Hemp WerX

Hemp Products Made in America With Foriegn Material

2009-05-18T16:10:00.000-07:00

What if Americans could buy cigarettes but were banned from growing tobacco? Buy bread but not allowed to grow wheat? That is the case with industrial hemp, a product in everything from car doors to milk...legally.

Hemp farming was banned in the U.S. decades ago as part of the earliest drug wars. Hemp contains THC, like marijuana. But hemp is not marijuana.

more from source

Editorial by G.M. Sutliff about U.S. Economical Benefits of Indusstrial Hemp

2009-05-18T14:24:00.000-07:00

Whenever I'm in our local "health food" market I have a sense of frustration as I walk by the shelves of numerous hemp food products. Hemp growing is effectively banned by federal executive fiat, even as we import quantities of hemp from, mostly, Canada; in effect, this exports thousands of jobs, both agricultural and industrial. The hemp-products market is underdeveloped due to government interference -- an action based on ignorance supported by vested interests.

What are these "vested interests" afraid of? Could it be the paper products that hemp fibers can make, such as shopping bags that now consume about 14 million trees annually? Could it be the timber products that could replace our consumption of trees grown here and overseas? Could it be that hemp growing requires a fraction of the pesticides and herbicides that cotton and other fiber crops require? The readers' guesses are as good as mine.

My point is that none of these proven uses are permitted. Our good governor has ducked the issue by saying it's a federal responsibility.

Libertarian Congressman Ron Paul has introduced a House bill that would reverse our government's shortsighted banning of hemp farming. It is the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009, HR 1866.

It's my hope that our congressman, Kevin McCarthy, will support this bill; I've written asking for his support. Therein, I couldn't help pointing out to him that this bill is a job stimulus item that doesn't require government funding.

by: GERALD M. SUTLIFF

source

Your Dog Can Be Green with Industrial Hemp

2009-05-13T13:49:00.000-07:00

Hemp has been used industrially for centuries as building material, insulation, textiles, and food, and since now its green properties are so extolled, it is also used to make paper, biodegradable plastics, and biofuel. And now it's being used to make dog beds, accessories, and attire, to replace nylon, poly-blends and even cotton as a preferred fabric. No pesticides are needed for growing, it is almost instantly replenished once picked, and grows in near drought conditions.

One of the neat things about hemp textiles is that they soften over time as they become stronger. I know it seems like it should be the reverse, but that's why hemp is an ecologically superior fabric: it doesn't wear out. It resists not only wear, but stains, and tearing.

[ more on industrial hemp and doggie beds ]

Industrial Hemp is better than Synthetic Alternatives

2009-05-13T13:03:00.000-07:00

Regulation of Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.), is complicated by the fact that there are two common varieties of the plant with very different properties: the agricultural variety, known by the common name hemp, and the pharmacological variety, marijuana.

Prior to prohibition in the United States, industrial hemp was the subject of considerable excitement and speculation. The same is true today, as lawmakers and stakeholders in many states are considering the potential for reintroducing industrial hemp into the domestic economy.

The environmental performance of industrial hemp products is of particular interest because, to a large degree, environmental inefficiencies impose costs on society as a whole, not just on the producers and consumers of a specific good.

Many commodities which came to replace traditional uses of industrial hemp in the United States in the last century and a half have created significant environmental externalities.

Assessments of industrial hemp as compared to hydrocarbon or other traditional industrial feedstocks show that, generally, hemp requires substantially lower energy demands for manufacturing, is often suited to less-toxic means of processing, provides competitive product performance (especially in terms of durability, light weight, and strength), greater recyclability and/or biodegradability, and a number of value-added applications for byproducts and waste materials at either end of the product life cycle. Unlike petrochemical feedstocks, industrial hemp production offsets carbon dioxide emissions, helping to close the carbon cycle.

The positive aspects of industrial hemp as a crop are considered in the context of countervailing attributes. Performance areas where industrial hemp may have higher average environmental costs than comparable raw materials result from the use of water and fertilizer during the growth stage, greater frequency of soil disturbance (erosion) during cultivation compared to forests and some field crops, and relatively high water use during the manufacturing stage of hemp products.

Overall, social pressure and government mandates for lower dioxin production, lower greenhouse gas emissions, greater bio-based product procurement, and a number of other environmental regulations, seem to directly contradict the wisdom of prohibiting an evidently useful and unique crop like hemp.

article by: Skaidra Smith-Heisters

Benefits of Industrial Hemp, Being Ignored by U.S. Government

2009-05-13T12:57:00.000-07:00

Industrial Hemp is cheaper, more environmentally-friendly than crops now used to make car parts, jeans

With oil hitting record amounts per barrel and gas prices following, the federal government continues to prohibit U.S. farmers from growing Industrial Hemp, which could be used to efficiently produce biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol.

Hemp is also a cost-effective, environmentally-friendly substitute for polyester, cotton, fiberglass and concrete, according to a new Reason Foundation study that examines hemp's potential uses and the ways other countries are benefitting from it. Industrial hemp production is banned in the U.S. as an archaic consequence of the war on drugs.

"There are numerous environmental advantages to hemp," said Skaidra Smith-Heisters, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and author of the report. "Hemp often requires less energy to manufacture into products. It is less toxic to process. And it is easier to recycle and more biodegradable than most competing crops and products. Unfortunately, we won't realize the full economic and environmental benefits of hemp until the crop is legal in the United States."

The Reason Foundation study reveals that polyester fiber manufacturing requires six times the energy needed to grow hemp. And cotton is one of the most "water- and pesticide-intensive crops in the world." Hemp's naturally higher resistance to weeds and pests means it requires dramatically fewer pesticides than cotton.

Not only has the government banned hemp production in the U.S., it is also directly subsidizing other crops that the study shows to be "environmentally inferior." Corn farmers received $51 billion in subsidies between 1995 and 2005; wheat farmers were given $21 billion; cotton farmers fleeced taxpayers for $15 billion; and tobacco farmers were handed $530 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies.

The Reason study says the Drug Enforcement Administration's inability to distinguish between industrial hemp and marijuana is irrational and ignores scientific fact. The report states, "Marijuana cultivated for drug value contains between 3 and 10 percent of the active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. Industrial hemp typically contains 0.3 percent or less of this active ingredient-as a result, it has no value as a drug."

from Reason Foundation: article source

China Looks to Industrial Hemp for Poverty Alleviation

2009-05-07T13:10:00.000-07:00

After years of sometimes confused policy in which industrial hemp was lumped together with its psychoactive cousin marijuana, the Chinese government is now actively promoting hemp cultivation as a tool for lifting rural Chinese out of poverty.

China will build multiple hemp cultivation bases in Yunnan, Heilongjiang, Gansu and Anhui provinces as well as the autonomous regions of Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia by 2020, a project that is expected to bring three million people out of poverty, according to a Shanghai Daily report citing an official from the People's Liberation Army's General Logistics Department.

Production at one of the first facilities involved in this plan went online yesterday in Menghai County in Xishuangbanna Dai Autonomous Prefecture in southern Yunnan. The hemp fiber processing factory, owned by China Hemp Industrial Holding Co Ltd, has an annual capacity of 2,000 tonnes.

In addition to being used to produce fibers for rope and clothing, hemp can also be used to make paper which is much less damaging to the environment than paper made from trees. Aside from causing deforestation, tree paper is bleached with toxic chlorine bleach. Hemp paper can be bleached with less environmentally harmful hydrogen peroxide.

Industrial hemp can also be used to produce fuel, biodegradable plastics, construction materials and health foods.

The government in Xishuangbanna now provides farmers with free hemp seeds plus technical training. According to the prefecture's party chief Jiang Pusheng, there are nearly 10,000 farmers growing hemp in the area, farmers who through hemp cultivation stand to double their annual income from 2,000 yuan (US$293) to 4,000 yuan.

[ source of article ]

Industrial Hemp and Marihuana: The Confusion Reigns

2009-05-07T08:25:00.000-07:00

The War on a Plant
By Ed Quillen
POSTED: 04/12/2009 12:30:00 AM MDT

Historians of the future will doubtless marvel that a great and powerful republic, founded in part on "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but now suffering from difficult economic times would waste billions of dollars every year in a futile war against a humble plant.

That plant, of course, is hemp — source of oil, fiber and a mild psychoactive drug. It's so mild that in all of history, no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose.

And those who used it in their youth, like the three most recent American presidents (Clinton claimed he "didn't inhale," Bush was "young and foolish" in his jejune days, and Obama confessed that "pot had helped" during his youth), somehow managed to go on to reasonably productive lives.

So why is the stuff still illegal?

For one thing, there's an immense federal bureaucracy, the Drug Enforcement Administration, which naturally seeks to stay in business. As long as pot is illegal, the DEA has plenty of work. And when the need arises for a headline to show that the DEA is on the ball, its agents can always drive to some home that uses too much electricity, shoot the dogs, kick in the door, and announce that American youth are protected because it just seized plants with an estimated street value of $4.2 gazillion.

For another, there's our pharmaceutical industry, a major source of campaign contributions. The pill-makers buy candidates so they can protect their revenue streams.

Now, it might be too much to expect the federal government to move sensibly here. There are, after all, two wars and a crumbling economy to contend with. But Colorado could help itself by legalizing the cultivation, sale and use of marijuana with a reasonable excise tax of $25 an ounce.

It would save money in several ways, like lower law-enforcement costs, as well as a reduction in the prison population. Further, the corruption and violence associated with black markets should diminish.

More money would circulate in our state, as Colorado hemp farmers received money now going to Mexican drug cartels. Profitable farms mean that open space gets preserved through market mechanisms, rather than taxes and zoning. Further, it might enhance tourism, at least until other states catch on.

One possible snag is the federal government. No matter how sensible we make our state laws, there would still be draconian and moronic federal laws enforced by federal agents.

So initially, the marijuana excise tax proceeds should go to our state attorney general's office, with instructions that the money be used to defend all Coloradans charged with marijuana violations that are crimes under federal law but not under our enlightened state law.

In other words, every "probable cause" for a search warrant would be vigorously contested. The chain of evidence would come under intense scrutiny. The credibility of informants and agents would be subject to brutal cross-examination.

Every such trial — our tenacious defense teams would never plea-bargain — would be a grinding ordeal for the U.S. Attorney's office. The federal Department of Justice would soon move its prosecutorial resources away from pot and toward real crimes that people care about.

The downside? Maybe a few more lazy potheads munching junk food. But in today's economy, there aren't jobs for them anyway, so where's the harm to society?

Contrast that with the benefits of reduced spending on cops and prisons, a boost to Colorado agriculture, and increased revenue for our hard-pressed state government, if we'd just give up on this silly war against a plant.

[ source link ]

Industrial Hemp: The "Standing Silent Nation"

2009-05-07T07:54:00.000-07:00

Hemp, the “standing silent nation” as the Lakotas call it, has tens of thousands of uses, from superior textiles and cosmetics to biodegradable plastics. It is environmentally friendly, requiring no pesticides, little water and fertilizer and no herbicides. It controls erosion, produces huge amounts of biomass and oxygen, and replaces trees in making not just paper products, but building materials. That wild-eyed revolutionary Henry Ford actually built a CAR out of hemp! Yet growing industrial hemp remains illegal in the US.

The White Plumes, a hard-working family, hoped to lift themselves and their fellows out of the grinding poverty of their windswept, hardscrabble reservation land – much of it unsuited to either farming or livestock.

Unemployment in the Pine Ridge Reservation where the White Plumes live is 85 percent. Clearly, hemp production could create desperately needed and creative alternatives to poverty and despair, now that the buffalo are gone.

Deborah White Plume says: “As hemp is a multi-BILLION dollar a year industry, it very well can take our people – as a Nation – out of poverty and dependence. Perhaps THAT is why the US does not want us to grow hemp. If we have resources as a Nation, we won’t need welfare AND we might fight for our land, water, treaty.”

_______

[ more ] article w/pictures of Drug Enforcement Administration raiding an Industrial Hemp farm, on sovereign Native American Soil.

Industrial Hemp IS NOT "Marihuana"

2009-05-07T07:02:00.000-07:00

Hemp has been grown in America through most of our history. It is used for oil, rope, clothes and thousands of other products.

Some fear that marijuana growers will mix their plants in with the hemp. But the industrial hemp I’ve seen pictures of is tall and spindly, and looks nothing like bushy marijuana. Hemp has virtually none of the active ingredient that produces the high.

Marijuana growers would never mix their plants with hemp because the cross-pollination would drastically lower the drug content. But industrial hemp production remains illegal.

The Virginia legislature passed a resolution in 1999 endorsing the monitored experimental growing of hemp in Virginia, although none has been grown. North Dakota officials sued the U.S. government seeking permission to grow hemp. Their neighbors in Canada have been growing hemp for a decade and have been shipping millions of dollars worth to the U.S. for thousands of products.

Hemp is grown worldwide with no problems of it being used for illegal purposes. There’s no rational reason to keep U.S. farmers from growing this multi-purpose crop.

Excerpt from an article by:
Robert Legge - Editorial Columnist, rjma@hughes.net
Titled: Government-regulated marijuana might be America’s best option
Published: May 7, 2009

[source ]

Hemp Seed Butter Takes On Peanut Butter

2009-05-04T10:47:00.000-07:00

Peanut butter has long been one of North America’s favorite comfort foods, but the recent, massive product recall scare and the growing number of people with tree nut allergies have boosted culinary experimentation with ‘alternative’ seed spreads that are pleasing health-minded consumers. One of the popular new healthy alternatives to peanut butter is Hemp Seed Butter. While peanut butter has often been touted as a nutritious spread, nutrition experts and consumers are recognizing that Hemp Seed Butter with its 2000 mg of Omega-3 and 11g of protein per serving (2 Tbsp) blows peanut butter away.

Even though more than 181 million people in the U.S. use nut butters on their toast or in their sandwiches, according to a 2006 report from market research firm Packaged Facts, adventurous foodies are finding that the new wave of gourmet seed butters that are replacing peanut butter spreads in refrigerators across North America are an ideal way to add natural texture, flavor, color and nutrition benefits to recipes.

Cinnamon Delight Hemp Spread

1/2 cup Manitoba Harvest Hemp Seed Butter
2 teaspoons raw agave nectar
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon
pinch nutmeg
pinch sea salt

Stir all of the ingredients together in a bowl.

Hemp Seed - Nature’s Most Balanced Source of Omega-3 and Omega-6 Essential Fats

Hemp Seed Butter contains more heart-healthy omega 3 & 6 essential fats than any other seed or nut butter. It is also one of nature’s richest sources of complete protein. In his book, Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill, nutrition expert Dr. Udo Erasmus states: “Hemp seed butter puts peanut butter to shame in nutritional value.”

What it doesn’t contain also makes nutrition experts happy: no Trans Fats, no hydrogenated oils, no cholesterol, no added sugar, no gluten, no preservatives, and no artificial colors or flavors. Hemp seed butter has an attractive emerald green color, due to its rich content of chlorophyll, a powerful antioxidant.

[ more ]

Building With Hemp

2009-05-04T10:26:00.000-07:00

BUILDING WITH HEMP by Matt Muldoon

Hemp and humankind share a symbiotic relationship that stretches back into prehistory. The consumption of psychoactive strains of hemp - better known as cannabis - is well documented; but hemp is a crop with a wide variety of uses. Its fibres are used for high quality rope, cloth and paper; as a food it contains a large proportion of essential fatty acids and amino acids; and it has medicinal anti-inflammatory properties.

Hemp’s importance in East Anglia can be appreciated through the wealth of place names such as Hempnall, Hempstead and Hemplands. After a halt in cultivation in the 20th Century, hemp is being grown in the region once more as a crop which can be used in building. Dried hemp hurds are mixed with lime to create hempcrete. This hemp-lime mix sets hard like concrete, but unlike concrete it is attractive, lightweight, flexible, breathable, and also a good insulator. Hempcrete is cast around a timber frame to create high performance buildings which have a positive impact on the environment.

With their excellent insulation and breathability, hempcrete buildings are snug and regulate their own humidity efficiently. Hempcrete also provides thermal mass, meaning that it can store heat and release it slowly, helping to equalize temperatures between heating and cooling cycles. This creates a very happy and healthy living environment which is easy to heat and much less humid than masonry structures. Hempcrete can be used for walls, roofs, and solid-yet-warm floors. It’s also easily moldable into flowing curves and other interesting features. Since hempcrete is cast into a timber frame, it is also an excellent choice for the repair of old oak frame structures, providing a sympathetic alternative to daub and better thermal performance. It is comparable in price to brick and block, yet consistently outperforms it in terms of thermal insulation and humidity regulation.

The production of hempcrete even has a positive impact on the environment. The indigenous hemp crop grows voraciously in East Anglia without the need for agrochemicals, with one hectare of land producing enough hemp for a small house within 14 weeks. The crop protects against soil erosion and naturally drowns out weeds, so it’s easy to grow according to organic principles. Lime, the other essential ingredient in hempcrete, was produced all over the country for hundreds of years before the wide-spread adoption of cement during the 20th Century. Lime production releases 80% less carbon dioxide than cement production. And, since hempcrete “locks up” organic matter, it removes 110kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for every cubic metre installed. This makes hempcrete a material which is better than carbon neutral.

It’s easy to see why hempcrete is gaining popularity - it creates warmer, drier homes and has a positive impact on the environment. It’s not a complicated material; it’s made of essentially natural ingredients which have served us well for millennia.

From Inspirations Magazine April/May 2009 edtion.

Hemp, Why Not? Hemp Creates Green Jobs

2009-05-01T11:11:00.000-07:00

BY: Andrew L. Ziegler, May 1, 2009

With all the talk of our green economy fueled by green jobs, isn't it time for a mature debate and policy regarding hemp?

To start, one must shed oneself of 50-plus years of misinformation and propaganda. Hemp is not marijuana. You wouldn't serve field corn to your guests, you can't make heroin from the poppies in your flower bed, and pot smokers don't smoke hemp.

It's plant genetics, which any grain farmer knows all about. The more one reads about hemp research that has and is being done around the world, one must ask: "Why not America. Why not South Dakota?"

You can't get much greener than hemp. It needs less water to grow than other crops, requires no pesticides or herbicides and replaces vital nutrients to the soil while at the same time it removes cancer-causing heavy metals from the ground.

Hemp can produce four times more paper than trees per acre, which can be recycled up to 50 times as opposed to wood pulp's five.

Hemp also absorbs carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and as a food source, hemp seed meal and oil are almost unmatched. Hemp also can be made into more than 25,000 products from fuel to ice cream.

We elect leaders to not only take care of running our state but to have the vision to lead us into the future.

Envision a South Dakota that converts marginal river-area grain crops to hemp production, which, when harvested and brought to a modern green-processing plant in Redfield or Chamberlain, produces high-end products, providing jobs that finally might end the cycle of poverty that plagues the region. Hemp production also could spur research grants to our universities to develop new products, bringing more money and jobs.

The truth is just a few clicks of a mouse away. Inform yourself, then ask your leaders, "Why not hemp? "

Why must we continue the tired drumbeat of the past when we can tap the cymbals of change? I voted for a change last November, for a nation that makes policy based on facts and science - not fears, rhetoric or special interests. We all could be greener if our government would let us.

[ Argus Leader ]

Cannabis sativa L.

2009-04-30T15:02:00.000-07:00

Syn.: Cannabis indica Lam.
Cannabaceae
Hemp, Marijuana, Cannabis oil
Source: James A. Duke. 1983. Handbook of Energy Crops. unpublished.

Uses
A multiple-use plant, furnishing fiber, oil, medicine, and narcotics. Fibers are best produced from male plants. In the temperate zone, oil is produced from females which have been left to stand after the fiber-producing males have been harvested. Leaves are added to soups in southeast Asia. Varnish is made from the pressed seeds.

Three types of narcotics are produced: hashish (bhang), the dried leaves and flowers of male and female shoots; ganja, dried unfertilized inflorescences of special female plants; and charas, the crude resin, which is probably the strongest.

Modern medicine uses cannabis in glaucoma and alleviating the pains of cancer and chemotherapy.

More resin is produced in tropical than in temperate climates. Lewis lung adenocarcinonoma growth has been retarded by oral administration of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabinol, but not by cannabidiol. (J.N.C.I. 55: 597-602. 1975).
The delta-9 also inhibits the replication of Herpes simplex virus.

Folk Medicine
Medicinally, plants are tonic, intoxicant, stomachic, antispasmodic, analgesic, narcotic, sedative and anodyne. Seeds and leaves are used to treat old cancer and scirrhous tumors. The seed, either as a paste or as an unguent, is said to be a folk remedy for tumors and cancerous ulcers.

The decoction of the root is said help remedy hard tumors and knots in the joints. The leaf, prepared in various manners, is said to alleviate cancerous sores, scirrhous tumors, cold tumors, and white tumors.

The plant is also used for mammary tumors and corns (C.S.I.R., 1948-1976). Europeans are said to use the dregs from Cannabis pipes in "cancer cures" (Watt and Breyer-Brandwijk, 1962).

Few plants have a greater array of folk medicine uses: alcohol withdrawal, anthrax, asthma, blood poisoning, bronchitis, burns, catarrh, childbirth, convulsions, coughs, cystitis, delirium, depression, diarrhea, dysentery, dysmenorrhea, epilepsy, fever, gonorrhea, gout, inflammation, insomnia, jaundice, lockjaw, malaria, mania, mennorhagia, migraine, morphine withdrawal, neuralgia, palsy, rheumatism, scalds, snakebite, swellings, tetany, toothache, uteral prolapse, and whooping cough.
Seeds ground and mixed with porridge given to weaning children.

Chemistry
Most varieties contain cannabinol and cannabinin; Egyptian variety contains cannabidine, cannabol and cannabinol, their biological activity being due to the alcohols and phenolic compounds.

Resin contains crystalline compound cannin. Alcoholic extracts of American variety vary considerably in physiological activity. Per 100 g, the seed is reported to contain 8.8 g H2O, 21.5 g protein, 30.4 g fat, 34.7 g total carbohydrate, 18.8 g fiber, and 4.6 g ash.

In Asia, per 100 g, the seed is reported to contain 421 calories, 13.6 g H2O, 27.1 g protein, 25.6 g fat, 27.6 g total carbohydrate, 20.3 g fiber, 6.1 g ash, 120 mg Ca, 970 mg P, 12.0 mg Fe, 5 mg beta-carotene equivalent, 0.32 mg thiamine, 0.17 mg riboflavin, and 2.1 mg niacin.
A crystalline globulin has been isolated from defatted meal.
It contains 3.8% glycocol, 3.6 alanine, 20.9 valine and leucine, 2.4 phenylalanine, 2.1 tyrosine, 0.3 serine, 0.2 cystine, 4.1 proline, 2.0 oxyproline, 4.5 aspartic acid, 18.7 glutamic acid, 14.4 tryptophane and arginine, 1.7 lysine, and 2.4% histidine. Oil from the seeds contains 15% oleic, 70% linoleic, and 15% linolenic and isolinolenic acids.
The seed cake contains 10.8% water, 10.2% fat, 30.8% protein, 40.6% N-free extract, and 7.7% ash (20.3% K2O; 0.8% Na2O; 23.6% CaO, 5.7% MgO, 1.0% Fe2O3, 36.5% P2O5, 0.2% SO3; 11.9% SiO2, 0.1% Cl and a trace of Mn2O3). Trigonelline occurs in the seed.

Cannabis also contains choline, eugenol, guaiacol, nicotine, and piperidine (C.S.I.R., 1948-1976), all listed as toxins by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. A beta-resercyclic acid derivative has antibiotic and sedative properties; with a murine LD56 of 500 mg/kg, it has some aritiviral effect and inhibits the growth of mouse mammary tumor in egg embryo (Watt and Breyer-Brandwijk, 1962).

Toxicity
Non-users may suffer muscular incoordination (9 of 22 persons), dizziness (8), difficulty concentrating (8), confusion (7), difficulty walking (7), dysarthria (7), dry mouth (7), dysphagia (5), blurred vision (5), and vomiting (1), following oral ingestion of THC disguised in cookies (MMWR, October 20, 1978).

People working with the plant or the fiber may develop dermatitis. In larger doses, hemp drugs may induce catalepsy, followed by coma and DEATH from cardiac failure (C.S.I.R., 1948-1976).

Description
Annual herb, usually erect; stems variable, up to 5 m tall, with resinous pubescence, angular, sometimes hollow, especially above the first pairs of true leaves; basal leaves opposite, the upper leaves alternate, stipulate, long petiolate, palmate, with 3-11, rarely single, lanceolate, serrate, acuminate leaflets up to 10 cm long, 1.5 cm broad; flowers monoecious or dioecious, the male in axillary and terminal panicles, apetalous, with 5 yellowish petals and 5 poricidal stamens;

the female flowers germinate in the axils and terminally, with one 1-ovulate ovary; fruit a brown, shining achene, variously marked or plain, tightly embracing the seed with its fleshy endosperm and curved embryo. Fl. summer; fr. late summer to early fall; year round in tropics. Seeds weigh 1.5-2.5 gm/100 seeds.

Germplasm
As Cannabis sativa has been cultivated for over 4,500 years for different purposes, many varieties and cultivars have been selected for specific purposes, as fiber, oil or narcotics. Drug-producing selections grow better and produce more drug in the tropics; oil and fiber producing plants thrive better in the temperate and subtropical areas.

Many of the cultivars and varieties have been named as to the locality where it is grown mainly. However, all so called varieties freely interbreed and produce various combinations of the characters.

The form of the plant and the yield of fiber from it vary according to climate and particular variety. Varieties cultivated particularly for their fibers have long stalks, branch very little, and yield only small quantities of seed. Varieties which are grown for the oil from their seed are short in height, mature early and produce large quantities of seed.

Varieties grown for the drugs are short, much-branched with smaller dark-green leaves. Between these three main types of plants are numerous varieties which differ from the main one in height, extent of branching and other characteristics.

Reported from the Central Asia, Hindustani, and Eurosiberian Centers of Diversity, marijuana or cvs thereof is reported to tolerate disease, drought, fungus, high pH, insects, laterite, low pH, mycobacteria, poor soil, slope, and weeds. (2n = 20, 10, 40.)

Distribution
Native to Central Asia, and long cultivated in Asia, Europe, and China. Now a widespread tropical, temperate and subarctic cultivar and waif. The oldest use of hemp seems to be for fiber, and later the seeds began to be used for culinary purposes.

Plants yielding the drug seem to have been discovered in India, cultivated for medicinal purposes as early as 900 BC. In medieval times it was brought to North Africa where today it is cultivated exclusively for hashish or kif.

Ecology
Plants very adaptable to soil and climatic conditions. Hemp for fiber requires a mild temperate climate with at least 67 cm annual rainfall, with abundant rain while seeds are germinating and until young plants become established.

Thrives on rich, fertile, neutral to slightly alkaline, well-drained silt or clay loams with moisture retentive subsoils; does not grow well on acid, sandy soils. Of the many types of hemp, some are adapted to most vegetated terrains and climates.

Ranging from Cool Temperate Steppe to Wet through Tropical Very Dry to Wet Forest Life Zones, marijuana is reported to tolerate annual precipitation of 3 to 40 dm (mean of 44 cases = 9.9 dm), annual temperature of 6 to 27°C (mean of 44 cases = 14.4), and pH of 4.5 to 8.2 (mean of 38 cases 6.5) (Duke, 1978, 1979).

Cultivation
Propagation mainly by seed. Experimentally, drug plants have been propagated from cuttings but such plants do not come true as to drug content of parent. Seeds stored in cool, dry place remain viable for up to two years.

Hemp seed sown as early in spring as possible. Before sowing, land is plowed (in fall) several times to a depth of about 20-23 cm and repeatedly harrowed the land. In spring the land is harrowed again and rolled, making a firm tilth over the entire surface.

In some areas a first plowing is done in the fall and red clover or lupin planted; in January or February a second plowing turns these under as a green-manure. Generally sown in March, seeds germinate at low temperature, but not below 1deg.C.

Rate of seed sown varies with type of fiber desired; for coarse fiber for cordage and coarser textiles, 2.5 bu/ha is used; ...for finest fibers, 7.5-10 bu/ha used.

Seed sown by machine in rows from 12 cm upwards, placing the seed at depth of 3.5 cm at rate of 40-60 kg/ha.

In many countries seed sown broadcast. When grown for seed (oil), seed sown by drills; then such plants sometimes reach height of 5.3 m with thick stems up to 5 cm in diameter, much-branched.

For fiber, stems up to 2 m tall and 0.5 cm in diameter are best; larger stems tend to get woody and have lower fiber content. Besides, they are more difficult to handle during harvesting, retting and scutching.

Plants require little cultivation, except for weeding during early stages of growth.
Hemp grows rapidly and soon crowds out weeds.

After plants are 20 cm tall, weeding is abandoned.
Hemp tends to exhaust the soil of nutrients. Some nutrients are returned to the soil after plants are harvested.

On medium fertile soils a dressing of farm manure or a green-manure crop should be added and turned under. Chalk, potash, or gypsum may be applied to the soil to add the needed nutrition. Sodium nitrate and ammonium along with potassium sulfate have a beneficial effect on the fiber crop.

Fiber-producing plants should always have plenty of proper nutrients, especially nitrogen, which is the most important element needed. Irrigation is seldom practiced.

Harvesting
Hemp is ready for harvest four to five months after planting, rarely earlier for some varieties. Harvesting depends on the climatic conditions, the variety of hemp grown and whether the crop is being grown for hemp or seed.

In temperate areas, hemp is usually harvested from mid July to mid August. Both male and female plants look alike until they flower; then the male plants turn yellow and die, whereas the female plants remain dark green for another month until the seed ripens.

Male plants are ready to harvest for fiber when the leaves change from dark green to light brown. The best yield of fiber (and only male plants are used) is then obtained.

