Missouri Medical Marijuana Bill

For many people, cannabis or cannabis oil are the only things that can really give them relief, or a possible cure, from debilitating or fatal diseases. At this point, I will state without hesitation, if a family member were diagnosed with cancer, we would move to Colorado and work with people there that know how to set up protocols to treat cancer. There are entirely too many positives for health benefits and the only thing that is threatened by marijuana is the overly bloated and toxic pharmaceutical industry and the revenue generation/prison industry who are profiting because of it being illegal. It just galls me personally that there is help for so many that is natural and it is immoral to prevent people who would benefit from using this help.

Anyway, for those who would like to weigh in with their representatives regarding this bill, here is how you do so:

Click on this link for the House Committee on Emerging Issues.

It is HB 800 and already had a public hearing, but it has not yet been voted on in committee. All the members of the committee are in the link, and you could send them all an email with your thoughts on the bill.

Additionally, you can contact your representative by finding them in this link. You must have your zip code plus four to find them if you don’t already know who they are. Below is an article with the link in the title regarding the bill and the hearing.

February 23, 2015 9:26 pm  • 

JEFFERSON CITY • Advocates for
increased patient access to medical
marijuana, including television personality
Montel Williams, shared personal stories
while testifying for a Missouri bill that would
create a state-monitored distribution
program for the drug.
Williams and others spoke at a House
committee hearing Monday in support of the measure sponsored by a Republican
representative. The measure would set up a process for patients to register for access to
marijuana for cancer, HIV, post-traumatic stress disorder and other medical conditions.
Williams, who starred in the syndicated talk show “The Montel Williams Show,” has
multiple sclerosis and uses marijuana to treat some of his symptoms. He lives in New
York and has advocated for medical marijuana across the country. He said the legislation
could be a model for the rest of the country.
“I could care less about anybody who wants to get high— your problem, not mine. I’m
only concerned about people who need relief through medication,” Williams said to the
Republican Rep. Dave Hinson’s bill would not allow recreational use of marijuana. It
would require growers and distributors of medical marijuana to be licensed and follow
certain security procedures. The legislation also limits the amount of marijuana a person
could get without special permission to 2.5 ounces every two weeks.
Hinson said every lawmaker has had their lives touched by someone who has been
affected by a debilitating illness. He said his father, who died from bone cancer in 1989,
suffered extreme pain in the final months of his life.
“He was so endowed with morphine that he was so sick to his stomach and all he wished
to do was die,” Hinson said.
Hinson said that people should be allowed the opportunity to get relief and maintain
Missouri lawmakers hear emotional testimony on medical mari… http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-…
1 of 3 3/1/15 2:02 PM
their dignity by using marijuana recommended by a doctor.
Some advocates for patient access to marijuana expressed concerns about the limits on
home growing of cannabis and the high cost of setting up centers under the current
legislation. Tom Mundell, a past commander of Missouri’s Veterans of Foreign Wars, said
he thought patients should be allowed to grow the plants at home.
He shared stories of veterans who were using marijuana for medical purposes. After Rep.
Ron Hicks, R-St. Peters, asked him about using marijuana for post-traumatic stress
disorder, he broke down as he described how he’s gone from taking dozens of pills daily
to only a few each day.
Hicks said he supports the bill and wants to make sure it can pass.
A patient would have to get a recommendation from a physician and then apply to the
state’s health department before being able to purchase medical marijuana. The bill lists
specific eligible ailments, but also lays out a process for a patient to appeal and the
department to add illnesses.
But the risk for abuse of marijuana remains despite the limits in the bill, said Jason
Grellner, vice president of National Narcotics Officers Associations’ Coalition, who
opposes the measure.
Grellner said that supporters of marijuana access will chip away at any law passed in
Missouri by filing lawsuits to expand it.
“Every legislator that brings this forward, I don’t care what state you’re in, believes
they’ve built the perfect mouse trap,” he said Monday before testifying. “There are so
many unanswered questions and loopholes and pitfalls. You can’t write a law tight
Twenty-three states have comprehensive medical marijuana laws. Missouri and 10 other
states have also approved more limited medical marijuana bills that loosen access to
extracts from strains of marijuana with low tetrahydrocannabinol or THC and high levels
of cannabidiol, or CBD, which some have used to control epilepsy in young children.
Missouri’s bill has not yet been fully implemented and the CBD oil is not currently
available in the state.
Medical marijuana bill is HB 800.
House: http://www.house.mo.gov


Missouri Amendment 1- Vote NO!

