Connect with us

Cannabis News

Woody Harrelson vs. the Church of Covid

Published

on


Woody Harrelson Chuch of COVID

Woody Harrelson, famed actor and seasoned stoner unleashed living hell on Saturday Night Live with his opening Monologue which by now you may have heard about due to the “media machine” pumping out counter opinion to what he said. 

 

But, if you have been living under a rock and want me to tell you what it’s all about – let me give you the skinny as they say. 

 

Firstly, before the part that has everyone’s panties in a knot, he went on a long monologue talking about his cannabis use, his political affiliations and to be honest – he looked very stoned throughout the process. 

 

As the monologue came to a close however, he talks about this “fictional script” that he received in 2019. The preamble to the punch line however, sets up the scene where he’s high, reading the script in central park when all of a sudden he says; 

 

“So the movie goes like this… The biggest drug cartels in the world get together and buy up all the media and all the politicians and force all the people in the world to stay locked in their homes,” he said. “And people can only come out if they take the cartel’s drugs and keep taking them over and over.”

 

He ends off by saying, “I threw the script away, who was ever going to believe that stuff anyway!” 

 

And just like that, he “Red Pilled” a bunch of folks on the “left” and the rage machine began churning hit pieces against the actor. Of course, by me simply using the term “red pill”, I’m not automatically associated with the “right” of which anyone who has read my work would know is not true. 

 

In fact, in the world of “right and left” – I’m definitely up! 

 

Headlines like, “Harreslon echoes “conspiracy theories” and other titles rang similar tones of disapproval. Here’s a screenshot of the “pharma bought” propaganda machine in response to the actor’s joke. 

 

 

As you can see here, every single article on the Google top search results for the term “Woody Harrelson SNL monologue 2023” comes up with this. And that is to be expected. 

 

You see, it’s a fascinating subject matter to analyze the whole “Church of Covid” narrative because what happened to dear old Woody is simply a reaction from an entity that lives within the mass consciousness of millions of people around the world. 

 

Let’s take a moment and re-examine who we were pre-covid and the world as we knew it. Perhaps, by examining the sociopolitical climate of 2019 can we understand how we ended up in such a bizarre timeline where Bond-like villains meet in secret castles deciding the fates of millions. 

 

Who we were in 2019?

 

I don’t know if you remember, but I do. Right before the world got “locked down” for a few years and held hostage at the idea of “mass death” while being forced to accept a singular truth or be shunned from the whole of humanity. 

 

The world was a divided place. There were riots in China that seemed to scare the government. Trump’s presence in the world of politics wobbled the norm enough to send people into a tribal frenzy. Lines were being drawn, sides were getting picked. 

 

Ideas were being challenged. 

The MAGA cult was getting behind their man “The Donald”, who for some obscure reason became the champion of a totally forgotten part of the US fabric. Easily dismissed, but in fact – a very diverse crowd of people. 

 

Perhaps “The Donald’s” antihero shittalking memed lifestyle was all the people needed to say “fuck it…I’m IN!” 

 

I was like, “Wait a minute…THAT guy?”

 

But by that time the hats consumed them, they became a part of the whole. 

 

On the other side, it seemed like the Democrats peaked on Obama. Who objectively was an amazing smooth talker – but also did horrific shit and advanced terrible plans. And those politicians that followed were simply the scummiest, most abysmal options available. 

 

You’d think, “There’s no way the intellectual left would pick these idiotic…” 

 

Only to hear them complain about people not calling them the names they prefer to be called. As if that’s an “actual problem”. 

 

Identity is certainly a personal thing. However, anyone who needs the affirmation of others to assume their identity is an imposter within their own mind. You either are, or you are not. There is no maybe. 

 

Nonetheless, the fractal nature of “identity” means that there are endless “smart-sounding bullshit” to consume that seem important enough to waste your life away, feeling like you’re “actually doing something” when in reality you’re doing nothing of major significance. 

