Where did "legalization" go wrong & how to fix it...

[DNAprotection]

Cannabis legalization is far more complex and important then it's being framed to be by the viewpoints that have main stream media access, and as a result, many questions that should be asked are intentionally just not there. One such important question should be, why not fight for human rights first and then build the commercial and other regulations atop the foundation of restored human rights?
Here's a viewpoint you wont find on TV, but it's a viewpoint that needs critical consideration especially right now as Congress contemplates restructuring federal law surrounding the cannabis plant:

 

[SODreamsB]

I wanted to add my perspective here, as I think there needs to be more emphasis on the fact that it appears where most circumstances are concerned, legalization is not the same thing as decriminalization. And while it can allow for some loosening of laws etc. there is typically still a limit involved in legalization, usually a stupid and completely arbitrary one at that and it can still be considered criminal/illegal to exceed that limit.

Example:

Legalization you can have 6 plants but if you have 7 you will be charged/fined.

Decriminalization: Have as much of whatever as you want without any issues.


So while legalizing is a step in the right direction it'll likely still be a long and arduous process to fully decriminalize a literal plant that's only been illegal for less than the past 100 years. Legalization is more about regulating (unlike decriminalizing) so we have "licensed producers" who typically pay 6-7 figures in order to enter the industry, so its still a system that cuts out most independent, organic or 'craft' producers i.e. pay to play.

Then there's the issue of a disconnect on legalization in the US where its only been at the state level so far and not federally whereas Canada passed Federal/country wide legalization yet still allowed interpretation of limits to each province. It's a slight step further but still not a uniform nationwide implementation either with the same exact rules everywhere.


As a side note I saw a job Ad from a licensed producer in my area and one of the requirements was pesticide applicator license, so this type of system that favors wealthy corporations is clearly also more focused on profits than health of users and repercussions to exposure of their pesticides which are nothing more than an attempt to limit losses of profits.


But hey, at least its getting harder for people to deny the safety and medicinal benefits of Cannabis now, which was the main argument for making it illegal in the first place.

 

[DNAprotection]

And while it can allow for some loosening of laws etc. there is typically still a limit involved in legalization, usually a stupid and completely arbitrary one at that and it can still be considered criminal/illegal to exceed that limit.

Hi SODreamsB, thanks for the thoughtful input, I especially wanted to respond to the quote above by basically posting here what I just posted in the introduction room, and please listen to the op interview above if you have time, it's not the kind of talk you will find anywhere else on this subject and I think you will appreciate it.
I'm not new, but I've been gone a while so thought I would post this vid as an introduction. I would also offer this, the corporate cannabis "legalization" we see manifesting across the country is not what I was fighting for.
In 1993, right after I sent the first package to Clinton, A man named George Soros took a man named Ethan Nadelmann under his wing and created the DPA. The function of the DPA was to take control of the "legalization movement" and influence the text of cannabis "legalization" anywhere and everywhere such was being contemplated. The DPA gang (includes MPP) failed in Cali to influence and change the wording to 215, (the first and last law passed based on human rights concerning cannabis), but they have successfully influence all other cannabis legislation since then including Co, Wa, and Cali, all of which are big on big business and obscure when it comes to basic individual human rights.
The in the trenches work we did between 1993 and 1996 were unheard of at the time, it was a time before everyone had the internet, and a time when the only thing on the news about cannabis was did Clinton inhale or not. The actions we took back then not only put cannabis on the top ten topics "hot sheet" for media coverage, but after 3 years of non stop actions it paved the way in popular opinion and ended up making prop 215 in cali doable.

