Tag Archives: Hemp Industries Association

ORGANIC HEMP IS IN DEMAND BUT CURRENTLY IT CANNOT BE CERTIFIED IN THE U.S.

 

ORGANIC HEMP IS IN DEMAND

BUT CURRENTLY IT CANNOT BE
CERTIFIED IN THE U.S.

HELP US CHANGE THIS!
See “Take Action” Section Below to Act Now.

Your participation in this call-to-action is crucial to our collective progress regarding organic certification of domestic hemp production.

Currently, hemp cultivated in the U.S. per Sec. 7606 Farm Bill regulations cannot be certified organic by the USDA, due to misinterpretation by the National Organic Program that aligns industrial hemp with other forms of cannabis.

We are asking all our supporters to register public comments for the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) Spring 2017 Meeting, which is being held in Denver, Colorado, this April 19-21.

Background

Congressionally mandated by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) and governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the NOSB considers and makes recommendations to the USDA National Organic Program (USDA-NOP) on a wide range of issues involving the production, handling, and processing of organic products.

Out of any rule-making process left functioning at the federal level, the NOSB is the most openly democratic in that any citizen is able to contribute to the process through written and oral public comment. It is because of this process that we have such robust standards where if international production is under equivalency and certified compliant under USDA-NOP standards, it may carry the USDA Organic Seal.

The USDA-NOP is currently basing approval of organic certifications for domestically-produced industrial hemp on a misinterpreted definition articulated on the “Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp,” which is in contravention of the Sec. 7606 definition and is confusing certifiers, producers, consumers, State Departments of Agriculture and law enforcement in the implementation of legal hemp pilot programs.

Take Action! Here’s What We Need YOU to Do:

The official NOSB-USDA-NOP Docket for the meeting can be found here. All written comments must be registered through this site by 11:59pm ET, Thursday, March 30, to be considered.

We are collectively recommending the main points in our registered written comments to the NOSB,

feel free to copy & paste the following points into the NOSB-USDA-NOP Docket page:

  1. We highly-value the congressionally-mandated NOSB process and the integrity of the USDA Organic Certification. 
  2. Like many other common crops, hemp is bioaccumulative in that it has the potential to uptake toxins in whatever medium it is growing. It is important for hemp products consumed by humans and animals to be distinguished as organic if they are grown as such, for consumers with these food safety considerations in mind.
  3. We ask that the NOSB make a strong recommendation to the USDA-NOP to immediately clarify the instruction “Organic Certification of Industrial Hemp Production” to allow organic certifications of Industrial Hemp adhering to the congressional intent of the Sect. 7606 definition, and removing the language “as articulated in the Statement of Principles on Industrial Hemp” from the instruction.

Please consider adding your own comments on how this issue affects you and your involvement in the hemp industry.

We encourage you to share this action so that others may join in solidarity.

Thank you for all you do!

SOURCE LINK

Hemp Industries Association Files Petition Against DEA

Hemp Industries Association Files Petition Against DEA to Defend Lawful Hemp-Derived Products from Agency Overreach
19 Jan 2017 5:41 PM

Suit Seeks to Defend Hemp Farmers, U.S. Businesses and Consumers from Illegal Attempt to Schedule Non-Psychoactive Hemp Derivatives as ‘Marihuana Extract’
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Hemp Industries Association (HIA), the leading non-profit trade association consisting of hundreds of hemp businesses, filed a Petition for Review on January 13, 2017, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, seeking to block the implementation of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) recently announced Final Rule regarding “Marihuana Extract.” The proposed DEA Final Rule attempts to unlawfully designate hemp-derived non-psychoactive cannabinoids, including cannabidiol, as “marihuana extract,” and append the Controlled Substances Act to add all cannabinoids to its Schedule I. Furthermore, this action by the DEA contravenes clear Congressional intent and legal parameters for the production and consumption of hemp-derived products containing cannabinoids, enacted by Sec. 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill).

To read the full petition, please visit:

https://hoban.law/sites/default/files/2017-01/17.01.13%20Petition%20%5Bfinal%5D.pdf

The DEA does not have the authority to augment the Controlled Substances Act; that power resides with Congress. Congress has clearly mandated, through the 2014 Farm Bill and the 2016 Omnibus Spending Law that the Controlled Substances Act does not apply to hemp grown in state pilot programs, and that it is a violation of federal law for agencies such as DEA to interfere with these programs. The DEA’s proposed rule regarding cannabinoids thumbs its nose at Congress and threatens to undermine the market for legal hemp products containing cannabinoids, including those produced in the U.S. under state laws that regulate hemp cultivation and processing pursuant to, and in accordance with the federal Farm Bill. These products, such as hemp foods and supplements, fall outside the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and are not subject to regulatory control by the DEA.