Hemp is harvested when the staminate flowers are beginning to open and shed their pollen. Seed is harvested from the female plants when most of it falls off when the plant is shaken.

Best time of day to harvest seed is in early morning when fruits are turgid and conditions damp.

As fruits dry out by mid-day, seed loss increases due to shattering. Usually stems are cut and the seeds shaken out over canvas sheets or beaten with sticks to extract the seeds.

For fiber, hemp plants are cut by hand with a hemp knife, similar to a long-handled sickle. Plants are cut 2-3 cm above the ground and spread on the ground to dry. In some areas, the entire plants are pulled up and laid out to dry.

Hand cutting, one man can cut about one-fifth hectare per day. Sometimes specially designed harvesters with a tractor are able to harvest four hectares a day.

In many areas several varieties of hemp are grown so as to spread out the harvest, one maturing in late July and used later for seed crop in September, a second crop maturing in mid August, and a third maturing near end of August.

Fiber is extracted from the stems of hemp by retting by methods similar to those used for other fiber plants. Sometimes the stems are dried before they are retted. After plants have air-dried for 4-6 days, the root and flower ends are cut off and the remaining portions, with branches and leaves taken or beaten off, are made into small bundles.

For retting, 15-20 of these smaller bundles are made into larger bundles. In other areas stalks are not dried before retting, green stems, after roots and flower ends have been cut off, are made into bundles, and retted immediately.

Hemp can be water retted, dew retted, or snow retted, according to the climatic conditions.
The retted hemp stalks consist of fiber in the outer rind and a woody interior portion. Fiber is separated from the stalk by a breaking process. Stalks are dried after retting and the woody shive is broken into short pieces called hurds.

Eventually the fibers are separated from the interior woody pieces by scutching by passing the bundles through a number of fluted rollers and then past large revolving drums with projecting bars which remove any remaining pieces of wood.

Machines are able to handle 3-3.5 MT dried straw every hour, producing 0.4-0.5 MT of cleaned fiber.

Yields and Economics
Yields of hemp per hectare depend on climatic conditions, variety grown, soil and nutrition, and spacing of plants in the field.

Weight of dried stems per hectare is usually between 4.5 to 7.5 T, with a yield of fiber about 25% of the dried stalks.

Usually the taller the plant, the longer will be the fiber with a greater yield per plant. In some areas fiber yields of 850- 1,700 kg/ha compared to 1,300-1,700 kg/ha seed and 30 kg ganja.

The U.S.S.R. is the largest producer of hemp in the world, producing about 33% of hemp fiber, annually 105,000 MT compared to the world production of 255,000 MT (excepting China).

France and West Germany are the chief importers, Italy and Yugoslavia exporters.

Chile, China, Japan and Peru also produce hemp.

Narcotic production is usually clandestine, but there is legal marijuana production in India.
India is the main producer and exporter of oil from the seed.

Energy
In India, plants remaining in the field after harvesting for fiber are allowed to set seed. They are cut after the fruits are ripened and dried and threshed for seed collection. Grown solely for seeds, an average crop yields 1.3 to 1.6 MT/ha seed.

The world low production yield was 288 kg/ha in Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the international production yield was 613 kg/ha, and the world high production yield was 3,842 kg/ha in People's Republic of China.

Biotic Factors
Among diseases of Cannibis are: Botryosphaeria marconii (stem canker, wilt), Botrytis cinerea (gray mold), Cylindrosporium sp. (leaf spot), Fusarium sp. (canker, stem rot), Gibberella saubinetii (stem rot), Hypomyces cancri (?root rot), Macrophominia phaseoli, Phomopsis cannabina, Phymatotrichum omivorum (root rot), Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (stem rot, wilt), Sclerotium rolfsii (southern blight), Septoria cannabis (leaf spot).

Nematodes include: Ditylenchus dipsaci, Heterodera humuli, Longidorus maximus, Meloidogyne hapla, M. incognita, M. incognita acrita, M. spp., and Pratylenchus coffeae (Golden, p.c., 1984). Occasionally Orobanche ramosa is paratitic on the roots.

References
Duke, J.A. 1978. The quest for tolerant germplasm. p. 1-61. In: ASA Special Symposium 32, Crop tolerance to suboptimal land conditions. Am. Soc. Agron. Madison, WI.
Duke, J.A. 1979. Ecosystematic data on economic plants. Quart. J. Crude Drug Res. 17(3-4):91-110.
C.S.I.R. (Council of Scientific and Industrial Research). 1948-1976. The wealth of India. 11 vols. New Delhi.
Watt, J.M. and Breyer-Brandwijk, M.G. 1962. The medicinal and poisonous plants of southern and eastern Africa. 2nd ed. E.&S. Livingstone, Ltd., Edinburgh and London.

source

James A. Duke. 1983. Handbook of Energy Crops. unpublished.
Complete List of References

Hemp Around the World

2009-04-30T00:34:00.000-07:00

Common Names of hemp:

Canamo – Spain and Chile
Hanf – Austria and Germany
Hanp - Denmark
Hanpu – Finland
Hennep – Netherlands
Kender – Hungary
Konopli – Russia
Konoplja – Yugoslavia
Ma – China
Penek – Poland
Taima – Japan

[Hemp Werx~ been a long day of research, will come back and link this up later]

Since China is the birthplace of hemp, it is only logical that the origin of the name comes from there as well. Ma, the Chinese name for "hemp", is the most basic of verbal sounds, meaning "mother" in every human language. However, in China, it is also synonymous for horse and used much like a verbal question mark. The strokes for the Chinese character depict a home and inside, hemp fibers are hanging from a rack. Used in combination with other characters, ma gives influence to such other Chinese word-meanings as numb, clever, anaesthetic, linen, indifferent, troublesome, sparrow, and the game Mahjongg. Each of these words contains the character for hemp.

Countries
Australia allows research crops. In the state of Victoria, commercial production began in 1998; and in Tasmania, in 1995. New South Wales and Queensland are also in various stages of research and production. There are also thriving businesses selling hemp products. For more info about hemp growing in Australia and Tasmania, see here

Austria has a hemp industry, including production of hemp seed oil and medicines. For more info see here

Canada began licensing fiber research crops in 1994 and one seed crop in 1995. By 1997, many acres were planted. As of 2002, there were over 35,000 acres (14,200 hectares) planted. A number of Canadian farmers are now growing organically certified hemp crops. As an historical fact, the Doukabours, a Christian vegetarian freedom sect living in western Canada since the early 1900s, apparently prepared hempseed paste for food when they were in Russia. In the New World, they resumed growing and using hemp for food and fiber both before and after prohibition.

Chile grows hemp mostly for seed oil production. More can be read in this article http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/HEMP/IHA/iha03213.html

China still produces the largest commercial hemp crop. Hemp has a long history in China, where it has been a primary survival food for thousands of years. Near the end of WWII, hemp saved multitudes of starving people in northern China. General Counsel Ralph Loziers of the US National Institute of Oilseed Production told a congressional committee in 1937: "Hempseed…is used in all the Oriental nations and also in a part of Russia as food. It is grown in their fields and used as oatmeal. Millions of people every day are using hempseed in the Orient as food. They have been doing this for many generations, especially in periods of famine”. The seed crop is roasted for domestic snacks and oil where almost 40% is exported.
Until the 1980s, hemp was the primary fiber for clothing and has never ceased being used to make paper. During the century from 1890 to 1990, the hemp industry declined, but started to increase in the 1990s. Many people have always had their own tiny plots of hemp, which also grows abundantly around many temples. Because the Chinese system is socialist, business efforts are directed by the government. Scientists have been directed to research non-wood paper production alternatives; and, although hemp is by no means the only non-wood fiber that could be used, their conclusion is that it is the best, most productive, economical, and ecologically-beneficial fiber.

China remains the world’s largest exporter of hemp paper and textiles. Hemp textiles today are regarded by most Chinese as old-fashioned. Unfortunately, the trend there is to emulate Western styles. Most Chinese hemp pulp contains the whole stalk of both bast and hurd fibers which are pulped together in their natural percentages for paper-making. Hemp pulp is also used to strengthen other fibers that would otherwise not be strong enough on their own to make paper. Generally, between 5% and 25% hemp content is common in paper used domestically in China; but 100% hemp content is used for very thin specialty peper and currency.

In China, fiber hemp is designated by colour. Various varieties will produce red, yellow, and green; but the properties of the three types of fiber are identical. Hemp has three uses: textiles, paper, and seed production. The bast fiber is used primarily for textiles. When it is stripped from the stalk, it is generally done in the field by hand since 80% of the Chinese people work in agriculture. Most hemp is dew-retted and takes up to three weeks for the bacterial action to break down the leaves and stalks for easier removal of the bast fiber. This does limit the usefulness of hurds for animal bedding though.

Hemp has always played a major role in funeral rites. (See History of Hemp 300 BCE.)

Denmark planted its first modern hemp trials in 1997. The country is committed to utilizing organic agriculture methods.

Egypt, Korea, Portugal, Thailand, and Ukraine also produce hemp.

Europe is showing a renewed interest in growing hemp, and well it should since it has a long history with the hemp plant. Hempseed was an abundant food of the rural poor in the 15th century because of increased hemp production for fiber that supplied colonial ships with sails and rope. The raw material came from the traditional hemp cultivation zones in northeastern Europe, where hempseed was made into vegetable oil, hempseed meal, and a smooth paste similar to peanut butter. Eating hempseed porridge made them more resistant to diseases than the nobility, who considered hemp foods to be of the lower classes. Monks were sustained by three meals a day of hempseed in the form of porridge, gruel, or soup. In Latvia, hempseed is traditionally included in festival foods on St. John’s Day. In Latvia and Ukraine, a hempseed dish is served on Three Kings’ Day; and in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Ukraine, a hempseed soup, called semientiatka, is eaten on Christmas Eve. Southern Slavs offered hempseed at weddings to ensure happiness and wealth. (Perhaps it was tossed instead of rice). European peasants planted hempseed on all the saints’ days.

Finland has had a resurgence of hemp beginning in 1995 with several small test crops.

France harvested 10,000 tons of hemp in 1994 and is the main source of viable low-THC hemp seed. See the article “Fiber Hemp in France” for more information.

Germany banned hemp in 1982, but liftedthe ban in 1995 after research on new hemp use began in 1992. As a result, many technologies and products are being developed. Clothes and paper are currently made from imported raw materials.

Great Britain lifted its hemp prohibition in 1993 when only 300 acres were planted. A government grant was given to develop new markets for natural fibers, and 4,000 acres were grown in 1994. Since then, animal bedding, paper, and textiles have been developed. Subsidies of £230 per acre (£93 per hectare) are given by the government for growing hemp. It is well known that without hemp, the British navy would not have been the immense power it was. The sails and rigging were made of long strands of hemp fiber, and the sails from heavy hemp canvas. The rigging of the largest sailing ships weighed 50 to 100 tons. Hemp was used because it was the strongest natural fiber, gained strength when it was wet, did not become brittle or crack in extremely cold environments, and lasted the longest. A 100-ton ship’s rigging required about 200 acres of hemp and a fleet of 50 ships require 10,000 acres (15 square miles). More about the 1993 Hemp Project can be found here.)

Hungary is rebuilding its 1,000-year-old hemp industry. It is one of the biggest exporters of hemp cordage, rugs, and hemp fabric to the United States. Hungary also exports hemp seed and hemp paper. In 1991 there were about 6,500 hectares of hemp growing in two eastern areas, a mere remnant of a once-thriving industry. The Soviet army used hemp in the far north where the extremely low temperatures made plastics and synthetic fibers brittle and unusable. The empire’s dissolution and Russia’s subsequent near bankruptcy virtually eliminated Hungary’s principal customers. Consequently, hemp production has become a specialty item.

India has large stands of wild hemp and uses it for cordage, textiles, and seed oil. Since ancient times, hempseed has been pressed to provide oil for flavoring food and is still eaten by the poor, who consider it a tasteful and nutritious staple of their diet. They mix it with goosegrass to make bosa, or with wheat and rice or amaranth to make mura.

Italy has licensed 2,500 acres (1,018 hectares) for hemp fiber cultivation as a pilot project. The crop will be made into cloth for designer Georgio Armani and others.

Japan has a religious tradition that requires the Emperor to wear hemp garments, so there is a small plot maintained for the imperial family only. Some hemp is legally grown in the central part of the country, but Japan continues to import hemp for cloth and artistic applications.

Netherlands is conducting a four-year study to evaluate and test hemp for paper, and is in the process of developing the necessary processing equipment. Seed breeders are also developing new strains of low-THC varieties. In 1989, a $10 million four-year integrated research program which was to develop hemp as a crop for use in a non-polluting paper industry began. The report by the government’s agricultural department’s research center was released in 1994.

Nicaragua produces two hemp crops per year on 4,000 acres of a tropical engineered variety of hemp developed by a private company (Hemp-Agro International) located in Nicaragua and Canada. This variety called Zolguanica '95' was introduced in 1995 in conjunction with Ukranian and Chinese seed stock.

Poland currently grows hemp for fabric and cordage, and manufactures particleboard. Farmers there have a long tradition of growing hemp and have demonstrated the benefits of using hemp to cleanse soils contaminated by heavy metals since many toxic sites were left by the Russian army during its 45-year occupation. In fact, it has been found that hemp takes more metals from the soil than any other plant tested.

Romania is the largest commercial producer of hemp in Europe. In 1993, they had a total cultivation area of 40,000 acres (16,200 hectares). Some hemp is exported to Hungary for processing. Romania also exports to Western Europe and the United States.

Russia maintains the largest hemp germ plasm collection in the world at the N. I. Vavilov Scientific Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) in Saint Petersburg. The institute needs money to pay curators to maintain this collection and to prevent it from being lost.

Slovenia grows hemp and manufactures currency paper.

South Africa has identified a demand for hemp fiber. European hemp cultivars are not adapted to the shorter daylight periods of South Africa and research was carried out to develop a suitable cultivar for the region. During the 1997/98 season, a breeding program began but currently, since both hemp and dagga are classified as Cannabis, it remains illegal to grow hemp in South Africa. It has long been known that Suto mothers weaned their children with hempseed and bread or mealie pap.

Spain grows and exports hemp pulp for paper and produces rope and textiles.

Switzerland is one of Europe’s major hemp producers.

United States granted the first hemp permit in 40 years to Hawaii for an experimental quarter-acre (0.10 hectare) plot in 1999. However, importers and manufacturers have long thrived using imported raw materials and food products. Legislators in Vermont, Hawaii, North Dakota, Montana, Maine, Illinois, Virginia, California, Arizona, and Maryland have passed bills to support research into hemp cultivation. Three states – Colorado, Arkansas, and Missouri – have initiatives pending.

source

"Old Ironsides" Is No Longer the Original... Where's the Hemp?

2009-04-29T19:20:00.000-07:00

WHERE'S THE HEMP?
By John E. Dvorak, Hempologist

The U.S.S. Constitution is one of this country's national treasures. In addition to having the distinction of being the world's oldest commissioned warship, Constitution never lost a battle during her legendary career. Almost two feet of solid oak, live oak, and fir were used to construct the hulls that rendered cannon balls useless against "Old Ironsides".

The namesake of the last remaining Constitution-class frigate was originally outfitted with cannabis hemp sails and over 60 tons of cannabis hemp rigging. Constitution's most recent restoration was planned with an eye on her 200th birthday. On July 21, 1997, Constitution sailed off of Marblehead, MA under her own power for the first time in 116 years. The fact that little, or possibly no, "true" cannabis hemp was used during Constitution's restoration mars the celebration of this historic event.

I wanted to know why this American icon wasn't being restored in a historically accurate manner. Chris Conrad (author of the new book, Hemp For Health) summed up my feelings about this when he said, "that's not restoring it, that's defacing it". Chris also pointed out that Disney is using hemp in some of its exhibits and historical simulations at Disneyland. If the restoration of Constitution is not a "Mickey Mouse" operation, we'd like to know; WHERE'S THE HEMP!?!

Was this oversight a conspiracy by an evil industrial/political cabal, who, for over 60 years, have plotted and schemed to prevent cannabis hemp from being used to provide innumerable eco-friendly products?

Evidence of this exists in the March, 1997 issue of Buzz Magazine, where DEA special agent, Abel Reynoso, was quoted as saying "Nobody cares about the environmental uses of hemp. That's taking us back to the Stone Age. . . Whatever product you can make from hemp, DuPont will come out with a synthetic fiber to replace it." While petroleum products seem inexpensive, their true costs are being passed on to the environment and humanity when the negative aspects of petroleum exploration, refining, consumption, and dependence (i.e., The Gulf War) are factored in.

Unfortunately for historical (and hemp) purists, a lack of demand caused the production of marine grade (K1) hemp fiber to cease. However, thanks to the efforts of Don Wirtshafter (800-BUY-HEMP) and others, it is once again being produced. The individuals responsible for the rebuilding of one of Holland's most historic ships, the Batavia, are using cannabis hemp oakum and cordage.

As is the case with Holland's tolerance toward the personal use of cannabis, America should well consider adopting a new attitude toward the use of historically (and environmentally) correct materials over cheap, toxic replacements. If the masters of deception and fantasy (Disney) use hemp, why can't the United States Navy? Where's the Hemp?!? Please contact the Charlestown Navy Yard and politely ask them to consider using true cannabis hemp in any future restoration projects of Constitution.

U.S.A. The Hemp Outsiders Looking In

2009-04-29T18:27:00.000-07:00

Growing Hemp Food and Body Care Sales is Good News for Canadian Hemp Seed and Oil Producers

Left Out of Hemp's Renaissance, U.S. Farmers Continue Legal Battle

WASHINGTON, April 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Hemp Industries Association (HIA), a trade association consisting of hundreds of hemp businesses, has just released final estimates of the size of the U.S. retail market for hemp food and body care products in 2008. Data supporting the estimates show that retail sales of hemp food and body care products in the U.S. have continued to set records in 2008. Strong sales of popular hemp items like non-dairy milk, shelled hemp seed, soaps and lotions have occurred against the backdrop of state-licensed hemp farmers in North Dakota fighting a high stakes legal battle against the DEA to grow hemp for U.S. manufacturers. The new sales data validate U.S. farmers' position that they are being shut out of the lucrative hemp market that Canadian farmers have cashed in on for over a decade now.

The sales data, collected by the market research firm SPINS, were obtained from natural and conventional food retailers, excluding Whole Foods Market and other establishments not providing sales data - and thus underestimate actual sales by a factor of at least three. According to the SPINS data, hemp grocery sales grew in the sampled stores by 42% over the previous year ending December 27, 2008, or $2.56 million, to a total of $8.64 million. The SPINS data also show that sales of hemp body care products grew by 19%, or $3.00 million, over the previous year to a total of $19.12 million. Finally, according to SPINS, combined hemp food, body care and vitamin product sales grew by 22%, or $6.11 million, over the previous year to a total of $33.51 million.

Due to significant sales excluded from the SPINS data, such as The Body Shop, Whole Foods Market and restaurants, as well as the fact that many unreported leading mass-market brands of suntan lotion and sunscreen products include hemp oil, the HIA estimates the total retail value of North American hemp food, vitamin and body care product sales to be in the range of $100-120 million for 2008.

"Farmers who want to grow hemp to support the steady double-digit growth are mad as ever about being shut out by our backward federal government," says David Bronner, who makes Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and uses hemp oil in all his top-selling products. "The HIA is confident that the total North American hemp food and body care market over the last year accounted for $100-120 million in retail sales," adds Bronner, who also chairs the HIA Food and Oil Committee.

"We expect double-digit growth in the hemp food sector to continue through 2009, as consumer interest in 'green' healthy products grows," comments Eric Steenstra, HIA Executive Director. "It is amazing that the growth of the sector is as strong as it is, given the stigma of hemp being the only food crop not legal to grow in the U.S."

A federal bill was introduced in Congress earlier this month that, if passed into law, would remove restrictions on the cultivation of non-psychoactive industrial hemp. The chief sponsors of HR 1866, "The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009," Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX), were joined by nine other U.S. House members from both sides of the aisle.

[ source link ]

Industrial Hemp, No Dancing Matter

2009-04-29T18:10:00.000-07:00

Hemp — the Law, the Musical
Dept. of Really Strange Bedfellows
By CHRIS FARAONE April 29, 2009

When liberal congressmen like Barney Frank begin co-sponsoring bills with libertarians like Ron Paul, there must be something funny in the air. That stench — according to activists, agriculturalists, and economists alike — is the manure that Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officials have fed Americans about industrial hemp for decades, which has resulted in policies that allow for hemp to be imported, but not ones that let suffering American farmers cultivate it themselves.

Coincidentally simultaneous with the landmark (and fashionably dubbed) Paul-Frank proposal — which would lift senseless restrictions on industrial-hemp farming — local playwrights Terry Crystal and Don DiVecchio are rolling out their five-years-in-the-making musical, The Caitlin County Hemp Wars, for one night only at the Zero Arrow Theatre in Harvard Square. Their motivation is simple: banning non-psychoactive hemp because of stigmas regarding its genetic cousin marijuana is like banning bananas because of Ron Jeremy.

"It's outrageous that something so potentially useful is illegal to grow in the United States," says Crystal, a Boston University librarian who first became interested in hemp as a functional material while studying at Rhode Island School of Design more than a decade ago. "It's ridiculous, and you just have to wonder why."

Crystal and DiVecchio didn't have to manufacture their dramatic angle. The fictional Hendricks family of farmers in Hemp Wars turns to the forbidden plant as a means for survival, and in turn, get crop blocked by DEA agents, who, like in real life, cite federal prohibitions to ride roughshod over farmers in the four states where it's legal to grow hemp.

The musical was actually inspired in part by a Boston Phoenix article. In his 1998 story "Where's the Hemp?" author John E. Dvorak lambastes the United States Navy for replacing 60 tons of cannabis hemp rigging on the USS Constitution with synthetic sails and cordage. The larger notion in his commentary, though — much like that of Hemp Wars — is hemp's plight in America, which reads like a twisted capitalist conspiracy.

Since the production premieres in Harvard Square, the room will likely be filled with bespectacled liberal activists in loose clothes. But considering the affection that both farmers and hipsters have for hemp, this production is as universal a gesture as legislation proposed by a Newton Democrat and a Texas gasbag.

"Sure, our musical is about hemp," says Crystal. "But it's also about three generations of community and family trying to maintain."

The Caitlin County Hemp Wars will premiere Tuesday, May 5, at 7:30pm, at the Zero Arrow Theatre, in Harvard Square. Tickets are $20. For more information, visit caitlincounty.com.

California Bill AB 390

2009-04-28T09:06:00.000-07:00

BILL NUMBER: AB 390 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Ammiano

FEBRUARY 23, 2009

An act to add Section 22394.1 to, and to add Chapter 14.5
(commencing with Section 25400) to Division 9 of, the Business and
Professions Code, to amend Section 68152 of the Government Code, to
amend Sections 11014.5, 11054, 11357, 11364.5, 11370, 11470, 11479,
11488, 11532, 11703, and 11705 of, to add Division 10.3 (commencing
with Section 11720) to, and to repeal Sections 11358, 11359, 11360,
11361, and 11485 of, the Health and Safety Code, to add Part 14.6
(commencing with Section 34001) to Division 2 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code, to amend Sections 23222 and 40000.15 of the Vehicle
Code, and to amend Section 18901.3 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code, relating to marijuana.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 390, as introduced, Ammiano. Marijuana Control, Regulation, and
Education Act.
Existing state law provides that every person who possesses,
sells, transports, or cultivates marijuana, concentrated cannabis, or
derivatives of marijuana, except as authorized by law, is guilty of
one or more crimes.

This bill would remove marijuana and its derivatives from existing
statutes defining and regulating controlled substances. It would
instead legalize the possession, sale, cultivation, and other conduct
relating to marijuana and its derivatives by persons 21 years of age
and older, except as specified. It would set up a wholesale and
retail marijuana sales regulation program, including special fees to
fund drug abuse prevention programs, as specified, to commence after
regulations concerning the program have been issued, and federal law
permits possession and sale consistent with the program. It would ban
local and state assistance in enforcing inconsistent federal and
other laws relating to marijuana, and would provide specified
infraction penalties for violations of these new marijuana laws and
regulations, as specified. It would make other conforming changes.
By creating various infractions for violations of regulations and
laws created by this act, this bill would impose a state-mandated
local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.

Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.
It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this,
the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act, to do all of
the following:

(a) To legalize marijuana and its derivatives.

(b) To remove all existing civil and criminal penalties for adults
21 years of age or older who cultivate, possess, transport, sell, or
use marijuana, without impacting existing laws proscribing dangerous
activities while under the influence of marijuana, or certain
conduct that exposes younger persons to marijuana.

(c) To ensure that the proper regulatory apparatus for marijuana
sale and cultivation is ready when permitted by the federal
government.

(d) To raise funds and to discourage substance abuse by the
imposition of a substantial fee on the legal sale of marijuana, the
proceeds of which will support drug education and awareness.

(e) To impose a set of regulations and laws concerning marijuana
comparable to those imposed on alcohol.

(f) To impose substantial fines for violations of the
noncommercial regulations and laws concerning marijuana, which will
be applicable until and after commercial marijuana is available by
virtue of future changes in federal law.

(g) To prevent state and local agencies from supporting any
prosecution for federal or other crimes relating to marijuana that
are inconsistent with those provided in this bill.

(h) To exclude from the fees and regulations imposed by this act
marijuana that is for uses other than smoking or ingestion, and to
exclude medicinal marijuana from fees under these provisions.

(i) To encourage the federal government to reconsider its policies
concerning marijuana, and to change its laws accordingly.

SEC. 2.
Section 23394.1 is added to the Business and Professions
Code, to read:
23394.1. An off-sale general license, as provided for in Section
23394, also authorizes the sale, to consumers only and not for
resale, of marijuana, concentrated cannabis, or any of its
derivatives pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 14.5 (commencing
with Section 25400) of this division.

SEC. 3. Chapter 14.5 (commencing with Section 25400) is added to
Division 9 of the Business and Professions Code, to read:
CHAPTER 14.5. COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA PRODUCTION AND SALE
25400. For purposes of this chapter, "marijuana" means all parts
of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds
thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated
cannabis; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,
mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. It does not
include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the
stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other
compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of
the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil,
or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant that is incapable of
germination.

25401.
(a) The department shall license commercial cultivators of
marijuana. The fee for the license shall be set at an amount that
will reasonably cover to costs of assuring compliance with the
regulations to be issued, but may not exceed five thousand dollars
($5,000) for an initial application, or two thousand five hundred
dollars ($2,500) per year for each annual renewal.

(b) Regulations adopted by the department pursuant to this chapter
shall require background checks of applicants be conducted. At the
request of the department, the Attorney General or any local agency
shall provide summary criminal history information to the department
as provided in Sections 11105 and 13300 of the Penal Code.

25402.
The department shall, with consideration for the risks
posed by cultivation of a valuable crop with public health
implications that is subject to significant fees, issue and enforce
regulations concerning commercial cultivators of marijuana that
provide for all of the following:

(a) Adequate security to reasonably protect against unauthorized
access to the marijuana crop at all stages of cultivation,
harvesting, drying, processing, packing, and delivery to licensed
sales outlets or wholesalers. Each licensee shall be required to
provide a detailed crop security plan, along with satisfactory proof
of the financial ability of the licensee to provide for that
security.

(b) Appropriate employment rules, including the rule that a person
under 21 years of age may not have access to marijuana during
cultivation, storage, drying, packing, or at any other time.

(c) Safeguards to assure that a person under 21 years of age may
not transport marijuana on behalf of a commercial buyer or commercial
seller.

(d) Restrictions to ensure that marijuana is not used or consumed
on the premises of a commercial cultivator.

(e) An inspection and tracking system to reasonably ensure that
all marijuana produced by the cultivator that is eventually sold is
assessed pursuant to Part 14.6 (commencing with Section 34001) of
Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

(f) Recordkeeping consistent with the regulatory needs of the
department.

25403.
(a) The department shall license marijuana wholesalers,
who shall be allowed to package and prepare marijuana for sale, and
who shall be authorized to sell marijuana to licensed sales outlets.
The fee for the license shall be set in an amount that will
reasonably cover the costs of compliance with the regulations to be
issued, but may not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) for an
initial application, or two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500)
per year for each annual renewal.

(b) The department shall issue regulations that include a
requirement that all applicants for licensure receive background
checks. At the request of the department, the Attorney General or any
local agency shall provide summary criminal history information to
the department as provided in Sections 11105 and 13300 of the Penal
Code.

25404.
The department shall, with consideration for the risks
posed by a valuable commodity with public health implications that is
subject to significant fees, issue and enforce regulations
concerning the sale and packaging of marijuana by wholesale
licensees. Those regulations shall provide for all of the following:

(a) Adequate security to reasonably protect against unauthorized
access to marijuana at all stages of the wholesaler's possession of
the marijuana, including receiving, processing, packing, storage, and
delivery to licensed sales outlets. Each wholesaler shall be
required to provide a detailed product security plan, along with
satisfactory proof of the financial ability of the licensee to
provide for that security.

(b) Appropriate employment rules, including the rule that a person
under 21 years of age may not have access to marijuana during
receiving, processing, packing, storage, and delivery or at any other
time.

(c) Safeguards to assure that a person under 21 years of age may
not transport marijuana on behalf of a commercial buyer or commercial
seller.

(d) Restrictions to ensure that marijuana is not used or consumed
on the premises of a wholesaler.

(e) An inspection and tracking system to reasonably ensure that
all marijuana received by the wholesaler that is eventually sold is
assessed pursuant to Part 14.6 (commencing with Section 34001) of
Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

(f) Recordkeeping consistent with the regulatory needs of the
department.

