Lots of things have gotten much easier employing the advancement of mobile phones. People can stay a lot more in contact, be far more up to date, end up being safer in probably unsafe situations, work harder and play harder. Despite numerous rumors and fears, one thing not getting less complicated is really telemarketing.
Telemarketers are one of the most dreaded cellphone calls for numerous telephone users. Men and women have tried to avoid telemarketer calls together with unlisted numbers, caller ID, call screening, Usually do not Call lists and the law. The law is probably the least considered; particularly thinking about it can be already in position for you the consumer.
The rise of cell phones has taken numerous concerns; including the concern over telemarketers gaining access to mobile phone variety lists. Many men and women take into account their mobile phones to be much more private than a landline cell phone. Strangers calling this amount can be received as an invasion of personal space and privacy. Various considerations must be taken into account prior to becoming too concerned more than this issue.
Initial, there currently is no cellular cellphone range listing readily available to telemarketers. Many big phone corporations had discussed creating a massive mobile cellphone database, nonetheless to no avail. Since the cell mobile phone movement advances, keep track of exactly what your mobile phone organization is doing with your amount (and telephone records). If a database does exist in your business, it may possibly be feasible to ask to be taken off the record. A lot of organizations are worried about customer fears and consequences to the organization simply because of those fears. Try sending an email or even writing a letter stating what you believe about a cellular cell phone amount list. Sufficient of a similar opinion can sway the top choice maker of a firm.
Secondly, the law is on the mobile telephone owner’s side. It can be presently illegal for a telemarketer to make a telemarketing phone to a phone variety if the telemarketer is utilizing an automated dialer. Most telemarketing firms use the automated dialer technique, thus couldn’t call your cellular cellphone even though they had gotten hold of your quantity.
If everything else fails, you are able to register you mobile mobile phone quantity employing the National Tend not to Call Checklist. A telemarketer cannot name you if your variety is in this computer registry the range. This registry is the same one you could have authorized your landline phone variety along with. You might register your own cell cellphone (and landline) with this registry at any time.
If you are constantly getting telemarketing variety calls on your cellular cell phone, do some research into what sort of additional lists chances are you’ll be on. Sometimes signing up for some thing (magazines, free provides, and so on) puts the cell phone range you’ve provided on a list salable to outside companies. You really should also confirm that groups who do possess your cellphone variety do not create such an inventory, or at least ensure that you are not on such an inventory.
Please visit www.predictivedial.info For the perfect predictive dial.
The issue of breed-banning has stirred quite the controversy over the last few years, with concerned citizens and dog owners fighting it out over which direction to take such litigation. Seattle has informally considered banning some dangerous breeds such as pitbulls, but has yet to address the issue formally due to lack of consensus among city councilmen. The question is whether breed-ban laws have any appreciable effect on the reduction of attacks against humans. According to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), the answer is no. This organization relies on a 2003 study that addressed the effectiveness of a pit bull ban passed by Prince Georges County, Maryland. The ban forced the county to spend more than $ 250,000 each year to enforce the law. But the study concluded that “public safety is not improved as a result of [the ban]” and that “there is no transgression committed by owner or animal that is not covered another non-breed specific portion of the [County’s code] (e.g., vicious animal, nuisance animal, leash laws).” The study recommended that the breed-ban law be repealed.
ASPCA also points to a study by the United States Center for Disease Control (CDC) which did not support breed specific legislation because of several problems associated with this type of law, including the inaccuracy of dog bite data and the difficulty of identifying dog breeds (especially mixed breeds). The CDC also was concerned that the breed ban laws would merely encourage irresponsible dog owners to turn to other breeds in an attempt to make the non-regulated breeds more aggressive and dangerous to human beings.
ASPCA also argues that breed-ban laws actually help to compromise rather than enhance public safety. ASPCA states that when scarce animal control resources are used to regulate specific breeds without regard to behavior the focus is shifted away from routine, effective enforcement of laws that have the best chance of making communities safer: license laws, leash laws, animal fighting laws, and laws that require all pet owners to control their dogs regardless of breeds.
