Search

Recent Articles

Recent Comments


« | Main | »

Gov says Yes to buy, sell and make hemp products – says No to growing

By Hempology | June 22, 2007

Sacramento Bee, CA
21 Jun 2007
Steve Wiegand

FEDS SHIELD OUR FARMS’ MORAL FIBER

Sometimes there are aspects of lawmaking that remind one of scenes from “Alice in Wonderland,” such as when Alice has a circular conversation with the hookah-smoking caterpillar.

This came to mind Tuesday morning, whilst sitting in Room 113 at the Capitol and observing the state Senate Agriculture Committee.

The topic under consideration was hemp.  Hemp is an oft-misunderstood plant.  Many people think it’s the same as marijuana, when actually they’re just good friends.

They’re both members of the same plant genus, and look very similar.  But hemp has only trace levels of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is the stuff in marijuana that gets you buzzed.

Hemp is nonetheless a very useful plant.  It is a very strong fiber.  European car manufacturers are using it as a substitute for fiberglass in some parts.  The seed has nutritional value.  You can make paper, clothes, shampoo and other products from it.

And you can legally sell all that stuff in the U.S., thanks to a 2004 federal appeals court ruling that blocked an effort by the Drug Enforcement Administration to ban hemp product sales.  ( The DEA decided not to pursue an appeal.  )

But while you can sell hemp products, you still have to import the raw materials, because growing hemp is illegal in the U.S.  Which is where Assembly Bill 684 comes in.

The bill by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-S.F., would allow state farmers to grow hemp.  Before any harvest, they would have to get a lab report certifying its THC level was less than 0.3 percent, as well as inform the gendarmes as to the exact location and size of the crop.

Leno told the committee his bill would free hemp product purveyors from having to import it from Canada or the other 30-plus countries that allow its cultivation.  It would give California farmers the option to grow a crop that is very kind to soil and is so bug-resistant it doesn’t need pesticides.

But some cop groups don’t like the idea, and their lobbyist, John Lovell, put forth two seemingly plausible arguments in opposing Leno’s bill.  One is that it’s hard to tell the difference between hemp and marijuana plants, and wily pot growers would disguise their crop by buffering the illegal plants in hemp fields, thus making the cops’ job more difficult.

The other is that it’s moot, since the state can’t trump federal jurisdiction in this area, and the feds aren’t budging from opposing any domestic hemp farming.

The first of these arguments is pretty thin.  Hemp plants are grown much closer together than marijuana plants.  Moreover, savvy pot growers don’t want hemp plants anywhere near their crop, since the two species cross-pollinate and ruin the potency of the marijuana.

The other argument is a tougher nut to crack.  Seven states have already passed laws similar to Leno’s bill, but the DEA has so far refused to sanction any domestic crop.

On Monday, in fact, two North Dakota farmers, one of them a state legislator, sued in federal court in an effort to force the feds to approve hemp-growing licenses issued to them by the state.

As for Leno’s bill, it was shot down on a 3-2 vote.  What’s likely to happen is he’ll amend it to make it some kind of pilot project and try again in two weeks.  But even if he gets it out of the Senate, Leno may be just tilting at windmills.  A similar measure was approved by legislators last year but vetoed by Gov.  Arnold Schwarzenegger, and there’s been no indication the guv has changed his mind.

So you can buy hemp products, you can sell hemp products, you can make hemp products.

You just can’t grow hemp.  Makes you wonder just what that caterpillar was smoking in that hookah.

Topics: Articles | Comments Off

Comments are closed.