25405.
The department shall issue and enforce regulations
concerning the sale of marijuana by off-sale general licensees. Those
regulations shall provide for all of the following:

(a) An inspection and tracking system to ensure that marijuana may
not be sold by a licensee if that marijuana has not been made
subject to an assessment provided for in Part 14.6 (commencing with
Section 34001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

(b) Marijuana shall be kept behind a counter in an area not
directly accessible to any customer, and shall be stored in a case
that is locked between sales.

(c) Marijuana may not be sold to anyone under 21 years of age.

(d) Punishments for violations in actions against licensees that
are in substantial accord with those applicable to the regulation of
alcohol sales, including heavy penalties for permitting persons under
21 years of age to purchase these products and other appropriate
regulatory provisions concerning such matters as the time of sale,
deliveries, and signage. It is the intent of the people in enacting
this act that the regulation of marijuana sales be consistent with
the statutory guidance regarding alcohol sales in Chapter 16
(commencing with Section 25600), to the extent that consistency is
feasible.

(e) Recordkeeping consistent with the regulatory needs of the
department.

25406.
Beginning 30 days after the operative date of the
regulations issued pursuant to this chapter, or 30 days after the
date when federal law permits the possession and sale of marijuana
consistent with this chapter, whichever is latest, the department
shall begin to enforce the provisions of this chapter.

SEC. 4. Section 68152 of the Government Code is amended to read:
68152.
The trial court clerk may destroy court records under
Section 68153 after notice of destruction and if there is no request
and order for transfer of the records, except the comprehensive
historical and sample superior court records preserved for research
under the California Rules of Court, when the following times have
expired after final disposition of the case in the categories listed:

(a) Adoption: retain permanently.

(b) Change of name: retain permanently.

(1) Except as otherwise specified: 10 years.

(2) Where a party appears by a guardian ad litem: 10 years after
termination of the court's jurisdiction.

(3) Domestic violence: same period as duration of the restraining
or other orders and renewals, then retain the restraining or other
orders as a judgment; 60 days after expiration of the temporary
protective or temporary restraining order.

(4) Eminent domain: retain permanently.

(5) Family law, except as otherwise specified: 30 years.

(6) Harassment: same period as duration of the injunction and
renewals, then retain the injunction as a judgment; 60 days after
expiration of the temporary restraining order.

(7) Mental health (Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services
Act and Lanterman-Petris-Short Act): 30 years.

(8) Paternity: retain permanently.

(9) Petition, except as otherwise specified: 10 years.

(10) Real property other than unlawful detainer: retain
permanently if the action affects title or an interest in real
property.

(11) Small claims: 10 years.

(12) Unlawful detainer: one year if judgment is for possession of
the premises; 10 years if judgment is for money.

(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), any civil or small claims
case in the trial court:

(1) Involuntarily dismissed by the court for delay in prosecution
or failure to comply with state or local rules: one year.

(2) Voluntarily dismissed by a party without entry of judgment:
one year.
Notation of the dismissal shall be made on the civil index of
cases or on a separate dismissal index.

(e) Criminal.

(1) Capital felony (murder with special circumstances where the
prosecution seeks the death penalty): retain permanently. If the
charge is disposed of by acquittal or a sentence less than death, the
case shall be reclassified.

(2) Felony, except as otherwise specified: 75 years.

(3) Felony, except capital felony, with court records from the
initial complaint through the preliminary hearing or plea and for
which the case file does not include final sentencing or other final
disposition of the case because the case was bound over to the
superior court: five years.

(4) Misdemeanor, except as otherwise specified: five years.

(5) Misdemeanor alleging a violation of the Vehicle Code, except
as otherwise specified: three years.

(6) Misdemeanor alleging a violation of Section 23103, 23152, or
23153 of the Vehicle Code: 10 years.

(7) Misdemeanor alleging a violation of Section 14601, 14601.1,
20002, 23104, 23105, 23109, or 23109.1 of the Vehicle Code: five
years.

(8) Misdemeanor alleging a marijuana violation under subdivision
(b), (c), (d), or (e) (a) or (b) of
Section 11357 of the Health and Safety Code , or subdivision

(b) of Section 11360 of the Health and Safety Code in
accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 11361.5 of the
Health and Safety Code: records shall be destroyed two years from the
date of conviction or from the date of arrest if no conviction.

(9) Misdemeanor, infraction, or civil action alleging a violation
of the regulation and licensing of dogs under Sections 30951 to
30956, inclusive, of the Food and Agricultural Code or violation of
any other local ordinance: three years.

(10) Misdemeanor action resulting in a requirement that the
defendant register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290 of the
Penal Code: 75 years. This paragraph shall apply to records relating
to a person convicted on or after September 20, 2006.

(11) Infraction, except as otherwise specified: three years.

(12) Parking infractions, including alleged violations under the
stopping, standing, and parking provisions set forth in Chapter 9
(commencing with Section 22500) of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code:
two years.

(f) Habeas corpus: same period as period for retention of the
records in the underlying case category.

(g) Juvenile.
(1) Dependent (Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code):
upon reaching age 28 or on written request shall be released to the
juvenile five years after jurisdiction over the person has terminated
under subdivision (a) of Section 826 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code. Sealed records shall be destroyed upon court order five years
after the records have been sealed pursuant to subdivision (c) of
Section 389 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(2) Ward (Section 601 of the Welfare and Institutions Code): upon
reaching age 21 or on written request shall be released to the
juvenile five years after jurisdiction over the person has terminated
under subdivision (a) of Section 826 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code. Sealed records shall be destroyed upon court order five years
after the records have been sealed under subdivision (d) of Section
781 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(3) Ward (Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code): upon
reaching age 38 under subdivision (a) of Section 826 of the Welfare
and Institutions Code. Sealed records shall be destroyed upon court
order when the subject of the record reaches the age of 38 under
subdivision (d) of Section 781 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

(4) Traffic and some nontraffic misdemeanors and infractions
(Section 601 of the Welfare and Institutions Code): upon reaching age
21 or five years after jurisdiction over the person has terminated
under subdivision (c) of Section 826 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code. May be microfilmed or photocopied.

(5) Marijuana misdemeanor under subdivision (e)
(b) of Section 11357 of the Health and Safety Code in
accordance with procedures specified in subdivision (a) of Section
11361.5 of the Health and Safety Code: upon reaching age 18 the
records shall be destroyed.

(h) Probate.
(1) Conservatorship: 10 years after decree of termination.
(2) Guardianship: 10 years after the age of 18.
(3) Probate, including probated wills, except as otherwise
specified: retain permanently.

(i) Court records of the appellate division of the superior court:
five years.

(j) Other records.

(1) Applications in forma pauperis: any time after the disposition
of the underlying case.

(2) Arrest warrant: same period as period for retention of the
records in the underlying case category.

(3) Bench warrant: same period as period for retention of the
records in the underlying case category.

(4) Bond: three years after exoneration and release.

(5) Coroner's inquest report: same period as period for retention
of the records in the underlying case category; if no case, then
permanent.

(6) Court orders not associated with an underlying case, such as
orders for destruction of court records for telephone taps, or to
destroy drugs, and other miscellaneous court orders: three years.

(7) Court reporter notes: 10 years after the notes have been taken
in criminal and juvenile proceedings and five years after the notes
have been taken in all other proceedings, except notes reporting
proceedings in capital felony cases (murder with special
circumstances where the prosecution seeks the death penalty and the
sentence is death), including notes reporting the preliminary
hearing, which shall be retained permanently, unless the Supreme
Court on request of the court clerk authorizes the destruction.

(8) Electronic recordings made as the official record of the oral
proceedings under the California Rules of Court: any time after final
disposition of the case in infraction and misdemeanor proceedings,
10 years in all other criminal proceedings, and five years in all
other proceedings.

(9) Electronic recordings not made as the official record of the
oral proceedings under the California Rules of Court: any time either
before or after final disposition of the case.

(10) Index, except as otherwise specified: retain permanently.

(11) Index for cases alleging traffic violations: same period as
period for retention of the records in the underlying case category.

(12) Judgments within the jurisdiction of the superior court other
than in a limited civil case, misdemeanor case, or infraction case:
retain permanently.

(13) Judgments in misdemeanor cases, infraction cases, and limited
civil cases: same period as period for retention of the records in
the underlying case category.

(14) Minutes: same period as period for retention of the records
in the underlying case category.

(15) Naturalization index: retain permanently.

(16) Ninety-day evaluation (under Section 1203.03 of the Penal
Code): same period as period for retention of the records in the
underlying case category, or period for completion or termination of
probation, whichever is longer.

(17) Register of actions or docket: same period as period for
retention of the records in the underlying case category, but in no
event less than 10 years for civil and small claims cases.

(18) Search warrant: 10 years, except search warrants issued in
connection with a capital felony case defined in paragraph (7), which
shall be retained permanently.
(k) Retention of the court records under this section shall be
extended as follows:
(1) By order of the court on its own motion, or on application of
a party or an interested member of the public for good cause shown
and on those terms as are just. A fee shall not be charged for making
the application.
(2) Upon application and order for renewal of the judgment to the
extended time for enforcing the judgment.

SEC. 5. Section 11014.5 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
11014.5. (a) "Drug paraphernalia" means all equipment, products
, and materials of any kind which
that are designed for use or marketed for use ,
in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting,
manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing,
preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing,
containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise
introducing into the human body a controlled substance in violation
of this division. It includes, but is not limited to:

[ source and more of Bill AB 390 ]

History of Medical Cannabis

2009-04-28T08:47:00.000-07:00

Cannabis was a part of the American pharmacopoeia until 1942 and is currently available by prescription in the Netherlands, Canada, Spain, and Italy in its whole plant form.

In 1937, the U.S. passed the first federal law against cannabis, despite the objections of the American Medical Association (AMA). Dr. William C. Woodward, testifying on behalf of the AMA, told Congress that, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marijuana is a dangerous drug" and warned that a prohibition "loses sight of the fact that future investigation may show that there are substantial medical uses for Cannabis."

Ironically, the U.S. federal government currently grows and provides cannabis for a small number of patients. In 1976 the federal government created the Investigational New Drug (IND) compassionate access research program to allow patients to receive up to nine pounds of cannabis from the government each year. Today, five surviving patients still receive medical cannabis from the federal government, paid for by federal tax dollars.

In 1988, the DEA's Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young, ruled after extensive hearings that, "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known... It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance..." Yet the DEA refused to implement this ruling based on a procedural technicality and resists rescheduling to this day.

In 1989, the FDA was flooded with new applications from people with HIV/AIDS. In June 1991, the Public Health Service announced that the program would be suspended because it undermined federal prohibition. Despite this successful medical program and centuries of documented safe use, cannabis is still classified in America as a Schedule I substance “indicating a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical value. Healthcare advocates have tried to resolve this contradiction through legal and administrative channels to no avail.

In 1996, patients and advocates turned to the state level for access, passing voter initiatives in California and Arizona that allowed for legal use of cannabis with a doctor's recommendation. These victories were followed by the passage of similar initiatives in Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Washington D.C. The legislatures of Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico Rhode Island, and Vermont have also acted on behalf of their citizens, and every legislative session sees more bills introduced at the state level across the country.

In 1997, The Office of National Drug Control Policy commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a comprehensive study of the medical efficacy of cannabis therapeutics. The IOM concluded that cannabis is a safe and effective medicine, patients should have access, and the government should expand avenues for research and drug development. The federal government has completely ignored its findings and refused to act on its recommendations.

Despite the federal barriers to research, hundreds of peer-reviewed studies have been published worldwide since the IOM report. While there is still much to learn, the medical potential is indisputable for a variety of symptoms and conditions.

In 1997, the federal government began a campaign to arrest and prosecute medical cannabis patients and their providers. These raids resulted in two Supreme Court Cases, OCBC and Gonzales v. Raich. In each of these cases the Justices found that the federal law and state law can exist in conflict and that the federal government could continue their campaign against medical cannabis patients if they so choose. However, the Justices questioned "the wisdom' of going after patients and their providers and called on Congress to change the current laws to allow for medical use.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, on June 6, 2005, the federal government has intensified its war against patients across the state of California. These raids have resulted in more than two-dozen patients and providers being needlessly prosecuted by the federal government.

Unfortunately, these defendants will not be permitted to mention during trial that their use of cannabis was for legitimate purposes and in accordance with state law. These raids alone are estimated to have cost taxpayers over $10,000,000.

Patients who could and do benefit from cannabis therapeutics face a variety of challenges at both the federal and state levels. Patients have been made to needlessly suffer because they have been denied access or, worse, because they have been imprisoned for using a medicine their doctors recommended.

Medical cannabis patients and current Executive Director Steph Sherer founded Americans for Safe Access (ASA) in 2002 in response to federal raids on patients in California. Ever since then, ASA has been instrumental in shaping the political and legal landscape of medical cannabis. Our successful lobbying, media, and legal campaigns led to positive court precedents, new sentencing standards, more compassionate legislative and administrative polices and procedures, as well as new legislation.

article source

The History and Benefits of Hemp

2009-04-26T17:54:00.000-07:00

Everything you ever wanted to know -- and maybe more -- about hemp.
by Anon

Hemp is another word for the plant Cannabis sativa L. Marijuana comes from this same plant genus – and so do broccoli and cauliflower. But the strains of hemp used in industrial and consumer products contain only a negligible level of the intoxicating substance delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. Thus, industrial grade hemp is not marijuana.

Hemp is the most useful and beneficial plant in nature.

Hemp as food
Hemp seeds are drug-free and extremely nutritious. They can be eaten whole, pressed into edible oil like soybeans, or ground into flour for baking. They are one of the best sources of vegetable protein. They contain a full complement of essential amino acids, essential fatty-acids (EFA'S), and have been shown to lower blood cholesterol and dissolve plaque in coronary arteries.

Because hemp is such a hardy plant, it can grow easily and abundantly almost anywhere, and can provide nutrition where other edible crops just won't grow. Hemp can even be cultivated in arid regions with poor soil like Saharan Africa or in places with a very short growing season like Scandinavia.

Hemp for body care
Hemp seed oil is perfectly suited for hair and skin care. Its nutritional value, combined with its moisturizing and replenishing EFA's, make it one of the best vegetable body care foundations. Hemp seed oil's EFA complement includes polyunsaturated fatty acids, omega-3, omega-6, omega-9, linoleic acid, and gamma linoleic acids (GLA's). Although they are very effective in skin care maintenance, GLA's are rarely found in natural oils. Hemp is an excellent source of GLA's.

Paper from hemp
Hemp paper is naturally acid-free. The oldest printed paper in existence is a 100 percent hemp Chinese text dated to 770 AD. Thomas Jefferson drafted both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution on hemp paper.

Hemp's cellulose level is almost three times that of wood, so it makes superior paper and yields four times as much pulp per acre as trees. The hemp paper process also utilizes less energy and fewer chemicals than tree paper processing and doesn't create the harmful dioxins, chloroform, or any of the other 2,000 chlorinated organic compounds that have been identified as byproducts of the wood paper process.

Hemp is a sustainable, annual crop that is ready for harvest just 120 days after going to seed, compared to trees which take tens or hundreds of years to reach maturity. Further, harvesting hemp doesn't destroy the natural habitats of thousands of distinct animal and plant species.

Historically, hemp was an important source of paper fiber until the early 1900's when chemicals were developed to advance the wood paper pulp industry. Wood pulp paper rode the chemical revolution to its apex before the public health hazards of toxic chemicals were an issue and before the environmental consequences of clear-cutting forests were appreciated.

Hemp as fuel
Hemp seeds have provided a combustible fuel oil throughout human history. More importantly, though, the same high cellulose level that makes hemp ideal for paper also makes it perfect for ethanol fuel production. Ethanol is the cleanest-burning liquid bio-alternative to gasoline. In one test, an unleaded gasoline automobile engine produced a thick, black carbon residue in its exhaust, while the tailpipe of a modified ethanol engine tested for the same 3,500 miles remained pristine and residue-free.

Ethanol is derived from plant cellulose. Plants absorb carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight and produce oxygen and cellulose, which contains the sun's energy captured in plant cells. When ethanol combusts, it releases energy, water vapor, and carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is then absorbed by plants, along with water and sunlight, to create more oxygen and cellulose. It is a clean and sustainable cycle.

Since gasoline engines are a primary source of carbon monoxide and greenhouse gases, alternative fuels such as ethanol could contribute significantly to the rejuvenation of our atmospheric air quality. Hemp provides a sustainable, renewable, and natural alternative to toxic fossil fuels.

Hemp as paint & plastic
Hemp oil extract can also be used as an ingredient in nontoxic, biodegradable inks, paints, and varnishes. It is an ideal raw material for plant-based plastics such as cellophane as well as more recently developed cellulose-based plastics.

Henry Ford himself manufactured the body of an automobile from hemp-based plastic in 1941. The plastic was much lighter than steel and could withstand ten times the impact without denting. The car was even fueled by clean-burning hemp-based ethanol fuel.

Hemp as textile fiber
Hemp is the longest and strongest plant fiber. It is extremely abrasion and rot resistant and was the primary source of canvas, sail, rope, twine, and webbing fiber for hundreds of years before nylon was patented by DuPont in 1937. Hemp was used for clothing, military uniforms, ship's rigging, shoes, parachute webbing, baggage, and much more. Christopher Columbus' ships were fully rigged in hemp. The U.S.S. Constitution, "Old Ironsides," was outfitted with over 40 tons of hemp rigging.

Because of the multitude of uses for hemp, the early Colonial American governments mandated its cultivation. Early American settlers even used hemp fiber as money and to pay taxes. Because of its length and strength, hemp fiber can be woven into natural advanced composites, which can then be fashioned into anything from fast food containers to skateboard decks to the body of a stealth fighter.

Concrete from hemp
Madame France Perrier builds about 300 houses per year out of hemp in France. Years ago she researched ways to petrify vegetable matter. During her studies, she found evidence in ancient Egyptian archaeological sites of hemp-based concrete. When she discovered the ingredients of the mix, she duplicated the method. She mixes hemp hurds (the inner fiber) with limestone and water, which causes the hemp to harden into a substance stronger than cement and only one sixth the weight. Madame Perrier' isochanvre is also more flexible than concrete, giving it a major advantage over conventional building materials, especially in areas throughout the world that are prone to earthquakes.

Hemp replacing wood
Bill Conde is the owner of the largest Redwood lumberyard in Oregon, and one of the few lumber men willing to admit hemp's benefits. His family has been in the lumber industry for generations. He is a firsthand witness to the destruction of the nation's pristine forests. The fiberboard offshoot of the lumber industry is one of the most threatening to the world's forests.

Fiberboard, or pressboard, is made by chipping trees into small pieces and then compressing the chips into boards using adhesives. This industry is so destructive because chip plants can use young immature trees, which are just as useful for pressboard as older trees. These mills threaten to destroy even the youngest of forests. Conde and the highly regarded wood products division of Washington State University developed a method of fabricating tree-free pressboard out of hemp. The method uses existing technology and wood-chip mills. Their hemp fiberboard is superior in strength and quality to the same product produced using trees.

Hemp as rotation crop and soil rejuvenator
Hemp is an ideal rotation crop for farmers worldwide. It puts down a taproot twelve inches long in only thirty days, preventing topsoil erosion. Its water requirements are negligible, so it doesn't require much irrigation and will grow in arid regions. It matures from seed in only 120 days, so it doesn't need a long growing season. Hemp's soil nutrients concentrate in the plant's roots and leaves. After harvest, the roots remain and the leaves are returned to the fields. In this way, soil nutrients are preserved.

Hemp is also a beneficial crop for the Earth itself. It is very easy on the land. It doesn't need many nutrients, so it doesn't require chemical fertilizers. Hemp outcompetes other weeds, so it doesn't need herbicides to thrive. Even hemp strains that are 100 percent THC-free produce their own resins that make the crop naturally pest-free, so it doesn't require toxic chemical pesticides. Hemp actually leaves the soil in better condition than before it was planted.

Hemp as public enemy #1
Hemp was the first plant known to have been domestically cultivated. The oldest relic of human history is hemp fabric dated to 8,000 BC from ancient Mesopotamia, an area in present-day Turkey. It has been grown as long as recorded history for food, fuel, fiber, and for another legitimate use, which is not even discussed here for the sake of brevity medicine. So, with all these uses and benefits, why is cannabis cultivation illegal in the United States today? Here is a brief history of cannabis prohibition:

Hemp was a primary source of paper, textile, and cordage fiber for thousands of years until just after the turn of the 20th century. It was at this time that companies like DuPont first developed chemicals that enabled trees to be processed into paper.

DuPont's chemicals made wood pulp paper cheaper than paper made from annual crops like hemp. At the same time Wm. Randolph Hearst, the owner of the largest newspaper chain in the United States, backed by Mellon Bank, invested significant capital in timberland and wood paper mills to produce his newsprint using DuPont's chemicals.

DuPont also developed nylon fiber as a direct competitor to hemp in the textile and cordage industries. Nylon was even billed as synthetic hemp.

DuPont was also manufacturing chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers useful in the cotton industry, another hemp competitor.

Mellon Bank, owned by U.S. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, was also DuPont's primary financier. Mellon's niece was married to Harry Anslinger, deputy commissioner of the federal government's alcohol prohibition campaign. After the repeal of Prohibition, Anslinger and his entire federal bureau were out of a job. But Treasurer Mellon didn't let that happen. Andrew Mellon single-handedly created a new government bureaucracy, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, to keep his family and friends employed. And then he unapologetically appointed his own niece's husband, Harry Anslinger, as head of the new multimillion dollar bureaucracy.

At the same time, a machine was developed that was to hemp what the cotton gin was to cotton: it allowed hemp's long, tough fiber to be mass processed efficiently and economically for the first time. Popular Mechanics, in February 1937, predicted hemp would be the world's first "Billion Dollar Crop" that would support thousands of jobs and provide a vast array of consumer products from dynamite to plastics.

This potential rejuvenation of hemp was a major threat to Secretary Mellon's friends and business associates, especially Randolph Hearst with his wood paper industry and Lammont DuPont with his petrochemical and synthetic fiber conglomerates. After all, hemp farmers wouldn't need DuPont's chemicals to grow their hemp because the crop is self-sufficient. The hemp-based ethanol fuel that was mentioned in the Popular Mechanics' article probably didn't sit too well with the oil companies of the time. They also couldn't have been too thrilled to learn that this same plant produced high-strength plastics without a petroleum base. The hemp-based plastics developed at the time were stronger and lighter than steel, which we can imagine wasn't the best news for the steel industry.

In addition, the growing pharmaceutical companies were producing synthetic drugs to replace natural medicines. Hemp extract was used for thousands of years to effectively treat everything from epileptic fits to rheumatoid arthritis. Chances are, hemp's resurgence wasn't good news for these drug companies either.

What we see is that the potential revival of the hemp industry was a threat to almost all the corporate giants of the time, and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon was at the top of this food chain.

So Commissioner Anslinger, Mellon's appointee, begins researching rumors that immigrants from Mexico are smoking the flowers of the hemp plant. Racism was rampant at the time, and there was a government movement to curb the number of immigrants crossing the U.S. border at Mexico. Anslinger plugged into the racist sentiment, and began referring to the "hemp" that Americans knew cannabis to be, as "marijuana," the Mexican slang word for the plant. He labeled it as a "narcotic" even though cannabis flowers cannot cause narcosis, and spread exaggerated stories and outright lies that Mexicans and blacks became violent and disrespectful to whites when they smoked the "evil menace marijuana."

This slander of cannabis was all just fine for Anslinger's friends, the Mellons, the DuPonts, and the Hearsts. In fact, Hearst's newspapers picked up on the propaganda and fueled the fire by publishing hundreds of lurid stories about people raping and murdering while under the influence of marijuana. The sensationalism sold lots of newspapers, and the people of the country actually based their opinions on this one-sided information. Of course the stories never mentioned the hemp that people used everyday as rope, paper, medicine, and more. The stories always referred to cannabis by the Mexican slang word, marijuana.

With the moral and prohibitive fervor of the time duly stirred, Anslinger took his show to Congress. At the proceedings of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, Anslinger didn't mention that marijuana was hemp. And because anti-marijuana propaganda didn't mention that basic fact, hemp industries found out almost too late about the effort to criminalize cannabis cultivation. Testimony was heard from the full gamut of hemp companies and advocates, from birdseed suppliers to cordage manufacturers, from farmers to physicians, all touting hemp's importance in American history and the many industrial, agricultural, medicinal, and economic benefits of cannabis. Only after their testimony, was the wording of the bill changed to allow for the continued legal cultivation of industrial hemp. Anslinger even backed off on hemp prohibition in a very cunning maneuver.

After the Act was passed, Anslinger single-handedly usurped congressional power by mandating hemp prohibition. He justified his action by saying that his agents couldn't tell the difference between industrial hemp and marijuana in the field, so hemp cultivation made enforcement of marijuana prohibition impossible. This unconstitutional usurpation of congressional law is still in effect today as the Department of Justice and the DEA still cling to Anslinger's unjust and unjustifiable prohibition on domestic hemp cultivation.

Hemp for victory
With the United States entering World War II only four years after hemp's prohibition, and the synthetic fiber industry still in its infancy, the armed forces experienced a dangerous shortage of fiber for the war effort. In 1942, the U.S. government performed a convenient about-face on the hemp issue. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) produced and distributed a motion picture called "Hemp for Victory" in which the federal government not only promoted the many uses of cannabis hemp, but also detailed the most efficient cultivation and harvesting methods. The picture pronounced, "Hemp for mooring ships! Hemp for tackle and gear! Thread for shoes for millions of American soldiers! And parachute webbing for our paratroopers! Hemp for Victory!"

By the end of the war, hemp was no longer needed for strategic purposes and synthetic fiber was being produced more efficiently and abundantly than ever. The same soldiers that hemp had supplied with ship's rigging, rope, tackle, gear, shoes, and parachutes turn against their recent ally. The Marines themselves, armed with flame-throwers, and Air Force pilots in crop dusters are ordered to destroy the same million acres of hemp that were recently planted for the war effort. These actions were the beginning of the modern war on marijuana, or more correctly, the modern war on cannabis, including non-drug hemp.

The war on hemp
This is a war that Harry Anslinger took to the United Nations. As U.S. representative on the UN's drug committee, Anslinger initiated a series of conventions to prohibit the plant worldwide. To this day, most nations (especially the poorer ones) cannot get aid from the United States unless they have a government plan to eradicate hemp.

For example, Bangladesh. "Bang" means marijuana; Bang-la-desh means marijuana-land-people. The U.S. government went into Bangladesh and cropdusted their country with toxic herbicides. Not only did we poison the people of Bangladesh with our "War on Drugs", but we killed all the hemp that was holding the hillsides together. There was massive flooding and landslides as a direct result of America's global drug policy.

Another example is when we paid King Hassad of Syria to go into the camps of Lebanese Bedouin nomads and cut down their hemp fields, their food and fiber, with tanks! Harry Anslinger's modern-day successors, true to his irrational and fanatical methods, are waging a global genocide war against a plant!

It's not about drugs
The DEA and Department of Justice's claim that the prohibition of domestic hemp cultivation should continue because of its relationship to marijuana is a farce. There are strains of industrial hemp that are entirely drug-free. Law enforcement's contention that high-THC cannabis could be hidden in a hemp field is also erroneous, as cross-pollination would ruin the marijuana.

Their claim that it's too difficult to tell the difference in the field is also a lie. Industrial hemp looks more like bamboo than marijuana, and the other 30 industrial nations that cultivate hemp legally have no problem identifying the types of cannabis in their fields. The fact that the Drug Enforcement Agency is prohibiting a drug-free plant is proof positive that the hemp issue is not about drugs. There is no drug in the plant.

It's all about money
The prohibition of domestic hemp growth is about what everything is about in this country. It's about money. The drug war is big business huge business. If hemp cultivation were legalized, there would be an awful lot of DEA agents out of a job.

Consider this: of the one-and-a-half billion cannabis plants found and destroyed by U.S. drug agents between 1993 and 1997, only fourteen million were marijuana. That's 0.9 percent. That means that 99.1 percent were low-THC hemp. Legalizing hemp would translate to laying off 99.1 percent of all agents of the War on Marijuana, 99.1 percent fewer guns, helicopters, automobiles, flack jackets, etc. That's a lot of money in government contracts.

Hemp is a plant that can naturally and sustainably provide many products presently available only from corporate giants like DuPont, International Paper, Texaco, BASF and the like. They could lose billions if hemp was grown in the United States for fiber, paper, fuel, and plastics. They have millions of dollars to back anti-hemp propaganda. They sponsor programs like D.A.R.E. and The Partnership for a Drug-Free America that equate hemp's cousin marijuana with deadly drugs like heroin and methamphetamine to prevent Americans from learning the truth. The cannabis leaf has even become the poster child for the drug war. Corporate-backed programs such as D.A.R.E. and The Partnership for a Drug-Free America are teaching our children that this incredible Earth-friendly plant is as dangerous as heroin and methamphetamine. These corporations slander cannabis while promoting themselves as lovers and supporters of the environment. They run TV commercials that would have us believe that they are environmental activists with deceptive claims and scenes of pristine streams and forests. But what they really do is clear-cut pristine rainforests, poison our air with ozone-depleting greenhouse gases, and produce tons of toxic chemicals that end up in our drinking water.

source

Industrial Hemp in the United States

2009-04-26T17:41:00.000-07:00

The "top" search for "United States Hemp Cultivation", reveals just how little is being done in the Industrial Hemp field of the U.S.A.. Even the evaluation of industrial hemp is undercultivated.