“Hemp-derived products containing cannabinoids are an increasingly in-demand category within the hemp market—and U.S. consumers constitute the largest market for hemp products worldwide,” said Colleen Keahey, Executive Director of the Hemp Industries Association. “We are committed to defending the rights of our members, of entrepreneurial hemp farmers, businesses and consumers, who all are acting entirely within the legal framework of the CSA and Farm Bill, including those adversely affected by trying to source American-grown hemp and hemp derivatives to supply this demand. The DEA’s attempt to regulate hemp derived products containing cannabinoids lawfully sourced under the CSA, and farmed and produced under the Farm Bill in states like Kentucky and Colorado, is not only outside the scope of their power, it’s an attempt to rob us of hemp’s economic opportunity.”
The DEA has made previous attempts to interfere with legal hemp products, notably from 2001-2003 when the agency contended that hemp food products such as cereals, hemp seed and hemp oil, are a Schedule I substance due to trace insignificant residues of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. On February 6, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in response that hemp is not included in Schedule I; that the trace THC in such products is similar to trace opiates in poppy seed bagels, and does not render them controlled substances. The HIA believes this 2004 ruling sets strong legal precedent for the current petition, which asserts that cannabinoids derived from lawful portions and varieties of the Cannabis plant exempted from control under the CSA and through the Farm Bill, may not be regulated as “marihuana” or “marihuana extract” by the DEA.

More recently, in 2014, the DEA interfered with the implementation of state pilot programs for hemp farming, when the agency unlawfully seized 250 lbs. of certified industrial hemp seed imported from Italy. The viable hemp seed had been legally sourced to supply six hemp research projects licensed by the Kentucky Department of Agriculture and coordinated in conjunction with Kentucky State academic institutions. The seed was quickly released, following the filing of a lawsuit against the DEA on May 14, 2014 by then Kentucky Agriculture Commissioner, now U.S. Congressional Representative James Comer.
“Over a decade ago, the Ninth Circuit held that non-psychoactive hemp is not controlled by the CSA,” said Patrick Goggin, co-counsel for the HIA. “The DEA is again attempting to schedule under the CSA cannabinoids and non-psychoactive hemp beyond its authority. We believe the Ninth Circuit will invalidate this rule just like it did in 2004.”
To date, 31 states have passed hemp legislation that allows their farmers to cultivate hemp according to guidelines set forth in the Farm Bill. Per these guidelines, U.S. farmers planted nearly 10,000 acres of hemp in 2016. Farmers and agri-business across the country have invested many millions of dollars in infrastructure to comply with federal law; this retroactive misreading of statute puts the livelihood of these law-abiding companies and individuals at risk.
Recent DEA pronouncements indicate that DEA is threatening to flout prior court rulings, and assert regulatory authority over hemp seed, oil, and products made from hemp seed and oil, which have always been exempt from the Controlled Substances Act. HIA continues to monitor these developments, and will consider further actions to resist DEA’s unlawful attempts to regulate legal hemp products.
# # #
The Hemp Industries Association (HIA) represents the interests of the hemp industry and encourages the research and development of new hemp products. More information about hemp’s many uses and hemp advocacy may be found at www.TheHIA.org.

Eric Steenstra is stepping-down as executive director of the Hemp Industries Association

A message from the Board of Directors 

Eric Steenstra is stepping-down as executive director of the Hemp Industries Association (HIA). Going forward, he has decided to work full time lobbying Congress and states on behalf of industrial hemp legislation via his role as President of Vote Hemp.  Eric is a respected figure of the hemp industry with twenty-four years of service, and HIA and Vote Hemp will continue to work closely together for full re-commercialization of hemp under federal law.

Since cofounding his hemp clothing business Ecolution in 1993, Eric’s commitment to the hemp movement has been remarkable.  He became a founding member of the HIA in 1994, and fought alongside David Bronner and fellow hempsters to stop the DEA’s attempted ban of hemp food and oil from 2001-2004.  Eric served on the HIA board for a decade, from 1997-2007.  In 2008, he stepped into the role of HIA Executive Director, following the retirement of former executive director Candi Penn.  

During his nine years of executive leadership, the HIA has grown substantially both in membership and annual event attendance.  He also created the popular chapter program, co-created and helped build key education efforts and marketing initiatives, such as the HIA’s Hemp History Week program.  

Eric’s legacy in the hemp industry is deeply admired-he has demonstrated discerning, passionate leadership. In addition to his service with HIA, Eric pioneered the cofounding of Vote Hemp in 2000, of which he remains President.  Under his leadership, Vote Hemp has become the nation’s foremost hemp lobbying organization working towards full re-commercialization of industrial hemp.  Vote Hemp lead the effort to pass breakthrough hemp language in the Farm Bill and has helped passage of legislation in dozens of states. 