 

And this was the stage of the world prior to the pandemic. And then, a few months after 2020 kicked off…the world’s largest drug cartels shut  down the world, locked people up and forced them to take a drug or ELSE…

 

What happened then was a deepening of personal narratives. Those on the “left” and those on the “right” dug deeper trenches, demonized the other even harder and decided that their opinions are the only ones that are valid. 

 

The first casualty was that of truth, as opposing views were being censored for the “greater good”, while actual data was being obscured by the people that were “allegedly” our saviors (aka Big Pharma). 

 

And this is the chord that Harrelson struck…and as a reaction, the Church of Covid rose up. 

 

Why do you call it “Church of Covid?” 

 

While those who are avid defendants of the vaccine mandates and believe that the government nor pfizer had any wrongdoing throughout the entire pandemic claim to be “based in science” – they acted very “unscientific” by silencing any voice that didn’t fit the mainstream narrative. 

 

For example, the whole notion of “Natural Immunity” meant that you were “anti-vax” when you simply were hesitant about  a drug that was rushed to market without proper longevity testing or even control groups. 

 

You were shunned, called a plague rat, deplatformed, ridiculed, by the mainstream and their supporters. Your person was attacked, you were called vile…you were out to kill Grandma! 

 

All of these narratives are very extreme in nature. And to question anything of the narrative meant heresy. 

 

And this is why I believe it’s a “Church of Covid” and not a rational, scientific debate around a pandemic. 

 

“Dogma” is defined as “Any belief held unquestioningly and with undefended certainty.” It’s a set of “principles” that are laid out and that if you were to challenge them, you’d be met with virtually the same intensity as if you were to question the birth of Jesus. 

 

Don’t believe me? Check out the responses to Harrelson’s monologue on one of the most “left leaning” billionaire owned publications “The Washington times”.

 

Here’s a comment from “Knitgirl”

Yeah- I will take medical advice from pot head Woody Harrelson. Just like I took it from Trump and the My Pillow guy. And just in case anyone thinks I am serious- guess again

 

And one from “B-H Carter”

 

They aren’t “conventional thoughts”, they are facts. And, no, harmful nonsense should not be given a platform. The vaccines are safe. Period.

 

Another comment from MacBeadWeaver

 

My mother died of COVID. An old friend’s 44 year old daughter also died of COVID. A few weeks ago SNL allowed antisemitic tropes from Dave Chapelle and now this from Woody H. I’m really done with SNL helping fascism take over America.

 

And let’s be fair…many people did lose loved ones to the Covid Pandemic, however, even within these statements of sentiment, we can see how the scientific bias is present. 

 

For example, in the first comment from KnitGirl, we can see that she immediately equated Harrelson with a “Trump” supporter, this despite the fact that he claims to be neither left nor right but purple. I’m sure Harrelson did NOT vote for Trump and probably doesn’t follow his political ideas at all – yet due to the fact that he spoke against the “Holy Covid Doctrine”, he now must be “othered” by the Church and protested. 

 

Just like the Christian Church did when Marilyn Manson plays a rock concert near their place of residence. 

 

And yes, you shouldn’t take medical advice from an actor…it’s the dumbest thing to do…which is why his comments should not be taken seriously. Because if you “don’t take medical advice” yet find offense posture on things – then it simply means that you DO take his words seriously, perhaps not for the same reasons as you might claim – yet serious enough to warrant a comment on an article. 

 

Or let’s take the comment from B-H Carter, 

 

“The vaccines are safe. Period”

 

The most scientific statement of the century. A statement that closes off all scientific inquiry. It’s almost like “God Exists – Period!” 

 

Except, VAERS have reported more than 50,000 vaccine related injuries in 2021, and to find any accurate data on any of these things is nearly impossible. For every report, there are 10 “Counter reports” floating about – and most of these counter reports are funded by…you guessed it – your pals at Pfizer. 

