Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp [1 ed.] 9781628088250, 9781612099828

Citation preview

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

PUBLIC HEALTH IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

CANNABIS SATIVA FOR HEALTH AND HEMP

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

PUBLIC HEALTH IN THE 21ST CENTURY Additional books in this series can be found on Nova‟s website under the Series tab.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Additional E-books in this series can be found on Nova‟s website under the E-books tab.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

PUBLIC HEALTH IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

CANNABIS SATIVA FOR HEALTH AND HEMP

ETHAN L. CLARK EDITOR

Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com

NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers‟ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS.

Additional color graphics may be available in the e-book version of this book.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cannabis sativa for health and hemp / editor, Ethan L. Clark. p. ; cm. Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN:  (eBook)

1. Cannabinoids--Therapeutic use--United States. 2. Cannabis--United States. 3. Marijuana--Law and legislation--United States. I. Clark, Ethan L. [DNLM: 1. Cannabis--United States. 2. Cannabinoids--therapeutic use--United States. 3. Marijuana Smoking--legislation & jurisprudence--United States. 4. Phytotherapy--United States. WB 925] RM666.C266C374 2011 615'.7827--dc22 2011006690

Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. † New York Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

CONTENTS Preface

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Chapter 1

vii Medical Marijuana: Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies Mark Eddy

Chapter 2

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity Renée Johnson

Chapter 3

Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and Market Potential U.S. Department of Agriculture

Index

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

1 65

97 161

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PREFACE The issue before Congress is whether to continue the federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients and their providers, in accordance with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), or whether to relax federal marijuana prohibition enough to permit the medicinal use of botanical cannabis products when recommended by a physician, especially where permitted under state law. Fourteen states, mostly in the West, have enacted laws allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes, and many thousands of patients are seeking relief from a variety of serious illnesses by smoking marijuana or using other herbal cannabis preparations. This new book examines the use of cannabis sativa for medicinal purposes and hemp as an agricultural commodity. Chapter 1- The issue before Congress is whether to continue the federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients and their providers, in accordance with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), or whether to relax federal marijuana prohibition enough to permit the medicinal use of botanical cannabis products when recommended by a physician, especially where permitted under state law. Fourteen states, mostly in the West, have enacted laws allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes, and many thousands of patients are seeking relief from a variety of serious illnesses by smoking marijuana or using other herbal cannabis preparations. Chapter 2- Industrial hemp is a variety of Cannabis sativa and is of the same plant species as marijuana. However, hemp is genetically different and distinguished by its use and chemical makeup. Hemp has long been cultivated for non-drug use in the production of industrial and other goods. Some

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

viii

Ethan L. Clark

estimate that the global market for hemp consists of more than 25,000 products. It can be grown as a fiber, seed, or other dual-purpose crop. Hemp fibers are used in a wide range of products, including fabrics and textiles, yarns and raw or processed spun fibers, paper, carpeting, home furnishings, construction and insulation materials, auto parts, and composites. The interior stalk (hurd) is used in various applications such as animal bedding, raw material inputs, low-quality papers, and composites. Hemp seed and oilcake are used in a range of foods and beverages, and can be an alternative food protein source. Oil from the crushed hemp seed is an ingredient in a range of body-care products and also nutritional supplements. Hemp seed is also used for industrial oils, cosmetics and personal care, and pharmaceuticals, among other composites. Chapter 3- Industrial hemp and marijuana are different varieties of the same species, Cannabis sativa L. Marijuana typically contains 3 to 15 percent of the psychoactive ingredient delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on a dryweight basis, while industrial hemp contains less than 1 percent. However, the two varieties are indistinguishable by appearance. In the United States, Cannabis sativa is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, regardless of its narcotic content, under the Controlled Substances Act as amended. Since 1990, varieties containing less than 0.3 percent THC have been legalized in Great Britain, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Canada and Australia legalized hemp production in 1998. In other countries, such as China, Russia, and Hungary, hemp production was never outlawed.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

In: Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp ISBN: 978-1-61209-982-8 Editor: Ethan L. Clark © 2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 1

MEDICAL MARIJUANA: REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES*

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Mark Eddy SUMMARY The issue before Congress is whether to continue the federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients and their providers, in accordance with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), or whether to relax federal marijuana prohibition enough to permit the medicinal use of botanical cannabis products when recommended by a physician, especially where permitted under state law. Fourteen states, mostly in the West, have enacted laws allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes, and many thousands of patients are seeking relief from a variety of serious illnesses by smoking marijuana or using other herbal cannabis preparations. Two bills relating to the therapeutic use of cannabis have been introduced in the 111th Congress. The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act (H.R. 2835), which would allow the medical use of marijuana in states that permit its use with a doctor‟s recommendation, was introduced on June 11, 2009, by Representative Barney Frank. The bill would move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II of the CSA and exempt from federal prosecution authorized patients and medical marijuana providers who are acting in accordance with state laws. Also, the Truth in Trials Act (H.R. 3939), a bill that would make it possible for

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

2

Mark Eddy defendants in federal court to reveal to juries that their marijuana activity was medically related and legal under state law, was introduced on October 27, 2009, by Representative Sam Farr. For the first time since District of Columbia residents approved a medical marijuana ballot initiative in 1998, a rider blocking implementation of the initiative was not attached to the D.C. appropriations act for FY2010 (P.L. 111-117), clearing the way for the creation of a medical marijuana program for seriously ill patients in the nation‟s capital. The Obama Administration Department of Justice, in October 2009, announced an end to federal raids by the Drug Enforcement Administration of medical marijuana dispensaries that are operating in “clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws.” This move fulfills a pledge to end such raids that was made by candidate Obama during the presidential campaign. Claims and counterclaims about medical marijuana—much debated by journalists and academics, policymakers at all levels of government, and interested citizens—include the following: Marijuana is harmful and has no medical value; marijuana effectively treats the symptoms of certain diseases; smoking is an improper route of drug administration; marijuana should be rescheduled to permit medical use; state medical marijuana laws send the wrong message and lead to increased illicit drug use; the medical marijuana movement undermines the war on drugs; patients should not be arrested for using medical marijuana; the federal government should allow the states to experiment and should not interfere with state medical marijuana programs; medical marijuana laws harm the federal drug approval process; the medical cannabis movement is a cynical ploy to legalize marijuana and other drugs. With strong opinions being expressed on all sides of this complex issue, the debate over medical marijuana does not appear to be approaching resolution. This report will be updated as legislative activity and other developments occur.

