From:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/hemp-grown-year-1846760-bill-marijuana

Today’s editorial: Say yes to industrial hemp
Governor should sign bill OKing it as a crop.

An Orange County Register editorial

September 17, 2007

Once again the state Legislature has passed a bill, Assembly Bill
684, authorizing California farmers to grow industrial hemp. Last
year the governor vetoed a similar bill. This year he should sign it
enthusiastically, for several reasons.

The least-important reason is that this year’s version was modified
to take into account law enforcement concerns. Thus hemp fields will
have to be registered with their GPS locations and will be subject to
state testing for THC levels. And the program is limited to four
agricultural counties - Imperial, Kings, Mendocino and Yolo - and it
has a “sunset” date, making it a pilot program instead of a statewide
free-for-all.

The emotionally complicating factor, of course, is that hemp is
another term for cannabis, which is the proper biological term for
marijuana. Until a court decision last year, federal regulators
interpreted marijuana prohibition to outlaw hemp production, despite
the fact that hemp is grown commercially in China, Hungary, Ireland,
Canada and elsewhere without serious complications.

But hemp grown for industrial purposes is grown differently than and
is readily distinguishable from cannabis grown for the flowers and
buds that contain significant quantities of THC and other intoxicants
the government has decided people are not allowed to smoke. Hemp
grown for fiber is planted close together, grows up to 16 feet tall
and is typically harvested before any buds appear. So there’s no real
problem distinguishing a hemp field from an illicit marijuana patch.

Hemp is grown because, as researchers have been learning (and
relearning) since the early 1980s, the plant is one of the most
commercially useful crops around. Its fiber is among the strongest
natural fibers known, and have been used for centuries to make cloth,
paper, building materials and more.

It is absurd that California farmers are not allowed to grow this useful crop.

A couple of years ago the only Republican who endorsed this return to
free enterprise was Assemblyman Chuck DeVore of Irvine, who was
discerning enough to investigate the facts about hemp rather than
basing his opinion strictly on emotion and habit. This year, seven
Republicans supported a bill that is fully consistent with the
principles of freedom of enterprise that most Republicans support.

Gov. Schwarzenegger has eloquently expressed recently the importance
of being open to new ideas. There’s no reason he shouldn’t be open to
this not all that new but very good idea.

Copyright 2007 The Orange County Register

From:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/09/14/ED85S5JJM.DTL

Editorial

Governor - please sign here

San Francisco Chronicle

Friday, September 14, 2007

GOV. Arnold Schwarzenegger moved to make California roads a bit safer
Thursday by signing SB33, by Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto. That
bill will make it illegal for drivers under the age of 18 to use a
cell phone, text-message device, laptop or pager. The new
restrictions will go into effect July 1, 2008.

Even though legislators remain in special session on two of the
year’s biggest issues - health care and water - they produced enough
measures in the regular session to keep the governor busy in the
coming weeks. As of Thursday, he had 188 bills awaiting his signature
or veto.

In the spirit of public service, we offer the governor a reminder of
our positions on some of the bills awaiting his verdict. These
measures merit his signature:

[snip]

– AB684, by Leno, would establish a 5-year, 4-county pilot project
for hemp farming. This should provide enough time for those who don’t
know the characteristics of hemp to ease their concerns. It’s not a
drug; it is a plant with many uses and many economic opportunities
for the state.

You can express your views to Schwarzenegger via e-mail at
governor@governor.ca.gov.

This article appeared on page B - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Copyright (c) 2007 Hearst Communications Inc.

September 12, 2007 — Thank you for responding to Vote Hemp’s recent emergency CA Action Alert. Because of the barrage of phone calls, faxes and emails that you generated, the Senate leadership felt enormous pressure to give the California industrial hemp bill a vote. Democracy has prevailed! The legislature respected the will of the 71% of California voters who want to change state law to let farmers grow industrial hemp by passing AB 684 out of both the Senate and the Assembly last night.

