Background

The TX DPS has acknowledged they have no Jurisdiction over Religious Marijuana, and the DPS is the Police. This is a Religious THCv Hemp breeding project, with the purpose of growing for the production of Religious Consumable Products, such as Plant, Seeds, Lotions, etc.

The Malawi X South African Kwazulu was bred in 2017 and is still germinating at 100% after being stored in silicone containers.

In this pictures you can clearly see seeds on the left hand side, then on the right hand side you see a marijuana flower but if you look closely you will see Seeds. Those seeds in that flower, are the same seeds in the yellow container. These seeds are an F1 Cross between a Malawi Gold male and South African Kwazulu female. I call this lineage "La Reigna Dido" who was the mythical Queen and Founder of Carthage.

Carthage is the blue areas on the map in Africa, Spain, Sicily, etc.

In Canaanite Religion, Recognition of endings and new beginings, understanding that Doom comes is a common theme. For example Christianity has Rapture, etc. After Adam & Eve is "the Fall" and Human Society is supposedly degrading from a Golden Age. This is acknowledgement of Fate. The Carthaginians ruled the Sea, but accepted it as Fate and the will of God when Rome took control of the Mediterranean.

In the 1960s and 1970s there was the Vietnam War, and Americans would smoke Marijuana there and bring it back. What they were smoking was Vietnamese Dalat, a strain that is not Green or Purple, but Black. It has Green relatives they may have also brought back, and these are all high in THCv not necessarily THC. And Skunk, the archetypical Original Americana Strain, has THCv in its background, it has low amounts. Willie Nelson grows Vietnamese Dalat and Nepalese THCv strains.

Most African strains have THCv, the most common in America is Durban Poison from South Africa, but it is only about 3% THCv. So what I am doing is creating new Genepools in America with high THCv profiles.

House Bill 3703
Senate Bill 339

Texas House Bill 1325
SUBTITLE F. HEMP
CHAPTER 121. STATE HEMP PRODUCTION PLAN
SUBCHAPTER C. HEMP GROWER'S LICENSE
(b) A person is not required to hold a license under this subchapter to manufacture a consumable hemp product in accordance with Subtitle A, Title 6, Health and Safety Code.

Texas Health and Safety Code 443.001
In this chapter:
(1) “Consumable hemp product” means food, a drug, a device, or a cosmetic, as those terms are defined by Section 431.002, that contains hemp or one or more hemp-derived cannabinoids, including cannabidiol.
(2) “Department” means the Department of State Health Services.

Texas Health and Safety Code 443.003 – Local Regulation Prohibited
A municipality, county, or other political subdivision of this state may not enact, adopt, or enforce a rule, ordinance, order, resolution, or other regulation that prohibits the processing of hemp or the manufacturing or sale of a consumable hemp product as authorized by this chapter.

Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969); Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006); Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Or. 2009); State v. Balzer, 954 P.2d 931 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998) (This is a case that was reversed because the defendant showed Marijuana was part of his Religion, and that they didn't prove that he was willingly in possession of Cocaine that he had when he said he didn't know he had it); Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, GA-0384 (Tex. Att'y Gen. 2005); Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (affirming that Congress may regulate personal Marijuana use as Interstate Trade); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 US ___(2014) (ACA held to be in Violation of Religious Right to believe Fetuses have Souls); Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 US ___(2015) (A case using the Cocaine Tax Law/Harrison Tax Act where the CSA is not definitive, showing the CSA is a generational member of a family of Laws, and not some alien lifeform immune to Fundamental Law); Linder v. United States, 268 US 5 (1925) (Harrison Narcotics case Stating "direct control of Medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government"); Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 (1889) (Attainder case, and first case to mandate State Licensed Medical Doctors, and State Medical Boards)

Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations PART 1307 — MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL EXEMPT PERSONS §1307.31