 

Furthermore, no vaccine is “safe”. There’s always inherent risks and this is why vaccines are supposed to be taken on a “case by case” basis. 

 

However, if you said this in 2020 and 2021, you would have been violently attacked for these ideas. However, in 2023, Natural Immunity is science once more, the Lab Leak is definitely plausible, and people do have strange reactions to the vaccine…such as women’s menstrual cycles being affected. 

 

Yet once again, “CONSPIRACY” if you would have said that a few years ago. Hell, it’s still true today. 

 

The final comment is probably the one that is most difficult. People lost loved ones. They believe that “the vax saved them”, and there might be some truth in this, but we won’t know for sure. This is because any idea of a control group was shunned….everybody gets it or else! 

 

However, the final comment is what makes the strongest case – “If you believe like X, you’re a racist, fascist…but hey, ignore the literal Nazis in the Ukrainian army…they fight for freedom!” 

 

Yes, I also went there. 

 

And this is why this is a religion and not reason. It’s scientism and not science. And the mere fact that Harrelson received a onslaught of negative articles only strengthens the point. 

 

What Harrelson said isn’t “wrong”. 

 

Let’s look at the facts…

 

  1. Pfizer is literally a drug cartel as “Cartel” is defined as “A combination of business firms to control world markets and fix prices.” 

  2. Pfizer has a long history of human rights violation and criminal business practices. You can read their transgressions here

 

Just to put into context the type of business Pfizer is, here’s a quote from one of their transgressions: 

 

Pfizer apparently engaged in questionable practices abroad as well. In 2000 the Washington Post published a major exposé accusing Pfizer of testing a dangerous new antibiotic called Trovan on children in Nigeria without receiving proper consent from their parents. The experiment occurred during a 1996 meningitis epidemic in the country. In 2001 Pfizer was sued in U.S. federal court by thirty Nigerian families, who accused the company of using their children as human guinea pigs.

 

In 2006 a panel of Nigerian medical experts concluded that Pfizer had violated international law. In 2009 the company agreed to pay $75 million to settle some of the lawsuits that had been brought in Nigerian courts.The U.S. case was settled in 2011 for an undisclosed amount.

 

Classified U.S. State Department cables made public in 2010 by Wikileaks indicated that Pfizer had hired investigators to dig up dirt on Nigeria’s former attorney general as a way to get leverage in one of the remaining cases. Pfizer had to apologize over the revelation in the cables that it had falsely claimed that the group Doctors Without Borders was also dispensing Trovan during the Nigerian meningitis epidemic. – SOURCE

 

They also settled one of the largest fraudulent advertisement cases in 2009 totalling $2.3 billion. “In 2009 the company had to pay a record $2.3 billion to settle federal charges that one of its subsidiaries had illegally marketed a painkiller called Bextra.”

 

  1. Pharma funds roughly half of the FDA budget, but also portion of the CDC. 

  2. Pharma pays significant money to media agencies

  3. Pharma pays significant in political lobbying. In fact, they spent $11, 000,000 in lobbying expenses in 2019, and even more the following years. 

  4. They wanted to seal the data on the Covid Vaccines for 75-years

 

So, a major drug cartel, who pays politicians, the media and funds organizations meant to regulate them – have no conflict of interest? 

 

You cannot question their business practices? You cannot question the efficacy of their medicine? They are protected from public scrutiny and if anyone questions it…they are immediately ostracized. 

 

If this doesn’t sound like a religious movement to the degree of catholics defending priests who molest little children – then I don’t know what is. 

 

Stay Purple…

 

The reason I decided to write this article is because like Harrelson…I’m neither left nor right. I don’t subscribe to political ideology and have very little trust in the institutions that are meant to regulate us – especially how they behaved during the pandemic. 

 

As a stoner…I’ve been writing on Pharma’s wicked ways for a long time. I know how they influenced politics to keep drugs like cannabis and psychedelics off the market – since it would destroy their profit margins. 

