NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FORTHE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS

green NORML logo

1001 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW
SUITE 1010-C
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036

T 202-483-5500 • F 202-483-0057 • E-MAIL NATLNORML@AOL.COM
Internet
http://www.norml.org
. . . a weekly service for the media on news items related to Marijuana Prohibition.

January 30, 1997

New England Journal Of Medicine Argues For Medical Marijuana
Proposed NORML Bill Echoes Medical Journal's Sentiments

X-ray

January 30, 1997, Boston, Massachusetts:  Federal policy that prohibits physicians from prescribing marijuana for seriously ill patients is "misguided, heavy-handed, and inhumane," according to the new issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, the country's most prestigious medical journal.
Calling the administration's position "hypocritical," magazine editor Dr. Jerome P. Kassirer argued that: "Federal authorities should rescind their prohibition of the medicinal use of marijuana for seriously ill patients and allow physicians to decide which patients to treat.  The government should change marijuana's status from that of a Schedule 1 drug (considered to be potentially addictive and with no current medical use) to that of a Schedule 2 drug (potentially addictive but with some accepted medical use) and regulate it accordingly."
Kassirer's recommendation echoes the text of a proposed new federal bill by Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass).  Frank, a longtime proponent of medical marijuana, has been working with NORML to craft a streamlined medical marijuana bill that will reschedule marijuana under federal law, thereby making it legal to prescribe.  Once states are free of the federal law prohibiting the prescription of marijuana, they can legally implement different systems for growing and distributing medical marijuana to patients on a state-by-state basis.  The passage of this legislation would also remove the threat of prosecution in the eight states that already allow doctors to prescribe marijuana.  (See chart on page three for a breakdown of current state medical marijuana laws.)
"Both historically and presently, states have been more receptive to the medical marijuana issue than the federal government," explained NORML's Executive Director, R. Keith Stroup, Esq., who noted that 25 states and the District of Columbia currently have laws recognizing marijuana's medical utility.  (See chart.)  "Therefore, NORML proposes a bill that effectively gets the federal government out of the way of those states that wish to make marijuana legal as a medicine."  Stroup said that he expects Rep. Frank to introduce the federal medical marijuana bill as soon as next month and considered today's editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine to be a major blow to the administration's current position.
"A lead editorial in favor of allowing patients legal access to medical marijuana by the editor of one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world gives additional legitimacy to this issue, and conversely, further damages the credibility of the federal government's position," he said.
A commentary written by Harvard Medical Professor and NORML Board Member Lester Grinspoon in the June 21, 1995, edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) stated; "It is time for physicians to acknowledge more openly that the present classification is scientifically, legally, and morally wrong."  A lead editorial published later that year in the highly respected British medical journal, The Lancet, added: "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health."
"Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey is out of his league when he attacks medical marijuana," said Bill Zimmerman, director of Americans for Medical Rights, one of the organizations that spearheaded the successful medical marijuana campaign in California. "He has ridiculed this issue as a 'Cheech and Chong show.'  In truth, it is a matter of real concern to medical professionals.  McCaffrey has made a bad policy worse, and is now facing the consequences in the form of a rebellion by the medical community."
"Congress can no longer ignore the issue of medical marijuana," summarized Stroup.  "The passage of state initiatives supporting its medical use in California and Arizona brought this issue to the political forefront.  We expect the introduction of Rep. Barney Frank's legislation and the high-profile hearings that follow to keep it there."
For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre or Paul Armentano of NORML @ (202) 483-5500.  NORML's report summarizing the various state medical marijuana laws is available upon request.

Federal Study Concludes That Marijuana's Main Active Ingredient
Does Not Cause Cancer

Fit as a fiddle

January 30, 1997, Boston Massachusetts:  The main active ingredient in marijuana (THC) did not cause cancer when fed to laboratory animals in huge doses over long periods, according to a federal study recently publicized by The Boston Globe.  The $2 million dollar study had been left on the shelf for over two years.
"This study's findings undercuts the federal government's contention that marijuana itself is carcinogenic," said NORML's Deputy Director Allen St. Pierre.  "It is ridiculous that such a report has failed to see the light of day until now.
According to The Boston Globe, the 126-page draft study has never been published, though a panel of expert reviewers found in June 1994 that its scientific methods and conclusions were sound.  "We found absolutely no evidence of cancer," John Butcher, director of the National Toxicology Program, told The Globe in reference to the study.  Surprisingly, Butcher said that THC may even have protected against malignancies.
In the study, high doses of THC were delivered directly into the stomachs of mice and rats daily for two years.  Since the animals were not exposed to marijuana smoke, the study did not address the carcinogenic potential of inhaled marijuana.
Butcher told The Boston Globe that his agency had not been pressured to bury the report, and said the delay was due to a personnel shortage.
For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre of NORML @ (202) 483-5500 or Attorney Steve Epstein of Mass/CANN NORML @ (617) 599-3161.

thermometer

Medical Marijuana Legislation Hot Topic For State Legislators

January30, 1997, Washington, D.C.:  Following the passage of Proposition 215 in California and an Arizona provision recognizing marijuana s medical value, several state legislators have expressed interest in passing similar medical marijuana measures in their states.  In Wyoming, legislation to reschedule marijuana to allow for physicians to prescribe it for medical purposes (S.F. 132) was heard today before the Labor, House and Social Services Committee.  Similar legislation has also been introduced in Hawaii (H.B. 604) by Rep. David Tarnas (6th District), and a law providing for a prima facie defense for patients who are certified by the state to use marijuana to treat glaucoma, asthma, or the nausea associated with chemotherapy (H. 2170) took effect in Massachusetts last week.
Other states that have shown interest in introducing medical marijuana legislation include New Jersey, Wisconsin, New York and MaineNORML is currently sending comprehensive medical marijuana info-packets to legislators in these states and has offered to help identify physicians, medical marijuana experts, and patients who could testify at hearings in support of marijuana's therapeutic value.
"Legal access to medical marijuana is a topic on the minds of many state legislatures this year," said NORML's Deputy Director Allen St. Pierre.  "NORML and its local affiliates stand ready and willing to work with interested legislators on the state level in the months ahead."
An unfortunate backlash to the recent national publicity regarding medical marijuana has been the response of some legislators to introduce measures repealing existing state medical marijuana laws.  On January 8, Virginia Delegate Robert Marshall (R-Manassas) introduced legislation repealing an 18-year old law allowing physicians to prescribe marijuana to seriously ill patients (H.B. 1621).  The bill passed in the House by an 86-13 vote today and is being referred to a Senate committee.  Although Virginia's law does not provide legal access to the drug, the state's recognition of marijuana's therapeutic value does help patients defend against marijuana possession charges.  Meanwhile, Ohio Sen. Louis Blessing (R-Cincinnati) has introduced legislation to pull the plug on a six-month old law granting medical marijuana users an affirmative defense against marijuana possession charges.  Currently, Ohio NORML activists are mobilizing against this legislation.
For more information on pending state medical marijuana legislation, please contact either Allen St. Pierre or Paul Armentano of NORML @ (202) 483-5500.

