To treat cancer it takes about 90 gram's of high quality cannabis oil ... Patients should take 1/3 of a gram of oil 3 times a day ... It takes about 1lb of high quality cannabis flowers to be able to make enough oil for one treatment ...
Start off slow and work your dosage up http://www.bravemykayla.com/cannabis-oil-dosing.html
One healthy large indoor or outdoor plant can produce 1lb of cannabis in a 90 day growth cycle. If possible grow your own to avoid cannabis contaminated with pesticides. One LB of Cannabis should make enough oil (90-100g) for 90 days ...
This blog is to help inform the public on the truth and medical benefits of cannabis. It also contains info to help teach others the healthiest and safest way to grow or acquire their medicine, what strains are best for their condition and responsible and healthy ways of medicating.
Have suggestions, comments, or questions you can email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
founder Omar Figueroa is quoted in this piece on the upcoming
expiration of the collective and cooperative defense, which will happen
next week. Based on BCC spokesperson
Alex Traverso's statement that "his agency will continue to use a
carrot-over-stick approach and try to coax illegally operating
collectives/co-ops into getting state licenses" instead of coming down
hard on those without permits, Omar's impression is that the odds of
enforcement remain slim. In sum, without a collective defense, there
may be a theoretical increase in enforcement; however, without
enforcement, it doesn't really make a difference that the defense will
no longer be available.
"The broadest impact of the disappearing collective/co-op model will
probably be on medical patients, caregivers and small local collectives
and co-ops that weren’t really focused on the business end of the
industry, but rather, were actually operating as nonprofit medical
charities, said Ellen Komp, deputy director of California NORML.
“There will be patients who will have their access interrupted, and some
of them won’t be able to access or afford a licensed facility where
they can find their medicine,” she said. “And collective owners will get caught up in the laws, prosecuted civilly or criminally for not having a license.”
Komp also noted the BCC was originally slated to perform a study on
nonprofit MMJ collectives before the regulated market launched in
January 2018, but that deadline was pushed back to January 2020, leaving
any still-existing medical collectives in “legal limbo” for another
year. Komp and several other industry sources said it’s possible
that after the collectives and co-ops become illegal there may be an
uptick in enforcement efforts against unlicensed MJ shops. “You’re
still going to have a pretty robust illicit market, and what we’ve seen
over the course of this past year is cities that are choosing to crack
down on the illicit market … will continue to do so in the manner they
have this past year, which is through code enforcement violations,” San
Diego attorney Kimberly Simms said. “I don’t think you’re going to
see this huge uptick in raids,” Simms added, saying she doesn’t believe
most communities have extra resources to devote to combating unlicensed
cannabis shops. “It is the sort of symbolic end to what people felt like has governed the industry for the last 20 years,” Simms said.
Another longtime MJ attorney, Oakland-based Bill Panzer, said many of
the dispensaries that will face the choice Chernis referred to were
never nonprofit collectives or co-ops. Panzer said that before 2018,
when all MMJ businesses were required to be nonprofits, “if you looked
at the shops that were operating in California under the collective
model under a magnifying glass, at least 90% would not pass muster.”
The ones that would, he added, have either already transitioned to the
for-profit market and obtained state licenses, or have already exited
the market. “They’ve already been impacted,” Panzer said. “I don’t
think there’s going to be many more … because the state has taken the
position that nonprofits still have to get licenses. And a lot of these
places can’t afford it, so they’ve been being shut down over the last
year. “I personally don’t know any (collectives) that have gotten a license and have still continued to operate as a nonprofit.” Others aren’t as optimistic that law enforcement will turn a blind eye to unlicensed cannabis collectives and co-ops.
“Enforcement is likely to increase, because that (collective) defense
isn’t there anymore,” stressed Omar Figueroa, another longtime MJ
industry lawyer. BCC spokesman Alex Traverso wrote in an email to
Marijuana Business Daily that his agency will continue to use a
carrot-over-stick approach and try to coax illegally operating
collectives/co-ops into getting state licenses, instead of coming down
hard on those without permits. Traverso noted that, in the past
month, the BCC issued more than 1,300 temporary cannabis business
licenses, including to many currently operating as collectives or
cooperatives. For those companies to become fully legal and
sustainable, however, they’re going to have to obtain full annual
permits – a much harder threshold. That also doesn’t exempt
unlicensed collectives and co-ops from prosecution by local authorities,
which have largely been running point in combating California’s illicit
market over 2018.