 

I, for one, applaud Harrelson for his ballsy move…I think the world is ready to start asking the tough questions, and those that defend the Pharma camp might come under scrutiny one of these days. 

 

People are rightfully angry…from where I’m sitting, Pharma had a major role to play in the proliferation of the fear of covid and it is my hope that one of these days…we take on that beast. Because, like the parasite it is – it must keep us sick in order for it to survive. 

 

So perhaps it took one stoner to say some crazy stuff on TV to shift the conversation back to a place where disagreeing with the official consensus doesn’t end up with you locked in a tower until the day you die…

 

MORE ON WOODY AND WEED, READ ON…

WOODY HARRELSON DISPENSARY HAWAII

WOODY HARRELSON WENT FOR A DISPENSARY IN HAWAII EARLY ON!



Source link

Cannabis News

California Appeals Court Rejects Marijuana Grow Permit, Citing Federal Illegality

Published

on

By


In a landmark decision that highlights the tension between state and federal cannabis laws, a California appellate court ruled on October 29th that property owners can refuse to allow the transportation of cannabis across their land via easements, even when the cannabis operation is approved by local authorities.

The Second District Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision draws attention to private property rights in a context where cannabis remains federally illegal, but state law allows licensed cultivation, distribution and sale. Presiding Justice Albert Gilbert stated, “No matter how much California voters and the Legislature might try, cannabis cultivation and transportation are illegal in California as long as it remains illegal under federal law.” JCCrandall LLC v. County of Santa Barbara, Case No. B333201, 2024 WL 4599304, Oct. 29, 2024.

Unless the California Supreme Court grants review – which I would not rule out – the decision empowers private property owners to refuse to contract with cannabis businesses, and restricts local government from approving cannabis operations that implicate the property rights of neighbors who object.

The case at hand

The dispute centered around a cannabis cultivation operation in Santa Barbara County, where JCCrandall LLC challenged a conditional use permit granted by the County to its neighbor, Santa Rita Holdings Inc. The critical issue was that Santa Rita Holdings could only access its 2.5-acre cannabis farm via an unpaved road crossing JCCrandall’s property through a pre-existing easement. JCCrandall grows oats and barley.

JCCrandall’s primary concern? It raised a number of complaints with the Santa Barbara County Supervisors about truck traffic and night operations, which did not gain traction, but in the Court of Appeal JCCrandall focused on what it claimed was potential liability associated with having federally illegal substances transported across its property, even though County regulators found that the Santa Rita operation was fully compliant with state and local laws.

Key legal findings

The appellate court’s decision hinged on several crucial points:

  1. Property Rights: The court emphasized that “the right to exclude others is the essence of the right of property ownership” and classified it as a fundamental vested right.
  2. Federal Supremacy: The panel determined that allowing cannabis transportation across private property “defies the Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. Constitution.
  3. State vs. Federal Law: While cannabis might be legal under California law, the court ruled that federal law’s prohibition takes precedence in this context.

California cannabis industry implications

Legal experts suggest this ruling could have far-reaching consequences for California’s cannabis industry. Section 1550.5(b) of the California Civil Code makes contracts within California involving cannabis lawful and enforceable, and Santa Rita Holdings bet the ranch on that argument. But the Court of Appeal held that the statute could not compel a landowner to allow cannabis to travel across its property on a pre-existing easement. Licensed operators may find it harder to do business because neighbors who have property rights affected by a cannabis business can object, and, under the JCCrandall ruling, local government must yield to those objections.

An example might be a cannabis dispensary that depends on access to its parking lot via an easement or is located in a shopping center where other lessees have rights to object to tenants notwithstanding the approval of the landlord. In cultivation, many cannabis farms depend on vehicular access through easements because they are remote and do not always have direct access to public thoroughfares, or they depend on water sourced from other properties pursuant to agreements made by prior owners who grew traditional crops. These neighbors might not need to show any negative impact on their property, but can argue that they could be found complicit in federally illegal activities.