State v. Mooney, 2004 UT 49 (2004) (This is the Peyote Way Church in Utah, where the court discusses both the racism of Congress regulating Religious Peyote by Blood Quantum, and the fact that laws not exempting religion explicitly are not stopping a religious exemption, if a law does not forbid religious use it is in fact biased towards an exemption. This is a Non-Native winning a Religious Peyote case on the State level. see also Peyote Way Church of God, Inc. v. Meese, 698 F. Supp. 1342 (N.D. Tex. 1988)); United States v. Boyll, 774 F. Supp. 1333 (D.N.M. 1991) (In this case the court discusses how Congress regulating Peyote use by Blood Quantum is racist and unacceptable. This is a Non-Native winning a Religious Peyote case on the Federal level); Marc Perkel v. DOJ, 08-74457 (9th Cir. 2010) (This was a case about the first ever Petition submitted to the DEA after the process was created in 2006); United States v. Quaintance, 471 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (D.N.M. 2006) (This case discusses the difference between Philosophy and Religion); State v. Pedersen, 679 N.W.2d 368 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) (This was a case with a couple who claimed Marijuana use was part of their Religion, then brought doctors in to present a medical defense. The Court determined they were not part of a Religion, or COMITY INTER GENTES, but a personal belief); Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 878 F.2d 1458 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (This was Carl Olson of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, it is a Rastafarian group and he Petitioned the DEA when the Federal law was much different than it is today see also Commonwealth v. Nissenbaum, 536 N.E.2d 592 (Mass. 1989)); United States v. Jefferson, 175 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (N.D. Ind. 2001) (This is a person who wanted to use Marijuana anywhere all the time on Probation); United States v. ARTICLE OR DEVICE, ETC., 333 F. Supp. 357 (D.D.C. 1971) (This is a case where the Government sued the E-meter calling it and Scientology harmful to the Public, but they were following FDA guidelines and saying it was not a medical treatment, so the United States lost)

Shaivism

Minister John Cotton preached that it was wrong to practice any religion other than Puritanism. Those who did would be helping the devil. They believed they followed the only true religion so everyone should be forced to worship as they did. This is similar to the concept of Hindutva in Hinduism, which is the Concept that India is the Motherland and anyone who believes that is a Hindu. That is a Racist Concept, similar to the idea of “Germany for the Germans”, which was a Nazi slogan. Anyone may Practice Hinduism, just as anyone may Practice Christianity.

Roger Williams disagreed with John Cotton. He said, "Forced worship stinks in God's nostrils."

Nikola Tesla and Swami Vivekananda wrote to each other and even met (before Planes, Cars, etc). Swami Vivekananda was a Hindu before Gandhi, who spread Hinduism around the world, started Temples in places like Chicago, and is seen as a Key Figure in many modern Hindu schools of thought. Nikola Tesla was a Hindu.

"All perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha (आकाश) or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana (प्राण) or creative force, calling into existence, in never-ending cycles all things and phenomena."
-Nikola Tesla

Here is a Picture of a Hindu Priest, we are called “Sadhu”s in Sanskrit, which is the Ancient Languages that our Holy Texts are written in.

Our God is Lord Shiva

The Religion comes from the Kush Mountains and the Ganges River. This is a simple Map of India.

Van Kush simply means “From Kush” in Dutch.

Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

Having a different Religion than the Government you reside under is literally the most American thing that you can do. Christopher Columbus first came to America thinking he was in India, this is seen in the modern labeling of the Carribean Islands as the “West Indies”, so my Religion is not Foreign, it is an American Religion. The Pilgrims fled here to practice their Religion Freely and the Colonies dissolved their ties with the Church of England during the American Revolution. American Ideals are founded on the idea that we may all have our own Religions and Traditions outside of the Government, which is the reason for the wall of separation between Church and State. Before they separated Church and State, the Church was the State, as they are now in Vatican City which is its own City State, and as Britain was before the Parliament was created, under the Church of England.

Thomas Jefferson laid this out in a Rough Draft I. Rough Draft of Jefferson’s Resolutions for Disestablishing the Church of England and for Repealing Laws Interfering with Freedom of Worship, [before 19 November 1776]
Resolved &c.1

That the statutes 1.E.6.c.1. 5 & 6.E.6.c.1. 1.El.c.2. 23.El.c.1. 28.El.c.6. 35.El.c.1. 1.Jac.1.c.4. 3.Jac.1.c.1. 3.Jac.1.c.4. 3.Jac.1.c.21. and the act of ass. 1705.c.6. & so much of all other acts or ordinances statutes as prescribe punishments for the offence of opinions deemed heretical render criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion or the exercising any mode of worship whatever or as prescribe punishments for the same ; and all acts or statutes acts or ordinances made against ought to be repealed.

Resolved that it is the opn of this Commee that so much of the sd. petitions as prays that the establishment of the Church of England by law in this Commonwealth may be discontinued, and that no pre-eminence may be allowed to any one Religious sect over another, is reasonable; & therefore that the several laws establishing the sd. Church of England, giving peculiar privileges to the it’s ministers thereof, & levying for the support thereof the same contributions on the people independent of their good will ought to be repealed; saving to such incumbents as are now actually seised of Glebe lands, their rights to such Glebe lands during their lives, & to such parishes as have received private donations for the use of support of the sd. Church of England the perpetual benefit of such donations.

These Resolutions were undoubtedly drafted prior to 19 Nov., for on that date the House adopted the following:

“Resolved,… that all and every act or statute, either of the parliament of England or of Great Britain, by whatever title known or distinguished, which renders criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, forbearing to repair to church, or the exercising any mode of worship whatsoever, or which prescribes punishments for the same, ought to be declared henceforth of no validity or force within this Commonwealth.

“Resolved, That so much of an act of Assembly made in the 4th year of the reign of queen Anne, intituled An act for the effectual suppression of vice, and restraint and punishment of blasphemous, wicked, and dissolute persons, as inflicts certain additional penalties on any person or persons convicted a second time of any of the offences described in the first clause of the said act, ought to be repealed.

“Resolved, That so much of the petitions of the several dissenters from the Church established by law within this Commonwealth, as desires an exemption from all taxes and contributions whatever towards supporting the said church and the ministers thereof, or towards the support of their respective religious societies in any other way than themselves shall voluntarily agree, is reasonable.

“Resolved, That although the maintaining any matters of religion ought not to be restrained, yet that publick assemblies of societies for divine worship ought to be regulated, and that proper provision should be made for continuing the succession of the clergy, and superintending their conduct.

“Resolved, That the several acts of Assembly, making provision for the support of the clergy, ought to be repealed, securing to the present incumbents all arrears of salary, and to the vestries a power of levying for performance of their contracts.

“Resolved, That a reservation ought to be made to the use of the said church, in all time coming, of the tracts of glebe lands already purchased, the churches and chapels already built for the use of the several parishes, and of all plate belonging to or appropriated to the use of the said church, and all arrears of money or tobacco arising from former assessments; and that there should be reserved to such parishes as have received private donations, for the support of the said church and its ministers, the perpetual benefit of such donations” (JHD, Oct. 1776, 1828 edn., p. 63).

Thomas Jefferson wrote in VI. Notes on Locke and Shaftesbury, 11 October–9 December 1776

“Why persecute for diffce. in religs. opinion?
for love to the person.
because of tendency of these opns. to dis[ ….]
when I see them persecute their nearest connection & acquaintance for gross vices, I shall beleive it may proceed from love. till they do this, I appeal to their own conscences if they will examine, why they do nt. find some other principle. because of tendency. why not then level persecution at the crimes you fear will be introduced? burn or hang the adulterer, cheat &c. or exclude them from offices.” VI. Notes on Locke and Shaftesbury, 11 October–9 December 1776
This is a Statement that Human Nature is to see other Religions as Abhorrent, or as Abominations, bringing bad things to the Society, and Thomas Jefferson states that if you feel that way, you should make the bad things illegal and punish people for the bad things, not stop them from believing and practicing their Religion. He goes on in the same writing to say:
Commonwealth is ‘a society of men constituted for preser[ving] their civil rights interests.’ interests are ‘life, health, indolency of body, liberty, property.’ the magistrate’s jurisdn. extends only to civil rights and from these considns.:
the magistrate has no power but wt. ye. people gave hm. the people hv. nt. givn. hm. powr. the care of souls bec. y cd. nt., y. cd. nt. because no man hs. right to abandon ye. care of his salvation to another. no man has power to let another prescribe his faith. faith is not faith witht. believing. no man can conform his faith to the dictates of another. the life & essence of religion consists in the internal persuasion or belief of the mind. external forms [of wor]ship, when against our belief, are hypocrisy [and im]piety. Rom.14.23. ‘he that doubteth is damned, if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.’ if it be said the magistrate may make use of a[rguments] and so draw the heterodox to truth: I [answer] every man has a commission to admonish, exhort, convince another of error. [a church] is ‘a voluntary society of men, joining [themselves] together of their own accord, in order to the [publick] worshipping of god in such a manner as they judge [accept]able to him & effectual to the salvation of their souls. [it is] voluntary because no man is by nature bound to any church. the hopes of salvation is the cause of his entering into it. if he find any thing wrong in it, he [sh]ould be as free to go out as he was to come in. [w]hat is the power of that church &c.? as it is a society of voluntary it must have some laws for it’s regulation. time & place of meeting, admitting & excluding members &c. must be regulated. but as it was a spontaneous joining of members, it follows that it’s laws extend to it’s own members only, not to those of any other voluntary society: for then by the same rule some other voluntary society might usurp power of over them. VI. Notes on Locke and Shaftesbury, 11 October–9 December 1776
Here he is saying that a Magistrate or Judge has no power outside of the Constitution, and beyond that which has been granted to him by the People.

This means that Judges have no ability to Proscribe or Prohibit faith, it is simply not within the Jurisdiction of a Court that is within the Boundaries of the United States.
To better explain this Concept you have to look at our legal system, against other Legal Systems. Such as the legal system of India. A great Peer Reviewed Legal Paper on this is the Yale Paper titled SLICING THE AMERICAN PIE: FEDERALISM AND PERSONAL LAW JEFFREY A. REDDING, April 2007 which explains the difference betwenen the Federalist Law system of the United States, and the Personal Law system of India.

"The uniquely American reluctance to examine foreign legal experience8 is in some sense understandable, seeing as the unfamiliar often has an “anarchic” quality to it.9 However, the historical blinding of the American legal gaze to foreign personal law has only worked to obscure the possibility that there are American legal practices which resemble those in personal law systems (for better or worse). Given the rich interpretive possibilities that are opened up by moving away from the usual, provincial analyses of the American federal system, then, this Article will use foreign legal experience—and especially that from India—to deepen and broaden analysis of both the American system and personal law systems. By examining India’s personal law system, this Article will suggest important resonances between this kind of legal ordering and the American federal system
…
Moreover, India’s extant personal law system provides a particularly vivid demonstration of the contingency of the ostensibly sacrosanct communities upon which personal law systems are built. “Hindu,” “Muslim,” and “Christian”—and, indeed, “religion” itself—have not been stable or static configurations in India’s legal system but, instead, have functioned as the living residue of a complex of social, political, and economic forces and interests
…
In sum, an examination of India’s personal law system provides an important stepping stone on the path to demystifying and de-essentializing both “religious” and “territorial” communities, thereby opening up the possibility of comparative analysis of their respective legal roles.15 Both kinds of community are social, political, and legal constructs and are, to invoke Benedict Anderson, “imagined communities.”16 This conceptual “leveling of the field” can then allow one to see, in contrast to much conventional legal theorizing, how territorial administrations of the law can share intriguing and important similarities with religious administrations of the law." SLICING THE AMERICAN PIE: FEDERALISM AND PERSONAL LAW JEFFREY A. REDDING, April 2007

The West Indies were called so because Christopher Columbus thought he was in India

Controlled Substances Act

Once you understand it, it makes a lot of sense, and it's all pretty clear.

I am going to explain it in the way everyone can best understand it, with examples.

There was a case that Sasha Shulgin cites in one of his books, one of the Parties to the case is named Forbes, it is in the a-MT entry I am pretty sure. So in the 1990s, Sigma Aldrich and the other Chemical warehouses would sell things to anyone. In the 60s it was cheap even, a research could be done and the World could be advanced. In the Forbes case, he is buying a-MT and selling it in capsules calling it MDMA Ecstacy at like 10,000% profit. The Judge determined that that is not illegal under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics, or Analogue Act. But the DEA goes and makes a-MT Schedule I, that was 30 years ago. The comparisons to go to for a quick understanding are Melatonin, Caffeine and Alcohol. If the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act is interpreted in a way that makes Melationin, Caffeine, or Alcohol Illegal, when they aren't being called Medicine or Cures, then it is being interpreted wrong. For example, Ketamine is Scheduled III or lower, so Deschloroketamine is unregulated.

So, now, nobody knows this, but Schedule V, IV, and III analogues are unregulated. If you are so inclined you may go invent molecules that are just like existing Molecules. Adducts aren't illegal.

Schedule I and II analogues are regulated when for Human Consumption, so still open for Research, Art, etc.

Schedule I is considered to have no Medical benefit, Marijuana is here with Heroine, Meth and DMT.

Schedule II is considered to have use, Cocaine is here. So it would have actually been easier if I wanted to establish a Cocaine Religion in America. It would literally be easier.

So then Normaco 2004, where the Court made the DEA accept a new Cocaine manufacturer. The Gonzales v. O Centro in 2006, Religious Exemption, under Form 225 Exemption. Like how Vikadin, and Valium, and Percocet are made, mostly Schedule II (Benzos are Schedule III), or worse. They are all making Morphine, Cannabinoids, and everything else under the Sun. That is where the Religious Exemption is. And when it gets down to it, the only Scheduled Substances are those listed in the UN Psychotropics Convention, and that is counteracted by Religious Treaties and Conventions in the UN.

I actually plan on bringing this to Human Right Court at the OAS IACHR.

With the extra context of the Federal Exemption, Commerce Clause, and TX AG Opinion 0384 (2005) you can see that when the DPS says "we don't have a Religious Exemption process, but the DEA does" it is basically saying "this is a Federal Issue".

Further, if you look up Gozales v. Raich, there was a guy in California growing for personal Medical or Recreational use, not Religious. But the Supreme Court used a case about Wheat, where they had determined that growing what I think was multiple acres of Wheat, which could enter interstate commerce, could therefore be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause. They specifically say that Congress may regulate the limited growth of Marijuana for personal use.

Now, this is a limited Marijuana grow, for personal Religious use, and Religious Hemp Product Manufacturing. So, it may be regulated by Congress according to Gonzales v. Raich, so Congress has Jurisdiction, but... 1st Amendment, Congress may not Respect an Establishment of Religion, or Prohibit the Free Excercise thereof.

So Congress has Jurisdiction but may not Prohibit. But if we look at United States v. Reynolds, where Congress passed an Anti-Bigamy Law during the Federal Government's war with the Pioneer Mormons in Utah, etc, that we never get taught about. The Reynolds ruling in and of itself likely needs to be looked at, and this would likely need to be done by a Mormon Bigamist or Polygamist who could lay out the discrimination through History. But, if the Court were for some reason going to go there, and open up this line of Constitutional debate. The rule under U.S. v Reynolds is that if there is a license or permit to do something, if there is an exemption in Law, Religion can do that thing. If something is banned for everyone in the country, it is banned for Religion. Marijuana in 2020, clearly passes the Reynolds test.

So really, saying the DPS (TX Police) have no Jurisdiction is pretty accurate.

This Law exists too, but the NIDA doesn't respond regarding Religion, like they have never heard of it basically. And the Federal courts say THC is not legally in the definition of Marijuana anyways. So this is THC, not Marijuana.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.481.htm

Sec. 481.204. ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES. (a) The executive commissioner shall acquire the tetrahydrocannabinols and their derivatives for use in the research program by contracting with the National Institute on Drug Abuse to receive tetrahydrocannabinols and their derivatives that are safe for human consumption according to the regulations adopted by the institute, the United States Food and Drug Administration, and the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration.

(b) The executive commissioner shall supervise the distribution of the tetrahydrocannabinols and their derivatives to program participants. The tetrahydrocannabinols and derivatives of tetrahydrocannabinols may be distributed only by the person in charge of the research program to physicians caring for program participant patients, under rules adopted by the executive commissioner in such a manner as to prevent unauthorized diversion of the substances and in compliance with all requirements of the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration. The physician is responsible for dispensing the substances to patients.

Genetics

I forgot to mention the Genetic significance of the crossed strain that is being made (these are not locked in Genes, this is the first set of offspring, F1).

Malawi is a World renown strain, said to be the best in the World by the World Bank, and other international commentators. This may be actually because of the THCv content which has been mentioned.

But this strain I am making, is a South African Kwazulu, also called Drakensburg Ridge something because the difference between this and other local strains is the separation caused by that geographical barrier.

So, like Darwin's Finches, even these close neighbors are different. So I took the World renown Malawi Genetics (not a close neighbor) using a Male Malawi Plant's Pollen, and used it to Pollinate a Drakensburg Female that had a beautiful multi-pyramidal structure, and strong thick light colored calyx hairs instead of the normal curly orange. There are said to be 2 South African Kwazulu Phenotypes, I think I got the good one with the more potent THCv levels. The leaves were almost Indica like, but it is a pure Sativa.

The Malawi is usually branchy, with small tight but ovular nugs rather than dense egg or cloud shape. So the Branches add strength and quantity to make up for the little nugs.

Mixing these 2, and the better structured one being the Mother Plant, should make for a good Flower Structure.

The Strain is being developed for Divination/Prophecy and Fasting.

I originally posted this here
https://www.420magazine.com/community/threads/texas-religious-marijuana-grow-la-reigna-dido.486951/