /><br />Watson believes the bright future of (Cannabis) is contained in the greenhouses of HortaPharm and GW Pharmaceuticals.<br /><br />At his Amsterdam glasshouses, he nods conspiratorially at the healthy- looking garden produce. "Don't say anything yet, but we are also working on putting THC into tomatoes," he confides. Then he cackles reassuringly: "Only kidding!"</strong><br />SEE: <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/cannabis-a-year-that-changed-minds-1200871.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/cannabis-a-year-that-changed-minds-1200871.html</a><br /><br />David Watson has stated "HortaPharm has built up over many years the most extensive 'Living Library' of Medicinal Cannabis varieties in the world”.<br /><br />In July 1998, Speaking at the International Cannabinoid Research Society conference in Montpellier, Dr Geoffrey W Guy, Chairman of GW Pharmaceuticals, said that HortaPharm will provide GW with exclusive access to its entire range of cannabis varieties for the development of medicines. The worldwide rights acquired by GW for an undisclosed sum cover varieties grown to date with certain exceptions and all varieties to be bred in the future. Plant registrations arising from the Dutch breeding program will be owned by GW pharmaceutical.<br /><br />Under the agreement GW Pharma will be responsible for the development of specific drug delivery technologies to administer the pharmaceutical grade medicinal cannabis. This work will include a vaporizer for which HortaPharm has a patent pending.<br /><br />In addition GW Pharma will fund HortaPharm's botanical research and HortaPharm scientists will<br />assist in the UK Glasshouse propagation, cloning and cultivation program.<br /><br />David Watson, CEO of HortaPharm has stated “As soon as Dr Guy's clinical research indicates the exact desired composition our scientists can breed and register new medicinal varieties".<br /><br />An article published by Cannabis Culture Magazine in May 2002, states:<br /><br /><strong>“GW's miracle pot may soon be among the first cannabis plants ever patented. Although some industrial hemp genetics have been copyrighted as intellectual property, Guy is seeking to register marijuana varietals distinguished by specific morphological characteristics, such as color, leaf size and shape, and smell.”<br /><br />“According to preliminary information provided exclusively to Cannabis Culture, GW's medical devices will revolutionize the way cannabis is ingested. Cannabis extracts blended in precise ratios will be packaged in a "canister" that joins to an electromechanical device that delivers controlled aerosolized doses of plant-derived cannabinoids without delivering harmful combustion by-products.”<br /><br />“The canisters and delivery devices will be dispensed by pharmacists, and closely monitored by pharmacists, doctors, and GW itself.”<br /><br />“"Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars researching and producing medicines, but as soon as those medicines are given to patients, they can be improperly used," Guy explains. "Patients might use too much, too little, or they might divert their medications to other people. For medications like cannabis that are controlled substances, it's essential that medical personnel be able to monitor dosage patterns. Our devices are like a digital camera that records details of time, date and other particulars every time it is used."“<br /><br />“"Physicians will be able to monitor patient usage remotely," continued Guy. "People won't be able to tamper with our devices, even though they are portable and easy to use. You'd need a metal saw or a blowtorch to get into one of them. These controls answer concerns of those who worry that our extracts will be used inappropriately. And, these devices can be adapted for other medicines, ensuring patient safety and medical efficacy."“<br /><br />“Dr Guy and his representatives have engaged in high level discussions with the DEA, FDA, the Office for National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA) and senior state officials in California and Maine.”<br /><br />“"We've made some progress in the US," Guy says. "We've commenced pre-clinical research in laboratories and other research in a university. This research is aimed at cell protection properties, general pharmacology, and the enhancement of effects afforded by beneficial synergy created when cannabinoids are blended together rather than isolated. The DEA has approved importation of our extracts into the US. They haven't said no to us on anything we've asked so far. They are playing it by the book. We look forward to continued progress."“<br /><br />“"GW occupies a lead position world-wide," concludes Guy. "We are uniquely placed to become the first company to achieve regulatory approval for prescription cannabis-based medicines."“</strong><br />SEE: <a href="http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/2400.html">http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/2400.html</a><br /><br />In an interview with Cannabis Culture Magazine, the Chairman of GW Pharma Dr. Geoffrey Guy said “We deserve to make a fair return on our investment, and that's why we pursued patents for our plants, extracts, processes, and delivery devices."<br /><br />In 2009 in Canada, GW Pharma has succeeded in "artificially manipulating" and Patenting a “Novel Reference Cannabis Plant” with a "knock out gene" that uses “monogenic mutation" to "block the cannabinoid biosynthesis in Cannabis sativa”. This technology is being used to artificially engineer the levels of medicinal compounds in the plant.