South West MO is having a meet-up of “Global” implication

Global Deception.jpg

Can’t find people to talk to since you’ve discovered Earth is not a spinning ball?
The Plane Truth, Southwest Missouri is hosting a Meet-Up to help real-life folks find other local real-life folks of similar mindset to discuss, answer questions and learn together.

We’d also like to invite those who would just like to know more about the Horizontal Plane, Stationary Earth model (aka Flat Earth); so local skeptics with an open mind are welcome to ask their questions., too.

Pat & Lynn Kempen will host the Meet-Up at their home in Highlandville MO (just west of Hwy 160, between Springfield and Branson).
Discussion will include the goal of scientifically documenting the alleged curve on a 10 mile stretch on Table Rock Lake later this Spring 🙂

 

21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

1 Thessalonians 5:21  (KJV)
Advertisements
Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.

Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment.
The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, “We didn’t have this ‘green thing’ back in my earlier days.”

The young clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.”

The older lady said that she was right — our generation didn’t have the “green thing” in its day. The older lady went on to explain:
Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day.

Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags. But, too bad we didn’t do the “green thing” back then.
We walked up stairs because we didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn’t have the “green thing” in our day.

Back then we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that young lady is right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day.
Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she’s right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family’s $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the”green thing.” We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.

But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the “green thing” back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person.

We don’t like being old in the first place, so it doesn’t take much to piss us off… Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smart-ass who can’t make change without the cash register telling them how much.

Author unknown.

Concerns of Toxic “MEDICAL MARIJUANA” Ballot Initiative Petition (Short version)

Concerns of Toxic “MEDICAL MARIJUANA” Ballot Initiative Petition (Short version)

 

Words have meaning, and words we consider placing into our very Constitution must be particularly scrutinized and considered.  The Constitution is a document intended to protect the rights of citizens, and to establish limitations on government’s reach.
cash cowProhibitionist profiteers would make New Approach Missouri’s (NAM’s) Toxic “Medical Marijuana” Proposal their cash cow, but how would NAM’s measure apply to most Missourians?
Under NAM’s measure, few Missourians would be able to afford to enter Missouri’s new elite “Medical Marijuana” industry.  Per NAM’s proposed measure, the Dept. of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) would be granted total authority to subjectively refuse or grant facility licenses to enter the restricted “medical marijuana” industry.

racketeering.jpgAll Medical Marijuana Facility license applicants begin by paying a $3,000 non-refundable application fee (new non-refundable application fee required every 3 years.)  If fortunate enough to then be granted a license, one then must additionally pay:
$20,000/year for a Cultivation Facility licensing fee;
$10,000/year for a Dispensary Facility licensing fee;
or $10,000/year for an Infused Product Manufacturing Facility licensing fee;
in addition to whatever other limitless fees and requirements DHSS imposes.
Sections 3.(7), (8) and (9) and Sections 3.(1),(2) and (3)


Such fees, and the subjective granting of Facility licenses, would prohibit average Missourians from attempting to enter the new, profitable, “Medical Marijuana” industry.  Of course the price of all NAM’s proposed Big Government “seed to sale” micromanagement of Medical Marijuana will ultimately be paid by the sick and dying patients in need of this non-toxic plant.
Section 3.(7) thru (9), and the rest of the initiative.

The retail price of Medical Marijuana paid by qualifying patients would be without limit.  Additionally, NAM’s proposal protects insurance companies from having to cover Medical Marijuana for qualifying patients.
Section 7.(15)

DHSSNAM’s proposed measure grants almost god-like authority to DHSS to create virtually limitless new rules, regulations, requirements, fees with regard to “Medical Marijuana” in Missouri, and limitless penalties for any infraction thereof.
Section 3.(1),(2),and (3)

 

NAM’s measure permits no elected officials (Sheriff, Circuit Judge, MO Governor, or US President) to “interfere” in ANY way, “directly or indirectly” with DHSS’s authority regarding regulations and penalties DHSS cares to impose for any infraction of their virtually limitless “Medical Marijuana” rules.  While NAM is pitching this proposed measure as if it protects the patients, it really protects and empowers DHSS, and keeps attorneys in business.  NAM’s measure is largely focused on LIMITING citizens’ rights which is antithetical to the very purpose of our Constitution.
Section 3.(22) and 7.(6.)

no gunsQualifying Medical Marijuana patients could say bye-bye to their 2nd Amendment rights under NAM’s “medical marijuana” proposal.  NAM’s proposal does not repudiate federal prohibition, even acknowledges supremacy of Federal law, and declares “Any information released related to patients may be used for purposes authorized by federal law.”       Section 3.(4)