It is our hope that Eric will shepherd the Industrial Hemp Farming Act to become law during the 115th Congress, and we are grateful to him for focusing his insight and experience toward this important task.  You can reach Eric at eric@votehemp.com and (703) 729-2225

After a formal review, we would like to announce our decision to name Colleen Keahey as new Executive Director.  Colleen has been working with Eric Steenstra as National Outreach Coordinator with Vote Hemp since June of 2014.  Colleen joined Vote Hemp after assisting with the development and passage of Tennessee’s hemp law.  She left her role as publisher at a Tennessee non-profit trade association dedicated to rural water industries.  In 2014, Colleen founded the first state chapter of the HIA in Tennessee (TNHIA).  Colleen successfully contributed to hemp pilot program rules and regulations and also held eighteen meetings as leader of TNHIA. Colleen’s skills in non-profit trade association management will bring new opportunities to the HIA and its members. This transition will not disrupt current projects or campaigns, nor interrupt any services HIA provides to its membership.  Members are encouraged to reach out to Colleen with any questions or concerns; she can be reached via colleen@thehia.org and at (707) 874-3648.

We look forward to serving you in 2017-a new year full of opportunity. Join us in congratulating and honoring Eric Steenstra for his years of service! And join us in welcoming Colleen Keahey as the new Executive Director for our association.

– HIA Board of Directors

Lawrence Serbin, President
Hemp Traders Inc.

Eric Pollit, Vice President
Global Hemp

Tyler Frank, Secretary

Hemptopia Apparel


Steve Levine, Treasurer

Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps

Anndrea Hermann

The Ridge International Cannabis Consulting

David Bush

DavidLaw

Shaun Crew

Hemp Oil Canada

Richard Dash

Dash Hemp

Rick Krantz

Tahoe Hemp Company

Information on “KCHHI”–Kentucky Hemp Health Initiative

 

 

LINK TO KCHHI :

Petition2Congress Logo

 

Some background on the “KCHHI” Petition.

It was re-written by Mary Thomas-Spears and modeled after the CALIFORNIA HEMP HEALTH INITIATIVE (shown below) which was started in 2012.

It is important because it represents “REPEAL” of “PROHIBITION” at the State, Federal and Local levels of Government in the United States, in OUR case

KENTUCKY!

If “WE, THE PEOPLE” want to regain our freedom as a people to be “self-governed” we must take this very important step to push for what WE

believe is right.

No one should be punished for growing, using as medicine or for recreational purposes and most certainly of all using “medicinal marijuana” for

OUR children’s HEALTH needs.  This is NOT to say that it is alright to give to a child under 18/21 years old when NOT being used medicinally! 

That having been, said NO CHILD should have to do without this God-given medicine because of Government intrusion into our lives!

I am praying that the citizens of Kentucky will examine the evidence – what we have seen so far is nothing more than Government

interference in our lives at the Statutory level – even when OUR children’s lives are at stake!

I realize that those with children in dire need are pressed to see ANY form of legislation enacted that would give their CHILD this medicine!

I can honestly say that if I were in that position I would leave the State of Kentucky for Colorado today!  NOT because I like what Colorado

has accomplished!  It is a mess out there – but at least my child would have what they need medically – forget everything else!

The only other alternative at this point is to try to “secretly” medicate my child and hope that I do not get caught and my CHILD be taken away

because the LAW doesn’t approve.  We all know the LAW is BULLSHIT!

I started preaching REPEAL in 2010 and Mary Thomas-Spears had it figured out before me.  Everyone thinks that this is not worth working on

and it is unobtainable.  I say it is!  If enough people will get behind the idea and we start telling our Government what we need as opposed to

letting OUR Government ‘TELL US WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO LET US DO!  WE ELECT THEM! Not the other way around – however this is changing

rapidly.  This is  a valid reason why all those who are eligible to vote MUST do so! Regardless of the fact that the elections are, at this point a “set up” we MUST

retain the right to the voting process – so everyone make sure they register and vote, even if you feel there is no reason!  At least it keeps the

freedom TO vote!

It is close to the point that our entire Country will be under total control of every aspect of OUR lives, up to and including Religion and CHILD

rearing.  If Kentucky lets this happen – so goes the rest of the Country!  (Check out the story :

Connecticut Girl Speaks Out After Being Forced to Undergo Chemo) – Industrialism at it’s worse in my opinion, and it is happening

everyday!  So stop thinking we CAN’T and start thinking YES WE CAN put an end to the tyranny  that is surrounding us and moving in on ALL of OUR freedom’s

as we speak. STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM PROHIBITION AND GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO OUR DAILY LIVES

FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THEIR DOMINENCE OVER US!

We lost the first Civil War to the Industrialists.   LET IT NOT HAPPEN AGAIN!

If you do not understand this I urge you to watch “Hell on Wheels” an AMC production which very well explains how the Industrialists took over

and forced slave labor from one entity – the Agrarian (Farming) Community into the Industrialist building of the railroads and the war effort.

Everyone was forced into leaving the family farms for the Industrial Revolution.  As a result we ended up with corporate farming.

Of note:  The Emancipation Proclamation which “freed the Slaves” was NOT enforced in Kentucky because Kentucky had not seceded from the Union.

