Action Stalled on ’07 Industrial Hemp Legislation

Action Stalled on ’07 Industrial Hemp Legislation http://naihc.org/IHLegislationUpdate.html
For the latest status of the federal Industrial Hemp legislation, Click Here. To check the progress of all federal and state legislation on industrial hemp, Click Here. The current federal legislation being considered is H.R.1009, “To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes.”
H.R. 109 was introduced by Rep Paul, Ron [R-TX-14] on Feb. 13, 2007). The Latest Major Action was on April 20, 2007 when the bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01009:

The bill’s 11 current co-sponsors are:

Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2]
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7]
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22]
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10]
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7]
Rep Miller, George [CA-7]
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46]
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] -
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6]

Industrial Hemp Lawsuit Dismissed in North Dakota

Now it’s up to Congress to act — An Associated Press (AP) report states that “A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against the government by two North Dakota farmers seeking to grow industrial hemp, which can be used to make a variety of products from rope to lotion.  The judge, Daniel L. Hovland of United States District Court in Bismark, said in his ruling on Wednesday that the best remedy might be to change the definition of industrial hemp under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, which does not distinguish the plant from the illegal drug marijuana.”
  To read the Vote Hemp report, Click Here. To read Judge Hovlan’s 22-page dismissal decision, Click Here.

Industrial Hemp Decision Near in North. Dakota

The court case pitting two respected North Dakota farmers against the U.S. Government’s DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) could resolve important questions about legalizing U.S. industrial hemp production as early as this week. The initial ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Dan Hovland will be on DEA’s motion to dismiss the farmers’ efforts to obtain DEA permission to plant industrial hemp next spring. DEA’s case appears to rest on the DEA contention that there is no distinction between marijuana and its distant cousin industrial hemp. If the judge rules that the two plants are in fact dissimilar, since industrial hemp is clearly non-psychoactive, legalization efforts would score a major victory. For full details of the court case, Click Here.
For a video of a press conference with the farmers and further background, Click Here.

Kerr Testifies on Oregon Senate Bill to Re-legalize Industrial Hemp

Testimony on Oregon Senate Bill 348 to re-legalize industrial hemp in Oregon.
NAIHC member Andy Kerr’s testimony in Oregon Senate hearing, to explain how industrial hemp is not marijuana, how marijuana growers won’t want industrial hemp growing anywhere near their drug crop, and how most of the rest of the world distinguishes industrial hemp from marijuana.

DEA Blocks Spring Planting of Industrial Hemp in North Dakota

DEA Blocks Spring Planting of Industrial Hemp in North Dakota
North Dakota’s clearly frustrated Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson calls the federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) failure to act on two farmers’ applications to grow industrial hemp “not unexpected but still disappointing.” He said “DEA’s latest response is a de facto denial of permission. If the applicants cannot have a decision in time to plant the crop, then the applications are meaningless. . . DEA has far more important concerns – stopping methamphetamine, for example – than continuing to prevent farmers from growing a legitimate crop. Industrial hemp should not be considered a drug because it cannot produce any psychoactive effect. Every other industrialized country in the world allows production of industrialized hemp. It’s really time DEA let the United States catch up.”  

Congressional Research Service’s 2007 Update on Hemp

 

“The United States is the only developed nation in which the production of industrial hemp is not permitted.” That’s according to the U.S. Congress’s research arm which reported favorably on industrial hemp in a Jan. 2005 report and then issued an even more favorable updated report March 23, 2007. Click here to read the complete 2007 report.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) update concludes that the U.S. government and its Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) oppose hemp legalization based on their arguments that legalization “would increase the likelihood of covert production of high-THC marijuana, significantly complicate DEA’s surveillance and enforcement activities, and send the wrong message to the American public concerning the government’s position on drugs. DEA officials and a variety of other observers also express the concern that efforts to legalize hemp — as well as those to legalize medical marijuana — are a front for individuals and organizations whose real aim is to see marijuana decriminalized.”

The CRS report notes that the proposed Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 “would open the way for commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in the United States.” It goes on to point out that according to the Canadian government, which legalized hemp production in 1998: “Hemp’s remarkable attributes are hard to beat: it thrives without herbicides, it reinvigorates the soil, it requires less water than cotton, it matures in three to four months, and it can yield four times as much paper per acre as trees. Hemp can be used to create building materials, textiles, clothing, inks, and paints and has potential use in other non-food products. These advantages are in tune with the environmental and health preferences of today’s North American public. The growing curiosity of consumers, the interest shown by farmers and processors, and Canada’s excellent growing conditions for industrial hemp allow optimistic views for its future.”

Click here to read the complete 2007 CRS report.

Click here to read the Canadian government’s 2007 report from Agriculture Canada.

California Poll and Vote Support Industrial Hemp Farming

A California Poll and Vote sponsored by Vote Hemp shows 71 percent support for changing state law to allow farmers to grow industrial hemp, including 46 percent who strongly support and another 25 percent who somewhat support changing state law. This follows a 5-to-2 California State Assembly Public Safety Committee vote supporting state legislation to allow California farmers to grow industrial hemp without state or federal licenses.

DVD – “Hemp and the Rule of Law”

DVD - “Hemp and the Rule of Law” – http://www.tinroofvideo.com/page/page/5566214.htm
Now on DVD — a documentary by Kevin Balling premiered at the Asheville Film Festival and at the ARTIVIST Film Festival in Hollywood. The one-hour documentary traces hemp’s legendary past in U.S. agriculture and chronicles the heated debate to return the crop to American farmers.

California Gov. Schwarzenegger Vetoes Hemp Bill

Oct 2, 2006 U.S. Newswire reports that: “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 1147, The California Industrial Hemp Farming Act. . . This landmark, bipartisan legislation, if enacted, would have established clear guidelines for farming of industrial hemp, which is used in a wide variety of everyday consumer products, including food, body care, clothing, paper and auto parts. . . Industrial hemp will continue to be the only crop that is legal to import, sell and consume, but illegal to grow, in California.”

For a copy of the Governor’s veto message, Click Here.

2005 Industrial Hemp Farming Act Introduced in Congress

Industrial Hemp Farming Act Introduced in Congress
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced the “Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005” (IHFA). The 3-page bill would amend the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to define “marihuana” as not including industrial hemp.