Dear friends, neighbors and community members:
It is a well known fact that California is an agricultural
powerhouse. We supply the nation and the world with hundreds of
agricultural products. One of them is cannabis. Unlike every other crop,
cannabis can only be legally sold in California. This is a significant
challenge for everyone--from farmers to policy makers.
The challenges of regulating cannabis will be much more severe if we
open the flood gates to large scale mega grows too quickly. That is why
the state legislature did not include licenses larger than 1 acre in the
MMRSA in 2015 or the MCRSA in 2016. That is why Prop 64 delayed the
issuance of large scale license until 2023. That is why the
Environmental Impact Report didn't consider grows larger than an acre. For these reasons I support policies that would restrict each business to a maximum of one acre of cultivation until 2023.
California Medical Cannabis RIP 2017 ...
From Governor Brown
The Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act enacted in 2015 created
a regulatory framework for the licensing and enforcement of the
cultivation, manufacture, transportation, storage, and distribution of
medical cannabis in California. Proposition 64, the Adult Use of
Marijuana Act, made the recreational use of cannabis legal to people
over the age of 21. The effective date for both measures is January 1,
2018. It is the intent of the Governor’s Budget that this language
once drafted will move the State forward with the regulation of both
medical cannabis and adult use cannabis. The State will need one
regulatory structure of cannabis activities across California.
Implementing the current medical and adult use cannabis statutes
separately will result in duplicative costs. Additionally, a separate
regulatory framework for each would lead to confusion among licensees
and regulatory agencies, undermining consumer protection and public
Growing cannabis for your personal needs? Determine
how much cannabis you need … Indoor cannabis plants typically produce
.5 - 1 gram of finished flower per watts of light used … A
Cancer Patient would typically need 1-2 lb s of medication … Average
patients use about 1 lb of raw product per year … A chronic disease or
pain Patient can use up to 4 lb of product made into extracts ... On the
far end some epilepsy patients need up to 10lbs of raw cannabis
processed ... Indoors you can get 4 potential harvest a year but it typically saves $$$ to do it when it is not to hot or cold … Spring / Fall You
would typically go with an indoor setup if you only need limited
medication and or you live in an area without an outside growing area. Outdoor
Cannabis plants tend to produce allot more medicine for less cost and
flower from August to October. Soonest you would want to plant outside
is in May but it is possible to plant as late as July and get good
The Cannabis Plant The
cannabis plant can either be started by a seed or you can acquire a
clone from a reputable vendor … They also have feminized seeds that are
more stable and are highly recommended. By growing from seed you reduce
your chance of getting pests greatly !!!
cannabis plant starts it’s life by growing leaves aka Veg, Vegetative
state … In this time the plant prefers a light cycle of over 16 hours of
light … The more light indoors can be better 24/7 light will keep the
plant shorter and more compact. Veg plants indoors for 2weeks up to a
month ... Outdoors If you plant in June they will still get two good
months of veg. The
second part of the cannabis plants life is the fruiting / flowering
portion. This time typically takes about 65 days for hybrid and indica
strains and sativas tend to take 70-90 days and get much larger in size … This
requires the light to be on for only 12 hours a day inside with a timer
or waiting till the fall outdoors. For indoors I like to run the light
at night when it is coolest out and have the the light off during the
day when it is warm. Cannabis
plants love light … more the better typically … But they also require
very exact conditions especially indoors to thrive … Outdoors you do not
have much control so it is up to mother nature.
What a year! The outdoor cultivation ban happened January 12th and I don't think we've had a day off since. We defeated Measure W, we reversed the ban (sort of) and after watching Silas suffer the consequences of bans that don't protect the critically ill I'm now working on an organization that's mission is to protect families and provide free medicine to critically ill children.
The real work begins in 2017, locally and statewide. I start with legislative efforts in January. I am speaking and providing presentations to regulators to help influence AUMA and ensure that we do everything we can to ensure safe access to people in need is not criminalized through excessive regulation and taxation.
I plan on using every ounce of energy I have to fight for Nevada County by participating, if invited, in the committee tasked with determining new cultivation regulations for Nevada County. And, I plan on continuing what Patricia Smith's Cannabis Crusades with new radio programs in 2017.
I have seen first hand the social good held in this amazing plant. I won't stop until children in our communities have safe access and the sick and dying have quality health options and are not forced to become prescribed opioid addicts.