From Michael Evans: http://www.americasvoicenow.org


And…. Why YOU Should Vote NO on Missouri’s Proposed Constitutional Amendment 1 – “Right To Farm”


On Monday, a meeting was held in a townhall style at the West Plains Civic Center so that folks could better understand the proposed Constitutional Amendment 1 aka “Right To Farm” Bill.  I attended this meeting and so I thought I would provide those who were unable to make it with a report on what transpired.  Feel free to forward to your “Circle of Influence” whether you agree with my observations or not.


First, let me state unequivocally that I support the unlimited protection of family farms, farmers and family ranchers.  But I firmly believe this bill will do no such thing.


The meeting was sponsored by supporters of the bill.  The people sitting at the ‘speaker’ table were Shawn Rhodes and a legislative employee from the Missouri Legislature.  They opened the meeting with a reading of the proposed constitutional amendment found here:


”That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vial sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri.”


I asked the meeting why we didn’t word the amendment thus…


”That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vial sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of FAMILY farmers and FAMILY ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, AND SHALL NOT BE INFRINGEDsubject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri.” 


This means infringed by anyone, for any reason, whether gov’t, political action committee, animal rights groups, or Missouri’s DNR (Department of Natural Resources).  I was told that language was ‘unacceptable’ to the legislature who couldn’t get it passed because of politics.  Translation? YOUR interests are not THEIR interests. What’s troubling is that this bill is primarily sponsored by Republicans.  (For the record, I and a large group of others spent a lot of time unsuccessfully in conference calls over the past 2 years trying to get them to use the right language because we smelled a rat going in.)


The primary argument from the speakers table was that this amendment was to thwart future efforts by HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) to stop the trend of injecting legislative limits on farmers similar to the Prop B ‘puppy mill’ legislation that they got approved in 2010 by appealing to the emotional side of non-farmers and non-ranchers. I would argue that livestock is already protected under state law and nobody, including the deluded HSUS can argue that your goat, cow or pig is a ‘family pet’.


I believe the HSUS is intent on damaging farming in Missouri. I also abhor the organization not only because they eat up the vast majority of donations in ‘administrative costs’ including fundraising, but they actively seek to undermine states’ rights, human rights and abuse laws giving corporations rights, and lastly, but most importantly, because they put animals before humans. Charity Navigator warns with their “Donor Advisory” rating, and charity watchdog Humanewatch.org gives them a D grade while others rank them equally dishonest and scurrilous.


However, the table argued that HSUS has raised and spent $375,000 to fight against this bill so therefore it was a good bill to vote for.  It did come out of the meeting, by attendees and not supporters) that the side supporting it (Republicans included), have spent over $1,000,000 in support of the bill.  When asked where that money came from, we were told PACs or Political Action Committees which naturally are shielded from having to reveal their donors were responsible. I might have been born at night… but it wasn’t last night!  As if they don’t know or weren’t involved in getting that financial support.


Since both sides are funding the passage or non-passage of this bill so heavily, and we all know money in politics points the finger of guilt to the parties that benefit the most, I would posit that both sides are using the ‘boogeyman’ fear factor of the other side to drive their members and/or constituents to vote for an Amendment which is not in the best interests of the actual family farmers and ranchers of Missouri.


To be sure, and I said this publicly in the meeting, everyone in the room was there for the right purpose, to protect Missouri’s agricultural heritage and industry and family farmers and ranchers, not corporations, CAFO’s and foreign gov’ts.  However, I believe that the political parties have hijacked this legislation to pass a nefarious and detrimental Constitutional Amendment that cannot later be altered or modified and will be the subject of staggering legal challenges that will leave this amendment in the hands of those who redefine words for a living; namely judges and lawyers, who definitively don’t have the best interests of the farmers and ranchers in question as their motivation. Further the Farmers/Ranchers will have to bear the legal financial burdens of fighting those battles and that’s untenable for the family farm or ranch which is barely subsisting hand to mouth. Fighting legal battles with gov’t agencies, NGO (non-governmental organizations such as HSUS), and being beaten by financial attrition, not by lack of merit, will hurt all of us in the state.