-END-

MORE THAN 10 MILLION MARIJUANA ARRESTS SINCE 1965 . . . ANOTHER EVERY 54 SECONDS!

green NORML logoNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS
1001 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW * WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 * T 202-483-5500

State Laws That Recognize
Marijuana's Medical Value

States that allow for the establishment of therapeutic cannabis research programs:
Alabama; Georgia; Illinois; Massachusetts; Minnesota; New Jersey; New Mexico; New York; Rhode Island; South Carolina; Texas; Washington; West Virginia

States that allow physicians to prescribe manjuana:
Arizona; Connecticut; Illinois; Louisiana; New Hampshire; Vermont; Virginia; Wisconsin

States that have rescheduled marijuana when it is used medicinally:
Iowa; New Mexico; Tennessee; Washington, D.C.

State laws recognizng an "affirmative defense" for medical marluana users:
Arizona; California; Massachusetts; Ohio; Florida*

*Florida's state supreme court recognizes the defense of medical necessity in marijuana cases.

Current state laws as of January 30, 1997.


© copyright 1996, 1997 NORML NORML Home Page comments: norml@natlnorml.org

Federal agents, don't move!


Regional and other News


Body Count

Four of the seven felons sentenced by Multnomah County courts in the most recent week received jail or prison terms for controlled-substance offenses, according to the "Portland" zoned section of
The Oregonian, (Jan. 30, 1997, p. 5, 3M-MP-SE). That makes the body count so far this year 11 out of 27, or 40.74 percent. (The final tally for 1996 was 370 out of 675, or 54.81 percent.)


Portland NORML Activists Lobby Against New Jails

Portland NORML Director T.D. Miller and a few other local chapter members have been attending a series of public forums where city and county residents can lobby each other and local officials about where to make budget cuts necessitated by passage of Measure 47, the property-tax-limitation initiative. (The meeting times and places were listed in the Jan. 16 Portland NORML Weekly News Release item, Portland Public Hearings Let You Speak Against Busting Pot Offenders.")

One chapter member writes:

"I was at a public meeting the other night with Terry Miller and watched as a bunch of randomly-formed citizen committees showed significant support for not building the new jails that were approved by the voters in May of 1996 here in Multnomah County. Several tables (committees), after a period of discussion about how to cut the city and county budgets to accommodate the recently-approved property tax "cut-and-cap" initiative, specifically mentioned not building the new jail. I noticed the sheriff (jail administrator), Dan Noelle, standing in the back of the room with looks of pain every time a committee made the recommendation that the jail not be built because the funds required for its operation were not available [i.e. why build a jail and let it stand empty???]. He was obviously perturbed at the end of the meeting when approximately one-third of the tables suggested major changes to his plan for a new jail and its operation under his command."
No decisions will be announced by city and county officials until about June.

However, as reported in "Jail site may end up standing empty" (The Oregonian, Jan. 23, 1997, p. C4), "...even though voters approved bond money for the jail, the county still must make a decision on whether to build it. That topic is scheduled to be discussed Feb. 25 in a meeting between the county Board of Commissioners and Sheriff Dan Noelle."

As critics noted before the May 21 jail-bond vote, even if the county builds the jails, it never had a realistic or adequate plan to fund their operating costs. Remember to write or fax your county commissioner about that before Feb. 25.

City:

Mayor Vera Katz
Portland Building, Room 501
1400 SW Fifth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
Tel. (503) 823-4120
Fax: (503) 823-3588
E-mail: VeraKatz@aol.com
or mayorkatz@ci.portland.or.us
Web page: http://205.206.211.91/mayors/mportlnd.htm

Commissioner Jim Francesconi
Portland Building, Room 703
1400 SW Fifth Ave.
Portland OR 97204
Tel. (503) 823-3008
Fax: (503) 823-3017
E-mail: jfrancesconi@ci.portland.or.us

Commissioner Charlie Hales
Portland Building, Room 701
1400 SW Fifth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
Tel. (503) 823-4681
Fax (503) 823-4040
E-mail: hales@europa.com
Web page: http://www.europa.com/~hales/

Commissioner Gretchen Kafoury
Portland Building, Room 704
1400 SW Fifth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
Tel. (503) 823-4151
Fax (503) 823-3036
E-mail: gkafoury@ci.portland.or.us

Commissioner Erik Sten
Portland Building, Room 702
1400 SW Fifth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
Tel. (503) 823-3589
Fax: (503) 823-3696
E-mail: Esten@ci.portland.or.us

County:

Beverly Stein
Multnomah County Commissioners Chair
Portland Building
Room 1515
1120 SW Fifth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
Tel. (503) 248-3308
Fax: (503) 248-3093
E-mail: mult.chair@co.multnomah.or.us
Web page: http://www.multnomah.lib.or.us/cc/bev/
Elected at large.

Dan Saltzman
District 1
Multnomah County Commissioner
Portland Building
Room 1500
1120 SW Fifth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
Tel. (503) 248-5220
Fax: (503) 248-5440
E-mail: Dan.S.SALTZMAN@co.multnomah.or.us

Gary Hansen
District 2
Multnomah County Commissioner
Portland Building
Room 1500
1120 SW Fifth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
Tel. (503) 248-5219
Fax: (503) 248-5262
E-mail: gdhansen@teleport.com
Web page: http://www.multnomah.lib.or.us/cc/ds2/

Tanya Collier
District 3
Multnomah County Commissioner
Portland Building
Room 1500
1120 SW Fifth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
Tel. (503) 248-5217
Fax: (503) 248-5262
E-mail: tanya.d.collier@co.multnomah.or.us
Web page: http://www.multnomah.lib.or.us/cc/ds3/

Sharron Kelley
District 4
Multnomah County Commissioner
Portland Building
Room 1500
1120 SW Fifth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
Tel. (503) 248-5213
Fax: (503) 248-5262
E-mail: sharron.e.KELLEY@co.multnomah.or.us
Web page: http://www.multnomah.lib.or.us/cc/ds4/


'Federal Foolishness And Marijuana' (New England Journal Of Medicine Editorial)

[Dr. Kassirer is editor-in-chief.]
The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 336, No. 5, pp. 366-367, January 30, 1997.

The advanced stages of many illnesses and their treatments are often accompanied by intractable nausea, vomiting, or pain. Thousands of patients with cancer, AIDS, and other diseases report they have obtained striking relief from these devastating symptoms by smoking marijuana.[1] The alleviation of distress can be so striking that some patients and their families have been willing to risk a jail term to obtain or grow the marijuana.

Despite the desperation of these patients, within weeks after voters in Arizona and California approved propositions allowing physicians in their states to prescribe marijuana for medical indications, federal officials, including the President, the secretary of Health and Human Services, and the attorney general sprang into action. At a news conference, Secretary Donna E. Shalala gave an organ recital of the parts of the body that she asserted could be harmed by marijuana and warned of the evils of its spreading use. Attorney General Janet Reno announced that physicians in any state who prescribed the drug could lose the privilege of writing prescriptions, be excluded from Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, and even be prosecuted for a federal crime. General Barry R. McCaffrey, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, reiterated his agency's position that marijuana is a dangerous drug and implied that voters in Arizona and California had been duped into voting for these propositions. He indicated that it is always possible to study the effects of any drug, including marijuana, but that the use of marijuana by seriously ill patients would require, at the least, scientifically valid research.