Dave Kristula, March 29, 2000

The hemp plant "has played a vital role in world commerce for at least six thousand years," according to John W. Roulac, author of Hemp Horizons (27). Originally cultivated in China and used for making rope and fishnets (HH 27), today hemp is grown throughout the world - except in the United States, where it is illegal to grow the plant but not illegal to manufacture and sell products made from it. Many hurdles face the reintroduction of industrial hemp into American agriculture, manufacturing, and commerce.

Hemp is an annual fiber crop with over 25,000 known uses (HH back cover). Common products that can be made from hemp include clothing, paper, and building materials. The advantages of hemp cultivation over traditional crop cultivation are numerous. For example, Roulac suggests that "one acre of industrial hemp can produce up to four times as much paper as one acre of trees" (HH viii). Hemp can be grown in most fields "with little or no herbicides or insecticides" and rotates well with grain, beans, and flax (HH 129).

Hemp's true botanical name is Cannabis Sativa L. In many countries, including the United States, hemp is grown illicitly to produce marijuana. Virtually all varieties of hemp contain "[t]he potentially psychoactive chemical . . . delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)" (HH 9). Marijuana-producing hemp usually has a THC content of three to fifteen percent or higher while industrial hemp usually contains less than one percent THC (HH 9).

Hemp was cultivated in the colonies that would later become the United States soon after settlement (HH 32). The Declaration of Independence was written on paper containing hemp fiber (HH 32). States where hemp was once an extremely important crop include Kentucky, Florida, Alabama, New York, Georgia, Wisconsin, Mississippi, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Each of these states has at least one town whose name contains hemp including Hempfield, Pennsylvania (HH 33).

The first law preventing the cultivation of hemp in the United States was the Marihuana [SIC] Tax Act of 1937, which virtually eliminated a farmer's right to grow the plant (HH 42). In 1937 THC had not yet been identified as the chemical causing the psychoactive effects of marijuana (HH 48). Although THC was identified as "marijuana's psychoactive agent" in 1964 (HH 64) Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act in 1970 (HH 62) which continued to disallow the cultivation of industrial hemp because all hemp was still classified as psychoactive, regardless of actual THC content. The United Kingdom and Canada passed similar legislation following the lead of the United States, but both of these countries lifted their bans on industrial hemp in the 1990s (HH 21).

Jon Gettman, in his 1996 Business Survey entitled Hemp Power, discovered that American hemp business owners believe most of the hemp fiber used in the products they sell are imported from China, Hungary, Romania, and Thailand (13). The most popular hemp items in 1996 were clothing, accessories, hats, and caps (HP 11). Gettman found that hemp imports in Germany and the United Kingdom totaled over $3 million in 1994 (HP 15), and predicted in his report that gross revenues in the United States from hemp products sold in 1996 would total at least $23.3 million (HP 19).

The eyes of those involved in the American hemp industry were focused on Canadian farms in the late 1990s. On March 12, 1998, hemp cultivation was once again permitted with license in Canada (ICPIH). In August 1998, Doug Campbell of Consolidated Growers and Processors of Canada Ltd. announced company plans to build a $6 million hemp processing plant in rural Manitoba (CHF). According to David Kuxhaus, legislative reporter of the Winnipeg Free Press, "Campbell said [Canadian] farmers could gross in excess of $400 per acre" (CHF). In a 1998 study the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Kentucky estimated a typical hemp crop in Kentucky would be worth from $220 in net revenue for grain production to $600 in net revenue for certified seed production (FH 3). Tobacco is the only crop capable of producing higher revenues (FH 3).

The United States Drug Enforcement Administration recently allowed a test plot of hemp to be grown in Hawaii. The University of Hawaii received $200,000 in funding for this project from Alterna, a hair care company interested in using the hemp seed in their products (HBHE). The results of this experimental plot may determine the likelihood of further allowance of industrial hemp cultivation in the United States.

Given the rise in petroleum prices, it is unfortunate that so little attention has been paid to the industrial hemp industry. The oils of the hemp plant have been made into both biodegradable plastics (HH 120) and ethanol fuels (BOH). Both of these uses of hemp oil would be more ecologically sound when compared to using their petroleum counterparts because most petroleum-based plastics are not biodegradable and the burning of petroleum-based gasoline, unlike biomass (plant) fuel, is a major cause of air pollution.

Farmers, corporations, business owners, and consumers will all play a major role in the reintroduction of industrial hemp into American society. According to a United States Department of Agriculture report "Canada's 35,000 acres [of industrial hemp] seemingly oversupplied the North American hemp market in 1999" (IHUS). An increase in the demand for hemp products as well as widespread knowledge of the benefits of hemp is ultimately necessary for the reintroduction of this crop to be both feasible and successful.

Works Cited
Dunford. Bruce. "Hawaii Begins Hemp Experiment." Fox News Online. 15 December 1999. 28 January 2000. .
"Factbook : Hemp." Common Sense for Drug Policy. 1998. 4 sections. 26 March 2000. .
Gettman, Jon. "Hemp Power: Hemp Entrepreneurs and U.S. Policy." Hemp Company of America, 1996.
"Information on the Commercial Production of Industrial Hemp." Canadian Industrial Hemp Council. March 1998. 9 December 1999. .
Kuxhaus, David. "Canadian Hemp Facility A First." Winnipeg Free Press Business Section 18 August 1998. Media Awareness Project. 2 February 2000. http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n712.a02.html>.
"Our World, Sustainable Forestry Challenge." International Paper. 9 December 1999. http://www.internationalpaper.com/our_world/sfi/forestry/forestry5.html>.
Pollitt, Eric C. ed. "Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and Market Potential." Global Hemp. 19 January 2000. 1 February 2000. http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/Government_Research/USDA/hemp_study_2000_summary.shtml>.
Roulac, John W. Hemp Horizons: The Comeback of the World's Most Promising Plant. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 1997.
Roussel, Scott. "The Benefits of Hemp." San Diego Earth Times. Ecomall. Ecology America, Inc. 28 January 2000. .

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA INVESTS IN FIBRE RESEARCH TO HELP FARMERS

2009-04-26T16:33:00.000-07:00

WINNIPEG, Manitoba, March 18, 2009 - The Government of Canada is investing in the hemp and flax industry so that farmers can harness new opportunities and access new value added markets. The Honourable Vic Toews, Member of Parliament for Provencher and President of the Treasury Board, today announced a $9.6 million investment in the Natural Fibres for the Green Economy Network (NAFGEN).

"Our Government is continuing to deliver real results to our farmers, our rural communities and our economy," said Mr. Toews, on behalf of Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz. "This new, innovative research will explore the full potential of Canadian flax and hemp crops to create better returns for farmers and boost our economy."

Led by Flax Canada 2015 Inc., NAFGEN is a multidisciplinary network that brings together Canada's top researchers, industry and producers to help create additional profitable natural fibre-based industrial value chains by improving varieties, technologies and processes, and by improving products made out of the natural fibres.

"NAFGEN's networking approach is significant in that through collaboration of government, university and corporate research facilities and scientists their strengths and specialities are combined," said Barry Hall, President, Flax Canada 2015 Inc. "Working as a team affords the best opportunity for the industry to develop new and improved technology and products for both flax and hemp fibre, thereby enhancing the value of these two crops."

Funding for this project is being provided through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Agricultural Bioproducts Innovation Program (ABIP), a federal funding program designed to integrate Canada's talent from universities, industry and government in order to stimulate creativity, leverage resources, reduce costs and accelerate progress towards commercialization of bioproducts and bioprocesses.

"The funding for fibre research through the NAFGEN network is important and holds considerable promise for enhancing the value of the flax crop to producers through whole crop utilization," said Eric Fridfinnson, a Manitoba-based flax producer and Chairman of the Board of Directors for Flax Canada 2015 Inc.

article

Related Links:
Agricultural and Agri-food Canada

New York Could Grow Strong On Hemp

2009-04-26T13:37:00.000-07:00

Gov. David A. Paterson would welcome any offer to realize a revenue stream to help get his budget in line. There is a way: legal hemp farming.

This plant is so diversified that industrial applications are still being explored for both fiber and seed. There are jobs in research, work in adapting present equipment to harvest sturdy hemp stalks, work in manufacturing of fiber for textiles, and work in farming, where farmers' profit is $250-300 per acre.

Annual retail sales of all Canadian hemp seed products are now estimated as high as $40 million. Sixty percent of Canada's hemp exports are sent to the United States, which has no hemp industry. And the 60,000 acres of hemp that 180 Canadian farmers have under cultivation keeps adding to the revenue stream, where 500 pounds of seed per acre are harvested.

Hemp seed exports from Canada grew 300 percent from 2000 to 2007. In the last five years, sales of Manitoba Harvest, the largest integrated producer of hemp food products in North America, have grown more than 500 percent.

A hemp industry relies on an economical supply of high-quality seed, supplied by a plant-breeding program. Without hemp varieties and certified seed, there can be no growth within the industry, but the Canadian industry grows on, generating profitable niche markets as the future of hemp as food, fuel or fiber is explored.

Hemp is the best source of plant derived Essential Fatty Acids necessary to regulate immune system functions and blood pressure. Clean burning fuel is possible while the fiber industry is wide open for merchandising ideas.

The United States needs an industry that can take us from growing to research to diverse applications in paper, textile and seed products.

For example, the finest fiber comes from the outer core of the plant, while inner core fibers are suitable as building products. Markets for both must be developed simultaneously in order to be economical.

There is a market for Hempcrete, a product mixed with lime and used for construction.

Hempcrete is seven times stronger than concrete, half the weight of concrete, as well as being more elastic and not prone to cracking.

The University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada, this year appointed a Research Community Director whose mission is devoted entirely to hemp. Over $500,000 in research is taking place.

Vermont has passed legislation to grow hemp and to study its benefits. North Dakota is on board, while 17 states have insulated laws allowing for the study of hemp in applications within the state.

By its very nature, hemp is local. There is expansion going on in the worldwide hemp industry, where the crop is government subsidized and infrastructure work to efficiently transport and handle the heavy bulky hemp is ongoing - another niche industry.

New York is making a huge business mistake in not growing eco-friendly hemp.

[ source of article link ]

Industrial Hemp, Yes It's Organic

2009-04-23T15:45:00.000-07:00

Yes It’s Organic, is an, online store, featuring only organic and eco friendly textiles. Therefore, their recent addition of hemp clothing and accessories was a natural fit.

"I knew I had to add more hemp products to my inventory because it’s naturally eco friendly," says Ed Mass, Founder and President of Yes It’s Organic, "and that’s what we’re about. We only carry organic and eco friendly items, ensuring our products meet high standards of environmental sensitivity and also beneficial health properties." Yes It’s Organic’s sustainability policies and definitions can be found in the Certifications Expectations section of the store.

According to the, North American Industrial Hemp Council, (NAIHC) hemp fibers are stronger, more absorbent and more mildew-resistant than cotton. Naturally resistant to most pests and out-competing weeds, it typically doesn’t require pesticides or herbicides to grow.

Hemp is among the oldest industries on the planet, going back more than 10,000 years. Hemp fabric is incredibly versatile. It wicks away moisture keeping the body dry and cool in warm climates. And it also naturally insulates the body in cooler climates.

One of hemp’s greatest properties is that it’s naturally antibacterial. That means it’s resistant to developing odors as quickly as other fabrics do. Hemp clothes can be worn many days or even a week without developing odors. This has the added benefit of reducing washing and water consumption. Reducing washing also means clothes last longer due to less wear from washing.

Due to hemp’s high cellulose content, it is up to four times stronger than cotton making it an incredibly durable product. It’s grown without pesticides or herbicides and isn’t subjected to harmful chemicals during production.

How does hemp clothing fair for people with multiple chemical sensitivities (mcs)? Mass says, "Hemp is a great choice for people with allergies or sensitive skin because it is naturally hypoallergenic and therefore non-irritating to the skin. They also don’t have to fear their skin absorbing cancer causing toxins while wearing their clothes since the farming and manufacturing processes are also eco friendly. "

Mass says that he is impressed with the quality he sees in his new products. His customers are, too. "One customer wrote about his hemp denim jeans. He wore them on a trip to somewhere very hot and was impressed with how comfortable he remained, because the jeans breathed so well. Then he wore them in his hometown where temperatures were down in the 40’s and said he was perfectly warm in the jeans." This real life experience speaks to the great capacity of hemp fabric to both breathe and insulate.

It is evident that hemp fabric has great environmental and personal health qualities. When asked about next steps for Yes It’s Organics’ hemp inventory, Ed Mass said, "I am very excited about the new shirts, jeans, and other items we’ve recently added to the store and I hope to keep growing this section of the store." Visit http://www.yesitsorganic.com/ to learn more and peruse the variety of hemp clothing options available.

About Yes It’s Organic:
Ed Mass, President and Founder of Yes It's Organic (www.yesitsorganic.com), has combined an over 45 year passion for protecting the environment and healthy living with an opportunity to influence the lives of others and our planet in a positive way. The store’s mission is to promote the growth of organic and eco friendly production from farming through manufacturing, along with Fair Labor/Fair Trade practices, and to provide healthy living for people and a healthy environment for the planet. The company offers items for the individual, the home, school, work and play including organic logo clothing for organizations and events.
[ source article ]

extra links about, Industrial Hemp:
Hemp Biomass for Energy
International Hemp Association
Properties of hemp fibre polymer composites
Industrial Hemp-Research and Development in South Australia
Previous Legislation: H.R. 1009

for a friend

2009-04-23T14:36:00.000-07:00

Hemp Werx: The British Are Coming! With Progressive Ideas in Industrial Hemp

2009-04-23T14:04:00.000-07:00

From the United Kindom, on Industrial Hemp:

The ongoing debate about whether the growing of industrial crops (such as rape for bio-diesel) has the potentially negative consequence of displacing food production is not relevant to British Hemp crop production, and for a number of reasons.

Firstly, if industry were to build all the new houses required in the UK (200,000 per year) with Tradical Hemcrete and replace all insulation products with hemp fibre, it would still only require 250,000 Hectares of land on which to grow the hemp. This is a small fraction of UK agricultural land.

Hemp is an ideal break crop in a cereal rotation.

Thirdly, as hemp seed is used as an ingredient in many food products, Hemp is not just an industrial crop.

At Hemcore sustainability is not a department or simply an idea – it is what we do.

Sustainability is about the continuously renewable Hemp crops that we grow, it is embodied in the waste-free and pollution-free method we use to process the crop, and it is given real meaning through the manufacture and use of Hemp-based products.

By clicking the link below you can find out about the environmental benefits of Hemp and the role that Hemp can play in helping to create a greener and more sustainable future.
[ LINK ]

[ source of orignal article ]

Oregon Respectfully Requests the Use of Industrial Hemp: Senate Bill 676

2009-04-23T13:37:00.000-07:00

75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2009 Regular Session

NOTE: Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within { - braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
{ + braces and plus signs + } .

LC 2393

Senate Bill 676

Sponsored by Senators PROZANSKI, NELSON

SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly.
It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
introduced.

Permits production and possession of industrial hemp and trade
in industrial hemp commodities and products. Authorizes State
Department of Agriculture to administer licensing, permitting and
inspection program for growers and handlers of industrial hemp.

Allows department to charge fees to growers and handlers.
Continuously appropriates fee moneys to department. Allows
department to impose civil penalty not exceeding $2,500 for
violation of license or permit requirements.

A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to industrial hemp; creating new provisions; amending
ORS 475.005 and 561.144; and appropriating money.

Whereas the Cannabis sativa plant used for the production of
industrial hemp is separate and distinct from forms of Cannabis
used to produce marijuana; and

Whereas industrial hemp is used for products such as building
materials, cloth, cordage, fiber, food, floor coverings, fuel,
industrial chemicals, paint, paper, particle board, plastics,
seed meal, seed oil and yarn; now, therefore,

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

SECTION 1. { + As used in sections 1 to 3 of this 2009 Act:

(1) 'Agricultural hemp seed' means Cannabis sativa seed that
meets any labeling, quality and other standards set by the
Director of Agriculture and that is intended for sale or is sold
to, or purchased by, licensed growers for planting.
(2) 'Crop' means any contiguous field of industrial hemp grown
under a single license.
(3) 'Grower' means a person, joint venture or cooperative that
produces industrial hemp.
(4) 'Handler' means a person, joint venture or cooperative that
receives industrial hemp for processing into commodities,
products or agricultural hemp seed.
(5) 'Industrial hemp':
(a) Means all nonseed parts and varieties of the Cannabis
sativa plant, whether growing or not, that contain a cropwide
average tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed
one percent on a dry weight basis.
(b) Means any Cannabis sativa seed that:
(A) Is part of a growing crop;
(B) Is retained by a grower for future planting; or
(C) Is for processing into, or use as, agricultural hemp seed.
(c) Does not mean industrial hemp commodities or products. + }

SECTION 2.

{ + (1) Industrial hemp production and possession, and commerce in industrial hemp commodities and products, are
authorized in this state. Industrial hemp is an agricultural
product that is subject to regulation by the State Department of
Agriculture.
(2) All growers and handlers must have an industrial hemp
license issued by the department. Growers and handlers engaged in
the production of agricultural hemp seed must also have a
production permit described in subsection (6) of this section.
(3) Every grower or handler must keep records as required by
department rule. Upon not fewer than three days' notice, the
department may subject the required records to inspection or
audit during normal business hours. The department may make an
inspection or audit for the purpose of ensuring compliance with:
(a) A provision of this section;
(b) Department rules;
(c) Industrial hemp license or agricultural hemp seed
production permit requirements, terms or conditions; or
(d) A final department order directed to the grower's or
handler's industrial hemp operations or activities.
(4) In addition to any inspection conducted pursuant to ORS
561.275, the department may inspect any industrial hemp crop
during the crop's growth phase and take a representative
composite sample for field analysis. If a crop contains an
average tetrahydrocannabinol concentration exceeding one percent
on a dry weight basis, the department may detain, seize or
embargo the crop as provided under ORS 561.605 to 561.620.
(5) Subject to department guidelines, a grower may retain seeds
from each industrial hemp crop to ensure a sufficient supply of
seeds for that grower for the following year. A grower retaining
seeds for future planting does not need an agricultural hemp seed
production permit described in subsection(6) of this section.
Seed retained by a grower may not be sold or transferred and does
not need to meet the department's agricultural hemp seed
standards.
(6) The department may issue agricultural hemp seed production
permits to allow growers and handlers to produce agricultural
hemp seed. A seller of agricultural hemp seed shall ensure that
the seed complies with any standards set by the Director of
Agriculture under ORS 633.511 to 633.750. The department shall
make available to growers information that identifies sellers of
agricultural hemp seed.
(7) The department may charge growers and handlers reasonable
fees as determined by the department. Moneys from fees charged
under this subsection shall be deposited to the Department of
Agriculture Service Fund and are continuously appropriated to the
department for purposes of carrying out the duties of the
department under this section and section 3 of this 2009 Act. + }

SECTION 3.

{ + (1) In addition to any other liability or
penalty provided by law, the State Department of Agriculture may
revoke or refuse to issue or renew an industrial hemp license or
an agricultural hemp seed production permit and may impose a
civil penalty for violation of:
(a) A license or permit requirement;
(b) License or permit terms or conditions;
(c) Department rules relating to growing or handling industrial
hemp; or
(d) A final order of the department that is specifically
directed to the grower's or handler's industrial hemp operations
or activities.
(2) The department may not impose a civil penalty under this
section that exceeds $2,500. The department shall impose civil
penalties under this section in the manner provided by ORS
183.745.
(3) The department may revoke or refuse to issue or renew an
industrial hemp license or an agricultural hemp seed production
permit for violation of any rule of the department that pertains
to agricultural operations or activities other than industrial
hemp growing or handling.
(4) A revocation of, or refusal to issue or renew, an
industrial hemp license or an agricultural hemp seed production
permit is subject to ORS chapter 183. + }

SECTION 4.

ORS 475.005 is amended to read:
475.005. As used in ORS 475.005 to 475.285 and 475.840 to
475.980, unless the context requires otherwise:

(1) 'Abuse' means the repetitive excessive use of a drug short
of dependence, without legal or medical supervision, which may
have a detrimental effect on the individual or society.
(2) 'Administer' means the direct application of a controlled
substance, whether by injection, inhalation, ingestion or any
other means, to the body of a patient or research subject by:
(a) A practitioner or an authorized agent thereof; or
(b) The patient or research subject at the direction of the
practitioner.
(3) 'Administration' means the Drug Enforcement Administration
of the United States Department of Justice, or its successor
agency.
(4) 'Agent' means an authorized person who acts on behalf of or
at the direction of a manufacturer, distributor or dispenser. It
does not include a common or contract carrier, public
warehouseman or employee of the carrier or warehouseman.
(5) 'Board' means the State Board of Pharmacy.
(6) 'Controlled substance' { + :
(a) + } Means a drug or its immediate precursor classified in
Schedules I through V under the federal Controlled Substances
Act, 21 U.S.C. 811 to 812, as modified under ORS 475.035. The use
of the term 'precursor' in this { - subsection - } { +
paragraph + } does not control and is not controlled by the use
of the term 'precursor ' in ORS 475.840 to 475.980.
{ + (b) Does not mean industrial hemp as defined in section 1
of this 2009 Act, or industrial hemp commodities or products. + }
(7) 'Counterfeit substance' means a controlled substance or its
container or labeling, which, without authorization, bears the
trademark, trade name, or other identifying mark, imprint, number
or device, or any likeness thereof, of a manufacturer,
distributor or dispenser other than the person who in fact
manufactured, delivered or dispensed the substance.
(8) 'Deliver' or 'delivery' means the actual, constructive or
attempted transfer, other than by administering or dispensing,
from one person to another of a controlled substance, whether or
not there is an agency relationship.
(9) 'Device' means instruments, apparatus or contrivances,
including their components, parts or accessories, intended:
(a) For use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or
prevention of disease in humans or animals; or
(b) To affect the structure of any function of the body of
humans or animals.
(10) 'Dispense' means to deliver a controlled substance to an
ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful
order of a practitioner, and includes the prescribing,
administering, packaging, labeling or compounding necessary to
prepare the substance for that delivery.
(
11) 'Dispenser' means a practitioner who dispenses.
(12) 'Distributor' means a person who delivers.
(13) 'Drug' means:
(a) Substances recognized as drugs in the official United
States Pharmacopoeia, official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the
United States or official National Formulary, or any supplement
to any of them;

(b) Substances intended for use in the diagnosis, cure,
mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease in humans or
animals;
(c) Substances (other than food) intended to affect the
structure or any function of the body of humans or animals; and
(d) Substances intended for use as a component of any article
specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection;
however, the term does not include devices or their components,
parts or accessories.
(14) 'Electronically transmitted' or 'electronic transmission'
means a communication sent or received through technological
apparatuses, including computer terminals or other equipment or
mechanisms linked by telephone or microwave relays, or any
similar apparatus having electrical, digital, magnetic, wireless,
optical, electromagnetic or similar capabilities.
(15) 'Manufacture' means the production, preparation,
propagation, compounding, conversion or processing of a
controlled substance, either directly or indirectly by extraction
from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of
chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and
chemical synthesis, and includes any packaging or repackaging of
the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container, except
that this term does not include the preparation or compounding of
a controlled substance:
(a) By a practitioner as an incident to administering or
dispensing of a controlled substance in the course of
professional practice; or
(b) By a practitioner, or by an authorized agent under the
practitioner's supervision, for the purpose of, or as an incident
to, research, teaching or chemical analysis and not for sale.
(16) 'Marijuana' { + :
(a) Except as provided in this subsection, + } means all parts
of the plant Cannabis family Moraceae, whether growing or not;
the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every
compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation
of the plant or its resin.
{ + (b) + } { - It - } Does not { - include - } { +
mean + } the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the
stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other
compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation
of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom),
fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is
incapable of germination.
{ + (c) Does not mean industrial hemp, as defined in section
1 of this 2009 Act, or industrial hemp commodities or
products. + }
(17) 'Person' includes a government subdivision or agency,
business trust, estate, trust or any other legal entity.
(18) 'Practitioner' means physician, dentist, veterinarian,
scientific investigator, certified nurse practitioner, physician
assistant or other person licensed, registered or otherwise
permitted by law to dispense, conduct research with respect to or
to administer a controlled substance in the course of
professional practice or research in this state but does not
include a pharmacist or a pharmacy.
(19) 'Prescription' means a written, oral or electronically
transmitted direction, given by a practitioner for the
preparation and use of a drug. When the context requires,
'prescription ' also means the drug prepared under such written,
oral or electronically transmitted direction. Any label affixed
to a drug prepared under written, oral or electronically
transmitted direction shall prominently display a warning that
the removal thereof is prohibited by law.
(20) 'Production' includes the manufacture, planting,
cultivation, growing or harvesting of a controlled substance.
(21) 'Research' means an activity conducted by the person
registered with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration
pursuant to a protocol approved by the United States Food and
Drug Administration.
(22) 'Ultimate user' means a person who lawfully possesses a
controlled substance for the use of the person or for the use of
a member of the household of the person or for administering to
an animal owned by the person or by a member of the household of
the person.

SECTION 5. ORS 561.144 is amended to read:
561.144.

(1) The State Treasurer shall establish a Department
of Agriculture Service Fund, which shall be a trust fund separate
and distinct from the General Fund. The State Department of
Agriculture shall deposit all license and service fees paid to it
under the provisions of the statutes identified in subsection (3)
of this section in the Department of Agriculture Service Fund.
The State Treasurer is the custodian of this trust fund, which
shall be deposited by the treasurer in such depositories as are
authorized to receive deposits of the General Fund, and which may
be invested by the treasurer in the same manner as authorized by
ORS 293.701 to 293.820.
(2) Interest received on deposits credited to the Department of
Agriculture Service Fund shall accrue to and become a part of the
Department of Agriculture Service Fund.
(3) The license and service fees subject to this section are
those described in ORS 561.400, 561.740, 570.710, 571.057,
571.063, 571.145, 583.004, 583.046, 583.445, 583.510, 583.610,
585.050, 586.270, 586.580, 586.650, 596.030, 596.100, 596.311,
599.235, 599.269, 599.406, 599.610, 601.040, 602.090, 603.025,
603.075, 616.706, 618.115, 618.136, 619.031, 621.072, 621.166,
621.266, 621.297, 621.335, 621.730, 622.080, 625.180, 628.240,
632.211, 632.425, 632.600, 632.720, 632.730, 632.741, 632.940,
632.945, 633.015, 633.029, 633.318, 633.362, 633.461, 633.471,
633.680, 633.700, 633.720, 634.016, 634.116, 634.122, 634.126,
634.132, 634.136, 634.212 and 635.030 { + and section 2 of this
2009 Act + }.
----------

Hemp Werx: Editing of bullets and bold were done by, KsW™, our parent company, for the sole purpose of readability. Here is the source of the bill: [ link to source ]

We would also like to thank, Capitol Press, for posting the original article referencing this Bill.

DEA Stunts Growth of NDSU's Industrial Hemp Research

2009-04-22T18:26:00.000-07:00

From: Farm and Ranch Guide:
Wednesday, April 22, 2009

D.C. Coston, vice-president for Agri-culture and University Extension at NDSU, said they haven't found the funding yet to start a research plot.

“We're searching for a sponsor to get the structure built,” Coston said last week. “I don't know if we'll be able to find funding sources in time to get it up this spring.”

He estimates it would cost from $80,000 to $90,000 to put in a couple of acres of field plots surrounded by the type of security the Drug Enforcement Administration requires.

The DEA notified NDSU in November 2007 it could begin research after a judge hearing oral arguments in an industrial hemp lawsuit brought my two North Dakota producers admonished the DEA for not acting on NDSU's request.

NDSU had sent the DEA an application in September 1999, after the North Dakota Legislature ordered NDSU to begin industrial hemp seed cultivation.

According to court documents, the DEA continued over the years to ask questions of Burton Johnson, NDSU associate professor of sunflower, minor, and new crop production, requesting such things as specifics on the security designs.

But Johnson never received any DEA approval after answering questions and submitting designs.

In 2003, NDSU submitted a request to the North Dakota Agricultural Products Utilization Commission (APUC) for fencing and security system funding and it was approved.

Court documents say DEA instructed Johnson to spend the funding, construct the fence and put the security measures in place. The DEA wanted to come out after all the security devices were in place to inspect it, but the agency refused to give NDSU the assurance that they would then allow the research.

The facility was never built, and the funds returned to APUC.

[from this article ]

Hemp Werx: Can You Digg It?

2009-04-22T15:12:00.000-07:00

While researching H.R. 1866 The Industrial Hemp Act of 2009, this was discovered while, "digging". It was in the comments section of a post regarding, H.R. 1866. The reason we are posting this is because it does show the confusion over what some may think that H.R. 1866 is about. It is not about 'marihuana reform", it is about 'industrial hemp" classification. It is about clarity of a definition regarding a plant, that has taken many hits for being associated with it's other family members in the cannabis family.

Dear President Obama,

I was first introduced to marijuana a little over 2 years ago. Over time, I have learned many things about this Schedule 1 Drug that were contrary to what I had previously believed. As a marijuana user yourself, I am sure that you are well aware of its effects and can vouch for its relative harmlessness. Unfortunately however, marijuana remains illegal under U.S federal law despite a laundry list of reasons for why it should be legalized.

So when the American public learned you were holding an online town hall to address the issues which we feel are important and ready to be fixed, we were excited. As you are aware, marijuana law reform was one of the overwhelmingly popular questions - if not the most popular.

In response to this question however, you jokingly dismissed the online audience that helped raise millions of dollars for your campaign which successfully got you elected. In an almost disrespectful display to the millions of Americans who use cannabis medically and recreationally, the audience as well as yourself laughed in the face of a serious question posed by the thousands of users that responded. It is also worth mentioning that the question failed to even be shown on the screen as all the others had been and received a very short, simple answer compared to the 10+ minutes that some of the other questions received.