“Medical Marijuana” cards and databases of patient information could be used by the Bureaus of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the Department of Justice (DOJ).
DOJ & ATF have already declared “there are no exceptions in Federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by State law.”  Medical Marijuana qualified patients will be prohibited from legally possessing firearms or ammunition.
Open Letter from DOJ to all Federal Firearms Licensees 

Nothing in NAM’s measure curtails Missouri state funds or Missouri law enforcement personnel from assisting in enforcing federal prohibitions; in fact, their proposed measure acknowledges and concedes to supremacy of federal law (Section 7.(13)), as well as that “any court of competent jurisdiction” can adjudge any section or application of this measure to be entirely invalid; potentially voiding their initiative entirely.
Section 8.

Any appeal or denial of license or medical card would be subject to “judicial review as provided by law” of which federal law still prohibits.  Additionally, DHSS would be Constitutionally protected from any elected judge’s rulings, per the wording of NAM’s Constitutional Amendment.
Section 3.(21)

NAM’s proposal does not permit any eligible patient to “operate, navigate, or be in actual physical control of any dangerous device or motor vehicle, aircraft, or motorboat while ‘under the influence of marijuana;’” NOTE: “under the influence” remains undefined, thus ANY eligible patient, who has simply consumed their “Medical Marijuana” in the last month or week, may be prosecuted and convicted for operating “under the influence” per what NAM wants to put in the Missouri Constitution.
Section 7.(1)(c)

NAM’s proposal would not permit a qualifying “Medical Marijuana” patient to file a lawsuit against any employer for discrimination or wrongful termination.  Merely being an approved “Medical Marijuana” patient may be just cause for termination without recourse. They want to put that into the Missouri Constitution.
Section 7.(1)(d)

If an “eligible patient” consumes their “Medical Marijuana” in a public place, sanctions would be provided by current “general law.”  The term “consume” is undefined.  General law still considers considers cannabis possession to be criminal activity (certainly defiant to federal law), so NAM’s proposal puts into the Constitution that such prohibitions still apply.  Nothing in this measure stops Missouri law enforcement from enforcing federal prohibition.
Section 7.(8)
marimoney.pngFor an eligible patient to grow their own cannabis for their own medical needs, they must:
1. Be certified by a physician to do so (doctor office visit, with physician willing to prescribe.)
2. Pay for a $25/annual ID card
3. Pay the $100/year annual personal cultivation license fee.
4. Have an enclosed, locked facility equipped with whatever security devices DHSS decides to require.
5. Pay whatever other fees DHSS comes up with, which may be limitless
6. Purchase up to 6 already “flowering” plants from a Medical Marijuana Dispensary Facility ($$$).
Yet that “eligible patient”, after paying their personal cultivation extra annual licensing fee, and meeting all those requirements will be Constitutionally prohibited from extracting the healing resins for themselves unless they pay the dispensary license ($3,000 additional non-refundable application fee to be submitted every 3 years, plus $10,000/year licensing fee)

Any infraction of patient cultivation requirements is subject to limitless penalties.
It will be cost-prohibitive for most cancer patients to “grow their own” medication, as they are prohibited from cultivating sufficient quantities, as well as prohibited from legally extracting the healing oils or resins for themselves.  The people this “up to 6 plants” limitation benefit, are those who simply want to smoke it.

cuffed

Section 7.(13) of NAM’s proposal is particularly nefarious, proposing to Constitutionally protect Big Pharma by requiring that at least 75% of all physician prescriptions be for pharmaceutical medications other than cannabis……….This^ does NOT belong in our Constitution!!!

Section 7(15) of NAM’s proposal Constitutionally protects insurance companies from having to cover “Medical Marijuana”

Section 7(16) of NAM’s proposal purports that any violation of DHSS’s limitless rules they can enact with regard to “Medical Marijuana” may be subject to asset forfeiture.

Section 8. Of NAM’s proposal suggests any part or all of their measure can be “adjudged invalid by ANY court of competent jurisdiction,” which potentially and readily negates the entire measure, as any federal court will adjudicate that “marijuana” remains a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance, and is federally prohibited.

If you care to examine a more detailed critique of New Approach Missouri’s Measure, please examine Toxic Proposals:
https://patinthehat00.wordpress.com/2016/01/11/missouri-petition-analysis-2016/

World Study

World Study

If you find this BIG GOVERNMENT takeover of the “medical marijuana industry” to be an overt assault on what should be your Constitutional right to the miraculous, nutritious and non-toxic plant that is cannabis, please contact us at Hempeneers.com.  We  have a much better solution to restore this plant to we-the-people, without granting profiteers and Big Government excessive profits, at the price of people in need.