I believe that a federal policy that prohibits physicians from alleviating suffering by prescribing marijuana for seriously ill patients is misguided, heavy-handed, and inhumane. Marijuana may have long-term adverse effects and its use may presage serious addictions, but neither long-term side effects nor addiction is a relevant issue in such patients. It is also hypocritical to forbid physicians to prescribe marijuana while permitting them to use morphine and meperidine to relieve extreme dyspnea and pain. With both these drugs the difference between the dose that relieves symptoms and the dose that hastens death is very narrow; by contrast, there is no risk of death from smoking marijuana. To demand evidence of therapeutic efficacy is equally hypocritical. The noxious sensations that patients experience are extremely difficult to quantify in controlled experiments. What really counts for a therapy with this kind of safety margin is whether a seriously ill patient feels relief as a result of the intervention, not whether a controlled trial "proves" its efficacy.

Paradoxically, dronabinol, a drug that contains one of the active ingredients in marijuana (tetra-hydrocannabinol), has been available by prescription for more than a decade. But it is difficult to titrate the therapeutic dose of this drug, and it is not widely prescribed. By contrast, smoking marijuana produces a rapid increase in the blood level of the active ingredients and is thus more likely to be therapeutic. Needless to say, new drugs such as those that inhibit the nausea associated with chemotherapy may well be more beneficial than smoking marijuana, but their comparative efficacy has never been studied.

Whatever their reasons, federal officials are out of step with the public. Dozens of states have passed laws that ease restrictions on the prescribing of marijuana by physicians, and polls consistently show that the public favors the use of marijuana for such purposes. [1] Federal authorities should rescind their prohibition of the medicinal use of marijuana for seriously ill patients and allow physicians to decide which patients to treat. The government should change marijuana's status from that of a Schedule 1 drug (considered to be potentially addictive and with no current medical use) to that of a Schedule 2 drug (potentially addictive but with some accepted medical use) and regulate it accordingly. To ensure its proper distribution and use, the government could declare itself the only agency sanctioned to provide the marijuana. I believe that such a change in policy would have no adverse effects. The argument that it would be a signal to the young that "marijuana is OK" is, I believe, specious.

This proposal is not new. In 1986, after years of legal wrangling, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) held extensive hearings on the transfer of marijuana to Schedule 2. In 1988, the DEA's own administrative-law judge concluded, "It would be unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record." [1] Nonetheless, the DEA overruled the judge's order to transfer marijuana to Schedule 2, and in 1992 it issued a final rejection of all requests for reclassification. [2] Some physicians will have the courage to challenge the continued proscription of marijuana for the sick. Eventually, their actions will force the courts to adjudicate between the rights of those at death's door and the absolute power of bureaucrats whose decisions are based more on reflexive ideology and political correctness than on compassion.

JEROME P. KASSIRER, M.D.

References

1. Young FL. Opinion and recommended ruling, marijuana rescheduling petition. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration. Docket 86-22. Washington, D.C.: Drug Enforcement Administration, September 6, 1988.

2. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Marijuana scheduling petition: denial of petition: remand. (Docket No. 86-22.) Fed Regist 1992;57(59):10489-508. Copyright 1997, Massachusetts Medical Society.

'Marijuana Study Called Unnecessary -
Doctors Say Value Of Drug Has Been Proved Many Times'

The San Jose Mercury News, Jan. 30, 1997
by Donna Alvarado
Mercury News Staff Writer

hourglass SAN FRANCISCO - Doctors from the Bay Area to Boston on Wednesday blasted the federal government's call for more study of marijuana's medical impact as a waste of time, saying adequate proof already exists of the drug's benefit.

While San Francisco doctors held a news conference citing studies as far back as 1976, the editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine roasted federal officials for blocking desperately ill patients' access to marijuana for medical treatment.

"Thousands of patients with cancer, AIDS and other diseases report they have obtained striking relief from these devastating symptoms by smoking marijuana," wrote Dr. Jerome Kassirer editor of the Boston journal, in an editorial in today's issue. "I believe that a federal policy that prohibits physicians from alleviating suffering by prescribing marijuana for seriously ill patients is misguided, heavyhanded and inhumane."

Plenty of evidence.

Kassirer said there is abundant evidence that marijuana is far safer and less addicting than many other narcotics commonly prescribed by doctors. "It is hypocritical to forbid physicians to prescribe marijuana while permitting them to use morphine and (Demerol) to relieve extreme (nausea) and pain," Kassirer wrote.

The issue erupted after Californians voted in November to legalize marijuana for medical use. I Federal officials warned afterward that such use was still forbidden by federal law and told doctors they could lose their licenses to prescribe drugs or suffer financial penalties if they recommend marijuana to their patients.

Offering an olive branch this month, the White House drug policy director announced $1 million funding for the Institute of Medicine to review studies already done on the medical use of inhaled marijuana. But doctors meeting Wednesday at the San Francisco Medical Society said such a review was redundant and would stall any resolution of the controversy that has erupted.

Doctor speaks up

"The federal government's announced intent to undertake a million-dollar, 18-month review of existing knowledge is unnecessarily duplicative and untimely," said Dr. Dexter Louie, president of the San Francisco Medical Society, which had endorsed medical use of marijuana before the November vote. "Many respected medical experts already feel that enough is known to reclassify marijuana to allow physicians to prescribe it."

One critic of the drug policy contended at Wednesday's news conference that dozens of studies have been done over the last two decades that show evidence of marijuana's medical effectiveness. Kevin Zeese, president of a Virginia-based organization called Common Sense for Drug Policy, cited several:

  • A 1979 study published in a well-known medical journal, The Annals of Internal Medicine, that found marijuana reduced vomiting and nausea in cancer patients by 72 percent.

  • A 1988 study published in the New York State Journal of Medicine that reported a 78 percent improvement among cancer patients who inhaled marijuana after failing to be helped by alternatives such as Marinol, a pill containing a synthetic version of the active ingredient of marijuana.

  • A 1975 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on marijuana's active ingredient, called THC, that found some patients reported "natural" marijuana helped them more than the synthetic, legal version.

    Avoid abuse

    The San Francisco doctors said they welcomed more research on marijuana's medical impact and acknowledged its prescription should be regulated to prevent its abuse.

    "It is not a drug without harmful effects," said Dr. Laurens White, a cancer specialist and former president of the California Medical Society. "Teenagers get into trouble smoking it and do badly at school."

    But if appropriate controls are placed on its prescription, he said, "I don't think . . . it would destroy the moral fiber of America."

    Kassirer predicted the argument will be settled ultimately by legal challenges.

    "Some physicians will have the courage to challenge the continued proscription of marijuana for the sick," he wrote. "Eventually, their actions will force the courts to adjudicate between the rights of those at death's door and the absolute power of bureaucrats whose decisions are based more on reflexive ideology and political correctness than on compassion."


    'Harvard Psychiatrist Quits To Protest Anti-Marijuana Lecturer'

    CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP, Jan. 30, 1997) - A psychiatrist who supports the medical use of marijuana has resigned from a Harvard University-affiliated center for addiction to protest a lecture by President Clinton's drug czar.

    Dr. Lester Grinspoon said he doesn't begrudge retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey the right to speak against the use of marijuana, but he objects to McCaffrey saying that doctors who prescribe it could be prosecuted.

    McCaffrey was invited to deliver the March 7 lecture on treatment for addiction as part of a conference at the Harvard Medical School.