It was only a strategy of War between the North and South and Kentucky “sat on the fence”  Don’t take me the wrong way…Slavery was never RIGHT!

And Abe Lincoln did NOT like Slavery which has been documented historically.  However, this information proves that if the Government seems to

be doing something “right” for the people you can bet it is for an ulterior motive.  With a legalize, tax and regulate mentality the Government owns us!

Fight for the freedom from prohibition of your freedoms!

Smk.

 

PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK AND SIGN FOR YOUR RIGHT AS A HUMAN BEING TO BE ABLE TO FARM AND USE CANNABIS!  A GOD-GIVEN PLANT!

 

Petition2Congress Logo

 

CALLIFORNIA HEMP HEALTH INITIATIVE 2012

 

clip_image002[4]

clip_image004[4]

clip_image006[4]

U.S. House of Representatives Votes to Legalize Industrial Hemp

 

 

WhiteHouse

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 225-200 on June 20 to legalize the industrial farming of hemp fiber. Hemp is the same species as the marijuana plant, and its fiber has been used to create clothing, paper, and other industrial products for thousands of years; however, it has been listed as a “controlled substance” since the beginning of the drug war in the United States. Unlike marijuana varieties of the plant, hemp is not bred to create high quantities of the drug THC.

The amendment’s sponsor, Jared Polis (D-Colo.), noted in congressional debate that “George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp. The first American flag was made of hemp. And today, U.S. retailers sell over $300 million worth of goods containing hemp — but all of that hemp is imported, since farmers can’t grow it here. The federal government should clarify that states should have the ability to regulate academic and agriculture research of industrial hemp without fear of federal interference. Hemp is not marijuana, and at the very least, we should allow our universities — the greatest in the world — to research the potential benefits and downsides of this important agricultural commodity.”

The 225-200 vote included 62 Republican votes for the Polis amendment, many of whom were members of Justin Amash’s Republican Liberty Caucus or representatives from farm states. But most Republicans opposed the amendment, claiming it would make the drug war more difficult. “When you plant hemp alongside marijuana, you can’t tell the difference,” Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) said in congressional debate on the amendment to the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.

“This is not about a drugs bill. This is about jobs,” Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) countered King in House floor debate June 20. Massie, a key House Republican ally of Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky and a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, opposes marijuana legalization but had signed on as a cosponsor of the Polis amendment.

The amendment would take industrial hemp off the controlled substances list if it meets the following classification: “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 of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.” The amendment would allow industrial farming of hemp “if a person grows or processes Cannabis sativa L. for purposes of making industrial hemp in accordance with State law.” Most states have passed laws legalizing industrial hemp, in whole or in part, but federal prohibitions have kept the plant from legal cultivation.

However, the annual agricultural authorization bill subsequently went down to defeat in the House by a vote of 195 to 234. Sponsors of the amendment hope that it will be revised in conference committee, where it has strong support from both Kentucky senators, Rand Paul and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The legislation, originally offered as the bill H.R. 525, was sponsored by Jared Polis (D-Colo.) and Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who represent states where voters recently considered ballot measures that legalized marijuana within their states, a fact King pointed out in House floor debate. Voters in Colorado and Washington approved the ballot measures in 2012, but voters in Oregon rejected a ballot measure that would have legalized cultivation of marijuana.

Recent polls have indicated that most Americans want legalization of marijuana, as well as hemp. Though support for marijuana legalization is by only a slim majority of the public, there’s a larger divide among age groups, with younger voters more heavily favoring legalization.

None of the debate on the amendment related to the constitutional authority of Congress to ban substances. Nor did any congressman reference the first time Congress banned a drug — alcohol. At that time, Congress followed proper constitutional protocol to amend the U.S. Constitution first, giving it the legitimate power to ban alcohol (i.e., the 18th Amendment). No comparable constitutional amendment has been passed for hemp, marijuana, raw milk, or any other substance prohibited by the federal government.

KELLY: Hemp vs. oil: How corporate & gov’t collusion perverted the free market

Travis Kelly

 