I am writing this e-mail to you today to ask you to not only reconsider your drug policy, but also pleading that you take your online audience more seriously. I believe it would be well worth your time and much appreciated by a significant portion of the general public if you could please readdress this question with a more serious, thought-out and detailed answer.

And unfortunately Mr. President, the question is not a simple one, but multifaceted. I believe it’s important for you to begin addressing the situation so we can move toward becoming a more stable country. So let me begin by providing you with a few issues that you might want to consider.

As you are well aware, cannabis is currently a Schedule 1 Drug, which means it is defined as a substance with no medicinal value. Do you believe that marijuana is not medically helpful to patients who for example suffer from cancer or HIV/AIDS and have trouble eating or are in pain?

Why is the DEA continuing to raid dispensaries in California despite assurance from Attorney General Holder as well as yourself that federal resources would not be used to circumvent state laws?

Roughly 800,000 people were arrested in 2007 for possession of marijuana. This figure is higher than it has ever been before and has grown every year. Even patients who have been prescribed cannabis by their doctors have been arrested. Don't you believe it is wrong to be spending billions of dollars every year incriminating these people for non-violent crimes while the violent criminals run amok? Isn't it time to stop supporting private prisons that benefit from the imprisonment of others?

Are you aware the marijuana is a safer drug than both Alcohol and Tobacco, not to mention less addictive than caffeine? In fact, its impossible to overdose on marijuana and its potentially harmful smoke related effects can be lessened if not eliminated by using a vaporizer. Over 400,000+ people are killed by cigarettes every year, and another 15,000+ from drunk drivers, yet no one has ever died from marijuana consumption. What's keeping it illegal?

With the drug cartels more powerful than ever, don't you believe it is time to take away some of their power? Some estimates say that marijuana makes up over 50% of the cartel's income. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate much of their income and power. In addition to this, we would stop spending the billions of dollars that we currently spend fighting marijuana while generating billions of dollars by regulating and taxing this substance as well as hemp.

Mr. President, needless to say I was very disappointed when you hypocritically laughed in our faces on March 26th. I hope that you can take the time to redress this situation and reassure the American public that you are the man we elected on November 4th. I hope the power of presidency does not blind sight you to the obvious beneficial effects the legalization of marijuana would have on America. I know you are an educated man Mr. President, and I know you will make the right choice.

Hopeful for Change,
Anand S.

- Letter I wrote to obama via whitehouse.gov. I encourage you all to do the same and bring this issue to the forefront. I'm not expecting a response, but you never know - will keep you updated.

Sunn Hemp: Another Cousin in the Industrial Hemp Family

2009-04-22T12:58:00.000-07:00

Sunn hemp, Crotalaria juncea L. is a rapidly growing crop that is used for fiber production in India and Pakistan.

It is most popular as a green manure in many tropical and subtropical areas in the world as an organic nitrogen source.

Recently, there is a growing interest in rotating sunn hemp with cotton in the southern United States ...and in using sunn hemp as a summer cover crop in Florida and other southeastern states.

Sunn hemp suppresses weeds, slows soil erosion, and reduces root-knot nematode populations.

When plowed under at early bloom stage, nitrogen recovery is the highest.

Under optimum growing conditions such as in Hawaii, 'Tropic Sun' sunn hemp can produce 134 to 147 lb/acre of nitrogen (N) and 3 tons/acre air-dry organic matter at 60 days of growth at 40 kg seed/ha .

In northern Florida, sunn hemp is usually grown in the summer and can produce 2.4 tons/acre of dry biomass and 98 to 125 lb N/acre.

In southwestern Alabama, plants grown for 9 to 12 weeks produced 2.6 tons/acre dry-matter and 112 lb N/acre.

Although in the tropics, 'Tropic Sun' grows and produces seed year-round at elevations of 0 to 900 ft, and in summer up to 1800 ft, sunn hemp does not set seed well in Florida.

Sunn hemp is usually planted in summer in Florida, but it is suitable as a green manure crop as far north as Maryland.

The greatest challenge in using sunn hemp as a cover crop in U.S. is seed availability.

Other Topics in Article

History
Sunn Hemp as a Fertilizer
Nematode Suppresion
How Does Sunn Hemp Supresses Plant-Parasitic Nematodes
Pest and Diseases
Seed Availability Problems
How to Enhance Sunn Hemp Effects in Surpressing Nematode Pest
Reference, Tables and Footnotes

[ link to full article ]

[ more on Sunn Hemp ]

Hemp Werx: Project Made In U.S.A.| part 2 in a series

2009-04-21T21:09:00.000-07:00

New Hampshire activists have been trying to legalize the growth of industrial hemp for the state for over a decade.

Just a few months ago, a new House Bill was introduced to permit the development of an Industrial Hemp industry in New Hampshire.

The Environment and Agriculture Committee, advocates that the use of industrial hemp will improve New Hampshire’s economy and agricultural capabilities... . “The production of industrial hemp can be regulated so as not to interfere with the strict regulation of controlled substances in this state,” states House Bill 399.

“America is the number one importer of hemp, it would be better to buy it from ourselves,” exclaims Keene State College sophomore, Erik Breakell. He thinks if the bill was passed it would be really interesting and it would improve the economy.

The growing of cannabis for industrial hemp use means the plant will contain the least amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), at less than one percent.

Other Notable Quotes

“There is already a domestic market, there is already companies doing this and importing raw materials. This is an immediate agriculture our farmers could step into with little overhead and giving it to an end user,”...

“It can be anything if utilized to its full potential,”

“Because of the growing soil problems, hemp will need to be legalized at some point,”

“It’s an obvious solution to deforestation,”

“It’s kind of a shame that hemp is associated with the drug culture these days because people see it as a middle step of marijuana,”

"Change will come about gradually, ... People will think, ‘why didn’t we do this earlier?’”

“[Hemp] is not a controlled substance and there is a difference.”

[ source of article link ]

Hemp Werx Project: Made In the U.S.A | Supporingt H.R. 1866 Industrial Hemp Farming Act 2009

2009-04-18T22:01:00.000-07:00

Hemp Werx: The studies and research into the benefits of Industrial Hemp by the, USDA, area are limited.

[ source of USDA publications ]

If the clarification of Industrial Hemp as proposed in, H.R. 1866 Industrial Farm Act 2009, is proceeded, it will vastly open "new" opportunities in all areas of, American Hemp Industrial Manufacturing, for currently there is no, American Hemp Industry.

The United States is the largest importer of hemp products in the world, but offers no infrastructure for the cultivation or manufactoring of, Industrial Hemp.

Hemp Werx research shows that, China, is leading the way in progressive Industrial Hemp use.

It is time to bring back the label, MADE IN THE U.S.A.

[Hemp Werx™ highlighted or italicized this original speech given by Congrassman Ron Paul, for emphasis and readability. ]

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives

Statement Introducing HR 1866, Industrial Hemp Farming Act
April 2, 2009

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the, Industrial Hemp Farming Act.
The Industrial Hemp Farming Act requires the federal government to respect state laws allowing the growing of, industrial hemp.

Eight States--Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia--allow industrial hemp production or research in accord with state laws. However, federal law is standing in the way of farmers in these states growing what may be a very profitable crop. Because of current federal law, all hemp included in products sold in the United States must be imported instead of being grown by American farmers.

Since 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act's inclusion of industrial hemp in the schedule one definition of marijuana has prohibited American farmers from growing industrial hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp has such a low content of THC (the psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana plant) that nobody can be psychologically affected by consuming hemp. Federal law concedes the safety of industrial hemp by allowing it to be legally imported for use as food.

The United States is the only industrialized nation that prohibits industrial hemp cultivation. The Congressional Research Service has noted that hemp is grown as an established agricultural commodity in over 30 nations in Europe, Asia, North America, and South America. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act will relieve this unique restriction on American farmers and allow them to grow industrial hemp in accord with state law.

Industrial hemp is a crop that was grown legally throughout the United States for most of our nation's history. In fact, during World War II, the federal government actively encouraged American farmers to grow industrial hemp to help the war effort. The Department of Agriculture even produced a film “Hemp for Victory'' encouraging the plant's cultivation.

In recent years, the hemp plant has been put to many popular uses in foods and in industry.

Grocery stores sell hemp seeds and oil as well as food products containing oil and seeds from the hemp plant. Industrial Hemp, is also included in consumer products such as paper, cloths, cosmetics, and carpet.

One of the more innovative recent uses of industrial hemp is in the door frames of about 1.5 million cars. Hemp has even been used in alternative automobile fuel.

It is unfortunate that the federal government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market.

Indeed, the founders of our nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained federal government.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. [ source link ]

H. R. 1866
Industrial Hemp Farming Act 2009

To amend the Controlled Substances Act
To exclude Industrial Hemp from the definition of Marihuana
And for Other Purposes.

_________

Exclusion of Industrial Hemp From Definition of Marihuana
paragraph (16) of Section 102 of the Controled Substance Act
21 U.S.C. 802 (16) is amended--
(1) by striking '(16)' at the beginning and inserting '(16)' (A); and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
‘(B) The term ‘marihuana’ does not include industrial hemp.

As used in the preceding sentence, the term ‘industrial hemp’ means

the plant Cannabis sativa L.

and any part of such plant, whether growing or not,

with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration

that does not exceed 0.3 percent on a dry
weight basis.’ [ more ]

_________

DEA Clarifies Status of Hemp in the Federal Register

"... The remainder of the plant — stalks and sterilized seeds — is what some people refer to as “hemp.” However, “hemp” is not a term that is found in federal law. ..."

US Patent 6630507 - Cannabinoids as Antioxidants and Neuroprotectants

2009-04-18T09:15:00.000-07:00

Assignee
The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services

Application
No. 09/674028 filed on 02/02/2001

US Patent Issued on October 7, 2003

Examiners
Primary: Weddington, Kevin E.

Attorney, Agent or Firm
Klarquist Sparkman, LLP

Inventors
Hampson, Aidan J.
Axelrod, Julius
Grimaldi, Maurizio

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism.

This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases.

The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention.

A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants...
Claims

We claim:

1. A method of treating diseases caused by oxidative stress, comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of a cannabinoid that has substantially no binding to the NMDA receptor to a subject who has a disease caused by oxidative stress. ...

...Given the excellent absorption of the compounds of the present invention via an inhaled route, the compounds may also be administered as inhalants, for example in pharmaceutical aerosols utilizing solutions, suspensions, emulsions, powders and semisolid preparations of the type more fully described in Remington. ...

[ Hemp Werx source of patent info: LINK ]

Twin Brothers, Indentical In Looks-Distinguishable by DNA

2009-04-18T07:21:00.000-07:00

Hemp or Pot? DNA reveals all!

Hemp is a really useful plant with potential applications that include paper, textiles, food, medicine, and chemicals. There’s one drawback, though: its highly lucrative “evil twin” , known variously as marijuana, weed, or dagga.

Fortunately for supporters of hemp as a legitimate crop, there’s a new technique to distinguish it from its illegal relative.

Hemp belongs to the same species, Cannabis Salvia, as marijuana, and although the plants differ in levels of the psychoactive drug tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), they are otherwise difficult to tell apart. Or they were, until two University researchers found a way.

George Weiblen, an assistant professor of plant biology at the, University of Minnesota, along with a colleague, decided to investigate the genetics of hemp and its marijuana twin after the potential of hemp as a crop was publicised.

Its uses include paper, textiles, building materials, food, medicine, paint, detergent, varnish, oil, ink, and fuel. A natural for northern climates, the hardy plant matures in three months, needs no pesticides and only moderate fertiliser.

Using a new DNA "fingerprinting" technique called AFLP (amplified fragment length polymorphism), the team has become the first to unequivocally separate hemp plants from marijuana plants with genetic markers.

The technique holds promise for distinguishing different cultivars (domesticated plant lines) in American criminal cases. It may also prove useful where the cultivation of hemp is permitted, but marijuana is illegal – for instance, Canada and some European countries.

Said Weiblen: "We think this technique has the potential to distinguish marijuana varieties as well. It has implications not just for separating hemp from marijuana in countries where hemp cultivation is permitted, but in establishing origins of seized drugs and, therefore, conspiracy in drug distribution networks. It also could be used in criminal defences against claims of conspiracy."

In tests with three different cultivars of hemp and one of marijuana, the DNA fingerprints of all the cultivars were distinct and non-overlapping.

The research party found that the, AFLP, technique generated hundreds of genetic markers that together established separate identities for each of the four cultivars.

The new technique is an improvement on previous means of separating the two types of Cannabis.

For decades it has been possible to identify THC chemically, but the drug is not present in all plant tissues or throughout a plant's life cycle. And other researchers have found that genetic markers known as "short tandem repeats," which are used to identify individuals in paternity and criminal cases, lack the power to distinguish Cannabis cultivars unequivocally.

Weiblen wants to screen a wider range of Cannabis cultivars to refine the technique and is also working to identify regions of the Cannabis genome responsible for drug content in marijuana.

If enough can be learned about the genome, it may one day be possible to produce an entirely drug-free hemp plant that looks different from marijuana.

[ Hemp Werx source: Popular Mechanics- 23 May 2006 ]

Hemp Is Not "Marihuana", but Both Can Be Used For Manufactoring

2009-04-17T17:05:00.000-07:00

Etymology of, hemp
O.E. hænep, from P.Gmc. *hanapiz (cf. O.S. hanap, O.N. hampr, O.H.G. hanaf, Ger. Hanf), probably a very early Gmc. borrowing of the same Scythian word that became Gk. kannabis (see cannabis). Slang sense of "marijuana" dates from 1940s; though scientific use for the narcotic derived from hemp dates to 1870. [ source: Online Etymology Dictionary ]

Etymology of, marijuana
1918, alt. by influence of Sp. proper name Maria Juana "Mary Jane" from mariguan (1894), from Mex.Sp. marihuana, of uncertain origin. [ source: Online Etymology Dictionary ]
_______

Researchers develop biodegradable substitutes for wood, plastic bottles and other common materials
March 17th, 2009 by Mark Shwartz

-- Stanford University researchers have developed a synthetic wood substitute that may one day save trees, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shrink landfills.

The faux lumber is made from a new biodegradable plastic that could be used in a variety of building materials and perhaps replace the petrochemical plastics now used in billions of disposable water bottles.

"This is a great opportunity to make products that serve a societal need and respect and protect the natural environment," said lead researcher Sarah Billington, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering.

In 2004, Billington and her colleagues received a two-year Environmental Venture Projects (EVP) grant from Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment to develop artificial wood that is both durable and recyclable. The research team focused on a new class of construction material called biodegradable composites, or "biocomposites"—glue-like resins reinforced with natural fibers that are made from plants and recyclable polymers.

Billington's group began by testing a number of promising materials. The best turned out to be natural hemp fibers fused with a biodegradable plastic resin called polyhydroxy-butyrate (PHB). "It's quite attractive looking and very strong," said EVP collaborator Craig Criddle, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "You can mold it, nail it, hammer it, drill it, a lot like wood. But bioplastic PHB can be produced faster than wood, and hemp can be grown faster than trees."

The hemp-PHB biocomposites are stable enough to use in furniture, floors and a variety of other building materials, he added. To degrade, it must be kept away from air—e.g., buried in a landfill—because its decomposition depends on microorganisms that live in anaerobic environments.

"The ideal is to have nice, stable material when it's being used," Criddle explained. "But when it's out of use, it goes to a landfill, degrades quickly, and is reprocessed into new material that stays in a nice, stable form."

Recycling methane

Unlike wood scraps that can sit in landfills for months or years, hemp-PHB biocomposites decompose a few weeks after burial. As they degrade, they release methane gas that can be captured and burned for energy recovery or re-used to make more biocomposites.

"It dawned on us that there are microbes that can make PHB from methane," Criddle said. "So now we're combining two natural processes: We're using microbes that break down PHB plastics and release methane gas, and different organisms that consume methane and produce PHB as a byproduct."

It's the ultimate in recycling, he said: "In our lab, we create conditions where only those organisms that accumulate the most plastic can reproduce. We call the process 'survival of the fattest,' and we have a patent application for it."

Capturing methane has the added benefit of combating climate change, Criddle said, noting that methane gas from landfills and other sources is a powerful global warming agent, 22 times more potent than carbon dioxide gas.

One reason that biodegradable plastics aren't widely used is cost. "We're competing with polypropylene and polyethylene, two really cheap petrochemical products," Criddle said.

"Most bioplastics are made using sugar from corn and other relatively expensive materials. But our process uses methane in the biogas from landfills and wastewater treatment plants, which is essentially free."

The potential of producing low-cost, recyclable biocomposites has caught the attention of the private sector. In the next few months, the researchers expect to form a new startup company with venture capital funding.

Biodegradable bottles

Interest in the hemp-PHB biocomposites has moved beyond artificial wood products. In 2008, the research team was awarded a three-year, $1.5 million grant from the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop biodegradable plastics to replace the petrochemical plastics that are used to make disposable water and soda bottles. According to Cal/EPA, plastic bottles accumulate in landfills, the open ocean and coastal areas, causing major problems for birds, mammals and other marine life. "The goal of the state is to protect the environment and promote the development of a new industry that can produce low-cost bioplastics," Criddle said. "We have quite a team of students working on it. We're also collaborating with Curtis Frank, a professor of chemical engineering and a polymer plastics expert."

In 2008, Billington and Frank were awarded a grant from Stanford's Precourt Energy Efficiency Center to develop biodegradable foam for structural insulated panels. They also received new funding from the Woods Institute to explore the feasibility of using Criddle's polymers to manufacture "green glues" that make air quality in buildings less toxic. Lynn Hildemann, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, is collaborating on that project.

"We started with biocomposites, and now we're doing bioplastics and thinking about things that affect global warming," Criddle said.

"It's really exciting to watch how the research has branched out into so many areas, from biocomposites to new bioplastics, green glues and foam," Billington added. "The opportunity to collaborate with people of different expertise has been wonderful and very invigorating."

[ original source of article ] provided by Stanford University
_______

Arpil 9, 2009
Hemp Could Be Key To Zero-Carbon Houses

Hemp, a plant from the cannabis family, could be used to build carbon-neutral homes of the future to help combat climate change and boost the rural economy, say researchers at the University of Bath.

A consortium, led by the BRE Centre for Innovative Construction Materials based at the University, has embarked on a unique housing project to develop the use of hemp-lime construction materials in the UK.

Hemp-lime is a lightweight composite building material made of fibres from the fast growing plant, bound together using a lime-based adhesive. The hemp plant stores carbon during its growth and this, combined with the low carbon footprint of lime and its very efficient insulating properties, gives the material a ‘better than zero carbon’ footprint.

Professor Pete Walker, Director of the BRE Centre for Innovative Construction Materials, explained: “We will be looking at the feasibility of using hemp-lime in place of traditional materials, so that they can be used widely in the building industry.

“We will be measuring the properties of lime-hemp materials, such as their strength and durability, as well as the energy efficiency of buildings made of these materials.

“Using renewable crops to make building materials makes real sense - it only takes an area the size of a rugby pitch four months to grow enough hemp to build a typical three bedroom house.

“Growing crops such as hemp can also provide economic and social benefits to rural economies through new agricultural markets for farmers and associated industries.”

Provided by University of Bath

[ source link ]
_______

Part X in a series of research articles on: Hemp in American History

2009-04-17T06:14:00.000-07:00

This correspondence between Agent Nugent and Commissioner Anslinger's office was obtained through the FOI act.

REPORT OF SURVEY

COMMERCIALIZED HEMP (1934-35 CROP)

in the

STATE OF MINNESOTA

H.T. NUGENT FIELD SUPERVISOR

October, 1938

TREASURY DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF NARCOTICS MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.

OFFICE OF DISTRICT SUPERVISOR DISTRICT NO 12 STATES OF MINNESOTA, IOWA, NEBRASKA, NORTH AND SOUTH DAKOTA, October 22nd, 1938

In re: Commercialized Hemp State of Minnesota.

Mr. Harry J. Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Anslinger:

Pursuant to your instructions that a complete and comprehensive survey be made of the commercialized hemp industry in southern Minnesota, particularly with respect to the extent of the 1934 and 1935 crop of harvested hemp stored in the fields at the present time, permit me to advise that I proceeded to Minnesota on September 1st, 1938, and for a period of six weeks covered the southern section of the state from Winona County, in the east, to Yellow Medicine County, in the west; visited many farms and talked with the farmers; conferred with officers of companies responsible for the growth of the 1934, 1935 and 1937 crops; obtained statistical information regarding acreage planted, harvested and removed from the fields, discussed the hemp situation with state, county and local officials, as well as numerous citizens interested in the subject and the following report is respectfully submitted for your information:

HISTORICAL

Prior to 1933 the growing of hemp in Minnesota had been confined to experimental crops, altho in the neighboring state of Wisconsin hemp had been grown for a number of years on a commercial scale in several counties. In North and South Dakota experimental work in the growing of hemp had been carried on for a number of years. Glowing reports were prepared by agricultural authorities and the suitability of soil and climatic conditions of the territory were stressed. The value of hemp as a farm product was emphasized, but no mention was made of the fact that from 1880 to 1933 the hemp grown in the United States had declined from 15,000 to 1,200 acres, and that the price of line hemp had dropped from $12.50 per pound in 1914 to $9.00 per pound in 1933.

During the Fall of 1933, one Frank E. Holton appeared at Mankato, Minnesota, armed with an array of statistics dealing with hemp production. Holton, prior to 1917, had been Cashier of the national Bank, at Minneapolis. The record is not clear regarding the severance of his connection with that institution, but he subsequently engaged in the business of dealing in land mortgages and securities under the name of the Dansher-Holton Land Company. That venture ended in a failure and Holton started dealing in mining stock. He was connected with the Homestake Extension Mines Corporation and with the Mines Brokerage Company. In 1927 he filed a petition in bankruptcy, listing liabilities at $85,000 and assets at $2,000. Holton was a promoter of anything which would net him an income, so when he met Harry W. Bellrose, President of the World Fibre Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, who controlled the Selvig patent on a decorticating machine, he visualized a great hemp industry and decided upon southern Minnesota as his field of operations. He negotiated with Bellrose and secured the patent rights for the Selvig machine in the State of Minnesota.

At the time of Holton's visit to Mankato in the Fall of 1933, the farmers had finished a poor season and conditions were favorable for inaugurating a new venture. He conferred with farmers, citizens of Mankato and individuals interested in the town's financial institutions. Mass meetings were held and Holton extolled the virtues of hemp as a means of bringing a new and profitable product to the community. He characterized the Selvig patented decorticating machine as something which would revolutionize the hemp industry. Holton's scheme for growing the hemp under a so called "grower's contract" would enable the farmer to maintain a financial interest in the processing and manufacturing of the hemp as well as in the growing of it because the contract provided for the payment by the farmer of $10.00 per acre for each acre planted. The cost of the seed would be deducted, as would $1.00 per acre planted as a contract fee. The farmers could pay the $10.00 upon execution of the contract, or in lieu of cash, Holton would accept their promissory notes. In return, Holton agreed to pay the farmers $15.00 per ton for the hemp grown. Nothing contained in the contract, however, made any stipulation with respect to its duration and a perusal of it suggests the thought that little thought was given to the phraseology employed in drafting it (See Exhibit "A").

NORTHWEST HEMP CORPORATION:

In order to carry out his hemp growing venture, Holton organized the Northwest Hemp Corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota. The purpose of this corporation, as shown by the official record, was to "encourage and develop the growth of hemp and flax and other fibre plants, and to enter into contracts with growers for the planting of such products; to engage in the manufacture and distribution of hemp and flax fibre and to own and operate factories to handle and decorticate all such fibre plants, etc." The total number of authorized shares was to be 500 of no par value and the amount of capital was $1,000. The Certificate was filed October 3, 1933.

Following the organization of the company, Holton proceeded to sell stock and negotiate the grower's contract. Many citizens of Mankato and Blue Earth purchased shares of stock at $500.00 per share and during the following six months he had succeeded in obtaining the signatures of 551 farmers to contracts covering 6,358 acres in southern Minnesota counties and with those contracts came cash and promissory notes, the latter variously estimated at between $35,000 and $40,000. Holton, in the meanwhile, had interested the officers of the National Citizens Bank of Mankato in his venture and they became quite active in rendering assistance. At least two of the officers and directors are known to have invested quite extensively in stock of the Northwest Hemp corporation.

THE 1934 CROP:

During the late spring of 1934 the actual growing of the hemp was under way. Seed had been supplied by Holton and it had been planted by the farmers. In order to facilitate operations and provide accessibility for handling of harvested crops, the growing area was divided into three units, viz., Blue Earth, Mankato and Lake Lillian. At Blue Earth and Mankato two buildings were constructed to house the decorticating machines (See Exhibits "B" and "C"). At Lake Lillian an old railroad building, adjacent to the depot, was leased from the Minnesota & Western Railway Company (See Exhibit "D"). Decorticating machines were leased from the World Fibre Corporation of Chicago, and installed in the three buildings. Everything was set for the harvesting, decorticating and marketing of the 1934 crop of hemp.

All authorities agree on three phases of hemp growing, i.e., first, it should be harvested when the pollen bearing plants are in full bloom; secondly, it must be harvested with machines designed for that purpose, and thirdly, the retting of the hemp stalks is the most important item in handling the crop. Dew retting, or spreading the green stalks on the stubble and allowing them to remain there until sufficiently decomposed so that the bark can be readily separated from the stalks is a recognized practice in this country, but the fact that Holton knew nothing about growing hemp is evidenced by his instructions to the farmers to cut , bundle and stack the crop without any retting operation. As a result two significant features were brought to light, viz., the decorticating machines failed to properly separate the fibre from the stalks and four years later the hemp still stacked in the fields was found to contain tops, leaves and stalks that were still green. To add to the difficulties encountered, Holton failed to provide any harvesting machinery as provided in the contract and the farmers were compelled to employ a rather unorthodox method of cutting and bundling the stalks.

In order to keep the hemp growing project alive, Holton arranged to move quantities of the harvested crop to the three decorticating plants at Mankato, Blue Earth and Lake Lillian before it had been properly retted. Hemp stalks properly retted and decorticated should produce 25 percent fibre, but the processing operations at Mankato and Blue Earth were netting much less that amount, while the machine at Lake Lillian would not separate fibre at all. During the Fall of 1934 and the following Winter, practically nothing was accomplished in the way of marketing the 1934 crop. The decorticating plants at Mankato and Blue Earth were operated intermittently and experimentation was the order of the day, but Holton continued to keep alive the enthusiasm of the farmers and stockholders.

THE 1935 CROP:

Came time for the planting of the 1935 crop and Holton had succeeded in prevailing on 147 farmers to sign another grower's contract, but of that number only 13 resided in the Mankato and Blue Earth areas. The farmers in those areas who had grown hemp under the 1934 contracts were too close to the seat of operations, I.e., Mankato, where the Northwest Hemp Corporation maintained an office, and they surmised that all was not well, or at least not as well as had been predicted, consequently only a few evidenced a desire to take further chances. The farmers in the Lake Lillian area, one hundred miles to the northwest, were still in the dark but sublimely hopeful that they would eventually receive the $15.00 per ton for the hemp they had grown in 1934, and were so impressed by Holton's promises that 134 of their number agreed to plant 1,904 acres. Again Holton secured their signatures to the growers contracts and collected their promissory notes in lieu of cash. Again he furnished the seed and it was planted.

As in the Fall of 1934, the farmers cut, bundled and stacked their hemp without retting. The Lake lillian farmers were becoming impatient. Holton's promise to have the decorticating machine adjusted, or changed, so as to enable it to process the hemp had not materialized and, too, the 1934 crop still remained on the fields, so they took matters into their own hands and subscribed $1,600 with which to purchase a drying apparatus. One Carl Anderson was placed in charge of operations and they undertook to decorticate the hemp by first trying to dry it and then running it through the decorticating machine, but the operation was fundamentally wrong and their efforts to decorticate the hemp at a reasonable production cost was not successful. Approximately twenty tons of fibre were reclaimed. It was stored in the building and remains there at the present time.

No better success was obtained at the decorticating plants at Mankato and Blue Earth. A few tons of hemp were decorticated at a time and the decorticating machines only operated when samples of fibre were needed to send to prospective purchasers. Dissension broke out in the ranks of the stockholders. The National Citizens bank of Mankato had considerable money tied up in the hemp venture and a number of its officers and directors had invested quite heavily. A movement was started to oust Holton as controlling factor in the northwest Hemp Corporation, but it was a one man corporation and Holton controlled the stock and held the principal assets, viz., the promissory notes given by the farmers at the time they signed the grower's contracts, as well as the contracts which were so worded as to give him a lien on the hemp stacked in the fields. The 1934 crop had not been removed from the farms and little prospect prevailed for removing that grown in 1935.

NATIONAL CELLULOSE CORPORATION:

During the fall of 1935, and at a time when the situation was most acute, one M.J. Connolly, of New York, appeared at Mankato and claimed to have certain patents for utilizing hemp fibre and its by-products, particularly hurds which could be used in the manufacture of cellulose products. Connolly had a long and checkered career in promoting fibre companies and he found the southern Minnesota territory a ripe field. The anti-Holton faction, led by Joseph H. Gunderson, an officer of the Blue Earth State Bank, at Blue Earth, who was one of the original subscribers to the hemp venture, and V.A. Batzner, and officer of the Citizens National Bank of Mankato, waxed enthusiastic over connolly's scheme to use the hemp in the manufacture of cellulose products. Holton's attempts to market hemp had been unsuccessful and he saw an opportunity to unload his burden, so the National Cellulose Corporation was formed with capital stock of one thousand shares, without par value. A certificate was issued by the State of Minnesota on October 3rd, 1935, and the farmers, the stockholders of the parent company and citizens alike took on a new lease on life.