INTRODUCTION: THE ISSUE BEFORE CONGRESS The issue before Congress is whether to continue the federal prosecution of medical marijuana1 patients and their providers, in accordance with marijuana‟s status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, or whether to relax federal marijuana prohibition enough to permit the medicinal use of botanical cannabis2 products when recommended by a

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

3

physician, especially in those states that have created medical marijuana programs under state law. Two bills, versions of which have been introduced in prior Congresses, have been proposed again in the 111th Congress. The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act (H.R. 2835), which would allow the medical use of marijuana in states that permit its use with a doctor‟s recommendation, was introduced on June 11, 2009, by Representative Barney Frank. The bill would also move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II of the CSA and exempt from federal prosecution authorized patients and medical marijuana providers who are acting in accordance with state laws. The second bill, the Truth in Trials Act (H.R. 3939), introduced by Representative Sam Farr on October 27, 2009, would make it possible for medical marijuana users and providers who are being tried in federal court to reveal to juries that their marijuana activity was medically related and legal under state law.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: MEDICAL MARIJUANA PRIOR TO 1937 The Cannabis sativa plant has been used for healing purposes throughout history. According to written records from China and India, the use of marijuana to treat a wide range of ailments goes back more than 2,000 years. Ancient texts from Africa, the Middle East, classical Greece, and the Roman Empire also describe the use of cannabis to treat disease. For most of American history, growing and using marijuana was legal under both federal law and the laws of the individual states. By the 1840s, marijuana‟s therapeutic potential began to be recognized by some U.S. physicians. From 1850 to 1941 cannabis was included in the United States Pharmacopoeia as a recognized medicinal.3 By the end of 1936, however, all 48 states had enacted laws to regulate marijuana.4 Its decline in medicine was hastened by the development of aspirin, morphine, and then other opiumderived drugs, all of which helped to replace marijuana in the treatment of pain and other medical conditions in Western medicine.5

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

4

Mark Eddy

FEDERAL MEDICAL MARIJUANA POLICY All three branches of the federal government play an important role in formulating federal policy on medical marijuana. Significant actions of each branch are highlighted here, beginning with the legislative branch.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Congressional Actions The Marihuana Tax Act of 19376 Spurred by spectacular accounts of marijuana‟s harmful effects on its users, by the drug‟s alleged connection to violent crime, and by a perception that state and local efforts to bring use of the drug under control were not working, Congress enacted the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.7 Promoted by Harry Anslinger, Commissioner of the recently established Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the act imposed registration and reporting requirements and a tax on the growers, sellers, and buyers of marijuana. Although the act did not prohibit marijuana outright, its effect was the same. (Because marijuana was not included in the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1914,8 the Marihuana Tax Act was the federal government‟s first attempt to regulate marijuana.) Dr. William C. Woodward, legislative counsel of the American Medical Association (AMA), opposed the measure. In oral testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, he stated that “there are evidently potentialities in the drug that should not be shut off by adverse legislation. The medical profession and pharmacologists should be left to develop the use of this drug as they see fit.”9 Two months later, in a letter to the Senate Finance Committee, he again argued against the act: There is no evidence, however, that the medicinal use of these drugs [“cannabis and its preparations and derivatives”] has caused or is causing cannabis addiction. As remedial agents they are used to an inconsiderable extent, and the obvious purpose and effect of this bill is to impose so many restrictions on their medicinal use as to prevent such use altogether. Since the medicinal use of cannabis has not caused and is not causing addiction, the prevention of the use of the drug for medicinal purposes can accomplish no good end whatsoever. How far it may serve to deprive the public of the benefits of a drug that on further research may prove to be of substantial value, it is impossible to foresee.10

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

5

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Despite the AMA‟s opposition, the Marihuana Tax Act was approved, causing all medicinal products containing marijuana to be withdrawn from the market and leading to marijuana‟s removal, in 1941, from The National Formulary and the United States Pharmacopoeia, in which it had been listed for almost a century.

Controlled Substances Act (1970) With increasing use of marijuana and other street drugs during the 1960s, notably by college and high school students, federal drug-control laws came under scrutiny. In July 1969, President Nixon asked Congress to enact legislation to combat rising levels of drug use.11 Hearings were held, different proposals were considered, and House and Senate conferees filed a conference report in October 1970.12 The report was quickly adopted by voice vote in both chambers and was signed into law as the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91- 513). Included in the new law was the Controlled Substances Act (CSA),13 which placed marijuana and its derivatives in Schedule I, the most restrictive of five categories. Schedule I substances have “a high potential for abuse,” “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” and “a lack of accepted safety [standards] for use of the drug ... under medical supervision.”14 Other drugs used recreationally at the time also became Schedule I substances. These included heroin, LSD, mescaline, peyote, and psilocybin. Drugs of abuse with recognized medical uses— such as opium, cocaine, and amphetamine—were assigned to Schedules II through V, depending on their potential for abuse.15 Despite its placement in Schedule I, marijuana use increased, as did the number of health-care professionals and their patients who believed in the plant‟s therapeutic value. The CSA does not distinguish between the medical and recreational use of marijuana. Under federal statute, simple possession of marijuana for personal use, a misdemeanor, can bring up to one year in federal prison and up to a $100,000 fine for a first offense.16 Growing marijuana is considered manufacturing a controlled substance, a felony.17 A single plant can bring an individual up to five years in federal prison and up to a $250,000 fine for a first offense.18 The CSA is not preempted by state medical marijuana laws, under the federal system of government, nor are state medical marijuana laws preempted by the CSA. States can statutorily create a medical use exception for botanical cannabis and its derivatives under their own, state-level controlled substance laws. At the same time, federal agents can investigate, arrest, and prosecute

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

6

Mark Eddy

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

medical marijuana patients, caregivers, and providers in accordance with the federal Controlled Substances Act, even in those states where medical marijuana programs operate in accordance with state law.

Anti-Medical Marijuana Legislation in the 105th Congress (1998) In September 1998, the House debated and passed a resolution (H.J.Res. 117) declaring that Congress supports the existing federal drug approval process for determining whether any drug, including marijuana, is safe and effective and opposes efforts to circumvent this process by legalizing marijuana, or any other Schedule I drug, for medicinal use without valid scientific evidence and without approval of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). With the Senate not acting on the resolution and adjournment approaching, this language was incorporated into the FY1999 omnibus appropriations act under the heading “Not Legalizing Marijuana for Medicinal Use.”19 In a separate amendment to the same act, Congress prevented the District of Columbia government from counting ballots of a 1998 voter-approved initiative that would have allowed the medical use of marijuana by persons suffering from serious diseases, including cancer and HIV infection.20 The amendment was challenged and overturned in District Court, the ballots were counted, and the measure passed 69% to 31%. Nevertheless, despite further court challenges, Congress continued to prohibit implementation of the initiative until the rider known as the Barr Amendment21 was dropped from the FY2010 D.C. appropriations act (H.R. 3288) in the 111th Congress. The Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment (2003-2007) 22 In the first session of the 108th Congress, in response to federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) raids on medical cannabis users and providers in California and other states that had approved the medical use of marijuana if recommended by a physician, Representatives Hinchey and Rohrabacher offered a bipartisan amendment to the FY2004 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill (H.R. 2799). The amendment would have prevented the Justice Department from using appropriated funds to interfere with the implementation of medical cannabis laws in the nine states that had approved such use. The amendment was debated on the floor of the House on July 22, 2003. When brought to a vote on the following day, it was defeated 152 to 273 (61 votes short of passage).23 The amendment was offered again in the second session of the 108th Congress. It was debated on the House floor on July 7, 2004, during

