Sunday, April 21, 2019

Is cannabis cultivating into a bio-threat to national security?

Kiczenski: Is cannabis cultivating into a bio-threat to national security?

Ron Kiczenski is a resident of Lucerne.
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.”.
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).
Washington State spokesperson Brian Smith said the lack of federal regulations for genetically engineered cannabis (GEC) was the reason for Washington’s missing regulations.
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.
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.”.
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.”.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.”
The DPA remained silent when given multiple opportunities to comment on the this article and the missing GEC regulations.
In December of 2018, Canadian researchers at the University of Toronto announced they had completed mapping the cannabis genome.
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.”
“To date the PBR Office has received 8 applications for Cannabis varieties”, but so far “No genetically engineered cannabis has been authorized by CFIA.”
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”.
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.
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.
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.
So at this point you might be asking, what are the feds doing about all this?
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.
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”.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
There’s no shortage of folks to blame for all this because we are all to blame.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The most relevant question remains, how do we fix this mess?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”

Friday, April 25, 2014


Conrad Justice Kiczenski, herein known as Affiant, being first duly sworn upon oath does hereby declare and affirm the following facts:

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.

2. You are hereby given lawful notice of Affiants intent to cultivate, possess, use, distribute and transport the plant known as Hemp (Cannabis genus).

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):

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11, Sections 1 & 2, Dec. 16, 1966,
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Article 12, Section 1, Dec. 16, 1966,
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18, Section 1, Dec. 16, 1966,
United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide, Article II (c), Dec. 9, 1948,

4. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, in Article 11, Sections 1 & 2, states:

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…

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:

(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;

(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.

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:

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.
The Committee considers that the core content of the right to adequate food implies:
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…
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:

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:

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’’.
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.”.

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:

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. ”.
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. ”.
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.”

5. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, in Article 12, Section 1, states:

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.

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:

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:

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:

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…”

6. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in Article 18, Section 1, states:

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.

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:

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;
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…
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:

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:

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
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

6c. Affiant believes in accordance with Genesis 1:29-30 of the bible, which states:

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

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.

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).

7. The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide, in Article II (c), states:

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:
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Signed and Sealed:_____________________________ Dated:___________
Natural Person - In Propria Persona - Conrad Justice Kiczenski

State of California
Lake County

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.



Sunday, March 9, 2014

The Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act of 2014

The 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.

The People of the County of Lake, in the State of California, do hereby decree:

'The Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act of 2014'

An Ordinance to restore the natural Human Right to grow and use plants for the basic necessities of life.

Whereas in the State of California, the People of the County of Lake do hereby Find, Declare and Ordain as follows:
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.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
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.
Therefore, in accordance with the 9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America,
Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.",
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.",
and, also as consistent with County of Lake Ordinance No. 2267 in relation to private property rights, and,
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:

Section 1., Findings:

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.

Section 1.(a)

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.

Section 1.(b)
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.

Section 2., Responsibilities:

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.

Section 2.(a)

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.

Section 2.(b)

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.

Section 3., Special Circumstances:

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.

Section 3.(a)

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.

Section 4., Definitions:

(a) For the express purposes of this Act, the word "commerce" shall be taken to mean:
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.

(b) For the express purposes of this Act, the words phrased as "compliance inquiries" shall be taken to mean:
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.

(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:
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.

(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:
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.

(e) For the express purposes of Section 1.(a) and Section 3.(a) of this Act, the word "greenhouse" shall be taken to mean:
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.

Section 5., Severability:

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.

Saturday, October 22, 2011

$1.5 million to Cannabis RFID "Seed-to-Sale" Tracking System


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?

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."


Friday, October 21, 2011

Why We Must Ban GM Cannabis


Why We Must Ban GM Cannabis
By David Malmo-Levine

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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."

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.

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.”

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."

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:

“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.”

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.

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.

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.

The RMLW petition drive begins Nov. 1. If you'd like to help out, please contact us here:

David Malmo-Levine is one of the authors of RMLW and is a longtime contributor to Cannabis Culture

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

"World's Most Useful Plant" Cannabis Targeted for GMO Bug Attack

"World's Most Useful Plant" Marijuana Targeted for Biological Bug Attack

July 24th 2004


An OnlinePot News Report Exclusive!