The National Cellulose Corporation had entered into an agreement with the Northwest Hemp Corporation whereby the former would transfer to the latter all Connolly's patent rights to formulae relating to the treatment and processing of hemp and the manufacture of hemp products. Connolly was to get sixty percent of the capital stock of the new company and be paid $1,000 per month and expenses for the first ninety days after commencing operations. The Northwest Hemp Corporation agreed to turn over the decorticating plant at Mankato to the new company, take 40 percent of the capital stock and pay it $30,000. Of this sum $20,000 was to be deposited immediately upon organization in the National Citizens Bank of Mankato and credited to the account of the new organization. The balance of $10,000 was to be paid in thirty days. Furthermore, the Northwest Hemp Corporation agreed to deliver all of its 1934 and 1935 hemp crops to the National Cellulose Corporation at $12,000 per ton with a maximum of 15,000 tons. The organization was perfected, but the Northwest Hemp Corporation never put up any of the money pledged. Connolly, however, started operations, put in some new machinery, placed his son on the payroll, and started experimenting in the production of cellulose products. Quantities of hemp were hauled in from farms adjacent to Mankato. The new machinery turned out tons of pulverized hurds, but no purchasers could be found for the product. Money was going out and none coming in. Finally a Government cellulose expert visited Mankato and after surveying the operations, reported that Connolly did not know what he was doing, so the new venture folded up. Connolly departed from Mankato and all the blissful expectations of the farmers were dimmed by the reality that they still had the hemp stacked in the fields, and the local interests backing the venture became convinced that they had been taken for another financial ride.

HEMP CHEMICAL CORPORATION:

The woes and worries of those interested in promoting the National Cellulose Corporation and marketing the 1934 and 1935 crops of hemp were increased when it was learned that they were using a corporation title already registered in an eastern state. The State Securities Commissioner advised that the name of the corporation would have to be changed, so at a meeting of the stockholders it was voted to change the name to the Hemp Chemical Corporation and under that name the Connolly project continued to operate until operations were discontinued.

CHEMPCO, INCORPORATED:

Joseph H. Gunderson, Cashier of the Blue Earth State Bank, at Blue Earth, Minnesota, and hereinbefore mentioned as being quite active in the promotion of the original growing project, as well as the formation of the National Cellulose Corporation, was a small town banker with big city ideas. A product of Rake, a hamlet on the Iowa side of the state line, he started his career in a bank at Frost Minnesota, and then went to the Blue Earth Bank as Cashier. He had invested heavily in the hemp venture, but regardless of the failures which it had encountered, he had visions of doing something in a big way, so after the Connolly debacle he solicited financial aid from his friends and in the early Spring of 1936 organized the Chempco, Incorporated, under the laws of the state of Delaware, "to process, buy, sell, deal in and use fibre plants, etc., etc." The Certificate of Incorporation , as a foreign corporation, being filed in the Office of the Secretary of State, at St. Paul, Minnesota, on March 10, 1936.

Chempco, Incorporated, took over the old plant of the Union Fibre Corporation, at Winona, Minnesota, which had gone into bankruptcy several years before (See Exhibit "E"). Gunderson, its president, negotiated with Dr. J. M. Johnson, of Hartington, Nebraska, who had organized the Nebraska Fibre Corporation during 1935 and grown 3,676 acres of hemp under a grower's contract with 161 farmers in the Hartington region of Nebraska, for the purchase of that crop. The Nebraska hemp was still stacked on the farms and the farmers were anxious to dispose of it. Gunderson's proposition to buy the hemp and process it at Winona was a blessing in disguise and he encountered little difficulty in acquiring it. In addition to that, Gunderson announced that he was in the market to buy any of the 1934-1935 crop grown in Minnesota under Holton, or Northwest Hemp Corporation contract, that farmers wanted to sell.

During 1936, the activities of Chempco, Incorporated, were chiefly devoted to processing the hemp obtained from Nebraska territory and the fibre was marketed through the Harry H. Straus organization, which later developed the Central Fibre Corporation and the Champagne Paper Company, but in the Spring of 1937 the Chempco, Incorporated, entered into grower's contracts with seventy-nine farmers on Winona and Wabasha Counties of southern minnesota, and besides furnishing the seed, sent balers and trucks to the farms and removed the harvested crops from the fields. The contract used by Chempco, Incorporated, was vastly different from that used by Holton and the Northwest Hemp outfit. The farmer paid no money to the company under the Chempco contract. Seed was furnished by the company on "memo" and the cost deducted from the delivery price of the hemp. It further stipulated that "all payments, provisions and conditions as hereinabove provided in this contract, shall be completed in its entirety not later than April 1, 1938." (See Exhibit "F"). Holton's contract was a one-sided document as I shall hereinafter point out.

During the early part of 1937, Gunderson interested the Harry H. Straus organization in the possibility of hemp to the extent that the Central Fibre Corporation was organized by Straus, Lawrence F. Dixon, et al. Chempco entered into an agreement with the Central Fibre corporation whereby it would buy and process all hemp produced by the latter company. In turn the Central Fibre Corporation would market the fibre, but Chempco, Incorporated, encountered financial difficulties and during 1937 the company showed a loss of $25,000. The company bought up 2,611,259 pounds of the old 1934 and 1935 crops grown under the Northwest Hemp Corporation contracts, but failed to make payment in full for it. Dr. Johnson of Hartington, Nebraska, invested heavily in the company and had his son, J. A. Johnson, a young man under thirty years of age, made Vice President at a generous salary and expenses. No one, except, perhaps, E. A. Hafner, the Secretary, who had been with the old Union Fibre Company, at Winona, for a period of ten or twelve years knew anything about hemp. Gunderson had gone overboard at the Blue Earth Bank and had to resign on account of the defalcations, the bonding company making good the shortage. Finally, early last Summer the company folded up and its only tangible assets are about 3,000 tons of hurds stacked at the plant and Gunderson is back on his father's farm at Rake, Iowa, with his wife and three children, where he exists upon parental charity.

CENTRAL FIBRE CORPORATION:

As hereinbefore stated, this company was organized in the early part of 1937 by Harry H. Straus, Lawrence F. Dixon, Walter V. Landeck and others. Straus is reported to have been the financial backer. Organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota "to grow, cultivate and produce, sell and generally deal in flax, hemp and other agricultural crops and products", the Certificate of Incorporation was filed on the 24th day of February, 1937. The company leased a section of an old grist mill at Blue Earth, Minnesota, and opened an office therein during March of that year. During the Spring of 1937, the company entered into contracts with sixty two farmers in southern Minnesota and started in the hemp business. In addition to that, the company purchased 428,583 pounds of the old 1934 1935 crop grown under the Holton, or Northwest Hemp Corporation, contract.

Decorticating machinery was installed and a total of 148,090 pounds of fibre were produced, but it was never shipped and at the time of my visit to the plant last month, it was still stored there. After processing the hemp grown under contract and that acquired by purchase from the farmers, the company closed the plant at Blue Earth, removed the machinery, and all that remains of its venture in southern Minnesota hemp is the fibre stored in the old mill building. I examined the bales, they are well stored, but the fibre may well be classified as "tow", or short length fibre mixed with hurd. The decorticating machine used by the Central Fibre Corporation was not capable of separating more than 18 percent of the fibre from the stalks and much of the long length fibre was broken during processing. I was informed that the Champagne Paper Company, owned by the Straus interests, is building a paper mill at Brevard, North Carolina, and that as soon as operations are commenced the fibre in storage at Blue Earth will be moved to Brevard and used in the manufacture of paper. The life of the Central Fibre Corporation was a short but active one. It fulfilled its obligations to the farmers, paid its bills and departed from Blue Earth with a clean bill of health.

CANNABIS, INCORPORATED:

After the collapse of the national Cellulose Corporation, or as it was later called, Hemp Chemical Corporation, Holton found himself in a precarious position. First, the farmers had about exhausted their patience with him; they wanted to dispose of the hemp stored on their farms, so when Gunderson, himself, and thru agents, offered to buy their crop, the sale was quickly consummated and hemp started to move toward Winona. Following that, the Central Fibre Corporation commenced buying the 1934 35 crop and tons of hemp moved toward the plant of that company at Blue Earth and it was being purchased at much less than the $15.00 per ton stipulated in the Northwest Hemp Corporation contract. Litigation added to his troubles, but of that I shall write in a later paragraph.

In order to keep his original project alive, Holton organized Cannabis, Incorporated, under the laws of the State of Minnesota. The officers and directors were all occupying similar positions with the Northwest Hemp Corporation. The purpose of the corporation. As shown by the record, was to "manufacture and prepare hemp and other fibre from raw material sources, etc., etc., and a Certificate of Incorporation was file don April 9th, 1937. The company leased the old woolen mill on Second Street, at Winona, Minnesota, and during the Spring and Summer months of 1937 conducted much experimental work endeavoring to adapt the woolen mill machinery to the manufacture of hemp products. (See Exhibit "G"). After attaining little success, Holton finally decided upon mops as a product. He at least had a sales talk, I.e., he had many thousand tons of hemp, the decorticating plant at Blue Earth was separating the fibre and he had a manufacturing plant at Winona.

On the occasion of my first visit to the plant of Cannabis, Incorporated, I found it idle. E.G. Witt, in charge of this plant, and who styles himself Assistant Secretary and Assistant Treasurer of the company, explained that they had trouble with the machinery and a breakdown occurred the previous day. He stated that they were making the necessary repairs and the plant would be in operation the following day. I returned the following day, but on the occasion of that visit I found the machinery still idle. Two men and one girl were in the plant and when Mr. Witt started to demonstrate the operations it was quite evident that he was making a pathetic attempt to support his rather extravagant statement regarding the extent of their operations.

Mr. Witt stated that the fibre used in the manufacture of mops was hauled by truck from the Blue Earth decorticating plant as it was needed at Winona. Questioned as to the approximate tonnage used each month, Mr. Witt was rather vague, but a subsequent investigation at Blue Earth developed the fact that approximately 40 tons of hemp had been decorticated at the plant during the period April 1st to October 1st, 1938, or a period of six months. The decorticating machine at that plant is capable of separating 17 percent of fibre content from the stalks, therefore 6.8 tons of fibre was reclaimed from the 40 tons of hemp stalk. At that rate, the so-called manufacturing plant of Cannabis, Incorporated, at Winona, uses a trifle more than one ton of fibre each month in the production of mops and the fact supports the contention that it is being maintained simply to support Holton's sales talk and appease the clamor of the farmers for the removal of the old 1934-35 crops of hemp from their properties.

LAWSUITS AND LITIGATION:

The Northwest Hemp Corporation, thru its president, Frank E. Holton, ran into financial difficulties during the Spring of 1935. Money was needed to purchase the seed to be planted by the farmers under the 1935 grower's contracts. Promotion expenses had been heavy. Holton negotiated a loan from the Citizens National Bank of Mankato and by agreement assigned his interest in 550 grower's contracts as collateral. During the month of August, 1935, he borrowed $14,375.00 from the National Citizens Bank and gave his promissory notes to cover it. As collateral, he delivered 286 promissory notes, ranging in amounts from $4.00 to $1,000 and aggregating $17,328.50, which had been signed by the farmers at the time the grower's contracts were executed in 1934, together with 250 shares of stock of the Northwest Hemp Corporation.

Every effort was made by the bank to persuade Holton to repay the loans but without success. On March 13, 1937, the bank commenced proceedings to foreclose the pledges by selling the notes, stock, etc., at public auction and the sale by the sheriff was fixed for March 25, 1937. Holton applied to the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District of Minnesota for a restraining order, alleging usury and that an officer of the bank had been given 40 shares of Northwest Hemp Corporation stock and $2,500.00 in cash as a bonus for arranging the loans. A temporary restraining order was issued and hearings were scheduled, but before the Court could settle the matter, Holton borrowed $9,500.00 from another bank in Mankato and it was accepted by the Citizens National Bank in settlement of all obligations. The promissory notes, stock certificates contract assignments were all returned to Holton by the bank, and the temporary restraining order was vacated by the Court on July 12, 1937.

In the meanwhile, J.H. Gunderson and his agent, Riley Lewis, a broker, were buying up stacks of the 1934-1935 crop from the farmers. Most of the hemp so purchased was shipped to the Chempco, Incorporated, plant at Winona, but quantities went to the Central Fibre Corporation plant, at Blue Earth, and Lewis sold 202,450 pounds direct to the Maisewood Insulation Company at Dubuque, Iowa. Holton claimed that the hemp grown under the 1934-1935 contracts was the property of the Northwest Hemp Corporation; that the Citizens National Bank of Mankato and Riley Lewis were inducing, soliciting and urging the farmers to sell their crops to other interests, so during September 1937, he filed action against the bank and Lewis, applied for a restraining order and asked for $50,000.00 damages. A hearing on the application for the restraining order was held before Hon. Harry A. Johnson of the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District of Minnesota on October 7th, 1937, and, after listening to arguments, the application was denied.

During the Fall of 1935, and at about the time Holton was in bad shape financially, the Northwest Hemp Corporation made application to the State Securities Commission for permission to sell the stock of that company, altho many shares had already been sold. A hearing was held and under the date of November 19th, 1935, in a formal notice, permission was denied. The basis given for denial was, in effect, that the Commission believed fraud would result from the operations outlined in the application; that too large a proportion of the profits would be inuring to the principals and those with whom the principals proposed to do business, rather than stockholders of the corporation; that while the application had the color of being beneficial to the farmers, upon analysis it appeared that the farmers would be subject to domination of the applicant and his associates with respect to their rights to contract with others in the growing of crops; that the contract was so worded that at the best the farmer received only what the applicant wished to pay; that it was unfavorable to the grower and disproportionately favorable to the applicant who had contributed only a nominal amount in proportion to the amount paid in. The notice was aimed at Holton rather than the corporation as such.

The average citizen would construe the Commission's notice as an order not to sell stock in the company, but not Holton. He continued to sell stock for whatever cash he could get for it and will sell it to-day if he can find a buyer. I, personally, saw certificates of stock that were issued during October and November, 1937, and I know the names of many who purchased stock during that year. In one instance, two maidenly ladies of La Seuer, Minnesota, bought one share of stock for which they paid Holton five hundred dollars. He promised a handsome return on the investment. Receiving no dividend, they took him to task and threatened criminal action. Holton gave them several shares gratis and more promises. Since the date of the original purchase, they have received nineteen additional shares for no extra cash as a result of additional threats. The southern area of Minnesota is replete with similar instances of Holton's perfidity, but I was not instructed to investigate his financial affairs and any reference to them in this report is for the sole purpose of emphasizing relevant facts which have bearing upon the hemp grown by the Northwest Hemp Corporation, controlled and dominated by Holton, and its ability to dispose of the 1934-1935 crops now stacked on farms of the southern area of Minnesota.

EXISTING 1934-1935 CROPS ON FARMS:

The records of the Northwest Hemp corporation, augmented by a perusal of Court records and personal visit to many farms, disclosed the following planting of hemp under grower's contracts during 1934 and 1935:

...................................................................... ...1934 ..........1935

Number of producers..........................................551 ............147

Acres planted..................................................... 6,358 ........2,085

The consensus of opinion is that two tons per acre is a fair estimate of yield, therefore the 8,443 acres planted should have produced a total of 16,886 tons of hemp.

The Northwest Hemp corporation claims ownership of all hemp grown under contracts during the 1934-1935 period, but its records were found to be in chaotic condition and, in order to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion with respect to the number of tons stacked on the farms, it was necessary to consult many growers, scale records, records of purchasers and individuals interested in the crops. As a result of such rather exhaustive inquiry, the following is an estimate of the tonnage actually removed from the fields:

Northwest Hemp Corporation

Mankato Decorticating plant.............................. 150 tons

Blue Earth Decorticating Plant........................... 800 "

Lake Lillian Decorticating Plant........................ 250 " ................................................................................ ........1,200 tons ..................... tons National Cellulose Corportation.......................................................... 200 "

Chempco......................................................................... .......................... 1,300 "

Central Fibre Corporation..................................................................... . 215 "

Maizewood Chemical Company............................................................ 100 "

................................................................................ ....................................... 3,015 tons

Allowing 15 percent for depreciation, burning, theft, etc., the following recapitulation, in round figures, represents the situation at the present time in the Mankato-Blue earth-Lake Lillian areas of southern Minnesota at the present time:

Estimate tonnage grown................................................................ 16,000

Approximate tonnage removed from fields for decorticating at plants............................................................... 3,000

................................................................................ .................................... 13,000

Less approximately 15 percent for depreciating, burning, theft, etc................................................... 2,000

Estimated tonnage stored on fields of farms and at decorticating plants.............................................. 11,000

The major portion of the harvested hemp now stored on the fields is on farms located in Kandiyohi, Renville, Blue Earth and Faribault counties, in order of tonnage, while lesser quantities are scattered over a half dozen other counties. (See Exhibits "H" , "I" and "J"). At the three decorticating plants. Viz., Mankato, Blue Earth and Lake Lillian, large quantities have been stored since 1934 and 1935(See Exhibits "K", "L" and "M"). In most instances the stacks are well preserved, altho number that were improperly stacked have become soggy in the interior as a result of the rain and snow. Authorities agree that hemp in well preserved stacks can be decorticated and produce good fibre even if stored on the fields for a period of ten years.

PILFERING AND BURNING:

Due to publicity given to the existence of the stacks of old 1934 and 1935 hemp on the farms, they have become a source of supply for the traffickers in marihuana. In many instances, the stacks are located adjacent to the public highway (See Exhibits "N", "O", and "P"), and quite accessible to any one desirous of obtaining a supply of leaves and tops because, as the analyses have shown, those parts of the plant still contain an active narcotic principle and all one has to do is remove the top layers of bundles and find a most desirable product for smoking purposes. Many of the stacks, particularly in Blue Earth and Faribault counties have been pilfered (See Exhibits "Q" and "R"). The Bureau records contain a number of cases in which it was developed that the marihuana had been obtained from stacks in southern Minnesota and with adequate personnel to devote to the task of investigating all cases of theft of marihuana, or hemp, coming to the attention of local the law enforcement officers, many more violators of the Marihuana Tax Act could be prosecuted.

During the period of my survey in the hemp growing area, a number of farmers, tiring of being awakened at night by the barking of dogs at the looters, as well as of keeping the stacks of hemp properly trimmed, have defied Holton's admonition not to destroy the stacks and simply set fire to them. In each instance, the farmer, when questioned, has stated that lightning struck the stack and the resultant fire destroyed it, because Holton has threatened to take court action against any farmer who destroys any of the 1934 or 1935 crop. Generally speaking, the farmer is in sympathy with the officers in the enforcement of the Federal and State Marihuana Acts. Numerous instances were called to my attention wherein farmers have discharged shotguns at persons prowling about the hemp stacks and the Sheriffs of Blue Earth and Faribault Counties have answered many telephone calls from farmers who have reported that men were pilfering the stacks, but as long as the stacks remain on the fields they will be a source of supply for the traffickers and a constant annoyance to those engaged in enforcement of the marihuana laws.

VIOLATIONS OF THE MARIHUANA TAX ACT:

Since the effective date of the Marihuana Tax Act, October 1st, 1937, practically everyone interested in the growing, processing or dealing in hemp in southern Minnesota has been violating some provision of the Act and the regulations pertaining thereto. At the outset, confusion existed with respect to the application of the Act to the old 1934 and 1935 crops, due in great measure to misinformation supplied and the erroneous impression created with respect to the conditions of the plants which had been harvested and then stacked on the fields; then a similar situation presented itself in dealing with the 1937 crop which had been harvested and was ready to be moved to the decorticating plants.

The records of the Bureau indicate that the Central Fibre Corporation and Chempco, Incorporated, made what may be construed as an honest effort to comply with the Marihuana Tax Act. The former registered with the Collector of Internal Revenue of the District of Minnesota as a dealer, while the latter registered as a processor for the fiscal year 1938, but in transferring tons of the old 1934-1935 crops from the farms to the mills, as well as that grown under contract during 1937, both companies were liable to the transfer tax imposed by the Act because the stalks contained an abundant supply of tops and leaves. Furthermore, the Central Fibre Corporation should have registered as a processor in Class 1 for the reason that it was engaged in processing the stalks with tops and leaves at the Blue Earth decorticating plant.

The Northwest Hemp Corporation, thru its President, Frank E. Holton, maintained that the provisions of the Act did not apply to activities of that company and gave wide publicity to a letter written by the Bureau under date of October 19, 1937, in reply to a letter from the company under the date of October 11, 1937, in support of that position, but in referring to the letter from the Bureau, Mr. Holton adroitly omitted a very significant statement contained therein, viz, "assuming that these stalks are practically free of leaves or flowering tops containing resin." The Northwest Hemp Corporation, however, finally registered as a dealer in Class 111 for the period April 1st to June 30, 1938, but, as in the case of the Central Fibre Corporation, it, too, should have registered as a processor in Class 1 because it was engaged in processing plants which contained leaves and flowering tops. Furthermore, while the Central Fibre Corporation and Chempco, Incorporated , arranged to register all the farmers as producers with whom they had grower's contract, as well as those from whom they had purchased quantities of the 1934-1935 crops, the Northwest Hemp Corporation made no such provision for farmers from whom it obtained hemp plants for decorticating at the Blue Earth plant.

For the fiscal year 1939, Chempco, Incorporated, registered as a dealer in Class 111, altho it has discontinued operations at its Winona plant. The Northwest Hemp Corporation has also registered as a dealer, but since July 1st, 1938, or between the period of July 1st and August 24th, that company has transferred a total of 138,330 pounds of hemp from four different farms in Faribault County to the decorticating plant at Blue Earth as follows:

Martin Severtson....................................22,390 lbs

Ross Mattin...............................................32,310 "

Dennis O'Neal...........................................79,960 "

Donald Willet..............................................3,670 " .....................................................................138,330 lbs .

The fibre produced from the hemp was shipped to the Cannabis, Incorporated , at Winona, Minnesota, for use in the manufacture of mops. In transferring the plants from the farms to the decorticating plant, both the company and the farmers violated the provisions of Chapter IV, Regulations No. 1, having to do with transfer taxes because they contained tops and leaves, and the farmer incurred further liability for failing to register as a producer. On the occasion of my first visit to the Blue Earth decorticating plant, as well as on the occasion of subsequent conferences with Mr. Holton, I called attention to the transfer provisions of the Marihuana Tax Act and up until the time of my departure from the Mankato-Blue Earth territory, or October 15, 1938, no further deliveries of hemp to the decorticating plant had been made.

Throughout the southern area of Minnesota there are 400 or more farmers who are violating the provisions of Article 96, Regulations No. 1, in that they are not properly safeguarding the hemp containing tops and leaves now stored on their farms, but those farmers are innocent victims of a situation created by happenings over which they had no control. As hereinbefore pointed out, many of the stacks are adjacent to the highways and quite accessible to any one seeking a source of supply of marihuana for smoking purposes. On the other hand, many of the stacks are from one-quarter to one-half mile distance from the dwellings. When strangers are seen near the stacks, the farmers usually call the Sheriff or, if at night, fire a shotgun. I do not believe that the farmer is expected to provide guards for the stacks, altho that is about the only way looters can be kept from them, and it would be unfair to impose any penalty for failure to do so.

CONCLUSIONS:

The problem confronting the bureau at the present time with respect to the commercialize hemp situation in southern Minnesota is, first, what disposition shall be made of the harvested 1934 and 1935 crops now stacked on the farms, and, secondly if it is disposed of by purchase, how can it be transferred from field to mill without imposition a transfer tax? In considering the problem, two factors must be considered, i.e., the position of the farmer and that of Frank E. Holton, President of the Northwest Hemp Corporation. The farmer is entitled to compensation for the product of his labor, but in providing such compensation, the interest of Holton in the crops under the grower's contract, must be considered. The Northwest Hemp Corporation, dominated by Holton is in no financial position to take over the hemp for decorticating and marketing, altho for the past three years by means of alluring promises contained in individual letters to the farmers, Holton has endeavored to stimulate their hopes that he will eventually come to their rescue and fulfill his contract obligations. If it were not for the fact that he holds their promissory notes, which practically amount to chattel mortgages on their property, they undoubtedly would feel less inclined to string along with him.

In recent weeks, Holton has been devoting his time to the promotion of a hemp growing venture in the State of Mississippi similar to that which he inaugurated in Southern Minnesota during the Fall of 1933, and which precipitated the present situation. His Mississippi scheme is to grow hemp in that state and mix it with cotton in the manufacture of textiles, but while growing the first crop in the South, and so that the actual manufacturing project can get started, he proposes to transfer the old 1934-1935 from Minnesota to Mississippi. According to his version of the project, it will revolutionize the textile industry. The proposed project is widely disseminated among the farmers. It contains a ray of hope for them, however fantastic it may appear to those familiar with the cotton industry of the South. Holton's forte is preying on the gullibility of his victims and he has found himself strangely rewarded for his endeavors in the farm belt of southern Minnesota, altho in the Lake Lillian area he is decidedly persona non grata at the present time on account of misrepresentations to the farmers in that district.

Neither the exact status of the grower's contract or the promissory notes has been passed upon by any Minnesota court of record, but the opinion is freely expressed by legal authorities that if the matter is brought before any judicial tribunal the decision will be in favor of the farmers. The farmer, however, dislikes court actions, - they cost money and take up his time, consequently they have been reluctant to obtain any judicial interpretation of the contract or the status of the promissory notes, so as the matter stands, Holton holds a whip hand over the farmer and unless his noninterest in the harvested hemp is definitely established by competent authority, he will endeavor to exact his pound of flesh in the event that a market for the crops is found, or they are removed from the fields by other means.

Prior to my departure from the hemp growing area of the state, a movement was started by the farmers in the Lake Lillian area to remove Holton from his position as President of the Northwest Hemp Corporation thru receivership methods and endeavor to dispose of the 1934-1935 crop of harvested hemp through either Federal or State assistance. A committee was formed and Olai A. Lende, Attorney-at-law of Granite Falls, Minnesota, was appointed Chairman and Legal Adviser. Mr. Lende obtained power of attorney to act for the farmers in that area. The farmers believe that some form of relief can be obtained by either Federal or State legislative action. The opinion is formed, as a result of my survey of the hemp situation, that such action is the only remedy for the reason that, first, I do not believe a buyer for the old 1934-1935 crop can be found, and secondly, there is no market for hemp at a price which would net the farmer a reasonable return, let alone profit, for his product.

RECOMMENDATION:

The existence of the old 1934-1935 crop of harvested hemp on the fields of southern Minnesota is a menace to society in that it is being used by traffickers in marihuana as a source of supply and as long as it remains in the fields it will be of potential trouble and annoyance to those engaged in the enforcement of the Federal and State marihuana acts. Every stack contains a plentiful supply of desirable tops and leaves for smoking purposes. The farmers are entitle to reasonable compensation for their time and labor in raising the hemp and I do not subscribe to any action which would deprive them of that return on their investment. They acted in good faith when they planted the seed and they have no desire to run afoul of the law because of circumstances which have caused them to be in possession of the crops since the passage of the marihuana Tax Act. Federal funds were made available and wild hemp was removed from counties in the state last Summer. The removal of the harvested crops by some such similar means is worthy of consideration and I recommend that the Bureau endorse and approve any suggested Governmental assistance, whether Federal or State, which may bring about the removal of the harvested hemp crops now stacked on the fields of southern Minnesota.

Respectfully,

H.T. Nugent, Field Supervisor.

[ This post is for the revelance of research. The revelance of this article relates to the role Harry Anslinger played in the demise of the Industrial Hemp Industry in the United States of America. According to the source, this information was obtaind through the Freedom Of Information Act : SOURCE ]

Hemp Rules of the MAN, by the MAN

2009-04-16T22:11:00.000-07:00

[Federal Register: October 9, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 195)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51539-51544]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09oc01-19]

[[Page 51539]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

21 CFR Part 1308

[DEA-206]
RIN 1117-AA55

Exemption From Control of Certain Industrial Products and
Materials Derived From the Cannabis Plant

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Interim rule and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In a separate document published today in the Federal
Register, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an
interpretive rule stating that under the Controlled Substances Act
(CSA) and DEA regulations, any product that contains any amount of
tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) is a schedule I controlled substance, even
if such product is made from those portions of the cannabis plant that
are excluded from the CSA definition of ``marihuana.'' (Hereafter ``the
interpretive rule''.) In view of the interpretive rule, DEA is issuing
this interim rule to exempt from control (i.e., exempt from application
of the CSA) certain THC-containing industrial products, processed plant
materials used to make such products, and animal feed mixtures,
provided such products, materials and feed mixtures are made from those
portions of the cannabis plant that are excluded from the definition of
marijuana and are not used, or intended for use, for human consumption.
With respect to those ``hemp'' products that are not exempted from
control under this interim rule, a 120-day grace period is being
provided for persons to dispose of existing inventories.

DATES: This interim rule is effective October 9, 2001. Comments must be
received by DEA on or before December 10, 2001. If DEA determines based
on any comments received that a modification of this interim rule is
warranted, such modification will be specified in the final rule.
As set forth in this document, a grace period is being provided for
persons to dispose of existing inventories of ``hemp'' products that
are not exempted from control under this interim rule. Any person who,
as of October 9, 2001, possesses a THC-containing hemp product not
exempted from control under this interim rule has until February 6,
2002 to dispose of such product in the manner described in this
document.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Washington, DC 20537; Attention: DEA Federal Register
Representative/CCD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Sapienza, Chief, Drug and
Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug Enforcement Administration,
Washington, D.C. 20537; Telephone: (202) 307-7183.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What Does This Rule Accomplish and by What Authority Is It Being
Issued?

