HemperFi

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that a Lakota familiy living on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation did indeed need a permit from the DEA to grow industrial hemp. The Court's reasoning falls along the common line of reasoning that hemp is not distinguished from marijuana in the US Code, and therefore it is one and the same...and therefore, the DEA must grant a permit to harvest or farm hemp.

What's unfortunate in this ruling is that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals had one very supportive judge...namely, Judge Beam. As previously reported in HemperFi, Judge Beam really let the DEA have it in a previous statement (regarding this case) calling the ban to grow hemp "assinine". This group of judges was probably hemp farming's best best in the U.S.

Althought the ruling was not in favor of the American Indians, it should be noted that the court certainly echoed a sympathetic tone. Per the rulling:

"We are not unmindful of the challenges faced by members of the Tribe to engage in sustainable farming on federal trust lands. It may be that the growing of hemp for industrial uses is the most viable agricultural commodity for that region. And we do not doubt that there are a countless number of beneficial products which utilize hemp in some fashion...But these are policy arguments better suited for the congressional hearing room than the courtroom."

The Pine Ridge Reservation is host to the poorest county in all of the United States. Given that there's little to lose, I suspect hat the Lakota Indians will continue their hemp protest next growing season.

Posted by M at 02:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

As promised, here is an analysis of election-year politics for the members of the California Senate's Public Safety Committee. They currently hold the fate of AB1147 in their hands:

1. Charles Poochigian (say it four times fast) is a Republican vice-chair of the committee, and he’s reached his term limit this year. Guess where he’s applying for a new job: He wants to be the next Attorney General! He’ll face a tough opponent in former governor and Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, now the grand old man of California politics. But would he want to take a risk in being called soft on drug crime by allowing the hemp bill to get to the Senate
floor?
2. There are two others up for reelection in November, Gil Cedillo and Gloria Romero (both districts in the Los Angeles area). Yes, these are both safe districts (over 50 percent Democratic registration), but they both also have to deal with 20 percent “Decline to State” voters, who can fall into the Republican column very easily over a single issue. Would the hemp bill really threaten these districts? Maybe not, but there’s an element of political risk for these two.
3. Two Democrats in the Assembly joined 28 Republicans in the “No” column. Both are from fairly conservative districts in the Central Valley and Orange County. Senate Democrats, if this bill ever makes it to the floor, will have to make sure they keep these defections to a minimum. If five Dems decide to vote with the other side, the bill is history.

The bottom line is this: The hemp bill might make all the sense in the world, and it could help California make hemp a viable, money-making crop someday. But without the right political conditions, bills like AB1147 will remain in political imbo. Keep an eye on this bill after November, when the election storm is over.

Posted by Josh at 06:41 AM | Permalink

So you might be wondering… how much longer is California’s AB1147 going to stew in the state Senate’s Public Safety Committee? It has been there since February waiting for action. This bill revises the definition of marijuana in the California Health and Safety Code to exclude industrial hemp — a small step, perhaps, but until industrial hemp gets in the books as a legal product, there will always be roadblocks to commerce.

No hearing date has been scheduled yet, and it’s unclear precisely why. But if you check the committee membership and the political context in 2006, you get the big picture (and it’s not a pretty one). It’s an election year: If you’re a senator worried about whether or not you’ll keep your cushy office in Sacramento this year, why take a risk in passing through a hemp bill that could give you bad press?

Check the history of AB1147, including who voted for and against, here. Next time: A member-by-member analysis of the committee and who might have an incentive to block the bill.

Posted by Josh at 11:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Had someone asked me earlier this year who would be the first state to put an industrial hemp licensing regime for farmers, North Dakota would not have been at the top of my list. For those not familiar with the American federal system, the fact that North Dakota has surged forward with state-based licensing should be viewed as a not-so-subtle challenge to the U.S. Code. Specifically, North Dakota legislators and the Agricultural Commissioner, Roger Johnson, are challenging the applicability of Title 21 USC Section 812 that makes marijuana illegal to industrial hemp (for more on this see this post in HemperFi). You can read the official press release here.

The missing ingredient in all this is Congress. At this point, Congress needs to step in and help draw a legally recognized distinction between industrial hemp and marijuana. I'm guessing, passing a quick and dirty statement published in the Federal Register (that clarifies the U.S. Code) would suffice...there's probably no need to pass a bill.

Once that occurs, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) would no longer have authority to block permit issuance by the states, given that industrial hemp would no longer be defined as a "drug".

I say, hats off to North Dakota! Agricultural Commissioner Roger Johnson, along with the state legislature, have laid down an important milestone for industrial hemp cultivation in the United States.

