WASHINGTON, DC — Vote Hemp, the nation’s leading industrial hemp advocacy organization, recognizes that the American news media strives to provide accurate information to their readers and viewers. In recent years there have been an increasing number of news reports about hemp farming legislation and the activities of industrial hemp advocates at the local and federal level. On average, the facts presented on industrial hemp are accurate; however, silly pot humor still manages to creep into some of the coverage.

Confusion between non-drug, industrial hemp varieties and psychoactive, drug varieties of Cannabis is fueled by these easy pot shots, ultimately aiding the myth that hemp and marijuana are the same. The DEA’s justification for threatening prosecution against anyone who grows the non-drug industrial hemp is that there is no distinction under federal law. Just saying that hemp is not marijuana is not enough to save a story. The media should take extra effort to provide straight, fact-based news coverage of industrial hemp legislation, lawsuits and grassroots campaigns that seek to bring the U.S. in line with the rest of the industrialized world that already grows hemp.

“We at Vote Hemp are tired of seeing TV news personalities giggle and act stoned when talking about industrial hemp,” says Eric Steenstra, co-founder of VoteHemp.com. “You can’t get high eating or talking about hemp, so don’t act stoned,” he adds in reference to giggling by hosts on NBC’s TODAY Show earlier this year. “It’s time to get past the giggle-factor. Legitimate news organizations have an obligation to treat industrial hemp as the serious issue it is and to not confuse it with drugs.”

“We constantly have to correct misstatements about the relationship between industrial hemp and marijuana,” says Alexis Baden-Mayer, director of Government Affairs for Vote Hemp. “The most recent offence was in Mike Luery’s July 11 report on San Francisco’s NBC Channel 11 which was laced with bad puns tainting any hope of serious coverage.”

Luery begins by saying that Cannabis can be used by farmers to make not only industrial hemp, but also marijuana. This is the equivalent of saying, “Canis lupus can be used by breeders to create not only chihuahuas, but also wolves.” Luery just isn’t making sense. Industrial hemp and marijuana are genetically distinct varieties, or sub-species, of the genus Cannabis. They each have been bred over thousands of years for very different characteristics. Like dogs and wolves, two kinds of Canis lupus, different sub-species of Cannabis can interbreed, but you would not mistake one for the other. More information is available here.

Chemically and genetically, marijuana and industrial hemp are opposites: marijuana has a lot of THC and very little CBD, both cannabinoids, while industrial hemp has a lot of CBD and almost no THC. THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) is the psychoactive component that gives marijuana users a high, while CBD (cannabidiol) effectively blocks THC’s psychoactive punch. This means that if you try smoking industrial hemp, all you’ll get is a bad headache.

Luery relishes using his favorite puns from the marijuana joke book to color the debate. For example, opponents’ arguments “went up in smoke,” and Chuck DeVore is the bill’s “self-proclaimed joint author.” The amazing thing is that — despite this kind of reporting — most California voters are aware of the truth about industrial hemp and don’t buy into the drug storyline. In fact, Vote Hemp’s recent Zogby poll showed that 71% of Californians support changing state law to allow hemp farming. See the news clip at: http://video.nbc11.com/player/?id=127962

“The story that should be told is that in the past six months new hemp products like Hemp Milk have been a huge success,” says Steenstra. “California companies lead the nation in manufacturing hemp products such as soap and snack bars. Meanwhile, AB 684, a bill in the California legislature to allow industrial hemp farming, is likely to succeed, and North Dakota farmers with state-issued hemp farming licenses have recently filed a landmark lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).”

In June, two North Dakota farmers filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota in an effort to end the DEA’s obstruction of commercial hemp farming in the United States. If successful, the legal action would result in licensed hemp farmers receiving assurances that no federal agency could hold them criminally liable under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Vote Hemp’s grassroots supporters are funding the legal action. A copy of the complaint is available here.

Last year, just over 48,000 acres of hemp were grown in Canada, primarily in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, provinces that border North Dakota. Hemp farmers in Canada averaged $250 CDN per acre in profit in 2006, according to the Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance (CHTA), an association of businesses, farmers and researchers. Hemp currently has a better profit outlook than any other crop in Canada.

Hemp is a good rotational crop, with the ability to reduce weeds in future cereal crops. Very few chemicals, if any, are required to grow the crop which is considered a good alternative to those with harmful environmental impacts such as cotton, tobacco and soy.