What we need now is to regroup and reorganize in effort to try and set things right. Where we need to go from here is where we should of started from to begin with which is to file at least one if not multiple federal civil law suits challenging govs authority to schedule plants. The basis for the action(s) would be that the CSA, in it's capacity to schedule plants is unconstitutional as it results in disparaging the individuals self evident naturally endowed right to grow and use natural plants in obscurity. Such a challenge has never been attempted.
Aside from mounting a fed court challenge, it might also be worth putting some local ballot initiatives forward at the county level in places like California. Here's the effort we did in 2014 as an example:
https://ballotpedia.org/Lake_County_%22Freedom_to_Garden_Human_Rights_Restoration_Act%22_Initiative,_Measure_P_(November_2014)
As you can see from this next link though, the cannabis "legalization" folks were our biggest detractor and spent tens of thousands in a misinformation campaign to try and sway folks into voting no:
https://www.latimes.com/local/great-reads/la-me-c1-lake-county-weed-20140815-story.html

 

[SODreamsB]

Just listened to it now, I think my take away from that discussion is human rights above all else and farming vs gardening, I completely agree with being able to garden with whatever and however you want for your own basic needs, Cannabis or Vegetable. Even then though I don't see why you couldn't also sell anything you produce to some extent but that's a more involved issue it seems.

There's a lot of discussion going on now for example about the true cost of meat, including the environmental cost and also that people should eat less of it, or avoid it entirely if willing. Not even considering the medicinal aspects of Cannabis and its effects on cancer, how about the fact that cannabis seeds are one of a handful of sources of plant based complete proteins. And yet Hemp which has little to no 'active compounds' is still regulated so if you wanted to be vegan and produce hemp seed for yourself as a protein source you can actually get in trouble for it still, or produce enough of it to get any meaningful amount of fibres for textiles etc. Instead as it is right now if you want to eat hemp seed in any amount 'legally' you have to pay an exorbitant price for it that has come from a licensed source.

I had also followed the case for several years that played out in the Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser regarding GMO Canola and was baffled over the sheer audacity of intellectual property claims, which we are also seeing playing out in other areas with the right to repair movement now. We sort of lost our human rights when we developed currency and started making people pay for land to live on and homes to live in among other things. Not to mention that we are the only creatures that actively lock up and confine other species as well as ourselves.

True freedom should mean every person has the right to access and posses enough land to provide for their own food and basic housing needs and be able to choose to live however they wish so long as it does not harm others or the environment. Money gives the people who have more of it power over others which includes the power to set laws, deny housing, food and even growing whatever you want. How many people would be willing to listen to certain groups who lobby for intellectual property and ownership over everything if they didn't have the ability to amass wealth and offer it to others to get their way? We're living in an age were 26 people have more wealth than over half of the human population after all, the majority of people have been infantilized to the point where they are completely reliant on outside systems to produce their food, housing etc. trapping them in the system of reliance instead of being independent or self sufficient or 'free' with all their human rights intact.

So long as other people give money power by being willing to do anything for more of it I'm not sure if you can ever fully get your natural human rights back but that's just my opinion. There's a lot of issues in modern society that are interconnected and have a lot of cross over and Cannabis just fits into a small part of that.

Maybe if we get that solar flare I keep hearing about and everyone reverts to a localized lifestyle with 1800s levels of technology and communication we might see some more power go back to human rights or maybe just chaos!

It almost seems though that it's to the point that you either need a large group to form a corporation of their own perhaps like a co-op type of structure in order to take advantage of all of the government systems that put business before people. Or just have everyone go off somewhere remote on their own and do whatever they want, with enough people to put up a significant enough fight against outside influences to deter any regulatory system from attempting to control them, but then you'd probably be labeled as an extremist or something else.

Maybe you could say part of the problem is also humanities inherent greed, I could go on and on but I think I'll leave it at that!!

 

[madvillian420]

media propaganda, big pharma, alcohol and tobacco companies, regular and private prisons and their unions, police precincts that receive grants and funding through cannabis busts and arrests are all doing their best to keep it illegal

 

[DNAprotection]

Just listened to it now, I think my take away from that discussion is human rights above all else and farming vs gardening, I completely agree with being able to garden with whatever and however you want for your own basic needs, Cannabis or Vegetable. Even then though I don't see why you couldn't also sell anything you produce to some extent but that's a more involved issue it seems.