On the other side of the debate is the newspaper publication Animal People www.animalpeoplenews.org, which writes that certain breeds are statistically much more responsible for attacks upon people (e.g., pit bulls and their mixes can account for nearly three-fourths of all attacks). It further asserts that the harm inflicted upon a human being by a dog may be irreparable and no amount of punishment can undo the damage. Thus, breed specific legislation can prevent the most gruesome and extreme injuries and attacks by prohibiting possession of those high-risk dogs that are more likely to cause them. The essence of breed specific laws, Animal People argues, is that they better protect public safety from dangerous dogs then by relying on the uncertain deterrent effect of punishment after-the-fact.
Central to the argument that certain breeds should be banned, according to Animal People, is that those uniquely dangerous breeds like pit bull mixes and Rottweilers often tend to attack without the series of warnings that most other dogs provide first, and then often inflict immediate and severe injuries, whereas most other breed-types will inflict disabling, disfiguring, or fatal injuries only in sustained attacks or pack attacks. Thus, the breed-specific law will help to prevent if not eliminate those types of severe attacks that often come without any advance warning. Essentially, with certain breeds Animal People argues that it is much better to be safe than sorry after a gruesome attack has occurred.
Seattle dog bite lawyer Christopher Davis represents dog bite attack victims who have suffered serious injuries, rabies, puncture wounds and scarring, emotional trauma and wrongful death as a result of the attack. As a resource for victims of any dog bites or animal attacks, Chris Davis wrote the book “When the Dog Bites” to provide legal advice for those in need.
A door was opened some time ago that ushered forth a new era in government intervention into people’s life style choices and social well being. This trend was started as much by small special interest groups as it was politicians, but once the system found a formula that worked, they prepared themselves to drive a freight train in through the crack in the door.
What I am referring to is the continuing stream of new and evolving laws that are being built around legally forcing people to make life style choices that are being put forward as essential for the well being of individuals and society. By legislating these “essentials,” people are rapidly being driven toward having government dictating who, what, where, when, why, and how we are allowed live, at the penalty of law if circumstances do not allow us to see life the government way. All this subterfuge is being passed off as appealing to activities that are better ruled by common sense than legislation, but as the swelling invasion of rules and regulations grow, common sense will give way to controlling choices people are allowed to make on their own.
This article is intended to identify some of these areas that already exist, and outline where these trends could well be going for the future. Though every one of these laws has a positive side to its presentation, the fact that legal penalties are associated with non-compliance and restriction of the freedom to choose is the unacceptable consequence of bringing these ideas to the legal front. My label for these laws falls under the “for your own good” umbrella.
Examples of this type of legislation include wearing seat belts while driving automobiles, liquor laws, smoking restrictions, legal requirements to carry vehicle insurance, abortion laws, environmental legislation, taxes, and other forms of legislation that are designed not only to protect people from their own lack of common sense, but also add costs to every day living with or without being penalized for not complying with these regulations. Instead of penalizing people with the consequences of making wrong choices, our society is shaping itself around benefiting the special interests of some industries and penalizing individuals and other industries with non-elective costs that are being mandated by the government to meet legal requirements.
One of the more disturbing illustrations of how these types of laws can get out of hand relate to smoking. Since it is legal for adults to buy “harmful” tobacco products, and the tobacco industry has its own powerful lobbyist groups, the government has turned its power toward penalizing the individuals who use these products rather than the companies that manufacture them. Though it is legal to buy tobacco products, legislators are narrowing the number of places and circumstances where tobacco can be used, and adding heavy tax penalties to consumers on top of the purchase price.
Non-smokers may well be applauding these efforts, but they are not so happy when the government is allowed to dictate how much insurance they are required to have on their purchase of automobiles and personal property, and the taxes they are required to pay for using too much gasoline at the fuel pump. People are also not so happy about the government dictating where and how their children are allowed to receive an education.
For every legal mandate of how and where we are allowed to live out our lives, there are monetary costs associated with doing as we are told, and for not doing as we are told by the government. Every aspect of life that falls under legal jurisdiction carries more weight in what it costs to live in our country. By legalizing our lives rather than relying on individual choices and common sense agreements, it is the legislators and not the people who choose how we are allowed to live, and how much that control will cost. Regardless of your views on the current legal trends, this regulation of individual choices is likely to continue to escalate going forward.