In the largest hemp-producing country, China, which grows 2 million acres annually, hemp hurds are processed into lightweight boards, and hemp fibers, already used in the paper and automotive industries, are finding new uses as reinforcement in plastics for products such as window frames and floor coverings. (In fact, some of these innovative products will be used on a large scale at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, according to news reports.) In Sweden, companies including IKEA, Volvo and Saab have shown interest in hemp fibers and hurds for use in vehicle interiors and furniture. In the UK, Germany and the Netherlands, considerable investments are being made by governments and private businesses to utilize hemp fiber in composites that are used to manufacture auto parts for BMW, Chrysler, Ford and Mercedes. In Canada, Germany and Japan, businesses are investigating reinforcing Polylactide (PLA) plastic with hemp fibers in order to widen the technology’s field of applications.

# # #

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

BISMARCK, ND — Two North Dakota farmers filed a lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota in an effort to end the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) obstruction of commercial hemp farming in the United States. If successful, the legal action would result in licensed hemp farmers receiving assurances that no federal agency could hold them criminally liable under the Controlled Substances Act. Vote Hemp’s grassroots supporters are funding the legal action. A copy of the complaint is available online.

The farmers – State Rep. David Monson from Osnabrock and Wayne Hauge from Ray – were issued their state licenses to grow industrial hemp from North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson in February 2007. At that time the farmers applied for a DEA permit to grow industrial hemp and import live seed. Over the next few months, however, the agency’s inaction on the applications fueled frustration in North Dakota’s legislature. When lawmakers concluded that DEA had no intention of working cooperatively with the state’s first-in-the-nation hemp farming rules, the North Dakota legislature voted overwhelmingly to drop the DEA licensing requirement from the statute.

“I applied for my North Dakota state license in January and was hopeful that DEA would act quickly and affirm my right to plant industrial hemp this year. Unfortunately, DEA has not responded in any way other than to state that it would take them a lot more time than the window of time I have to import seed and plant the crop,” said Rep. David Monson, who is the Assistant Majority (Republican) Leader. “It appears that DEA really doesn’t want to work with anyone to resolve the issue,” Monson added.

One of the central arguments in the litigation is that industrial hemp is defined to be those varieties of Cannabis that have no drug value and are cultivated exclusively for fiber and seed. Although useless as a drug crop, industrial hemp plants are distinct varieties of Cannabis sativa L., the same species from which marijuana varieties come. DEA considers industrial hemp plants to be “marihuana,” a controlled substance under Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq., the possession or production of which is subject to severe criminal penalties under that law, including property forfeiture.

“We are asking that DEA to do nothing, exactly what they have done for ten years,” says Tim Purdon one of the attorneys working for Monson and Hauge. “North Dakota’s rules no longer require a DEA permit so we are basically asking the court to tell DEA to leave our farmers alone.”

The express language of the CSA has specifically provided that hemp fiber, seed oil and seed incapable of germination are exempt from the definition of “marihuana” and are thus not controlled substances under that law. By virtue of this exemption, it is currently lawful under federal law – and has been for almost 70 years – to import into the U.S., sell within the U.S., and make and sell products made from, the excluded parts of the Cannabis plant (i.e., hemp fiber, stalk, seed oil and seed incapable of germination).

The farmers seek a declaration that the CSA does not apply to the industrial hemp plants they seek to cultivate pursuant to state law because: (1) only hemp fiber, stalk, sterilized seed and seed oil, items expressly exempted from the CSA, will enter the marketplace; and (2) the industrial hemp to be grown will be useless as a drug crop due to North Dakota legal requirements for extremely low THC levels. Further, to the extent the DEA attempts to argue that, despite these facts, the CSA does apply to hemp farming under North Dakota law, this would be an unconstitutional federal restraint on commerce occurring purely within the borders of North Dakota.

“I want to grow hemp because it will fill a niche market in numerous areas,” says fourth generation farmer and certified public accountant Wayne Hauge. “In recent years there has been strong growth in demand for hemp seeds in the U.S., but the American farmer is being left out while Canadian, European and Chinese farmers are filling the void created by our outdated federal policy.”

Last year, just over 48,000 acres of hemp were grown in Canada, primarily in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, provinces that border North Dakota. Hemp farmers in Canada averaged $250 CDN per acre in profit in 2006, according to the Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance, an association of businesses, farmers and researchers.

Hemp is a good rotational crop with the ability to reduce weeds in future cereal crops. Very few chemicals, if any, are required to grow the crop which is considered a good alternative to those with harmful environmental impacts such as cotton, tobacco and soy.