<br />SEE: <a href="http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090035396">http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090035396</a><br /><br />In May of 2003, GW Pharma and Bayer Incorporated had reached a Marketing Agreement on Pioneering a New cannabis-based medicinal extract product called Sativex.<br /><br />Bayer reportedly paid $60 Million to GW Pharma to obtain exclusive rights to market Sativex in the UK, And reportedly paid $14 Million for the marketing rights in Canada.<br /><br /><strong>“Bayer corporation is also one of the largest biotechnology and GM producers in the world and has brought to market genetically engineered strains of rice, corn, rapeseed, and canola. Bayer is the world's leading pesticide manufacturer and the world's seventh largest seed company. Bayer CropScience is responsible for the majority of GM field trials in European countries. Bayer's GM crops are mostly "Liberty Link" - designed to be resistant to its "Liberty" herbicide. In 1925, Bayer was one of the chemical companies that merged to form the massive German conglomerate IG Farben, which was the largest single company in Germany and it became the single largest donor to Hitler's election campaign. After Hitler came to power, IG Farben worked in close collaboration with the Nazis, becoming the largest profiteer from the Second World War.”</strong><br />SEE: <a href="http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/11153-bayer-a-history">http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/11153-bayer-a-history</a><br /><br /><strong>“An examination of internal Bayer company documents by The New York Times reveals that the company was engaged in unsavory, probably criminal marketing practices. The documents reveal that Bayer continued to sell contaminated blood plasma causing thousands of hemophiliac patients to be infected with AIDS. The company continued to sell the contaminated blood in Asia for over a year when it had already introduced a safer, heated blood plasma version in the US and Europe in February 1984.”<br /><br />“The documents examined by the Times provide evidence of unrestrained corrupt practices by a pharmaceutical industry giant. According to The Times, records suggest that the reason for continuing to sell an AIDS infected blood product, was to get rid of inventory and "the company hoped to preserve the profit margin from 'several large fixed-price contracts.'“”</strong><br />SEE: <a href="http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php">http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php</a><br /><br />In 2007 Monsanto partnered with the patent holder of Sativex, Bayer, in a long-term agreement to cross-license their technologies.<br /><br /><strong>"According to chairman of the Board of Management of Bayer CropScience Dr Friedrich Berschauer the agreements are an important step for Bayer as they could significantly broaden the availability of its LibertyLink technology outside its core cotton and canola seed business."<br /><br />""At the same time, the agreements enable us to facilitate the development and commercialization of new technology solutions in the future," he said."</strong><br />SEE: <a href="http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/Monsanto-Bayer-team-up-on-herbicide-tolerance">http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/Monsanto-Bayer-team-up-on-herbicide-tolerance</a><br /><br />While corporations like Bayer and GW Pharma are building patent monopolies over Cannabis strains, processes and medicinal compounds, an ongoing propaganda campaign in the U.S. continues to serve their Cannabis monopoly interests.<br /><br />Before the reefer madness campaign of the 1930’s, relatively few peoples utilized the psychoactive properties of Cannabis through smoking in the U.S.. Hemp was outlawed in part because the white farmers of the 1930’s did not even know that the outlawing of the mysterious new menace called “Marijuana” was the same plant they were growing in their fields. Throughout history, this psychoactive knowledge of Cannabis has come and gone and those who have had a deep understanding of botany, especially of psychoactive plants were often accused of being either savages or witches. Reefer Madness not only created a hysteria against Cannabis, but it widely proliferated the knowledge of Cannabis’s psychoactive properties and attracted a new underground culture around the plant. This new culture has been heavily influenced by both the mainstream and the underground media.<br /><br />For example, there are 60 different cannabinoids in the Cannabis plant. Many of which have been identified, genetically isolated and patented by both the U.S. government and other international companies for their medicinal properties. Though the underground and mainstream media in the U.S. around Cannabis tends to be exclusively focused on the psychoactive effect that is produced from the plants chemical compound known as THC. This has helped to create a culture of Cannabis plant breeders in the U.S. who produce strains with a very high yield of THC.<br /><br />While THC has been conclusively shown by scientific studies done by the Medical College of Virginia, researchers from the University of Madrid, and researchers from the SETH group to contain definite cancer-destroying properties (SEE: http://www.globatron.org/contemporary-culture/thc-kills-brain-tumor-cells), the Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research in 2006 also states that “A high dose of delta9-THC, the main Cannabis component, induces anxiety and psychotic-like symptoms in healthy volunteers.”