OK folks now for the Bad News they have All Ready Field Tested These Insects!
About 10 months ago a Grower in Hawaii Emailed me reporting that the
Night before. 2 Government Huey Choppers had hovered low over his marijuana
crop & Began dropping some unknown insects onto his crop, By the time daylight
had come every bud on his marijuana plants had been chewed OFF the stocks & were
laying on the ground! At the Time all I could do was pass the word to a friend who is a
Reverend from the AAMC email list who lives in Hawaii, to look out & ask around the
other growers. Well 10 months later we all now know the answers to what really
went on that dark Hawaiian night,

Genetically Engineered Insect Attack

& What Happens If These Bugs Mutate
& Decide To Start Eating More Then Just Pot Plants?

A Dark Day For All Plant Kind

Chris K. Webmaster

Paul J. von Hartmann
Project P.E.A.C.E.
Planet Ecology Advancing Conscious Economics

FOR RELEASE: June 10, 2004

U.S. Congress Heads Up ARS Project:
"World's Most Useful Plant" Targeted for Biological Attack

Even as medical 'marijuana' patients and the hemp foods industry are
racking up Supreme Court victories against the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA); even as Canadian and European
farmers are cranking up Cannabis production to keep pace with public
demand for industrial hemp oils, resins, fiber and cellulose; even as Cannabis
is being recognized as being "the world's most useful plant," researchers at U.C.
Davis are indulging in "Reefer Madness," preparing to
infest North America with insect pest species from Eurasia.

Since 1999 the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Research Service (ARS)
has been preparing to attack the 'marijuana' plant, targeted for "classic biological control"
in 2005. "Secure facilities" have already been built in California, where scientists
will grow 'marijuana' in order to study the eating habits of various Eurasian agricultural pests.

According to the ARS annual report for 2003, "The problem is quite
serious as marijuana is a controlled substance in the United States and is often grown and sold
illegally. It is relevant to local and national law enforcement agencies and was initiated through
Congressional mandate." The Department of Agriculture's report continues, "Research was initiated
on this project at the request of Congress and the State Department to identify new biologically
based methods of controlling marijuana. Cooperating foreign institutions in Italy, Russia,
China and Kazakhstan conducted both field and literature surveys for natural enemies of
Cannabis sativa and selected two primary candidates, Psylliodes attenuata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)
and Cardipennis rubripes (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) to begin further host-specificity
and biology research on."

According to the ARS report, "walk-in plant growth chambers" were constructed
at Davis last year, that "allow 'marijuana' to be grown under secure conditions and
used in quarantine." DEA certification was expected to occur in the fall of 2004. "These plants
will be used in the final stages of testing for the effectiveness and environmental safety of
selected biological control agents. This should lead to the availability of new biological control
agents for this narcotic plant." [sic]*

Faced with such monumental conflict of reason, and accelerating deterioration
of our environment, at some point people must ask themselves several questions.
First, it seems imperative to question the underlying motivations of a drug policy
that, after almost seventy years, has had only tragic, counter-productive results for the Earth's
environment, human economics and social evolution. Creation of a black market economy
is the most obvious and predictable result of any prohibition. "Forbidden fruit" is always
more expensive, leading inevitably to violence and corruption of police and politicians.

When a critical agricultural resource is prohibited for three generations, the destructive
illusion of a "free market economy" is even more dangerous, insidious and persistent. Industries
that would otherwise succumb to the laws of fair economic competition, have become
institutionalized, dominating the evolution of human values. Our generation is approaching the
end of that dead end road, fighting for limited energy resources when we could have been farming
biofuels all along. By devaluating the most useful and potentially abundant organic agricultural
resource on the planet, and inducing a prolonged condition of essential resource scarcity,
mankind has been diverted from a course of sustainable energy development. After three
generations of Cannabis prohibition, degenerative, anti-natural imbalances in economics have
steered a toxic course for our social and political structures as well. Teetering precariously
on the edge of synergistic collapse, the very real possibility of extinction looms in our foreseeable,
predictably tragic future.

The absence of balancing influence, inherent to a free market, has institutionalized anti-natural values to
desperate extremes. Such mad science as is happening at Davis, being directed against humankind's best
hope for sustainability, is clearly agricultural espionage carried out by a chemically vested government,
subverting the best interests of its own people. Unsustainable values, combined with the unpredictable
instability of atmospheric carbon imbalance, are no longer theory, capable of being characterized as
"gloom and doom" scenarios. Scientists agree that global warming is a real and present danger, even if
political front men for toxic industries would have us believe otherwise, in the interest of protecting
the short-term bottom line. Corporate influence of political leadership, the economics of punishment
at home and abroad, and the market dynamics of chemical industrial food and fuel production, has
engendered corruption blurring the lines between industry and government.