It's going to be a busy year. But with the support and hard work of all the amazing people I've met this year, we are going to effect change in our community. Love you all so much. Look out 2017.
NOTICE OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S
MEDICAL MARIJUANA REGULATION & SAFETY ACT AND OF
ALL LOCAL ORDINANCES ADOPTED IN RELIANCE ON IT
jurisdiction’s local ordinance to restrict the cultivation and
possession of medical marijuana, adopted pursuant to the State's Medical
Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) will prevent me and any of
my household members and the relatives for whom I provide medical
marijuana who are medical marijuana patients, from cultivating and
possessing enough marijuana for my/our personal medicinal uses.
local ordinance, and the MMRSA on which it is based, thus both violate
California's applicable and controlling law, the voter-enacted,
statewide Compassionate Use Act (CUA).
The California Supreme Court, in People v. Kelly (2008) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1043, 1049, held that medical marijuana patients have the CUA-given right to cultivate and possess as much marijuana as they need for their personal medicinal uses,
and that any law that is not a voter-approved statewide initiative that
attempts to impair or burden such rights would be, and is, unconstitutional under California Constitution, Article II, Section 10, subdivision (c).)
Contrary to popular misconception, People v. Kelly did
not state that patients have only an affirmative defense from
prosecution. That is because a defendant cannot have an affirmative
defense to a crime without a foundational right to
support such defense. The foundational right is the right to engage in
an act that, without such right, would be a crime, but with such right
is not a crime at all. For medical marijuana patients, those rights,
given by the CUA and cases that have interpreted the CUA, are the rights
of cultivation, transportation, possession and medicinal use.
Notably, People v. Kelly was
decided the last time the State Legislature adopted legislation that
attempted to limit the amount of marijuana that a patient could lawfully
grow or possess. That was when the State Legislature adopted the
Medical Marijuana Program Act (the MMP), which added Health & Safety
Code section 11362.77's plant and flower limits to the CUA.
The California Supreme Court, in People v. Kelly,
held that "By extending the reach of section 11362.77's quantity
limitations beyond those persons who voluntarily register under the MMP
and obtain an identification card that provides protection against
arrest—and by additionally restricting the rights of
all "qualified patients" and "primary caregivers" who fall under the
CUA—the challenged language of section 11362.77 effectuates a change in
the CUA that takes away from rights granted by the initiative statute." (47 Cal.4th at p. 1043, emphasis added.)
The Kelly court reiterated the fact that the CUA gives patients the rights to possess
and cultivate as much medical marijuana as they need for personal
medicinal use regardless of any state legislation to the contrary:
"Whether or not a person entitled to register under the MMP elects to
do so, that individual, so long as he or she meets the definition of a
patient or primary caregiver under the CUA, retains all the rights afforded by the CUA [, including] the right to . . .possess or cultivate an amount of marijuana reasonably related to meet his or her current medical needs." (Id., at p. 1048, emphasis added, citation omitted.)
The People v. Kelly Court also explained that this legislative effort to adopt laws that impair CUA-given rights are unconstitutional because it "constitutes an amendment of the CUA in violation of California Constitution, article II, section 10, subdivision (c)." (Id., at p. 1042, emphasis added.)
As the Kelly court noted, "[T]he CUA—unlike many other initiative measures in recent decades—did not grant the Legislature authority to amend." (47 Cal.4th, supra,
at p. 1042, footnote omitted, emphasis added.) Because the State
Legislature's current efforts, via the MMRSA, are, just like its old
efforts with the MMP, a "scheme" that "the Legislature adopted . . . on
its own, without seeking ratification by the electorate," and because
they impose more burdens on medical marijuana patients than allowed
under the CUA, they are unconstitutional. (Id. at p. 1043.)
This is why the MMRSA, and all the local laws adopted
pursuant to it, which purport to limit what patient can grow, and to
burden such right by requiring patients to get licenses, permits,
identification cards and jump through other such hoops, are
unconstitutional. They are illegal efforts to impair and burden the
constitutionally-protected rights given to patients by the People of the
State of California when they adopted the CUA.
is why neither the State of California nor any of its political
subdivisions, e. g., the counties and cities, may require any patient
to obtain a license, permit, or government-issued ID card as a condition
of cultivation, possession or transportation.
First, possession or cultivation of even medical marijuana is
still illegal under federal law. Thus, requiring a person to go on
record, in any way, as possessing or cultivating it, unconstitutionally
violates such person's Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination.