In the largest hemp producing country, China, which grows 2 million acres, hemp hurds are processed into lightweight boards, and hemp fibers, already used in the paper and automotive industries, are finding new uses as reinforcement in plastics for products such as window frames and floor coverings. (In fact, some of these innovative products will be used on a large scale at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, according to news reports.) In Sweden, companies including IKEA, Volvo and Saab have shown interest in hemp fibers and hurds for use in vehicle interiors and furniture. In the UK, Germany and the Netherlands, considerable investments are being made to develop utilize hemp fiber in composites which are used to manufacture auto parts for BMW, Chrysler and Mercedes. In Canada, Germany and Japan, businesses are investigating reinforcing Polylactide (PLA) plastic with hemp fibers in order to widen the technology’s field of applications.

# # #

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

BISMARCK, ND — North Dakota’s legislature wrapped up last week by telling the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration that it would no longer require state-licensed industrial hemp farmers to seek DEA licenses. The law change removes the DEA license as a requirement of state law, but it can’t protect farmers from federal prosecution. Vote Hemp, the nation’s leading industrial hemp advocacy group, will support a lawsuit brought by ND-licensed hemp farmers to prevent the DEA from enforcing federal marijuana laws against them. If the farmers’ lawsuit, which will be filed in the coming weeks, is successful, states across the nation will be free to implement hemp farming laws without fear of federal interference.

“With the broad authority that has been granted to them by Congress, the DEA could have easily approved the applications of the farmers in North Dakota,” says Tom Murphy, National Outreach Coordinator for Vote Hemp. “The DEA could have also easily negotiated industrial hemp farming rules with North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson who has been talking to them about this for a year. Instead, they kept stalling until the time to plant had passed,” says Mr. Murphy. “North Dakota had nothing left to do but cut the DEA out of the picture.”

“I applied for my ND license in January and was hopeful the DEA would act quickly and affirm my right to plant industrial hemp this year. Unfortunately, the DEA has not responded in any way other than to state that it would take them a lot more time than the window of time I have to import seed and plant the crop,” said ND farmer, David Monson. “It appears that DEA really doesn’t want to work with anyone to resolve the issue”, Monson added.

The hemp language in HB 1020 was the result of several months of fruitless negotiations between the DEA and North Dakota officials, who hoped to gain federal recognition for the state-licensed hemp farmers. It amends the state hemp farming law to explicitly remove the Drug Enforcement Administration from the process.

“The legislative action is a direct response to the DEA’s refusal to waive registration requirements, including $3,440 per farmer in non-refundable yearly application fees, and the agency’s inability to respond to the farmers’ federal applications in time for spring planting,” says Alexis Baden-Mayer, Vote Hemp’s Legislative Director. Please click here to read a PDF of the DEA letter that was ND’s last straw.

“The North Dakota legislature’s bold action gives Vote Hemp the opportunity we’ve been working towards for nearly a decade. Now that there is a state with comprehensive hemp farming regulations that has explicitly eschewed DEA involvement, we can finally make the case that states have the legal ability to regulate industrial hemp farming within their borders without federal interference,” says Baden-Mayer. Adding, “And, because ND Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson actually did spend nearly a year trying to work out an agreement with the DEA, it’s clear that DEA isn’t going to act in a reasonable way and isn’t ever to going to acknowledge the practical differences between industrial hemp and marijuana and accommodate ND’s plan to commercialize hemp farming.”

# # #

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

SACRAMENTO, CA — California’s Assembly today voted 41 to 29, with 9 not voting, to approve AB 684, the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007. The legislation gives farmers the right to grow non-psychoactive Industrial Hemp which is commonly made into everything from food, clothing, paper, body care, bio-fuel and even auto parts. The bill now goes to the Senate where it is expected to have enough support to pass. The text of legislation can be found on our California page.

AB 684, the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act, was authored by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine). This is the second time in two years that a bipartisan hemp farming bill has passed the Assembly. Last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 1147 which is nearly identical to AB 864. At that time the Governor claimed that bill would put farmers in jeopardy of federal prosecution if they grew hemp despite assurances by Vote Hemp and other supporting organizations such as the California based Hemp Industries Association and California Certified Organic Farmers there would be a challenge to the Drug Enforcement Administration’s legal authority to interfere with the state hemp farming law prior to implementation.

