Special Hemp Report by Andrew Seidenfeld

Our reporter Andrew Seidenfeld uncovers a well-orchestrated political agenda
to eliminate hemp from the marketplace which has nothing to do with law
enforcement, food, drug tests, kids or public health.

DEA Goes Around Congress to "Reinterpret" the
Industrial Hemp Exception to the Controlled Substances Act

US Administrators Ban Harmless Products with Bureaucratic Rule


During the media frenzy surrounding the breakdown of the presidential
election late last year, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) quietly
published, in an obscure federal publication (called the Unified Agenda,
volume 65, number 231, 11/30/00), plans to announce three new rules
rewriting 64 years of federal law. These proposed rules ban outright most
hemp-based food products like granola bars, tortilla chips and pancake
mix...products which Congress specifically exempted from the definition of
marijuana. Along with the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP --
the drug czar's office) and the so-called Department of Justice, these drug
warriors have signed off on a set of rules to ban any hemp-based
(THC-containing) substance which could be "ingested," even including
cosmetics produced with hempseed oil like lip balm, soaps, shampoo and
moisturizing lotions. For the moment, paper, rope, clothing and other
hemp-based products unlikely to enter the bloodstream remain legal to
import; however there is certainly no large scale domestic production
looming in our near future. Hemp foods and hair and skin care products
meeting impossible new Zero Tolerance THC standards, if enacted, would still
be legal. In 1937, Congress specifically exempted non-psychoactive,
sterilized, unsproutable hemp seeds and hempseed oil from its definition of
"marihuana;" they did this on purpose, and this definition remains to this
date (pending the proposed rule changes).

One tactic some agencies like the DEA take is to publish new
regulations in the Federal Register while people are celebrating the
Holidays and while Congress is out of session at the end of one President's
administration. This way, the changes are enacted without the usual scrutiny
by Congress, and before the next President takes over. Pointing to junk
science and flawed court cases, the government needs to reclassify hemp lip
balm alongside crack and PCP as Schedule 1 Controlled Dangerous Substances
because hemp-based products might somehow inexplicably "confound" their
buddies over in the drug testing industry. One study, accepted for
publication by the peer-reviewed "Journal of Analytical Toxicology," shows
eating a half pound of commercial-quality hulled hemp seeds per day is very
unlikely to cause false positive results on a standard workplace urine test
for marijuana. (Even hemp food connoisseurs rarely consume such quantities,
researchers noted.) Similarly, there is also no evidence that THC can be
absorbed through the skin from cosmetics.

The government cites studies from 1995-97 which did, in fact, show that
eating hemp foods could cause positive urine tests, but the subjects of
those studies consumed products from seeds with THC levels often exceeding
100 parts per million (ppm). Thorough cleaning of hemp seeds typically keeps
THC levels in hulled seeds produced in Canada to less than 2 ppm (with
Canadian regulations limiting THC levels to 10ppm). Industrial hemp is not
psychoactive and has had a long history of use; the word "canvas" (a piece
of closely woven, heavy cloth used for tents, sails and paintings) stems
from the Latin word "cannabis" from before the time of Christ.

If the ONDCP truly were concerned about false positive urine tests resulting
from hemp-based foods, they would advocate alternative testing methods, as
they they have done to distinguish opium from poppy seed bagels. The
official solution of the world's wealthiest nation is to prohibit the use of
a highly nutritious food source in order to protect the inertia of the drug
testing industry. High levels of protein (about 30%) and essential fatty
acids (75%) ranks hemp seed along with quinoa and soybeans as a most
nutritious food source. What is actually needed is more sophisticated drug
testing procedures: ones which actually determine whether someone is under
the influence of marijuana. Rather than simply fix faulty procedures to
place the burden of proof on the drug testing industry where it belongs, the
government's insidious new regulations cripple our ability to consume health
food products right here in "the land of the free."

Retailers considering stocking hemp products and manufacturers considering
including hempseed oil as an ingredient are being scared away. It is already
hard enough for an entrepreneur to market hemp products; when its legal
status is uncertain it becomes even more difficult. The result of this
proposed rule change is to devastate the livelihoods of the thousands
involved in the fledgling hemp industry, both in the US and abroad. Congress
is the only federal body allowed to tweak with the law by making or revising
legislation; and the DEA (an executive branch agency) is clearly stepping
out of bounds here by not following the procedures necessary to enact the
type of new rules proposed.