I think the most problematic language in the JCCrandall ruling is the following, which might draw the attention of the California Supreme Court and cause it to grant review: “For as long as an easement is enjoyed, its mode and manner of use shall remain substantially the same as it was at the time the easement was created. The County argues the easement was used for agricultural purposes. But there is a vast difference between legal and illegal agricultural purposes.” (Emphasis added.) If California has determined that cannabis cultivation is legal – as it has – and state courts routinely enforce contracts involving cannabis, it is a pretty bold step to declare the use of a lawful pre-existing easement illegal simply because the agricultural crop is cannabis and take away easement access from Santa Rita.

Looking ahead

This decision creates new challenges for cannabis businesses in California, and will result in more disputes among neighbors. While the Biden administration has shown signs of easing federal marijuana restrictions, this ruling demonstrates that the federal-state law conflict continues to create significant legal hurdles for the cannabis industry.

California court decisions also can be persuasive authority in other states, so we might see similar litigation (and decisions) elsewhere in the country where cannabis has been legalized.

The case serves as a reminder that despite California’s progressive stance on cannabis, federal prohibition continues to cast a long shadow over the industry’s operations and development. As the cannabis landscape continues to evolve, this ruling may prompt businesses to reassess their property arrangements and local governments will certainly have to reconsider their permitting processes to give more careful consideration to objections by neighbors who claim that their property rights are implicated by cannabis operations.

Note: This post was first published earlier this month on the Alger ADR Blog.



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Autoimmune Conditions Are Rising Fast in American Medicine, Can Cannabis Help?

Published

on

By


cannabis autoimmune problems

Why Are Autoimmune Conditions On The Rise? And How Cannabis Can Help

 

Autoimmune diseases refer to a group of medical conditions that occur as a result of the immune system attacking your own tissues.

 

In a normal human body, the immune system is responsible for protecting the body by producing antibodies that prevent toxins, cancer cells, and viruses from harming the body. However, when one is struck by an autoimmune disorder, the immune system is no longer able to distinguish the difference between dangerous cells and healthy cells. As a result, the healthy cells are attacked, too.

Today, we know of around 100 different kinds of autoimmune conditions. Some of the most common examples of autoimmune conditions include rheumatoid arthritis (RA), lupus, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, Type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis (MS), and the Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) to name a few. Others include Graves’ disease, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, psoriasis, and vasculitis.

 

According to the National Health Council, around 50 million Americans are affected by autoimmune diseases today. This is a conservative estimate, considering that several autoimmune conditions are tricky to treat and so many people go undiagnosed for long periods of time. It’s worrisome to note that there are more people developing autoimmune diseases these days, many of which have reached levels comparable to epidemics.

 

But cannabis can help!

 

How Cannabis Can Help Curb And Manage Autoimmune Diseases

 

Not one single cause is responsible for the alarming growth of autoimmune diseases, though there are several factors at play. While there isn’t just one cause we can point at, it’s certain the reasons lie in our environment. After all, human genetics haven’t changed significantly yet the chemicals, toxins, and pollutants in our food and everyday items have risen dramatically.

 

In addition, people are getting less sleep than ever; stress rates are through the roof, and people are constantly worried. There is a clear link between psychological stress and physical health as well as immunity, which is why it isn’t unusual – it’s even common – to see many autoimmune disease cases flare up after people experience severe stress caused by grief, an accident, job loss, or the death of a loved one. These highly stressful and traumatic conditions wreak havoc on the body’s immune response, causing inflammation all over the body.

 

Conventional treatments prescribed to treat autoimmune conditions are focused on taming inflammation; these usually include steroids but also some non-steroidal drugs. These drugs often come with unwanted side effects, but research has shown that cannabis can work with the endocannabinoid system through THC and CBD, as well as other cannabinoids, to simulate similar results. In one study for example, we can see the clear association of the endocannabinoid system for neurodegenerative and inflammatory processes seen in Multiple Sclerosis and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.