“Passage of the hemp farming bill in the Assembly is a sign it is likely to reach Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk for the second year in row,” says Vote Hemp legal Council and San Francisco Attorney Patrick Goggin. “The mood in Sacramento is this bill is consistent with California’s effort to be leader on US environmental policy. Hemp is a versatile plant that can replace polluting crops such as cotton and is taking off as an organic food and body care ingredient. It is time to jump into the expanding market for hemp that California companies currently import from Canada and elsewhere.”

Today more than 30 industrialized nations grow industrial hemp and export to the US. It is the only crop that is both illegal to grow and legal for Americans to import. Sales of hemp food and body care products have grown rapidly in recent years fueling an expansion of hemp farming in Canada which topped 48,000 acres in 2006.

A telephone poll with a 3.5% margin of error of likely California voters taken from February 22 — 26 showed a total of 71% support changing state law to allow farmers to grow hemp. The survey was conducted by the respected research firm Zogby International on behalf of Vote Hemp and five manufacturers of hemp food products including Alpsnack®, French Meadow Bakery®, Living Harvest®, Nature’s Path Organic Foods® and Nutiva®.

Poll questions and results regarding industrial hemp farming policy and consumer attitudes on hemp products and nutrition can be viewed online our Polls page. There is evidence of strong support among men and women and self-identified liberal and conservative voters on the issue. Among California Republicans, 60% support changing state law on hemp while 74% of Democrats are in support. Support was also steady among all age groups, ranging from 54% of 18 to 29 year olds to 82% of 30 to 49 year olds, 74% of 50 to 64 years olds and 60% of those over 65 years old.

# # #

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

WASHINGTON, DC — Vote Hemp, the nation’s leading grassroots organization working to give farmers the right to grow non-psychoactive industrial hemp to be made into everything from food, clothing, paper, body care, bio-fuel and even auto parts, is pleased by the progress of hemp bills on the state level so far in 2007. The states that have introduced industrial hemp bills this legislative season are: California, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

North Dakota leads the pack with five bills introduced in 2007, with two of the five, SB 2099 and HB 1490, having been signed by Gov. John Hoeven. Two of the bills were resolutions urging Congress to recognize the multiple benefits of industrial hemp and to direct DEA to differentiate between industrial hemp and marijuana. The fifth bill, HB 1020, has passed both the House and Senate and is on its way to the Governor’s desk.

California’s hemp farming bill, AB 684 has passed through two Assembly committees on its course to a floor vote. HB 1535, the hemp farming bill in Hawaii is in three committees and will be carried over to the next legislative session. Idaho’s resolution asking the U.S. Congress to legalize hemp farming was killed in the House Agricultural Affairs Committee earlier this year without gaining a bill number. New Hampshire hemp farming bill, HB 424, passed the House on a 190-76 vote earlier this month and had a hearing in the Senate Commerce, Labor and Consumer Protection Committee this week. New Mexico passed a hemp study memorial and Congressional resolution, HM 49, with an overwhelming 59-2 vote in the House.

Minnesota had a hemp farming bill, HF 2168, introduced late last month and has been referred to the House Agriculture, Rural Economies and Veterans Affairs committee. South Carolina study bill, H 3305, was introduced in January and is stalled in the House Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs. In Oregon there is SB 348 which would allow farmers to grow hemp under state rules. Vermont’s hemp farming bill, H 267, is in the House Agriculture Committee and hearings will take place this week. Wisconsin’s hemp study bill, AB 146, just had a successful hearing last week in the Assembly Rural Economic Development committee.

All state hemp bills and resolutions introduced since 1995 are listed in the chart at: https://www.votehemp.com/state.html

H.R. 1009, the “Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007,” was introduced in Congress in January. The bill excludes industrial hemp from the definition of “marihuana” in the Controlled Substances Act and gives states the exclusive authority to regulate the growing and processing of industrial hemp under state law. The full text of H.R. 1009, Rep. Paul’s House floor comments, and the CRS Report “Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity” can all be read at: https://www.votehemp.com/federal.html

“Under the current national drug control policy, industrial hemp can be imported, but it can’t be grown by American farmers,” says Eric Steenstra, President of Vote Hemp. “The DEA has taken the Controlled Substances Act’s antiquated definition of marijuana out of context and used it as an excuse to block industrial hemp farming. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 will bring us back to more rational times when the government regulated marijuana, but told farmers they could go ahead and continue raising hemp just as they always had,” says Mr. Steenstra.