mmj2

Since the days of Cain and Abel, hemp has been one of the world’s largest and most versatile crops, used to make textiles, paint, soap, rope, building materials, fuel oil, protein supplements, and medicines. An acre of hemp produces far more paper than an acre of trees — and you would have to smoke an acre of it to get high, as industrial hemp, though similar in appearance to its close cousin, marijuana (cannabis), contains almost no THC.
Today, in only one industrialized nation in the world, is the cultivation of hemp illegal. You guessed it: Ours truly. And it makes as much sense as outlawing ALL mushrooms because some of them are psychoactive or poisonous. How this travesty came about in 1937 is a lesson in the collusion of big corporations with big government and big media to pervert the free market and stymie competition.
In the early 1930s, Henry Ford’s experimental biomass plant in Michigan extracted methanol, charcoal, tar pitch, and other distillates from hemp, demonstrating that it was an alternative to fossil fuels as an energy source, as well as a competitor to other petrochemical products then being introduced by the DuPont corporation, DuPont had a powerful ally in Washington — Secretary of Treasury Andrew Mellon, a banker who also had a controlling interest in the Gulf Oil Corporation.
Mellon appointed his loyal nephew, Harry Anslinger, as chief of the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1932. Anslinger promptly began lobbying Congress to outlaw “marihuana,” using a series of hysterical propaganda stories run by newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst — that era’s Rupert Murdoch. Hearst owned vast timber lands in the Northwest that supplied the wood pulp for most of the American newspaper industry; DuPont chemicals were used to process that pulp. The “reefer madness” scare featured lurid, racist stories of “Mexicans and Negroes” going on murderous rampages while stoned; innocent white women seduced into ruin; teenagers going instantly insane after a puff; and other fearmongering fictions.
Anslinger told Congress that hemp — ALL hemp, whether smokable or not — was “entirely the Monster Hyde, the harmful effects of which cannot be measured.” The Marijuana Tax Act was rammed through Congress in secret committees controlled by DuPont allies. That same year, 1937, DuPont filed its patent on Nylon, which took over the textile and cordage markets that had been dominated by hemp. DuPont also supplied GM, which produced more than half of all American cars, with its petrochemical paints, varnishes, plastics and rubber, all of which could have been produced equally well from hemp. But no more. The competition had been criminalized.
The prohibition was suspended during WWII, with a Hemp for Victory campaign, then reinstated in 1955. Since then, our closest cousins, England, Australia and Canada (1998), have all legalized industrial hemp. China is the world’s number-one producer, exporting most of it to us — the world’s leading hemp importer — exacerbating our trade imbalance.
As global oil supplies continue to decline versus growing demand, and become harder to extract and import due to geological and political factors, domestic hemp could easily replace many petrochemical products with significant advantages.
Hemp is a renewable resource, one of the fastest growing and most productive plants on earth, yielding four crops and 25 tons of dry matter per hectare per year. It requires few pesticides and no herbicides. It is now being used as a building material, Hempcrete, and, combined with fiberglass and flax, to make body panels for automobiles. It has also proved excellent as a “mop crop” for cleaning up contaminated soil. In all these cases, hemp is carbon neutral or even carbon negative, scrubbing and sequestering CO2 from our warming atmosphere.
Several states have licensed the growing of industrial hemp — California, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia — but have not yet grown a single plant due to continued resistance by the DEA, who is still stuck in 1930s “reefer madness” paranoia, despite now overwhelming evidence that hemp’s cousin, marijuana, is far less harmful than alcohol for both health and public safety. To grow industrial hemp, the DEA must issue a permit under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act — and it never does.
Colorado can join that roster on Nov. 6 by voting for Amendment 64. Eventually, we will budge the DEA from its archaic stupidity, end the virtual dictatorship of the petrochemical industry, and safeguard our national security by again realizing Thomas Jefferson’s maxim: “Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth and protection of the country.”
Travis Kelly is a web/graphic designer, writer and cartoonist in Grand Junction. See his work or contact him at www.traviskelly.com.

CONTINUE READING…

Hemp Freedom Act

 

 

Hemp Freedom Act

The following is model legislation approved by the Tenth Amendment Center. Activists, we encourage you to send this to your state senators and representatives – and ask them to introduce this legislation in your state.

AN ACT

To authorize the production of industrial hemp; to amend (SUBSECTION AND CODE) of the KENTUCKY Code, relating to the definition of noxious weed seeds; and to nullify certain acts of the Federal Government of the United States purporting to be laws and regulations resulting in the prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the state of KENTUCKY

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

SECTION 1. Name

This Act shall be known and may be cited as the “Hemp Freedom Act.”

SECTION 2. Findings

A new section of law to be codified in the [STATE] Statutes as Section [NUMBER] of Title [NUMBER], unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

(CHAPTER)

Section (#) (A) The General Assembly finds that :

(1) The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States codifies in law that the only powers which the Federal Government may exercise are those that have been delegated to it in the Constitution of the United States;

(2) The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the people rights not enumerated in the Constitution and reserves to the people of (STATE) those rights;

(3) The power to regulate interstate commerce was delegated to the federal government in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution. As understood at the time of the founding, the regulation of commerce was meant to empower Congress to regulate the buying and selling of products made by others (and sometimes land), associated finance and financial instruments, and navigation and other carriage, across state jurisdictional lines. This interstate regulation of “commerce” did not include agriculture, manufacturing, mining, malum in se crime, or land use. Nor did it include activities that merely “substantially affected” commerce;

(4) The advocates of the Constitution, at the time of its ratification, assured the People of the Several States that the regulation of agriculture would be reserved to the States. This included Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in Federalist #17: “the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation can never be desirable cases of a general jurisdiction.” This was reinforced by many others, including Justice Sargeant of Massachusetts, who let it be known that only the states would have the power to regulate “common fields” and “fisheries”;

