Connect with us

Cannabis News

The Scrooge of Cannabis Takes on VP Harris with Reefer Madness



Sabet on rescheduling weed

Reginald vs The Scourge – Analyzing Sabet’s latest Reefer Madness


As an advocate for personal responsibility, bodily autonomy and freedom, I have made it my mission to challenge the stance of prohibition and counteract the misinformation that fuels it. The right of individuals to make informed choices about what they put into their own bodies is fundamental. Yet there are still vocal prohibition advocates who spread falsehoods and rely on fearmongering rather than facts. It’s crucial that we critically examine their claims to determine if there is any real scientific and logical basis behind them.


For years, one of the loudest voices on the prohibition side has been Kevin Sabet and his organization SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana). Sabet recently co-authored an opinion piece in The Hill arguing against rescheduling cannabis and painting a dire picture of the supposed harms of legalization. But do his arguments hold up to scrutiny?


In this article, we’re going to take a close look at the claims made in Sabet’s latest letter, titled “Kamala Harris is gravely wrong about rescheduling marijuana.” We’ll see if there is factual merit behind the rhetoric, or if it’s simply drug war propaganda fueled by ideology and vested interests.


To be clear, I hold no love for Vice President Harris given her history as a prosecutor who gleefully sent cannabis users to jail as California Attorney General. It pains me to have to defend her recent comments in favor of rescheduling. But intellectual honesty demands calling out Sabet’s flawed arguments, even if Harris and I are strange bedfellows on this issue.


With over 90% of Americans now in favor of legal access to cannabis, at least for medical use, Sabet’s prohibitionist views represent an increasingly marginalized fringe. Yet he still garners attention as the media’s go-to “anti-pot” voice. So join me as we dissect his latest screed and I make the case for why his Reefer Madness mindset belongs in the dustbin of history.


As always, I approach this not as a blind defender of cannabis, but as someone who believes policy should be grounded in science, reason and human rights. Let’s see if Sabet’s arguments meet that bar.


In order to save you all time from reading the Letter, I have gone through some of their arguments and come up with a response to each point. Mainly, I challenge their logic, their conclusion, and whether or not they have a bias in a particular arena.


Let’s go!



“First, we should address what Harris left unsaid. Since his election, Biden has demonstrated that criminal justice reform is possible without commercializing today’s industrialized, high-potency THC drugs or legalizing dangerous psychoactive drugs.”


While President Biden has taken some symbolic steps towards cannabis reform, such as pardoning low-level federal possession offenses, his overall impact on the legal status of cannabis has been sorely lacking. The glaring elephant in the room is that cannabis remains a Schedule I substance under federal law, a classification reserved for drugs with “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”


This scheduling is not only scientifically baseless, but a cruel joke to the millions of patients who rely on cannabis as a safer, less addictive alternative to prescription opioids and other pharmaceuticals for treating conditions like chronic pain, PTSD, epilepsy, and the side effects of chemotherapy. The medical applications of cannabis are extensively documented, with FDA-approved cannabinoid medications like Epidiolex and Marinol just the tip of the iceberg.


Moreover, the notion that cannabis belongs in the same category as heroin in terms of abuse potential is laughable when compared to the legal and widely available drug alcohol, which is far more toxic and addictive by any objective measure. The continued Schedule I status of cannabis is a relic of the racially and politically motivated War on Drugs, not a reflection of scientific reality.


While incremental criminal justice reforms are welcome, they don’t address the root problem of cannabis’ egregious misclassification, which perpetuates stigma, stifles research, and keeps the industry in a legal gray area. If the Biden administration is serious about righting the wrongs of the drug war and embracing an evidence-based approach, it must prioritize the descheduling of cannabis altogether.


Sadly, these glaring contradictions and the need for substantive change seem to be among the many things left “unsaid” by our political leaders, even as public opinion and state-level legalization increasingly leave federal prohibition behind. It’s time for the Biden administration to match its rhetoric with bold action and consign cannabis prohibition to the dustbin of history where it belongs.