(Leary v. United States (1969) 395 U.S. 6, 12-13.)
the CUA was intended to make access to medical marijuana safe and
affordable. Requiring patients to obtain such permits, licenses and
cards makes access less affordable, and thus not only violates the
restriction on "burdening" CUA-given rights, but also violates the
intent of the CUA. The cases cited by cities and counties in
justification of adopting these unlawful ordinances, which were cobbled
together by the self-serving League of Cities and the California Chiefs
of Police, do not make these ordinances lawful.
For example, the case of City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center (2013)
56 Cal.4th 729 reached its limited result -- to allow cities and
counties to ban storefront dispensing collectives (colloquially known as
“dispensaries”) - by ignoring applicable law and facts. It failed to
mention, e.g., that the State Legislature had directed the Attorney
General to adopt statewide regulations
to carry out the purposes of the CUA, that the Attorney General had
begun to do so by adopting the 2008 Attorney General Guidelines for the
Safety and Nondiversion of Medical Marijuana, and that such guidelines
indicated how such storefront collectives could be required to operate
The Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center case
also failed to discuss such relevant issues as, e.g., (1) if the State
itself could not have completely impaired patients' access to medical
marijuana, then what gave its political subdivisions, the cities and
counties, the power to do so? and (2) if the purpose of government's
police power is to regulate land uses to prevent public nuisances, then
how can any activity authorized by the People of California, such as the
not-for-profit distribution of medical marijuana, be deemed a "per se
nuisance" and banned as such?
More to the point, the Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center case did not ever actually address the issue of personal cultivation and possession.
The case of Maral v. City of Live Oak (2013)
221 Cal.App.4th 975, now cited as authority that cities and counties
and the State can ban personal cultivation, is only a Court of Appeal
decision, and does not control contrary California Supreme Court opinions. Thus, Maral,
which held that patients have no "right" to cultivate medical
marijuana, merely relied on another mere Court of Appeal opinion to
state that "The CUA creates only a limited defense to certain crimes,
'not a constitutional right to obtain marijuana,' " by citing People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 747, 774. But Maral did not even cite, let alone attempt to distinguish, the California Supreme Court decision of People v. Kelly, which held that patients do have a constitutionally-protected right to cultivate and possess as much marijuana as each patient needs for his or her personal medicinal needs.
and my family members therefore will not obtain a license, a permit, a
medical marijuana ID card issued by anyone, or do anything more than
what the CUA requires, to wit, I and they will obtain a doctor's
recommendation that medical marijuana might help our serious medical
problems. If, in the future, I or any medical marijuana patient in my
household or family are cited for violating this unlawful and
unconstitutional ordinance or the MMRSA, we, like all medical marijuana
patients, will raise all these issues, and all such others as also may
be applicable, in our defense and, if we so decide, in a countersuit
against the government entity that is unconstitutionally violating our
constitutionally-protected, CUA-given rights.
Dated: _________________________ Signed: Anonymous Local Citizen
Press at 170-180F (this preserves Terpenes) in 25 micron screened bags ... make sure the material is the correct moisture levels by using Bovida 6.2 moisture packs ... Repress leftover's at a higher temp 250F for full extraction ....
For edible or oral use make sure to decarb aka heat it for 30minutes at 300F for 30 minutes to activate the oil form THCA to THC ...
I want to wish everyone a happy holiday and hope that the New
Year will be peaceful and prosperous. We are getting a mixed bag of
policy changes, some good, some not so much.
First, the Good News! President Obama signed the new budget that contained a provision to defund
all Federal agencies from spending any money on marijuana prosecutions
in states that have passed laws thatallow the use of cannabis for
medical or recreational purposes.
This is not a suggestion or a recommendation - it is the law (at least until Sept. 2015 when this budget expires).
Now the bad news: Yuba County is moving towards a total outdoor
cultivation ban. At the very least, they plan to drastically cut back
on the number of plants that can be grown. The matter has been
postponed until Jan 5, so we should know soon. El Dorado County is doing the same.
September 19 – Cannabis Crusades
Special Guest – Grammy award winning artist, Melissa Etheridge will
be our guest and we will have a pair of tickets to give away to her
concert at the Vets Hall. Veteran Bobby Woods will guest on the second
half of the show. Woods suffers from PTSD is a spokesman for Veteran
This bill looks pretty dam scarey ... It has a high likely hood of passing; please engage lawmakers and tell them what you don't like instead of just saying NO SB1262; So it has a chance of being watered down or having some positives for patients .
