Bill Proposal (www.Farm-Freedom-Act.com)

This bill is supported by a broad national coalition based in Colorado, with sixteen leading Colorado Hemp companies and three of the largest national ones. Our concern is with the meager protections for the Hemp Industry provided by the bills HR525, HR5226 (2014) and S134 (2015).

Those bills certainly are what we wanted 20 years ago. However, in the last 6 years, there’s been a revolution in Hemp that has caught even the Hemp lobby flat-footed: non-psychoactive Cannabidiol (CBD).

If not for CBD, these bills would be fine. But in an era of non-toxic CBD being proven effective for a wide range of conditions in human and pet populations, FDA will undoubtedly view this emerging industry as ripe for its regulation. The current situation is similar to that of dietary supplements in the ’90s, which resulted in Sen. Hatch introducing DSHEA 1994 to protect them.

Hemp needs its version of DSHEA. We must act now to protect the 103 non-psychoactive Cannabinoids derived from low-THC Hemp. Merely allowing the states to permit leaves the door open for the drug war on Hemp to continue, but with FDA using the FDC 1938 instead of DEA using the CSA 1970.

Therefore, we believe it is imperative that any new Hemp bill include provisions for blocking enforcement of FDC 1938 on the 103 non-psychoactive Cannabinoids. Such a provision is imperative for the continued development of Hemp in the state of Colorado.

The use of the CBD:THC ratio as a definition of Hemp is from the 2009 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime report “Recommended Methods for the Identification and Analysis of Cannabis and Cannabis Products,” and in fact our provision is twice as restrictive than the UN. The more CBD in the plant, the less THC will be effective as an intoxicant.

Lastly, having a 1% maximum THC level recognizes the importance of heritage cultivars of now-feral Hemp throughout the country since 1610, on the order of 300,000 acres. This genetic legacy from our founding fathers is ideally suited for breeding stock for Hemp farmers local to where it is found, and can be the basis for hearty new, localized cultivars. But not if the limit is 0.3%, as some of it can be more than 0.3% THC, but most is under 1%.

Hemp containing 1% THC is not a diversion risk, especially since that Hemp contains far more CBD than THC, thereby reducing the THC “high.” Also, eleven states (24% of the population) are expected to be marijuana-legal by 2017 (Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, California, Missouri, Nevada, Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont). In those states, 1% THC hemp will be as little an issue as 0.3%, and the risk of diversion is nil.

Please note that as of 12/31/14, the states of Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington all had 1% max THC as their standard for Hemp, and Alabama and Iowa had 3%. As you can see, these standards for Hemp are not new and theoretical ideas, they are practical and already in use as Best Practices elsewhere.

American farmers need to be on a level playing field with Europe, and want to take the lead on production of non-psychoactive Cannabidiol. Many companies are poised to do so, having invested several dozen millions of dollars in the state. CBD has the potential to transform farming, and the resulting health of the population.

Now is not the time for, what is to the Hemp industry, a bad Hemp bill. There is no such thing as a fix-it bill on this. We must get it right straight out of the gate, in the next bill offered.

This is the only Hemp bill ever that was written by Hemp farmers and processors, for Hemp farmers and processors.

Richard Rose,
Medicinal Hemp Association

H.R. 525 (current)

Farm Freedom of 2015 (Proposed)

A BILL (current)

Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Industrial Hemp

5 Farming Act of 2013’’.

HR 525 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP FROM DEFINITION OF MARIHUANA.

Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21

U.S.C. 802) is amended

(1) in paragraph (16)

(A) by striking ‘‘(16) The’’ and inserting

‘‘(16)(A) The’’; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(B) The term ‘marihuana’ does not include industrial hemp.’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(57) 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.’’.

SEC. 3. INDUSTRIAL HEMP DETERMINATION.

Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (21

U.S.C. 811) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(i) INDUSTRIAL HEMP DETERMINATION.—If a per son grows or processes Cannabis sativa L. for purposes of making industrial hemp in accordance with State law, the Cannabis sativa L. shall be deemed to meet the concentration limitation under section 102(57).’’.

A BILL (Proposed)

Farm Freedom Act of 2015

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude Hemp from the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Farm Freedom Act of 2015”.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF HEMP FROM DEFINITION OF MARIHUANA.

(a) In General. Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) is amended in paragraph (16):

(1) by striking “(16) The” and inserting “(16)(A) The”;

(2) by striking “sterilized” and “which is incapable of germination.”

(3) by adding at the end, the following:

“(B) Hemp”

“(i) is excluded from the definition of marihuana under subparagraph (A); and”

“(ii) shall not be treated as a controlled substance under this Act.”

(b) Definition. Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802), as amended, is further amended by adding at the end the following:

“(57) The term ‘Hemp’ means the plant Cannabis and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a total-cannabidiol-to-total-tetrahydrocannabinol ratio of 2-to-1 or more, or 1% tetrahydrocannabinol.”

SEC. 3. OTHER LIMITATIONS.

(a) Non-Applicability of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) shall not apply to Hemp or cannabinoids derived from Hemp as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) as amended by this Act.

(b) State Law. Nothing in this Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict any activities related to the use, production, or distribution of marijuana in a State in which such activities are legal under State law.

 

Facebook Comments