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

7

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Medical Marijuana

consideration of H.R. 4754, the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill for FY2005. This time it would have applied to 10 states, with the recent addition of Vermont to the list of states that had approved the use of medical cannabis. It was again defeated by a similar margin, 148 to 268 (61 votes short of passage).24 The amendment was voted on again in the first session of the 109th Congress and was again defeated, 161-264 (52 votes short of passage), on June 15, 2005. During floor debate on H.R. 2862, the FY2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill, a Member stated in support of the amendment that her now-deceased mother had used marijuana to treat her glaucoma. Opponents of the amendment argued, among other things, that its passage would undermine efforts to convince young people that marijuana is a dangerous drug.25 Despite an extensive pre-vote lobbying effort by supporters, the amendment gained only two votes in its favor over the previous year when it was debated and defeated, 163 to 259 (49 votes short of passage), on June 28, 2006.26 The bill under consideration this time was H.R. 5672, the FY2007 Science, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill. In the first session of the 110th Congress, on July 25, 2007, the amendment was proposed to H.R. 3093, the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill for FY2008. It was debated on the House floor for the fifth time in as many years and was again rejected, 165 to 262 (49 votes short of passage). The amendment‟s supporters framed it as a states‟ rights issue: A vote “yes” on Hinchey-Rohrabacher is a vote to respect the intent of our Founding Fathers and respect the rights of our people at the State level to make the criminal law under which they and their families will live. It reinforces rules surrounding the patient-doctor relationship, and it is in contrast to emotional posturing and Federal power grabs and bureaucratic arrogance, which is really at the heart of the opposition. 27

Opponents argued that smoked marijuana is not a safe and effective medicine and that its approval would send the wrong message to young people.

Legislative Activity in the 110th Congress The first action on medical marijuana in the 110th during consideration of legislation to reauthorize existing expand the agency‟s authority to ensure the safety of medical devices, and biologics. On April 18, 2007,

Congress occurred FDA programs and prescription drugs, at markup of the

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

8

Mark Eddy

Prescription Drug User Fee Act (S. 1082), the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions adopted, in an 11-9 vote, an amendment offered by Senator Coburn designed to shut down state medical marijuana programs. The amendment stated:

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall require that Statelegalized medical marijuana be subject to the full regulatory requirements of the Food and Drug Administration, including a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy and all other requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act regarding safe and effective reviews, approval, sale, marketing, and use of pharmaceuticals.

Herbal cannabis products are not, in fact, being marketed in the United States as pharmaceuticals, nor are they being developed as investigational new drugs due largely to federal restrictions on marijuana research. Because of this and other possibly complicating factors, the validity and actual effect of this amendment, if it had been signed into law, would have been unclear and would have been subject to legal interpretation and judicial review.28 The bill, as amended, cleared the Senate and was sent to the House on May 9. The Coburn Amendment, however, was not included in the version of the FDA amendments act (H.R. 2900) that was approved by Congress and enacted into law (P.L. 110-85) on September 27, 2007. In another action on medical marijuana, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held an oversight hearing on DEA‟s regulation of medicine on July 12, 2007. A DEA official testified that his agency would “continue to enforce the law as it stands and to investigate, indict, and arrest those who use the color of state law to possess and sell marijuana.” A California medicinal cannabis patient and provider stated, “The well-being of thousands of seriously ill Americans backed by the opinion of the vast majority of their countrymen demands that medical marijuana be freed from federal interference.” In his introduction of the patient, the subcommittee chairman observed, “Even if the law technically gives DEA the authority to investigate medical marijuana users, it is worth questioning whether targeting gravely ill people is the best use of federal resources.” Two weeks later, on July 25, the whole House decided to continue to use federal resources against medical marijuana users when it rejected the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, 165-262, as described above. In the second session of the 110th Congress, on April 17, 2008, Representative Frank introduced H.R. 5842, the Medical Marijuana Patient

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

9

Protection Act, to provide for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various states. Introduced with four original cosponsors— Representatives Farr, Hinchey, Paul, and Rohrabacher—the bill would have moved marijuana from schedule I to schedule II of the CSA and would have, within states with medical marijuana programs, permitted • • •

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

a physician to prescribe or recommend marijuana for medical use; an authorized patient to obtain, possess, transport, manufacture, or use marijuana; an authorized individual to obtain, possess, transport, or manufacture marijuana for an authorized patient; and a pharmacy or other authorized entity to distribute medical marijuana to authorized patients. •

No provision of the Controlled Substances Act or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act would have been allowed to prohibit or otherwise restrict these activities in states that have adopted medical marijuana programs. Also, the bill would not have affected any federal, state, or local law regulating or prohibiting smoking in public. In his introductory statement, Representative Frank said, “When doctors recommend the use of marijuana for their patients and states are willing to permit it, I think it‟s wrong for the federal government to subject either the doctors or the patients to criminal prosecution.”29 Although differently worded, H.R. 5842 had the same intent as the States‟ Rights to Medical Marijuana Act, versions of which had been introduced in every Congress since the 105th in 1997. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and saw no further action.

Medical Marijuana Measures in the 111th Congress Bills have been introduced in recent Congresses to allow patients who appear to benefit from medical cannabis to use it in accordance with the various regulatory schemes that have been approved, since 1996, by the voters or legislatures of 14 states. This legislative activity continues in the 111th Congress with the reintroduction of two bills that would serve to relax somewhat the federal prohibition against the medical use of marijuana. The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act (H.R. 2835), which would allow the medical use of marijuana in states that permit its use with a doctor‟s recommendation, was introduced on June 11, 2009, by Representative Barney Frank with 13 original cosponsors. The bill would move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II of the CSA and exempt from federal prosecution

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

10

Mark Eddy

authorized patients and medical marijuana providers who are acting in accordance with state laws. Its wording is identical to H.R. 5842 as introduced in the 110th Congress, and its provisions are described more fully above. H.R. 2835 was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, where it awaits further action. (Versions of this bill have been introduced in every Congress since 1997 but have not seen action beyond the committee referral process.) The second bill, the Truth in Trials Act (H.R. 3939), was introduced by Representative Sam Farr on October 27, 2009. It would make it possible for medical marijuana users and providers who are being tried in federal court to reveal to juries that their marijuana activity was medically related and legal under state law. After the 2001 Supreme Court decision U.S. v. Oakland Buyers’ Cooperative (discussed below), it was no longer permissible for medical marijuana defendants in federal court to introduce evidence showing that their marijuana-related activities were undertaken for a valid medical purpose under state law.30 H.R. 3939 would amend the Controlled Substances Act to make an affirmative defense possible for persons who provide or use marijuana in accordance with state medical marijuana laws. The bill also would limit the authority of federal agents to seize marijuana authorized for medical use under state law and would provide for the retention and return of seized plants pending resolution of a case involving medical marijuana. Introduced with nine original co-sponsors, the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and also to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. For the first time since District of Columbia residents approved a medical marijuana ballot initiative in 1998, a rider blocking implementation of the initiative was not attached to the D.C. appropriations act for FY2010 (H.R. 3288), signed into law on December 16, 2009 (P.L. 111- 117), clearing the way for the creation of a medical marijuana program for seriously ill patients in the nation‟s capital.

