A Lost History Uncovered

by Kelly Rippel

Bleeding Kansas Advocates, Advisor

Kansans for Hemp, Co-Founder



How This Came To Be — A Personal Journey

Born in Topeka, Kansas in 1986, my upbringing included many of the stereotypical Bible Belt attributes, like Christian, fiscally conservative influences along with lessons of persistence and the resiliency of togetherness through adversity. My generation was taught to always be scientists at heart, master technologies for good, and question the status quo for both public health equity and environmental justice. In fact, the aspect of beginning and ending with scientific inquiry is this work’s underlying theme. I attended elementary and middle school during the Reagan Era, and after days when we had D.A.R.E., the topic of ‘marijuana’ came up at home by design. Through the program, my fellow classmates and I were all made to be curious about substances and the truth, even more so than children generally are about subjects pertaining to adults. Looking back now, I understand it was positive development, empowering activities that prevented me from trying certain risky behaviors versus the common fear-based, abstinence-only tactics.

My father, who received a biology degree at Kansas State University before working in the medical field, told me what he knew about cannabis: while earning his degree during the 1970s, he participated in a research project studying eradication methods of hemp in Riley County. As a young student who was learning in school that regenerative agriculture and renewable energy are how the world must save itself from demise, it seemed questionable and problematic that anyone would put forth so much effort to kill a plant that grows naturally — especially in a predominantly agricultural state. I quickly became curious about understanding all areas of humanity’s relationship with the diverse plant and have been intrigued ever since.

Before and after graduating from Emporia State University in 2009 I was fortunate to travel to multiple cannabis legalized countries and states, creating a network of compassionate and dedicated contacts in the cannabis and hemp industries. I was eventually asked to help Bleeding Kansas Advocates develop the latest version of the Kansas Safe Access Act (SB187), allowing patients access to medical cannabis through protected administration from a licensed medical professional. This bill was vetted by the Kansas Health Institute for meeting its 2015 health impact assessment requirements, and was approved by the Foundation of Cannabis Unified Standards (FOCUS) for its comprehensive sustainability, non-profit and quality measures. I also co-founded Kansans for Hemp working to pass legislation (HB2182) to re-introduce industrial hemp for Kansas farmers, support sustainable agriculture, and encourage an economic revival in rural communities.

My vision in highlighting this research and related information is to acknowledge the historical importance industrial hemp played in the economic viability of Kansas agriculture. For decades Kansas was a large contributor to the hemp industry, and even ranked first in bushels per acre in 1863. By understanding and sharing this information, our call to action is to collectively accept the response of prohibiting cannabis was a damaging path to go down that must be reversed for multiple reasons. The discovery of this data provides us a place to begin transparently addressing what influences caused policies to change. Based on this historical evidence we have a foundation for understanding what path we now must forge to guide optimally-informed, responsible decisions for the common good of the environment and all citizens. Through evaluating and applying the lessons from this research combined with today’s advancements, it is time Kansas contributes to the multiple industries that now benefit from its cultivation. Given the dozens of patents existing specifically for cannabinoid-based medicine, it is time to move past the hypocrisy and stigma about the data proving efficacy of medicinal cannabis for patients. And finally, it is imperative to return industrial hemp to Kansas farmers as the legacy crop our fertile land once yielded.

We need to accept the fact that reality is not limited to the perceptions we have traditionally used.
- Paul Stamets, American mycologist & author


A. Background on Discovery

I. A History of Cannabis & Hemp in the US: Then to Now

II. The Revealing of Three Studies & Obtaining Full-Texts

B. What the Data Show

I. Longevity, Germination, and Emergence of Wild Hemp (Cannabis Sativa L.) — 1972

II. Identifying and Controlling Wild Hemp (Marijuana) — 1973

III. Seasonal Fluctuations in Cannabinoid Content of Kansas Marijuana — 1975

C. Implications of Findings

I. Results and Biases

II. Sources Citing the Works

III. Conflicts of Interest

D. Conclusion

I. What We Can Do Moving Forward

II. Publications Referencing (or *Excluding) Cannabis or Hemp in Kansas

A-I. A History of Cannabis & Hemp in the US: Then to Now


A-II. The Revealing of Three Studies & Obtaining Full-Texts

Having already extensively researched the human anatomy’s symbiotic evolution with the endocannabinoid system (ECS), the processes of cultivation and manufacturing, and the beneficial roles cannabis/hemp played in our ancestors’ lives; on September 12, 2017 I discovered three publications from Kansas State University, including the specific study in which my father was a participant.