There's a lot of discussion going on now for example about the true cost of meat, including the environmental cost and also that people should eat less of it, or avoid it entirely if willing. Not even considering the medicinal aspects of Cannabis and its effects on cancer, how about the fact that cannabis seeds are one of a handful of sources of plant based complete proteins. And yet Hemp which has little to no 'active compounds' is still regulated so if you wanted to be vegan and produce hemp seed for yourself as a protein source you can actually get in trouble for it still, or produce enough of it to get any meaningful amount of fibres for textiles etc. Instead as it is right now if you want to eat hemp seed in any amount 'legally' you have to pay an exorbitant price for it that has come from a licensed source.

I had also followed the case for several years that played out in the Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser regarding GMO Canola and was baffled over the sheer audacity of intellectual property claims, which we are also seeing playing out in other areas with the right to repair movement now. We sort of lost our human rights when we developed currency and started making people pay for land to live on and homes to live in among other things. Not to mention that we are the only creatures that actively lock up and confine other species as well as ourselves.

True freedom should mean every person has the right to access and posses enough land to provide for their own food and basic housing needs and be able to choose to live however they wish so long as it does not harm others or the environment. Money gives the people who have more of it power over others which includes the power to set laws, deny housing, food and even growing whatever you want. How many people would be willing to listen to certain groups who lobby for intellectual property and ownership over everything if they didn't have the ability to amass wealth and offer it to others to get their way? We're living in an age were 26 people have more wealth than over half of the human population after all, the majority of people have been infantilized to the point where they are completely reliant on outside systems to produce their food, housing etc. trapping them in the system of reliance instead of being independent or self sufficient or 'free' with all their human rights intact.

So long as other people give money power by being willing to do anything for more of it I'm not sure if you can ever fully get your natural human rights back but that's just my opinion. There's a lot of issues in modern society that are interconnected and have a lot of cross over and Cannabis just fits into a small part of that.

Maybe if we get that solar flare I keep hearing about and everyone reverts to a localized lifestyle with 1800s levels of technology and communication we might see some more power go back to human rights or maybe just chaos!

It almost seems though that it's to the point that you either need a large group to form a corporation of their own perhaps like a co-op type of structure in order to take advantage of all of the government systems that put business before people. Or just have everyone go off somewhere remote on their own and do whatever they want, with enough people to put up a significant enough fight against outside influences to deter any regulatory system from attempting to control them, but then you'd probably be labeled as an extremist or something else.

Maybe you could say part of the problem is also humanities inherent greed, I could go on and on but I think I'll leave it at that!!

I quoted your entire post in hopes that folks really read it, and read it again, great post, thanks.
I especially wanted to respond to this part:
"There's a lot of issues in modern society that are interconnected and have a lot of cross over and Cannabis just fits into a small part of that."
Actually I would say that restoring natural rights to grow and use plants would intersect and change the dynamics of many issues, especially the the biotech or GMO issue. Restoring said human right would provide a basis for not allowing open air GMO production which creates a circumstance of imminent danger to the commons of our natural heritage through cross pollination contamination. Currently there are no protections for natural heirloom plants other than the endangered species act, while all protections are currently afforded to the intellectual property side, (as was reflected in the Canadian Schmeiser case, but also holds true in U.S. law).
Such human right restoration would also set case law in the direction of reexamining and reevaluating all laws from the foundation of self evident human rights.

 

[SODreamsB]

Actually I would say that restoring natural rights to grow and use plants would intersect and change the dynamics of many issues, especially the the biotech or GMO issue. Restoring said human right would provide a basis for not allowing open air GMO production which creates a circumstance of imminent danger to the commons of our natural heritage through cross pollination contamination. Currently there are no protections for natural heirloom plants other than the endangered species act, while all protections are currently afforded to the intellectual property side, (as was reflected in the Canadian Schmeiser case, but also holds true in U.S. law).
Such human right restoration would also set case law in the direction of reexamining and reevaluating all laws from the foundation of self evident human rights.

