Opinion: California Governor Nixes Industrial Hemp While North Dakota Moves On
Well, California’s "Fearless Fosdick" Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger has again stifled any hope of bringing the industrial hemp industry to California and the United States. Unlike his more forward-thinking and courageous counterpart in North Dakota, Schwarzenegger bowed to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and useless fears that industrial hemp will get you high, and vetoed Assembly Bill 684 which would have allowed a four-county, five-year pilot program of industrial hemp production in California.
In his veto message to the Assembly, he again stated, as he did before, that "Under federal law, all cannabis plants, regardless of variety or THC content, are simply considered to be ‘marijuana,’ which is a federally regulated controlled substance." He said signing of the bill "would give legitimate growers a false sense of security and a belief that production of ‘industrial hemp’ is somehow a legal activity under federal law." To me, that’s an insult to the intelligence and integrity of the agricultural community in California. He also suggested that enacting such a law could strain law enforcement resources and cause "significant problems" with drug enforcement in the state.
In all fairness, he’s right: that’s the law as written, back in 1938. I’ll refer you to my story on hemp and marijuana of May 10th, "Green Myth Busting; Hemp is Marijuana."
So let’s move forward. Mr Schwarzenegger doesn’t have the backbone to stand up to the feds and force the issue, as has the state of North Dakota. That state’s government set a strict set of rules concerning the growth of industrial hemp, and licensed farmer Wayne Hauge to plant and harvest hemp seed. The DEA stonewalled the application long enough so that Mr. Hauge was unable to plant a crop this year. As a result, Mr Hauge and State Representative David Monson filed suit against the DEA, asking for a declaratory judgement separating industrial hemp from marijuana as long as the industrial variety contains less than .3% THC, the psychoactive agent in marijuana. The DEA has asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, saying DEA policies can only be reviewed by a federal appeals court, and reiterated that federal law does not distinguish between industrial hemp and its cousin, marijuana. That action is still languishing in the courts.
Governor Schwarzenegger has loudly proclaimed his support of environmental issues over the years, but iced this one with a whimper. I’ve said it before: there’s a lot more to this hemp issue than just the fear of increasing marijuana production in the US. There must be some incredibly powerful lobbies intimidating Congress enough to not even touch the issue, when production of industrial hemp can bring so much to the American lifestyle. I refuse to believe it’s that simple, besides, there seems to be enough pot to go around right now, it’s coming across our borders by the ton and I suspect there’s still plenty of "home grown" cannabis to fill in for the few busts law enforcement makes during a year. But, let’s give the devil his due: the Governor has just signed into law several bills aimed at cleaning up the state’s environment.
That law needs to be changed, the North Dakota lawsuit against the DEA should go forward, and the federal government should listen to its citizens, something I fear has been lacking for several years now. Be sure to read the story at the Environmental News Network website, and roam the links to learn more about hemp.
As for Arnold, I’ve never liked his movies.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Industrial hemp has many potential uses: http://www.votehemp.com/markets_stalk.html
What kind of lifestyle choices are we attempting to force on you, Bob…? Seriously…
_______________________________________
Jeff McIntire-Strasburg
Senior Editor
Green Options
jeff@greenoptions.com
October 16th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
The biggest ones I know of are Melvin and Betty Sembler. They’re major campaign contributors and fundraisers for Bush and Romney, notorious mass child abusers, and drug policy advisors for politicians and presidents. They helped to sway the supreme court in the Raich case by filing a twisted amicus brief with misleading statistics, and they manufacture lots of drug war propaganda. http://dfaf.org/about/founders.php
I’m not sure if the Semblers have campaigned against hemp directly, but they are a major source of cannabis hysteria. They’ve also supported biological warfare with the Fusarium fungus, which would also kill industrial hemp (and maybe many other types plants if it mutated).
And BTW, 98% of all the the “marijuana” plants eradicated by law enforcement are just feral hemp (ditchweed), according to the DEA. http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t4382005.pdf
October 17th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Thanks for the clarification on the uses for industrial hemp, however, are there not acceptable alternatives already in use for each item listed? Alternatives that, although not perfect, don’t present the concerns of some regarding the “gateway drug”. Of course, someone with a tendency toward drug addiction will find something to feed that addiction regardless of the legality. If there are people who huff propellants from spray cans and lick the backs of toads for a high, there will always be those who can find and use the more traditional “illegal” drugs. I think the problem is far from cut-and-dry.
Regarding lifestyle, I believe both sides want to force choices upon the other. In this example, many on the liberal left (green) side of the aisle see the legitimate industrial uses of hemp weighing heavier than the potential risk that many on the conservative right side fears. Currently, the conservative view is law and that view is being imposed on the left. A counter to that is the belief by the greens that global warming is 100% man made and that additional restrictive legislation is required to bring those on the right into compliance. With the exception of the uber-rich politicos they support, the left would like to see the end of big oil, the death of factory farms and ranches, an increased tariff on frequent travelers (carbon credits), the abolition of large vehicles (trucks, suv’s, etc.), and so on. Currently, these restrictive ideas are just ideas but when and if they become law, the left will be imposing its values on the right. There are countless examples (not just green vs. non-green or hemp vs. non-hemp) where one side is imposing or want to impose its will upon the other.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
You can’t say that law imposes value without qualification. Laws aren’t about making people live a certain way, they’re about protecting individuals and the common good, which allow for personal values and lifestyles within that framework. Most importantly, they have to be based on some important need or fact, not gut feeling. CFC’s were outlawed because they were destroying the ozone layer. How did scientists prove that? With science, the same way the weight of scientific evidence is validating human-caused global warming now. If, back then, I argued that a bunch of liberals were trying to get rid of our refrigerators because they were forcing their values on us, you’d say I was crazy, right?