This interim rule exempts from CSA control certain THC-containing
industrial products, processed plant materials used to make such
products, and animal feed mixtures, provided such products, materials,
and feed mixtures are made from those portions of the cannabis plant
that are excluded from the definition of marijuana and are not used, or
intended for use, for human consumption. Among the types of industrial
products that are exempted as a result of this interim rule are paper,
rope, and clothing. Also exempted are processed plant materials used
for industrial purposes, such as fiber retted from cannabis stalks for
use in manufacturing textiles or rope. Also exempted are animal feed
mixtures that contain sterilized cannabis seeds and other ingredients
(not derived from the cannabis plant) in a formulation designed,
marketed, and distributed for animal (nonhuman) consumption. Personal
care products made from ``hemp'' (i.e., made from portions of the
cannabis plant excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana), such as
shampoos, soaps, and body lotions, are exempted if using them does not
cause THC to enter the human body.
With respect to those THC-containing ``hemp'' products that are not
exempted from control under this interim rule, a 120-day grace period
is being provided for persons to dispose of existing inventories of
such products.
This interim rule is being issued pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811, 812,
and 871(b). Sections 811 and 812 authorize the Attorney General to
establish the schedules in accordance with the CSA and to publish
amendments to the schedules in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part
1308 of Title 21. Section 871(b) authorizes the Attorney General to
promulgate and enforce any rules, regulations, and procedures which he
may deem necessary and appropriate for the efficient enforcement of his
functions under the CSA. In addition, the Attorney General is
authorized to exempt, by regulation, any compound, mixture, or
preparation containing any controlled substance from the application of
all or any part of the CSA if he finds such compound, mixture, or
preparation meets the requirements of Sec. 811(g)(3). The functions
vested in the Attorney General by the CSA have been delegated to the
Administrator of DEA. 21 U.S.C. 871(a); 28 CFR 0.100. A detailed
explanation of how the foregoing provisions authorize this interim rule
is provided in the next section of this document.

Why Is DEA Exempting From Control Certain THC-Containing Substances
Not Intended for Human Consumption?

As explained in detail in the interpretive rule, when Congress
enacted the CSA in 1970, it carried forward the definition of marijuana
from the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, which expressly excluded certain
portions of the cannabis plant. However, Congress also expressly stated
in the CSA scheduling provisions that ``any material, compound,
mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of * * *
Tetrahydrocannabinols [THC]'' is a schedule I controlled substance.
Given these provisions, several members of the public have recently
asked DEA whether so-called ``hemp'' products (i.e., products made from
portions of the cannabis plant excluded from the definition of
marijuana) are controlled if they contain THC. DEA concluded in the
interpretive rule that, under the plain language of the CSA, such
products are controlled if they contain THC.
The interpretive rule, standing alone, would view as schedule I
controlled substances a wide variety of cannabis-derived industrial
products that were not subject to regulation under the Marihuana Tax
Act.\1\ For example, under the interpretive rule (without this interim
rule), products such as paper, rope, clothing, industrial solvents and
lubricants, and bird seed mixtures made from portions of the cannabis
plant excluded from the definition of marijuana would all be considered
schedule I controlled substances if they contained THC. As a result,
the use of such legitimate industrial products would be severely
restricted. (The CSA

[[Page 51540]]

permits industrial use of schedule I controlled substances, but only
under strictly regulated conditions.) Under this interim rule, however,
DEA is exempting such legitimate industrial products from control,
provided they are not used, or intended for use, for human consumption.
As explained below, DEA believes this approach protects the public
health and safety while striking a fair balance between the plain
language of the CSA and the intent of Congress under prior marijuana
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Under the Marihuana Tax Act, persons who grew cannabis to
make industrial ``hemp'' products were required to pay an
occupational tax; however, the distribution of ``hemp'' paper, fiber
products, and bird seed was exempt from the Act's taxing provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

THC is an hallucinogenic substance with a high potential for abuse.
Congress recognized this fact by placing it in schedule I. Consistent
therewith, under the interpretive rule, the proposed rule, and this
interim rule (viewed together), there are only two ways that THC may
lawfully enter a person's body. First, if the person is using a drug
product that has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) as being safe and effective for human use.\2\ See 21 U.S.C. 331,
355, 811(b), 812(b). Second, if the person is a research subject in
clinical research that has been approved by FDA and conducted by a
researcher registered with DEA. 21 U.S.C. 823(f); 21 CFR 5.10(a)(9),
1301.18, 1301.32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ At present, Marinol is the only THC-containing
drug product that has been approved for marketing by FDA.
Marinol is the brand name of a product containing
synthetic dronabinol (a form of THC) in sesame oil and encapsulated
in soft gelatin capsules that has been approved for the treatment of
nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy as well as
the treatment of anorexia associated with weight loss in patients
with AIDS. Because Marinol is the only THC-containing drug
approved by FDA, it is the only THC-containing substance listed in a
schedule other than schedule I. DEA recently transferred
Marinol from schedule II to schedule III, thereby
lessening the CSA regulatory requirements governing its use as
medicine. See 64 Fed. Reg. 35928 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In arriving at this interim rule, DEA has taken into account the
uses of ``hemp'' products that were allowed under the Marihuana Tax Act
of 1937. The Senate Report that accompanied the Act stated:

The [cannabis] plant * * * has many industrial uses. From the
mature stalks, fiber is produced which in turn is manufactured into
twine, and other fiber products. From the seeds, oil is extracted
which is used in the manufacture of such products as paint, varnish,
linoleum, and soap. From hempseed cake, the residue of the seed
after the oil has been extracted, cattle feed and fertilizer are
manufactured. In addition, the seed is used as a special feed for
pigeons.

S. Rep. No. 900, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., at 2-3 (1937).
As explained in the interpretive rule, the intent of Congress in
1937 to allow certain industrial uses of ``hemp'' is no longer
controlling since the CSA repealed the 1937 Act. This is particularly
so given that the 1937 Congress assumed that the ``hemp'' products it
was allowing contained none of the psychoactive drug now known as THC,
whereas the 1970 Congress expressly declared anything containing THC to
be a schedule I controlled substance. Nonetheless, the legitimate
industrial uses of ``hemp'' allowed under the 1937 Act will generally
be allowed under this interim rule. At the same time, DEA believes that
this interim rule comports with the CSA by ensuring that no humans may
lawfully take THC into their bodies except when they are (i) using a
drug product that the FDA has approved as being safe and effective or
(ii) the subjects of FDA-authorized research conducted by a DEA
registrant.
DEA may not arbitrarily exempt a controlled substance from
application of the CSA. Rather, such an exemption must be based on a
provision of the CSA. As noted above, the exemption of certain ``hemp''
products under this interim rule is issued pursuant to two CSA
provisions: 21 U.S.C. 811(g)(3)(B) and 871(b).
Pursuant to Sec. 811(g)(3)(B), the Administrator of DEA may exempt
from control ``[a] compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any
controlled substance, which is not for administration to a human being
or animal, and which is packaged in such form or concentration, or with
adulterants or denaturants, so that as packaged it does not present any
significant potential for abuse.'' This provision, which was added to
the CSA in 1984, was aimed primarily at analytic standards and
preparations which are not for use in humans and pose no significant
abuse threat by nature of their formulation. It bears emphasis,
however, that Congress did not mandate that DEA exempt from control all
mixtures and preparations that DEA determines meet the criteria of
Sec. 811(g)(3)(B). Rather, as the word ``may'' in the first line of
Sec. 811(g)(3) indicates, Congress gave DEA discretionary authority to
issue such exemptions.
The DEA regulation that implements Sec. 811(g)(3)(B) is 21 CFR
1308.23. Section 1308.23(a) provides that the Administrator may exempt
from control a chemical preparation or mixture containing a controlled
substance that is ``intended for laboratory, industrial, educational,
or special research purposes and not for general administration to a
human being or other animal'' if it is packaged in such a form or
concentration, or with adulterants or denaturants, so that the presence
of the controlled substance does not present any significant potential
for abuse.
DEA believes that industrial ``hemp'' products such as paper,
clothing, and rope, when used for legitimate industrial purposes (not
for human consumption) meet the criteria of Sec. 811(g)(3)(B) and
Sec. 1308.23. Legitimate use of such products cannot result in THC
entering the human body. Moreover, allowing these products to be
exempted from CSA control in no way hinders the efficient enforcement
of the CSA. Accordingly, DEA believes that these types of industrial
products should be exempted from application of the CSA, provided they
are not used, or intended for use, for human consumption. For the same
reasons, processed cannabis plant materials that cannot readily be
converted into any form that can be used for human consumption, and
which are used in the production of such legitimate industrial
products, are being exempted from control under this interim rule.
The use of sterilized cannabis seeds \3\ that contain THC in animal
feed fails to meet the criteria of Sec. 811(g)(3)(B) and Sec. 1308.23
because this involves the use of a controlled substance (THC) in
animals.\4\ Nonetheless, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 871(b), DEA believes it
is appropriate to exempt from application of the CSA animal feed
mixtures containing such seeds, provided the seeds are mixed with other
ingredients (not derived from the cannabis plant) in a formulation
designed, marketed and distributed for animal consumption (not for use
in humans). Section 871(b) authorizes the Attorney General to
promulgate and enforce any rules, regulations, and procedures which he
may deem necessary and appropriate for the efficient enforcement of his
functions under the CSA. It should be underscored that Sec. 871(b) is
not a catchall provision that can be used to justify any exemption. For
the following reasons, however, DEA believes that the use of sterilized
cannabis seeds in animal feed mixtures is a unique situation that
warrants an exemption pursuant to Sec. 871(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Unless otherwise indicated, all references in this document
to ``cannabis seeds'' or ```hemp' seeds'' refer to sterilized seeds
(incapable of germination). In contrast to sterilized cannabis
seeds, unsterilized cannabis seeds fit within the CSA definition of
marijuana and are not exempted from control under this interim rule.
\4\ If, however, the ``hemp'' seeds used in animal feed are
sterilized cannabis seeds that contain no THC, such seeds are not a
controlled substance. Under such circumstances, there is no need to
exempt such seeds from control.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 51541]]

As stated above and in the interpretive rule, the legislative
history of the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act reveals that Congress expressly
contemplated allowing ``hemp'' animal feed. The 1937 Congress
categorized such use of ``hemp'' as a legitimate ``industrial'' use. It
is true that the intent of the 1937 Congress is no longer controlling
since the CSA repealed the 1937 Act and declared anything containing
THC to be a schedule I controlled substance. However, because neither
the text nor the legislative history of the CSA addresses the legality
of using sterilized cannabis seeds in animal feed, or the possibility
that such seeds might contain THC, what was viewed under the 1937 Act
as ``legitimate industrial use'' of such seeds in animal feed continued
uninterrupted following the enactment of the CSA in 1970.
The historical lack of federal regulation of a particular THC-
containing product (whether based on differences between prior law and
the CSA, lack of awareness of the THC content of such product, or other
considerations) does not--by itself--justify exempting such product
from control under the CSA. DEA remains obligated to apply the
provisions of the CSA to all controlled substances absent a statutory
basis to exempt a particular substance from control. However, with
respect to animal feed mixtures containing sterilized cannabis seeds,
additional factors (combined with Congress' express desire under prior
legislation to allow such products) justify an exemption pursuant to
Sec. 871(b). The presence of a controlled substance in animal feed
poses less potential for abuse than in a product intended for human use
and does not entail the administration of THC to humans. Moreover, when
sterilized cannabis seeds are mixed with other animal feed ingredients
and not designed, marketed, or distributed for human use, there is
minimal risk that they will be converted into a product used for human
consumption. Therefore, such legitimate use in animal feed mixtures
poses no significant danger to the public health and safety.
Accordingly, given the unique circumstances and history surrounding the
use of sterilized cannabis seeds in animal feed, DEA believes that it
comports with the CSA to continue to treat such activity as a
legitimate industrial use--not subject to CSA control--provided the
foregoing conditions are met.

How Is ``Human Consumption'' Defined Under This Interim Rule?

Under this interim rule, a material, compound, mixture, or
preparation containing THC will be considered ``used for human
consumption'' (and therefore not exempted from control) if it is: (i)
Ingested orally or (ii) applied by any means such that THC enters the
human body. A material, compound, mixture, or preparation containing
THC will be considered ``intended for use for human consumption'' (and
therefore not exempted from control) if it is: (i) Designed by the
manufacturer for human consumption; (ii) marketed for human
consumption; or (iii) distributed, exported, or imported with the
intent that it be used for human consumption.
In any legal proceeding arising under the CSA, the burden of going
forward with the evidence that a material, compound, mixture, or
preparation containing THC is exempt from control pursuant to this rule
shall be upon the person claiming such exemption. 21 U.S.C. 885(a)(1).
In order to meet this burden with respect to a product or processed
plant material that has not been expressly exempted from control by the
Administrator pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.23 (as explained below under the
heading ``What Is the Control Status of Personal Care Products Made
from `Hemp'?''), the person claiming the exemption must present
rigorous scientific evidence, including well-documented scientific
studies by experts trained and qualified to evaluate the effects of
drugs on humans.

How Are ``Processed Plant Material'' and ``Animal Feed Mixture''
Defined Under This Interim Rule?

Under this interim rule, any portion of the cannabis plant excluded
from the CSA definition of marijuana will be considered ``processed
plant material'' if it has been subject to industrial processes, or
mixed with other ingredients, such that it cannot readily be converted
into any form that can be used for human consumption. For example,
fiber that has been separated from the mature stalks by retting for use
in textiles is considered processed plant material, which is exempted
from control, provided it is not used, or intended for use, for human
consumption. (In contrast, mature stalks that have merely been cut down
and collected do not fit within the definition of ``processed plant
material'' and, therefore, are not exempted from control.) As another
example, if a shampoo contains oil derived from sterilized cannabis
seeds, one would expect that, as part of the production of the shampoo,
the oil was subject to industrial processes and mixed with other
ingredients such that, even if some THC remains in the finished
product, the shampoo cannot readily be converted into a product that
can be consumed by humans. Under such circumstances, the product is
exempted from control under this interim rule. (In contrast, a personal
care product that consists solely of oil derived from cannabis seeds
does not meet the definition of ``processed plant material'' under this
interim rule and, therefore, is not exempted from control.)
``Animal feed mixture'' is defined under this interim rule to mean
sterilized cannabis seeds mixed with other ingredients in a formulation
that is designed, marketed, and distributed for animal consumption (and
not for human consumption). For example, sterilized cannabis seeds
mixed with seeds from other plants and for sale in pet stores fits
within the definition of ``animal feed mixture'' and is exempted from
control under this interim rule provided the feed mixture is not used,
or intended for use, for human consumption. (In contrast, a container
of pure sterilized cannabis seeds--mixed with no other ingredients--
does not meet the definition of ``animal feed mixture'' under this
interim rule and, therefore, is not exempted from control.)

Which ``Hemp'' Products Are Exempted From Control Under This
Interim Rule?

It is impossible to list every potential product that might be made
from portions of the cannabis plant excluded from the definition of
marijuana. Therefore, DEA cannot provide an exhaustive list of ``hemp''
products that are exempted from control under this interim rule.
Nonetheless, in order to provide some guidance to the public, the
following are some of the more common ``hemp'' products that are
exempted (noncontrolled) under this interim rule, provided they are not
used, or intended for use, for human consumption: paper, rope, and
clothing made from fiber derived from cannabis stalks, and bird seed
containing sterilized cannabis seed mixed with seeds from other plants
(or other ingredients not derived from the cannabis plant).

Which ``Hemp'' Products Are Not Exempted From Control Under This
Interim Rule?

Other than those substances that fit within the exemption being
issued in this interim rule, all other portions of the cannabis plant,
and products made therefrom, that contain any amount of

[[Page 51542]]

THC are schedule I controlled substances.
Again, because one cannot list every conceivable ``hemp'' product,
it is impossible to examine here every ``hemp'' product for a
determination of whether such product is used, or intended for use, for
human consumption within the meaning of this interim rule. Therefore,
this document contains no exhaustive list of ``hemp'' products that are
not exempted from control under this interim rule. Nonetheless, to
provide some guidance, the following are some of the ``hemp'' products
that are not exempted from control under this interim rule (and
therefore remain controlled substances) if they contain THC: any food
or beverage (such as pasta, tortilla chips, candy bars, nutritional
bars, salad dressings, sauces, cheese, ice cream, and beer) or dietary
supplement.

What Is the Control Status of Personal Care Products Made From
``Hemp''?

Personal care ``hemp'' products (such as lotions, moisturizers,
soaps, or shampoos that contain oil from sterilized cannabis seeds)
present a more difficult question. DEA has not conducted chemical
analyses of all of the many and varied ``hemp'' products that are
marketed in the United States. Accordingly, DEA does not know whether
every product that is labeled a ``hemp'' product necessarily was made
using portions of the cannabis plant, and if so, whether such portions
of the plant are those excluded from the definition of marijuana. Even
if one assumes that a product that says ``hemp'' on the label was, in
fact, made using cannabis seeds or other portions of the plant, one
cannot automatically infer (without conducting chemical analysis) that
the product contains THC.\5\ Assuming, however, that a ``hemp'' product
does contain THC, and assuming further that such product is marketed
for personal care (e.g., body lotion or shampoo), the question remains
whether the use of the product results in THC entering the human body.
DEA is unaware of any scientific evidence definitively answering this
question. Therefore, DEA cannot state, as a general matter, whether
``hemp'' personal care products are exempted from control under this
interim rule. Nonetheless, given the information currently available,
DEA will assume (unless and until it receives evidence to the contrary)
that most personal care products do not cause THC to enter the human
body and, therefore, are exempted under this interim rule. For example,
DEA assumes at this time that lotions, moisturizers, soaps, and
shampoos that contain oil from sterilized cannabis seeds meet the
criteria for exemption under this interim rule because they do not
cause THC to enter the human body and cannot be readily converted for
human consumption. However, if a personal care ``hemp'' product is
formulated and designed to be used in a way that causes THC to enter
the human body, the product is not exempted from control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Any product that both is made from portions of the cannabis
plant excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana and contains no
THC (nor any other controlled substance) is not a controlled
substance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, it must be emphasized that, although DEA believes that most
personal care ``hemp'' products currently marketed in the United States
meet the criteria for exemption under this interim rule, it is not
possible for DEA to provide an exhaustive list of every such product
and to state whether such product is exempted. Should manufacturers,
distributors, or importers of ``hemp'' personal care products wish to
have their products expressly exempted from control, they should take
steps to determine whether such products contain THC and, if they do
contain THC, whether use of the products results in THC entering the
human body. Any such manufacturer, distributor, or importer who
believes that its product satisfies the criteria for exemption under
this interim rule may request that DEA expressly declare such product
exempted from control by submitting to DEA an application for an
exemption, together with appropriate scientific data, in accordance
with the procedures set forth in 21 CFR 1308.23(b) and (c).
A manufacturer, distributor, or importer of a ``hemp'' product that
meets the criteria for exemption under this interim rule need not
obtain an express exemption from DEA in order to continue to handle
such product. DEA leaves it to the individual manufacturer,
distributor, or importer to decide whether there is sufficient
uncertainty about its product to seek an express exemption from DEA.
However, any person who continues to handle a ``hemp'' product that
does not meet the criteria for an exemption under this interim rule is
subject to liability under the CSA (unless such person is acting to
dispose of such product within the 120-day grace period, as specified
below).

What Is the Legal Status of ``Hemp'' Products That Contain No THC?

Any portion of the cannabis plant, or any product made therefrom,
or any product that is marketed as a ``hemp'' product, that is both
excluded from the definition of marijuana and contains no THC (nor any
other controlled substance) is not a controlled substance. Accordingly,
such substances need not be exempted from control under this interim
rule, since they are, by definition, noncontrolled.

What Is the Justification for Issuing This Rule as an Interim Rule,
Which Takes Effect Immediately?

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that ``[g]eneral
notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal
Register * * * '' However, this requirement is not applicable ``when
the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a
brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice
and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(B). Similarly,
the APA requirement that a substantive rule be published in the Federal
Register at least 30 days before its effective date is inapplicable
where the agency finds good cause for having the rule take effect
immediately upon publication. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
In this case, DEA believes it is both necessary for the most
effective enforcement of the CSA and consistent with the public
interest to allow the exemptions contained in this interim rule to
become effective immediately. Otherwise, as set forth in the
interpretive rule, all products containing any amount of THC are
schedule I controlled substances. In other words, as DEA interprets
current law (in the absence of this interim rule), ``hemp'' paper,
rope, clothing, and animal feed mixtures are schedule I controlled
substances if they contain THC. Thus, without this interim rule, anyone
who wishes to import such products (or processed plant materials used
to make such products) would need to obtain a DEA registration and an
import permit. 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2), 957(a). Distributors of such
products and processed plant materials would also need a DEA
registration and would be required to utilize DEA order forms and
maintain strict records of all transactions. 21 U.S.C. 822(a)(1),
827(a), 828(a). With respect to industrial products and processed plant
materials exempted under this interim rule, DEA believes that such
regulatory requirements are unnecessary to achieve the goals of the CSA
provided such products and plant materials are not used, or intended
for use, for human consumption. Furthermore, DEA believes that it would
be less than an ideal allocation of agency resources if

[[Page 51543]]

DEA had to take on the responsibility of regulating these products and
plant materials as schedule I controlled substances when they are not
being used for human consumption. Therefore, as long as there is no
possibility that humans will consume THC by using something other than
an FDA-approved drug product (or a product that the FDA has authorized
for clinical research), DEA believes that it is consistent with the
public health and safety to immediately exempt industrial ``hemp''
products, processed plant materials, and animal feed mixtures in the
manner specified in this interim rule.

What Are the Registration Requirements for Handlers of ``Hemp''
Products Under This Interim Rule?

As stated above (and as explained in the interpretive rule), DEA
interprets the CSA such that all products containing THC are schedule I
controlled substances. This interim rule, however, exempts certain
industrial ``hemp'' products, processed plant materials, and animal
feed mixtures from application of the CSA. As a result, the following
registration requirements will apply:
Who must obtain a registration--Persons who wish to manufacture or
distribute any THC-containing product or plant material that is not
exempted from control (under this interim rule) must apply for the
corresponding registration to handle a schedule I controlled substance.
Absent such registration, it is unlawful to manufacture, distribute, or
dispense, import, or export any such product or plant material. 21
U.S.C. 822(b), 841(a)(1), 957(a), 960(a). In addition, as has always
been the case since the enactment of the CSA, no person may cultivate
the cannabis plant for any purpose except when expressly registered
with DEA to do so. See 21 U.S.C. 822(b), 823(a); 21 CFR Part 1301; see
also New Hampshire Hemp Council, Inc. v. Marshall, 203 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.
2000). Further, the CSA prohibits the importation of schedule I
controlled substances except as authorized by 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2).
Similarly, the CSA prohibits the exportation of schedule I nonnarcotic
controlled substances except as authorized by 21 U.S.C. Sec. 953(c).
Who need not obtain a registration--Persons who import and
distribute ``hemp'' products and processed cannabis plant material that
are exempted from control under this interim rule (when not used, or
intended for use, for human consumption) are not subject to any of the
CSA requirements, including the requirement of registration. For
example, persons who import ``hemp'' clothing are not subject to any of
the CSA requirements. Similarly, persons who obtain processed cannabis
plant material that is exempted from control under this interim rule
may use such plant material to manufacture products that are not used,
or intended for use, for human consumption without being subject to any
of the CSA requirements. Again, if a product marketed as a ``hemp''
product actually contains no THC (or any other controlled substance),
it is noncontrolled and not subject to any of the CSA provisions.

Grace Period for Persons With Existing Inventories of THC-
Containing Products Not Exempted From Control

It seems likely that, upon publication of this rule, some
manufacturers and distributors of THC-containing ``hemp'' products will
have in their possession existing inventories of such products that
will be considered controlled under the interpretive rule and the
proposed rule and not exempted from control under this interim rule. In
fairness to such persons, the following grace period is being provided.
Any person who, on the date of publication of this interim rule,
possesses a THC-containing ``hemp'' product not exempted from control
under this interim rule will have 120 days (until February 6, 2002) to
dispose of such product. However, during this 120-day grace period, no
person may use any THC-containing ``hemp'' product for human
consumption (as defined in this interim rule); nor may any person
manufacture or distribute such a product with the intent that it be
used for human consumption within the United States.

Regulatory Certifications

Economic Impact of This Interim Rule

This interim rule allows economic activity that would otherwise be
prohibited. Under DEA's interpretation of current law, all ``hemp''
products are schedule I controlled substances if they contain THC.
Thus, without this interim rule, industrial ``hemp'' products such as
paper, rope, clothing, and animal feed would be subject to the
provisions of the CSA and DEA regulations that govern schedule I
controlled substances if they contained THC. The CSA permits the use of
schedule I controlled substances for industrial purposes, but only
under strictly regulated conditions. By virtue of this interim rule,
however, such industrial ``hemp'' products are exempt from all
provisions of the CSA and DEA regulations. Thus, this interim rule
imposes no regulatory restrictions on any economic activities; rather,
it removes regulatory restrictions on certain economic activities.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
For the reasons provided in the foregoing paragraph, the
Administrator hereby certifies that this interim rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities within the
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this
interim rule.
Executive Order 12866
This interim rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, Sec. 1(b),
Principles of Regulation. This rule has been determined to be a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
Sec. 3(f). Accordingly, this interim rule has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 13132
This interim rule does not preempt or modify any provision of state
law; nor does it impose enforcement responsibilities on any state; nor
does it diminish the power of any state to enforce its own laws.
Accordingly, this interim rule does not have federalism implications
warranting the application of Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform
This interim rule meets the applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This interim rule will not result in the expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Therefore, no actions
are necessary under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This interim rule is not likely to result in any of the following:
an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major
increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries,
federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-

[[Page 51544]]

based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Accordingly, under
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA), this interim rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 804. Therefore, the provisions of SBREFA relating to major rules
are inapplicable to this interim rule. However, a copy of this interim
rule is being submitted to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General in accordance with SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 801).
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This interim rule does not involve collection of information within
the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Plain Language
In writing this interim rule, DEA has attempted to use plain
language in an easy-to-read manner, consistent with the June 1, 1998,
directive of the President. See 63 FR 31885. If you have any
suggestions to make this document easier to understand, call or write
Patricia Good, Chief, Liaison and Policy Section, Office of Diversion
Control, Washington, DC 20537; telephone: (202) 307-7297.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308

Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control,
Narcotics, prescription drugs, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Interim Rule

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Attorney General under
sections 201, 202, and 501(b) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811, 812, and
871(b)), delegated to the Administrator pursuant to section 501(a) (21
U.S.C. 871(a)) and as specified in 28 CFR 0.100, the Administrator
hereby orders that Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part
1308, be amended as follows:

PART 1308--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 1308 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.

2. A new undesignated center heading and Sec. 1308.35 are added to
read as follows:
EXEMPT CANNABIS PLANT MATERIAL, AND PRODUCTS MADE THEREFROM, THAT
CONTAIN TETRAHYDROCANNABINOLS

Sec. 1308.35 Exemption of certain cannabis plant material, and
products made therefrom, that contain tetrahydrocannabinols.

(a) Any processed plant material or animal feed mixture containing
any amount of tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) that is both:
(1) Made from any portion of a plant of the genus Cannabis excluded
from the definition of marijuana under the Act [i.e., the mature stalks
of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from
the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt,
derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the
resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed
of such plant which is incapable of germination] and
(2) Not used, or intended for use, for human consumption, has been
exempted by the Administrator from the application of the Act and this
chapter.
(b) As used in this section, the following terms shall have the
meanings specified:
(1) The term processed plant material means cannabis plant material
that has been subject to industrial processes, or mixed with other
ingredients, such that it cannot readily be converted into any form
that can be used for human consumption.
(2) The term animal feed mixture means sterilized cannabis seeds
mixed with other ingredients (not derived from the cannabis plant) in a
formulation that is designed, marketed, and distributed for animal
consumption (and not for human consumption).
(3) The term used for human consumption means either:
(i) Ingested orally or
(ii) Applied by any means such that THC enters the human body.
(4) The term intended for use for human consumption means any of
the following:
(i) Designed by the manufacturer for human consumption;
(ii) Marketed for human consumption; or
(iii) Distributed, exported, or imported, with the intent that it
be used for human consumption.
(c) In any proceeding arising under the Act or this chapter, the
burden of going forward with the evidence that a material, compound,
mixture, or preparation containing THC is exempt from control pursuant
to this section shall be upon the person claiming such exemption, as
set forth in section 515(a)(1) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 885(a)(1)). In
order to meet this burden with respect to a product or plant material
that has not been expressly exempted from control by the Administrator
pursuant to Sec. 1308.23, the person claiming the exemption must
present rigorous scientific evidence, including well-documented
scientific studies by experts trained and qualified to evaluate the
effects of drugs on humans.

Dated: October 2, 2001.
Asa Hutchinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-25024 Filed 10-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P

[ source ]

Maybe 20 Years From Now, Hailey Idaho Will Know?

2009-04-16T18:33:00.000-07:00

April 15, 2009 Hailey Idaho

Hailey voters approved three marijuana and, industrial hemp, initiatives in 2007 and again in 2008. The initiatives were titled the Hailey Medical Marijuana Act, the Hailey Lowest Police Priority Act and the Hailey Industrial Hemp Act.

The city delayed implementing the initiatives into law, and instead Mayor Rick Davis, City Councilman Don Keirn and Hailey Police Chief Jeff Gunter filed a lawsuit last May against the city seeking a judicial review of the legality of the initiatives.

What began as a controversial initiative to legalize marijuana use in the city of Hailey in 2007, may have ended Monday night as a footnote in the city's municipal code. Yet the city will form a committee to address the initiatives' original concerns.