    McCaffrey "has no scholarly accomplishments and is doing harm by insisting that patients who need this medicine desperately should be subjected to confiscation and arrest," Grinspoon said Thursday.

    Grinspoon is editor of the Harvard Mental Health Letter and author of "Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine." He has resigned from his affiliation with the Norman E. Zinberg Center for Addiction Studies at Cambridge Hospital, but is still part of the Harvard faculty.

    McCaffrey intends to deliver the lecture as planned, a spokesman said.

    [Dr. Grinspoon is also the author of "Marihuana Reconsidered" (1971, revised 1977, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-932551-13-0, available for $16.95 plus shipping from New Morning Books in Mt. Morris, IL (800) 851-7039), which was originally inspired by his attempt to identify authoritatively the harmful aspects of cannabis. After Dr. Grinspoon reviewed the evidence, however, "Marihuana Reconsidered" ended up as a comprehensive examination of the bad science that has inspired and perpetuated prohibition. It also dispels common and uncommon misconceptions, for example, that the use of marijuana is generally harmful to people with mental disorders. - ed.]


    'Crime Bars 1 In 7 US Black Men From Voting'

    WASHINGTON (Reuter, Jan. 30, 1997) - One of every seven black male Americans is barred from voting because of a felony conviction, according to a study issued Thursday by a non-profit criminal justice group.

    The Sentencing Project, which advocates changes in incarceration policies, estimated 1.46 million black men of a total voting age population of 10.4 million have lost the right to vote due to a conviction.

    It said 510,000 black males were permanently barred from voting due to laws in effect in 13 states while the remaining 950,0000 were ineligible to vote due to laws in effect in 46 states on offenders in prison or on probation and parole.

    The study, which looked at racial disparity in sentencing, found that blacks had been incarcerated at a rate 7.66 times that of whites, up slightly from the level that prevailed in 1988.

    It said the increase in the nation's prison population stemmed from longer sentences for violent offenders and increased convictions and incarceration for drug offenders.

    Marc Mauer, the groups's assistant director, acknowledged the need for imprisonment of those who posed a serious threat to the community, but also recommended various alternatives.

    He called for greater efforts to create jobs as one way to reduce violent crime, to give judges more discretion at sentencing, especially for low-level drug offenders, and to support community policy and crime prevention programs.

    [Felons are allowed to vote in Oregon once they are no longer incarcerated. - ed.]


    'Marijuana Gets OK As Medicine In Canada'

    REGINA, Saskatchewan (UPI, Jan. 15, 1997) -- A motor-vehicle licensing body says a Saskatchewan man who smokes marijuana as medicine for multiple sclerosis poses no danger to the general public when he drives his car.

    The ruling was considered a major victory by 42-year-old Grant Krieger who is campaigning for the legalization of cannabis for medical use in Canada.

    Darcy McKenzie of Saskatchewan Government Insurance says: "We're just following the guidelines that the use of any drug for any medical purpose is OK."

    SGI is the agency that approves the province's driver's licenses.

    Krieger says he provided the board with a prescription for the drug from a physician in the Netherlands, and testified that he no longer gets impaired when using marijuana, which he both smokes and ingests.

    Canada's criminal code outlaws the possession of marijuana, but McKenzie says the board followed "the guidelines set by the Canadian Medical Association and the American Medical Association in concert with our legislation in Saskatchewan."

    He told United Press International: "There's not a lot of extensive research in this issue, and let's be fair, doctors have prescribed ... the use of cannabis in Canada for glaucoma."

    McKenzie said he believes it is the first time the SGI medical review board has dealt with the issue of the medical use of cannabis.

    Says Krieger: "It was a just and well-thought decision."

    Krieger sparked the review process when he admitted on a license application last August that he uses marijuana to relieve muscle spasms and pain associated with multiple sclerosis.


    juggler

    An Interdiction Math Story Problem

    Craig Schroer writes:

    The following excerpt from a recent news story on coca eradication provided the inspiration for a little math 'story problem.'

    Both follow [slightly edited]:

    Peru Seizes 170 Tons of Drugs in 1996

    LIMA - (XINHUA via Individual Inc.) The Peruvian National Anti-Drug

    --- cut ---

    The Peruvian authorities destroyed 332 laboratories, wells and air strips, eradicated 52,642 square meters of seedbeds and razed 17,084 square meters of coca plants, the report said.

    --- cut ---

    Peru is believed to be the largest coca-producing country in the world, with an estimated 108,600 hectares of coca plants in the Aguayta, Huallaga, Puno and Cusco watersheds.

    [End item]

    After reading the previous news story, I realized that I didn't know the dimensions of a "hectare." Here's what the dictionary said:

    "Hectare - A unit of surface or land measure equal to 100 acres, or 10,000 square meters." Therefore:

    108,600 hectares of coca plants = 108,600 x 10,000 square meters = Total: 1,086,000,000 square meters

    52,642 square meters of seed beds + 17,084 square meters of coca plants eradicated = 69,726 total square meters eradicated.

    If I remember my math correctly, to find the percent which was eradicated we would divide 69,726 by 1,086,000,000 = 6.4 E -5

    Finally, shifting the decimal point five places to the right (E -5) and then back to the left two places (to render a percentage) we arrive at .0064% of the coca crop was eradicated in Peru last year.

    I believe that one could also refer to this numeric relationship by saying that slightly over six thousandths of one percent of the coca crop was destroyed.

    If I'm in error in my calculations, please let me know. Otherwise, I'm thinking this might make good fodder for a letter to the editor.


    Compulsory Belief In 'Higher Power' Voided In New York

    WASHINGTON (UPI, Jan. 6, 1997) -- The Supreme Court has let stand a lower court ruling that says New York cannot compel prisoners to undergo 12-step programs for alcohol or substance abuse.

    The 12-step program, developed by Alcoholics Anonymous, relies heavily on submission to God, and the lower court says the state's use of the program is state support of religion.

    A prisoner in New York's Shawangunk correctional facility, David Griffin, wanted to participate in the state's family reunion program.

    But because he had admitted to long-term heroin use in the 1950s and 1960s, he was told that he would also have to participate in the prison department's alcohol and substance abuse treatment program.

    The abuse treatment program used the 12-step approach originated by AA.

    Griffin went to court, saying he is not religious and that the requirement violated his rights under the First Amendment.

    Though the state won at lower levels, an appeals court eventually ruled the requirement violated the Constitution.

    New York asked the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The justices denied the request without comment Monday.

    (96-372, Commissioner Coughlin et al vs David Griffin)


    'US News And World Report' Gets Keen On Hemp

    Don Wirtshafter of the Ohio Hempery writes:

    U.S. News and World Report will come out Monday with an article that really shows how well we have done to make industrial hemp a legitimate article of commerce. There is not a more staid conservative magazine published, but their Business and Technology Section features a totally positive article on our achievements. The article is accompanied by two illustrations, one a makeup of clothing from the Ohio Hempery and the other that explains all of the uses of hemp.

    "Hemp Is High Fashion -
    (No Cheech, not that kind.) Hemp products are booming."

    U.S. News and World Report, Jan. 20, 1997, page 55
    Business and Technology

    Weed Makes a Comeback.

    All of the above clothing was made from Industrial Hemp. Its still illegal to grow, but that could change.