Posted by M at 07:12 AM | Permalink

The new Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industries, David Llewelly, indicated yesterday (April 13th) that he will work to change Tasmanian legislation to allow for hemp farming. According to (Australia's) ABC news, Llewelly is quoted as saying "I was not aware the hurdles in legislation here in Tasmania are now making it a little more difficult," he said. "We'll address that and sort it out." Sounds promising.

It turns out that the Deparment of Primary Industries has a well-informed horticulturalist on staff by the name Peter Simmul. Simmul has authored a number of industrial hemp articles/studies, including this 2003 informative study. In it, Simmul concludes:

Hemp fibre could be used as a sustainable substitute for imported wood kraft fibre for papermaking. With its food value yet to be fully realised, it could prove to be an ideal supplement for animals and humans. The oil is reported to have many uses with a favoured one being for use in skin conditioners. Until the scale of production increases significantly, and efficient machinery is employed in value adding systems, the economics of industrial hemp production and marketing in Tasmania will remain something of an unknown.

Two days ago, Simmul was quoted in ABC Rural news supporting hemp:

"I think it’s just one of those things where you’ve got a lot of competition on fibres, a lot of competition on food oils, and I think it's got to establish itself in the market place and be seen to be a worthy opponent in the competition field....There’s always a perception issue with these kind of things, some people would interpret it as being an undesirable thing because of the illicit components of it. But these crops are just so safe… there is no illicit component in them. The greater issue here is marketing and getting the confidence of people who are prepared to invest in it."

It's always refreshing to hear folks in government talking sense.

Posted by M at 09:30 PM | Permalink

James Woolsey, former U.S. CIA Director from 1993 to 1995, recently praised the virtues of hemp at an energy security conference where he fielded a question from the audience on industrial hemp. Reportedly, event organizers tried to sweep the "embarassing" question aside, but Woosley insisted on answering.

What came next surprised many, as Woolsey went into a lengthy commentary on hemp benefits and the folly of current U.S. anti-hemp policy. Woolsey, who often speaks on energy security, hilighted the potential of producing cellulolsic ethanol from hemp and drew attention to the potential disruptive nature legal hemp would have on illegal marijuana plots:

"If you wanted to hide marijuana in a field of industrial hemp, you'd have to be very high," Woolsey said. He explained that industrial hemp has a very low THC level compared to marijuana for recreational and medical use. (THC is the psychoactive component of marijuana.) So low is that level that placing the two plants together causes the recreational marijuana to lose its potency because of cross-pollination with the industrial version (check out the full post written by Kurt Kobb of Resource Insights)

Posted by M at 06:00 AM | Permalink

The Industrial Hemp movement has inspired Bolivian president Evo Morales to tout the coca plant as a commercially viable industrial crop. Running under the moniker of "Coca sí, Cocaína no", Morales and supporters have undertaken a successful marketing campaign espousing the virtues of the coca plant. Much like hemp, the coca plant can be used in everyday products such as shampoo, food, and cookies.

Seen by many as a champion for the poor, Evo Morales' humble beginnings make him an ideal spokesperson for poor coca farmers. His political saavy was honed during his years as an influential union leader in Bolivia's central coca-growing region. His poplularity has extended beyod Bolivia...Morales is fast becoming a rising interntaional star. He recently met Condolezza Rice and presented her with a miniature coca-leaf guitar:

("The gift was well received. We will just have to check with our customs to see what rules apply. We certainly hope we can bring it back (to Washington)," said a senior State Department official who attended the meeting.)

It should be noted that the U.S. and other countries have contributed some 700 million dollars to combatting coca cultivation and production in the central Bolivia. Much of this money was spent on eradication and the establishment of seemingly suitable alternative crops such as pineapples. These efforts have been an total disaster for Bolivian farmers..."the development projects failed when it became apparent that the region's remoteness makes shipping pineapples and bananas too expensive, and that prices for the crops can't compete with coca" writes Der Spiegel.

The industrial hemp movement has clearly set an example for Morales, the decriminilization of coca lobby, and coca production farmers. The issue is, that unlike hemp (which is genetically and chemically different from marijuana), coca is used for both legitimate products and illegal cocaine. This could spell a disaster for the drug war, given that Bolivia could soon become a huge exporter of legally grown coca leaf. I thought the U.S. DEA had it's hands full with the industrial hemp issue, but really it's a cakewalk compared to Bolivia's coca legalization campaign.