“There was no one representing social justice advocates, scientists and public health experts concerned about the harms of marijuana commercialization. Many of these experts have studied the socioeconomic effects of lax marijuana policies, including the fact that pot shops are often concentrated in and target poorer and non-white communities on purpose, much like menthol cigarettes target Black communities.”


Kevin Sabet and his cohorts at SAM love to posture as champions of social justice, but their actions and affiliations tell a different story. It’s high time we called out their cynical exploitation of marginalized communities as a cover for their true agenda – protecting the profits of the rehab industry that funds them.


Let’s be clear: Sabet’s organization has deep financial ties to the very same rehabilitation clinics that benefit from the court-ordered treatment of cannabis users caught up in the criminal justice system. These are the same clinics that are often in cozy partnership with the state, creating a perverse incentive to keep cannabis criminalized and the treatment beds filled. So when Sabet sheds crocodile tears over the impact of legalization on disadvantaged populations, forgive me if I’m a bit skeptical of his sincerity.


If Sabet and friends truly cared about social justice, they’d be working to dismantle the racist and classist drug war policies that have devastated communities of color, not fighting to preserve them. They’d be advocating for restorative justice, expungement of past convictions, and equitable access to the legal cannabis industry, not scaremongering about the supposed harms of legalization.


I’m all for an honest, evidence-based discussion about the public health implications of cannabis policy. Sabet claims to have science on his side? Great – let’s see him square off against the countless medical professionals and researchers who have attested to the therapeutic potential and relative safety of cannabis compared to legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. I’ll bring my experts, he can bring his, and we’ll see whose arguments hold up to scrutiny.


Of course, no policy is without trade-offs and the transition to a legal, regulated cannabis market is no exception. There will undoubtedly be some unforeseen consequences and challenges along the way. But when we weigh the evidence objectively, it’s clear that the overall societal benefits of ending prohibition – from reducing incarceration to generating tax revenue to weakening the illicit market – far outweigh the potential downsides.


So spare me the social justice smokescreen, Kevin. It’s time to have an honest conversation about cannabis policy, one grounded in science, compassion, and a genuine commitment to righting the wrongs of the failed war on drugs. The American people are ready for change – the question is, are you?


“While Biden should be praised for his stance opposing legalization and supporting expungement and removing penalties, rescheduling marijuana would be an abandonment of his efforts to keep drugs off our streets”


Your claim that rescheduling cannabis would undermine efforts to “keep drugs off our streets” would be laughable if the consequences of this thinking weren’t so tragic. News flash: after decades of prohibition and trillions of dollars wasted on enforcement, drugs are more readily available than ever. If you don’t believe me, just ask any high schooler how long it would take them to score some molly or a vape pen. Spoiler alert: probably less time than it takes to get a pizza delivered.


The painful reality is that the War on Drugs has been an abject failure by every conceivable metric. Despite the tireless efforts of the DEA and other law enforcement agencies, the illicit drug trade continues to thrive, with devastating consequences for public health and safety. Overdose deaths are at record highs, cartels are raking in billions, and marginalized communities bear the brunt of the violence and incarceration that prohibition fuels.


It’s time to face the facts, Kevin. We can’t arrest and incarcerate our way out of this crisis. The only way to truly get drugs under control is to bring them out of the shadows and into a system of strict regulation and oversight. By legalizing and regulating substances like cannabis, we can ensure that adults have access to safe, lab-tested products while keeping them out of the hands of minors. We can redirect law enforcement resources toward more serious crimes, and use the tax revenue generated by legal sales to fund education, prevention, and treatment programs.


This isn’t some radical, untested idea – it’s the approach that’s already working in countries like Portugal, where decriminalization has led to dramatic reductions in overdose deaths, HIV transmission rates, and drug-related crime. It’s the direction that more and more U.S. states are moving in with cannabis, as they recognize the failure of prohibition and the benefits of regulation.