    You can't get high smoking jeans made from it. The oil tastes pretty good on salads, but don't expect to get a buzz. You can make brownies with it, but after eating a few, reggae music still sounds about the same.

    No, this hemp is different. It's called industrial hemp, and though it looks a lot like its leafy cousin, Cannabis sativa, or marijuana, it lacks the same hallucinatory properties. Just as corn comes in different varieties - sweet, short ear or animal feed - so too does hemp, which grows with various amounts of THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol), the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.

    Industrial hemp is a tall, lanky, low-THC variety of marijuana, prized more for its fibrous stalk and its oil-rich seeds than its smokability.

    Hemp chic.

    Cultivating industrial hemp in the United States has been illegal for more than a quarter century because of fears that pot growers would raise their crops alongside hemp, making the illegal weed harder to spot. Imports of finished hemp products, however, are still allowed - and demand is soaring. Fashion designers like Calvin Klein and Giorgio Armani are adding hemp clothing and bed linens to their lines. Adidas sold 30,000 pairs of athletic shoes made partly from hemp last year. Hemp retail stores are sprouting up all across the country, hawking everything from hemp shampoos and soaps to jeans and salad oil. Some estimates put worldwide trade in hemp products as $100 million last year, a figure that experts say could double or even triple in the next few years.

    All in all, it is quite a comeback for this fibrous plant with a history. Hemp had been an agricultural staple in America for hundreds of years, providing rope for sailing ships, canvas for covered wagons and lamp oil for colonial farms, But it became a victim of technological advances in the 19th century: The cotton gin made cotton fabric cheaper; the slave labor needed to process hemp disappeared, and fossil fuels replaced hemp oil for light and heat. The coup de grace came this century, when hemp all but disappeared from world markets as most industrialized countries sought to stamp out drug abuse.

    It's easy to understand the renewed interest in hemp today. The plant is one of nature's finest renewable fiber sources, producing four times as much pulp per acre as trees. As demand for fiberboard, packing material and paper products increases, hemp may be an alternative to buying up expensive forest land and clear-cutting trees for wood pulp. Curtis Koster, International Paper Co.'s technology business manager, notes that as a source of fiber, hemp is the stronger and easiest to grow, with the broadest geographical range.

    It also is environmentally correct. As hemp activists point out, it can be grown without the pesticides and irrigation needed to raise a cotton crop. For that reason , hemp clothing has become a status symbol for the ecofriendly, even though some of the material feels like burlap and call to mind peasant wear on a Communist Chinese collective. Hemp clothing is no bargain either: A shirt might set you back $60, a pair of jeans $80.

    The high cost stems from a shortage of hemp fabric on the world market. About a dozen countries, including China, Russia and several Eastern European nations, grow hemp legally. But hemp clothing makers often have to go to great lengths to line up suppliers. Chris Boucher, president of Hempstead Co., a California import and manufacturing firm that sold $1.5 million worth of hemp products last year, says he must deposit money in the Bank of China, which holds the cash for 60 days before he receives a delivery. "The textile business people laugh at us because so one in his right mind would pay up front and in cash for jeans material," he says.

    Few doubt that legalizing hemp cultivation in the United States makes good commercial sense. But the politics are tricky. This year, as many as 10 states may introduce bills to legalize growing hemp with less than 3 percent THC content. But few expect any to pass. Besides, with marijuana use increasing among teenagers, states that passed a legal-hemp initiative would likely face the wrath of federal authorities. (The Clinton administration says it will prosecute Arizona and California doctors who prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes, even though voters in those states approved initiatives making it legal for them to do so.)

    But hemp activists may have a trump card. Leaders of the Navajo Nation are considering cultivating as many as 40,000 acres of hemp this spring as part of an economic-development project that will employ 70 people in a particleboard mill near the aptly named Arizona city of Sawmill.

    Open Door?

    Although growing plants containing THC is illegal under current Navajo law, the tribal council might amend the law to make cultivating plants with less than 3 percent THC legal. The Navajos also are considering using hemp fiber to make rugs and pressing hemp seeds for oil. Proponents believe that the tribe's sovereign status could make it immune from current U.S. drug laws. "We are only interested in the commercial and industrial applications," says Jim Robinson, director of the Navajo Hemp Project.

    If the hemp project is allowed to go ahead, federal Drug Enforcement Administration officials worry, hemp-activist farmers in Kentucky, Iowa and Colorado will quickly increase their demands to grow hemp, too. That could open the door for marijuana cultivation throughout the country, the DEA fears. Officially, however, the agency is adopting a wait-and-see attitude. But clearly it would prefer that the Navajos just say no.

    By Dan McGraw


    Harrelson, Hemp Win Round In Court - Law's Definition Called Too Broad

    Lexington Herald-Leader (Lexington, KY), Jan. 24, 1997, p. 1
    By Andy Mead
    Herald-Leader Staff Writer

    In the Commonwealth vs. Woody Harrrelson, the actor scored an important victory yesterday.

    An Eastern Kentucky judge presiding over a case involving Harrelson ruled that a portion of a state law that lumps industrial hemp with marijuana is unconstitutional.

    The ruling could be the first step toward making hemp a legitimate crop for farmers, an idea endorsed by the Kentucky Farm Bureau and others, but opposed by law enforcement.

    But the prosecutor in the case could still be tried and convicted.

    Harrelson, who stars in The People vs. Larry Flynt, was in Lexington in May for an international conference on industrial hemp and made a side trip to Lee County to plant what he said were four hemp seeds.

    The planting was a calculated challenge to the state law that makes no distinction between marijuana and hemp.

    Industrial hemp is a cousin of marijuana that has little of the chemical that produces a high in users. Industrial hemp has .3 percent or less of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive ingredient that produces a high. Potent marijuana can have 10 percent or more THC.

    In the ruling filed yesterday, Lee District Judge Ralph McClanahan II said there should be a distinction between parts of the plant that have THC and parts that don't. The definition of marijuana under which Harrelson was charged "is constitutionally defective due to its overbroad application by including non-hallucinogenic plant parts," the judge said.

    "There's a judge with vision," Harrelson said yesterday in a telephone interview from Los Angeles. "I couldn't be happier. This is a great day."

    But Lee County Attorney Tom Jones said he intends to appeal McClanahan's ruling to Lee Circuit Court and continue with Harrelson's prosecution. If convicted, the actor faces up to a year in jail and a $500 fine.

    Jones said his reading of the judge's ruling is that seeds with any THC are illegal, and that Harrelson has admitted under oath that the seeds he planted had a small amount. Experts say that no hemp seeds are devoid of THC.

    An appeal had been expected no matter which side prevailed in the constitutional question.

    Charles Beale, one of Harrelson's Lexington attorneys, said the case probably will go at least to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. At that level, a ruling has statewide impact.

    Hemp's supporters tout the plant as a source of everything from paper to fabric to lip balm and say it could help Kentucky's beleaguered tobacco farmers. Environmentalists like it because it doesn't need herbicides or pesticides and can save trees.

    But police say it would just cause marijuana enforcement problems.

    At a hearing in the Harrelson case, Kentucky State Police Sgt. James A. Tipton, a member of the Governor's Marijuana Strike Force, testified that if hemp were legal, farmers in a financial bind might try to sneak a few marijuana plants among the hemp stalks.