DEA's current interpretation of the law is that the abuse potential of a
specific product is a factor in determining its scheduling. Marinol is a
pill containing synthetic THC and it is a Schedule 3 substance because the
THC in it (an otherwise a Schedule 1 substance) is in an unsmokable form (it
is suspended in sesame oil) and thus does not have the same potential for
abuse. Under their own doctrine, hempseed oil, which only has trace amounts
of THC, must have the same or lower schedule as the THC pill. Some
mouthwashes and vanilla extracts contain a little alcohol and even nutmeg
contains trace amounts of a psychoactive substance, yet authorities aren't
too worried about the abuse of these products because their very unpleasant
side effects prevent people trying. This stance is in direct opposition to
their proposed ban on hemp-based foods, which would have to be eaten by the
truckload to achieve some kind of theoretical psychoactive effect (if the
CBD doesn't cancel it, see below). Because the proposed rules create new
scheduling standards, the DEA must give due weight in their consideration to
certain factors, including: the history and extent of use of hemp, and the
effect new regulations will have on the people most affected by them. The
DEA would then have to try to demonstrate how the costs of hemp products
confounding drug testing outweigh the costs of their regulations to the
individuals affected by them.

The Drug Warriors are committed to a bizarre ideology that considers hemp a
drug even though it cannot get you high. The DEA proposes that since
hempseed oil has trace amounts of naturally occurring THC, any food and
cosmetics made from it would qualify under their new definition as
"marihuana" and thus would be a Schedule I Controlled Substance. In fact,
washed hemp seed contains no THC at all. The tiny amount of THC sometimes
detectable in hempseed oil comes from the reproductive glands located in the
plants' flowering tops; it's in a resin that can stick to the hulls of hemp
seed and is mostly removed by cleaning and dehulling the seed. While some
very highly sensitive gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy procedures can
detect these traces of THC in hempseed oil, the possibility appears to be
remote that these amounts could interfere with standard workplace drug
testing programs (which, incidentally, have never offered evidence of
impairment). In any event, the concentration of cannabinoids in hempseed oil
is infinitesimal and no one can get high from using it. When one considers
the government-approved levels of rat hair, animal feces and insect parts
which are already part of the American food chain, naturally occurring THC
begins to look harmless, even welcome by comparison. Trace amounts of THC is
not harmful to humans. The argument that great-tasting, beneficial and
non-intoxicating hemp food should eliminate 100% of its THC is exposed.

THC levels in industrial hemp are so low that it is not possible to get high
from smoking it. In addition, hemp contains a relatively high percentage of
CBD, a cannabinol which actually blocks the marijuana high. The Cannabis
sativa variant grown as marijuana has a lot of the psychoactive cannabinoid
THC (5-20% by weight of the dried leaves and buds) and very little of the
antipsychoactive cannabinoid CBD; the Cannabis sativa variants grown as
industrial hemp have a high proportion of CBD and are less than 1% THC.
Even when the amount of THC in a sample is as high as 2 percent, the
psychological high is blocked by as little as 2 percent CBD. Hemp is not
only not marijuana, it could also be called "antimarijuana." Extracting THC
from industrial hemp and further refining it to eliminate the preponderance
of CBD would require such an expensive, hazardous, time-consuming and
conspicuous process that it is extremely unlikely anyone would ever attempt
it, rather than simply obtaining high-THC marijuana instead. Likewise, there
is also a minor percentage of precious gold dissolved in sea water, but the
gold is no more economically feasible to extract from sea water than THC is
from hemp.

The US is the world's largest consumer market for hemp, and the drug
warriors at the ONDCP are overreaching to dictate agricultural policy. The
US purchased 90% of Canadian hemp exports in 1999. That year, Canada had
30,000 acres under cultivation (of which probably only half to two-thirds
was sold). A lot of money is being made selling high protein and high EFA
(essential fatty acid) hempseed products from Canadian farms because
consumers, especially aging American baby boomers, tend to pay high prices
for their health and beauty. The US government identifies countries it
considers to be drug-exporting nations and none of the major hemp-growing
and -exporting nations has ever been on the list. Hemp food, oil and fiber
products are available throughout North America, Europe and Asia and account
for over $200 million in annual sales internationally. Products including
hemp represent 4% of the annual $1 billion sales of The Body Shop. The US
remains one of the only countries in the world to outlaw a crop simply
because one of its botanical cousins can be used inappropriately.