# # #

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

SACRAMENTO, CA — Vote Hemp, the nation’s leading grassroots organization working to give farmers the right to grow non-psychoactive industrial hemp to be made into everything from food to clothing, paper, body care, bio-fuel and even auto parts, has released a new poll of 801 likely California voters about industrial hemp. The telephone poll has a 3.5% margin of error and sampled likely California voters from February 22-26. The survey was conducted by the respected research firm Zogby International on behalf of Vote Hemp and five manufacturers of hemp food products, including ALPSNACK,French Meadow Bakery, Living Harvest, Nature’s Path Organic Foods and Nutiva.

The poll results, released today for the first time, confirm there is strong support for reform on the issue of industrial hemp. A total of 71% support changing state law to allow farmers to grow hemp, including 46% who strongly support and another 25% who somewhat support changing state law so California farmers can supply manufacturers with hemp seed, oil and fiber. Presently, U.S. companies must import their hemp raw materials from other countries.

Over the past several years, the California legislature has passed various resolutions and bills to permit farmers to grow industrial hemp. AB 684, the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act, is authored by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) and will be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday, March 27. If passed and signed into law, AB 684 would regulate commercial industrial hemp farming in California. Today more than 30 industrialized nations grow industrial hemp, many of them exporting it to the U.S. Hemp is the only crop that is illegal to grow here while being legal to import. Sales of hemp food and body care products have grown rapidly in recent years, fueling an expansion of hemp farming in Canada where farmers grew more than 48,000 acres in 2006.

Poll questions and results regarding industrial hemp farming policy and consumer attitudes on hemp products and nutrition can be viewed online here. There is evidence of strong support among both men and women and both self-identified liberal and conservative voters on this issue. Among California Republicans, 60% support changing state law on hemp, compared to 74% of state Democrats. Support was also high among all age groups, ranging from 54% of 18- to 29-year-olds to 82% of 30- to 49-year-olds, 74% of 50- to 64-year-olds and 60% of those over 65 years old.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, who introduced AB 684 in February, said that “the Zogby poll underscores that California voters of all political persuasions support changing the senseless policy of importing industrial hemp while prohibiting our own farmers from growing it.”

Vote Hemp is a non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow low-THC industrial hemp. More information about hemp legislation and the crop’s many uses may be found at www.VoteHemp.com or www.HempIndustries.org. BETA SP or DVD Video News Releases featuring footage of hemp farming in other countries are available upon request by contacting Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671.

###

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

WASHINGTON, DC — For the second time since the federal government outlawed hemp farming in the United States, a federal bill has been introduced that would remove restrictions on the cultivation of non-psychoactive industrial hemp. The chief sponsor of H.R. 1009, the “Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007,” is Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) and the nine original co-sponsors are Representatives Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Barney Frank (D-MA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Jim McDermott (D-WA), George Miller (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). The bill may be viewed online here.

“It is indefensible that the United States government prevents American farmers from growing this crop. The prohibition subsidizes farmers in countries from Canada to Romania by eliminating American competition and encourages jobs in industries such as food, auto parts and clothing that utilize industrial hemp to be located overseas instead of in the United States,” said Dr. Paul. “By passing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act the House of Representatives can help American farmers and reduce the trade deficit — all without spending a single taxpayer dollar.”

U.S. companies that manufacture or sell products made with hemp include Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, a California company who manufactures the number-one-selling natural soap, and FlexForm Technologies, an Indiana company whose natural fiber materials are used in over 2 million cars. Hemp food manufacturers such as French Meadow Bakery, Hempzels, Living Harvest, Nature’s Path and Nutiva now make their products from Canadian hemp. Although hemp grows wild across the U.S., a vestige of centuries of hemp farming, the hemp for these products must be imported. Health Canada statistics show that 48,060 acres of industrial hemp were produced in Canada in 2006. Farmers in Canada have reported that hemp is one of the most profitable crops that they can grow. Hemp clothing is made around the world by well-known brands such as Patagonia, Bono’s Edun and Giorgio Armani.

There is strong support among key national organizations for a change in the federal government’s position on hemp. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) “supports revisions to the federal rules and regulations authorizing commercial production of industrial hemp.” The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has also passed a pro-hemp resolution.

Numerous individual states have expressed interest in industrial hemp as well. Fifteen states have passed pro-hemp legislation; seven (Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia) have removed barriers to its production or research. North Dakota has issued state licenses, the first in fifty years, to two farmers so far. Rep. Paul’s bill would remove federal barriers and allow laws in these states regulating the growing and processing of industrial hemp to take effect.