Don’t just take my word for it. Let’s look at the data from states that have already legalized cannabis. Teen use has remained stable or even declined, opioid prescriptions and overdoses have fallen, and billions in tax revenue have been generated for public services. The sky hasn’t fallen, Kevin – in fact, by most measures, the situation has improved.


So please, spare us the fear-mongering about legal cannabis flooding the streets with drugs. The streets are already flooded, and it’s prohibition that’s keeping the cartels in business. It’s time for a new approach, one grounded in harm reduction, public health, and respect for individual liberty. The mission of the drug war has failed – it’s time to evolve. The question is, Kevin, are you ready to join us in the 21st century, or will you keep clinging to the failed policies of the past?


“Drug scheduling is not a harm index. It is a legal term that categorizes drugs based on medical benefit and potential for abuse. From a scientific basis, marijuana fails to meet the statutory requirements for any schedule other than Schedule I.”


Kevin, your claim that cannabis meets the criteria for Schedule I would be almost impressive in its sheer audacity if it weren’t so easily debunked by even a cursory glance at the scientific literature and real-world evidence.


Let’s start with the FDA-approved cannabinoid medications Epidiolex and Marinol, which are prescribed for conditions like epilepsy and chemotherapy-induced nausea. How exactly do these fit into your narrative that cannabis has “no currently accepted medical use”? Are you suggesting that the FDA is in on some vast stoner conspiracy?


And that’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the medical applications of cannabis. Countless studies have documented its efficacy in treating chronic pain, muscle spasms, anxiety, PTSD, and a host of other conditions. In states with medical cannabis programs, patients are using it as a safer alternative to prescription opioids, with many able to reduce or eliminate their use of these highly addictive and potentially deadly drugs.


But hey, don’t take my word for it – just ask the millions of people worldwide who have found relief and improved quality of life through medical cannabis. Or consult the numerous medical organizations, like the American Nurses Association and the American Public Health Association, that have endorsed rescheduling or descheduling cannabis to facilitate research and patient access.


The notion that there is no evidence for cannabis’ medical utility is not just factually incorrect – it’s a slap in the face to the patients and healthcare professionals who have seen its benefits firsthand. It’s an ideologically driven talking point that has no place in a serious discussion about science and public health.


So please, Kevin, spare us the Schedule I nonsense. It’s a relic of the racist and politically motivated war on drugs, not a reflection of scientific reality. If you’re going to engage in this debate, at least have the intellectual honesty to grapple with the evidence instead of regurgitating long-debunked prohibitionist myths.


“It is also more dangerous than people think. In fact, the drug has undergone a transformation in its addictive potential. Today’s marijuana is nothing like Woodstock-era weed.”


Oh boy, here we go again with the “today’s pot is not your grandpa’s woodstock weed” scaremongering. Kevin, I hate to break it to you, but this tired talking point is the definition of reefer madness 2.0.


Yes, cannabis potency has increased over the years, thanks in large part to prohibition driving cultivation underground and incentivizing the production of more concentrated products. But the idea that higher THC content automatically equates to increased danger is overly simplistic and ignores the way cannabis is actually consumed in the real world.


The average THC content of popular strains in legal markets hovers around 14% – undoubtedly stronger than the schwag of yesteryear, but a far cry from the 90%+ concentrates that prohibitionists love to wave around to scare soccer moms. And let’s be real, even the most potent bud isn’t going to turn someone into a homicidal maniac. That’s the kind of hysterical nonsense that even the most die-hard D.A.R.E. graduates have trouble believing these days.


What Sabet and his ilk fail to grasp is that cannabis consumers are not mindless slaves to ever-increasing THC levels. People titrate their dose and use a variety of consumption methods to achieve their desired effect, whether that’s relief from pain and anxiety or a social buzz. Regular consumers also develop tolerance over time, meaning that what might be an uncomfortably intense experience for a newbie is just another Tuesday for a seasoned smoker.