Please, join the movement.
It’s time to bring the discussion to our families, friends, businesses, churches, and communities, and return this plant to We-the-People

The Hempeneers Feb 21st 2016 interview

Let’s talk about the most misunderstood plant in the world. The cannabis plant. How much do you really know about it? Listen in and learn more.

The Hurd Mentality from Pat in the hat on Vimeo.

To learn how you can help, contact us at Hempeneers.com or email us at hempenkempens@gmail.com. Or join us on facebook at Hempeneers United or Missouri Christians and Cannabis.

Get involved with the total re-legalization cannabis petition

Get involved with the total re-legalization cannabis petition

How to get involved.

2016-013 initiativeYou, too, can become a part of the hottest Cannabis movement in Missouri, for the grassroots campaign that is growing faster than the corporate world can contain it. The Missouri Cannabis Restoration and Protection Act has become the foundation of more than just a cause for a plant. It is getting people to talk about the world issues for the first time in their lives and they are seeing a central hope for the rebuilding and restoring our world back to it’s healthy self. If you are ready to get involved, and you are a registered voter, I would suggest to contact one of the names listed on the map, sign the petition for 100% re-legalization of the cannabis plant.

Even if you are not registered or have a record you can still help. Get trained to help gather signatures on your own, and use whatever skills you are good at to help spread the word. Help us share this cause with everyone you can. None of us can do this alone. We need you to join in our numbers and get this world re-educated. Together we can change the world, but we’ll need your help to do it. Are you ready?

Lets do this thing. 

If you are only looking to sign the petition, there are permanent signing stations set up around the state. Click here to see a map.

If you would like to become a petitioner and help gather the signatures needed to get this onto the ballot Contact Pat or Lynn at hempenkempens@gmail.com or if you prefer on-line training  go to Janemerry.com. janemerryIf you would like to add your name onto the “Permanent stations” page, for free, email Pat@hempeneers.com

Patrick Kempen, aka, The Hempeneer

Together, we are going to change the world.

1 hempeneer sign

Poll Position.

Poll Position.

By The Hempeneer(Pat Kempen)
public opinionIMHO> Polls should be irrelevant to the subject of cannabis prohibition. Cannabis prohibition should be considered to be a tortuous act, being inflicted upon us by politicians, big corporations, prohibitionists, doctors, lawyers and anyone furthering the cause of these experiments and profiteering. Polls should have nothing to do with re-legalizing the cannabis/hemp plant. People trying to keep this plant prohibited from us need to be educated, if not arrested. They are taking away our right to it and that should not be accepted anymore.
Reefer madness poster 1.pngIt doesn’t look like many people are looking at the evidence of the cannabis/hemp plant, they only seem to believe the propaganda that has been around for decades, provided by our own government. More evidence is being gathered to show just cause that the schedule program must be stopped, immediately on this plant! What evidence do you want us to show you? That we are the guinea pigs of the Big Pharma world? Or that the cannabis plant is considered to be non-toxic? Or maybe the fact of profits getting in the way of the true potentials? Did you know there many studies to show we have been lied to about the cannabis/hemp plant?
cchealPlease, show me the evidence, that people speak of, that we need be a world that needs to regulate the cannabis plant. Teach us how important it is to use our children and the ill as pawns for the money hungry, by forcing them to take toxic prescription drugs. Tell me why, you shouldn’t be the people that are to be arrested. You are the people that take others untested experiments and force us to live with the outcome. Who’s harming whom here?
It’s time to talk about the facts. 
timetotalk

Prohibition is killing us and many of you don’t seem to care. Many of you only seem to care about what the polls say. Are you one of those? Do polls tell you what is right or wrong? Can polls be spun to get the required results? Stop listening to polls and start to do what you know is right.

 
truth will be knownLearn what is going on in your area and read the proposals that are put forth. If they do not fight prohibition 100% you should not be backing them, plain and simple. The better of two evils is still evil. Are you ever going to back what is truly just? When are you going to stand up for the truth? Or is the truth just not worth fighting for anymore?
Help the people get their healTHCare back. Sign the MCRP act and become a petitioner to help get it onto the 2016 ballot.

Ask us how.
Read the MCRP act # 2016-013 here. 

Read more of the Nam proposal #2016-134 and 135 here

 

Viets NAM, new war. NORML Acts out.

Viets NAM, new war. NORML Acts out.