“Under the current national drug control policy, industrial hemp can be imported, but it can’t be grown by American farmers,” says Eric Steenstra, President of Vote Hemp. “The DEA has taken the Controlled Substances Act’s antiquated definition of marijuana out of context and used it as an excuse to ban industrial hemp farming. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 will bring us back to more rational times when the government regulated marijuana, but told farmers they could go ahead and continue raising hemp just as they always had,” says Mr. Steenstra.

Vote Hemp is a non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow low-THC industrial hemp. More information about hemp legislation and the crop’s many uses may be found at www.VoteHemp.com or www.HempIndustries.org. BETA SP or DVD Video News Releases featuring footage of hemp farming in other countries are available upon request by contacting Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671.

###

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

WASHINGTON, DC — On January 28, 2007 in the Minneapolis Star Tribune story “Industrial hemp producer? Plan raises feds’ suspicions,” Tom Riley of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was quoted as saying:

“You have legitimate farmers who want to experiment with a new crop,” Riley said. “But you have another group, very enthusiastic, who want to allow cultivation of hemp because they believe it will lead to a de facto legalization of marijuana.” Mr. Riley continued with “The last thing law enforcement people need is for the cultivation of marijuana-looking plants to spread. Are we going to ask them to go through row by row, field by field, to distinguish between legal hemp and marijuana?”

“The ONDCP is wrong in its characterization of industrial hemp advocates, and there is no evidence that farmers who grow industrial hemp are hiding marijuana plants in their fields, whether in Canada or anywhere else,” says Vote Hemp President Eric Steenstra. “Because cross pollination of low THC industrial hemp and high THC marijuana is inevitable illicit marijuana growers avoid industrial hemp fields to protect the potency of their drug crop. It’s simply illogical that a farmer’s industrial hemp fields are ideal places to hide marijuana plants with all the extra scrutiny that comes with growing the crop. It’s sad that, instead of a real policy debate on the issue of farming industrial hemp in the United States based on legislative intent and agronomic facts, the ONDCP and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) resort to false hyperbole and character assassination,” says Steenstra. “Tom Riley is welcome to join me in Canada this summer for the Hemp Industries Association annual meeting and see for himself how our neighbors in the north can easily tell the difference between industrial hemp and marijuana crops.”

Hemp farming in Canada is well regulated by Health Canada ensuring that only legitimate farmers are licensed and that they only grow government approved low-THC hemp. Requirements include applicant background checks, GPS coordinates of hemp fields, the use of varieties of approved low-THC certified hemp seed purchased from licensed seed vendors, and random inspections and testing. This licensing scheme ensures that farmers are only growing non-drug industrial hemp and not marijuana. Even though law enforcement is able to distinguish the difference between hemp and marijuana, the licensing process eliminates the need for them to visually distinguish between industrial hemp and its drug psychoactive cousin.

The lies about industrial hemp are prevalent in the public policy of the DEA as well. Steve Robertson, a DEA special agent in Washington, has also weighed in on the North Dakota debate with similar statements. On May 3, 2006 in the Grand Forks Herald story “State’s first hemp farming rules aimed at clearing federal hurdle,” he said:

“The DEA does not have the authority to change existing federal law … It’s very simple for us: The law is there and we enforce the law … We are law enforcement, not lawmakers.”

“It’s interesting that Special Agent Robertson pretends that the DEA is purely a law enforcement entity, as they are not,” says Tom Murphy, National Outreach Coordinator for Vote Hemp. “Like many Federal agencies, the DEA has been granted broad authority by Congress to interpret the statutes in the United States Code, such as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This includes re-scheduling substances and promulgating detailed rules and regulations. The DEA could easily negotiate industrial hemp farming rules with North Dakota under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 USC 563. It is obvious that the current rules are not set up for farmers to grow an agricultural crop that has no potential for use as a drug” says Mr. Murphy. “Instead the DEA chooses to interfere in the legislative process by confusing legislators, reporters and the public with needless and misleading rhetoric.”

Industrial hemp plants have long and strong stalks, have few branches, have been bred for maximum production of fiber and/or seed, and grow up to 16 feet in height. They are planted in high densities of 100 to 300 plants per square yard. On the other hand, drug varieties of Cannabis are shorter, are not allowed to go to seed, and have been bred to maximize branching and thus leaves and flowers. They are planted much less densely to promote bushiness. The drug and non-drug varieties are harvested at different times, and planting densities look very different from the air.

The last commercial hemp crops in the United States were grown in central Wisconsin in 1957, and these crops were purchased and processed by the Rens Hemp Company in Brandon, about 40 miles northwest of Milwaukee. The primary reason industrial hemp has not been grown in the U.S. since then is because of its misclassification as a Schedule I drug in the CSA of 1970. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 had provisions for farmers to grow non-psychoactive hemp by paying an annual occupational tax of $1.00. The exemption for hemp products was contained in the definition of marihuana in the Act:

“The term ‘marihuana’ means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L. … but shall not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.”

The language of the exemption was carried over almost verbatim to the definition of marihuana in the CSA [21 U.S.C. §802(16)] which superseded the 1937 Tax Act, but since there was no active hemp industry at the time the provisions for hemp farming were not included in the new Act.

There is also an exemption for hemp farming in the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. Article 28 states that:

“2. This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre and seed) or horticultural purposes.”

Laws allowing the farming of industrial hemp would not be in conflict with the Single Convention of which the U.S. is a signatory.

Seven states (Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia) have now changed their laws to give farmers an affirmative right to grow industrial hemp commercially or for research purposes. All require a license from the DEA to grow the crop. Only Hawaii has grown hemp in recent years, but its research program ended when the DEA refused to renew the license. California’s AB 1147 addressed the DEA’s bad faith interference by providing that the federal government has no basis or right to interfere with hemp grown in California pursuant to AB 1147.

###

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

BISMARCK, ND — North Dakota’s Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson has accepted the first application from a farmer for a state industrial hemp license. The license, which is expected to be granted, will go to farmer and North Dakota Assistant House Majority Leader David Monson ten years after the first hemp bill was passed in the state. Farmers will make history, as North Dakota is the first state to grant commercial hemp farming licenses in the United States in fifty years. It is unclear what the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will do when they receive requests for the licenses to be effective.

“I submitted my application for an industrial hemp license with the state Department of Agriculture earlier today,” said Representative David Monson, R-Osnabrock. “I expect that the state will grant me a hemp farming license, but I’m not sure that the $3,440 non-refundable registration fee I will send to the DEA with my application for manufacturing and importing will get me anything. Burton Johnson, an agronomist and professor at North Dakota State University (NDSU), has submitted at least two applications with the DEA since 1999, but has never received a license in those seven years,” says Monson. “I’m prepared to take this to court if the DEA refuses to grant a permit in a reasonable amount of time or places onerous restrictions on it.” Rep. Monson operates his farm in Osnabrock, ND and is only 25 miles from the Canadian border and 110 miles from the nearest hemp seed processing facility, Hemp Oil Canada in Ste. Agathe, Manitoba.

Commissioner Johnson cautioned that farmers who hold state industrial hemp licenses must also obtain permission from the DEA and that a state license is not effective until the licensee receives a registration from the DEA to import, produce or process industrial hemp. Last month Commissioner Johnson sent a letter to DEA administrator Karen Tandy asking that the DEA waive individual registration fees for newly-licensed industrial hemp producers in North Dakota and that the DEA work with the Agriculture Department so farmers can plant the historic first industrial hemp crop this spring.

North Dakota was one of the first states to pass industrial hemp legislation and has done so five times. North Dakota’s first hemp law, passed in 1997, directed the State University Agriculture Experiment Station to do a study of industrial hemp production. In 1999 a pair of bills were passed, one a resolution urging Congress to acknowledge the difference between the agricultural crop known as industrial hemp and its drug-type relative, the second a bill authorizing the production of industrial hemp and removing it from the noxious weeds list. In 2001 another resolution was passed similar to the 1999 resolution, and in 2005 a bill was passed allowing for feral hemp seed collection and breeding at NDSU.

“The DEA could easily grant licenses to farmers and work with North Dakota under existing regulations, but we’re not planning on re-writing our mission statement just yet,” says Vote Hemp President Eric Steenstra. “It has been thirty-seven years since the ill-considered Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was passed, mistakenly making industrial hemp a Schedule I substance. The time is ripe for hemp to be grown here in the U.S. again. Farmers in North Dakota, and all across the U.S., should be able to grow industrial hemp just like their Canadian counterparts,” says Steenstra.

Health Canada statistics show that Canada produced 24,021 acres of industrial hemp in 2005 and 48,060 acres in 2006. Vote Hemp estimates that the total retail value of hemp products sold in the U.S. is now around $270 million. The seed has been shown to have tremendous nutritional benefits in food.

###

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially. 