Executive Branch Actions and Policies IND Compassionate Access Program (1978) In 1975, a Washington, DC, resident was arrested for growing marijuana to treat his glaucoma. He won his case by using the medical necessity defense,31 forcing the government to find a way to provide him with his medicine. In 1978, FDA created the Investigational New Drug (IND)

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

11

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Compassionate Access Program,32 allowing patients whose serious medical conditions could be relieved only by marijuana to apply for and receive marijuana from the federal government. Over the next 14 years, other patients, less than 100 in total, were admitted to the program for conditions including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (emesis), glaucoma, spasticity, and weight loss. Then, in 1992, in response to a large number of applications from AIDS patients who sought to use medical cannabis to increase appetite and reverse wasting disease, the George H.W. Bush Administration closed the program to all new applicants. Several previously approved patients remain in the program today and continue to receive their monthly supply of government-grown medical marijuana.

Approval of Marinol (1985) Made by Unimed, Marinol is the trade name for dronabinol, a synthetic form of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), one of the principal psychoactive components of botanical marijuana. It was approved in May 1985 for nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who fail to respond to conventional antiemetic treatments. In December 1992, it was approved by FDA for the treatment of anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS. Marketed as a capsule, Marinol was originally placed in Schedule II.33 In July 1999, in response to a rescheduling petition from Unimed, it was moved administratively by DEA to Schedule III to make it more widely available to patients.34 The rescheduling was granted after a review by DEA and the Department of Health and Human Services found little evidence of illicit abuse of the drug. In Schedule III, Marinol is now subject to fewer regulatory controls and lesser criminal sanctions for illicit use. Administrative Law Judge Ruling to Reschedule Marijuana (1988) Congressional passage of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970 and its placement of marijuana in Schedule I provoked controversy at the time because it strengthened the federal policy of marijuana prohibition and forced medical marijuana users to buy marijuana of uncertain quality on the black market at inflated prices, subjecting them to fines, arrest, court costs, property forfeiture, incarceration, probation, and criminal records. The new bureaucratic controls on Schedule I substances were also criticized because they would impede research on marijuana‟s therapeutic potential, thereby making its evaluation and rescheduling through the normal drug approval process unlikely.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

12

Mark Eddy

These concerns prompted a citizens‟ petition to the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) in 1972 to reschedule marijuana and make it available by prescription. The petition was summarily rejected.35 This led to a long succession of appeals, hearing requests, and various court proceedings. Finally, in 1988, after extensive public hearings on marijuana‟s medicinal value, Francis L. Young, the chief administrative law judge of the Drug Enforcement Administration (the BNDD‟s successor agency), ruled on the petition, stating that “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.”36 Judge Young also wrote:

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. 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.

Judge Young found that “the provisions of the [Controlled Substances] Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from schedule I to schedule II,” which would recognize its medicinal value and permit doctors to prescribe it. The judge‟s nonbinding findings and recommendation were soon rejected by the DEA Administrator because “marijuana has not been demonstrated as suitable for use as a medicine.”37 Subsequent rescheduling petitions also have been rejected, and marijuana remains a Schedule I substance.

NIH-Sponsored Workshop (1997) NIH convened a scientific panel on medical marijuana composed of eight nonfederal experts in fields such as cancer treatment, infectious diseases, neurology, and ophthalmology. Over a two-day period in February, they analyzed available scientific information on the medical uses of marijuana and concluded that “in order to evaluate various hypotheses concerning the potential utility of marijuana in various therapeutic areas, more and better studies would be needed.” Research would be justified, according to the panel, into certain conditions or diseases such as pain, neurological and movement disorders, nausea of patients undergoing chemotherapy for cancer, loss of appetite and weight related to AIDS, and glaucoma.38 Institute of Medicine Report (1999) In January 1997, shortly after passage of the California and Arizona medical marijuana initiatives, the Director of the Office of National Drug

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

13

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Control Policy (the federal drug czar) commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences to review the scientific evidence on the potential health benefits and risks of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. Begun in August 1997, IOM‟s 257-page report, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, was released in March 1999.39 A review of all existing studies of the therapeutic value of cannabis, the IOM Report was also based on public hearings and consultations held around the country with biomedical and social scientists and concerned citizens. For the most part, the IOM Report straddled the fence and provided sound bites for both sides of the medical marijuana debate. For example, “Until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS-wasting” (p. 179) and “Smoked marijuana is unlikely to be a safe medication for any chronic medical condition” (p. 126). For another example, “There is no conclusive evidence that marijuana causes cancer in humans, including cancers usually related to tobacco use” (p. 119) and “Numerous studies suggest that marijuana smoke is an important risk factor in the development of respiratory disease” (p. 127). The IOM Report did find more potential promise in synthetic cannabinoid drugs than in smoked marijuana (p. 177): The accumulated data suggest a variety of indications, particularly for pain relief, antiemesis, and appetite stimulation. For patients such as those with AIDS or who are undergoing chemotherapy, and who suffer simultaneously from severe pain, nausea, and appetite loss, cannabinoid drugs might offer broad-spectrum relief not found in any other single medication.

In general, the report emphasized the need for well-formulated, scientific research into the therapeutic effects of marijuana and its cannabinoid components on patients with specific disease conditions. To this end, the report recommended that clinical trials be conducted with the goal of developing safe delivery systems.

Denial of Petition to Reschedule Marijuana (2001) In response to a citizen‟s petition to reschedule marijuana submitted to the DEA in 1995, DEA asked the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for a scientific and medical evaluation of the abuse potential of marijuana and a scheduling recommendation. HHS concluded that marijuana

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

14

Mark Eddy

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. HHS therefore recommended that marijuana remain in Schedule I. In a letter to the petitioner dated March 20, 2001, DEA denied the petition.40