(5) The Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered a proposal to create, in the Constitution, a Secretary of Domestic Affairs, who was to have authority to regulate agriculture. That proposal was rejected;

(6) The assumption of power that the Federal Government through its Drug Enforcement Administration has made by prohibiting industrial hemp farming exceeds its Constitutional authority and interferes with the right of the People of the State of KENTUCKY to regulate agriculture as they see fit, and makes a mockery of James Madison’s assurance in Federalist #45 that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”

(7) Federal agents have flouted the United States Constitution and foresworn their oath to support this Constitution by prohibiting industrial farming of hemp by the People of the State of (STATE), and these actions violate the limits of authority placed upon the federal agents by the United States Constitution and are dangerous to the liberties of the people;

SECTION 3. Authorization to Plant, Grow, Harvest, Possess, Process, Sell, and Buy

A. Industrial hemp (cannabis sativa l.), having no more than three-tenths of one percent tetrahydrocannabinol, is recognized as an oilseed. Upon meeting this requirement, any person in this state may plant, grow, harvest, possess, process, sell, and buy industrial hemp (cannabis sativa l.) having no more than three-tenths of one percent tetrahydrocannabinol.

SECTION 4. Nullification of Federal Prohibitions

A. The Legislature of the State of KENTUCKY declares that the federal prohibitions on industrial hemp farming are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and are hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

B. It shall be the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of federal prohibitions on industrial hemp farming within the limits of this State.

C. Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two (2) years, or both.

D. Any public officer or employee of the State of KENTUCKY that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months or by a fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or both such fine and imprisonment.

SECTION 5.

This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

 

***

Kentucky

District
Name
Party
Room
Phone
Committee Assignment

1
Whitfield, Ed
R
2368 RHOB
202-225-3115
Energy and Commerce

2
Guthrie, S. Brett
R
308 CHOB
202-225-3501
Energy and Commerce

3
Yarmuth, John A.
D
435 CHOB
202-225-5401
Budget
Ethics
Oversight and Government Reform

4
Davis, Geoff
R
1119 LHOB
202-225-3465
Ways and Means

5
Rogers, Harold
R
2406 RHOB
202-225-4601
Appropriations, Chairman

6
Chandler, Ben
D
1504 LHOB
202-225-4706
Foreign Affairs
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

****

WHO IS MY LEGISLATOR?

Hemp Freedom Act

 

Hemp Freedom Act

The following is model legislation approved by the Tenth Amendment Center. Activists, we encourage you to send this to your state senators and representatives – and ask them to introduce this legislation in your state.

AN ACT

To authorize the production of industrial hemp; to amend (SUBSECTION AND CODE) of the KENTUCKY Code, relating to the definition of noxious weed seeds; and to nullify certain acts of the Federal Government of the United States purporting to be laws and regulations resulting in the prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the state of KENTUCKY

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

SECTION 1. Name

This Act shall be known and may be cited as the “Hemp Freedom Act.”

SECTION 2. Findings

A new section of law to be codified in the [STATE] Statutes as Section [NUMBER] of Title [NUMBER], unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

(CHAPTER)

Section (#) (A) The General Assembly finds that :

(1) The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States codifies in law that the only powers which the Federal Government may exercise are those that have been delegated to it in the Constitution of the United States;

(2) The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the people rights not enumerated in the Constitution and reserves to the people of (STATE) those rights;

(3) The power to regulate interstate commerce was delegated to the federal government in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution. As understood at the time of the founding, the regulation of commerce was meant to empower Congress to regulate the buying and selling of products made by others (and sometimes land), associated finance and financial instruments, and navigation and other carriage, across state jurisdictional lines. This interstate regulation of “commerce” did not include agriculture, manufacturing, mining, malum in se crime, or land use. Nor did it include activities that merely “substantially affected” commerce;

(4) The advocates of the Constitution, at the time of its ratification, assured the People of the Several States that the regulation of agriculture would be reserved to the States. This included Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in Federalist #17: “the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation can never be desirable cases of a general jurisdiction.” This was reinforced by many others, including Justice Sargeant of Massachusetts, who let it be known that only the states would have the power to regulate “common fields” and “fisheries”;

(5) The Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered a proposal to create, in the Constitution, a Secretary of Domestic Affairs, who was to have authority to regulate agriculture. That proposal was rejected;

(6) The assumption of power that the Federal Government through its Drug Enforcement Administration has made by prohibiting industrial hemp farming exceeds its Constitutional authority and interferes with the right of the People of the State of KENTUCKY to regulate agriculture as they see fit, and makes a mockery of James Madison’s assurance in Federalist #45 that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”

(7) Federal agents have flouted the United States Constitution and foresworn their oath to support this Constitution by prohibiting industrial farming of hemp by the People of the State of (STATE), and these actions violate the limits of authority placed upon the federal agents by the United States Constitution and are dangerous to the liberties of the people;

SECTION 3. Authorization to Plant, Grow, Harvest, Possess, Process, Sell, and Buy

A. Industrial hemp (cannabis sativa l.), having no more than three-tenths of one percent tetrahydrocannabinol, is recognized as an oilseed. Upon meeting this requirement, any person in this state may plant, grow, harvest, possess, process, sell, and buy industrial hemp (cannabis sativa l.) having no more than three-tenths of one percent tetrahydrocannabinol.