. That same journal also states that “These effects of Delta9-THC are significantly reduced by cannabidiol (CBD), a cannabis constituent which is devoid of the typical effects of the plant.” The conclusions of these studies show that cannabidiol (CBD) has anti-psychotic properties which naturally balance out and reduce the reported psychoactive and anxiety-like effects of high doses of THC.<br /><br />Unfortunately, because of media-hype and plant breeding techniques used in the U.S., there is little knowledge of or desire to breed Cannabis strains that contain a more harmonious balance of CBD to THC levels. This has left the common population with strains devoid of CBD and with artificially high levels of THC. Studies have shown that breeding Cannabis with high levels of THC selectively reduces the amount of CBD over time. DEA eradication has has also created an environment devoid of natural Male Cannabis pollen in the air, which has forced the over-production of THC in today’s Cannabis strains, decreasing the amount of CBD in strains that are accessible in the underground market.<br /><br />Cannabis underground cultural media sources like “High Times Magazine” have also helped to proliferate breeding techniques such as buying genetic clones and sterile "Feminized Seeds", rather then harvesting and saving heirloom seed. This has left underground growers dependent on genetic clones from other sources and without a reliable seed supply. Some of the gods of this underground Cannabis culture are people such as the Skunkman aka David Watson, who is ironically also one of the only people to have acquired a DEA Cannabis import license. DEA is well aware of the influence that media sources like "High Times" plays in the underground culture. For example, In the late 1980’s the DEA targeted High Times Magazine in operation “Green Merchant” to compile lists of potential growers and make raids on their gardens.<br /><br />This combination of DEA eradication and cultural media manipulation of breeding techniques has allowed corporations like Bayer and GW Pharma to attain a patent monopoly over Balanced THC to CBD Cannabis strains. GW Pharma is undertaking a major research program in the UK to develop, patent and market distinct cannabis-based prescription medicines with both High THC and High CBD compounds. GW Pharma is even patenting the CBD to THC "ratios" found in their plant varieties and other products. The cannabis for this program is grown in a secret location in the UK. As of at least 2003, GW Pharma has been granted an import license from the DEA and has imported its first cannabis extracts into the US.<br /><br />The following report dated September 23, 2009, is an excerpted article from Cannabis Culture Magazine and chronicles some important history, background, and intentions of Bayer and GW pharmaceuticals in the cannabis industry:<br />SEE: <a href="http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Financial-Industry/Monsanto-Bayer-team-up-on-herbicide-tolerance">http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/19879</a><br /><br /><strong>“Patented Pot vs. the Herbal Gold Standard by David Malmo-Levine”<br /><br />“How patented marijuana strains and medicines may threaten the re-legalization movement, curb information sharing, set up a monopoly for certain breeders and medicine producers and limit users to a more expensive and inferior product. Their economic value to the pharmaceutical houses which produce them will be directly proportional to the severity of the prohibition against the use of cannabis.”<br /><br />“During the last decade a split has developed within the marijuana community. One group is comprised of those who believe that the community's interests are best served by patenting marijuana strains and marijuana medicines in order to make them safer, more effective, more legitimate, more understood or, perhaps most importantly, more readily accessible since they will be legally available. The other group consists of those who believe natural cannabis medicine and strains are the "gold standard"; the safest, cheapest and, largely because of the ease with which it can be titrated, the most effective form cannabis medicine will take. This second group denies any real advantage of marijuana patents to the consumer, challenges any claim of exclusive rights of the first group to sell a particular strain and opposes the exploitation of a combination of patents and prohibition to force consumers to settle for an inferior product.”<br /><br />“Within the first group we find those such as Britain's GW Pharmaceutical, who (with the help of pharmaceutical-giant Bayer) is now selling their whole-plant cannabis spray Sativex. This group also includes the Toronto-based Cannasat Therapeutics, The Nevada-based Dynamic Alert Ltd and various other smaller operations. These companies are looking to patent cannabis medicines, strains of cannabis or both - if they haven't already done so.”<br /><br />“Even the US government has gotten in on the action. Patent #6,630,507 was awarded to the US Department of Health and Human Services in 2003, and states that cannabinoids are neuroprotectants and anti-inflammitory agents, useful in the prevention and treatment of stroke, trauma, auto-immune disorders, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and HIV dementia as well as many other diseases.”<br /><br />“GW Pharmaceutical was granted a license to grow cannabis for medical research in 1998 and it's partner Bayer was granted a patent for Sativex in 2006. Sativex comes in a 5.5 ml spray bottle for $102 U.S. Dollars, which supplies about 51 sprays - enough for an average ten day supply. It is now available in Canada for MS and cancer pain, and has most recently become available in Britain and parts of Spain for use in the treatment of some other symptoms and syndromes.”