Since the president of Missouri NORML Dan Viets’ and NAM introduced their new Act proposals numbered SOS #s MO2016-134 and MO2016-135, into the secretary of states office to change the constitution, there has been a shift of battles, so it seems. Instead of fighting for the re legalization of the cannabis plant, it seems a battle between proposals has ensued. The battle brewing is a curios one. The corporate world, NORML, Show Me Cannabis and New approach Missouri (supporting 2016-134 and 2016-135)against the grassroots groups, that are growing by the minute that support the Missouri Cannabis Restoration and Protection act SOS # MO2016-013.

In a recent article written by Russ Belville, found here in High Times and another write-up in the POPs comment section, Russ decided to challenge Lynn Kempen’s write-up, named TOXIC PROPOSALS: Why is NORML, Show Me Cannabis, and New Approach supporting prohibition? What I find interesting and blog-worthy is that Russ has very little to say about the concerns about NAM’s proposal Lynn raised and seemed to go onto the attack of a personal nature instead. Will this be the new “NAM war”?

The following is Lynns response.


 

Opponents of limited “medical only”, continued-cannabis-prohibition proposals are hardly limited to western states. Ohio’s measure failed because voters opposed Big Government profiteering prohibitionists purporting feined “legalization,” just like New Approach Missouri’s will.

Lynn

I’m the author of the analysis entitled “Toxic Proposal” that ripped apart New Approach Missouri’s Big-Government/certain-medical-conditions-only/continued cannabis-prohibition proposal. Opposing terrible ballot initiatives that put prohibition INTO our Constitution, hardly constitutes “being AGAINST legalization.” Additionally, I don’t even consume cannabis; thus calling me “Stoners Against Legalization” exposes Russ Belville’s lack of credibility, twice, at the very beginning of his comment.

Russ Belville could not refute the numerous valid concerns I pointed out in New Approach Missouri’s (NAM’s) proposed pro-Big-Government, Reformation of Prohibition, Constitutional Amendment, so he fabricated lies in a failed attempt to change the subject. Belville claims NAM’s proposal protects cannabis consumers, when it actually puts cannabis prohibition INTO our Constitution. Apparently Belville does not understand the purpose of our Constitution, or how difficult it is to modify something after it is placed into the Constitution; or perhaps he does understand, but simply lacks ethical integrity.

Any tiny infraction of NAM’s limited-medical-only proposal, which widely opens the doors to limitless rules and regulations pertaining to medical cannabis, may be met with limitless penalties. NAM’s proposed new BIG Government bureaucracy will ensure only a select few will ever be able to cultivate, handle, or access this non-toxic, miraculous plant. This proposed new Big Government bureaucracy will be Constitutionally protected from any disagreement to their authority.

A possible $8 trillion penalty was cited to make that point; limitless means without limit. NAM’s proposal puts LIMITLESS authority into the hands of DHSS. Belville asks, “why don’t they just declare that the penalty is $10 quadrillion and bamboo shoots under the fingernails?” That was essentially the point; I (or more importantly DHSS) could.

NAM’s proposal gives the Dept. of Health and Senior Services UNLIMITED authority to decide the penalties for ANY infraction of their LIMITLESS authority to enact yet-to-be-established rules and regulations; and they want to put THAT into our Constitution! That’s crazy!

For example, the penalty for having slightly over their arbitrary limits of cannabis could be set at $10,000, $100,000, or $10 quadrillion; that will be left entirely up to the unelected Department of Health and Senior Services, and their authority to do so will be protected by our Constitution if this cannabis prohibition proposal were to ever be enacted.

Belville in his ignorance doesn’t understand that cannabis is a super food, containing all essential amino acids and all essential fatty acids the human body requires to survive. Cannabis is a neuroprotect (the US gov’t holds a patent on it for this), and it staves off cancer while protecting healthy cells. But even more importantly, Belville doesn’t understand that cannabis is nontoxic. Even the tomato plant (in the nightshade family) is more toxic than cannabis. Cannabis is literally safer than water. Why SHOULDN’T this non-toxic plant be treated and regulated like any other food? Why shouldn’t cannabis be treated like a tomato plant? Belville suggests that treating cannabis like a tomato plant is “Hippy-Dippy” and crazy, yet Belville offers no substantial facts to support his juvenile name-calling, and ignorant fears, while feigning, along with NAM, to be a proponent of legalization.

Why should only a select few be “permitted” to pay tens of thousands of dollars to the government for the possible privilege of being “allowed” to grow or profit from this non-toxic plant? Per NAM’s proposed initiative, subjective criteria may be used by Big Government to extend the “opportunity” to purchase costly permits to a select few to profit from this plant. That is elitism, and prohibition profiteering to the very core.

