T
The420Guy
Guest
California Governor Gray Davis vetoed a bill over the weekend that would have asked the University of California to conduct an economic feasibility study of alternative fibrous crops including industrial hemp.
Assembly Bill 388 is the third such hemp-related measure sponsored by Assemblymember Virginia Strom-Martin, and the third to fail, but was the first to make it all the way to the governor's desk before being defeated.
Industrial hemp is derived from cannabis sativa, the same plant that produces marijuana, but is cultivated to contain almost no tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC for short. THC is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana that may produce feelings of euphoria in those who consume it.
While hemp cannot be used to induce such feelings, it does offer a wide variety of benefits, according to Strom-Martin's legislative director, Missy Johnson.
As a fiber, she says, it can be used in textiles, building materials, clothing and paper, among other things. The latter is particularly advantageous in that does not require trees to be cut down. Hemp oil can be used in both foods and beauty products.
The agricultural industry was among those supporting the bill, Johnson says, adding that the benefits hemp could bring to California farmers are many starting with the fact that it gives them an additional crop to sell.
"We had a man come up from the Central Valley who is a cotton farmer, and he is having to deal with cotton not being worth what it once was as well as being a pain in the butt to grow," Johnson offers by way of example.
Unlike most crops, she adds, "hemp is virtually maintenance free. It does not require pesticides and it helps with weed suppression." In addition, she describes it as a "good rotation crop," having been shown to boost the yields of a farmer's primary crop when used in that fashion.
Despite such attributes, the Drug Enforcement Administration does not distinguish between hemp which is an industrial product and marijuana, which is a drug. Anything which contains even the slightest traces of THC is classified by the federal government as a schedule 1 controlled substance, a classification strictly reserved for those drugs considered most dangerous, including heroin.
Johnson has a theory as to why the DEA doesn't bother to differentiate between hemp and marijuana.
"I think it is the easier approach to take," she says. "Let's just ban it all and then we don't have to figure out how we distinguish one from the other ... It is just a lot of misinformation about industrial hemp as opposed to marijuana."
In a letter to the Assembly, Davis offered a brief explanation for his veto.
"There are a number of significant concerns regarding the legality of producing industrial hemp in the United States ... " he wrote, noting hemp's schedule 1 classification. "For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature."
As a result of the governor's veto, "the issue," says Johnson, "is dead for us. Given the fact that Virginia is termed out of the Assembly this year, she won't have the opportunity to pursue it anymore. For us it's over."
The death of the bill will reverberate beyond the state, she feels.
"I think just the entire movement itself loses a bit of momentum. California is the number one ag producing state in the country and for us to enact a pro-hemp bill would be a major shot in the arm for a federal movement."
Johnson was able to claim one small victory for the bill, however.
"This one has made it farther than any of the other attempts. At least it won legislative approval," she notes.
Copyright © 2002, Ukiah Daily Journal. All rights reserved.
Assembly Bill 388 is the third such hemp-related measure sponsored by Assemblymember Virginia Strom-Martin, and the third to fail, but was the first to make it all the way to the governor's desk before being defeated.
Industrial hemp is derived from cannabis sativa, the same plant that produces marijuana, but is cultivated to contain almost no tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC for short. THC is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana that may produce feelings of euphoria in those who consume it.
While hemp cannot be used to induce such feelings, it does offer a wide variety of benefits, according to Strom-Martin's legislative director, Missy Johnson.
As a fiber, she says, it can be used in textiles, building materials, clothing and paper, among other things. The latter is particularly advantageous in that does not require trees to be cut down. Hemp oil can be used in both foods and beauty products.
The agricultural industry was among those supporting the bill, Johnson says, adding that the benefits hemp could bring to California farmers are many starting with the fact that it gives them an additional crop to sell.
"We had a man come up from the Central Valley who is a cotton farmer, and he is having to deal with cotton not being worth what it once was as well as being a pain in the butt to grow," Johnson offers by way of example.
Unlike most crops, she adds, "hemp is virtually maintenance free. It does not require pesticides and it helps with weed suppression." In addition, she describes it as a "good rotation crop," having been shown to boost the yields of a farmer's primary crop when used in that fashion.
Despite such attributes, the Drug Enforcement Administration does not distinguish between hemp which is an industrial product and marijuana, which is a drug. Anything which contains even the slightest traces of THC is classified by the federal government as a schedule 1 controlled substance, a classification strictly reserved for those drugs considered most dangerous, including heroin.
Johnson has a theory as to why the DEA doesn't bother to differentiate between hemp and marijuana.
"I think it is the easier approach to take," she says. "Let's just ban it all and then we don't have to figure out how we distinguish one from the other ... It is just a lot of misinformation about industrial hemp as opposed to marijuana."
In a letter to the Assembly, Davis offered a brief explanation for his veto.
"There are a number of significant concerns regarding the legality of producing industrial hemp in the United States ... " he wrote, noting hemp's schedule 1 classification. "For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature."
As a result of the governor's veto, "the issue," says Johnson, "is dead for us. Given the fact that Virginia is termed out of the Assembly this year, she won't have the opportunity to pursue it anymore. For us it's over."
The death of the bill will reverberate beyond the state, she feels.
"I think just the entire movement itself loses a bit of momentum. California is the number one ag producing state in the country and for us to enact a pro-hemp bill would be a major shot in the arm for a federal movement."
Johnson was able to claim one small victory for the bill, however.
"This one has made it farther than any of the other attempts. At least it won legislative approval," she notes.
Copyright © 2002, Ukiah Daily Journal. All rights reserved.