WASHINGTON, DC — According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) data, it has funded the destruction of 4.7 billion non-psychoactive industrial hemp plants (also called “ditchweed“) since 1984. This massive annual eradication effort stands in sharp contrast to farmers across the globe continuing to legally produce industrial hemp for export to the United States.

According to data collected by the DEA’s Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP), 218.6 million ditchweed plants were eradicated nationwide in 2005 versus only 4.2 million marijuana plants. This means that 98.1% of all cannabis plants eradicated in 2005 were actually the non-drug variety of cannabis otherwise known as industrial hemp. Although the ditchweed is primarily being eradicated in mid-western states where it was once grown to support WWII efforts with the encouragement of the federal government, these plants would have little or no psychoactive effect on people who might smoke them because they contain very low levels of THC, the drug component in marijuana. Furthermore, George Weiblen, a researcher at the University of Minnesota, showed that marijuana and industrial hemp have distinct and non-overlapping DNA fingerprints. He published his findings in the March 2006 issue of the Journal of Forensic Science (volume 51, No. 2).

Table 1: Number of Ditchweed Plants Eradicated Over Time

The massive ditchweed eradication program has cost federal and state governments at least $175 million since 1984, the earliest year data is available on ditchweed. The DEA spent $11 million in 2005 on DCE/SP grants to state police alone.

“It’s Orwellian that the biggest target of the DEA’s Eradication Program is actually not a drug but instead a plant useful for everything from food to clothing to even auto parts, which currently must be imported to supply a $270 million industry,” says Eric Steenstra, President of Vote Hemp. “While Vote Hemp has urged the DEA to recognize the difference between hemp and marijuana so farmers can grow it here, the federal agency is spending millions of dollars to destroy hundreds of millions of harmless hemp plants.”

How the DEA collects their own data on ditchweed, which is sometimes referred to as feral hemp, is puzzling because officials at the DEA regularly state there is no difference between hemp and marijuana. Nevertheless, their own statistics clearly differentiate between ditchweed and “cultivated marijuana” plants that are destroyed. Other questions loom over exactly what is happening to all these plants once they are eradicated.

“Much of the ditchweed eradicated is believed to be burned, turning a carbon consuming plant into a contributor of Greenhouse gasses,” says Tom Murphy, Vote Hemp National Outreach Coordinator. “For all the effort to find and destroy these harmless, wild hemp plants they are coming back year after year. It is likely that the eradication programs help re-seed the locations where ditchweed is found. The late summer timing and removal methods cause countless ripe seeds to fall to the ground where they will sprout again the following year.”

A nationwide leader, Indiana has eradicated, on average, 65 million wild hemp plants per year from 1984 through 2005, compared to the eradication of 114,699 cultivated marijuana plants per year in the same time period. Marijuana eradication requires that state police work overtime during the summer and wasted nearly 31,000 hours of officer’s time in each of 2003 and 2004, for example, accounting for 8.9% of the criminal related hours for the state police during those years. Ironically, FlexForm, an Indiana manufacturer whose hemp-content materials are found in an estimated 3 million vehicles in North America today, uses approximately 250,000 pounds of hemp fiber per year, which it must import from Canada and Europe. The company says industrial hemp could easily take a greater share of the 4 million pounds of natural fiber it uses yearly, as “hemp fiber possesses physical properties beneficial to our natural fiber-based composites.” In addition, FlexForm says it would “gladly expand domestic purchases.”

Table 2: Top 5 Average Ditchweed Seizures by State in Number of Plants

“The potential value of legal industrial hemp in rural economic development should be targeted for investment by the Department of Agriculture,” says Dr. Jon Gettman, a researcher in Public Policy and author of a new comprehensive report highlighting that marijuana valued at $35.8 billion is America’s number-one cash crop. “The multiple uses of industrial hemp in manufacturing and product innovation worldwide are consistent with current U.S. agricultural policies and a natural fit into many local economies around the nation.”

Numerous states are working to allow farmers to grow industrial hemp. Starting in January, North Dakota will accept applications from farmers to grow hemp. The race is on to bring the crop back due to increasing evidence hemp foods are becoming very popular. Sales of hemp foods in 2004/2005 grew by 50% over the previous 12-month period. U.S. retail sales of hemp products are now estimated to be $250 to $300 million per year. European farmers now grow more than 40,000 acres, and Canadian farmers grew almost 50,000 acres in 2006.

Seven states (Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia) have changed their laws to give farmers an affirmative right to grow industrial hemp commercially or for research purposes.

###

Vote Hemp is a national non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow U.S. farmers to once again grow hemp commercially.