The Cannabis Cures Cancer website supports ASA Nevada County's Measure S.
This measure is crucial to regulate cannabis grows in Nevada County and still allow patients the ability to grow and have access to medicine. By setting an easy to understand set of rules for patients to understand, it will help free up law enforcement resources to enforce actions to grows that are not legal under Prop 215. By also setting reasonable limits, it will help prevent cannabis from being grown in significant amounts for the black market and help stop unreasonable nuisance gardens from being grown in residential areas of the county.
The Cannabis Cures Cancer Cooperative Significantly Endorses The Marijuana Cultivation Act of Nevada County.
Measure S is vital in implementing a
sensible and prudent ordinance which protects patients' rights while
addressing the needs of the county.
December 11, 2013 - In an action supported by California NORML,
medical marijuana patient James Maral will file a petition with the
California Supreme Court to review the recent Third District Appellate Court decision upholding the city of Live Oak’s ban on medical marijuana cultivation.
San Francisco Attorney Joe Elford will draft and file the petition.
“If you ban dispensaries and you ban cultivation, you’re ripping the
heart out of California's medical marijuana laws,” said Elford. "This
decision conflicts with the intent of the electorate and Legislature and
should not be allowed to stand."
The announcement comes a day after Fresno county took steps to enact a
total cultivation ban on first reading at its Board of Supervisors
meeting. A second reading on the ordinance will take place on January 7.
Maral, 42, suffers from compartment syndrome, a painful life- and
limb-threatening condition caused by insufficient blood supply to
muscles and nerves. In addition, he has six damaged discs in his back,
the result of his work as a heavy equipment driver. He and his family
have lived in Live Oak for 15 years.
Maral is also a caretaker for his mother Donneda Maral, who has
severe diverticulitis and Crohn's disease, for which she is frequently
"The only thing I'm fighting for is the patients who just want a
couple of plants in their backyard," said Maral. "I'm not willing to let
my mother die or live out the rest of her time in a hospital." The
Marals live at least two hours away from any medical marijuana
Cultivation is exempted from state law for medical marijuana patients
by Proposition 215, passed by the voters in 1996. State law SB420
established a "floor" of 6 mature or 12 immature plants as allowable per
patient, permitting cities and counties to pass ordinances allowing for
greater, not lesser, amounts. The California Supreme Court threw out
SB420's limits in People v. Kelly (2010), opting instead for allowing whatever a patient needs to grow.
Live Oak’s ban on medical marijuana cultivation took effect in
January 2012, over the objections of local citizens. The only other
known jurisdiction currently banning all medical marijuana cultivation
is Tracy. Sacramento county has passed an ordinance zoning out anything
federally illegal, and Sacramento sheriffs were out this year enforcing
it by taking out gardens. The city of Selma rolled back their
cultivation ban on October 16, voting to allow permitted, indoor
Prop. 215 co-author and CalNORML director Dale Gieringer, who sat on
the state committee that wrote SB420, said, "The right of patients to
grow their own medicine is fundamental to Prop. 215's stated purpose of
ensuring that 'seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and
use marijuana for medical purposes.' The city of Live Oak has no
legitimate business prohibiting Mr. Maral from growing the medicine he
needs at his own private residence." Established in 1972, California NORML is the state chapter of the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. We are a
non-profit, membership organization dedicated to reforming California's
marijuana laws. Our mission is to establish the right of adults to use
Also see: Pot proponents vow appeal to state Supreme Court in Live Oak case
Appeal Democrat, December 12, 2013
A cannabis manufacturer is any registered business dedicated to the germination, cultivation, production, processing, conversion, extraction, in-vitro testing, distribution, or wholesale of cannabis. The registration fee for a cannabis manufacturer shall be an annual fee of five thousand dollars ($5,000), plus one hundred and fifty dollars ($150) per 100 square feet of cannabis plant canopy.
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Sept 28, 2013 --
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Vote Hemp and the Hemp Industries
Association (HIA), the nation's leading hemp grassroots advocacy
organization and industry trade group, respectively, each working to
revitalize industrial hemp production and processing in the U.S., are
excited to report that Governor Jerry Brown has signed SB 566, the
California Industrial Hemp Farming Act. After moving smoothly through
the California legislature with strong bi-partisan support, this landmark legislation has now become California law.
by Senator Mark Leno earlier this year, SB 566 ensures that California
is prepared to begin registering hemp farmers once the federal
government has given states the green light. The California Industrial
Hemp Farming Act will establish a framework for farming the oilseed and
fiber varieties of the plant, which are used in a myriad of everyday consumer products,
including food, body care, clothing, paper, auto parts, composites,
building materials, and bio-fuels. Enforcement and oversight of hemp
production would be conducted in concert with the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and county agricultural commissioners, as is done with other crops.