There has also been an increasing number of studies proving the efficacy of cannabis for treating several autoimmune conditions.

 

Cannabis For Multiple Sclerosis

 

Multiple sclerosis is one of the autoimmune conditions where a growing number of studies have come out supporting the therapeutic benefits of cannabis for. In a 2024 study, patients with multiple sclerosis reported several improvements in quality of life after using cannabis-based medical products (CBMPs). For the study, British investigators analyzed the impact of cannabis based medicinal products made from either oil or extracts in 141 patients who were enrolled in the UK Medical Cannabis Registry.

 

The researchers then analyzed the changes in patient outcomes after a month, then three and 6 months after. According to the patients themselves, they were able to sustain improvements in their mental and physical health after marijuana therapy.

 

“This case series demonstrates a potential association between the initiation of CBMPs and improved patient reported outcomes in sleep, anxiety, and general HRQoL [health-related quality of life] measures, over six months,” said the study authors. “Additional measures for HRQoL, including various physical and mental health subdomains, also exhibit improvements up to six months when compared to baseline,” the authors concluded.

 

In another study from 2023, patients with multiple sclerosis reported significant improvements in symptoms after cannabis use. For the study, researchers from the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, New York, analyzed the medical records of 141 patients with multiple sclerosis, who were also legally authorized to consume medical marijuana products. They then analyzed data from the patients after one up to 4 follow-up sessions after the initial session of cannabis therapy. Sixty-five percent of patients consumed 1:1 THC:CBD tinctures.

 

According to the authors: “The results of this study indicate that use of MC [medical cannabis] to alleviate symptoms of MS is largely efficacious, with improvement in pain (72 percent of patients), muscle spasticity (48 percent of patients), and sleep disturbance (40 percent of patients) frequently reported.”

 

“More than half of opioid users at baseline were able to either discontinue or decrease their opioid use after starting MC. The mean daily MME [morphine milligram equivalents] was significantly reduced from the initial visit (51 mg) to the last follow-up visit (40 mg). This is consistent with previous literature showing that MC legalization is associated with decreased opioid use and that MC use is associated with decreased opioid use in patients with chronic pain. These findings indicate that MC may represent an alternative analgesic to opioids for some patients,” they wrote. 

 

Anecdotal Evidence

 

While more studies are needed to determine cannabis’ effect on other autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, we can rely on anecdotal evidence. In 2020, data from the medical journal, Rheumatology, revealed that patients who have this condition, along with those who have lupus and fibromyalgia, consume cannabis.

 

In fact, it was reported that marijuana was extremely common especially for patients with fibromyalgia. “In this meta-analysis, we found that one in six patients suffering from rheumatologic disease actively consumes cannabis, reducing pain reduction… A favorable effect of cannabis on pain in our meta-analysis reinforces the idea that cannabis could be used for analgesic purposes,” the authors concluded.

 

Conclusion

Cannabis is a safe and natural way to help prevent and treat the symptoms of autoimmune disease. It targets inflammation at its root, and is a proven natural way to help cope with stress, pain, insomnia, and inflammation all while protecting the brain. However, it’s important to ensure you medicate with clean, organic sources of marijuana.

 

AUTOIMMUNE AND CANNABIS, READ ON…

AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES THAT CANNABIS CAN HELP

CANNABIS FOR 9 DIFFERENT AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Hemp and the New Senate Farm Bill

Published

on

By


The U.S. Senate’s version of the Farm Bill finally landed this week. They’re calling it the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024 (the “Senate bill”). The Senate bill follows on the House’s proposal, called the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 (the “House bill”), offered in May. Neither the Senate bill nor the House bill would preempt state or Indian law regarding hemp or the regulation of hemp products. This means states and tribes will retain a lot of latitude in regulating hemp and hemp-derived products– which gets people fired up.