<br /><br />“GW Pharmaceutical has even patented a strain of cannabis called "Grace" in Canada. It was patented in 2005 under the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. Under this 1994 Act, all plant species (except algae, bacteria, and fungi) are eligible for "protection" (exclusive rights to sell) for 18 years. Medicine patents last between ten to twenty years depending on the country.”<br /><br />“Proponents of plant and medicine patents contend that there's no controversy, that patents encourage innovation as it covers the costs of research and development, that standardization and research are impossible without patents, that patents create products superior to traditional botanical medicines, that crude plant drugs are more dangerous and less effective than patented plant products and that patenting cannabis medicines will speed up their legalization - or at the very least expand the number of people who have access to cannabis medicine. The evidence proves otherwise.”<br /><br />“Ethan Russo, an employee of GW Pharmaceuticals , writing for the on-line journal "Cannabinoids", listed the benefits of pharmaceuticalized cannabis medicines in his article "Cannabinoid Medicine and the Need for the Scientific Method". They are; 1) pharmaceuticalized cannabis products will gain widespread trust of physicians and medical consumers, 2) crude herbal materials can't be standardized, 3) crude herbal materials are full of micro-organisms and 4) most of the non-GW Pharmaceuticals strains of cannabis have no CBD in them.”<br /><br />“In our view none of Russo's claims are accurate; 1) the pharmaceutical industry is currently losing the trust of consumers as herbal medicines make a comeback, 2) "crude herbal materials" can easily be standardized without patents if the herb is legal 3) properly grown organic cannabis is relatively free of microbes and metals, and 4) if cannabis were legal, those high CBD strains would be more easily attainable among all breeders.”<br /><br />“Dr. Geoffrey Guy of GW Pharma stated in 2005:<br />"To protect our extensive investment, we have sought to identify and patent certain inventions throughout the growing, extraction and manufacturing process. My comments to Mr. Lucas were made as a friendly and, hopefully, helpful gesture as I did not wish him to invest a great amount of effort into obtaining approval for a product as a prescription medicine only to find that he did not have the freedom to operate in the first place."“<br /><br />“Even before GW and Bayer had secured their patent on Sativex, Dr. Guy was already threatening to sue Philippe Lucas of the Vancouver Island Compassion Society for infringing Sativex's imminent patent with VICS's "Canna-Mist" spray. Just type "Bayer" and "patent" into Google (over two million sites) if you want evidence of Bayer's habit of suing at the drop of a hat for all sorts of patent-related matters.”<br /><br />“Evidence of an attempted Canadian medical marijuana monopoly began back in 2000, with a leaked, unpublished document entitled "Draft Statement of Work for The Development of a Comprehensive Operation for the Cultivation and Fabrication of Marijuana in Canada". The plan called for a seed monopoly - "a licit source" only - and the eventual phase-out of all but a pharmaceutical "inhaler" device. According to the anonymous source who leaked the document, the first version of the plan also called for cannabis strains to be patented "as if they had been genetically modified". It appears that GW Pharmaceutical and Bayer have now done so with the Cannabis strain "Grace".”<br /><br />“There are many herbal medicines that have successfully fought off attempted patents and monopolies. The anti-bacterial neem tree and even the vision-producing ayahuasca have all been subjects of patent attempts. Neem tree activists have used defenses such as "traditional knowledge" and "prior art" and "community heritage" in order to legally protect their healing tree from monopoly. Unfortunately, the patent on a strain of ayahuasca remains in effect to this day.”<br /><br />“Cannabis monopolies are nothing new. One can argue that the prohibition of Moses's holy kanneh-bosm annointing oil - found in Exodus 30:32 - a prohibition for people other than priests and kings - was a type of cannabis monopoly. When botanical medicine became popular again in the fourteen hundreds, women healers were first called "unschooled" and later called "witches" to prevent them from competing with the newly emerging male pharmacists. The same thing happened in the mid eighteen hundreds, except this time instead of "witches", these botanical healers were called "quacks".”<br /><br />“The modern version of this monopoly began in 1910 with the Flexner Report - a report that succeeded in closing down all the naturopathic and herbal medicine schools by the 1930's. This report was partially engineered by the Rockefeller Foundation. The removal of these schools would assist the Rockefeller family in protecting their investments in pharmaceuticals from botanical competition. The Rockefeller Institute and Rockefeller Foundation were also key players in the development of the sciences of genetics and molecular biology - the fields in which the concepts of patenting of life-forms originated. Standard Oil - now Exxon/Mobil and a host of other oil companies - was the Rockefeller Foundation's source of income. Interestingly, in 1927 Standard Oil became business partners with Bayer - the marketer and distributor of Sativex in Canada.”