566 demonstrates the real momentum behind the national movement to
legalize industrial hemp," said Eric Steenstra, Executive Director of
the Hemp Industries Association. "With Congressional bills to legalize
hemp currently in both the House and Senate, California is on the
cutting edge, pushing forward with an industrial hemp law that would not
only stimulate much needed growth in local business and farming
sectors, but ultimately lead the nation toward a federal policy change
that would open hemp cultivation to hemp farmers around the country.
This will lower our dependence on Canada and China for hemp imports, and
empower our agrarian and manufacturing economies to finally tap into
one of the fastest growing natural products in the market."
"With the signing of this bill, California is poised to grow
industrial hemp when the federal government gives states the green
light," said Senator Leno, D-San Francisco. "In the past year, the
conversation to legalize the cultivation of hemp has gained momentum at
the federal level, and it is only a matter of time before a farmer's
right to grow hemp is restored. Hemp, which is already found in hundreds
of consumer products manufactured in our state, is a perfect crop for
California. It has great potential to revitalize family farms, create new jobs and stimulate the economy."
support for the bill has come from The California Sheriffs Association,
individual county sheriffs, family and organic farmers, environmental
organizations, labor unions,
and businesses statewide. 2 Vote Hemp and HIA believe that hemp farming
registrations could be accepted as soon as 2014 based on the recent
memo from Deputy Attorney General James Cole of the Department of Justice.
"Before farmers can begin planting hemp under SB 566, the state will
need to seek clarification from federal officials that state regulations
for hemp farming meet the requirements outlined in the recent memo
issued by Deputy Attorney General James Cole," notes Vote Hemp Director
Today, more than 30 industrialized nations grow
industrial hemp and export it to the United States. Hemp is the only
crop that is illegal to grow at the federal level, yet is legal for
Americans to import. Among the numerous California-based companies who
have supported the bill are Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, makers of North
America's top-selling natural soap, and Nutiva, a rising star among
innovative health food companies. Both of these businesses currently
must import hemp from other countries. The passage of SB 566 sends a
strong message to Washington that the time has come to change federal
policy regarding industrial hemp.
"Hemp grown right here in
California would stimulate massive growth in the food, body care,
textiles, building and other crucial sectors that suffer from having to
import less efficient materials in lieu of this lucrative industrial
crop," says David Bronner, President of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps. "The
nationwide movement to legalize industrial hemp and farm it right here
in the US to benefit American business is growing, and SB 566 opens a
door to incredible opportunity for farmers who seek sustainable
agriculture, ecologically responsible businesses and products.
Ultimately, this bill will help end the prohibition on what is one of
the most versatile and environmentally revolutionary industrial crops on
"Nutiva looks forward to buying hemp from American
farmers," says John Roulac, President of Nutiva. "This will add American
jobs and reduce our fuel consumption."
businesses currently spend millions of dollars each year importing hemp
primarily from Canada, China, and Europe. Demand for hemp products has
been growing rapidly in recent years, and it is estimated that the U.S.
hemp market now exceeds $500 million in annual retail sales. From
natural soaps to healthy foods, there are a large variety of "Made in
California" hemp products whose manufacturers and buyers will greatly
benefit from an in-state source of hemp seed, fiber, and oil.
environmental and agricultural benefits are not limited to the
versatility of uses. Industrial hemp is an excellent rotation crop
because its dense growth smothers weeds without herbicides and helps to
break the disease cycle. Hemp requires less water and agricultural
inputs than other crops, has deep tap roots that leave the soil in
excellent condition for the next crop, and is proven to increase yields.
These benefits save farmers money and reduce the amount of pesticides,
herbicides and chemical fertilizers that run into our waterways. Vote Hemp is a national, single‐issue, non‐profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for low‐
THC industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers
to once again grow this agricultural crop. More information about hemp
legislation and the crop's many uses may be found at www.VoteHemp.com or www.TheHIA.org. Video footage of hemp farming in other countries is available upon request by contacting Ryan Fletcher at 202-641-0277 or email@example.com.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/09/28/5777538/governor-brown-signs-california.html#storylink=cpy