    Hemp advocates say that would be unlikely because the plants are cultivated quite differently and because the hemp would lower the THC content of the marijuana, making it less valuable.

    Sidebar

    A royal condemnation of marijuana

    How much does Lee District Judge Ralph McClanahan II dislike marijuana?

    Almost exactly as much as King James I disliked tobacco.

    In declaring unconstitutional part of a state law that equates industrial hemp with marijuana yesterday, the judge wanted to make it clear that he was in no way endorsing marijuana.

    To help do so, he lifted some of the words penned by the English king in his 1604 "Counterblaste to Tobacco."

    Here's how the king described smoking tobacco 393 years ago:

    "A custom loathsome to the eye, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless."

    Here's how the judge described marijuana yesterday:

    "The use of the hallucinogenic properties of marijuana is an act loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the stinking fumes thereof leads to the pit that has no bottom by the association of the consumer to the source of such controlled substance."

    The judge said through a spokesman yesterday that it would be improper for him to discuss any aspect of his decision because the case still is pending.

    The king is most often associated with another widely quoted work, the King James Version of the Bible.


    'Pro-Hemp Forces Win Early Round As Judge Throws Out State Law'

    The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY), Jan. 24, 1997, "Kentucky" section
    By Allen G. Breed
    Associated Press

    A district court ruling that called a state law outlawing marijuana unconstitutionally vague and overly broad was a small victory for actor and hemp-activist Woody Harrelson.

    Lee District Judge Ralph McClanahan II ruled yesterday that state law don't differentiate between hemp and marijuana, hemp's psychoactive cousin. The ruling is law only in that Eastern Kentucky county, but Harrelson said it's a start.

    "I definitely see it as a victory," he said in a telephone interview from Los Angeles. "We'll start with the county, and it'll spread to the state. There's no question it's a happy day for all of us in the hemp movement."

    Harrelson was arrested June 1 after planting four industrial hemp seeds on a small plot of land he bought for the purpose. The actor, partner in a California company that makes clothes and other products from imported hemp, was charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana and faced 12 months in jail.

    McClanahan didn't let Harrelson completely off the hook. He said a trial must be held on whether the seeds were capable of producing plants that contain THC.

    Harrelson argued that hemp would be a viable alternative for Kentucky farmers facing hard times with proposed restrictions on tobacco and would be better than cutting down trees for paper. Prosecutors said legalizing industrial hemp would worsen problems involving psychoactive varieties of the plant.

    McClanahan sympathized with law enforcement but said the state went about things the wrong way.

    "The use of the hallucinogenic properties of marijuana is an act loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs and in the stinking fumes thereof leads to the pit that has no bottom," McClanahan wrote. He said regulating the drug is a legitimate concern.

    "Unfortunately, the Commonwealth has impermissibly regulated an otherwise legal substance to reach this end," he wrote.

    Federal bans are aimed at plant parts that contain psychoactive THC, the judge said, not parts useful in making fiber and other products. He noted the state changed its legal definition of marijuana in 1992 from the federal one without explaining why.

    Hemp was widely used during World War II in the manufacture of rope, cloth, paper, oils, cosmetics and other products, and Kentucky once led the nation in hemp production. The plant is legally grown in Europe, Canada and China.

    Lee County Attorney Tom Jones, who prosecuted the case, said he intends to appeal, even though it means setting the stage for a statewide precedent.

    "If I don't take it up, then they'll do it in another county," he said. "And we have about as strong a case as we could put on ... so we might as well meet the enemy head on and conquer them here."

    Harrelson said he will take the case as far as necessary.

    Defense lawyer Burl McCoy of Lexington said the ruling already has precedent value.

    "What would happen is the next person who is charged in Lee County or Pike County will pull this judgment out", he said. "And then it would be up to the judge to decide what he wanted to do."

    But farmers shouldn't go out and start planting hemp seeds, said Andy Graves, president of the Kentucky Hemp Growers Cooperative.

    "I think that the federal government is the ultimate power here through the DEA," he said. "And when we have the OKs from those folks, then I believe that I will encourage farmers to step up to the field and start growing."

    [End quote]

    [For information on hemp in Kentucky contact:]

    Kentucky Hemp Growers Cooperative Association
    P.O. Box 8395
    Lexington, KY 40533
    Tel. (606) 252-8954


    Bank Of Montreal Sponsors Vancouver Hemp Show February 17-18

    The Vancouver Sun, Jan. 28, 1997, p. B1

    A staid bank and a plant beloved by potheads entwined in a non-hallucinogenic trade show

    By Ian Mulgrew

    The times are certainly a changin' when the Bank of Montreal is sponsoring a "pot" conference.

    Oh, the pin-striped money merchants call it "industrial hemp," but as the poets say, a rose is a rose is a rose, and cannabis is, well, cannabis.

    At the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre on Feb. 17 and 18, hundreds of farmers, manufacturers, academics and researchers will gather from around the globe to discuss reviving Canada's long-dead hemp industry.

    They'll fly in on Canadian International Airlines, another conference supporter, not a cloud of pungent, hallucinogenic smoke.

    There will be a trade show featuring hemp products, discussion panels about the need to address shrinking world wood-fibre resources and papers on where government regulators stand.

    "We expect about 400 to 500 farmers, forest industry types, government people and producers at the symposium," said Sotos Petrides, president of Wiseman Noble Sales & Marketing, the local event and publishing firm that is co-sponsoring the show.

    "We expect about 1,200 at the trade show but they will be more buyers, entrepreneurs and investors."

    Petrides noted that hemp grown for industrial use is related to the recreational marijuana favored by drug connoisseurs.

    Industrial hemp, however, contains much less of the psychotropic chemical THC.

    "We are not going to be addressing any of the recreational or medicinal issues surrounding its sister plant," he said.

    "We are focusing solely on industrial hemp and the desire to legalize its production again, particularly to address the looming shortage of wood fibre."

    Growing hemp has been illegal in Canada since 1938.

    Since 1994, farmers and researchers have planted hemp across Canada under experimental licenses from Health Canada to determine its agronomic characteristics, yields, processing requirements and potential products.

    They have been trying to determine which strains of the much-denigrated weed can be grown where and what it can be turned into.

    And the effort is part of a growing international movement.

    In England, for instance, one farmer last year grew more than 1,600 hectares for use in textiles and livestock bedding. In the Netherlands, researchers are creating the world's largest hemp seedbank. In Poland, they are using hemp in construction materials and hemp-wool blends.

    "This plant can be grown, processed in our own factories, products can be manufactured in our own country and sold to the world in an environmentally friendly way," Petrides said.

    "Instead of relying on resources that are exported, this is a renewable, sustainable crop that can create jobs at every level."

    As for the bank, well, it may be using Bob Dylan's songs in its advertising, but you won't even get a smile with a counter-cultural nudge-nudge, wink-wink about the hemp conference.

    "We recognize the value of this potential emerging market which will support Canadian agriculture and farmers," said Peter Brown, the bank's agricultural manager.

    "The interest in reintroducing this crop has been gaining momentum for the past few years."

    HEMP HAS MANY USES

  • In previous centuries, hemp was widely cultivated for use in the manufacturing of paper, sails, rope and textiles.

  • But demand declined with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the end of the age of sail and the plentiful supply of cheap lumber from North America.