FDA Statement That Smoked Marijuana Is Not Medicine (2006) On April 20, 2006, the FDA issued an interagency advisory restating the federal government‟s position that “smoked marijuana is harmful” and has not been approved “for any condition or disease indication.” The one-page announcement did not refer to new research findings. Instead, it was based on a “past evaluation” by several agencies within HHS that “concluded that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use.”41 Media reaction to this pronouncement was largely negative, asserting that the FDA position on medical marijuana was motivated by politics, not science, and ignored the findings of the 1999 Institute of Medicine Report.42 In Congress, 24 House Members, led by Representative Hinchey, sent a letter to the FDA acting commissioner requesting the scientific evidence behind the agency‟s evaluation of the medical efficacy of marijuana and citing the FDA‟s IND Compassionate Access Program as “an example of how the FDA could allow for the legal use of a drug, such as medical marijuana, without going through the „well-controlled‟ series of steps that other drugs have to go through if there is a compassionate need.”43 Administrative Law Judge Ruling to Grow Research Marijuana (20072009) Since 1968, the only source of marijuana available for scientific research in the United States has been tightly controlled by the federal government. Grown at the University of Mississippi under a contract administered by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the marijuana is difficult to obtain even by scientists whose research protocols have been approved by the FDA. Not only is the federal supply of marijuana largely inaccessible, but researchers also complain that it does not meet the needs of research due to its inferior quality and lack of multiple strains.44 Other Schedule I substances—such as LSD, heroin, and MDMA (Ecstasy)—can be provided legally by private U.S. laboratories or imported from abroad for research purposes, with federal permission. Only marijuana is limited to a single, federally-controlled provider.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

15

In response to this situation, Dr. Lyle Craker, a professor of plant biology and director of the medicinal plant program at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, applied in 2001 for a DEA license to cultivate research-grade marijuana. The application was filed in association with the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), a nonprofit drug research organization headed by Dr. Rick Doblin, whose stated goal is

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

to break the government‟s monopoly on the supply of marijuana that can be used in FDA-approved research, thereby creating the proper conditions for a $5 million, 5 year drug development effort designed to transform smoked and/or vaporized marijuana into an FDA-approved prescription medicine.45

After being sued for “unreasonable delay” in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the DEA rejected the Craker/MAPS application in December 2004 as not consistent with the public interest. Upon appeal, nine days of hearings were held over a five-month period in 2005, at which researchers testified that their requests for marijuana had been rejected, making it impossible to conduct their FDA-approved research. On February 12, 2007, DEA‟s Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner found that “an inadequate supply” of marijuana is available for research and ruled that it “would be in the public interest” to allow Dr. Craker to create the proposed marijuana production facility.46 Rulings by administrative law judges, however, are nonbinding and may be rejected by agency heads, which happened in this case. In the closing days of the Bush Administration, on January 7, 2009, the DEA Deputy Administrator signed an order denying Dr. Craker‟s application for a DEA certificate of registration as a manufacturer of marijuana.47 In response, Dr. Craker submitted to DEA a Motion to Reconsider, which, if rejected, would trigger an appeal that has been docketed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston.48

DEA Enforcement Actions Against Medical Marijuana Providers Most arrests in the United States for marijuana possession are made by state and local police, not the DEA. This means that patients and their caregivers in the states that permit medical marijuana mostly go unprosecuted, because their own state‟s marijuana prohibition laws do not apply to them and because federal law is not usually enforced against them. Federal agents have, however, moved against medical cannabis growers and distributors in states with medical marijuana programs. In recent years, especially during the George W. Bush Administration, DEA agents conducted

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

16

Mark Eddy

many raids of medical marijuana dispensaries, especially in California, where the law states that marijuana providers can receive “reasonable compensation” on a nonprofit basis. The DEA does not provide statistics on its moves against medical marijuana outlets because the agency does not distinguish between criminal, non-medical marijuana trafficking organizations and locally licensed storefront dispensaries that are legal under state law. They are all felony criminal operations under the federal Controlled Substances Act. As a practical matter, however, the DEA reportedly was targeting larger, for-profit medical marijuana providers who were engaged in “nothing more than highstakes drug dealing, complete with the same high-rolling lifestyles.”49 A few high-profile medical marijuana patients were also being prosecuted under federal law.50 In July 2007, DEA‟s Los Angeles Field Division Office introduced a new enforcement tactic against medical marijuana dispensaries in the city when it sent letters to the owners and managers of buildings in which medical marijuana facilities were operating. The letters threatened the property owners and managers with up to 20 years in federal prison for violating the so-called “crack house statute,” a provision of the CSA enacted in 1986 that made it a federal offense to “knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, or make available for use, with or without compensation, [a] building, room, or enclosure for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.”51 The DEA letters also threatened the landlords with seizure of their property under the CSA‟s asset forfeiture provisions.52 In response, L.A. City Council members wrote a letter to DEA Administrator Karen Tandy in Washington urging her to abandon this tactic and allow them to continue work on an ordinance to regulate medical cannabis facilities “without federal interference.” They also unanimously approved a resolution endorsing the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, which would prohibit such DEA actions and which was about to be debated in the House, as discussed above. An editorial in the Los Angeles Times called the DEA threats to landlords a “deplorable new bullying tactic.”53 In subsequent months, DEA expanded this enforcement mechanism to other parts of California, including the Bay Area. In one lawsuit challenging the right of landlords to evict marijuana dispensaries, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled, in April 2008, that federal law preempts California‟s Compassionate Use Act. If the ruling is affirmed on appeal, it would threaten the future of medical marijuana in California and elsewhere. DEA‟s actions against medical marijuana growing and distribution operations have provoked other lawsuits. In April 2003, for example, the city

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

17

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

and county of Santa Cruz, CA, along with seven medical marijuana patients, filed a lawsuit in San Jose federal district court in response to DEA‟s earlier raid on the Wo/Men‟s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM). The court granted the plaintiffs‟ motion for a preliminary injunction, thereby allowing WAMM to resume growing and producing marijuana medications for its approximately 250 member-patients with serious illnesses, pending the final outcome of the case.54 The suit is said to be the first court challenge brought by a local government against the federal war on drugs.

The Obama Administration and Medical Marijuana During the presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama stated several times his position that moving against medical marijuana dispensaries that were operating in compliance with state laws would not be a priority of his administration. Nevertheless, the continuation of such raids during the early days of the Obama Administration created confusion regarding the medical marijuana policies of the new government.55 In mid-March, Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., stated that such raids would cease.56 The new policy was finally formalized in a Justice Department memorandum to U.S. Attorneys dated October 19, 2009.57 Noting that “Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime,” the memo directs the U.S. Attorneys in states with medical marijuana programs not to focus their investigative and prosecutorial resources “on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.” The memo does not free medical marijuana providers from federal scrutiny, especially in cases where “state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law.” The memo specifically states that “prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department.” The new directive, however, can be expected to result in fewer federal operations against medical marijuana providers than were conducted by the previous administration.