When the government has succeeded in gaining absolute control over issues like alcohol, tobacco, education, fuel consumption, energy, and housing, the next loss of our freedom to choose our own life styles will come in areas of income, obesity, exercise, communication, diet, health care and recreation to a degree that is more intense than the current levels of government intervention. Abortion laws already regulate who is allowed to live and die from the ranks of the unborn, and it is only a small step to extend those controls to the elderly, the sick, the disabled, the handicapped, the disadvantaged or the poor.
Government is most beneficial in providing a means for resolving disputes between people in a society, and not in mandating the every day activities of people’s lifestyles. Providing social services should not extend to forcing people to conform to a government play book for how people should live to qualify for these programs. In judging what laws should be enacted for the good of society in general, one must count the cost these laws extract from the individual freedoms and income these laws will require from us. The question you must ask yourself is whether or not the government is truly acting to benefit you for your own good, or controlling aspects of your life that are better left to your own choices. Speak for yourself while it is still allowed for you to do so.
John Dir LittleTek Center Check out our information channel and free softtware at http://home.earthlink.net/~jdir/
Google Videos-
Hemp facts are Courtesy of The Kentucky Hemp Museum & Library, Versailles, KY
1. One acre of hemp produces twice as much oil as one acre of peanuts.
Agriculture, Papermakers have high hopes for Industrial Hemp.
Agri-View. ” Wisconsin’s largest farm newspaper” April 27, 1995.
2. America’s first hemp law was enacted in 1619 at Jamestown Colony, Virginia ordering all farmers to grow Indian hemp seed.
Clark. V.S., History of Manufacture in the United States, Mcgraw Hill. NY 1929. pg 34.
3. Cannabis hemp was legal tender in most of the Americas from 1631 until the early 1800’s. you could even pay your taxes with cannabis hemp.
Clark. V.S., History of Manufacture in the United States. Mcgraw Hill. NY 1929. pg. 34.
4. “The earliest known woven fabric was apparently of hemp which began to be worked in the eighth millennium (8,000-7,000) BC).
“The Columbia History of the World. 1981. pg. 54.
5. The original. Heavy-duty, famous Levi jeans were made for the California ’49ers out of hemp sailcloth and rivets so that the pockets would not rip when filled with gold.
Hemp and the Marijuana Conspiracy: The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer, Revised and expanded 1995 edition: copyright March, 1995, HEMP Publishing. 5632 Van Nuys Blvd., Van Nuys. CA 91401. pg. 6.
6. One acre of hemp produces as much cellulose fiber pulp as 4.1 acres of trees.
Dewey & Merrill. Bulletin #404. U.S. Dept. of Age. 1916.
7. Hemp paper is stronger and has greater folding endurance than wood pulp paper.
Dewey & Merrill. Bulletin #404, US Dept. of Ag., 1916.
8. Cannabis hemp seeds contain all the essential amino acids and essential fatty acids, which are vital to the immune system necessary to maintain a healthy life.
Hempseed Nutrition. Osburn, Lynn, Access unlimited, P.O. Box 1900. Frazier Park. CA 93225.
9. Hemp seeds contain up to 24% protein. A handful of seed provides the minimum daily requirement of protein for adults.
Rosenthal. Ed. Hemp Today, pg. 101.
14. August 13, 1941, Henry Ford first displayed his plastic car at Dearborn Days in Michigan. The car ran on fuels derived from hemp and other agricultural based sources, and the fenders were made of hemp, wheat, straw, and synthetic plastics. Ford said his vision was “to grow automobiles from the soil.”
The Kentucky Hemp Museum and Library. 1998 Historical Hemp Calendar, February. Roulac, John. Industrial Hemp Practical Products – Paper to fabric to Cosmetics, pg. 11. Hemptech Video Rating: 4 / 5
In the future, when you eat out at a restaurant franchise in the United States, you may find some unpalatable figures printed next to the mouth-watering descriptions – the fat, sodium, cholesterol and calorie content of every choice on the menu. Will you still fancy that burger and fries if you know that it is going to “cost” you 850 calories as well as over half of your daily fat or sodium allowance?