There was a constant refrain that, “this is the best we can get”, and “It’s a good start” towards protecting Missouri family farmers and ranchers.  I submit that there are two problems with this thinking.


  • First, if the best we can get from a majority legislature is a bill designed to protect Monsanto and leave future ‘interpretation’ to bureaucrats, judges and lawyers who will cost farmers/ranchers the ‘farm’ to fight for their God given rights in the first place, that shows us that neither party truly represents the interests of their ‘alleged’ constituents, and hasn’t for a very long time.
    • Passing such an amendment allows legislators to define under Missouri’s Constitution in Article VI what your rights actually are.  That section of the Constitution is hundreds of pages long and addresses everything under the sun.  In order to ‘loophole’ the new amendment for the benefit of some political supporter or crony (Can YOU say Monsanto?), the legislature can simply modify or redefine whatever they need to in Article VI to give them the dubious “Duly Authorized Power” to hijack your right to make a living while granting themselves even greater powers.
    • Ask yourself if the purpose of a Constitution is to limit gov’t or YOU?  How does giving you rights, subject to their “Duly Authorized Power” act to “bind the gov’t down with the chains of a Constitution” as per Thomas Jefferson?


  • Second, this is not “a good start” because you don’t modify the constitution with a law in motion. If we find later that it has poison in it, (and you can bet this was worded VERY carefully by the “elit-i-legalists” in the legislature) it cannot be simply modified.  It would require another Constitutional Amendment vote just to amend the bad amendment.
    • A Constitutional Amendment should be the final limitation of gov’t power, not a ‘starting point’ full of loopholes large enough to push Kansas City through sideways!


Finally, the arguments given by those in ‘official’ support was laden with the threats of the dark powers and money of the HSUS and their freedom destroying activities.  Let me be abundantly clear here… I absolutely despise anyone who sells me on waiving my rights based upon fear.  THAT IS terrorism defined, i.e. manipulation of the individuals through fear, intimidation, threat or coercion for a political end.  It makes no difference if it’s done by a guy in a suit or a uniform.


Frankly, I fear the Missouri DNR and the state legislature far more than an animal rights activist group who may, or may not, attempt to pass legislation or policy with the aid of the real danger here… our own legislature and the DNR.


When I asked why we are compromising ourselves by agreeing to a bad amendment simply because the legislature doesn’t have the brass to really honor who they should represent, (not the corporations or political bribers, …er donors), I was told again that “This is the best we could get” and “This is a good start”.  The simple truth is that our legislature has failed us over and over again. They seek to pass legislation that protects and benefits their donors and frankly that is nothing more than a polite way of saying Bribery.  I’m tired of endless promises of “more hard work to do” and “we’ll build on this” kind of talk. You don’t ‘build’ on a constitutional amendment.  That is where the final product goes, not the half-baked, loophole laden dream of a greedy self-serving political machine.


Again, suggested language would have done what the supporters claim this piece of misguided misdirection should actually do…..  Note the differences in RED.


”That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vial sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of FAMILY farmers and FAMILY ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, AND SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri.”  This change would have made it bulletproof to voters, and eliminated most of the expensive legal wrangling that we will see for years going forward.


We shouldn’t be making constitutional amendments just because our legislature wants to appease their cronies and corporate sponsors.  I was told the language proposed was right but, was ‘unacceptable’ to the legislature and couldn’t get passed.  So, ask yourself the following questions:


  • Did the legislature really had YOUR best interest at heart when they wrote it?
  • Should we pass a permanent modification to the Constitution because the legislature (which is supposed to have a ‘conservative’ majority) was more interested in giving you a false choice using fear as a coercion tactic?
  • If the purpose of a constitution is to ‘bind men down from mischief by the chains of a constitution’ (Thomas Jefferson), why is it that YOU are bound by this constitutional amendment?
  • Should we simply rise up, vote NO and then demand that they right the correct language and actually represent us next year in protecting Missouri Family Farmers and Family Ranchers?


In case you haven’t gathered already…. For the record, I’m voting NO.  This bill should be better known as the “Missouri Monsanto Protection Act”.