In the Senate, the vote was 26-13, with 1 not voting. Four Republicans voted for the bill: Senators Aanestad, Maldonado, McClintock and Denham. Bi-partisan votes like this are hard to come by in the sharply-divided California legislature.

In the Assembly, as of 3:41 AM PST, the vote was 46-27, with 6 not voting. Republican ayes were Assemblymembers Adams, DeVore and Niello (who had voted against the bill last time around). Not voting were Assemblymembers Blakeslee, Garrick, Runner, Carter and Maze.

This may not be the final vote tally, but the bill definitely will go to the Governor.

Within the next few days we will be asking for your help in the final stretch as we seek the Governor’s signature. As you may know, we made it this far last year, only to have Gov. Schwarzenegger veto our bill. Everything is different this time around, so we are very optimistic. The hemp industry has never been stronger, making it a better time than ever for California farmers to enter the market. And, we re-drafted AB 684 to respond to each of the concerns the Governor cited when he vetoed the last version of the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act, AB 1147.

Finally, we would like to extend a special thanks to Assemblymember Leno, Staffmember Bart Broome, Patrick Goggin, Steve Levine and everyone else on the Vote Hemp California team for all their hard work on this effort.

Please stay tuned for future alerts and news.

About Vote Hemp 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 industrial hemp. Industrial hemp is non-psychoactive, low-THC varieties of the Cannabis sativa plant.

Web Site: http://www.votehemp.com

Support Vote Hemp

Vote Hemp depends on your donations to support our work. Please consider making a donation today.

Donate Now: http://www.votehemp.com/contribute_email.asp

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070906005793&newsLang=en

WASHINGTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)–National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA):

