Vermont Joins North Dakota in Voting for Industrial Hemp

June 9, 2008: Vermont’s Governor Jim Douglas made no announcement on his web site. But on May 29, Douglas decided against a veto. So Vermont’s “Hemp for Vermont” bill which won overwhelming support in the legislature is now law. (The bill passed in the state House 126 to 9 and 25 to 1 in the Senate). This means Vermont joins North Dakota as states endorsing industrial hemp – a crop still outlawed under federal rules. For the full story, Click Here.

Wausau Daily Herald OpEd Praises Industrial Hemp

June 7, 2008: An opinion piece by Jim Maas of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin blasts current federal subsidies for farmers but singles industrial hemp out for praise. Maas writes that “Hemp has thousands of uses. Besides fibers for paper and textiles, it can be used for biodegradable plastics, health food and fuel. Hemp requires little to no pesticides, replenishes soil with nutrients and nitrogen, controls erosion of the topsoil and produces a lot of oxygen. The downside? Our government prohibits its use.”
Click Here for the complete Wausau Daily Herald article.

Hemp on the High Seas Once Again – Cutting Fuel Costs

The Dot Earth blog from New York Times writer Andrew Revkin notes that hemp is making a come-back: “A new age of sail may be a bit closer to reality. The MV Beluga SkySails, the first freighter in the modern era using a kite-like sail along with its conventional engine when the winds are right, completed a transatlantic passage and the owners report that the sail cut fuel burning around 20 percent on days when conditions were right.”

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.

‘. . . silly to criminalize hemp because of marijuana.’

The Fitchburg Star and other Wisconsin newspapers are featuring an article quoting NAIHC Board members Bud Sholts, Paul Mahlberg, Andy Kerr and James Woolsey. The article summarizes key issues surrounding efforts to legalize industrial hemp as a U.S. crop. It points out that the one obstacle to allowing U.S. farmers to grow industrial hemp seems to be that “the feds can’t (or won’t) distinguish between” industrial hemp and its distant cousin marijuana. Dr. Mahlberg is quoted predicting that “we will be able to win this cause,” but adding that hemp legalization may not  happen until after the next presidential election.

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.

Andy Kerr’s Testimony on Industrial Hemp

Testimony on Oregon Senate Bill 348 to re-legalize industrial hemp in Oregon.

NAIHC Board Member Andy Kerr’s testiomony on 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.”