<br /><br />“Bayer had much to do with the development of the Codex global anti-herbs and anti-vitamin regulations. This was instituted in 1961, coincidentally (or perhaps not) around the same time as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was instituted and the first Plant Patent Act was created.”<br /><br />“What we know for certain is that nobody should have a monopoly on the emerging herbal health-care economy - especially corporations like Bayer and Exxon, who have had questions raised about the amount of influence they have welded in geopolitics, and what they've done with that influence.”<br /><br />“When the modern patent was issued in the 1400's in Italy, they were for "new and inventive devices". This soon turned into a big money maker for kings and queens, who would issue patents for such things as salt. After a public outcry, James the first of England was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for 'projects of new invention'. It can be argued that a similar reform is due again today.”<br /><br />“Perhaps lessons can be learned from those within the medical profession who have tried to pass off discoveries as inventions, and those who have not. Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine, famously rejected attempting a patent, explaining that it was like attempting to patent the sun. This is seen by some to be his most "winning story" - what he lost in potential revenue he gained in reputation and positive influence on the world.”<br /><br />“Joseph Lister was an English professor of surgery who discovered - or popularized - "antiseptic" surgery. He invented a carbolic acid spray as a method of preventing infection, but considering the fact that he didn't invent the spray bottle nor carbolic acid, he didn't bother attempting to patent his spray. He alerted the world to his discovery in the British medical journal The Lancet in 1867, and was eventually made a Baron - the first doctor so honored. They even named the first mouthwash after him - Listerine.”<br /><br />“William Thomas Green Morton was a dentist from Boston. He discovered - or popularized - the fact that ether was a good anesthetic. He was successful in patenting his technique - on November 12th, 1846 he was granted U.S. Patent No. 4848. But he could not collect any money as it was merely the use of an agent already well known. His apparatus was not essential to anesthesia - fabric soaked in ether was all that was necessary. He died broke and his reputation suffered for "nostrum mongering" - for being a huckster and an opportunist.”<br /><br />“George Washington Carver refused to patent any of his discoveries, saying, "God gave them to me, how can I sell them to someone else?" Ten years after his death, the United States government acquired the Missouri farm which was Carver's birthplace and dedicated it as a national shrine. The Carver epitaph reads: "He could have added fortune to fame, but, caring for neither, he found happiness and honor in being helpful to the world."“<br /><br />“Perhaps one day those who are currently attempting to patent cannabis medicines and cannabis strains will wake up to the fact that a good reputation is worth much more than a patent, and the gift of a new strain or new technique given to the world will return the most precious form of good karma upon the giver, while the person who attempts to "patent the sun" - patent a gift from nature or a traditional medicine bred and developed over thousands of years - will eventually suffer the worst forms of infamy. It is up to the entire cannabis community - especially the activist community, to see that sharing is rewarded and hoarding is punished.”<br /><br />“GW adopts an aggressive approach to securing intellectual property rights to protect techniques and technologies involved in the development program. Protection is sought in the areas listed below:<br /><br />• Plant variety rights<br />• Methods of extraction patents<br />• Drug delivery patents<br />• Patents on compositions of matter for delivery of cannabis<br />• Methods of use patents<br />• Design copyright on devices<br />• Trademarks”<br /><br />“GW States on their website:<br />“In the last few years our intellectual property portfolio has developed considerably. The patent portfolio has more than doubled in size and comprises 42 patent families, within these families there are numerous granted patents both in the UK and in various territories around the world. GW has also developed a trademark portfolio of 21 UK registered trademarks with equivalent marks registered in many other territories around the world. GW also holds nine registered design rights and nine plant variety rights.””<br /><br />“It appears that "Patents on compositions of matter for delivery of cannabis" means "Patents on cannabinoid ratios".”<br /><br />“Their ratio is 51% CBD and 49% THC:<br /><br />Guy’s publicly-traded company has developed three types of medicine made from cannabis extracts: a high-THC extract called Tetranabinex, a mostly-CBD extract called Nabidiolex, and the 51-49% mixture of CBD and THC, called Sativex.<br /><br />CBD began to be studied in the 1960's. Research into it's anti-psychotic (or anti-THC overdose) qualities go back to the 1980's.”<br /><br />“As stated in Neems court challenge data:<br /><br />“The issuance of a patent is prohibited if the patent would have been 'obvious' in light of prior art. The standard for patentability requires that the differences between a patentable invention and its prior art must be great enough so that a person with ordinary skill in the art would not consider the invention to be obvious at the time of patenting. Neems Patent No. 5,124,349 was found to not meet this standard.”