At U.C. Davis, government science is being employed by hemp's economic
competitors to strengthen the advantage that chemical industry already enjoys,
over agricultural solutions and common sense. As conditions of imbalance increase
it is critical to assess the impact that corporate/political hybridization is having in
perpetuating a self-serving prohibition.

After decades of conclusive studies and clinical reports in many countries,
identifying Cannabis as "the safest therapeutically active substance known to man," which
holds considerable benefits for mankind, it is inevitable to conclude that government health concerns
used to justify prohibition are not to be taken seriously. In fact, considering all available credible science,
it is obvious that prohibition only serves to increase profits for multi-national corporations
protecting chemical-industrial interests against competition from agriculturally-
based industries.

It is common knowledge that there are many substances approved by the
U.S. government, that are much more dangerous to people's health than 'marijuana.' Alcohol and
tobacco are America's primary recreational drugs, far more lethal and addictive to both users
and non-users than 'marijuana.' Chemical pharmaceuticals and even some foods that are
commonly consumed with deadly result are readily available to people who choose to assume the risks
associated with them. Even peanuts can kill. Obviously, realistic concerns for public health and
safety have nothing whatever to do with 'marijuana' prohibition.

Cannabis prohibition is clearly motivated by industries concerned with the plant's potential to
compete in a truly "free market" economy. More than ever it is essential to understanding which
industries and corporations currently control the present "un-free market," exercising
disproportionate economic influence, usurping control of the American government, leads to more

The petroleum industry and the pharmaceutical industry are two of the
most obvious competitors. Americans pay the highest drug prices in the world. Annual spending
for pharmaceuticals, is up to $250 billion, doubling every five years. More than 120,000 people
die every year in the U.S., from "legal drugs" taken in accordance with their doctor's prescription.
Virtually everything that is being made from petroleum hydrocarbons, can be made better,
cheaper, and with less pollution using Cannabis, a carbohydrate.

Less obvious, but equally powerful are the soybean industry with interests
tied to biotech and chemicals for agricultural. Monsanto controls more than 80% of the
biotech industry, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pfizer pharmaceutical. These are the economic
forces driving prohibition, through political influence and lobbying groups such as
Partnership for a Drug Free America.

It's no secret that America's second generation oil president is the petroleum & pharmaceutical
industry's favorite son. The CEO of Pfizer donated $200,000 to Bush's campaign this year. Other
blatant examples, of government officials serving billions of dollars worth of prohibitionist
interests on behalf of chemically-dependent industries, abound. In America's present
administration there are no fewer than six top ranking officials, directly associated with
Monsanto, including the Supreme Court Judge who put GW Bush in office (Clarence Thomas), the
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture (Anne Veneman), the Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld), the
U.S. Secretary of Health (Tommy Thompson), Chairman of the House Agricultural
Committee (Larry Combest) and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

"The Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), a coalition of militant peasant groups, has called
for a boycott of Monsanto products. KMP is attempting to block the use of the genetically
modified YieldGard Bt-corn and is protesting Monsanto's interests in the United States-led war
on Iraq. Rafael Mariano, KMP chair, said the program boycott on Monsanto products is part of a
civil disobedience campaign to protest against US industry's attacks on the Iraqi people. "The
US military campaign to topple the Iraqi leadership was for the benefit of US war industries
like the US-based Monsanto, the proponent of the genetically engineered Bt-corn in the country
and manufacturer of Agent Orange...Monsanto is no less than a war industry,

" Mariano said.

Mariano further stated that it was a "clear mockery" that US President
Bush launched the strike on Iraq under the pretext of disarming it of its weapons of mass destruction,
because the US itself is the primary producer of weapons of mass destruction. The forest products industry
is another cash cow tied to chemical production. Recent estimates put the potential market for hemp paper
at between $15 to $30 billion a year worldwide. About 20 paper mills around the world use hemp fiber,
with an estimated annual world production volume of 120,000 tons. This represents about .05 percent of
all paper. India and China dominate this potentially vast market. In the U.S., the "green" paper industry
(including recycled and natural fibers) accounts for about $20 million in a $230 billion industry.