While citations do exist on the internet, full versions were unfortunately unattainable without going through institutional paywalls requiring login information. A few days later, I drove the hour from Topeka to Manhattan, Kansas, where I visited Hale Library on the KSU campus. I asked for the help of two different student aides before needing to inquire the managing librarian for his assistance. He happily logged into the library system as I explained what I was looking for and why. We did finally get an extended copy of the fluctuations project, but he was unable to obtain a full version of the eradication study my father had told me about. Disappointed, the helpful librarian gave me the name of an archivist at the K-State Agricultural Experiment Station. I emailed the archivist the following day, and she graciously contacted four individuals throughout the university. Within a couple weeks I had one of the only (if not the first) digitized copies of “Identifying and Controlling Wild Hemp (Marijuana.)” In the following days, I was excited to retrieve the related master’s thesis and began analyzing the data in its entirety.

Throughout this investigative process, the insights provided have been shared with and confirmed by multiple individuals including local and national medical professionals, doctorate-holding researchers, cannabinoid scientists, and investigative journalists. To protect their identity against potential ramifications of any kind, the confidentiality of all advisors is respected. However, in the spirit of transparency and open-access data driving evidence-based policy, it is of utmost importance this information be disseminated to assist in the educating and building of communities, sustainable partnerships, and especially in improving our relationships with medical providers, lawmakers, and law enforcement. Using an open mind and looking at the evidence from a broader context, this can be our ebenezer — our turning point in a new and enlightened direction.

B-I. Longevity, Germination, and Emergence of Wild Hemp (Cannabis Sativa L.)[1]–1972

Due to the terms of agreement of JSTOR and limitations with republishing entire documents, the following are excerpts from the three studies in question. To obtain full-text versions please email the contact information provided or submit an open records request with Kansas State University.

The master’s thesis began by stating that cannabis/hemp, “is an introduced species that escaped from cultivation and became a common weed in the North Central United States.” This however, is a common example of bias towards industries that have lobbied to keep it illegal, because historically it had been of useful cultivation since the settlers arrived in America during the 17th century. In the conclusion it was also said, “Subsequent studies should investigate natural succession in wild hemp infestations.” This type of language was only reflective of what the competing, exclusive interests of synthetic fiber, wood paper, and chemical industries wanted to categorize the plant as: a weed-causing infestation that had to be killed since it would decrease their profits. It was through these efforts to influence contextual framing of phrases and academic research (which drives policy) that solidified the monopolies we are now seeing challenged on a global basis.

A particular finding was testimony to the plant’s true nature of resilience and adaptability: “Soil type had no significant effect on seedling establishment…High, low, and natural diurnal temperatures had no significant effect on longevity of wild hemp seed stored for 15 months.” However, one of the most important and telling of all conclusions is described in this excerpt:

“Two different approaches to wild hemp control are indicated. One approach is destruction of seedlings from surface seeds, without disturbance of the soil profile for two successive years. Another approach is inversion of the soil profile by deep plowing…The first approach is probably the more feasible for wild hemp control and would include such treatments as herbicides (sprays and granules), mowing, and flaming.”

What this summary provided was a false dichotomy in the form of an ultimatum. It was said that a farmer could practice deep plowing, which we know is not economically efficient nor is it conducive to ensuring soil health and proper nutrients. The other option was a farmer could use tons of chemicals “without disturbance of the soil profile.” Unfortunately, as we see in best practice models today neither are considered good for soil fertility or the ecosystems that rely on it. Not only do constant herbicide, pesticide, and insecticide applications harm farmers’ pocket books, we know it’s destroying the very precious resources we depend on to provide us with food and water. No-till, never-till, and ways of increasing biodiversity are now coming back into popularity, because we are realizing the conventional ways of farming that were accepted in decades past are no longer sustainable. We know industrial hemp grows well here and uses fewer resources compared to other crops. It promotes ways of farming that are desperately needed back in Kansas after generations of depletion of water sources for irrigation, while our soil needs remediation from the damage of conventional farming practices.