Michael Evans
Patriot & OathKeeper


Lt Governor and Several Representatives ask DNR to Extend Comment Period

Many regular listeners of  The Power Hour are aware of this new “Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan” being enacted in nearly every state in the nation. Here in Missouri, we have received from very positive action from some of our elected representatives. Following is a press release about this action and the pdf of the letter sent to the Director of the Missouri DNR by Lt Governor Peter Kinder and other reps:

                                            July 3, 2014


Lt. Gov. Kinder, Legislative Leaders
seek more time on DNR water plan

Letter to director cites need for more public hearings
JEFFERSON CITY – Lt. Governor Peter Kinder today delivered a letter to Sara Parker Pauley, director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, seeking an extension of 60-day public comment period regarding Missouri’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan. The comment period is slated to end Tuesday, July 8.
The letter, which also was signed by Sens. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, and Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, and Rep. Timothy Jones, R-Eureka, cited concerns about “the potential impact of this plan on agriculture, private property rights and land use in our state.” They asked that the DNR extend the comment period 30 days and conduct additional public hearings around the state.
The Nonpoint Source Management Plan is the state’s attempt to address nonpoint sources of water pollution and align its water management with new, more stringent federal EPA regulations.
The letter from Kinder and the legislative leaders said “it is incumbent on the DNR to ensure Missourians understand the potential impact of these changes while allowing those affected to fully comment on the plan.”
Lt. Governor Kinder issued the following statement on the issue:
“Few people are aware of this shift in management practices proposed by the DNR. The potential impact on private property rights, land use and agriculture are profound. We want to make sure Missouri doesn’t cede to bureaucrats in Washington control over how we manage our resources.”


Letter to dnr director Pauley.

Here We Go Again…Missouri Rabbit troubles and Humane Society

Velma Muessemeyer will be in Court in Franklin County Missouri on December the 17th. I do not yet have the address and time for her combination hearing and trial. The Missouri Humane Society and Franklin County Sheriff Deputies seized all of the animals on her property on allegations of abuse and/or neglect. While I haven’t seen nearly enough pictures, I have seen several of the rabbits that are reported to have been mistreated. What I saw looked quite good. Now the property is junky looking, but that isn’t indicative of animal neglect, cruelty, or abuse. More truthfully, that is a reflection of limited financial resources.

I’m going to post a bunch of links to articles on this issue. I ask that you pay particular attention to the appearance of the animals, and not focus on the fact that workmanship and new equipment is obviously lacking. For those who know rabbits, look at their hocks, their ears, their overall appearance and let me know if you think they look like they have been lacking feed. Same with the goats in the Humane Society of Missouri’s video. The pen is either freshly strawe or shows an abundance of hay being fed out to the goats. The goats are in very good flesh and I see no snotty noses or ribs showing on them at all. Just focus on the animals, as they are the object of these allegations against Muessemeyer. She isn’t being taken to court for “blight” or property maintenance code violations, but animal abuse and neglect.

One of Muessemeyers rabbits being checked by Missouri Humane Society

I readily concede that I am looking at pictures here and have no first hand knowledge of this lady or her practices. I do however have lots of experience with rabbits, goats, dogs and chickens. While I may not manage mine the way Muessemeyer manages hers, the animals show no outward signs of neglect.

Here are a plethora of links. First videos:



Now for articles:




More than 200 animals rescued from Franklin County property

From Missouri Rural Crisis

Please pass this on to all in Missouri! Miraculously, Nixon did something right when he overrode these two bills.

Tell Legislators to “Vote No” on Veto Override of SB9 & SB342

Stop Foreign Corporate Ownership of Missouri Farmland

Call/Email Legislators TODAY!!!


In the last month of the 2013 legislative session, Representative Casey Guernsey added an amendment onto two ag omnibus bills (Senate Bill 9 & Senate Bill 342) that would allow up to 1% of Missouri’s total farmland to be owned by foreign businesses.  This would open up approximately 289,000 acres of Missouri’s farmland to foreign corporate ownership.  This amendment was never a standalone bill and was never vetted through the Committee process.  (Both SB9 & SB342 were vetoed by Governor Nixon.)


Two weeks later, Chinese meat processor Shuanghui Holding Ltd., one of the largest food processors in China, agreed to buy Smithfield Foods Inc., the largest hog corporation in the United States and in the world.  This proposed acquisition is the largest Chinese purchase of a U.S. company to date.  Smithfield Foods, Inc. controls 26% of the U.S. hog slaughter and owns Premium Standard Farms Inc., the largest hog producer in Missouri.