Now, this is not to say that cannabis is harmless or that there aren’t risks associated with excessive use, particularly for young people with developing brains. Some folks will undoubtedly develop problematic relationships with cannabis, just as they do with alcohol, gambling, and Fortnite.


But the solution to mitigating those risks is not prohibition and criminalization – we already know how well that works out. It’s legalization, regulation, education, and harm reduction. By bringing cannabis out of the shadows and into a system of age restrictions, potency limits, and mandatory labeling, we can create guardrails to encourage responsible use while respecting the liberty and agency of adults to make their own choices.


And spare me the false equivalence between cannabis and alcohol, Kevin. If you’re going to play the Schedule I card, let’s at least be consistent. By any objective measure, alcohol is far more dangerous and addictive than cannabis – yet I don’t see you crusading to bring back the 18th Amendment. It’s almost as if your selective outrage and disdain for “psychoactive drugs” only applies to the ones you personally disapprove of. Funny how that works, isn’t it?


But hey, I get it. Admitting that you’ve hitched your wagon to a losing battle must be a bitter pill to swallow. But the American people are waking up to the absurdity of cannabis prohibition, and no amount of reefer madness redux is going to put that genie back in the bottle. It’s time to get with the times, Kevin. The future is green whether you like it or not.









kevin sabet on marijuana prohibition


Source link

Cannabis News

What Rescheduling Marijuana Means for California’s Cannabis Industry




California‘s cannabis industry suffers from a seemingly unending list of problems: high taxes, prohibitionist cities, a related lack of retail licenses and oversupply of non-retail licenses, a monster illegal market with no end in sight, burdensome and often senseless regulations, and so on. Unfortunately, rescheduling won’t solve most of these problems–at least not directly. Today I want to look at what rescheduling could mean for California’s cannabis industry.

If you’re not already up to speed on rescheduling, check out my colleague Vince Sliwoski’s explainer of the DEA’s notice of proposed rulemaking to move marijuana from schedule I (where it sits next to heroin) to schedule III, or any of the following posts of ours:

With that out of the way, let’s look how rescheduling could affect (or not affect) California’s cannabis industry.

First and foremost, rescheduling does not mean that state-legal cannabis markets will be federally compliant. In other words, all California cannabis businesses will still violate federal law. The biggest change would be that  IRC § 280E – which prohibits cannabis businesses from making standard federal tax deductions – will go away. But the statewide cannabis industry won’t be federally “legal.”

What that means is that rescheduling will have no impact on things like the prohibition on interstate commerce, which has kept California walled off from other states (at least California’s legal market). So for now, California’s still on its own.

Rescheduling also won’t impact state law where it counts. Things like local control, burdensome regulations, fighting the illegal market, and so on, will stay the same. Importantly, local and state tax law won’t change: California and many local cities tax cannabis businesses as if they are piggybanks. While 280E relief will undoubtedly help, it makes it much less likely that the state will revisit its own excise tax or think about how it could cap local gross receipts taxes.

So with all that out of the way, is there any good news? I think the answer is a clear yes. Here’s why:

  • Even without state and local tax relief, 280E relief alone will be a monumental change for the industry.
  • Investments into California’s cannabis industry are likely to increase as investors who previously stood on the sidelines become more comfortable with the idea of investing into a (slightly) less regulated industry.
  • Other ancillary service providers may also be more open to providing services to the industry for similar reasons. More ancillary service providers may reduce costs within the cannabis industry.
  • It’s possible that state governments also decide to be more bold. For example, states could decide to roll the dice on interstate commerce compacts after rescheduling, even in spite of schedule III issues.
  • Although the impact on the illegal market will likely be small, the removal of 280E liabilities could entice people who would otherwise have remained unlicensed to become legal and complaint operators.

We’ve got a long way to go before rescheduling happens. And while nobody can really say for sure how things will shake out, it seems like there are some definite positive outcomes for California’s cannabis industry. So stay tuned for more updates.

Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

The End of the US Hemp Industry is Near




end of hemp in america

The 2018 Farm Bill legalized the cultivation of hemp, distinguishing it from marijuana based on its low THC content. However, an emerging loophole has allowed the proliferation of psychoactive hemp-derived products, particularly delta-8 THC, which has led to significant regulatory and public health concerns. In response, a proposed amendment to the Farm Bill seeks to address these issues by banning hemp-derived cannabinoid products, including delta-8 THC. This proposed amendment, filed by Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL), aims to redefine hemp and close the existing loophole around intoxicating hemp. The amendment has sparked a heated debate among industry stakeholders, regulators, and lawmakers.

If you have followed the legal hemp market over the past 8 years and attended shows like the Benzinga Cannabis Conference, you know that the only thing keeping the US hemp industry alive, and on life-support at best, is the sale of commerical retail products that create revenue, ie, Delta-8 THC and Delta-9 THC products derived from hemp.  While hemp-crete and hemp twine are nice stories, the only “cash crop” hemp has right now is selling “hemp that gets you high” to Americans that don’t have acccess to legal weed.

As mentioned by a few VCs and investment firms at the industry trade shows, the only think keeping hemp alive in America is Delta-8 and Delta-9 THC products and sales.

That “loophole” in the original 2018 Farm Bill may be closing, and for good, with a new amendment put forward this week.


 Key Provisions of the Proposed Amendment

The amendment includes several critical provisions designed to tighten regulations on hemp-derived products:

  • Redefinition of Hemp: Redefines hemp to exclude products containing detectable levels of THC and cannabinoids synthesized outside the plant.

  • Ban on Delta-8 THC: Explicitly bans hemp-derived products that contain psychoactive cannabinoids, such as delta-8 THC.

  • Enhanced Regulatory Oversight: Aims to provide clearer guidelines and stricter controls over the production and sale of hemp-derived products.

 Concerns Leading to the Amendment

Proponents of the amendment argue that the current lack of regulation has led to several issues:

  • Marketing to Children and Teens: Psychoactive hemp products are often marketed in colorful packaging, resembling candy and snacks, raising concerns about their appeal to children and teenagers.

  • Unregulated Market: The proliferation of hemp-derived cannabinoids has resulted in an unregulated market where the safety and quality of products are inconsistent.

  • Public Health Risks: There are concerns about the potential health risks associated with the unregulated sale and consumption of these products.

 Industry Opposition and Concerns

Industry stakeholders and advocates for the hemp industry have voiced strong opposition to the proposed amendment. Their main arguments include:

  • Impact on CBD Products: The amendment could criminalize many non-intoxicating CBD products that naturally contain trace amounts of THC.

  • Economic Consequences: The ban could devastate the hemp industry, resulting in significant job losses and economic decline.

  • Access to Health Products: Many Americans rely on hemp-derived products for health and wellness, and the ban could deny them access to these beneficial products.

 Economic Implications

The hemp market is currently valued at approximately $28 billion, with a significant portion of this market driven by hemp-derived cannabinoid products. The proposed amendment could have profound economic implications, including:

  • Job Losses: Potential loss of tens of thousands of jobs in agriculture, retail, and manufacturing sectors.

  • Market Decline: A potential decline in sales and overall market value as many products would no longer be legally available.

  • Investment Uncertainty: Increased regulatory uncertainty could deter future investments in the hemp industry.

Regulatory Challenges

The hemp industry has faced numerous regulatory challenges since the legalization of hemp in 2018. Key regulatory hurdles include:

Lack of FDA Regulation: The FDA has yet to establish clear regulations for hemp-derived CBD products, creating a patchwork of state-level regulations and contributing to market instability.

  • Safety and Quality Standards: The absence of federal guidelines has led to inconsistent safety and quality standards across the industry.

  • Youth Access: The unregulated sale of psychoactive hemp products has raised concerns about youth access and potential misuse.

Legislative Process and Potential Outcomes

The amendment’s approval by the House Agriculture Committee is the first step in a potentially contentious legislative process. The Senate, which has yet to release its version of the Farm Bill, will play a crucial role in determining the amendment’s fate. Key considerations include:

  • Senate’s Stance: The Democratic-controlled Senate may take a different approach to the regulation of hemp-derived cannabinoids, potentially leading to a conflict between the two chambers.

  • Bipartisan Negotiations: Successful passage of the amendment will likely require bipartisan support and negotiations to reconcile differing viewpoints.

  • Final Legislation: The final version of the Farm Bill will need to balance the interests of public health, industry stakeholders, and regulatory clarity.

Broader Implications for Cannabinoid Regulation

The proposed amendment raises broader questions about the regulation of cannabinoids in general:

  • Defining Cannabinoids: The amendment’s language excluding detectable levels of THC and synthesized cannabinoids could impact the regulation of other cannabinoids, such as CBD.

  • Regulatory Parity: Proponents argue that the amendment would create regulatory parity and facilitate state-level regulation of intoxicating hemp products.

  • Future of Cannabinoid Products: The regulation of cannabinoids will continue to evolve, with ongoing debates about the safety, efficacy, and legality of various products.

 Public Health Considerations

The shift towards greater regulation of hemp-derived cannabinoids has significant public health implications:

  • Consumer Safety: Enhanced regulatory oversight could improve consumer safety by ensuring that hemp-derived products meet consistent quality and safety standards.

  • Health Risks: The unregulated sale of psychoactive hemp products poses potential health risks, particularly for vulnerable populations.

  • Research and Education: Increased research and public education efforts are needed to fully understand the health impacts of hemp-derived cannabinoids and inform regulatory policies.

Industry Adaptation and Future Outlook

The hemp industry will need to adapt to the proposed regulatory changes if the amendment is enacted. Key strategies for adaptation include:

  • Compliance and Certification: Producers and manufacturers will need to invest in compliance and certification processes to meet new regulatory standards.

  • Product Innovation: The industry may shift focus towards non-psychoactive hemp applications and develop new products that comply with stricter regulations.

  • Advocacy and Engagement: Ongoing advocacy and engagement with policymakers will be essential to ensure that the industry’s interests are represented in regulatory discussions.


The proposed Farm Bill amendment to ban hemp-derived cannabinoid products represents a significant shift in U.S. agricultural and regulatory policy. While proponents argue that it addresses critical public health and safety concerns, industry stakeholders warn of devastating economic consequences and the potential loss of beneficial products. As the amendment moves through the legislative process, the hemp industry faces a period of uncertainty and adaptation. The outcome of this debate will shape the future of hemp regulation, balancing the need for consumer protection with the growth and innovation of a burgeoning industry.





Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Just Say No to Pesticides on Your Weed




pesticide free cannabis growing

How To Prevent Pests In Your Homegrown Cannabis Plants Without Using Harmful Chemicals


Just like every other plant, cannabis plants will also attract its fair share of pests and bugs when you try to grow them at home. Even professional cannabis growers have to deal with pests!

Pests come in the form of insects, fungus, mites, and bacteria. For homegrown marijuana, the most common offenders include aphids, thrips, spider mites, botrytis, cabbage loopers, whiteflies, powdery mildew, fungus gnats, and root aphids. When they go on undetected or without any treatment, they can cause a wide array of damage to your precious cannabis plant.


The worst-case scenario is that your plant can end up being so unhealthy and damaged, that you might even have to end up throwing it away before you can harvest anything. Sometimes, the pest problem can hide itself so effectively that you won’t even know it’s there until you’ve harvested your weed, and are opening your buds apart to smoke. Then, it would be far too late to do anything!