  • In this century, growing concern in western nations about drug abuse led to hemp farming being outlawed in North America in the 1930s.

  • Today, the world's leading producers of industrial cannabis are India, Romania, China, Hungary, Poland and Turkey.


    Colorado Alternative Fiber Crop Development Act of 1997 (HB 1274)

    Text of the bill introduced Jan. 30, 1997 and sponsored by:
    Representative Kay Alexander
    State Capitol Building
    200 E. Colfax Ave.
    Denver, CO 80203
    Phone: (303) 866-2955
    Fax: (303) 866-2291

    Capital letters indicate new material to be added to existing statute. Dashes through the words indicate deletions from existing statute.

    First Regular Session

    Sixty-first General Assembly

    LLS NO. 97­0430.01 PLC HOUSE BILL 97­1274

    STATE OF COLORADO

    BY REPRESENTATIVE K. Alexander;

    also SENATOR Matsunaka.

    AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK & NATURAL RESOURCES

    A BILL FOR AN ACT

    CONCERNING THE INTRODUCTION OF ALTERNATIVE FIBER CROPS IN COLORADO.

    Bill Summary

    (Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced and does not necessarily reflect any amendments which may be subsequently adopted.)

    Authorizes Colorado state university, in cooperation with the commissioner of agriculture, to grow test plots of industrial hemp, sunnhemp, and kenaf in order to research their use as alternative fiber crops.

    Creates the Colorado alternative fiber crop committee to investigate the potential of industrial hemp, sunnhemp, and kenaf for use as an alternative fiber crop. Requires the committee to make recommendations to the commissioner based upon its investigation.

    Allows the committee to solicit gifts, grants, and donations to fund the research.

    Requires the commissioner and Colorado state university to report and make recommendations to the general assembly concerning both the agronomic study performed by Colorado state university and the investigation performed by the Colorado alternative fiber crop committee.

    Specifies that these studies do not affect the strict control of marijuana in this state.

    Repeals the article on July 1, 2000.

    Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:

    SECTION 1. Title 35, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1995 Repl. Vol., as amended, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW ARTICLE to read:

    ARTICLE 27.7

    Alternative Fiber Crop Development Act

    35­27.7­101. Short title. THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE "ALTERNATIVE FIBER CROP DEVELOPMENT ACT".

    35­27.7­102. Legislative declaration. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY FIND, DETERMINES, AND DECLARES THAT COLORADO FARMERS AND RANCHERS NEED ALTERNATIVE FIBER CROPS IN ORDER TO SURVIVE. CROPS SUCH AS INDUSTRIAL HEMP, KENAF, AND SUNNHEMP ARE PROMISING FIBER, SEED, AND OIL CROPS. THESE CROPS CAN HELP REVITALIZE COLORADO'S FARM ECONOMY BY SPAWNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW VALUE­ADDED INDUSTRIES IN RURAL AREAS. THERE IS A WORLD­WIDE SHORTAGE OF FIBER AND A HIGH DEMAND FOR NON­WOOD FIBER PRODUCTS. IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE STATE ECONOMY TO PURSUE RESEARCH INTO THE VIABILITY AND MARKETS FOR THESE CROPS TO BENEFIT COLORADO FARMERS AND RANCHERS. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FURTHER FINDS THAT RESEARCH CONCERNING THE AGRONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE FIBER CROPS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REGULATION OF FUTURE COMMERCIAL FIBER CROP PRODUCTION, AND INVESTIGATION OF MARKETS FOR FIBER CROPS IS NECESSARY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITIZENS OF COLORADO.

    35­27.7­103. Definitions. AS USED IN THIS ARTICLE, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:

    (1) "COMMISSIONER" MEANS THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE.

    (2) "COMMITTEE" MEANS THE COLORADO ALTERNATIVE FIBER CROP COMMITTEE CREATED PURSUANT TO SECTION 35­27.7­105.

    (3) "INDUSTRIAL HEMP" MEANS ALL PARTS AND VARIETIES OF THE PLANT CANNABIS SATIVA, WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, CULTIVATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES THAT MEET THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER BY RULE PURSUANT TO SECTION 35­27.7­104 (4). "INDUSTRIAL HEMP" IS NOT PSYCHOACTIVE AND IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM MARIHUANA OR MARIJUANA.

    (4) "INDUSTRIAL HEMP PRODUCTS" MEANS ALL PRODUCTS MADE FROM INDUSTRIAL HEMP, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLOTH, CORDAGE, FIBER, FOOD, FUEL, PAINT, PAPER, PARTICLE BOARD, PLASTICS, STERILIZED SEED, SEED MEAL, SEED OIL, AND VIABLE SEED FOR INDUSTRIAL HEMP CULTIVATION IF SUCH SEEDS ARE OBTAINED THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER BY RULE PURSUANT TO SECTION 35­27.7­104 (4).

    (5) "KENAF" MEANS THE PLANT HYBISCUS CANNABINUS.

    (6) "MARIHUANA" OR "MARIJUANA" MEANS ALL PARTS OF THE PLANT CANNABIS SATIVA, WHETHER GROWING OR NOT, THE RESIN EXTRACTED FROM ANY PART OF THE PLANT, EVERY COMPOUND MANUFACTURE, SALT, DERIVATIVE, MIXTURE, OR PREPARATION OF THE PLANT, ITS SEEDS OR RESINS, IF NOT OBTAINED FROM THE COMMISSIONER AS PERMITTED BY RULE PURSUANT TO SECTION 35­27.7­104 (4). "MARIHUANA" OR "MARIJUANA" DOES NOT INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL HEMP OR INDUSTRIAL HEMP PRODUCTS.

    (7) "MARIHUANA CONCENTRATE" MEANS HASHISH, TETRAHYDROCANNABINOLS, OR ANY ALKALOID, SALT, DERIVATIVE, PREPARATION, COMPOUND, OR MIXTURE, WHETHER NATURAL OR SYNTHESIZED OF TETRAHYDROCANNABINOLS. "MARIHUANA CONCENTRATE" DOES NOT INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL HEMP OR INDUSTRIAL HEMP PRODUCTS.

    (8) "TETRAHYDROCANNABINOLS" OR "THC" MEANS THE SAME AS THE DEFINITION SET FORTH IN SECTION 12­22­303 (32), C.R.S.

    (9) "SUNNHEMP" MEANS THE PLANT CROTALARIA JUNCEA.

    35­27.7­104. Colorado state university ­ agronomic research ­ reports ­ commissioner of agriculture authority. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY IS AUTHORIZED TO UNDERTAKE AND SUPERVISE AGRONOMIC RESEARCH INTO INDUSTRIAL HEMP, SUNNHEMP, AND KENAF FOR THEIR USE AS ALTERNATIVE FIBER CROPS. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY MAY COLLABORATE WITH OTHER RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES IN CONDUCTING THIS RESEARCH. THE COMMISSIONER SHALL OVERSEE THE RESEARCH BY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY. SUCH RESEARCH SHALL BE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON BY THE COMMISSIONER AND COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY AND SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

    (a) TWO TEST PLOTS OF NO MORE THAN FIVE ACRES EACH OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP, SUNNHEMP, AND KENAF CULTIVATED WITH DIFFERENT IRRIGATION, ELEVATION, AND SOIL CONDITIONS. THESE TEST PLOTS ARE TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THE 1998 GROWING SEASON.