Thanks, its interesting to get an outside perspective and see the reaction to my own. I can certainly agree with the human rights issue and that it probably would help resolve a lot of things. I honestly just can't see any current government body doing anything towards that end, rather than trying fruitlessly to get the system to change it will probably take a lot of people just doing what they want as a large group/community. I guess what I'm envisioning is more of a modern day rebellion/revolution of sorts where people just choose to live the way they want to and look after themselves. Although its hard to say how well that would work in the US since its the country with the highest number of prisoners in the world.

As for the GMO cases personally I think they should have made their seeds sterile in order to have any kind of legitimacy to their claims, rather than be capable of openly pollinating and contaminating everything for the case up here it came down to a 5 to 4 vote so it could of almost gone either way. For that to be allowed to happen is definitely a massive shortcoming, issues of claiming rights to a plant aside I don't see how you can claim any rights over something capable of spreading out wild, on its own. But then I guess if they did go sterile and 'farmers' had to always buy new seed maybe that would of pushed more people back to growing with heirloom open pollinated plants instead of sterile GMO seed and affect their profits.

Of course, you could also argue if everyone had the space to do it and was taught how they could just grow most of their own food needs rather than depend on an unsustainable industrial agriculture machine to feed them, and having to work at low paying jobs just to buy the sustenance they need. And then why would we even need massive farms, GMOs, pesticides etc.

If nothing else it would give people more security during emergencies having their own food supply growing, and would probably save on a lot of fresh water that gets wasted with big agri-business.

It seems it doesn't matter what it is, Cannabis/plants or even building your own home, there are too many laws and rules to follow and it seems intentional so most people can't follow what's really happening (example stock market derivatives). In the end everything seems to come back to profits, people in positions of authority will claim its for your own safety just like how everyone was told Cannabis was a health hazard but since you can just grow it yourself, they couldn't profit from it. And now we have Legalization/Regulation, most of all the news reports about what Colorado did were focusing on the profits for the State and what they could do with all that money, less about how useful it is and its medicinal properties and the benefits for everyone. At least, that was what a lot of the coverage was like that made it up here, so it definitely feels like a half measure giving people access to some plants but not enough for them to profit largely themselves (in most cases). Which in my opinion was only allowed so that the people who stand to make the biggest profits couldn't be called outright hypocrites for selling a product no one else could cultivate.

As a contrast a lot of regions in my area won't allow you to build a home that is under 750 square feet, as you are taxed by the square footage of your home and a small home doesn't make them much money. Then they also say building permits and the costs of them are for your own protection yet in some areas those can cost nearly 25% of you actual building cost. Seems like the days of needing a lawyer to deal with a lawyer aren't far off with all the 'Legalese' out there as governing bodies make things more and more complicated.

No question then that the lack of basic rights essentially 'just to live' is a serious problem, its no different from modern day slavery and this is why we have people talking about "human farms". I feel like starting over from scratch would almost be easier than trying to change what we have now but therein lies the struggle. Especially since another major issue that's a part of all this is access to information, as well as mandating that the spread of false information be stopped. Calling something classified is just another way to limit your understanding, and allows the people who do have 'access' to get away with whatever they want. Thus, transparency and access to information should also be a huge part of those Human Rights everyone should have, but sadly do not.

 

[DNAprotection]

Thanks, its interesting to get an outside perspective and see the reaction to my own. I can certainly agree with the human rights issue and that it probably would help resolve a lot of things. I honestly just can't see any current government body doing anything towards that end, rather than trying fruitlessly to get the system to change it will probably take a lot of people just doing what they want as a large group/community. I guess what I'm envisioning is more of a modern day rebellion/revolution of sorts where people just choose to live the way they want to and look after themselves. Although its hard to say how well that would work in the US since its the country with the highest number of prisoners in the world.