Many weed growers end up resorting to strong, harmful chemical pesticides and fungicides to prevent pest problems or nip them in the bud. However, these chemical pesticides and fungicides can also be dangerous for humans and the environment. They are, after all, made with chemicals – and some of these chemicals are known to be carcinogenic.


But don’t worry: there are several other ways cannabis home growers can deal with pests without harmful chemicals and strong pesticides.


Prevention Is Key


Truly understanding your home grow setup and operation is the first and most important step to preventing pests. This can take some time and resources in the beginning, but it will save you time and money in the long run!

There are certain factors involved with specific grow setups as well as environments. For example, when growing marijuana outdoors, the most common pests to deal with include aphids, Eurasian hemp borers, corn earworms, and hemp russet mites among others. You’ll also have to learn to prevent squirrels, deer, raccoons, and other bigger animals since humans aren’t the only ones that are attracted to weed!


Meanwhile, there’s a different set of beasts to deal with indoors because other factors are involved. These include humidity, ventilation, and air circulation. But regardless of whether you are growing indoors or outdoors, keep in mind that soil plays a critical role in preventing pests. Many growers have found success in using beneficial nematodes, which are microscopic and thus invisible roundworms that eat pests that thrive in soil. Nematodes are excellent for eliminating root aphids and fungus gnats; you can drench the soil in it or mix it up in water before irrigation.


Companion Planting


Companion planting is a common and widely practiced technique in farming as well as gardening. You can apply the principles of companion planting for cannabis cultivation; it entails planting certain plants or herbs next to cannabis which are known to create a symbiotic or beneficial environment. For example, certain plants or vegetables are known to equally feed off water, while other plants consume more water and thus leave their companion plants thirsty.


Meanwhile, some companion plants are effective in helping repel insects and diseases, which is why they are favored among cannabis growers. When it comes to companion planting, some plants to consider include marigolds, lavender, basil, and nasturtiums.


Beneficial Insects


Believe it or not, some insects can actually be good for your cannabis harvest. Lacewings and ladybugs are two of the most valuable types of insects for cannabis growers, especially if you are growing outside.

To ensure an abundant population, you can purchase beneficial insects and let them roam free in your greenhouse or grow area. They are fantastic for all kinds of plants, not just marijuana. Ladybugs and lacewings are particularly effective because they feed on spider mites, whiteflies, mealybugs, and other soft-bodied pests as well as larvae.


Organic Pesticides


There are several different kinds of effective organic pesticides and fungicides in the market, too. You can use them as a complement to other pest-prevention techniques that you are already doing. Adding organic pesticides to cannabis crop care and maintenance can help greatly deter pests especially if you find that other techniques are lacking or not working as well.

Organic pesticides come in the form of neem oil, insecticidal soap, and botanical sprays. Neem oil is a top choice when it comes to organic pest control, even among household plants! Keep in mind to use neem oil only during the vegetative growth cycle of marijuana.


 Just dilute two teaspoons of neem essential oil into a gallon of water, then spray. Or, you can also buy ready-to-use neem spray. Neem oil can be sprayed directly on the foliage, or you can also drench the soil in neem oil no matter what stage of growth your cannabis plant is in. It’s extremely effective in killing and preventing cannabis pests including leafhoppers, crickets, aphids, mealybugs, and so much more.


If you’re going to end up using foliar sprays, it’s important to buy the best-quality organic, natural sprays that you can afford. That’s because any ingredients used in those sprays are going to end up in the cannabis flower, which means that you’re going to end up smoking it. When it comes to the best time to use foliar spray on cannabis, it’s during the flowering cycle because it can help keep cabbage loopers and other pests off during this phase.



There are many creative ways you can get rid of pests effectively, whether you are growing cannabis indoors or outdoors. Follow these tips to ensure a healthy harvest without compromising your health or that of the environment – there’s no need to use nasty and highly toxic chemical sprays





Source link

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media