    (b) FOUR TEST PLOTS OF NO MORE THAN TEN ACRES EACH CULTIVATED WITH DIFFERENT IRRIGATION, ELEVATION, AND SOIL CONDITIONS. THESE TEST PLOTS ARE TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE 1999 GROWING SEASON.

    (2) THE COMMISSIONER AND COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY SHALL ISSUE JOINT REPORTS TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONCERNING THE FINDINGS OF THE AGRONOMIC RESEARCH. THE FIRST REPORT SHALL BE MADE BY JANUARY 15, 1999. THE FINAL REPORT SHALL BE MADE BY DECEMBER 15, 1999. THE REPORTS SHALL CONTAIN:

    (a) RESULTS OF THE AGRONOMIC RESEARCH, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DIFFERENTIAL FIBER YIELDS AND AGRONOMIC VIABILITY OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP, SUNNHEMP, AND KENAF, WATER USE PER YIELD PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS, TIMING OF WATER STRESS EFFECTS ON PRODUCTIVITY, OPTIMUM PLANTING DATES AND POPULATIONS, FERTILITY REQUIREMENTS, INSECT AND PATHOGEN PROBLEMS, WEED CONTROL, AFTER­HARVEST RESIDUE CHARACTERISTICS AND SOIL EROSION POTENTIAL, GROWTH RATES AS INFLUENCED BY ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, AND OPTIMUM HARVEST TIMING AND METHODS;

    (b) RESULTS OF THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF THE INDUSTRIAL HEMP PLANTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THC AND CANNABIDIOL CONCENTRATIONS OBTAINED FROM THE TEST PLOTS AND THE METHODS USED TO SAMPLE THE INDUSTRIAL HEMP CROP; AND

    (3) THE FINAL REPORT SHALL INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEGISLATION TO DEFINE INDUSTRIAL HEMP AS DISTINCT FROM MARIHUANA OR MARIHUANA CONCENTRATE, REGULATIONS, IF ANY, THAT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL HEMP AND ALTERNATIVE FIBER CROP INDUSTRY, AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE COLORADO ALTERNATIVE FIBER CROP COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO SECTION 35­27.7­105 (4) (b).

    (4) THE COMMISSIONER IS AUTHORIZED TO PROMULGATE THE RULES NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THIS SECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 4 OF TITLE 24, C.R.S. SUCH RULES SHALL INCLUDE AT A MINIMUM:

    (a) CRITERIA FOR INDUSTRIAL HEMP PARTS AND VARIETIES TO BE USED IN TEST PLOTS;

    (b) CRITERIA FOR VIABLE INDUSTRIAL HEMP SEEDS TO BE USED IN TEST PLOTS.

    35­27.7­105. Colorado alternative fiber crop committee ­ mission ­ appointments ­ report. (1) THE COLORADO ALTERNATIVE FIBER CROP COMMITTEE IS HEREBY CREATED AND SHALL BE COMPOSED OF NINE MEMBERS WHO SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS. THE MEMBERS SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTATION:

    (a) ONE MEMBER SHALL BE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE;

    (b) ONE MEMBER SHALL BE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY'S DEPARTMENT OF SOIL AND CROP SCIENCE;

    (c) THREE MEMBERS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF FIVE YEARS EXPERIENCE IN COLORADO AS A COMMERCIAL FARMER OR RANCHER AND BE FAMILIAR WITH INDUSTRIAL HEMP, SUNNHEMP, OR KENAF;

    (d) ONE MEMBER SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF FIVE YEARS PUBLIC ADVOCACY OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP AND COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL HEMP PRODUCTS;

    (e) ONE MEMBER SHALL BE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COLORADO STATE PATROL;

    (f) ONE MEMBER SHALL BE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS OF COLORADO; AND

    (g) ONE MEMBER SHALL BE A PERSON THAT THE COMMISSIONER BELIEVES WILL BEST REPRESENT THE STATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE CROP FIBERS SUCH AS INDUSTRIAL HEMP, SUNNHEMP, AND KENAF.

    (2) THE COLORADO ALTERNATIVE FIBER CROP COMMITTEE SHALL RESEARCH INDUSTRIAL HEMP REGULATION POLICIES IN OTHER AREAS, INCLUDING COUNTRIES OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES, AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR SIMILAR POLICIES IN COLORADO. THE COMMITTEE MAY RECOMMEND LEGISLATION TO ALLOW PERMANENT COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP, SUNNHEMP, AND KENAF. THE RECOMMENDATIONS SHALL ENSURE THAT FARMERS AND RANCHERS WILL BE ABLE TO PRODUCE THESE ALTERNATIVE FIBER CROPS, SPECIFICALLY INDUSTRIAL HEMP, SAFELY AND PROFITABLY. THE COMMITTEE SHALL INVESTIGATE EXISTING AND POTENTIAL MARKETS FOR INDUSTRIAL HEMP, BOTH IN COLORADO AND ELSEWHERE. THE COMMISSIONER SHALL INCLUDE THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE IN THE FINAL REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY PURSUANT TO SECTION 35­27.7­104 (3).

    (3) THE COMMITTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO FUND THIS RESEARCH FROM GIFTS, GRANTS, AND DONATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS, PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS, FOUNDATIONS, OR ANY GOVERNMENTAL UNIT; EXCEPT THAT NO GIFT, GRANT, OR DONATION MAY BE ACCEPTED BY THE COMMITTEE IF IT IS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THIS ARTICLE OR ANY OTHER LAWS OF THIS STATE. THE COMMITTEE SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO DIRECT THE DISPOSITION OF ANY SUCH GIFT, GRANT, OR DONATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE.

    (4) (a) THE COMMITTEE SHALL ISSUE A PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE COMMISSIONER CONCERNING THE STATUS OF ITS RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THE METHODS OF INVESTIGATION USED, BY NOVEMBER 15, 1997. THE COMMISSIONER SHALL REVIEW THE REPORT AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMITTEE CONCERNING THE SCOPE AND CONTENTS OF ITS FINAL REPORT.

    (b) THE COMMITTEE SHALL ISSUE ITS FINAL REPORT TO THE COMMISSIONER BY DECEMBER 15, 1999. THE REPORT SHALL INCLUDE, BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, POLICIES FOR LICENSING OR REGISTERING FARMERS TO GROW INDUSTRIAL HEMP, METHODS FOR INSPECTION OF FIELDS, RECORD KEEPING, PENALTIES, POTENTIAL PROBLEM ISSUES, AND WHETHER THE COMMITTEE SHOULD CONTINUE ITS INVESTIGATION.

    35­27.7­106. Controlled substance laws relating to marihuana. EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE BY THIS ARTICLE, ALL LAWS CONCERNING THE STRICT CONTROL OF MARIHUANA AND MARIHUANA CONCENTRATE AS A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT.

    35­27.7­107. Repeal of article. THIS ARTICLE IS REPEALED, JULY 1, 2000.

    SECTION 2. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

    [End]

    Top

    Comments, questions and suggestions. E-mail

    Reporters and researchers are welcome at the world's largest online library of drug-policy information, sponsored by the Drug Reform Coordination Network at http://www.druglibrary.org/.

    Back to the 1997 News page.

    This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/013097.html

    Home