B-II. Identifying and Controlling Wild Hemp (Marijuana)[2] –1973

The below excerpt from the study’s introduction is a perfect example of the misunderstandings during the 1970s regarding scientific and perceived differences between industrial hemp and higher-THC, medicinal cannabis. At that time there was not enough evidence to back up multiple claims deriving from discrimination against minority populations, so there began a push to group all varieties of cannabis into the same category and make it all illegal. Researchers knew and acknowledged at that time hemp was not high in potency, yet they needn’t bothered attempting to ask deeper questions or understand why differences exist and what caused them in the first place. The overall assumption that making a plant illegal would decrease its use has also been proven inaccurate as a total of at least 33 states now have some form of either hemp or medicinal cannabis regulation in place.

“Marijuana, the drug derived from wild hemp, is considered dangerous by the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Possession, use, sale, or cultivation of this plant or its derivatives is unlawful. Despite its low potency, wild hemp in the midwestern United States is harvested illegally to such an extent that it is almost impossible to prevent it from being a source of illegal drugs. Controlling wild hemp should reduce its illegal use and would reduce trespassing by persons searching for it. To be successful in a global war against drug abuse, it is essential to eliminate domestic sources of illicit drugs.”

The study documented various methods of eradicating “wild hemp” including the use of harmful chemicals that have been known to cause cancer and fertility complications such as 2,4-D. This work would be incomplete to exclude the severity of consequences mentioned, as downplayed as the devastation was:

Granular herbicides precautions:

  • Apply only to noncropland.
  • Do not apply when herbicides will be absorbed by roots of nearby desirable plants.
  • Do not apply where runoff or erosion from treated areas will damage desirable plants.
  • Do not contaminate water supplies, food, or feed.
  • Read and carefully follow all directions, warnings, and precautions on the label.

Precautions to prevent spray drift and volatility:

  • Spray when air is calm or wind is blowing only lightly.
  • Use low boom pressure and course sprays.
  • Do not apply ester foundations when air temperature exceeds 80 degrees F.
  • Do not apply 2–4-D near susceptible crops, gardens, ornamental flowers, or shrubs.
  • Follow all directions, warnings.

In a drastic contrast to the rest of the publication this statement was found on the final page, “Birds and small animals frequently use wild hemp and associated plants for food and cover. Such annual weeds provide cover adjacent to crop fields during the winter and early spring, and thus enable wildlife to use waste grain.” Taking into account the decrease in quail population observed over time and the research conducted just a few years earlier during the 1960s[13] documenting the importance of hemp seed to diets of quail in Kansas, it is clear once a reintroduction of hemp occurs an increase in wildlife diversity will soon follow.

B-III. Seasonal Fluctuations in Cannabinoid Content of Kansas Marijuana [3]–1975

C-I. Results and Biases

There is undoubtedly valuable data in the three publications of inquiry (such as the geographic variations of growing patterns, statistics on depth of germination, longevity, and emergence of seeds, etc.), yet the hypothesized conclusions and overall tone of biased language were ultimately problematic and damaging. They helped shape the “war on drugs,” which saw millions of predominantly minority citizens incarcerated by the U.S. and state governments, in addition to the use of taxpayer dollars to enter farmers’ lands all to eradicate a plant. This coupled with the number of times these works were cited in other studies, it can be argued the risks of such academic-industry influences were neither managed nor contained, but instead intensified and expanded.

While helping with the 1975 study titled “Seasonal Fluctuations in Cannabinoid Content of Kansas Marijuana,” my father was under the impression (and has been since 1975) that it was strictly objective and agriculturally-driven. When looking closer, the works exclusively benefit competing industries as they were funded by the corporations Elanco Production and Eli Lilly, and the authors gave acknowledgements to the Marijuana Control Steering Committee, dealt with chemical, wood paper, and synthetic fiber manufacturers, plus the text originated from, and gave reference to, medical/pharmaceutical research.

“Marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.), which produces hallucinogenic compounds, has long interested man, and in recent years its use has been associated with drug abuse (1,5). Delta-9-THC, the major hallucinogen in marijuana, was first synthesized in vitro in 1964 (9). Despite legal bans, marijuana use has increased sharply in the United States, prompting users to exploit domestic supplies; increased illicit collection in the midwestern states reflects that trend.”