Medical Cannabis in the Courts: Major Cases Because Congress and the executive branch have not acted to permit seriously ill Americans to use botanical marijuana medicinally, the issue has

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

18

Mark Eddy

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

been considered by the judicial branch, with mixed results. Three significant cases have been decided so far, and other court challenges are moving through the judicial pipeline.58

U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative (2001) The U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil suit in January 1998 to close six medical marijuana distribution centers in northern California. A U.S. district court judge issued a temporary injunction to close the centers, pending the outcome of the case. The Oakland Cannabis Buyers‟ Cooperative fought the injunction but was eventually forced to cease operations and appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue was whether a medical marijuana distributor can use a medical necessity defense against federal marijuana distribution charges.59 The Ninth Circuit‟s decision in September 1999 found, 3-0, that medical necessity is a valid defense against federal marijuana trafficking charges if a trial court finds that the patients to whom the marijuana was distributed are seriously ill, face imminent harm without marijuana, and have no effective legal alternatives.60 The Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held, 8-0, that “a medical necessity exception for marijuana is at odds with the terms of the Controlled Substances Act” because “its provisions leave no doubt that the defense is unavailable.”61 This decision had no effect on state medical marijuana laws, which continued to protect patients and primary caregivers from arrest by state and local law enforcement agents in the states with medical marijuana programs. Conant v. Walters (2002) After the 1996 passage of California‟s medical marijuana initiative, the Clinton Administration threatened to investigate doctors and revoke their licenses to prescribe controlled substances and participate in Medicaid and Medicare if they recommended medical marijuana to patients under the new state law. A group of California physicians and patients filed suit in federal court, early in 1997, claiming a constitutional free-speech right, in the context of the doctor-patient relationship, to discuss the potential risks and benefits of the medical use of cannabis. A preliminary injunction, issued in April 1997, prohibited federal officials from threatening or punishing physicians for recommending marijuana to patients suffering from HIV/AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, or seizures or muscle spasms associated with a chronic, debilitating condition.62 The court subsequently made the injunction permanent in an unpublished opinion.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

19

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, in a 3-0 decision, the district court‟s order entering a permanent injunction. The federal government, the opinion states, “may not initiate an investigation of a physician solely on the basis of a recommendation of marijuana within a bona fide doctor-patient relationship, unless the government in good faith believes that it has substantial evidence of criminal conduct.”63 The Bush Administration appealed, but the Supreme Court refused to take the case.

Gonzales v. Raich (2005) In response to DEA agents‟ destruction of their medical marijuana plants, two patients and two caregivers in California brought suit. They argued that applying the Controlled Substances Act to a situation in which medical marijuana was being grown and consumed locally for no remuneration in accordance with state law exceeded Congress‟s constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. In December 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed, ruling 2-1 that states are free to adopt medical marijuana laws so long as the marijuana is not sold, transported across state lines, or used for nonmedical purposes.64 Federal appeal sent the case to the Supreme Court. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Controlled Substances Act, when applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for personal use under state law, exceeds Congress‟s power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court, in June 2005, reversed the Ninth Circuit‟s decision and held, in a 6-3 decision, that Congress‟s power to regulate commerce extends to purely local activities that are “part of an economic class of activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.”65 Raich does not invalidate state medical marijuana laws. The decision does mean, however, that DEA may continue to enforce the CSA against medical marijuana patients and their caregivers, even in states with medical marijuana programs. Although Raich was not about the efficacy of medical marijuana or its listing in Schedule I, the majority opinion stated in a footnote: “We acknowledge that evidence proffered by respondents in this case regarding the effective medical uses for marijuana, if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I.”66 The majority opinion, in closing, notes that in the absence of judicial relief for medical marijuana users there remains “the

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

20

Mark Eddy

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.”67 Thus, the Supreme Court reminds that Congress has the power to reschedule marijuana, thereby recognizing that it has accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Congress, however, does not appear likely to do so. Neither does the executive branch, which could reschedule marijuana through regulatory procedures authorized by the Controlled Substances Act. In the meantime, actions taken by state and local governments continue to raise the issue, as discussed below.

Americans for Safe Access (ASA) Lawsuit Against HHS The federal Data Quality Act of 2001 (DQA) requires the issuance of guidelines “for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies” and allows “affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the guidelines.”68 In October 2004, Americans for Safe Access (ASA), a California-based patient advocacy group, formally petitioned HHS, under the DQA, to correct four erroneous statements about medical marijuana made by HHS in its 2001 denial of the marijuana rescheduling petition discussed above. Specifically, ASA requested that “there have been no studies that have scientifically assessed the efficacy of marijuana for any medical condition” be replaced with “[a]dequate and well-recognized studies show the efficacy of marijuana in the treatment of nausea, loss of appetite, pain and spasticity”; that “it is clear that there is not a consensus of medical opinion concerning medical applications of marijuana” be replaced with “[t]here is substantial consensus among experts in the relevant disciplines that marijuana is effective in treating nausea, loss of appetite, pain and spasticity. It is accepted as medicine by qualified experts”; that “complete scientific analysis of all the chemical components found in marijuana has not been conducted” be replaced with “[t]he chemistry of marijuana is known and reproducible”; and that “marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” be replaced with “[m]arijuana has a currently accepted use in treatment in the United States.” The petition claimed that “HHS‟s statements about the lack of medical usefulness of marijuana harms these individuals [ill persons across the United States] in that it contributes to denying them access to medicine which will alleviate their suffering.”69

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

21

Were HHS to accept the ASA petition, the revised statements would set the preconditions for placing marijuana in a schedule other than I. HHS denied the petition in 2005 and rejected ASA‟s subsequent appeal in 2006 on just those grounds: that HHS is already in the process of reviewing a rescheduling petition submitted to DEA in October 2002 and will be evaluating all of the publicly available peer-reviewed literature on the medicinal efficacy of marijuana in that context. In response, in February 2007, ASA filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to force HHS to change the four statements, which the organization believes are not sciencebased. The case is pending.

STATE AND LOCAL REFERENDA AND LEGISLATION

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

In the face of federal intransigence on the issue, advocates of medical marijuana have turned to the states in a largely successful effort, wherever it has been attempted, to enact laws that enable patients to obtain and use botanical marijuana therapeutically in a legal and regulated manner, even though such activity remains illegal under federal law.

States Allowing Use of Medical Marijuana70 Fourteen states, covering about 27% of the U.S. population, have enacted laws to allow the use of cannabis for medical purposes.71 These states have removed state-level criminal penalties for the cultivation, possession, and use of medical marijuana, if such use has been recommended by a medical doctor. All of these states have in place, or are developing, programs to regulate the use of medical marijuana by approved patients. Physicians in these states are immune from liability and prosecution for discussing or recommending medical cannabis to their patients in accordance with state law. Patients in state programs (except for New Mexico and New Jersey) may be assisted by caregivers—persons who are authorized to help patients grow, acquire, and use the drug.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

22

Mark Eddy

Source: Map Resources. Adapted by CRS.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure 1. States With Medical Marijuana Programs.