Five years after Congress banned marijuana, no changes in federal law were
necessary for farmers to grow hemp, since industrial hemp has been exempt
from the definition of "marihuana" first put into place in 1937. After the
Philippines fell to Japanese forces in 1942, the US needed a new source of
fiber for rope, canvas and uniforms. Together, the Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and the US Army launched the aggressive new campaign to support the
war effort called "Hemp for Victory." They certified US farmers, who
ultimately cultivated more than 400,000 acres of hemp domestically. The
Germans had a similar program for their farmers.

Hemp, which contains little THC, and marijuana, which contains lots of THC,
are different varieties of the same plant, Cannabis sativa L; and they
cross-pollinate easily. Cross-pollination of a hemp farmer's field with
marijuana reduces the characteristics the farmer seeks. Cross-pollination
of marijuana with hemp reduces THC potency of marijuana, and thus severely
diminishes the street value of a marijuana crop. Airborne pollen of cannabis
travels for miles, so no marijuana grower would want to plant anywhere near
a hemp field. A domestic hemp industry could destroy many outdoor marijuana
grow operations. A field of hemp is planted much differently than marijuana
so they are very easy to distinguish; and they are harvested at different
times. Marijuana plants are seeded far apart to maximize flower and resin
production (and are short), while hemp cultivated for fiber is planted close
together to maximize stalk production (and is tall, except when first
sprouting). Farmers cultivating hemp for its seed would take great care not
to contaminate their germplasm by cross-pollination with marijuana (or with
hemp grown for its fiber). With the cops crawling all over registered hemp
fields, it would really take an idiot to plant marijuana there.

Although importing hemp products into the US is legal with cumbersome
restrictions, for a permit to grow hemp in the US, DEA regulations require
that all live hemp seed be stored in a locked safe; hemp fields are to be
surrounded by 10-foot-high, barbed-wire fences under armed guard, and
illuminated 24 hours a day. Nonetheless, Maryland recently passed a law
authorizing the cultivation of hemp to give its struggling tobacco farmers
an alternative to tobacco. Hawaii, Minnesota and North Dakota have also made
it legal for farmers to cultivate hemp through this pilot program. About 20
other states have also passed, or are considering, various hemp resolutions.
The farm bureaus of New York and about a dozen other mostly Midwestern
states support hemp production, and even the President of the United States
designated hemp as a crop of importance to national security (by Executive
Order in 1994).

It is unfair to ban products which we currently buy without providing new
evidence that we are harming ourselves. To ban products without scientific
evidence of harm is not only unfair to you and I as consumers; it is unfair
to the thousands of people around the world who earn their livelihoods in
industries involving hemp. Furthermore, not only is it unfair but it is
illegal under treaties the US has made with NAFTA (North American Free Trade
Agreement) and WTO (World Trade Organization). Perhaps the Canadian Embassy
will ultimately yield more clout in preventing our government from rewriting
these laws than will key players in the emerging domestic hemp industry.

Hemp is legally grown as an agricultural crop in over 30 countries,
including all other G-8 nations, and the police in these countries have not
reported any problems. When industrial hemp is grown legally and where
federal authorities do not call it marijuana, people do not smoke it.
Industrial hemp is a crop that no informed person would smoke, and if the
naive do, they do not remain naive for long. If they think they got high,
they are confusing the experience with hyperventilation, or a placebo.