The authors chose to open the study with the following negatively-biased statements, and established a fundamental justification for the research on an “abuser is bad” philosophy and that cannabis/hemp was a nuisance. Today we know that the individual cannabinoid Delta-9-THC is scientifically not considered a “hallucinogen,” but also the beneficial properties of the plant have proven to far outweigh any negative characteristics. In hindsight, as opposed to addressing a perceived problem and fear of individuals going onto farmers’ lands to find “marijuana” and selling it illegally, it may have been more helpful to address the root causes of why there was a sharp increase in cannabis use despite legal bans. The researchers needed to look no further than their own reference from Dr. Mechoulam who helped discover each mammal has an internal endocannabinoid system. The ECS contains receptors throughout the body and all humans have inherited genetic traits that drive us to seek its modification, phytocannabinoids being one of those methods.

“Increased use encouraged research on the potency and genetic background of midwestern marijuana, but as yet we do not know whether cannabinoid production is controlled genetically or by environmental factors.”

Knowing that cannabis and humans have evolved over thousands of years synergistically, it makes sense that we are not exclusively influenced by our genetic traits — people are both a product of our genetic makeup and the world around us. Scientists have figured out that Nature vs Nurture is more of a both/and instead of a strictly-defined either/or. Cannabis and hemp are no different. By acknowledging these scientific facts we can eliminate the emotional fear that the plants have proven to be anything but familiar friends to humanity.

A final and crucial finding is in the last two sentences of the study, and happens to be one of the most explicit demonstrations of conflicting evidence that argues against eradication of industrial hemp in Kansas. The statement admits the varieties of cannabis that grow throughout the state are not only low in “potency,” but do not fluctuate in cannabinoid content; which means authorities knew at the time of its publication there was not an objective or scientific justification to eradicate hemp based on the sole argument that it was thought to be a drug (Governor’s Committee on Criminal Administration Bulletin [Volume 1, no. 1, August 1970].) This helped give rise to the notion that the plant was simply a nuisance to farmers, when in retrospect, it was the influencers who considered cannabis as such. This explains why it was sought out to study most effective methods of eradicating its existence. However, just as we see in the persistence of nature, the plant (and its admirers) will live on until time’s end.

“Marijuana growing wild in Kansas is low in potency. Midwestern marijuana, descended from varieties cultivated for fiber and cannabinoid level, apparently has remained unchanged by natural selection.”

Clearly an increase in education and understanding was needed (and in many ways still is) on behalf of institutions of higher education, law enforcement, and the public at large; because as we now know, industrial hemp and higher-THC medicinal cannabis are completely different. Cannabis cultivated for medicinal purposes cannot be grown near industrial hemp, as cross-pollination is proven to always decrease its potency. The variations between fiber and ‘drug’ types come in many forms, ranging from physical appearance and time of harvest, all the way to potency and expression of genetic traits (see resource links below and section E-I for more information). Taking into account the lack of advancements during the early years of cannabis research and the biases explored above, perhaps we can rediscover the importance of the scientific method. Together we have the collective power to identify and acknowledge inconsistencies we find, and decrease suppression of information (whether intentional or otherwise) that has not driven beneficial policies for our citizens.

Additional Resources

C-II. Sources Citing the Works

The below screenshots are search engine results from looking up each publication called into question. The total number of citations by other sources is not explored in depth due to time barriers. This means the full extent of their impact is potentially more widespread than anticipated.

C-III. Conflicts of Interest

The Office of Research Integrity within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that an ‘interest’ may be defined “as a commitment, goal, or value held by an individual or an institution.” Examples include research projects completed to gain status or recognition, or to protect a certain ecosystem. Interests can be pursued and agreed upon in social settings. “A conflict of interest exists when two or more contradictory interests relate to an activity by an individual or an institution. The conflict lies in the situation, not in any behavior or lack of behavior of the individual.”

The question of research integrity comes into question when considering a university’s financial gain and/or reporting of certain research findings. As for consequences, when an individual conflict of interest exists,”independent of the behavior of the investigator, those knowledgeable about the study must take the conflict of interest into account when judging the validity of the study.”

At the University of California, San Francisco it is stated that “federal regulations, state laws and University policies recognize researchers may have financial interests in research sponsors and/or in entities with business interests closely related to their research.”

“The terms ‘conflict of interest in research’ refers to situations in which financial or other personal considerations may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising a researcher’s professional judgment in conducting or reporting research.” Studies of industry sponsorship often “reveal profound influence over study design, analysis and interpretation of data (bias). They also engage in suppression of results (negative, AEs).” Conflicts of interest promote secrecy among researchers through practices such as “negotiating confidentiality clauses in contracts, and sometimes results are made public while bypassing the peer review system.”