With obesity a major health concern in the United States, maybe Americans need the truth about what they eat at restaurant franchises. After all, shouldn’t restaurant food have the same labelling standards as the food we cook in our own homes? Nutritional information on packaged foods is required under law by the Nutrition Labeling Education Act (NLEA) and much in the same way, the new Labeling Education and Nutrition Act (LEAN) will create a national standard for the restaurant industry. Up until now, various states have enforced their own standards, which has created an inconsistent, patchy and confusing set of local laws. The LEAN Act will provide a national standard through the United States and will compel restaurant franchises and other eaterie chains with at least twenty locations to display the calorie count of its food items. Chains would also be required to give customers additional nutritional information, including fat, sodium and cholesterol content. It is, however, expected that there will be some exceptions. For example, many restaurant franchises have self-serve buffets and, in such cases, the nutritional information disclosed is likely to be based upon an “average” serving. The nutritional content of multi-serve items (such as pizzas intended for two or more persons) would be on a per-serving basis.
Reaction to the new legislation has been mixed, but positive overall on the part of the restaurant franchises and the National Restaurant Association, the industry’s trade group and the National Franchise Association. In the end, the bill is a compromise between a stricter version backed by health industry organisations and one which the restaurant industry supported that would not have required calorie counts to be displayed. Most restaurant franchise chains have said that they are pleased with the compromise, which appears to be a workable solution, and are pleased that a national standard is to be implemented.
As for the consumers, they mostly appear to be in favour of the new legislation, with many people stating that seeing nutritional information in print next to the menu items will help them opt for healthier choices. However, others admit that it will make no difference to their menu choices.
Meanwhile, in the UK, the government has announced that it will trial calorie counts for food sold in takeaways, restaurant franchises and canteens. It is seeking volunteer companies to display calorie content listings and believes that the rest of the industry will quickly follow suit once a standardised guide is agreed. However, unlike the American scheme, it is not believed that the British plan will be backed by legislation.
With obesity growing at an alarming rate on both sides of the “Pond”, maybe these standards will encourage the restaurant franchise industry to develop healthier dishes.
DANISH web broadcast about conflicting legislating and the selling of hemp seeds in Copenhagen.
Produced by Elías Lundström and Anne Hertzum Alling for the student news site “Netavisen” (Roskilde University) in 2011: http://www.navisen.dk/node/220
Interviews with Danish MP’s Peter Skaarup and Karina Lorentzen.
Documentary on a variety of topics including, Antimatter Spacecraft Propulsion, Asteroid Mining, Cannabis/Hemp, Energy, Health, Organic Gardening, Solar, Space Colonization/Exploration, Sustainability, Symbolism, Transhumanism, UFO’s, and more.
Current fuels/ethanols, oils, plastics, and most products are toxic to the environment and human health. Hemp products are non-toxic, stronger, longer lasting, and healthy. When food, fuels, plastics, fiber, medicine are grown locally energy consumption reduces. Oil consumption would be reduced through increased efficiency, therefore the problem of humans consuming more oil that is being produced would be solved.
Factory farming is a huge waste of energy because it is highly inefficient. Chickens, and animals should be raised naturally eating what they should be eating and not force fed an unhealthy diet, full of toxins which are in the meat the public eat.
Do your own research, do not believe a single word anyone says especially the government/media, verify the sources. It is a difficult process but this is needed to fight all the government/corporate mass manipulation/suppression of information.
We need repeal of an unconstitutional laws. The prohibition against marijuana was unconstitutional from its inception. We don’t want legalization of marijuana which leaves the government to control and regulate it.
Regulate: to govern or direct according to rule
Control: to exercise restraining or directing influence over : (i.e. to regulate)Tax: to make onerous (troublesome/burdensome) and rigorous demands on
Legalization sounds like the corporate takeover of the cannabis industry via government legislation(over-taxation, over-regulation and over-control)
Definition of CARTEL:
1: a written agreement between belligerent nations
2: a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices
3: a combination of political groups for common action
Example of CARTEL: a cartel of oil-producing nations that controls production and influences prices
Rudolf Diesel who made the diesel engine to run on hemp fuel was found swimming with the fishes! Wide use of Rudolf Diesel’s engine would have made petroleum-based fuel obsolete. The idea was destroyed by marijuana prohibition after Rudolf Diesel’s death.
Cannabis needs to be exempted from all laws practically everywhere, the only way to put the cartels out of business is to allow the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, sales, trade, sharing, possession, consumption and use of cannabis (hemp) for industrial, medicinal, nutritional and recreational purposes repealed. Nobody has any right to restrict anyone, any age, a harmless plant safer than drinking water.