SECTION 4. Nullification of Federal Prohibitions

A. The Legislature of the State of KENTUCKY declares that the federal prohibitions on industrial hemp farming are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and are hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

B. It shall be the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of federal prohibitions on industrial hemp farming within the limits of this State.

C. Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two (2) years, or both.

D. Any public officer or employee of the State of KENTUCKY that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months or by a fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or both such fine and imprisonment.

SECTION 5.

This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

 

***

Kentucky

District
Name
Party
Room
Phone
Committee Assignment

1
Whitfield, Ed
R
2368 RHOB
202-225-3115
Energy and Commerce

2
Guthrie, S. Brett
R
308 CHOB
202-225-3501
Energy and Commerce

3
Yarmuth, John A.
D
435 CHOB
202-225-5401
Budget
Ethics
Oversight and Government Reform

4
Davis, Geoff
R
1119 LHOB
202-225-3465
Ways and Means

5
Rogers, Harold
R
2406 RHOB
202-225-4601
Appropriations, Chairman

6
Chandler, Ben
D
1504 LHOB
202-225-4706
Foreign Affairs
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

****

WHO IS MY LEGISLATOR?

Acts Relating to Industrial Hemp In Kentucky

Kentucky Industrial Hemp Legislation

Kentucky State Legislature

2012
HB 286
AN ACT relating to industrial hemp. Create new sections of KRS Chapter 260 to define "department," "industrial hemp," and "THC"; require persons wanting to grow or process industrial hemp to be licensed by the Department of Agriculture; require criminal history checks by local sheriff; require the department to promulgate administrative regulations to carry out the new sections; require the sheriff to monitor and randomly test industrial hemp fields; assess a fee of five dollars per acre for every acre of industrial hemp grown, with a minimum fee of 150 dollars, to be divided equally between the department and the appropriate sheriff’s department; require licensees to provide the department with names and addresses of any grower or buyer of industrial hemp, and copies of any contracts the licensee may have entered into relating to the industrial hemp; clarify that the Act does not authorize any person to violate federal law; require Kentucky to adopt any federal rules or regulations relating to industrial hemp; amend KRS 218A.010 to conform; amend KRS 260.857 to make the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture the chair of the commission; amend KRS 260.859 to conform.
Introduced in House 1/19/2012; to Agriculture & Small Business (H) 1/20/2012.
Download the text of HB 286 here (PDF file 124k).

HB 272
AN ACT relating to industrial hemp. Create new sections of KRS Chapter 260 to define "department," "industrial hemp," and "THC"; require persons wanting to grow or process industrial hemp to be licensed by the Department of Agriculture; require criminal history checks by local sheriff; require the department to promulgate administrative regulations to carry out the new sections; require the sheriff to monitor and randomly test industrial hemp fields; assess a fee of five dollars per acre for every acre of industrial hemp grown, with a minimum fee of $150 dollars, to be divided equally between the department and the appropriate sheriff’s department; require licensees to provide the department with names and addresses of any grower or buyer of industrial hemp, and copies of any contracts the licensee may have entered into relating to the industrial hemp; clarify that the Act does not authorize any person to violate federal law; require Kentucky to adopt any federal rules or regulations relating to industrial hemp; amend KRS 218A.010 to conform.
Introduced in House 1/18/2012; to Agriculture & Small Business (H) 1/20/2012.
Download the text of HB 272 here (PDF file 120k).

SB 41
AN ACT relating to industrial hemp. Create new sections of KRS Chapter 260 to define "department," "industrial hemp," and "THC"; require persons wanting to grow or process industrial hemp to be licensed by the Department of Agriculture; require criminal history checks by local sheriff; require the department to promulgate administrative regulations to carry out the new sections; require the sheriff to monitor and randomly test industrial hemp fields; assess a fee of five dollars per acre for every acre of industrial hemp grown, with a minimum fee of 150 dollars, to be divided equally between the department and the appropriate sheriff’s department; require licensees to provide the department with names and addresses of any grower or buyer of industrial hemp, and copies of any contracts the licensee may have entered into relating to the industrial hemp; clarify that the Act does not authorize any person to violate federal law; require Kentucky to adopt any federal rules or regulations relating to industrial hemp; amend KRS 218A.010 to conform.
Introduced in Senate; to Agriculture (S) 1/3/2012.
Download the text of SB 41 here (PDF file 120k).

SR 51
A resolution to Adjourn in loving memory and honor of Louis Gatewood Galbraith. Introduced on 1/6/2012. Adopted by voice vote on 1/11/2012.
Download the text of SR 51 here (PDF file 72k).

2011
SB 30
AN ACT relating to industrial hemp. Create new sections of KRS Chapter 260 to define "department", "industrial hemp", and "THC"; require persons wanting to grow or process industrial hemp to be licensed by the Department of Agriculture; require criminal history checks by local sheriff; require the Department of Agriculture to promulgate administrative regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act; require sheriff to monitor and randomly test industrial hemp fields; assess a fee of $5 per acre for every acre of industrial hemp grown, with a minimum fee of $150, to be divided equally between the Department of Agriculture and the appropriate sheriff’s department; require licensees to provide the Department of Agriculture with names and addresses of any grower or buyer of industrial hemp, and copies of any contracts the licensee may have entered into relating to the industrial hemp; clarify that the Act does not authorize any person to violate federal law; require Kentucky to adopt any federal rules or regulations relating to industrial hemp.
(Prefiled by the sponsor(s) on 11/17/10) Introduced in Senate; to Agriculture (S) 1/4/2011.
Download the text of SB 30 here (PDF file 80k).

2010
SB 14
AN ACT relating to industrial hemp. Create new sections of KRS Chapter 260 to define "department," "industrial hemp," and "THC"; require persons wanting to grow or process industrial hemp to be licensed by the Department of Agriculture; require criminal history checks by local sheriff; require the Department of Agriculture to promulgate administrative regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act; require sheriff to monitor and randomly test industrial hemp fields; assess a fee of $5 per acre for every acre of industrial hemp grown, with a minimum fee of $150, to be divided equally between the Department of Agriculture and the appropriate sheriff’s department; require licensees to provide the Department of Agriculture with names and addresses of any grower or buyer of industrial hemp and copies of any contracts the licensee may have entered into relating to the industrial hemp; clarify that the Act does not authorize any person to violate federal law. (Prefiled by the sponsor(s).) To: Interim Joint Committee on Agriculture 11/4/09. Introduced in Senate 1/5/10. Referred to Senate Agriculture committee 1/6/10.
Download the text of SB 14 here (PDF file 88k).

2009
SB 131
AN ACT relating to industrial hemp. Create new sections of KRS Chapter 260 to define "department," "industrial hemp," and "THC"; require persons wanting to grow or process industrial hemp to be licensed by the Department of Agriculture; require criminal history checks by local sheriff; require the Department of Agriculture to promulgate administrative regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act; require sheriff to monitor and randomly test industrial hemp fields; assess a fee of $5 per acre for every acre of industrial hemp grown, with a minimum fee of $150, to be divided equally between the Department of Agriculture and the appropriate sheriff’s department; require licensees to provide the Department of Agriculture with names and addresses of any grower or buyer of industrial hemp and copies of any contracts the licensee may have entered into relating to the industrial hemp; clarify that the Act does not authorize any person to violate federal law. Introduced in Senate 2/12/09. Referred to Senate Agriculture Committee 2/23/09.
Download the text of SB 131 here (PDF file 88k).

2001
HB 100
Passed into law and signed by Gov. Patton.
Download the text of HB 100 here (PDF file 13k).

2000
HB 855
Legislative session ended with no action.
Download the text of HB 855 here (PDF file 9k).

HJR 121
Died in Senate.
Download the text of HJR 121 here (PDF file 4k).


Quick Links Concerning Industrial Hemp in Kentucky

Kentucky Revised Statutes:

Main Index

Statute Search

Kentucky Department of Agriculture:

Home Page


Kentucky Reports & Studies

Industrial Hemp
UK Cooperative Extension Service
University of Kentucky
College of Agriculture
New Crop Opportunities Center
October, 2009, 3 pages
(PDF file 348k)

Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky
By Dr. Eric C. Thompson, Dr. Mark C. Berger & Steven N. Allen
Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Kentucky
July, 1998, 75 pages
Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky – HTML version
Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky – Acrobat version (PDF file 643k)

Hemp Support: The European Union Experience (Draft)
By Valerie L. Vantreese
University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics
May, 2001, 11 pages
(PDF file 224k)

Industrial Hemp: Legislative Briefing
By Valerie L. Vantreese
University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics
January, 2001, 3 pages
(PDF file 29k)

Industrial Hemp: Global Operations, Local Implications
By Valerie L. Vantreese
University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics
July, 1998, 31 pages
(PDF file 262k)

Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky
By Dr. Eric C. Thompson, Dr. Mark C. Berger & Steven N. Allen
Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Kentucky
July, 1998, 75 pages
Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky – HTML version
Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky – Acrobat version (PDF file 643k)

Industrial Hemp: Global Markets and Prices
By Valerie L. Vantreese
University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics
January, 1997, 34 pages
(PDF file 301k)

CONTINUE READING HERE…