According to Columbia University, it is clear that conflicts of interest will not go away. “Intangible and tangible conflicts of interest will always exist. Financial conflicts of interest will inevitably become more complex and involved. Devising new strategies to manage, reduce, or eliminate conflicts of interest will be an ongoing challenge.“

“Most conflicts of interest created by academic-industry relationships are real, consequential, but tolerable, so long as they are managed to contain their risks while preserving their benefits. We must be vigilant against conflicts of interest that lead to bias and loss of objectivity. The enterprise of research depends on it.”

D-I. What We Can Do Moving Forward

By understanding assumptions of the past, we can make better decisions for our future. This constant evaluative process is paramount to scientific inquiry, which is never a one-sided story and then immediately over. Advancements in technology, cannabis science, and evidence-based methods are evolving every day. Therefore, it is up to all citizens — professional researchers and lay people — to demand ethical, neutral practices that ensure transparency in data. Through embracing modern science to reduce harm, benefit public health and our environment, we carry the responsibility to right the wrongs of the past and limit unfounded restrictions that hinder prosperity among all populations.

To Answer a Question of Most Importance

  • Why do U.S. laws contain restrictions on a specific plant compound like THC?

“Right from the start, the federal government assumed that resin content was the key factor that distinguished ‘marijuana’ from industrial hemp. Today, however, federal law includes a recently added caveat that officially characterizes industrial hemp as having no more than 0.3 percent THC by dry weight. Such a tiny amount of THC would not have a euphoric (or dysphoric) effect.

“Where did the 0.3 percent THC figure come from? It stems from a 1976 taxonomic report by Canadian plant scientists Ernest Small and Arthur Cronquist, who never intended for 0.3 percent THC to function as a legal demarcation between hemp and other forms of cannabis.”


  • This excerpt is directly from the above 1976 Canadian taxonomic report conclusions and outlines the study’s limitations and funding sources:

A Practical and Natural Taxonomy for Cannabis Ernest Small and Arthur Cronquist Taxon Vol. 25, №4 (Aug., 1976), pp. 405–435 — https://www.jstor.org/stable/1220524?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Reference to the Kansas State University study, ‘Seasonal Fluctuations in Cannabinoid Content of Kansas Marijuana’

  • In contrast to the suggested rigidity from the 1976 taxonomic report, a publication from the 2011 HHS Public Access database determined the plant’s lack of uniformity must continue to be studied: “Research on the consequences of the THC:CBD ratio should continue, especially as more attention is devoted to thinking about how to regulate marijuana for medical and recreational use. Researchers should also consider the lack of uniformity in the chemical composition of marijuana when evaluating its health effects.”

Heterogeneity in the Composition of Marijuana Seized in Californiahttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118261/

Moving Towards Answers Through Scientific Advancement

“There were two variants of the THCA synthase gene in the ‘drug-type’ and ‘fiber-type’ cannabis plants, respectively…Furthermore, we identified a specific PCR marker for the THCA synthase gene for the ‘drug-type’ strains. This PCR marker was not detected in the ‘fiber-type’ strains.”

DNA polymorphisms in the tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) synthase gene in “drug-type” and “fiber-type” Cannabis sativa L.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16143478

  • Despite the study’s claim, “As a result of this first part of the research on the THCA synthase gene (the second part will cover a study of gene expression), we found no correlation between THCA synthase gene copy number and the content of THC in the herbal Cannabis samples tested” — not only is it admittedly an incomplete study, but the limitations were spelled out clearly and involved: Using a specific method only allowing for 3 variants, comparing samples from the illegal market and limited experimental cultivation as opposed to controlling for indoor vs outdoor environments of fiber compared to medicinal plants. The basis of this study’s conclusion is argued as inaccurate according to the next research example which used more comprehensive methods.

A real-time PCR assay for the relative quantification of the tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) synthase gene in herbal Cannabis sampleshttp://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(11)00529-9/fulltext

  • “Samples were obtained from an experimental cultivation of declared potency Cannabis variety seeds and from seizures. The Rubisco gene and the 26S ribosomal RNA gene were used as internal control genes for their constant expression and stability. Further, grouping results for cannabis samples with similar characteristics, we have found an increased relative expression in samples with the highest percentage of THC coming from seized sample and adult plants.”