City Attorney Ned Williamson will provide an annotation in the city's law book, explaining what happened for future generations, including a small description of the marijuana initiatives with dates, and the challenges to them, "just so that it's clear in an unbiased and objective way what happened, because 20 years from now people may not know." ...

Arguments were presented to Blaine County 5th District Court Judge Robert J. Elgee, who ruled in March that the initiatives were either contrary to Idaho State law, in conflict with "free speech" guarantees of the U.S. constitution, or illegal because they address administrative functions of local government.

Williamson said he will draft bylaws for the committee, similar to those used by the city's Tree Committee and Arts Committee.

Williamson said, "I'm not sure how long the committee will last, but they will be able to make recommendations to the council and proceed accordingly."

...maybe 20 years from now we wil know?

[ article source ]

DEA Clarifies Status of Hemp in the Federal Register (?)

2009-04-16T18:18:00.000-07:00

"HEMP" is clarified by the Drug Enforcement Agency? really? Maybe, HEMP WERX, needs to set the record straight, in another post. This post is what the DEA has clarified for, We The People. The release is almost 8 years old as of this post and no new update has been found.

News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 9, 2001

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) today announced rules to clarify the legal status of “hemp” products. “Hemp” is part of the cannabis plant, which is also known as marijuana. The rules published in today’s edition of the Federal Register explain the circumstances under which “hemp” products are subject to control under federal law.

“Hemp” and marijuana are actually separate parts of the species of plant known as cannabis. Under federal law, Congress defined marijuana to focus on those parts of the cannabis plant that are the source of tetrahydrocannabinols (THC). THC is the hallucinogenic substance in marijuana that causes the psychoactive effect or “high.” The marijuana portions of the cannabis plant include the flowering tops (buds), the leaves, and the resin of the cannabis plant. The remainder of the plant — stalks and sterilized seeds — is what some people refer to as “hemp.” However, “hemp” is not a term that is found in federal law.

DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson stated that “many Americans do not know that hemp and marijuana are both parts of the same plant and that hemp cannot be produced without producing marijuana.”

While most of the THC in cannabis plants is concentrated in the marijuana, all parts of the plant, including hemp, have been found to contain THC. The existence of THC in hemp is significant because THC, like marijuana, is a schedule I controlled substance. Federal law prohibits human consumption and possession of schedule I controlled substances. In addition, they are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for medical use.

The rules that DEA is publishing today explain which hemp products are legal and which are not. This will depend on whether the product causes THC to enter the human body. If the product does cause THC to enter the human body, it is an illegal substance that may not be manufactured, sold, or consumed in the United States. Such products include “hemp” foods and beverages that contain THC.

If, however, the product does not cause THC to enter the human body, it is a noncontrolled substance that may lawfully be sold in the United States. Included in the category of lawful hemp products are textiles, such as clothing made using fiber produced from cannabis plant stalks. Also in the lawful category are personal care products that contain oil from sterilized cannabis seeds, such as soaps, lotions, and shampoos.

In recognition of the fact that there may be a small number of manufacturers and retailers who have inventories of hemp food and beverage products or other products containing THC that are intended for human consumption, DEA is providing a grace period. As set forth in the rules, any person who currently possesses illegal THC-containing “hemp” products will have 120 days (until February 6, 2002) to dispose of such products or remove them from the United States. However, during this grace period, no person may manufacture or distribute any such product for human consumption within the United States.

In issuing these rules, DEA has attempted to strike a fair balance between protecting the health and safety of all Americans and accommodating legitimate industry. The public has 60 days to comment on the rules in the manner set forth in the Federal Register. The rules can be accessed through the web site of the National Archives and Records Administration at http://www.archives.gov/.

[ article source ]

DEA Gives Hemp and American Farmers a Bad Rap!

2009-04-16T17:49:00.000-07:00

Hemp, the plant, is one of the world's most versatile crops, and has been used for centuries as a foodstuff, fabric, and fiber.

At the birth of, America, hemp was grown in colonial New England and Virginia.

Hemp is today cultivated in every industrialized nation in the world, except the United States.

While hemp seeds and oils can be safely consumed and hemp clothes can be bought and worn across the US, all hemp used to create these products must be imported from abroad.

American farmers have missed out on this growing market because, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has grouped all varieties of the Cannabis Sativa plant together in spite of the fact that industrial hemp contains only trace amounts of psychotropic THC--a fraction of what's present in it's cousin, marijuana.

[ aritcle reference source ]

To advocate and support the, Industrial Hemp Act HR 1866 [ click here ]

Hemp Couture

2009-04-16T17:39:00.000-07:00

Whatever happened to hemp? It was like, the fabric of the future, man … 20 years ago. The hemp crop was going to save the world. Then cotton went organic, bamboo came on the scene, and hemp took a backseat. ...

... After all, the hemp plant can be used for wood, fuel, plastic, and paper, and, because the hemp plant is naturally resistant to insects and weeds, growers don’t need to rely on pesticides.

In its garment application, hemp is more UV protectant than cotton, requires about 1/20th as much water to grow and process than does cotton, and is up to four times stronger than cotton.

Also, as opposed to cotton, hemp is anti-microbial, non-static, and it doesn’t break down.

All of which is important, of course, but those concerned with the wearing of Jungmaven shirts will be pleased to know they are surprisingly soft and supple on the bod, the graphics delightfully kick-ass to the eye.

[ article source ]

Hemp Fibre Decorticating U.S. Patents

2009-04-16T11:14:00.000-07:00

Hemp Werx Research on [ HEMP ] Fibre Decorticating Machines

Fibre Decoriticating Machine Patent Bibliography

United States Patent US0002989
Filed by Henry Johnson
Patent Issued: March 4, 1843

info:
Machine for breaking and scutching
or cleaning flax or hemp.

United States Patent US0404756
Title: Machine for scraping pulp from fibrous plants
Filed: Febuary 15, 1886 by Randolph G. Ward
Patent Issued: June 4, 1889

info:
The invention relates to an improvement on
fiber disintigrating machines
for cleaning the fiber of leaves or stalks of plants such as,
sisal, hemp, maguey, agaves, jute, ramie, etc..

United States Patent US1584586
Title: Machine for decorticating the fibrous leaves or stems of plants.
Filed: July 22, 1924 by Ernest Wright
Patent Issued: May 11, 1926

info:
Invetion relates to machines for seperating
by combing and scraping, on both sides,
the fiberous parts of leaves or stems of plants
from the pulpy or woody parts thereof
... more effectively

United States Patent 1599239
Title: Machine for breaking or tearing into lengths hemp, fiber, and the like.
Filed: March 2, 1925 by James Knox
Patent Issured: Sept 7, 1926

info:
Invention comprises improvements in and relating
to machines for breaking or tearing hemp length
fiber or strick, as it is termed, and the like.

United States Patent 2108578
Title: Apparatus for the treatment of fibers
Filed: January 24, 1936 by William. T. Brown
Patent issued: Febuary 15, 1938

info:
Invention relates to apparatus for seperating
the fiber from ( New Zealand flax-"formium tenax")
and other fiber bearing plants.
The object of the invention is to obtain fiber
of a fine quality and long staple.

United States Patent 2288652
Title: Decorticating machine
Filed: January 6, 1941 by Walter B. Simons
Patent Issued: January 7, 1942

info:
Invention relates to machines for processing the
leaves and other parts of sisal, Sansevavieria, banana
and similiar plants to isolate the fiber in its natural state...

...to provide a machine which is so designed that in the
processing of the plant parts the fibers are cleaned
thoroughly and rapidly without waste and
without being weakened or otherwise injured.

United States Patent 2359074
Title: Removing woody matter from the stem fibers of textile plants
Filed: October 5, 1940 by Leonida Antonelli
Patent Issued: September 26, 1944

info:
Invention relates to a process and apparatus for removing
the woody matter from the stems of textile plants
such as ramie, hemp and the like.
To provide an apparatus which may operate upon the stem
either in dry or green condition.

United States Patent 2373411
Title: Guard for combing machines for combing textile fibers
Filed: May 8, 1943
Patent Issued: April 10, 1945

info:
Invention relates to guards for combing machines
for combing textile fibers and has for its primary
objective the provision of a guard which affords
the maximum protection of moving parts of the
machine and reduces to the minimum the possibility
of an injury to an operator who may attempt to tamper
with the machine whilst it is in motion.

A further objective is to minimize risk of damage to
the machine caused by the machine being in motion
when a part, or parts, of the working mechanism is,
or are, out of operative position.

United States Patent 2375287
Green decorticating machine
Filed: January 20, 1943 by James M. Dempsey
Patent Issued: May5, 1945

info:
Invention relates to apparatus for decoracting of
plants, shrubs or herbs while in a "green" state.

United States Patent 2460448
Title: Machine for breaking fibrous materials
Filed: August 31, 1943 by John V. Cook
Patentent Issued: Febuary 1, 1949

info:
Invention relates to apparatus for treating
fiberous material and more particularly to apparatus
for breaking and scutching fiberous stalk material such as
hemp, flax, sisel and other like material

United States Patent US2745142
Title: Fibre decorticating machine
Filed March 27, 1952 by John E. Cary
Patent Issued: May 15, 1956

info:
Invention relates to a new and improved
fibre decorticating machine.

-------
Patent information source:
FREE PATENTS ONLINE ... "all the inventions of mankind"

Industrial Hemp Farming Act: HR 1866 Introduced by Rep. Ron Paul

2009-04-15T11:16:00.000-07:00

April 2, 2009
Rep. Ron Paul Introduces HR 1866 The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009

A federal bill was introduced yesterday that, if passed into law, would remove restrictions on the cultivation of non-psychoactive industrial hemp.

The chief sponsors of HR 1866, "The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009," Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX), were joined by nine other U.S. House members split between Republicans and Democrats.

[ SOURCE LINK ]

A Brief Review of the Bill

H. R. 1866
Industrial Hemp Farming Act 2009

To amend the Controlled Substances Act
To exclude Industrial Hemp from the definition of Marihuana
And for Other Purposes.

_________

Exclusion of Industrial Hemp From Definition of Marihuana
paragraph (16) of Section 102 of the Controled Substance Act
21 U.S.C. 802 (16) is amended--
(1) by striking '(16)' at the beginning and inserting '(16)' (A); and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

‘(B) The term ‘marihuana’ does not include industrial hemp.

As used in the preceding sentence, the term ‘industrial hemp’ means

the plant Cannabis sativa L.

and any part of such plant, whether growing or not,

with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration

that does not exceed 0.3 percent on a dry
weight basis.’ [ more ]

_________

DEA Clarifies Status of Hemp in the Federal Register
2001
"The remainder of the plant — stalks and sterilized seeds — is what some people refer to as “hemp.”

However, “hemp” is not a term that is found in federal law."

_______

haven't you heard, "it's a battle of words" the poster bearer cried

Pink Floyd

_______

I'd love to change the world, but I just don't know what to do

so I'll leave it up to you

Ten Years After

_______

and for this reason, the wise general in his deliberations

must consider

both favourable and unfavourable factors

by taking into account the favourable factors

he makes the plan feasible

by taking into account the unfavourable

he may resolve difficulties

-Sun Tzu-

China Cleans Up Hemp Plant For Industrial Use

2009-04-15T00:44:00.000-07:00

Hemp, a plant that sounds fearful, can be applied for the production of high-grade clothing and home textiles after being modified and detoxified.

China has made a breakthrough in the research, development and industrialization of hemp.

Youngor Group, China National Textile & Apparel Council, and the People's Liberation Army General Logistics Department Quartermaster Equipment Institute on a jointly-held press conference made the announcement.

Hemp grows in Yunnan and Xinjiang in China, and is forbidden to be planted for it can be used to extract drugs.

Hemp is also a source for superior natural fibers.

Some departments in China studying on it for over 20 years successfully modified it, and explored two new varieties, Yunma Ⅰ and Yunma Ⅱ, which are totally poison-free and named under a general category of "Chinese Hemp".　　　　

Chinese Hemp fiber, is a kind of typically rare functional and environment-friendly textile fibers.

To cope with the situation that the industrialization of Chinese Hemp as a raw material for textile industry develops slowly, Youngor Group was appointed to industrialize modified and detoxified Chinese Hemp.

Currently, the company has successfully explored clothing from Chinese Hemp

The cutting edge company obtains an annual production capacity of 5000mt Chinese Hemp bast fibers.

[ LINK TO SOURCE ARTICLE }

China "Shanghais" America in Industrial Hemp Use

2009-04-14T20:30:00.000-07:00

A hemp fiber processing factory with an annual capacity of 2,000 tonnes began production yesterday in Menghai County in Dai Autonomous Prefecture of Xishuangbanna, a mountainous region in Yunnan.

Officials in southwest China' Yunnan Province are promoting the cultivation of hemp for industrial use to increase the income of local residents.

"The fiber from hemp is widely used to make socks and bulletproof clothes as well as top-grade suits," said Shi Dongming, board chairman of China Hemp Industrial Holding Investment Co Ltd, which runs the production line.

Local officials expect the hemp plant to help raise the living standard of farmers.

The government provides the seeds for free to encourage cultivation.
Farmers can also get technical training and instruction.

"Nearly 10,000 farmers are growing the plant, which can double their per capita income from less than 2,000 yuan (US$293) to about 4,000 yuan every year," said Jiang Pusheng, Communist Party chief of the prefecture.

Yang Yonghong from Manlu Village plans to plant more hemp next year. "The planting does not demand too much work. Companies will come to collect the hemp in the harvest time, so we are not worried about sales," she said.

Local officials said the growth would not lead to the production of illegal drugs, although Xishuangbanna is near the Golden Triangle region where drugs are produced and smuggled.

The industrial use hemp contains less than 0.1 percent of THC, the key ingredient in marijuana, while the cannabis grown for marijuana can contain up to 5 percent of THC or even more, said Zhang Jianchun, a researcher with the General Logistics Department of the People's Liberation Army.

He has been working on the development and cultivation of the hemp since 2003.

"The cost of making marijuana from our hemp is much higher than the price of the drugs," Zhang said, "So we don't think drug producers will target the farms here."

By 2020, China will build cultivation bases in the autonomous regions of Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia as well as Yunnan, Heilongjiang, Gansu and Anhui provinces, Zhang said.

The"hemp werx" project is expected to help lift about 3 million people out of poverty, he said.

[ source link ]

Is There An Industrial Hemp Advocate In The House?

2009-03-22T22:39:00.000-07:00

Hemp: THE NEW SOYBEAN
By Erin Carlyle

A state legislator says letting Minnesota farmers grow industrial hemp --in other words, the non-ingestible variety -- could pad their bottom lines.

Rep. Phyllis Kahn (DFL-West Nicollett Island) has introduced a bill to make industrial hemp legal in Minnesota.

The bill is set for a hearing on Monday.
Industrial hemp looks completely different from the kind grown under the bed, according to Kahn. "The best way you could stop any outdoor growing of the drug cannabis is have everybody growing the hemp cannabis," Kahn says.

The crop can be used to make clothing, fuel, biodegradable plastics, and even concrete.

North Dakota's already done it. North Dakota's Republican Speaker of the House, David Monson, pushed to pass an industrial hemp law in his state.

Monson is a barley farmer who grows crop near the border of Canada. "In a year when barley had been ravaged by disease, he looked across his border and saw his neighbors planting hemp and getting a very high profit compared to what he was getting," Kahn says.

And They Can Make "Baggies" From It Too!

2009-03-17T19:15:00.000-07:00

[ PhysOrg.com ] -- Stanford University researchers have developed a synthetic wood substitute that may one day save trees, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shrink landfills.

The faux lumber is made from a new biodegradable plastic that could be used in a variety of building materials and perhaps replace the petrochemical plastics now used in billions of disposable water bottles. "This is a great opportunity to make products that serve a societal need and respect and protect the natural environment," said lead researcher Sarah Billington, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering.

In 2004, Billington and her colleagues received a two-year Environmental Venture Projects (EVP) grant from Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment to develop artificial wood that is both durable and recyclable. The research team focused on a new class of construction material called biodegradable composites, or "biocomposites"—glue-like resins reinforced with natural fibers that are made from plants and recyclable polymers.

Billington's group began by testing a number of promising materials. The best turned out to be natural hemp fibers fused with a biodegradable plastic resin called polyhydroxy-butyrate (PHB). "It's quite attractive looking and very strong," said EVP collaborator Craig Criddle, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "You can mold it, nail it, hammer it, drill it, a lot like wood. But bioplastic PHB can be produced faster than wood, and hemp can be grown faster than trees."

The hemp-PHB biocomposites are stable enough to use in furniture, floors and a variety of other building materials, he added. To degrade, it must be kept away from air—e.g., buried in a landfill—because its decomposition depends on microorganisms that live in anaerobic environments. "The ideal is to have nice, stable material when it's being used," Criddle explained. "But when it's out of use, it goes to a landfill, degrades quickly, and is reprocessed into new material that stays in a nice, stable form."

RECYCLING METHANE

Unlike wood scraps that can sit in landfills for months or years, hemp-PHB biocomposites decompose a few weeks after burial. As they degrade, they release methane gas that can be captured and burned for energy recovery or re-used to make more biocomposites.
"It dawned on us that there are microbes that can make PHB from methane," Criddle said. "So now we're combining two natural processes: We're using microbes that break down PHB plastics and release methane gas, and different organisms that consume methane and produce PHB as a byproduct."

It's the ultimate in recycling, he said: "In our lab, we create conditions where only those organisms that accumulate the most plastic can reproduce. We call the process 'survival of the fattest,' and we have a patent application for it."

"Capturing methane has the added benefit of combating climate change", Criddle said, noting that methane gas from landfills and other sources is a powerful global warming agent, 22 times more potent than carbon dioxide gas.

One reason that biodegradable plastics aren't widely used is cost. "We're competing with polypropylene and polyethylene, two really cheap petrochemical products," Criddle said.

"Most bioplastics are made using sugar from corn and other relatively expensive materials. But our process uses methane in the biogas from landfills and wastewater treatment plants, which is essentially free."

The potential of producing low-cost, recyclable biocomposites has caught the attention of the private sector. In the next few months, the researchers expect to form a new startup company with venture capital funding.

BIODEGRABLE BOTTLES

Interest in the hemp-PHB biocomposites has moved beyond artificial wood products. In 2008, the research team was awarded a three-year, $1.5 million grant from the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop biodegradable plastics to replace the petrochemical plastics that are used to make disposable water and soda bottles.

According to Cal/EPA, plastic bottles accumulate in landfills, the open ocean and coastal areas, causing major problems for birds, mammals and other marine life. "The goal of the state is to protect the environment and promote the development of a new industry that can produce low-cost bioplastics," Criddle said. "We have quite a team of students working on it. We're also collaborating with Curtis Frank, a professor of chemical engineering and a polymer plastics expert."

In 2008, Billington and Frank were awarded a grant from Stanford's Precourt Energy Efficiency Center to develop biodegradable foam for structural insulated panels. They also received new funding from the Woods Institute to explore the feasibility of using Criddle's polymers to manufacture "green glues" that make air quality in buildings less toxic.

Lynn Hildemann, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, is collaborating on that project.

"We started with biocomposites, and now we're doing bioplastics and thinking about things that affect global warming," Criddle said.

"It's really exciting to watch how the research has branched out into so many areas, from biocomposites to new bioplastics, green glues and foam," Billington added. "The opportunity to collaborate with people of different expertise has been wonderful and very invigorating."

[ LINK TO ARTICLE SOURCE ]

Canada Nipping Hemp Growing Issues In The Bud

2009-03-17T18:46:00.000-07:00

Lots of interest in Northumberland County from farmers in a Stirling-area man’s proposed industrial hemp-growing project.

Stonehedge Bio Resources president John Baker told farmers gathered in Centreton the proposal connects agriculture directly to manufacturing, and 60 of them signed up to get more information and to indicate how many acres they might put into production this spring.

It will be about two weeks before it’s known whether key financing will be in place to issue the contract commitments to farmers for this growing season.

Baker expects to build a 20-million-dollar manufacturing facility between Port Hope and Belleville, but more private funding is needed.

[ more about this ]

Links of Interest Related to Article:
Stonehedge Bio Resources Inc.
Health Canada
Hempcrete

Mix97

Reasons To Support: Industrial Hemp Development Act (HF 608)

2009-03-15T18:18:00.000-07:00

A bipartisan group of Minnesota lawmakers is putting forth legislation to legalize the growth of cannabis, or hemp.

The Industrial Hemp Development Act (HF 608)

Would provide licenses to qualified farmers for the cultivation of hemp, after passing background checks, of course. Iowa lawmakers must pay close attention to the progress of Minnesota’s hemp act; its success or failure may signal how a similar act would fair here. Regardless of the reaction of our neighbors to the north, hemp production will dramatically change the face of agriculture in America, and Iowans need to be out ahead of this increasingly popular trend.

Seven states — Hawaii, West Virginia, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Kentucky, and North Dakota — have legalized hemp production; however, not one is producing the crop because of resistance from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

Hemp farmers in North Dakota are granted licenses by the state, but they are required to obtain separate permits from the DEA. The agency has continually refused to accept applications, leading farmers in North Dakota to file a lawsuit against the federal government.

A common complaint among law-enforcement agencies at all levels of government is that monitoring acres of hemp for hidden pockets of marijuana would be next to impossible. This idea is, in fact, very reasonable, because hemp and marijuana are members of the same species, cannabis.

However, centuries of breeding have elicited distinctly different characteristics in the two plants. Marijuana contains much higher levels of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive agent, which induces a “high.”
Hemp, on the other hand, has such minuscule amounts of THC that it is unable to produce the same high. In fact, hemp contains another chemical, cannabidiol, which is increasingly used as an antipsychotic.

Despite the plants’ botanical distinctions, their visual similarities are at the root of the problem. Interestingly enough, Minnesota researchers have developed a way to overcome the issues raised by law enforcement.
George Weiblen, a University of Minnesota associate professor of plant biology, has established a method of DNA testing that is able to differentiate hemp from its doppelgänger. Using a DNA technique known as amplified fragment length polymorphism, Weiblen and a colleague are the first to undeniably distinguish hemp plants from marijuana plants.

So, if there is a way to discriminate between the two plants, what benefits could be harvested from the production of industrial hemp? Hemp is an industrial crop in every industrialized nation except the United States.

Naturally, the U.S. imports more hemp and hemp products than any other industrialized nation. By growing the crop here, we could reap the reward of hemp’s increasing popularity. The herb has been touted as a wonder plant for many reasons. Nearly every part of the plant is usable.

Hemp can be used to produce paper, food, clothing, plastics, and even low-carbon concrete.

The advantages of hemp as a commercial crop have special significance for Iowans. While soybeans are composed of greater levels of actual protein, hemp seeds contain more digestible protein. Furthermore, because of its fast-growing nature, hemp crops produce more energy per acre of biodiesel or ethanol fuel than corn or any other food crop, and it is able to do so at a much lower cost and with noticeably less damage to the soil. Hemp is a hearty plant and can grow on all types of soil.

By growing hemp, it could be possible to use damaged, exhausted, or marginal soil, thus reclaiming unused or abandoned land.

Because industrial hemp production could compete with Iowa’s two largest crops, it only makes sense to be out in front of the trend, leading the way, rather risking the consequences of watching that market develop without us.

Industrial hemp would do much to facilitate the nation’s growing desire for all things “green”; an acre of hemp produces as much paper as four acres of trees.

Europeans are perfecting a biodegradable plastic made entirely of hemp, and hemp seeds are an impressive source of protein as well as essential amino acids.

Environmental benefits aside, the economic advantages of producing hemp in Iowa are certainly worth considering.

[ link and credit to author and source ]

Hemp Seed Nutrition: A Dairy Alternative

2009-03-15T17:58:00.000-07:00

Although most vegetarians are relatively healthy, a nutritionally balanced and protein rich diet may be deficient for some. Enzymes and amino acids, found in meat and dairy products are essential and aren't naturally produced by the body.

Hemp seeds are a complete, digestible, plant-based protein source containing all ten essential amino acids. Unlike soy, hemp does not contain enzyme inhibitors and phytates, so the nutrients in hemp can be easily absorbed by the body. Free of the allergy causing components found in soy, dairy or tree0nuts, hemp is an ideal protein alternative.

IS HEMP THE SAME AS MARIJUANA?
No. Hemp and marijuana are similarly distant cousins within the species of Cannabis Sativa L. Hemp is grown for food and fiber and contains only trace amounts of the psychoactive component of marijuana. You will not fail a drug test by eating hemp foods. They are legal, safe and healthy to consume!

Hemp seeds are the edible part of the Cannabis Sativa L plant. They are a tiny fruit-like nut covered by a hard shell. They have been cultivated as a food for centuries in China, Europe and Africa.
Shelled hemp seeds (hemp nuts) are similar in size to sesame seeds and can be eaten right out of the bag, sprinkled on salads, yogurt or baked in muffins and breads! Yum!

CONTAINS OMEGA-3 AND OMEGA-6
Hemp seeds are a good source of unsaturated fats containing a balanced 1:3 ratio of Omega-3 and 6 essential fatty acids (EFAs) -- the "good fats" that our body needs for the skin health, energy production, nervous system function, brain development, heart health and immune system support.

Compared to other milk alternatives, Living Harvest Hempmilk offers the highest source of Omega-3 and 6 EFAs.
Rich and creamy, with a light, nutty flavor, Living Harvest Hempmilk is made from shelled hemp seeds grown sustainably on Canadian farms, without the use of pesticides and herbicides.

It is free of allergy causing components found in soy, dairy and tree-nuts among the top 8 allergens, according to the FDA. Living Harvest Hempmilk is available in original, vanilla and chocolate and is perfect for fruit smoothies.

For recipes, and to learn more about hemp seed nutrition, visit www.LivingHarvest.com.

[ link and credit to article author ]

2009-01-22T11:56:00.000-08:00

Stirling hemp company gets $2 million to open plant
Stonehedge Bio-Resources Inc. !

Stirling research scientist John Baker has spent a decade growing and testing varieties of hemp.
He's now taken a giant step toward producing industrial hemp for the global marketplace.
The founder and president of Stonehedge Bio- Resources Inc. was in Toronto Wednesday to secure $2 million from private investors to open the first North American bio-processing plant for industrial hemp by this time next year.

Baker has received three letters of intent to invest more than $2 million from Lime Technology Ltd. in the United Kingdom, American Lime Technology in the United States and another private UK investor.
Also attending the ceremony and news con-f erence were John Wilkinson, minister of research and innovation and Northumberland- West MPP Lou Rinaldi.

"I am delighted to accept these letters of intent on behalf of my company," Baker said. "We have a vision to make Stonehedge the leader in industrial hemp in North America and today we are one step closer."
Baker said the investment will allow him to hire five employees this year and employ up to 27 people by 2011, as well as creating new opportunities for up to 200 farmers.

He plans to open a biorefining facility along the Highway 41 corridor between Oshawa and Belleville that would produce Hemcrete, an environmentally-friendly limestone building material similar to concrete.
The company also expects to produce more than $17 million per year in renewable hemp fibre, woodlike chips, pellets, matting and seed products.

"These bio-based products signify the future of sustainable development and clean green technology by replacing products that cause serious environmental damage with innovative carbon-negative alternatives," he told The Intelligencer in a telephone interview from a Toronto hotel.

Industrial hemp has been grown for thousands of years to make fibre for clothing, furniture, ropes, sails and more.

Baker said that as an agricultural crop, hemp is beneficial -- it can be readily grown organically as it does not require the use of harsh chemical herbicides, pesticides and defoliants as do many other fibre crops.
Baker and his wife, Christine, have owned and operated Stonehedge Kennels and horse breeding farm on Eggleton Road southeast of Stirling for the past 25 years. Their 50-acre farm is located almost next door to their daughter, Beth Bouma, who has 80 acres.

Baker said he's spent the past 10 years growing, testing and coming up with his own varieties of hemp and is now looking to industrialize it for the marketplace.
He said the Quinte area and Northumberland region provides an ideal soil/climate resource on which to develop the hemp biomass sector.

As well, he said the regions' proximity to the Quebec-Ontario market corridor and the eastern seaboard of the United States provides an additional competitive advantage.
Baker said he will need at least 17,000 acres of land to produce hemp. He plans on contracting hemp production to growers along the 401 corridor.
"This will be an opportunity for Northumberland, Hastings and Prince Edward and Lennox and Addington farmers to grow seeds that we need to plant acreage," he said.
Baker said he believes growing hemp can be as profitable as other crops.
"It's a great opportunity and our farming community can gauge on this ... but it will take some patience on everyone's part."

He is now looking for a location for the bio-refining facility for hemp, adding that it will have to be along the 401 corridor, central to where the hemp is grown.
"We hope to be ordering equipment in three months and start production 12 to 15 months from today," Baker said. "We will have to contract some acreage this year in anticipation of the plant being up in 12 months."
He added the success of the operation may mean adding additional bio-refining facilities in the future.
"The whole project will be in the neighbourhood of $20 million," Baker said. "This $2-million private investment is a giant step ahead."

He said the possibilities are endless, considering that the global renewable and bioproducts industry is expected to exceed $125 billion in revenues by 2010.

Baker credits several organizations for contributing to his success, including the Trenval Business Development Corporation, Northumberland Community Futures Development Corporation and the Easter Lake Ontario Innovation Network.
Gerrit DeBruyn, Trenval's executive director, accompanied Baker to Toronto Wednesday and said the investment is like a dream come true.
"Trenval had been working with John probably seven years or so ago when he had this dream of utilizing hemp in various products and we have been supporting his mission by providing him some funding ... we're delighted today that after years of patience and perseverance on John's part that we're able to see a major breakthrough here," he said.

DeBruyn said Trenval will assist Baker in taking the next step in opening his bio-refining facility.
"It's green energy and obviously we're very supportive of that," he said.

[source link]