As for the GMO cases personally I think they should have made their seeds sterile in order to have any kind of legitimacy to their claims, rather than be capable of openly pollinating and contaminating everything for the case up here it came down to a 5 to 4 vote so it could of almost gone either way. For that to be allowed to happen is definitely a massive shortcoming, issues of claiming rights to a plant aside I don't see how you can claim any rights over something capable of spreading out wild, on its own. But then I guess if they did go sterile and 'farmers' had to always buy new seed maybe that would of pushed more people back to growing with heirloom open pollinated plants instead of sterile GMO seed and affect their profits.

Of course, you could also argue if everyone had the space to do it and was taught how they could just grow most of their own food needs rather than depend on an unsustainable industrial agriculture machine to feed them, and having to work at low paying jobs just to buy the sustenance they need. And then why would we even need massive farms, GMOs, pesticides etc.

If nothing else it would give people more security during emergencies having their own food supply growing, and would probably save on a lot of fresh water that gets wasted with big agri-business.

It seems it doesn't matter what it is, Cannabis/plants or even building your own home, there are too many laws and rules to follow and it seems intentional so most people can't follow what's really happening (example stock market derivatives). In the end everything seems to come back to profits, people in positions of authority will claim its for your own safety just like how everyone was told Cannabis was a health hazard but since you can just grow it yourself, they couldn't profit from it. And now we have Legalization/Regulation, most of all the news reports about what Colorado did were focusing on the profits for the State and what they could do with all that money, less about how useful it is and its medicinal properties and the benefits for everyone. At least, that was what a lot of the coverage was like that made it up here, so it definitely feels like a half measure giving people access to some plants but not enough for them to profit largely themselves (in most cases). Which in my opinion was only allowed so that the people who stand to make the biggest profits couldn't be called outright hypocrites for selling a product no one else could cultivate.

As a contrast a lot of regions in my area won't allow you to build a home that is under 750 square feet, as you are taxed by the square footage of your home and a small home doesn't make them much money. Then they also say building permits and the costs of them are for your own protection yet in some areas those can cost nearly 25% of you actual building cost. Seems like the days of needing a lawyer to deal with a lawyer aren't far off with all the 'Legalese' out there as governing bodies make things more and more complicated.

No question then that the lack of basic rights essentially 'just to live' is a serious problem, its no different from modern day slavery and this is why we have people talking about "human farms". I feel like starting over from scratch would almost be easier than trying to change what we have now but therein lies the struggle. Especially since another major issue that's a part of all this is access to information, as well as mandating that the spread of false information be stopped. Calling something classified is just another way to limit your understanding, and allows the people who do have 'access' to get away with whatever they want. Thus, transparency and access to information should also be a huge part of those Human Rights everyone should have, but sadly do not.

"Thanks, its interesting to get an outside perspective and see the reaction to my own."
That is my feeling as well.
In my understanding of the Declaration of Independence, the constitution exists to protect our individual self evident natural freedoms and is supposed to limit gov to engaging in that specific mission.
I'm not saying all this is simple, I also have a head ache trying to piece it all together, but somehow we must try and figure it out within the context and on the foundation of the previous sentence which might be worth repeating.
...the constitution exists to protect our individual self evident natural freedoms and is supposed to limit gov to engaging in that specific mission.
That being said, it's hard not to agree that things might have gone to far off track to save.
I would say though that compared to most systems of gov in the world, we in America and Canada have better access to the possibility of repair and should be vigilant and relentless in our actions at least until it's more clearly too late.
My thoughts on actions that might restore the rights to grow and use plants go to a simultaneous filling of federal complaints in 3 separate fed crt districts across the country (usa).
In my experience it's more about what you learn from an effort than it is about anyone's subjective definition of "success".

 

[SODreamsB]

"Thanks, its interesting to get an outside perspective and see the reaction to my own."
That is my feeling as well.
In my understanding of the Declaration of Independence, the constitution exists to protect our individual self evident natural freedoms and is supposed to limit gov to engaging in that specific mission.