<br /><br />“An Indian government challenge in the United States led to the revocation of a patent on another Indian plant, turmeric, whose medicinal qualities have been known for centuries. That challenge was accepted as a result of India showing that the knowledge had been found in the Indian pharmacopoeia.”<br /><br />“In the United States, prior existing knowledge to deny a patent is accepted in terms of publication in any journal, but not of knowledge known and available in oral or folk traditions.”<br /><br />“This narrow view of prior knowledge has been responsible for any number of patents for processes and products derived from biological material, or their synthesis into purer crystalline forms.”<br /><br />“A Third World Network expert group recommended in 1998 that developing countries apply a broad concept of 'prior art' to ensure that patents are granted to actually 'new' inventions, and to stick to the need of novelty of the process itself as a condition of granting a patent. The developing countries were also advised to deny patents for new uses of a known product or process, including second use of a medicine or for incremental additions to get a new patent on a prior one.”<br /><br />“The expert group advised developing countries to define and interpret 'novelty' according to generally accepted concepts, namely, any prior disclosure whether written or not destroys novelty. Knowledge like use of medicinal plants diffused within a local or indigenous community should also be deemed prior art and patent denied.”<br /><br />“And writing such a rule into their legislation would prevent patenting of knowledge or materials developed by and diffused within local or indigenous communities.”</strong><br /><br />Due to the high proliferation of pollen inherent in growing industrial Hemp, possibly the greatest threat posed to natural Cannabis strains is in the commercialization of artificially engineered industrial Hemp strains. The following document from the University of Kentucky in 1998 reports that France already holds Patents to industrial Hemp genetics, and is importing Hemp strains into Canada.<br /><br />SEE: INDUSTRIAL HEMP: GLOBAL OPERATIONS, LOCAL IMPLICATIONS<br /><a href="http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/res_other/hemp98.pdf">http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/res_other/hemp98.pdf</a><br /><br />One has to wonder, if Monsanto’s Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Proposition passes in California this November, where are the strains going to come from to provide for the “statewide regulatory and commercial industry” called for in the initiative? In the initiative, the only legal Cannabis strains protected by law, are those derived from licensed dealers. If this new industry is to be in accordance with federal law, the only legal seeds that can be attained are from corporations that hold DEA permits for Cannabis production and importation into the U.S.. These permits have been monopolized by Corporations like Kenex, HortaPharm, and GW Pharma, all of which appear to be heavily influenced by the bio-tech seed industry.<br /><br />The only other legal source to obtain Cannabis seed is from within the United States, exclusively in the University of Mississippi’s Cannabis research program. The UM website describes it as follows:<br /><br /><strong>“Since 1968, the University of Mississippi has maintained the nation’s only legal marijuana farm through a grant from the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). In that time, the project has provided marijuana and its compounds to researchers around the country conducting HHS-approved studies of the plant, its chemical components, and their potential beneficial and harmful effects.”<br /><br />“Dr. Mahmoud ElSohly joined the project when he came to Ole Miss in 1976 and has been Marijuana Project director since 1980. In the ’80s and early ’90s, ElSohly’s work focused on analyzing marijuana samples seized by the DEA to develop a marijuana “fingerprinting” system that is still being used to trace crops to their sources globally. The responsibility of analyzing the material for the DEA also provided UM researchers the opportunity to study a wide variety of plants leading to a better understanding of the many chemicals found in Cannabis.”<br /><br />“In recent years, with some support from NIH, ElSohly and other UM researchers have studied Cannabis to develop new medicines and new ways of delivering the chemical compounds in marijuana, particularly tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), to treat a range of chronic conditions—from nausea due to chemotherapy for cancer patients to neuropathic pain for multiple sclerosis patients.”<br /><br />“UM has patented and licensed to a pharmaceutical company a THC suppository to deliver to cancer patients the potential medicinal benefits of marijuana without the undesirable side effects.”</strong><br />SEE: <a href="http://www.research.olemiss.edu/ChangeAgents/2009/FindingCuresForKillers">http://www.research.olemiss.edu/ChangeAgents/2009/FindingCuresForKillers</a><br /><br />El Sohly also has a contract with Mallinckrodt, a giant chemical and bio-tech company that plans to market a THC-extract pill as an alternative to Marinol.<br />SEE: <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/04/07-18"><a href="http://">http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/04/07-18</a></a>The Monsanto corporation merged with Mallinckrodt in the 1930's.