Aside from giving states some runway, the Senate bill and the House bill differ in key respects regarding hemp. Therefore, these august bodies must confer and reconcile their sundry proposals. That could happen in 2024, but seems more likely in 2025 when the new Congress convenes. As of this week, though, we finally have a framework.

The Senate Bill re-defines “hemp” and defines “industrial hemp”

Section 10016 of the Senate bill (“Hemp Production”) amends the definition of “hemp.” Hemp was defined in the 2018 Farm Bill and removed from the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), taking us on a truly wild ride. See: What Happened to Hemp? (“What Happened”). The Senate bill also gives us a definition for “industrial hemp.” Here are those definitions, with points of emphasis in bold:

(1) Hemp. The term “hemp” means (A) the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 total tetrahydrocannabinol concentration (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; and (B) industrial hemp.

(3) Industrial Hemp. The term “industrial hemp” means the plant Cannabis sativa L. if the harvested material (A) is only (i) the stalks of that plant, fiber produced from those stalks, or any other manufactured product, derivative, mixture, or preparation of those stalks (except cannabinoid resin extracted from those stalks); (ii) whole grain, oil, cake, nut, hull, or any other compound, manufactured product, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the seeds of that plant (except cannabinoid resin extracted from the seeds of that plant); or (iii) viable seeds of that plant produced solely for production or manufacture of any material described in clause (i) or (ii); and (B) will not be used in the manufacturing or synthesis of natural or synthetic cannabinoid products.

The new regime

Again, the definitional stuff in bold is what I want to emphasize.

First, the Senate bill keeps the THC threshold at 0.3 percent, which is an arbitrary number we’ve been advocating against for years. The Senate bill mirrors the House bill in this respect, though, so we are stuck with this, unless Ron Paul gets his way.

Second, the Senate bill keeps the 2018 Farm Bill’s total THC standard, including THCA. The House bill does this too. This was fairly predictable: in What Happened, I wrote that we could “expect the total THC standard to remain, which means that actual Delta-9 THC won’t be the only metric for calculating THC content.”

We’ve also explained on this blog that the 2018 Farm Bill and USDA rules mandate total THC testing on pre-harvest hemp batches, but do not mandate such testing on post-harvest hemp or hemp products. The Senate bill doesn’t change this paradigm, which means the “loophole” for gas station weed remains open. This proposal is a big win for opponents of the House bill’s “Miller Amendment,” which would narrow the definition of “hemp” to exclude intoxicating hemp-derived substances.

Third, the Senate bill introduces a new definition and framework for industrial hemp. The House bill does this too, albeit slightly differently. The idea here is to invite farmers to grow hemp for fiber and grain purposes, while freeing them from regulatory burdens with the Department of Agriculture and criminal exposure with the Department of Justice. More specifically, for “industrial hemp” growers, the Senate bill:

  • removes background check requirements;
  • instates “relaxed regulatory requirements” for sampling and inspection methodologies (which will need to be adopted by rule); and
  • develops a certified seed program. 

The Senate bill also makes any hemp producer ineligible to grow hemp for five years if that producer, “with a culpable mental state greater than negligence, produces a crop of hemp that is inconsistent with that license.”(Hint: use the seed program.) The proof standard here seems like it could be an issue, and even if anyone has been adjudicated as growing marijuana under the guise of hemp, Farm Bill ineligibility seems like a far-off concern.

Bottom line

The big takeaway for me is that the Senate bill leaves the door open for intoxicating hemp products, whereas the Miller Amendment to the House bill does not. Something’s gotta give. And it needs to happen soon, because we’re already long overdue. As I explained in a webinar last week, the Farm Bill deals with the nation’s entire food supply, not just hemp. Therefore, this is not like with the SAFE Banking Act, where we have a proposed law specific to cannabis that may or may not ever pass. The Farm Bill must pass, and soon.

Stay tuned and we’ll keep you updated on any major happenings. For more on this topic, check out our massive hemp and CBD archive, or these specific, recent posts:



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media