Didn't the US founding fathers also take issue with banks potentially taking control over the country/economy? And that pretty much ended up happening anyways, not to mention all the stuff with goldman sachs making off with huge amounts of tax payer dollars among other things. I'm not certain there's an aspect of your constitution that expresses that but if there is I don't think it even mattered.


This quote from Thomas Jefferson I found sums it up nicely and fits in with a lot of these human rights issues:

“And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.”


Kinda sounds a lot like daily life in most places around the world right now, but I guess to get back to the main point legalization in itself is erroneous and is simply just a small part of the larger problem going on in many countries around the world.

My main issue is with the disparity between people, historically any time you have a class system with few upper level elites they end up hoarding everything, up until the unavoidable collapse of that society. So even now there's hoarding of wealth, knowledge and even rights i.e. lincensed producers can grow as much as they want (essentially) and pay the high prices for the right to do so. Everyone else who can't jump through all the hoops or put up the cash fee to enter the game are left out. Everyone wants to be pro Capitalism in the hopes that they can one day be the person to climb up on top of others and hoard things for themselves but isn't that really just the people who are already up there dangling the carrot on the stick to everyone below to keep themselves in their positions of power.

If everyone doesn't have the same rights then ultimately we all lose, it's no different than hoarding knowledge and is just another limit on people, if everyone who knew how to make a computer disappeared what would everyone else do when theirs broke? (intellectual property rights) That would be an advanced and useful invention that could potentially be lost. Just like the case of the Rapa Nui people of Easter Island only their elites knew how to write the traditional language of rongorongo so when they were either captured or died from disease the commoner survivors had no idea what any of the writing even meant.

But then I think you could make a case for being against 'career politicians' as well, if everyday ordinary people can't be a part of every aspect of the politics that affects their lives then how is that a democracy with equal rights for everyone? That's also how you end up with the current system, people at the "top" who think something should be illegal so they make it so despite many people not wanting that. Another example being banning certain breeds of dogs and having them destroyed just because of a breed being 'dangerous' when really all dogs are pretty similar and its how it is raised and the people who handle them that are responsible.

Of course I feel like even if you try to be careful on how you word things, trying to get equal human rights for everyone is just going to end up with a bunch of people yelling "that sounds like socialism/communism" at you and no longer paying any attention to what you say. Although that's just another problem we of the current era suffer from, over labeling and then stigmatizing certain labels and ignoring them.

 

[DNAprotection]

Didn't the US founding fathers also take issue with banks potentially taking control over the country/economy? And that pretty much ended up happening anyways, not to mention all the stuff with goldman sachs making off with huge amounts of tax payer dollars among other things. I'm not certain there's an aspect of your constitution that expresses that but if there is I don't think it even mattered.

Yes gov has allowed the banks to control, and yes even when the last "bail out" happened gov paid the banks directly instead of just paying off folks mortgages to "bail out" the people, in which case the banks would still end up with the money anyway but at least the people would have been helped.
The US Constitution is informed and directed by the Declaration of Independence, so in order to truly understand and interpret the mission of the Constitution, one must be even more familiar with the Declaration.

This quote from Thomas Jefferson I found sums it up nicely and fits in with a lot of these human rights issues:

“And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.”
Kinda sounds a lot like daily life in most places around the world right now, but I guess to get back to the main point legalization in itself is erroneous and is simply just a small part of the larger problem going on in many countries around the world.

So true, but like building a house starts with the basics, with the dirt, and with the foundation, so to must humans systems of law, we must start with the basic fundamentals of securing basic human rights such as the right to grow and use natural plants and build the system of commerce and regulations atop and in harmony with the foundation.

I don't deny that we have in many ways followed the path of the Easter Island folks, but such is the path all "civilizations" have walked, the hope is that eventually we get it right before we go extinct.

 

[DNAprotection]

Maybe it's a good time for a short musical dedication, a song of desperation for America the guiding light of the world...

 

[SODreamsB]

I'll contribute one too.