<br />SEE: <a href="http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~meg3c/TCC401/A_Case.pdf">http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~meg3c/TCC401/A_Case.pdf</a><br /><br />The following is an article found in Cannabis Culture Magazine published in February 2000, entitled “Genetically Modified Medpot” and reports that UM’s cannabis genetics are allegedly derived from Monsanto.<br />SEE: <a href="http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1322.html">http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1322.html</a><br /><br /><strong>“Pharmaceutical companies may seize control of Canada's medical marijuana supply.”<br /><br />“A source within the Ministry of Health, who wishes to remain anonymous, has provided documents and information to Cannabis Culture, describing how Canadian pot is to be grown for upcoming medical trials. The documents call for 185 kg (408 pounds) of pot to be grown in the first year, and double that amount for the second through fifth years.”<br />“The thirty-five page guideline document, with the weighty title, Draft Statement of Work for The Development of a Comprehensive Operation for the Cultivation and Fabrication of Marijuana in Canada, is still open to revisions. It includes proposals for how marijuana should be grown, processed and fabricated. Included in these guidelines is the potential to give a notorious pharmaceutical company exclusive rights for selling seeds to the budding medpot industry.”<br /><br />“Mississippi schwag”<br /><br />“According to the document, "the acquisition of seed will be performed by Health Canada during the project initiation stage. The prime contractor can choose to provide their own seed so long as it is from a licit source."“<br /><br />“Which presents a problem. How many licit seed sources exist? In North America the only licit source is the University of Mississippi. Concerns about the effectiveness of notoriously schwaggy U of M bud prompted Dr Kilby of the Community Research Initiative of Toronto to state that he would prefer clinical marijuana come from another source (see CC#22). It would seem that Health Canada recognized these concerns when it began looking for private contractors to do the job.”<br /><br />“Yet will the bud really be any different than that produced by the University of Mississippi? Cannabis Culture's anonymous source within the ministry gave us the scoop.<br />Advertisement”<br /><br />“"Scheduled labs around the country which are already growing marijuana are using seeds from the University of Mississippi," reported the official. "The genetics come from Monsanto."“<br /><br />“Health Canada spokesperson Jeff Pender knew of the recent guidelines document that had been released, but denied knowledge of where the seeds will come from.”<br /><br />“"Where would a potential grower get the seeds from?," repeated Pender when I asked him this question. "I'm not really sure. I guess? I could find out for you. I imagine growers could order seeds from the US."“<br /><br />“Pender eventually suggested that the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which also gets its cannabis from the University of Mississippi, might be a source for contracted growers looking to buy licit seeds. If the unnamed source at the Ministry of Health is correct, all of these seeds would originally have come from Monsanto.”<br /><br />“Monsanto's marijuana”<br /><br />“The US-based Monsanto corporation became infamous last year when the public discovered that the huge pharmaceutical company was responsible for producing Agent Orange during the Vietnam war, for producing and selling Roundup to be sprayed on South American villages, for experimenting with dangerous genetically modified foods, and ? most recently ? for creating the dreaded "terminator" seed.”<br /><br />“Terminator seeds are genetically engineered to produce a plant that will not produce viable seed, meaning that growers would be forced to go back to Monsanto each year to buy more seed stock to replant. Governments and public alike became wary of the concept when it was discovered that the terminator seed could possibly cross the species barrier, possibly spreading infertility among the plant kingdom like a disease.”<br /><br />“Cannabis seeds from Monsanto are almost definitely genetically engineered. Genetically engineered plants can be patented, and it is in Monsanto's best interest to hold a patent on any seed they sell. Seed patents ensure that companies like Monsanto can continue to profit from seeds from year to year, as farmers are legally bound to buy patented seeds from the patent holder rather than simply store them from the last year's crop.”<br /><br />“Pharmaceutical schwag”<br /><br />“Interestingly, low-potency pot of the kind produced by Monsanto seeds at the University of Mississippi is exactly the kind of product the Ministry of Health is asking for from contractors. The guidelines ask specifically for "standardized marijuana cigarettes with THC content of between 4% and 6% and weighing [about] 850 mg."“<br /><br />“Which means the cigarettes to be used for clinical trials will be phatties containing over three-quarters of a gram of schwag bud each! These fat joints will deliver about twice the tar per dose as marijuana currently available from experienced growers, which reaches between 8-10% THC.”<br /><br />“The Health Canada document seems concerned that smoking can cause harm, and promises to explore other methods soon after the initial trials are run. Yet the product they choose to use is guaranteed to maximize the risks and problems associated with smoking. Could it be that the Ministry of Health is creating its own excuse not to use smoking as a delivery method?”