Medical marijuana is a scam because it discriminates and limits the public’s access to this harmless medicine that saves lives. Governments test hemp fields for THC as if it were dangerous, this is where disinformation causes more waste of time and energy. Nobody dies or suffers injury from THC.
Rick Simpson, Nigel Farage, Herman Van Rompuy, Barack Obama, Stephen Harper, Canada, United States of America, Libya, Japan Nuclear Crisis, China, EU, NAU, G20, World Government, European Union, North American Union, The Fourth Reich, Video Games, Call of Duty Modern Warfare, Battlefield 3, War, Military Industrial Complex, Chemtrails, Michio Kaku, Transhumanist Agenda, Secret Space Program, Military Industrial Complex
This video is Fair Dealing/Fair Use for the purpose of research and private study. Video Rating: 3 / 5
Congressional Democrats have proposed a legislation which hopefully makes it easier to sue manufacturers of medical devices. Well, it is just a proposal! The question now is whether the proposed legislation has enough votes to pass. No doubt it will be a difficult measure to muster enough votes for either in the House or Senate.
The Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 would overturn the Court’s 2008 ruling in Riegel v. Medtronic, which dismissed a lawsuit over a ruptured catheter. That ruling brought whoops of joy from medical device firms, who had long lobbied for a position that federal law blocked, or preempted, such suits. But the Supreme Court changed the landscape yesterday in Wyeth v. Levine when it upheld a $ 6.7 million state jury verdict won by a musician from Vermont whose arm was amputated after being injected with an anti-nausea drug.
The question now is whether the proposed legislation has enough votes to pass, especially in the Senate where Minnesota Senator-elect Al Franken has yet to be seated.
No doubt it will be a difficult measure to muster enough votes for either in the House or Senate. Mark Hermann, a Jones Day lawyer who represents pharmaceutical and medical device companies, as well as a drug and device law blogger, noted that the federal law for medical devices contains a provision which specifically addresses the pre-empting of state laws and requirements, while the federal law pertaining to pharmaceuticals does not.
“If enacted, this legislation would effectively allow state courts to review medical devices and ultimately lead to a patchwork of inconsistent and confusing guidance on the use of medical treatments for patients and physicians, or limit their availability altogether,” wrote AdvaMed, in a news release.
Until a resolution ensues, plaintiff’s lawyers expect companies will continue seeking to dismiss liability lawsuits filed in state courts citing the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision. In January 2009, a federal judge in Minneapolis threw out lawsuits filed on behalf of thousands of patients who received heart defibrillators with wires capable of fracturing and producing lethal shocks.
Alexandra Reed writes for Connecticut personal injury law firm, Stratton Faxon. Contact Stratton Faxon to speak with a Connecticut accident lawyer about your personal injury, wrongful death, or Connecticut malpractice case. To learn more, visit Strattonfaxon.com.
India has enough Labour legislation but due to lack of political will and timely implementation, such legislation remains on the statute book without having its force. The Building and other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and The Building and other construction workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 are the glaring example. These twin Acts were passed by the Parliament in the year 1996 and subsequently “the building and other construction workers’ (Regulation of employment and conditions of service) central Rules and The Building and other construction workers welfare Cess Rules were framed. More than 15 years these two Acts are not fully implemented.
In building and other construction works more than tens of millions of workers are engaged, who are exposed to higher risk of life and limb. These workers are one of the most vulnerable segments of the unorganized labour and don’t get basic amenities and social security. These twin Acts were enacted with an object to regulate the employment and conditions of the service of building and other construction workers and to provide for their safety, health and welfare measures.
The scheme of the BOCW (Regulation of Employment and conditions of Service) Act, 1996 is that it empowers the Central Government and the State Governments to constitute Welfare Boards to provide and monitor social security schemes and welfare measures for the benefit of the building and other construction workers. As per the section 1(4) the BOCW Act applies to every establishment which employs, or had employed on any day of the preceding twelve months, ten or more building workers in any building or construction work. Section 2 (d) of the Act defines “the building and other construction works”. Section 7 of the Act requires every employer in relation to an establishment to which the BOCW Act applies to get such establishment registered. Section 10 makes this requirement mandatory and therefore, without such registration, the employer of an establishment, to which the BOCW Act applies, cannot employ building workers.