Analysis of THCA synthase gene expression in cannabis: a preliminary study by real-time quantitative PCR.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890639

Easily Identifying Plant Types Today

  • Examining the THC and THCA levels weekly, De Backer declared that drug-type cannabis varieties can be established in seedlings as young as three weeks post-germination, corresponding to the third or fourth leaf stage.

For two of the plant sets, the concentrations of CBD and CBDA were below the detection limit and only a small amount of CBDA was measured in the third set at the end of the reproductive stage of growth. The researchers agreed with reported conclusions that no plants grown for their high THC content will have THC+THCA/CBD+CBDA ratios typical of the hemp form of cannabis.

So, although the THC+THCA/CBD+CBDA ratio could not be measured in most cases due to the low CBD+CBDA levels, the absolute amounts of THC+THCA were sufficient for classification.

This simple method will be suitable for establishing the identity of drug-type cannabis in seized plants as young as three weeks old. Conversely, it could also be used to establish the legality of the hemp types for growers in countries where hemp cultivation is permitted.”

D-II. Publications Referencing (or *Excluding) Cannabis in Kansas

While this list is not exhaustive, it represents a subsection of the different types of reports and data available on the topics of hemp and cannabis in Kansas dating back to the 1800s. The three main studies of inquiry are mentioned in Section C.

  1. Longevity, Germination, and Emergence of Wild Hemp, (Cannabis sativa L.) by. Jimmie Lee Tuma. B.S. Kansas State University, 1970.
  2. Eaton, B. J., Hartowicz, L. E., Latta, R. P., Knutson, H., Paulsen, A. and Esbaugh, E. 1972. Controlling wild hemp. Report of Progress 188. Agricultural Experiment Station, Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied Science, Manhattan, KS. 10 pp.
  3. Latta, R.P. & Eaton, B.J. Econ Bot (1975) 29: 153. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02863315
  4. Kansas Agriculture: Annual Report, Volume 5 by Kansas State Board of Agriculture, 1876. https://books.google.com/books?id=WXZRAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=kansas%20agriculture%20hemp%20(broadcast)&source=bl&ots=bbzut0GDSV&sig=bzzKVqkrKWgXMuh0Ax96R03gDjo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPwK3ynLDWAhUU1WMKHVUiBssQ6AEIODAJ#v=onepage&q=kansas%20agriculture%20hemp%20(broadcast)&f=false
  5. The Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra stricklandi) in Kansas by L. L. Dyche, The Auk, Vol. 3, №2 (Apr., 1886), pp. 258–261.
  6. The Hemp Industry in the United States by Lyster H. Dewey, Bureau of Plant Industry, 1901.
  7. Importation of Sisal and Manila Hemp, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 1916.
  8. The History of Early Agricultural Societies in Kansas by Carol Lee Owsley, Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Sciences, 1932.
  9. A Summer Hay Fever Plant Survey of Manhattan, Kansas by Elsa Horn, Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, Vol. 36 (Apr. 13–15, 1933), pp. 91–97.
  10. *Synthetic Fiber and Textiles from Kansas State Printing Plant, 1942.
  11. Agricultural Research at Kansas State Agricultural College (KSU) Before Enactment of the Hatch Act (1887) by Leland E. Call, October 1961.
  12. Some Water Molds from Kansas by C. Rajagopalan, Kansas Academy of Science, Vol. 66, №1 (Spring, 1963), pp. 113–123.
  13. Food Habits, Weight Dynamics, and Fat Content of Bobwhites in Relation to Food Plantings in Kansas by Robert J. Robel, The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 33, №2 (Apr., 1969), pp. 237–249.
  14. Kansas Legislature, Summary of Legislation, S.B. 85 Amending K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 65–4101, 1975.

15. Some Insects Associated with Hemp or Marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.) in Northern India by S. W. T. Batra, Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, Vol. 49, №3 (Jul., 1976), pp. 385–388.

16. Governor’s Committee on Criminal Administration Bulletin [Volume 1, no. 1, August 1970] — http://cdm16884.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16884coll3/id/413/rec/1

17. An Annotated List of the Vascular Flora of Konza Prairie Research Natural Area, Kansas by Craig C. Freeman and Lloyd C. Hulbert, Kansas Academy of Science, Vol. 88, №3/4 (Oct., 1985), pp. 84–115.

On a journey to document and explore communication, public health & regenerative, equitable, evidence-based policy. Twitter: @k_ripTopCity @Greenthumb_one