Expanded use of agricultural crops and other tree-free materials for paper would not only spare
trees but would also produce paper with minimal environmental impact from the chemicals used to
manufacture paper. In the U.S., hemp food products are a small but fast-growing sector of the
natural foods industry, with annual sales of about $5 million. Canadian farmers seeded 3,800
acres of hemp in 2002 and harvested about two million pounds of the crop. In 1994, President Clinton
signed Executive Order 12919, specifically identifying hemp as a "strategic food resource" subject to
"essential civilian demand." Consider that the nutritional value of Cannabis seed makes hemp the most
nutritious and healing food on Earth. This is an inarguable fact, since Cannabis is the only common seed
with three essential fatty acids (EFAs) in proper proportion for long-term consumption.

Cannabis seed is also the best available source of organic protein on the planet. Consider that
neither the U.S. government, nor the United Nations, has any research projects, anywhere in the
world, where Cannabis is being considered as a source of vegetable protein. Even in countries
where it is perfectly legal to grow Cannabis, (even subsidized by the European Union in some
places), there are no U.N. Food & Agriculture investigations being carried out. Not one.

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.

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.

"Make the most of the hemp seed and sow it everywhere." --George Washington

"We shall....want a world of hemp more for our own personal consumption."
- --John Adams (1783)

"Hemp is of first the wealth and protection of the
country." --Thomas Jefferson

"Hemp is an article of importance enough to warrant the employment
of extraordinary means in its
favor."--Alexander Hamilton (1791)

Cannabis is capable of producing more food, fuel, medicines, fiber, cellulose, and resins
organically, sustain ably than any other plant on Earth. Not only is it imperative to stop the
waste of money and obviate the destructive impact of the research being done at U.C. Davis, it
is as important to ask why this research has been allowed to continue for five years, in light
of what is common knowledge about this critically important agricultural resource.

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
predation of impacted economic forces, perverting the human economic structure, treasonous influences
imbedded within our political fabric will continue to impose essential resource scarcity, capitalize on, and
exaggerate the imbalances which result from it.

Walt Kelly is as right as he ever-loving' was, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

* Note: While Cannabis can be "psychoactive" it is non-narcotic.

** Thomas Jefferson even smuggled hemp seeds into the U.S. from China.


Paul von Hartmann is an international freelance photojournalist, Cannabis
scholar, and Natural rights activist. This essay may also be found posted at the P.E.A.C.E.
blog entitled "Cannabis and Iraq: Why Prohibition Leads to War"

Thursday, June 10, 2004

Paul J. von Hartmann
Project P.E.A.C.E. Planet Ecology Advancing Conscious Economics
Contact: e-mail:

(c) PvH 2004

1. Research Project: Classical Biological Control of Narcotic Plants

2.Medpot stars give for patients

3.Study Shows Therapeutic Benefits, No Adverse Effects in Long-Term
Marijuana Users

4. War foes urge boycott of US products

5. Asia Farm & Consumer Groups Denounce UN FAO Support for GMOs

6. Big Biotech Silencing Critics of Pesticides & GE Crops

7. Organic Consumers Association Campaigning for Food Safety, Organic
Agriculture, Fair Trade &
Sustainability Millions Against Monsanto If you're talking about PCBs,

Agent Orange, Bovine
Growth Hormone, water privatization, biopiracy, untested/unlabeled
genetically engineered
organisms, or persecuting small family farmers, you're talking about
the Monsanto Corporation.
Monsanto's Government Ties

8. Scientists Demand Action on Invasive Species: National Environmental
Coalition on Invasive
Species (NECIS) issued a "Call To Action on Invasive Species."

Sunday, July 17, 2011

GMO 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."

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:
“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…”

“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. “

“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.”

SB 676 goes on to site California House Resolution 32, passed in 1999, which states:

“Resolved, That the Assembly finds and declares that the Legislature should consider directing the University of California, the California State University, and other state
agencies to prepare studies in conjunction with private industry on the cultivation, processing, and marketing of industrial hemp.”


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.

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:]

It has also been shown that low THC varieties are much weaker and pest ridden compared to high THC strains. [SEE:] 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:] 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:]

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.

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:] 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.

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.

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.

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.

Written and researched by Conrad Justice Kiczenski