Posted by M at 03:00 PM | Permalink

For today's entry, I'm encouraging people to engage the lawmakers who are currently reviewing AB 1147 in the California Senate Public Safety Committee. AB 1147 legalizes the cultivation of industrial hemp for commercial purposes and it sets up an in-state permitting regime.

Elaine Alquist, Gil Cedillo, Bob Margett, Carole Migden, Don Perata, Charles Poochigian, Gloria Romero will soon decide the fate of AB 1147 and I'm sure that they would love to hear from industrial hemp supporters. You can reach all 8 simultaneously by dropping them a note through this web form. And yes, you can write them even if you don't live in the United States or in California.

Posted by M at 02:59 PM | Permalink

Three times, the Lakota Nation planted hemp only to have the DEA destroy their crop. In December, the 8th Circuit heard oral arguments made by lawyers defending the rights of the Lakota Nation. The specific issue at hand? Get the 8th Circuit to reverse a DEA-imposed injunction that disallows the Lakota Nation to grow industrial hemp.

As reported by the U.S. Newswire, the three panel judge focused on two areas:

(1) the irrationality of allowing the exempt parts of the plant to be imported into the U.S. but not allowing industrial hemp to be grown in the U.S. and (2) the lack of any rational permitting process by the DEA. While the Government's case was made, Judge Beam commented, "It seems asinine to me that they can bring in the Canadian stuff and use it but can't grow it." Beam also suggested that it did not make sense that Congress would try to make the economy of Native American tribes more enhanced by casino gambling but not allow industrial hemp cultivation.

With many States passing hemp legislation, the remaining stumbling block remains the lack of a DEA permitting process for legal hemp cultivation. The DEA claims that the current federal law does not distinguish between hemp and marijuana, therefore making a permitting process impractical (the lack of distinction in the U.S. Code has already been covered in HemperFi). Many believe that the DEA could create a permitting process without a change to the U.S. Code, although it's somewhat unclear. North Dakota's HCR3033, for example, certainly seems to suggest that Congress only needs to "acknowledge" (not legislate) industrial hemp cultivation as different from cannabis.

The 8th Circuit should be issuing their final decision in the coming months. Let's hope the comments of Judge Beam have had a lasting impact on the Court.

Posted by M at 06:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Two new words which we should all add to our vocabulary: MYCOHERBICIDE and FUSARIUM. Fusarium (a type of mycoherbicide or plant killing fungus) occurs naturally and threatens a broad range of crops, including bananas, maize, wheat and tomatoes. Fusarium varieties can be extremely toxic to humans, and therefore, is classified as a WMD in weaponized form. Fusarium and other Mycoherbicides have been used in the war against illegal crops such as cultivated marijuana and opium poppies.

Thanks to The Hemp Report, I recently learned that a bill requiring the further study of Mycoherbicide was just passed by the House of Representatives and is on it's way to the Senate as H.R.2829EH. Not leaving much to the imagination, the bill calls for a "scientific study of the use of mycoherbicide as a means of illicit drug crop elimination by an appropriate Government scientific research entity."

This is not a new idea. As reported by Dan Russell:

In 1999, Ag/Bio Con, Inc., a Montana-based USDA-connected company with an inside track to Defense Department financing, proposed using a cannabis-killing strain of Fusarium oxysporum in Florida....[eventually] the head of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, David B. Struhs, quashed the maniacal idea, pointing out that ... "Fusarium species are capable of evolving rapidly. Mutagenicity is by far the most disturbing factor in attempting to use a Fusarium species as a bioherbicide. It is difficult, if not impossible to control the spread of Fusarium species. The mutated fungi can cause disease in large numbers of crops, including tomatoes, peppers, flowers, corn and vines and are normally considered a threat to farmers as a pest, rather than as a pesticide..."

Ok, so Florida is out of the question...butwill the DEA turn actually try to use this stuff elsewhere in the U.S. as part of hemp eradication efforts? I sincerely hope not. I do know that the U.S. government has repeatedly lobbied Colombia to use Fusarium as part of coca eradication efforts. And if H.R.2829EH passes, Latin American countries can look forward to more strong arm tactics, given that the bill calls for a "plan to conduct controlled scientific testing in a major drug producing nation."

There are three other related stories on this that are worth reading:
Mycoherbicide Redux (Narco News), The Mystery of the Coca Plant That Wouldn't Die (Wired Magazine) and a recent editorial (which served as the inspiration for this posting) published in The Hemp Report.