While many of the first hemp stores were started by industrial hemp
advocates who were also in favor of legalizing marijuana, as the hemp
industry matured, it came to be dominated by those recognizing and
capitalizing on the agricultural and industrial potential of this crop. In
any case, it is foolish to oppose a very good idea simply because some of
those who support it also support something else. Kids sometimes wear hats,
t-shirts and backpacks made from hemp fabrics containing no THC at all. In
the early days of the hemp industry, these items often depicted hemp leaves
to indicate their origins. This raised the ire of antidrug advocates who
felt hemp was promoting marijuana. "If kids think it is cool to wear certain
cosmetics by Revlon and The Body Shop, or Levi Strauss hemp jeans," the
reasoning went, "then perhaps they will use marijuana more than they would
in a world without hemp products." The hemp industry is a scapegoat.
Ironically, most marijuana leaf symbols now appear much more frequently on
cotton and other more widely available (and environmentally detructive)
fabrics. Proposed rules ban hempseed oil with 0.03% THC but do not ban hemp
fiber with 0.0% THC. If, as claimed, "Hemp sends the wrong message to
children," then the absurdity of ONDCP reasoning is exposed if one were to
suppose hemp jeans send a neutral message however granola bars send a wrong
message.

Apoplectic in their logic-defying attempts to undermine perfectly good
science and spread the misinformation that hemp is a drug crop, the War on
Drugs wreaks havoc on American children. Imagine some kid watching the
National Guard swooping down in helicopters to burn ditchweed, and then
reading in the newspapers that the plants they burned were marijuana. It
could only be expected to hear about kids trying to smoke hemp every once in
a while. It is not my purpose here to speculate that the DEA misinforms the
public about annual quantities of eradicated "marijuana" in order to protect
their huge eradication budgets. What can be said about the DEA's deceptive
tactics is that they are not likely to readily accept the Canadian model,
with acres of hemp growing side by side fields of corn in the nation's
heartland.

Under this scenario, the DEA would have a hard time explaining its policies,
and would be called on to account for their embarrassing "Marijuana
Eradication Program" and its annual $500,000,000 budget. By the agency's own
estimates, between 94-99% of the cannabis it destroys at great public
expense is "feral hemp," also known as "ditchweed." With extremely low THC
content, as low as .05 percent, feral hemp grows wild along roadsides and is
the last remnant of germplasm from a USDA hemp-breeding program in the
1910's, or of hemp grown during the "Hemp for Victory" campaign of the
1940's. Ditchweed has no value as a drug (although it's a great nesting
habitat for birds and its seed is held just above the snowline for them). A
small number of samples of feral hemp "seized" in the early 1970's is being
used to calculate what we are told is marijuana's dramatic increase in
potency; however, data since 1983 is more reliable and shows no increase in
marijuana's average THC content. The refusal of the drug enforcement
agencies to distinguish between an agricultural crop and a drug crop sends
the wrong message to children. When kids discover they were misinformed
about hemp, they call into question warnings given about how addictive crack
can be.

The benefits to the public of banning hemp products are minimal, while the
costs of banning hemp products to consumers and to society are great. We
don't need another War on Drugs with people in possession of a stockpile of
hundreds of pounds of (currently legal) shampoo getting the death penalty,
as would be the case under current federal law (if shampoo were marijuana).
By the time You read this, these administrative rule changes may already be
written into law, subverting the original intent of Congress, without Your
Representatives even aware of it! As of January 24, 2001, the pending
regulation has been reviewed and approved by the Justice Department, the
DEA, and ONDCP; and the text still must be approved by the White House
Office of Management and Budget, US Customs, the US Department of the
Treasury, and the US Department of Commerce. After this happens, any day
now, the final version our Government decides to implement will be published
in the Federal Register, the official "newspaper" of the federal government.
Maybe there will be a 30-day public comment period (as is required for most
new regulations); it depends on whether the DEA allows it. You might never
buy hempseed oil freely in this country again....maybe it is already too
late by the time you find yourself reading this. Shall it be said that You
could do nothing to prevent this?? Keep reading, and writing, and only then
will additional freedoms be stripped away from You at a slower pace. It is
rightfully our place to ponder whether ours is a government of the people,
by the people, and for the law enforcement and drug testing industries.

Please join me in opposing the DEA's proposal to ban hemp products
by inquiring how your representatives stand on this issue at

http://www.savehemp.org

urgently, if it is not already too late.

The author wishes to gratefully acknowledge:

North American Industrial Hemp Council www.naihc.org
Drug Reform Coordination Network www.drcnet.org
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws www.norml.org
www.hempembargo.com
www.globalhemp.com

Andrew Seidenfeld
noprob@mindspring.com