“We believe that there’s more opportunity in hemp related products (than medical cannabis)” said DeLoittes partner Mr Andrew Gibbs at NZs first hemp summit last week in Wellington.
So it was a surprise to the audience when the GM of MedSafe admitted what has been known within the hempo industry for a long time; that “the biggest problem with the (Hemp) legislation is the way that we have been interpreting it.”
This is a remarkable admission, because MoH has cost New Zealand billions of dollars by misinterpreting our fit for purpose and ‘enabling’ hemp laws. Health Canada has run the same policy as MoH over the same time period, and its cost them $52 billion in lost revenues.
So why is NZ forced to pass up legal billion dollar revenues? Why is MoH obstructing hemp?
MoH could support kiwi farmers using this legal crop for the legal horticultural uses that are legally permitted by the United Nations, and our own legislation.
After all, we have a dozen legal hemp cultivars, all approved by the Director General of Health, and they can only be grown by legally licensed kiwi farmers. But MoH opposes farmers from using their legal crops.
The Hemp industry does not expect MoH to change until the public understands hemp. MoH is confusing and misleading us as to its health value. Vegetables are good for you, and hemp is a formidable vegetable. In China its a ‘strategic resource.’
Think about that. Its a ‘strategic resource’ that we can legally grow in New Zealand. But the Ministry of Health misinterprets and opposes its legal use?
Why is this?
It turns out Hemp is much safer, more useful, and more valuable than cannabis. It can improve our population health, and in doing so cause an estimated $500 billion dollar hit to pharmaceutical revenues.
The reason for this, is because human health depends on compounds also found in hemp.
Hemp is therefore an essential food. Because it contains essential elements of our bodies own health care system. Only 11% of doctors know about this system, and none of them know how to support it; because its diet based, and doctors don’t learn nutrition in medical school.
Nearly 100% of doctors surveyed in 2017-18 thought MoH should make dietary cannabis available to the public. (n=450)
Yet MoH stifles hemp instead. Forget about cannabis reform under MoH, they wont even enable already legal hemp products.
Who benefits? Big Pharma.
Why do MoHs ‘evidence based’ policies not make sense to actual experts in the field of hemp medicine, hemp food, and cannabis generally? The Hemp Foundation and the NZ Hemp Industry are the experts here.
Why is the biggest, in fact only real obstacle to the NZ hemp industry the Ministry of Health? But it really is just them.
Who benefits from us not making billions? Who benefits from us being unhealthier? Its unethical.
We should do something about it.
www.thehempfoundation.org.nz is a non profit organisation of doctors and professionals devoted to improving the health and wealth of all people through education. We have been approved to run NZs first clinical trials with cannabinoids, and have so far educated 500+ medical professionals in hemp medicine.
www.thehempfoundation.org.nz is a non profit dedicated to improving the health and wealth of all people through education. We have been approved to run NZs first human clinical trials with CBD in Northland DHB, and teach RNZCGPs Hemp Medicine (over 500 to date).
This may benefit me, who has been long suffering from; – now living with chemical poioisoning from a workplace accident in Toronto.
I have suffered from most of those ‘health issues’ described in your picture, so God erhaps I need to request to my doctor to prescribe this treatment now!!
I need to take some of thiis stuff to see if it does benefit me as I have never smoked cannabis ever since the isolated time when around 1969 during “the flower power” generation took us all over.
Hemp should grow well in many areas of NZ and become a cash crop for food, building materials and more.
The stupidity of not allowing the free growing of Hemp is encouraged by parties who have an interest in its restriction.
Comments are closed.