Nine of the 14 states that have legalized medical marijuana are in the West: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington. Of the 37 states outside the West, Michigan plus four other states, all in the Northeast—Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont—have adopted medical cannabis statutes. Hawaii, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont have the only programs created by acts of their state legislatures. The medical marijuana programs in the other nine states were approved by the voters in statewide referenda or ballot initiatives, beginning in 1996 with California. Since then, voters have approved medical marijuana initiatives in every state where they have appeared on the ballot with the exception of South Dakota, where a medical marijuana initiative was defeated in 2006 by 52% of the voters. Bills to create medical marijuana programs have been introduced in the legislatures of additional states— Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, and New Hampshire, among others—and have received varying levels of consideration but have so far not been enacted. Effective state medical marijuana laws do not attempt to overturn or otherwise violate federal laws that prohibit doctors from writing prescriptions for marijuana and pharmacies from distributing it. In the 14 states with

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

23

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

medical marijuana programs, doctors do not actually prescribe marijuana, and the marijuana products used by patients are not distributed through pharmacies. Rather, doctors recommend marijuana to their patients, and the cannabis products are grown by patients or their caregivers, or they are obtained from cooperatives or other alternative dispensaries. The state medical marijuana programs do, however, contravene the federal prohibition of marijuana. Medical marijuana patients, their caregivers, and other marijuana providers can, therefore, be arrested by federal law enforcement agents, and they can be prosecuted under federal law.

Statistics on Medical Marijuana Users Determining exactly how many patients use medical marijuana with state approval is difficult, but the limited data available suggest the number is rising rapidly. According to a 2002 study published in the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, an estimated 30,000 California patients and another 5,000 patients in eight other states possessed a physician‟s recommendations to use cannabis medically.72 The New England Journal of Medicine reported in August 2005 that an estimated 115,000 people had obtained marijuana recommendations from doctors in the states with programs.73 Although 115,000 people might have been approved medical marijuana users in 2005, the number of patients who had actually registered was much lower. A July 2005 CRS telephone survey of the state programs revealed a total of 14,758 registered medical marijuana users in eight states.74 (Maine and Washington do not maintain state registries, and Rhode Island, New Mexico, Michigan, and New Jersey had not yet passed their laws.) This number vastly understated the actual number of medical marijuana users, however, because California‟s state registry was in pilot status, with only 70 patients so far registered. More recently, an estimate published by Newsweek early in 2010 found a total of 369,634 users in the 13 states with established programs, with California‟s estimated patient population of 253,800 alone accounting for 69% of the total.75 (It remains necessary to estimate California‟s number because registration is voluntary at both the state and county levels, and only a small fraction of patients choose to register. There were fewer than 33,000 registered patients as of March 2010, according to the state‟s medical marijuana program website.76) A brief description of each state‟s medical marijuana program follows. The programs are discussed in the order in which they were approved by voters or became law by actions of the state legislatures.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

24

Mark Eddy

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

California (1996) Proposition 215, approved by 56% of the voters in November, removed the state‟s criminal penalties for medical marijuana use, possession, and cultivation by patients with the “written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician” who has determined that the patient‟s “health would benefit from medical marijuana.” Called the Compassionate Use Act, it legalized cannabis for “the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.” The law permits possession of an amount sufficient for the patient‟s “personal medical purposes.” A second statute (Senate bill 420), passed in 2003, allows “reasonable compensation” for medical marijuana caregivers and states that the drug should be distributed on a nonprofit basis. Oregon (1998) Voters in November removed the state‟s criminal penalties for use, possession, and cultivation of marijuana by patients whose physicians advise that marijuana “may mitigate the symptoms or effects” of a debilitating condition. The law, approved by 55% of Oregon voters, does not provide for distribution of cannabis but allows up to seven plants per patient (changed to 24 plants by act of the state legislature in 2005). The state registry program is supported by patient fees. (In the November 2004 election, 58% of Oregon voters rejected a measure that would have expanded the state‟s existing program.) Alaska (1998) Voters in November approved a ballot measure to remove state-level criminal penalties for patients diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition for which other approved medications were considered. The measure was approved by 58% of the voters. In 1999, the state legislature created a mandatory state registry for medical cannabis users and limited the amount a patient can legally possess to 1 ounce and six plants. Washington (1998) Approved in November by 59% of the voters, the ballot initiative exempts from prosecution patients who meet all qualifying criteria, possess no more marijuana than is necessary for their own personal medical use (but no more than a 60-day supply), and present valid documentation to investigating law enforcement officers. The state does not issue identification cards to patients.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

25

Maine (1999) Maine‟s ballot initiative, passed in November by 61% of the voters, puts the burden on the state to prove that a patient‟s medical use or possession is not authorized by statute. Patients with a qualifying condition, authenticated by a physician, who have been “advised” by the physician that they “might benefit” from medical cannabis, are permitted 11/4 ounces and six plants. There is no state registry of patients.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Hawaii (2000) In June, the Hawaii legislature approved a bill removing state-level criminal penalties for medical cannabis use, possession, and cultivation of up to seven plants. A physician must certify that the patient has a debilitating condition for which “the potential benefits of the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks.” This was the first state law permitting medical cannabis use that was enacted by a legislature instead of by ballot initiative. Colorado (2000) A ballot initiative to amend the state constitution was approved by 54% of the voters in November. The amendment provides that lawful medical cannabis users must be diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating condition and be “advised” by the physician that the patient “might benefit” from using the drug. A patient and the patient‟s caregiver may possess 2 usable ounces and six plants. Nevada (2000) To amend the state constitution by ballot initiative, a proposed amendment must be approved by the voters in two separate elections. In November, 65% of Nevada voters passed for the second time an amendment to exempt medical cannabis users from prosecution. Patients who have “written documentation” from their physicians that marijuana may alleviate their health condition may register with the state Department of Agriculture and receive an identification card that exempts them from state prosecution for using medical marijuana. Vermont (2004) In May, Vermont became the second state to legalize medical cannabis by legislative action instead of ballot initiative. Vermont patients are allowed to grow up to three marijuana plants in a locked room and to possess 2 ounces of manicured marijuana under the supervision of the Department of Public

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

26

Mark Eddy

Safety, which maintains a patient registry. The law went into effect without the signature of the governor, who declined to sign it but also refused to veto it, despite pressure from Washington. A 2007 legislative act expanded eligibility for the program and increased to nine the number of plants participants may grow.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Montana (2004) In November, 62% of state voters passed Initiative 148, allowing qualifying patients to use marijuana under medical supervision. Eligible medical conditions include cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, wasting syndrome, seizures, and severe or chronic pain. A doctor must certify that the patient has a debilitating medical condition and that the benefits of using marijuana would likely outweigh the risks. The patient may grow up to six plants and possess 1 ounce of dried marijuana. The state public health department registers patients and caregivers. Rhode Island (2006) In January, the state legislature overrode the governor‟s veto of a medical marijuana bill, allowing patients to possess up to 12 plants or 21/2 ounces to treat cancer, HIV/AIDS, and other chronic ailments. The law included a sunset provision and was set to expire on July 1, 2007, unless renewed by the legislature. The law was made permanent on June 21, 2007, after legislators voted again to override the governor‟s veto by a wide margin. New Mexico (2007) Passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor in April, the Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act went into effect on July 1, 2007. It requires the state‟s Department of Health to set rules governing the distribution of medical cannabis to state-authorized patients. Unlike most other state programs, patients and their caregivers cannot grow their own marijuana; rather, it will be provided by state-licensed “cannabis production facilities.” Michigan (2008) Approved by 63% of Michigan voters in the November 2008 presidential election, Proposal 1 permits physicians to approve marijuana use by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions, including cancer, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and other conditions approved by the

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

27

state‟s Department of Community Health. Up to 12 plants can be cultivated in an indoor, locked facility by the patient or a designated caregiver.