Chapter IV of the BOCW Act contains provisions stipulating the registration of building workers as beneficiaries and requires certain contributions to be made by such beneficiary at such rate per month as may be specified by the State Government. Where the worker is unable to pay his contribution due to any financial hardship, the Board can waive the payment of such contribution for a period not exceeding three months at a time.
Section 18 sets out the constitution of State Welfare board. Under the provision of the section 18 every State Govt. is required to constitute the Welfare Board. Section 22 stipulates the provisions regarding functions of the Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Boards. Section 24 sets out the provision for the constitution of the Welfare Fund and its application.
Chapter VI of the BOCW Act contains provisions relating to the safety, health and welfare of the construction workers.
The Building and other construction workers’ welfare Cess Act’1996 was enacted with an object to provide for the levy and collection of a Cess on the cost of construction incurred by the employers with a view to augmenting the resources of the Building and other construction Workers’ welfare Boards constituted under the section 18 of the Building and other construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act’1996.
Section 3 of the BOCW Cess Act setout the provisions for levy and collection of Cess at such rate not exceeding two percent, but not less than one percent of the cost of the construction incurred by the Employer. Rule 4 of the Building and other construction workers’ welfare Cess Rules, 1998 makes it mandatory for deduction of Cess payable at the notified rates from the bills paid for the building and other construction work of a Government or a Public Sector Undertaking. Rule 5 prescribes the manner in which the proceeds of Cess collected under Rule 4 shall be transferred by such Government office, Public Sector Undertakings, local authority, or Cess collector, to the Board. The powers of the Assessing Officer and the Board of Assessment are enumerated in Rules 7 to 14 of the Cess Rules.
Although the twin Acts were enacted in 1996, but a majority of states failed to implement the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service) Act, 1996, and the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 untill 2002, when Government of NCT of Delhi constituted the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board vide Notification No. DLC/CLA/BCW/02/596 dated 2nd September, 2002. A PIL was filed by an NGO National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour’ (NCC-CL) in the Supreme Court for implementation of the Twin Acts.
On the direction of the Supreme Court issued in the matter of National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour’ (NCC-CL) most of the states has constituted the Labour Welfare Board and started collecting Cess @ 1% of the Construction Cost where the construction cost is more than 10 Lacs.
The constitutional validity of the BOCW Act was also challenged by the Builders Association in the Builders Association of India vs Union of India, (2007) 139 DLT 578. The Division of the Delhi High court upheld that the BOCW Act, the Cess Act, 1998 Central Rules and the 2002 Delhi Rules were constitutionally valid.
The supreme court of India in civil appeal no. 1830 0f 2008 entitled M/S. Dewan Chand Builders Contractors versus Union of India has also upheld the constitutional validity of the twin Acts.
Although the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the twin Acts but the issue regarding effective date of the Cess Act is still unresolved. The Supreme Court in Dewan Chand Builder Case a view has been taken that the Cess Act and the Cess Rules are operative in the whole of NCT of Delhi w.e.f. January, 2002. But in SLP (C) 33486-33488 of 2011 Supreme Court has observed that the as per Section 1(3) of BOCW Act provides that the Act shall be deemed to have been come into force on 1st day of March’1996.
On concluding note it can be said that implementation of twin Acts has been a major concern. A critical factor impeding effective implementation is lack of political will of the state authorities and influence of builders lobby on them.
Author: Azeez Nazar Sabri (LLM Business Law). For more information write to him at/to [email protected].
Both sides trade blame as capital projects bill fails in session's last minutes
Among the other bills to pass the Legislature was one sponsored by McSorley, which would allow for research of industrial hemp. If the federal government removes hemp from its list of illegal drugs, McSorley's bill could open the way for farmers in New … Read more on taosnews
Bitter end: Both sides trade blame as projects funds fail
Among the other bills the Legislature passed was one sponsored by McSorley that would allow for research of industrial hemp. If the federal government removes hemp from its list of illegal drugs, McSorley's bill could open the way for farmers in New … Read more on Santa Fe New Mexican
Kansas House panel advances proposal to legalize medicinal hemp for seizure …
A farmer holds a handful of hemp seeds, on a day of planting last spring in Sterling, Colo. A bill that would legalize the use of medicinal hemp, marijuana's cousin, for seizure disorders will head to the floor of the Kansas House after being passed … Read more on Kansas.com