Posted by M at 08:00 PM | Permalink

During WWII, farmers in the U.S. were encouraged to grow hemp for fibre to help in the war effort. Since then, Feral hemp or "Ditchweed" grows wild across the country. Although I'm sure many have tried, you will not get high from Ditchweed, given that it contains only trace amounts of THC. Since the 1970s, an annual sporting event, otherwise known as the Domestic Cannabis Eradication Suppression Program" (or "DCE/SP"), begins in early Summer. Typically, interns are coupled with (underutilized) police officers and embark on an epic summer experience. In the case of Indiana in 2001, it used it's share of the DEA funds to "employ a state trooper, a local farmer, and a crew of college students to patrol the fields of Nothwest Indiana." In 1998, the Vermont State Auditor reported that 99 percent of the plants "seized" as part of the DEA's nationwide eradication program were Ditchweed.

The program encourages participants to actively seek out Ditchweed along with illegally cultivated Cannabis. At the end of each year, the number or seized plants are dutifully reported by the participating states to the DEA. In Table 4.38 of the current DEA Sourcebook, it states that in 2003 some 243,430,664 Ditchweed plants were "seized", whereas in that same year 3,427,923 "cultivated" plants were seized. I'll do the math for you...that's a 1.39 percent success rate.

But wait, it gets even sillier...because a footnote next to "cultivated" caught my eye. The footnote reads: "May include tended ditchweed". In other words, let's say the DEA encroaches Native American lands and destroys fields of cultivated Ditchweed, then that counts too! I was unable to find the amount of money spent by the DEA on Domestic Cannabis Eradication Suppression Program in 2003, but in 2001 it spent 13 million dollars. Now isn't that silly?

Posted by M at 08:46 PM | Permalink

While you're blissfully munching on your next hemp bar, consider that since October 2001 some very determined Canadians and Americans have joined forces to combat the DEA's self declared ban on hemp seed and oil. I'm not going to take you through the grueling legal details, but one thing is for sure...the DEA frittered away bales of taxpayer dollars.

On February 24th, 2004 --after much legal wrangling-- the 9th Circuit Court fo Appeals issued an opinion which invalidated the original 2001 DEA interpretive rule. Then came the DEA appeals, which eventually culminated in the June 28th denial by the 9th Circuit for a rehearing. Besides the fact that the industry successfully joined forces with hemp activist groups, the cherry on the sundae was delivered in February of 2005 when the 9th Circuit forced the DEA to reimburse 21 thousand dollars of legal fees to Dr. Brommer's Soaps. The significance? The court can only force reimbursement of legal fees in cases where the claim was "not substantially justified". In other words, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals told the DEA they'd wasted everyone's time. Since the DEA was overruled, you'll be happy to know that the industry experienced a reported 65% rise in hemp bread, bars, and granola products between 2004 and 2005.

While all this was going on, TestPledge was created because the industry recognized that many people worried about false positive drug test results as a result of consuming hemp foods and products. TestPledge is not a watchdog or certifying organization, but it does require its producers and processors to: "commission THC tests on each and every lot of shelled hempseed and oil, performed by a properly accredited laboratory according to the official Health Canada protocol." Ah yes, we can now breathe a little easier.

Ok, enough for now...tune in to HemperFi later this week to read about a judge that recently deemed the DEA's hemp cultivation ban "asinine".

Posted by M at 10:21 PM | Permalink

If you didn't know, California and Vermont are currently spearheading industrial hemp legislative efforts. Before anyone gets too excited, pro-hemp state legislation is half the battle...getting the federal government (read DEA) to administer a licensing program is the real challenge. Why? The US Code does not distinguish between industrial, low-THC hemp and high-THC marijuana. In the US code (Title 21 USC Section 812) "Marihuana" is defined as a "Schedule I" drug, making it bedfellows with Cocaine and Heroin (although Marijuana is in a slighlty less severe subsection which acknoledges potential medical purposes).

Here's the three-pronged approach states have taken to date:

1. Resolutions urging the President and the U.S. Congress to redefine marijuana vs. hemp. A great example is North Dakota's HCR 3033.
2. State laws legalizating hemp cultivation for research purposes. A good example is Kentucky's House Bill, HB100.
3. State laws legalizing commercial hemp cultivation. California's recent Assembly Bill 1147 is the most recent example. Vermont's Industrial Hemp bill also attempts to establish a commercial hemp industry.

It's important to note that Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana and West Virginia already have pro-hemp laws on the books. However, only West Virginia and Montana laws allow full-scale commercial hemp farming. If California and Vermont's efforts succeed, there will be a total of four.

A great site with current status on the U.S. state-by-state legislative efforst is Vote Hemp.

Posted by M at 12:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)