This issue isn’t about green vs. non-green, it’s about lack of evidence. Show me one shred of scientific data supporting the dangers of growing hemp with such low THC concentrations. You won’t find it. It would be like outlawing poppyseed muffins because they contain opium. It’s about bad definitions: - hemp is not marijuana and should not be regulated as such.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
“CFC’s were outlawed because they were destroying the ozone layer. How did scientists prove that? With science, the same way the weight of scientific evidence is validating human-caused global warming now. If, back then, I argued that a bunch of liberals were trying to get rid of our refrigerators because they were forcing their values on us, you’d say I was crazy, right?”
Maybe not “crazy”, but a little too faithful to the religion of environmental science. I suggest you run a few search engines on:
1. ozone hole shrinking
2. ozone hole growing
What you will learn from #1 is that thanks to the Montreal Protocol and the CFC ban the ozone hole was shrinking substantially between 1999 and 2002. Yeah! The scientists were right.
What you will learn from #2 is that the ozone hole has been growing from 2004 to the present. Whoa! Hold on a minute! The ban is still in place. What gives?
The only thing we know for sure is that removing CFCs from the foam used on the fuel tank of NASA’s space shuttle has increased the rate of foam to shuttle impact during launch, which damages the heat tiles and makes re-entry more risky. The irony of NASA fervently supporting a global ban to the possible detriment of space exploration highlights the dangers of unforeseen consequences.
In this case, maybe the risks are based upon a skewed perception of the relationship between marijuana and hemp. However, even though hemp has really low THC concentrations, surely some smart fellow out there has a way of distilling and purifying it to illegal concentrations.
October 19th, 2007 at 2:36 am
Hey Bob, maybe you could make a machine to extract the gold from seawater. Since it is present in low concentrations, I wonder why nobody has done it?
And to add a little bit to my other comment, the Drug Czar has posted something on his blog about Arnold’s veto:
http://pushingback.com/blogs/pushing_back/archive/2007/10/16/37743.aspx
Notice the links in the left margin to Drug Free America Foundation, and some other Sembler-affiliated organizations. Although there may actually be some rational explanation for the drug warriors’ hatred of all things cannabis, I think it’s more likely to be driven by simple hysteria. The Green Goblin is the biggest demon they have. We certainly wouldn’t want anyone to get the idea he might have a friendly side, now would we?
It’s for the children! We must save them!
And BTW, the hemp issue isn’t just a liberal/conservative thing anymore. Neither is marijuana, or the whole damn drug war, for that matter. “Conservative” politicians are shooting themselves in the foot by thinking the Right still supports this kind of insanity.
Oh, and here are couple of short news videos for you Bob:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/17/pip.hempregulation/#cnnSTCVideo
Seems like an additional source of profit for the agriculture industry would be preferable to giving them more welfare, don’t you think?
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
“Hey Bob, maybe you could make a machine to extract the gold from seawater. Since it is present in low concentrations, I wonder why nobody has done it?”
And I wonder why so many folks have concerns about consuming seafood that absorbs trace amounts of mercury naturally from the water. I never said that I was against industrial hemp. I did admit some ignorance regarding its many uses and do have some concerns over its potential hazards, even if some of you consider those concerns baseless.
As far as the conspiratorial aspects of the argument, I have nothing to say except that it seems there are conspiracies and cover-ups hovering around our government like crazy. Why did it take 60 years to release the information about FDR pushing Japan into a corner from which they came out fighting? What really crashed near Area 51 back in the 40’s? What happened to John Doe #2 during the Oklahoma City bombing investigation? What really brought down Flight 800? What was going on in Mena, Arkansas? And topping the list, who really shot JFK? There sure are a lot of questions (more than I’ve listed) out there still awaiting answers.
“It’s for the children! We must save them!”
Isn’t this the same argument being used to push socialized medicine (Hillary Care) on us? It’s always the cry used to raise taxes for education, which amazingly never reach the classroom. Personally, I get suspicious of all “for the children” mantras.
“Seems like an additional source of profit for the agriculture industry would be preferable to giving them more welfare, don’t you think?”
Yes.
October 28th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I was just pointing out the source of the current drug war hysteria (which they’re not denying; they’re bragging about it), and saying that it’s the only reason this hemp issue hasn’t been resolved already. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with any industrial lobbies.
Your concerns about its safety are unfounded. It’s been around forever, and grows wild all over the country anyway. And as Max mentioned, there is no shortage of high-grade pot.
And I consider the “for the children” mantra to be a red flag as well, and I’m a Republican.
This really isn’t a partisan issue.
October 29th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
And to add…
The state laws require licensing, regular testing, and regulated disposal of the leaves and flowers.
Every industrialized country in the world (except the US) has an active hemp production industry.
We already import hemp products to the US. You will likely find them in your local health food store, clothing stores, and even in your car.
Demand exceeds supply.