<br /><br />“Our anonymous source within the ministry assures us that the government plans to eventually only allow the use of inhalers, similar to asthma inhalers.”<br /><br />“"The inhaler gets rid of any small industry that might develop, by regulating the delivery system. The other idea that didn't go through was to develop a seed system that would allow cultivars from across Canada which would then be grandfathered. What this means is that once the cultivated varieties were tested they would be introduced just the same as if they had been genetically modified."“<br /><br />“Patented seeds and dose delivery methods could mean complete pharmaceutical control of medicinal cannabis sometime in the near future.”</strong><br /><br />The Cannabis legalization movement is heavily influenced from major shareholders in the Monsanto GMO seed industry. Mr. George Soros is the prime example. Soros is not only a major financier of DPA as well as being on the Board of Directors of the Drug Policy Alliance, but has also financed many different Cannabis legalization organizations across the country including the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). Soros is credited with putting financial muscle behind many of the state initiatives easing marijuana laws — beginning with a 1996 California ballot question to allow marijuana use for medical purposes. From 1996 to 2000, Soros backed medical marijuana questions there and in Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Nevada and Maine.<br /><br />An associated press article dated August 27, 2008 reports that a measure that would ease Marijuana laws in 2008 was on the ballot in Massachusetts largely because of billionaire financier George Soros.<br /><br />Keith Stroup, founder of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws has even stated that "All of us owe George Soros a great deal of gratitude".<br /><br />If California’s Control Cannabis Proposition does not pass this November, Monsanto’s funding will undoubtedly legalize Cannabis for corporate exploitation sometime in the near future. This will Inundate the medicinal and industrial Cannabis market with artificially engineered and patented Cannabis strains from the only DEA permitted sources available: GW Pharma in partnership with Bayer Inc. and HortaPharm, Kenex corporation, and the University of Mississippi’s Marijuana program, all of which appear to be influenced heavily by the GMO seed industry.<br /><br />Since the only licit sources of Cannabis are derived from interests in connection with the bio-tech industry, this will force anybody who wishes to grow natural non-patented and non-engineered Cannabis strains to attain their seeds from ‘illicit’ sources.<br /><br />Other then exposing the imminent threat that Cannabis legalization organizations are posing to natural Cannabis strains in collusion with trans-national GMO seed companies, our responsibility towards this sacred plant compels us to attain natural variety Cannabis seeds and protect them from genetic contamination. Just like the Mayans have learned with Maize, artificial genetic contamination is causing the extinction of natural plant varieties around the planet:<br /><br />FIGHTING GMO CONTAMINATION AROUND THE WORLD:<br /><a href="http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=575">http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=575</a><br />As we can learn from the Mayans in the foregoing article, the concept of saving seeds is sacred and central to their spiritual and physical way of life. The same is true for cultural and religious practices all around the world, whether you’re a Christian, Buddhists, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, or just a plain old Human Being, the concept of saving seed is as old as human society itself. If corporations like Monsanto, GW Pharma, Bayer and HortaPharm are allowed to carry out there interests, they will hold the genetic copyrights to all Cannabis strains on the planet. GW Pharma and HortaPharm have stated their intent to engineer Cannabis strains similar to Monsanto’s terminator seed technology. Their strains seem to be artificially manipulated to produce "one-off sterile females" which prevents reproduction of harvest-able seeds. These are the kinds of strains that are waiting to be controlled, regulated, licensed and taxed after the potential passage of proposition 19 in California and many similar initiatives across the United States being funded directly by Monsanto shareholders.<br /><br />This investigated report was written and compiled by Conrad Justice Kiczenski. Conrad is 19 years old, lives in Lucerne, California, is an organic gardener, and is the host and producer of Guerrilla Radio on KPFZ 88.1 FM in Lake County.<br /><br />For more information about Conrad and his radio show Guerrilla Radio, SEE:<br /><br /><a href="www.ustream.tv/channel/guerrilla-tv">www.ustream.tv/channel/guerrilla-tv</a><br /><br /><a href="www.radicaljusticeman.podomatic.com">www.radicaljusticeman.podomatic.com</a><br /><br /><a href="www.guerrillaradiokpfz.podomatic.com">www.guerrillaradiokpfz.podomatic.com</a><br /><br /><a href="www.community.kpfz.org/blog/15">www.community.kpfz.org/blog/15</a><br /><br /><a href="www.konocti.org/cms/guerrillla-radio">www.konocti.org/cms/guerrillla-radio</a><br /><br /><a href="www.myspace.com/radicaljusticeman">www.myspace.com/radicaljusticeman</a>RadicalJusticeManhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16453591829263626036noreply@blogger.com101