What They’re Saying…

• Run-Off Harms the Chesapeake. “Despite rising food prices, it seems that nearly everyone is turning to corn-based ethanol as their choice for alternative fuel. Hidden behind these headlines, though, is an equally important but less visible cost: water pollution. Corn is a ‘leaky’ crop, losing more nitrogen per acre than most other crops. In the Washington region, much of this excess nitrogen ends up polluting the Chesapeake Bay and robbing fish, crabs and oysters of oxygen. For farmers, the demand for alternative fuels has brought much-needed, and deserved, increases in corn prices. Unfortunately, this summer’s drought will keep mid-Atlantic farmers from realizing their potential windfall, and any unused nitrogen will wash into the bay this winter.” (Tom Simpson and Daphne Pee, op-ed, “How Corn Ethanol Could Pollute the Bay,” The Washington Post, August 26, 2007 [emphasis added])
• Increased Levels of Farm Waste Are Hurting Gulf Waters. “The crop that is bringing prosperity to farmers is making it harder for commercial fishermen in Louisiana to make a living. U.S. farmers this spring planted the most acreage with corn since 1944, after demand for ethanol pushed the grain’s price to a 10-year high. That has increased the level of farm waste flowing into the Mississippi River basin, which scientists blame for creating a pocket along the Louisiana coast where shrimp and other sea life cannot survive. The Gulf of Mexico’s so-called Dead Zone is expected to cover a record 8,543 square miles, or 22,126 square kilometers, this year and stretch into waters off Texas, said Nancy Rabalais, chief scientist for a study team at the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium. … Corn fuels the zone because it requires more nitrogen-based fertilizer than crops like soybeans, said Eugene Turner, a Louisiana State University oceanographer. Nitrogen and other nutrients eventually reach the Gulf of Mexico, feeding microscopic organisms that deplete oxygen levels as they die and decompose on the sea floor. Shrimp and fish suffocate unless they escape. … ‘The rah-rah sort of drowns out the environmental side,’ [Rabalais] said. ‘If our federal government subsidizes more corn, they’re working against water quality.’” (Tony Cox, “Ethanol Demand Seen Harming U.S. Fishermen,” Bloomberg, July 23, 2007 [emphasis added])
• Little or No Net Savings in CO2 Emissions. “Unfortunately, what passes for mitigation and aversion of global warming often amounts to doing nothing under the guise of doing something. Take the nation’s new infatuation with ethanol. Ethanol derived from corn, as it is in the United States, is so energy intensive to produce that it provides little or no net savings in carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile, the diversion of corn from the food supply to government-subsidized energy production has some unintended consequences of its own, driving up feed and corn syrup prices at home and tortilla prices in Mexico. Ethanol is a boon for corn farmers. As a way to limit global warming, it’s a spectacularly inefficient bust.” (Editorial “Climate solution too hot for left to handle,” San Antonio Express-News, February 11, 2007 [emphasis added])
• All Cost, Little – If Any – Benefit. “The United States, in its quest to reduce its reliance on expensive imported oil, may soon consume as much as half its domestic corn crop for fuel production, although the economic benefits have yet to materialize. Ethanol produces one-third less energy than a gallon of gasoline at an average wholesale cost of 33 percent more, according to a study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. … All told, ethanol has cost Americans an additional $14 billion in higher food prices. … Meanwhile, the U.S. government has yet to discover whether its 51- cent-per-gallon ethanol subsidy is efficiently stimulating production of the fuel. One thing the bureaucrats know for sure: It cost the U.S. Treasury $2.7 billion last year with possibly more subsidies on the way.” (John F. Wasik, op-ed, “In Ethanol Debate, Don’t Forget Realities,” Bloomberg, July 23, 2007 [emphasis added])
• Food, Other Consumer Goods Prices Are Rising. “A steak dinner, a cold beer, a tank of gas, a bowl of cornflakes. Prices on these items and others are rising, all in the quest to produce more ethanol, the corn-based product touted as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil and lessen the impact of global warming. America has embraced the promise of the renewable fuel, pouring billions of tax dollars into its development. But as Congress prepares to spend billions more for ethanol use and production, people are starting to see higher costs for a wide range of consumer goods. ”(Anna M. Tinsley, “Push for ethanol has ripple effect across economy,” The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, August 5, 2007 [emphasis added])
• More Energy to Make Ethanol Than What’s Produced. “The big problem with ethanol is in the chemistry, said Henry Groppe, founder of Groppe, Long & Littell, an energy consulting firm in Houston. It takes more energy to make ethanol than the ethanol produces, he said. Corn must be grown, fertilized and harvested, which takes oil-powered machinery. It must be processed, refined and then shipped, which takes more oil. ‘You’re having to use as much oil to produce that gallon of ethanol as the energy that you produce from it,’ Groppe said.” (Loren Steffy, “A test tells the story of ethanol vs. gasoline,” The Houston Chronicle, March 11, 2007 [emphasis added])
• Distribution Problems. “The link is corn — impact of growing the corn and producing the ethanol, not only in greenhouse gas emissions from farm equipment, but from the trucks, ships and trains that haul the ethanol (nearly all of which comes from Midwest corn) for delivery to refineries. Because of its corrosive qualities, it can’t be shipped through pipelines.” (Editorial, “Corn, ethanol and other subsidized stupidities,” The Sacramento Bee, August 8, 2007 [emphasis added])
• Ethanol Will Not Replace Gasoline. “[C]orn ethanol will neither replace gasoline nor lower its price. It may even raise gas prices. First, at the pump, ethanol is priced according to what consumers will pay, not what it costs to make. So, according to research by Soren T. Anderson of the University of Michigan, ethanol prices follow gas prices very closely. It’s unlikely that gas will make a U-turn and start following ethanol. Second, even if a ready supply of ethanol does put a bit of downward pressure on gas prices, ethanol’s real cost is much higher than whatever we shell out at the pump. Consumers actually pay twice for this corny goodness: once when they fill up and once on April 15. In 2006, ethanol makers and sellers received subsidies of $1.87 for every gallon of gas they managed to displace, according to Doug Koplow of Earth Track, a Boston-based consultancy. Finally, even if we can stomach these nutty subsidies, illogical incentives to tempt automakers to produce ethanol-friendly cars actually increase the amount of oil we use. Blame a little-discussed loophole: In exchange for producing ethanol-ready ‘flex fuel’ vehicles, Congress lets auto manufacturers make their cars less fuel-efficient than corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards require.” (Lisa Margonelli, op-ed, “Myths About That $3.18 Per Gallon,” The Washington Post, June 3, 2007 [emphasis added]

National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA)
Bill Holbrook

Hope for hemp?

A look at one victim of the war on drugs

By Sena Christian
senac@newsreview.com

The hemp farm is not part of the American landscape– but we can import, transport and sell hemp products.

Although smoking industrial hemp will get you about as buzzed as smoking wheat, “War on Drugs” hysteria in the United States has created a conundrum for those who’d like to grow it.

Hemp can be fashioned into eco-friendly clothing, paper, plastics, body-care products, building materials and energy alternatives. It’s also a profitable crop for American farmers. But politics have complicated attempts to tap into this annually renewable natural resource. Ever since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 placed strict controls on its farming, hemp remains illegal to grow in the United States without a hard-to-obtain permit.

“Every product derived from [hemp] is legal but the plant itself is illegal. That’s crazy,” said Steve Levine, president of the Hemp Industries Association.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency classifies hemp as a Schedule I controlled substance. Failing to distinguish between varieties of Cannabis sativa, the label groups hemp and marijuana together even though industrial hemp contains almost no THC—the chief intoxicant of pot. Levine quipped that a poppy-seed bagel probably has more opium than a hemp cookie has THC. He also said that you could smoke several pounds of industrial hemp and still test negative on a drug test because hemp’s .03 percent THC content is nothing compared with 3 percent to 15 percent THC levels in marijuana flowers.

“It’s what politicians try to hide behind,” said Kyle Pulliam, owner of Hemp in the Heartland in Old Sacramento.

The U.S. federal government permits trade in nonviable hemp oil, seed and fiber, and Americans remain the largest consumers of hemp products. We import raw material from roughly 30 countries, including Canada, Mexico and parts of Eastern Europe. Yet the United States is the only major industrialized nation to ban the cultivation of non-psychoactive industrial hemp.

So we can import, transport and consume hemp. But we can’t grow it?

Pulliam stocks his shelves with flip-flops, massage oils, clothing, bath salts and bags—all made out of hemp. The store also carries The Emperor Wears No Clothes, the seminal piece of literature that awakened the modern hemp movement when it was first published in 1985.

“People come in and say, ‘So can we smoke your clothing?’ It’s the misperception from the media,” Pulliam said.

But educational efforts by hemp re-legalization advocacy groups might just pay off. A recent survey by Vote Hemp showed that 71 percent of California voters support changing state law to allow hemp’s cultivation.

The federal Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 would allow states to regulate its farming. In June, two North Dakota farmers with state-issued hemp licenses filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against the DEA for obstructing their attempts to farm the crop. Fifteen states have passed pro-hemp legislation, and several others have bills on the table, including California.

Authored by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, AB 684 is the second bipartisan attempt in two years to legalize hemp farming. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed last year’s bill, claiming that the federal government’s stand on the issue would put California farmers at risk of federal prosecution. Organizations in favor of the bill argue that the federal government has no jurisdiction if viable hemp plants do not cross state lines. The bill has passed the Assembly.

“It would be great for California to legalize industrial hemp,” Pulliam said. “It would save companies money for importing and transportation costs.”

Hemp is a near perfect crop. It grows year-round, enriching the soil as it develops, and the drought-resistant plant does not require herbicides, pesticides or fungicides.

Anti-hemp camps argue that farmers might plant marijuana in their hemp fields if cultivation were truly legalized. But marijuana and hemp plants have different needs and harvest times. Hemp plants are grown together to form a dense canopy that snuffs out other weeds, while allowing seeds to spread and pollinate. Marijuana plants need space to obtain nutrients to form their THC-infused flowers.

Mixing the two genetically distinct varieties of Cannabis would result in cross-pollination, reducing marijuana’s potency—not the smartest idea for someone hoping to get rich off the recreational or medicinal product.

Levine said it confuses him that politicians and law enforcement use this false fear as an excuse to continue banning hemp cultivation “when all these other countries can easily identify the difference.”

Hemp has been around for thousands of years. Today, it’s used to make necessities, like textiles, paper and food, as well as a few modern luxuries.

The automobile industry is using hemp-derived cellulose to make biodegradable plastics for door panels and luggage racks, replacing harmful fiberglass composites. One-third of the cars in Germany feature these plastics and automobile applications are expected to increase European cultivation of hemp to more than 100,000 acres by 2010. Hemp is even an energy-efficient producer of ethanol for biofuel.

Hemp is also a friend to the forest. It can be used to make paper, generating more pulp per acre than timber. Manufacturing hemp reduces wastewater contamination; its low lignin content decreases the need for pulping acids. Its creamy color reduces the need for the harsh chlorine compounds that timber-based paper production requires. The result? Fewer chemical byproducts.

Advocates have pushed for hemp to serve as an environmentally friendly replacement for cotton. More than 25 percent of all pesticides in the world are sprayed on cotton fields. Additionally, hemp yields three times more fiber per acre than cotton, and results in a strong, durable and long-lasting fiber. Hemp textiles already have carved out a niche in eco-chic fashion. Now the goal is to make it less expensive.

Wildflower Boutique in Midtown sells organic and fair-trade clothing for women and babies. About 50 percent of the store’s merchandise is made from hemp, said owner Emily Hays.

“It lasts forever and it’s the greatest fabric,” Hays said. “At first, I could hardly find any designers using hemp. Now, they’re coming out of the woodwork.”

As the $300 million hemp product retail market in the United States continues to grow, American farmers want in on the action. And the consumer would reap the benefits of low-cost, locally grown hemp merchandise. Growing it locally would help reduce the trade deficit while promoting sustainable agriculture and eco-friendly alternatives for common products. Until politicians pass legislation removing restrictions on hemp farming, the rest of us are left scratching our heads.

“I really don’t

From:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_684_bill_20070823_history.html

COMPLETE BILL HISTORY
BILL NUMBER  : A.B. No. 684
AUTHOR       : Leno
TOPIC     : Industrial hemp.

TYPE OF BILL :
     Active
     Non-Urgency
     Non-Appropriations
     Majority Vote Required
     State-Mandated Local Program
     Fiscal
     Non-Tax Levy

BILL HISTORY
2007

Aug. 23 From committee:  Amend, and do pass as amended.  (Ayes  9. Noes  1.)
.
Aug. 1 From committee chair, with author’s amendments:  Amend, and re-refer
to committee.  Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on
APPR.
July 23    In committee:  Set, first hearing.  Hearing canceled at the request
of author.

July 10 From committee:  Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on  APPR.

        Re-referred.  (Ayes  3. Noes  2.) .
July 5       From committee chair, with author’s amendments:  Amend, and re-refer
to committee.  Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on
PUB. S.

July 3  From committee:  Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on

        PUB. S.  (Ayes  3. Noes  1.) .
June 28   From committee chair, with author’s amendments:  Amend, and re-refer
to committee.  Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on
AGRI.
June 19    In committee:  Set first hearing.  Failed passage.  Reconsideration
granted.
June 13 From committee chair, with author’s amendments:  Amend, and re-refer
to committee.  Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on
AGRI.
May 17     Referred to Coms. on  AGRI. and  PUB. S.
May 10  In Senate.  Read first time.  To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

May 10  Read third time, passed, and to Senate.  (Ayes 41. Noes 29. Page

        1428.)
Apr. 23   Read second time.  To third reading.

Apr. 19 From committee:  Do pass.  (Ayes 11. Noes  5.) (April  18).

Mar. 28 From committee:  Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred.

        (Ayes  5. Noes  2.) (March  27).
Mar. 27 Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
Mar. 26   From committee chair, with author’s amendments:  Amend, and re-refer
to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.
Mar. 8  Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
Feb. 22      From printer.  May be heard in committee  March  24.

Feb. 21 Read first time.  To print.

From:
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/08/23/news/state/138161.txt

Government wants industrial hemp lawsuit thrown out

By Blake Nicholson, Associated Press Writer

The Bismarck Tribune

August 23, 2007

The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit
filed by two North Dakota farmers who applied to the Drug Enforcement
Administration for permission to grow industrial hemp.

The motion filed this week in federal court in Fargo says federal law
does not distinguish between industrial hemp and marijuana, which can
cause mood changes when smoked or eaten. It also says Dave Monson, a
state legislator who farms near Osnabrock, and Wayne Hauge, a farmer
from Ray in northwestern North Dakota, do not have a case because the
DEA has not finished reviewing their applications and they cannot
prove serious harm.

Tim Purdon, a Bismarck attorney who represents the farmers, called
the DEA’s response “predictable and without merit.”

The farmers’ lawsuit, filed in June, asks a federal judge to
recognize that hemp can legally be grown in North Dakota through the
state licensing process, which was approved by the North Dakota
Agriculture Department late last year.

“The DEA continues to confuse industrial hemp and marijuana, and
pretends that they can’t allow states to regulate hemp farming,”
Purdon said Wednesday. “Both assertions are untrue and misleading.”

Purdon said he would file a response to the defense motion within a few weeks.

Monson and Hauge in February were issued the nation’s first state
licenses to grow industrial hemp, which falls under federal anti-drug
rules because it has trace amounts of the mind-altering chemical THC.
The North Dakota licenses are worthless without federal permission.

North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson hand-delivered
applications from the two farmers to the DEA in mid-February, along
with the farmers’ nonrefundable $2,293 annual federal registration
fees.

Johnson asked for a decision by April 1 so the farmers could get a
crop in the ground. The DEA said that was unreasonable because the
approval process included, among other steps, a 60-day comment
period, a background check of the applicants and a farm inspection.

Monson had planned to seed 10 acres and Hauge planned to seed 100
acres of industrial hemp, which can be used to make everything from
paper to lotion and is legally grown in several other countries
including Canada. It is too late in the growing season for the North
Dakota farmers to seed a hemp crop this year, and their state
licenses are good for only one season.

The DEA earlier rejected a request from Johnson to waive the federal
registration requirement for hemp cultivation.

Copyright (c) 2007 Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises

From:
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=411727

Hope for hemp?
A look at one victim of the war on drugs

By Sena Christian

Sacramento News & Review

Although smoking industrial hemp will get you about as buzzed as
smoking wheat, “War on Drugs” hysteria in the United States has
created a conundrum for those who’d like to grow it.

Hemp can be fashioned into eco-friendly clothing, paper, plastics,
body-care products, building materials and energy alternatives. It’s
also a profitable crop for American farmers. But politics have
complicated attempts to tap into this annually renewable natural
resource. Ever since the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 placed
strict controls on its farming, hemp remains illegal to grow in the
United States without a hard-to-obtain permit.

“Every product derived from [hemp] is legal but the plant itself is
illegal. That’s crazy,” said Steve Levine, president of the Hemp
Industries Association.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency classifies hemp as a Schedule I
controlled substance. Failing to distinguish between varieties of
Cannabis sativa, the label groups hemp and marijuana together even
though industrial hemp contains almost no THC–the chief intoxicant
of pot. Levine quipped that a poppy-seed bagel probably has more
opium than a hemp cookie has THC. He also said that you could smoke
several pounds of industrial hemp and still test negative on a drug
test because hemp’s .03 percent THC content is nothing compared with
3 percent to 15 percent THC levels in marijuana flowers.

“It’s what politicians try to hide behind,” said Kyle Pulliam, owner
of Hemp in the Heartland in Old Sacramento.

The U.S. federal government permits trade in nonviable hemp oil, seed
and fiber, and Americans remain the largest consumers of hemp
products. We import raw material from roughly 30 countries, including
Canada, Mexico and parts of Eastern Europe. Yet the United States is
the only major industrialized nation to ban the cultivation of
non-psychoactive industrial hemp.

So we can import, transport and consume hemp. But we can’t grow it?

Pulliam stocks his shelves with flip-flops, massage oils, clothing,
bath salts and bags–all made out of hemp. The store also carries The
Emperor Wears No Clothes, the seminal piece of literature that
awakened the modern hemp movement when it was first published in 1985.

“People come in and say, ‘So can we smoke your clothing?’ It’s the
misperception from the media,” Pulliam said.

But educational efforts by hemp re-legalization advocacy groups might
just pay off. A recent survey by Vote Hemp showed that 71 percent of
California voters support changing state law to allow hemp’s
cultivation.

The federal Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 would allow states to
regulate its farming. In June, two North Dakota farmers with
state-issued hemp licenses filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
against the DEA for obstructing their attempts to farm the crop.
Fifteen states have passed pro-hemp legislation, and several others
have bills on the table, including California.

Authored by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and Assemblyman
Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, AB 684 is the second bipartisan attempt in
two years to legalize hemp farming. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
vetoed last year’s bill, claiming that the federal government’s stand
on the issue would put California farmers at risk of federal
prosecution. Organizations in favor of the bill argue that the
federal government has no jurisdiction if viable hemp plants do not
cross state lines. The bill has passed the Assembly.

“It would be great for California to legalize industrial hemp,”
Pulliam said. “It would save companies money for importing and
transportation costs.”

Hemp is a near perfect crop. It grows year-round, enriching the soil
as it develops, and the drought-resistant plant does not require
herbicides, pesticides or fungicides.

Anti-hemp camps argue that farmers might plant marijuana in their
hemp fields if cultivation were truly legalized. But marijuana and
hemp plants have different needs and harvest times. Hemp plants are
grown together to form a dense canopy that snuffs out other weeds,
while allowing seeds to spread and pollinate. Marijuana plants need
space to obtain nutrients to form their THC-infused flowers.

Mixing the two genetically distinct varieties of Cannabis would
result in cross-pollination, reducing marijuana’s potency–not the
smartest idea for someone hoping to get rich off the recreational or
medicinal product.

Levine said it confuses him that politicians and law enforcement use
this false fear as an excuse to continue banning hemp cultivation
“when all these other countries can easily identify the difference.”

Hemp has been around for thousands of years. Today, it’s used to make
necessities, like textiles, paper and food, as well as a few modern
luxuries.

The automobile industry is using hemp-derived cellulose to make
biodegradable plastics for door panels and luggage racks, replacing
harmful fiberglass composites. One-third of the cars in Germany
feature these plastics and automobile applications are expected to
increase European cultivation of hemp to more than 100,000 acres by
2010. Hemp is even an energy-efficient producer of ethanol for
biofuel.

Hemp is also a friend to the forest. It can be used to make paper,
generating more pulp per acre than timber. Manufacturing hemp reduces
wastewater contamination; its low lignin content decreases the need
for pulping acids. Its creamy color reduces the need for the harsh
chlorine compounds that timber-based paper production requires. The
result? Fewer chemical byproducts.

Advocates have pushed for hemp to serve as an environmentally
friendly replacement for cotton. More than 25 percent of all
pesticides in the world are sprayed on cotton fields. Additionally,
hemp yields three times more fiber per acre than cotton, and results
in a strong, durable and long-lasting fiber. Hemp textiles already
have carved out a niche in eco-chic fashion. Now the goal is to make
it less expensive.

Wildflower Boutique in Midtown sells organic and fair-trade clothing
for women and babies. About 50 percent of the store’s merchandise is
made from hemp, said owner Emily Hays.