Current law prohibits foreign businesses from owning or having an interest in agricultural land except as provided in sections 442.586 and 442.591.  But, Senate Bill 9 & Senate Bill 342 (see Sections 442.571-442.576 in bills) include a provision that opens up 1% of Missouri farmland to be owned by foreign corporations.


This proposed acquisition is a prime example of how expanded corporate consolidation in agriculture has gone too far.  Vertical integration and consolidation results in lack of markets for independent producers, damaging effects on rural economies, limited consumer choice and higher prices at the grocery store.  If this acquisition goes through, two of the top four meatpackers (which control 2/3 of the hog market) would be owned by foreign corporations, JBS/Swift and Smithfield.


SB9 and SB342 were agriculture omnibus bills with good provisions in them, but unfortunately these bills were tainted with this language that opened up Missouri farmland to be owned by foreign corporations.


The Missouri Cattlemen’s Association is lobbying to override the Governor’s veto of SB 9, which would allow foreign corporations to own Missouri farmland.  So, we need everyone—family farmers, livestock producers, concerned consumers—to contact our legislature and tell them to SUPPORT Governor Nixon’s veto of these bills!



Missouri Family Farmers Need the Support of our Legislators to Maintain the Veto of SB9 & SB342.


Please Call YOUR Legislator & KEY House/Senate Members TODAY!

VOTE “NO” on Overriding Governor Nixon’s Veto of Senate Bills 9 & 342!


Talking Points:

  • Help protect U.S. food producers and U.S. consumers from foreign corporate ownership and control of our food supply;  Vote NO on the veto override of Senate Bill 9 & Senate Bill 342.
  • SB 9 & SB 342 both had good provisions in them, but adding the foreign ownership of land language tainted both bills.
  • Missouri farmland should be not be owned by multi-national, multi-billion dollar foreign corporations.
  • Protect U.S. farmers and consumers from foreign companies buying and controlling U.S. food production. 


Senator Jolie Justus:  (573) 751-2788  Email Senator Justus HERE

Senator Rob Schaaf(573) 751-2183  Email Senator Schaaf HERE

Senator Mike Parson:  (573) 751-8793  Email Senator Parson HERE

Senator Scott Sifton: (573) 751-0220  Email Senator Sifton HERE

Senator David Pearce (573) 751-2272 Email Senator Pearce HERE


Rep. Eric Burlison (573) 751-0136 Email Rep. Burlison HERE

Rep. Chris Molendorp (573) 751-2175 Email Rep. Molendorp HERE

Rep. Mark Parkinson (573) 751-2949 Email Rep. Parkinson HERE

Rep. Caleb Rowden (573) 751-1169 Email Rep. Rowden HERE

Rep. Noel Torpey (573) 751-3623 Email Rep. Torpey HERE


Find your Legislators HERE!

Missouri Hemp Legislation Has Hearing March 26th

Please support this legislation! It would be excellent for Missouri’s economic viability!!!

JEFFERSON CITY, MO — A bill that would exempt industrial hemp from the Missouri’s controlled substances act has been scheduled for a hearing by the General Laws Committee later this month.

Senate Bill 358, sponsored by Senator Jason Holsman (D—Kansas City), would exempt industrial hemp—defined as containing less than 1% THC—from the state’s controlled substances act and allow anyone not convicted of a drug-related crime to grow it.

An identical bill was introduced in the House last year, but never received a hearing.

A hearing on SB 358 has been scheduled by the General Laws Committee on Tuesday, March 26 at 3:00 pm.  This is a public hearing that allows for testimony in person or in writing if provided in advance.

“Hearings like this give people a chance to voice their opinion outside of the ballot,” said Steven Wilson of the Central Missouri Hemp Network. “Informed citizenry is what managed this country and it is how we can reclaim farm sovereignty and farm freedom.  I encourage all who care about the working man to come out and tell the Senate what they think, either way.  Citizen up or citizen down.”

Similar bills to allow farmers to grow hemp have been introduced in several other states, including Kentucky, Minnesota, and Vermont.

Cultivation of industrial hemp is currently prohibited by the federal government, but legislation has been introduced in Congress to allow the commercial production of hemp in the United States, the only industrialized nation in the world to prohibit the cultivation of hemp.

Hemp products can legally be sold in the United States, but the hemp must be imported from other countries.

For those Missouri residents interested in testifying at this hearing, contact sweb@senate.mo.gov, or contact members of the General Laws Committee: