Patented Cannabis

[acespicoli]

Marijuana Research | The University of Mississippi

pharmacy.olemiss.edu

DEA published regulations to allow “Bulk Manufacturer”
registrants to cultivate marijuana for research purposes.

Federal Register :: Request Access

Federal Register :: Request Access

no request needed just click and read...

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:​

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits the cultivation and distribution of marihuana except by persons who are registered under the CSA to do so for lawful purposes. In accordance with the purposes specified in
21 CFR 1301.33(a),

Federal Register :: Request Access

marijuana - National Archives Search Results

search.archives.gov

https://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1961_en.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2

The Latest Updates on the Farm Bill – Farm Aid

The Farm Bill is a huge piece of legislation and its path to become a law will be filled with twists and turns. Here are the latest updates.

www.farmaid.org

Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

many still in the trenches...

Jurisdiction	Effective date	Licensed sales since	Legalization method
Washington (state)	December 6, 2012	July 8, 2014	Initiated ballot measure
Colorado	December 10, 2012[246]	January 1, 2014	Initiated ballot measure
Alaska	February 24, 2015	October 29, 2016	Initiated ballot measure
Washington, D.C.	February 26, 2015	Never authorized	Initiated ballot measure
Oregon	July 1, 2015	October 1, 2015	Initiated ballot measure
California	November 9, 2016	January 1, 2018	Initiated ballot measure
Massachusetts	December 15, 2016	November 20, 2018	Initiated ballot measure
Nevada	January 1, 2017	July 1, 2017	Initiated ballot measure
Maine	January 30, 2017	October 9, 2020	Initiated ballot measure
Vermont	July 1, 2018	October 1, 2022[247]	Legislative bill
Northern Mariana Islands	September 21, 2018	July 16, 2021[248]	Legislative bill
Michigan	December 6, 2018	December 1, 2019	Initiated ballot measure
Guam	April 4, 2019	Not yet started	Legislative bill
Illinois	January 1, 2020	January 1, 2020	Legislative bill
Arizona	November 30, 2020	January 22, 2021	Initiated ballot measure
Montana	January 1, 2021	January 1, 2022[249]	Initiated ballot measure
New Jersey	February 22, 2021	April 21, 2022	Legislatively referred ballot measure
New York	March 31, 2021	December 29, 2022[250]	Legislative bill
New Mexico	June 29, 2021[251]	April 1, 2022[252][253]	Legislative bill
Connecticut	July 1, 2021	January 10, 2023[254]	Legislative bill
Virginia	July 1, 2021	Never authorized	Legislative bill
Rhode Island	May 25, 2022	December 1, 2022	Legislative bill
Missouri	December 8, 2022	February 3, 2023[255]	Initiated ballot measure
United States Virgin Islands	January 18, 2023	Not yet started	Legislative bill
Delaware	April 23, 2023	Not yet started	Legislative bill
Maryland	July 1, 2023	July 1, 2023	Legislatively referred ballot measure
Minnesota	August 1, 2023[102]	Not yet started	Legislative bill
Ohio	December 7, 2023	Not yet started	Initiated ballot measure

certainly wise to stay current on shifting trends in policies
makes me wonder what the future holds for legalization
will the rest of the country ever be as free to grow as states like cali ?

Legal history of cannabis in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A New York Times article noted on the cannabis amendment:

The inclusion of Cannabis indica among the drugs to be sold only on prescription is common sense. Devotees of hashish are now hardly numerous here enough to count, but they are likely to increase as other narcotics become harder to obtain.[18]

In the West, the first state to include cannabis as a poison was California. The Poison Act was passed in 1907 and amended in 1909 and 1911, and in 1913 an amendatory act was made to make possession of "extracts, tinctures, or other narcotic preparations of hemp, or loco-weed,...

 

[Brother Nature]

In 1930, the United States began granting patents for plants. By 1931, the very first plant patent was issued to Henry Bosenberg for his climbing, ever-blooming rose. Under patent law, the inventor of a plant is the person who first appreciates its distinctive qualities and reproduces it asexually. In other words, a plant can be created (such as by breeding or grafting) or it can be "discovered."

Plants discovered in "the wild" or uncultivated state cannot be patented, because they occur freely in nature. But a plant discovered in a cultivated area can be patented, even if it is discovered in a cultivated area owned by someone else. In addition, a tuber plant such as a potato cannot be patented.

In order to acquire a plant patent, the inventor must have actually asexually reproduced the plant. Asexual reproduction means that the plant is reproduced by means other than seeds, usually accomplished by cutting or grafting of the plant. Asexual reproduction is the cornerstone of plant patents because that is what proves that the inventor (or discoverer) can duplicate the plant. The patented plant also must be novel and distinctive.

There's a thread on this site, think it might be related to Phylos, but in it Sam and Tom were amongst those discussing plant patents and it was 'revealed' that it is very possible to patent a single clone, e.g. something with a Sour diesel genotype of consisting of AaBb x CCdD, but not the strain itself given you could produce a Sour Diesel plant consisting of aaBB x cCDd. PVR's are slightly more concerning but, again, not as easy to regulate as they could be. Below is a cool article regarding that...

A plant variety is protected if it is new, distinct, uniform and stable. Another mechanism is patent protection. Article 27(3)(b) of TRIPS provides for a choice for protection of plant varieties either by patents or by sui generis protection system, or a combination thereof.
PVR and patent protection in plant breeding sector
The plant variety rights (PVR) legislation in European Union is based on the 1991 version of the UPOV Convention and has created a level playing field for European farmers and breeders.
Under this system, there is a compulsory exception to breeder’s right – “breeder’s exemption”. This feature is similar to an “open source” model by safeguarding free access to biological material for further breeding. According to Szonja’s speech, by allowing for using protected varieties for further breeding and marketing of those new varieties without any obligations towards the right holder, it has greatly enhanced the innovation of the plant breeding industry in Europe and has proved to be a cornerstone of the system. The breeders have always relied on this exemption for further improvement on each other’s varieties.
As for plant varieties as such, they are excluded from patent protection according to Article 53(b) EPC and are protected by plant breeder’s rights. However, the techniques used when obtaining the biological material or developing new varieties could seek for patent protection. Indeed, there is no such concept of breeder’s exemption in patent system under EPC but still breeders also take into account patent protection because of the innovations involving technical solution to develop new varieties. Under the current European patent protection, which is a stronger and more absolute protection than PVR in respect of the strict substantial requirements examination and its scope of exclusive rights, any use of the patented products (e.g. genetic material) and processes covered by the patent must obtain permission from the patent owner. This blocks access to biological materials for further breeding.
Significance of breeders’ exemption and potential concerns
To guarantee plants that can endure natural changes (for example diseases, climate, etc) and to ensure production yields, varieties have to be continuously improved and therefore access to all these materials is required. Furthermore, the PVR system is subject to a considerable number of very time consuming field trials, de facto giving the right holder a lead time advantage, as a third party breeder would have to go through a similar time consuming exercise before he could ever bring his new variety on the market. To acquire the interesting traits of genetics to achieve breeding goals, access to all possible biological materials is key element for plant breeders for a successful breeding program as it allows for speedy innovation. If lack of such a basic principle for free access, it puts too much strain on plant breeders since it is not affordable for them not to have access to various biological materials for further breeding.
However, the enforcement of PVR may not be so satisfactory and could become an obstacle to plant breeding, which is a weak point of the system. The potential problem is that it is possible to make small changes to the genetic structure of an existing variety and then get a new variety to be granted since it demonstrates distinctive feature. It seems be easy to circumvent previous protection as the fellow plant breeders may obtain new protection by the benefit of breeder’s exemption.
Further thinking
The PVR system and the patent system interact and overlap in the protection of plant breeding. Breeder’s exemption is a special feature in PVR system while protection is stronger by patents. To protect plant breeders’ interest for certain important subject matters by patent, it is possible to discuss whether a limited breeder’s exemption can be provided in the European patent system under EPC, in order to guarantee access to genetic material. However this would raise another issue that is it justified introducing the special exemption only in plant breeding sector, and if so, whether the door to similar exceptions would open in other sectors. Too many exceptions would undermine patent protection and limit innovation as well. The approaches should be designed to achieve a balance solution among the competing interests and sustainable development to ensure continuous innovation. There are still lots of discussions and rooms to find a better solution.