“It lasts forever and it’s the greatest fabric,” Hays said. “At
first, I could hardly find any designers using hemp. Now, they’re
coming out of the woodwork.”

As the $300 million hemp product retail market in the United States
continues to grow, American farmers want in on the action. And the
consumer would reap the benefits of low-cost, locally grown hemp
merchandise. Growing it locally would help reduce the trade deficit
while promoting sustainable agriculture and eco-friendly alternatives
for common products. Until politicians pass legislation removing
restrictions on hemp farming, the rest of us are left scratching our
heads.

“I really don’t know why common sense doesn’t prevail,” Levine said.
“It’s frustrating.”

Copyright (c) 2007 Chico Community Publishing, Inc.

From:
http://www.in-forum.com/ap/index.cfm?page=view&id=D8R69LJ80

Government wants industrial hemp lawsuit thrown out

By Blake Nicholson, Associated Press Writer

The Associated Press

InForum - Fargo, ND

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

BISMARCK, N.D. - The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to
dismiss a lawsuit filed by two North Dakota farmers who applied to
the Drug Enforcement Administration for permission to grow industrial
hemp.

The motion filed this week in federal court in Fargo says federal law
does not distinguish between industrial hemp and its hallucinogenic
cousin, marijuana. It also says Dave Monson, a state legislator who
farms near Osnabrock, and Wayne Hauge, a farmer from Ray in
northwestern North Dakota, do not have a case because the DEA has not
finished reviewing their applications and they cannot prove serious
harm.

Tim Purdon, a Bismarck attorney who represents the farmers, called
the DEA’s response “predictable and without merit.”

The farmers’ lawsuit, filed in June, asks a federal judge to
recognize that hemp can legally be grown in North Dakota through the
state licensing process, which was approved by the North Dakota
Agriculture Department late last year.

“The DEA continues to confuse industrial hemp and marijuana, and
pretends that they can’t allow states to regulate hemp farming,”
Purdon said Wednesday. “Both assertions are untrue and misleading.”

Purdon said he would file a response to the defense motion within a few weeks.

Monson and Hauge in February were issued the nation’s first state
licenses to grow industrial hemp, which falls under federal anti-drug
rules because it has trace amounts of the mind-altering chemical THC.
The North Dakota licenses are worthless without federal permission.

North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson hand-delivered
applications from the two farmers to the DEA in mid-February, along
with the farmers’ nonrefundable $2,293 annual federal registration
fees.

Johnson asked for a decision by April 1 so the farmers could get a
crop in the ground. The DEA said that was unreasonable because the
approval process included, among other steps, a 60-day comment
period, a background check of the applicants and a farm inspection.

Monson had planned to seed 10 acres and Hauge planned to seed 100
acres of industrial hemp, which can be used to make everything from
paper to lotion and is legally grown in several other countries
including Canada. It is too late in the growing season for the North
Dakota farmers to seed a hemp crop this year, and their state
licenses are good for only one season.

The DEA earlier rejected a request from Johnson that the federal
registration requirement for hemp cultivation be waived.

Copyright (c) 2007 Forum Communications Co. Fargo, ND

Project for Excellence in Journalism
Election 2008-Candidate Web Sites, Propaganda or News?
July 12, 2007
http://www.journalism.org/node/6370

From:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003610959

PEJ Report: Campaign Web Sites Focus More On Issues, Less On Balance
By Joe Strupp
Editor & Publisher
July 12, 2007

NEW YORK A review of leading presidential candidates’ campaign Web
sites finds that most of them use “horse race” terminology less than
the mainstream media does, and mostly stick to the issues. But the
same study warns that they are clear tools of the candidates, with
little regard for balanced coverage.

[snip]

It adds that Edwards looks at the fewest issues, with six, and Dennis
Kucinich has the most at 91, noting he is the only discussing hemp
and animal rights.

Copyright (c) 2007 Nielsen Business Media, Inc.