I encourage you to actually read NAM’s awful Constitutional Amendment for yourselves (just google Missouri Secretary of State Petitions, and NAM’s proposal is 2016-134 and/or 2016-135)

Calling liberal and conservative supporters of actual legalization measures “hippie-dippy,” is further indication NAM’s proposal will never get anywhere, unless they resort to fraud (a distinct possibility.) Russ Belville insults the liberal base, while not having any understanding of conservatives’ loathing of Big-Government.

While Russ Belville accuses those who support ACTUAL legalization of “working with the cops, courts, rehabs, drug testers, and prison guards to maintain the status quo of prohibition,” it is fascinating that New Approach Missouri”has gotten financial support from those very groups in:
* the alcohol industry($41,000 in 2015),
* the pharmaceutical industry (political support),
* substance abuse counselors ($49,000 in 2015),
* and numerous members of the Bar Association,
all of whom stand to profit from NAM’s proposed prohibition measure, which stands in opposition to ACTUAL legalization.

Yet the Missouri Cannabis Restoration and Protection Act didn’t gather funding from ANY such entities. Belville’s accusations are classic of “the pot calling the kettle black.”

Missouri was one of the largest producers of hemp through the 1950’s. NAM’s over-priced out-of-state polling survey is not as reflective of Missouri sentiment as you wish to purport. Missouri is a very unique state, and national political strategists are not privy to the passion many Missourians have, particularly on this subject. Rather than help educate the masses, NAM is promoting and funding their limited medical-only prohibitionist measure by using funds raised under the premise they would be used to FIGHT prohibition, NOT PUT PROHIBITION INTO OUR VERY CONSITUTION!

Hiding behind the name “New Approach Missouri” is absolutely insulting to the MANY people who contributed to Missouri NORML and Show Me Cannabis for the purposes of fighting prohibition.

Russ Belville professes cannabis “impairs the development of children’s brains,” yet scientific data overrides Belville’s claims. This is the Show Me State, Russ – please SHOW ME scientific proof of that, so we can examine the integrity of such a new study, as well as its funding sources.

Cannabis has proven very effective in treating ADHD in both children and adults. Numerous studies show cannabis use in teens and young adults has no negative effect on IQ (Journal of Psycopharmacology for example) and the rare study that declared such was later revealed to have flawed methodology. Evidence shows that when other factors (socio-economic, family circumstance, etc.) are taken into account, cannabis can actually have a slightly positive effect on cognitive function.
So please, Russ Belville, provide some basis for your sensational claims, to at least try to redeem some semblance of credibility for yourself.

Despite decades of scientific studies commissioned to reveal how awful and injurious cannabis can be, every credible study has come up blank, and, if anything, revealed positive effects of cannabis consumption. Cannabis is non-toxic, nutritious, useful and medicinally miraculous. Why SHOULDN’T we be able to freely grow it in our backyards?! Moreover, why would you put PROHIBITION of the ability to cultivate cannabis in your backyard, and PROHIBITION of eligible patients to extract the healing oils from the plant themselves, INTO OUR VERY CONSTITUTION?!! The Constitution is intended to protect the rights of the people, and to limit government, not the other way around!!

New Approach Missouri’s proposal won’t go down in flames; it is already dead in the water. Their plan to hire folks off Craig’s List to gather valid signatures is laughable; didn’t NORML learn ANYTHING from their previous campaign mistakes? Their hired guns insult the liberal base, calling them “Hippy-Dippy”, and yet they will never secure the essential conservative vote with New Approach Missouri’s Big Government,/protect-Big-Pharma/anti-gun/elitist prohibition-profiteering proposal daring to impose this kind of crap into our very Constitution. Missouri is not ready for THAT kind of liberal idiocy.

Dan Viet’s claimed the people of Missouri are “too stupid to vote for” the full legalization ballot initiative (petition 2016-013) that he admitted at the 2015 Missouri Libertarian Convention was “better” than his. Dan Viets was wrong about Missouri voters, but right about the Missouri Cannabis Restoration and Protection Act.

New Approach Missouri’s plan may bring SOME cannabis to a SELECT FEW patients, but AT WHAT COST? Their Big-Government proposal has open-ended room for limitless requirements and limitless penalties for rule infractions, yet to be established by their new GIANT bureaucracy, and protects such bureaucracy with limitless authority provided IN OUR VERY CONSTITUTION!

THAT, Russ Belville, is absurd. New Approach Missouri’s proposal would regulate those who wish to utilize this non-toxic nutritious plant into prison cell blocks, the poor house, and/or the grave; and that, New Approach Missouri, is UNACCEPTABLE.