 

[DNAprotection]

That time of year again for sure, can't wait till next fall!
Hey if you found the Schmieser case interesting you might also find this case of interest, for me it was about learning better how to go back and do it again if I can muster the 1 brain cell I got left to do so before I stop taking in air.
The first thing to explain is that this is not my web site and I have nothing to do with anything being sold or posted at this site.
The person who owns and operates the site followed the case as it happened and posted documents.
The introductions to the documents were also written by the site owner, not me, nor did I have any input or approval on such, therefor the host statements do not necessarily represent my opinions, beliefs, or viewpoints.
That all being said, I'm thankful someone cared enough and took the time to post the documents and maintain them on the site for all these years.
I should also make clear, I am not a lawyer, nor did I have the aid of any lawyer in writing, filing, and representing this case.
About the case, the complaint was filed in effort to restore and protect basic human rights to grow and use natural plants.
The hope was to win the case in the USA, and in theory, ring a bell for all humans around the world.
Not being a lawyer I fell short in my wording of the foremost cause of action linked to the 9th amendment which was then expediently dispatched by the magistrate with the jaw dropping excuse that the 9th amendment could not be used as the basis for a cause of action reaching for "certain rights" to be protected, as the 9th amendment exists only as a tool for judges to use in interpreting the rest of the constitution.
The Magistrates statement in open court was a shocker to me at the time and I felt sure it would have shocked and dismayed most Americans had they been aware of it, but it was like that tree in the woods that falls with no one there to hear it.
After my only tool to reach the previously stated objective of the case was thrown out, I was basically left with only the 1st amendment cause of action which even if successful would have only protected me and others who "believe" as I do, but it would have created some unique precedent to build upon in many other issues and I was getting a crash course in how gov responds to something they never faced before, they were naked as the emperor's new clothes and oddly squirming, so I pressed forward.
After a few years and many briefs etc back and forth I was finally sent packing to the 9th circuit court of Appeals where the case was basically rubber stamp rejected.
The greater objective with the 1st amendment cause of action was to build upon the precedents achieved in the consciences objector cases from the 1960's-1970's, and further define one's "religion" to equating the same as one's conscience beyond just in the circumstances of being in the military and objecting to orders to kill.
I decided not to appeal to the U.S Supreme court (the only place left to go in that case) because I couldn't see the point when the case and it's central 9th amendment cause of action needed to be rewritten if there was any chance to restore rights for all folks.
There is much more to be said about and learned from in this case, hope it does some good somehow.
I can only add that I wish someone more qualified and better spoken would have been walking in the shoes of my life and I wholeheartedly feel remorse for not doing a better job on this past case as well as all the other ops I've been in the circumstance to serve on.
Kiczenski v Ashcroft
https://cbdoiled.com/ron-kiczenski-hemp-legal-case/

 

[SODreamsB]

Interesting, makes me want to look more into the wording and definitions of my own Country.

But this pretty much sums it up right here.....

(Defendant being the US government for anyone reading this)

The defendant purport to have the authority for 'those' (stop people from possessing, planting, and cultivating seeds into plants) under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. ~ 801.

The defendants also purport to have the authority to issue a permit to process, plant, and cultivate seeds into plants.

The defendant also purport to have the authority to arrest, prosecute, and punish a person with up to life in prison if they do not have one of the aforementioned permits.

The defendant also purport that this authority extends into the activity of possessing, planting, and cultivating seeds into plants for the general purposes of preparation for home manufacture of basic necessity items like food, cloth, paper, and building materials for ones home use and survival dependent upon God and / or Nature, and with no affect to commerce what so ever."

So not only does your government seem to not give 2 cents about any of these issues, they also go so far as to say the heck with cannabis they have the authority to tell you that you can't plant and grow ANY seed or plant whether its just to eat or for any other practical use.

This just reminds me of when I was in an airport making a connecting flight and a woman was taken away by 3 security staff for not declaring that she had "ROASTED and SALTED pumpkin seeds" and I was talking to one of the airline staff and his reaction was to say "The States sure is a morbid place if they are gonna take someone away over cooked pumpkin seeds meant for eating that you can't even plant"

The hubris of them essentially saying they have to right to imprison anyone for life over any plant/seed that they choose to prosecute over is ridiculous, so if things go horribly wrong in the future hypothetically if you grow an intellectually protected GMO carrot without a license they will just agree to lock you up for theft or some other B.S. charge, sounds wonderful huh?

I wonder how likely it is for there to be a future where all citizens lose the right to grow their own food and are completely at the whim of the government approved food production facilities. In which case you would have no choice but to become a zombie human farm slave in order to sacrifice your limited lifespan just to secure basic sustenance.....Here's hoping a massive catastrophe takes out governmental systems before it ever comes to that!!!

 

[DNAprotection]

Interesting, makes me want to look more into the wording and definitions of my own Country.

But this pretty much sums it up right here.....

(Defendant being the US government for anyone reading this)

The defendant purport to have the authority for 'those' (stop people from possessing, planting, and cultivating seeds into plants) under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. ~ 801.

The defendants also purport to have the authority to issue a permit to process, plant, and cultivate seeds into plants.

The defendant also purport to have the authority to arrest, prosecute, and punish a person with up to life in prison if they do not have one of the aforementioned permits.

The defendant also purport that this authority extends into the activity of possessing, planting, and cultivating seeds into plants for the general purposes of preparation for home manufacture of basic necessity items like food, cloth, paper, and building materials for ones home use and survival dependent upon God and / or Nature, and with no affect to commerce what so ever."

So not only does your government seem to not give 2 cents about any of these issues, they also go so far as to say the heck with cannabis they have the authority to tell you that you can't plant and grow ANY seed or plant whether its just to eat or for any other practical use.

This just reminds me of when I was in an airport making a connecting flight and a woman was taken away by 3 security staff for not declaring that she had "ROASTED and SALTED pumpkin seeds" and I was talking to one of the airline staff and his reaction was to say "The States sure is a morbid place if they are gonna take someone away over cooked pumpkin seeds meant for eating that you can't even plant"

The hubris of them essentially saying they have to right to imprison anyone for life over any plant/seed that they choose to prosecute over is ridiculous, so if things go horribly wrong in the future hypothetically if you grow an intellectually protected GMO carrot without a license they will just agree to lock you up for theft or some other B.S. charge, sounds wonderful huh?

I wonder how likely it is for there to be a future where all citizens lose the right to grow their own food and are completely at the whim of the government approved food production facilities. In which case you would have no choice but to become a zombie human farm slave in order to sacrifice your limited lifespan just to secure basic sustenance.....Here's hoping a massive catastrophe takes out governmental systems before it ever comes to that!!!

Can hardly describe how it felt to write those words after all my life being taught America was the land of the free and is the country that stands up for freedom the world over.
What made it even more unbelievable was that I was apparently the first person to ever write and file such words in the context of a fed court challenge to restore human rights to grow and use plants. How is it that no one else, and no "legalization" organizations have ever been to court to challenge this?
The life sentence consequence arose because I was in possession of 100,000 plus seeds which under fed law made me a "drug king pin" for anything over 60,000.
The future you have imagined is what I've been fighting to prevent.
I have also seen the described future coming at us like a runaway train.
The most pathetic part of this whole scenario is that it was the cannabis issue that could have stopped such a future if folks had just stood up for their self evident natural rights in stead of for commercial access.
I had no money to go to court against the feds, so the feds paid the majority of the cost.
I've watched millions being dumped into the corporate "legalization movement" while at the same time not one dollar spent in the direction of restoring rights by way of litigation.
In fact I've heard EN at the DPA decry over and over that there is no remedy through litigation and it would be silly for folks to head down that road, and that folks should just trust the DPA and its legislation efforts etc.
Had even a drop of money otherwise earmarked for "legalization legislation" been directed towards litigation to restore rights we would likely already be past this inexcusable chapter in our history.