Leno's Hemp Bill Heard in Agriculture Committee

SACRAMENTO, April 27 2005. The Assembly Agricultural
Committee listened attentively to testimony by hemp advocates on
behalf of Mark Leno's bill, AB 1147, to legalize hemp production in
California, but delayed final action on the bill at the author's
request when it became clear the bill was short of the votes needed
for passage.
Representatives of the hemp industry, including Kandi Penn of
the Hemp Industrial Association, David Bronner of Dr. Bronner's Soap
Co., Dr. Gero Leson, and Patrick Goggin of Vote Hemp, presented
extensive testimony on the potential economic and ecological benefits
of a hemp industry. They argued that manufacturers were currently
reliant on foreign suppliers, notably Canada, for hemp products, and
that California farmers should have a chance to compete. They
entertained the committee with a video presentation of the U.S.
government's wartime film, "Hemp for Victory," portraying hemp's
historical role in the navy as a fiber crop.
Drug reform supporters also put in a word for the bill.
Nikos Leverenz of the DPA called hemp prohibition another perverse
manifestation of the war on drugs.
Leno's bill would make hemp a legal crop in California by
establishing a licensing and inspection system under the Dept of
Agricultural. Unlike hemp bills passed by other states, AB 1147 would
not require producers to obtain prior DEA approval. Instead, the bill
would prohibit interstate sales of the viable hemp seeds, which are
treated as a controlled substance under federal law, on the theory
that this should exempt the industry from federal regulations. This
is essentially the same theory being invoked by medical marijuana
patients Angel Raich and Diane Monson in their current Supreme Court
challenge to the Controlled Substances Act.
Proponents insisted that hemp could not be used to disguise
illegal marijuana production because the two crops have incompatible
cultivation patterns and seasonal cycles. Leno noted that hemp
matures within 3 months of spring planting, whereas marijuana
normally requires another two months in the field to mature.
The California Farm Bureau, which had originally opposed the
bill, expressed cautious neutrality. Dept of Agriculture officials
were also neutral, but expressed concern about the possibility of
costly litigation to defend the bill's legality in federal court. It
also expressed reservations about the cost of the licensing system,
which it estimated at $1 million, and the inspection system aimed at
assuring proper THC content, which it put at another $1 million per
year minus licensing fees.
Committee Chairwoman Barbara Matthews (D-Tracy), announced
her support for the bill, calling it significant that hemp used fewer
pesticides and herbicides. "I'm persuaded it's not illegal," she
said, "It seems to me we should give California growers the
opportunity to grow it."
Republican Vice-Chair Bill Maze indicated interest, but
questioned proponents' claims that hemp required less water than most
crops, noting that it was grown in states like Kentucky with normal
rainfall. Prof. Leson conceded that the claims were unproven and
needed further research. Maze and other Republicans indicated they
were inclined to oppose the bill, as did Democrat Nicole Parra
(D-Bakersfield), a perennial opponent of drug-reform related
legislation.
Lacking the necessary majority, Leno announced he would
withhold the bill for further work, saying he hoped to round up the
support of the California Farm Bureau

--
----
Dale Gieringer (415) 563-5858 // canorml [at] igc.org
2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114