New Jersey (2010) A bill passed by the legislature and signed by the governor allows for the regulated distribution of marijuana by state-monitored dispensaries. Doctors may recommend up to 2 ounces monthly to registered patients, who are not allowed to grow their own. Considered the most restrictive of the state programs approved to date, the law restricts usage to a specific set of diseases including cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, and other diseases involving severe and chronic pain, severe nausea, seizures, or severe and persistent muscle spasms.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Other State and Local Medical Marijuana Laws Arizona (1996) Arizona‟s law,77 approved by 65% of the voters in November, permits marijuana prescriptions, but there is no active program in the state because federal law prohibits doctors from prescribing marijuana. Patients cannot, therefore, obtain a valid prescription. (Other states‟ laws allow doctors to “recommend” rather than “prescribe.”) Maryland (2003) Maryland‟s General Assembly became the second state legislature, after Hawaii, to protect medical cannabis patients from the threat of jail when it approved a bill, later signed by the governor, providing that patients using marijuana preparations to treat the symptoms of illnesses such as cancer, AIDS, and Crohn‟s disease would be subject to no more than a $100 fine.78 The law falls short of full legalization and does not create a medical marijuana program, but it allows for a medical necessity defense for people who use marijuana on their own for medical purposes. If patients arrested for possession in Maryland can prove in court that they use cannabis for legitimate medical needs, they escape the maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Other State Laws Laws favorable to medical marijuana have been enacted in 36 states since 1978.79 Except for the state laws mentioned above, however, these laws do not

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

28

Mark Eddy

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

currently protect medical marijuana users from state prosecution. Some laws, for example, allow patients to acquire and use cannabis through therapeutic research programs, although none of these programs has been operational since 1985, due in large part to federal opposition. Other state laws allow doctors to prescribe marijuana or allow patients to possess marijuana if it has been obtained through a prescription, but the federal Controlled Substances Act prevents these laws from being implemented. Several states have placed marijuana in a controlled drug schedule that recognizes its medical value. State legislatures continue to consider medical marijuana bills, some favorable to its use by patients, others not. In Michigan, a medical marijuana initiative will be presented to the voters on the November 2008 ballot.

District of Columbia (1998) In the nation‟s capital, 69% of voters approved a medical cannabis initiative to allow patients a “sufficient quantity” of marijuana to treat illness and to permit nonprofit marijuana suppliers. In every year since then, however, Congress attached a rider to the D.C. appropriations act blocking the Initiative 59 from taking effect, until Congress eliminated the ban in the FY2010 DC appropriations act (H.R. 3288, which was signed into law in December 2009 (P.L. 111-117). More than 11 years after DC voters approved the medical marijuana measure, city officials were free to begin drafting legislation to create a medical marijuana program in the nation‟s capital.80 Any law passed by the DC Council and signed into law by the mayor would be subject to congressional approval. Local Measures Medical cannabis measures have been adopted in several localities throughout the country. San Diego is the country‟s largest city to do so. One day after the Supreme Court‟s anti-marijuana ruling in Gonzales v. Raich was issued, Alameda County in California approved an ordinance to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries, becoming the 17th locality in the state to do so. Localities in nonmedical marijuana states have also acted. In November 2004, for example, voters in Columbia, MO, and Ann Arbor, MI, approved medical cannabis measures. Since then, four other Michigan cities, including Detroit, have done the same. Although largely symbolic, such local laws can influence the priorities of local law enforcement officers and prosecutors.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

29

PUBLIC OPINION ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Majorities of voters in nine states have now approved medical marijuana initiatives to protect patients from arrest under state law. More broadly, national public opinion polls have consistently favored access to medical marijuana by seriously ill patients. ProCon.org, a nonprofit and nonpartisan public education foundation, has identified 23 national public opinion polls that asked questions about medical marijuana from 1995 to the present. Respondents in every poll were in favor of medical marijuana by substantial margins, ranging from 60% to 85%.81 Among recent opinion surveys, a January 2010 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that more than 8 in 10 Americans (81%) supported efforts to make marijuana legal for medical use, up from 69% in 1997. Given three choices as to who should be allowed to use it where it is legal, 56% of respondents chose the most lenient position of prescribing it “for any patient the doctor thinks it could help.” Its use would be restricted to “patients who have serious but not fatal illnesses” by 21%, and another 21% would limit the drug “to patients who are terminally ill and near death.” According to the pollsters‟ analysis, Medical marijuana ... receives majority support across the political and ideological spectrum, from 68 percent of conservatives and 72 percent of Republicans as well as 85 percent of Democrats and independents and about nine in 10 liberals and moderates. Support slips to 69 percent among seniors, vs. 83 percent among all adults under age 65.82

The Journal of the American Medical Association analyzed public opinion on the War on Drugs in a 1998 article. The authors‟ observations concerning public attitudes toward medical marijuana remain true today: While opposing the use or legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes, the public apparently does not want to deny very ill patients access to a potentially helpful drug therapy if prescribed by their physicians. The public‟s support of marijuana for medical purposes is conditioned by their belief that marijuana would be used only in the treatment of serious medical conditions.83

In public opinion polls, then, the majority of Americans appear to hold that seriously ill or terminal patients should be able to use marijuana if

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

30

Mark Eddy

recommended by their doctors. Fourteen state governments have created medical marijuana programs, either through ballot initiatives or the legislative process. Many other state governments, however, along with the federal government, remain opposed to the national majority in favor of medical marijuana.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST MEDICAL MARIJUANA In the ongoing debate over cannabis as medicine, certain arguments are frequently made on both sides of the issue. These arguments are briefly stated below and are analyzed in turn. CRS takes no position on the claims or counterclaims in this debate. What follows is an attempt to analyze objectively the claims frequently made about the role that herbal cannabis might or might not play in the treatment of certain diseases and about the possible societal consequences should its role in the practice of modern medicine be expanded beyond the places where it is now permitted under state laws. For those interested in learning more about medical marijuana research findings, the Internet offers two useful websites. The International Association for Cannabis as Medicine (IACM), based in Germany, provides abundant information on the results of controlled clinical trials at http://www.cannabismed.org. Information on peer-reviewed, double-blind studies on both animals and human subjects conducted since 1990 has been compiled by ProCon.org and is available at http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org.

Marijuana Is Harmful and Has No Medical Value Suitable and superior medicines are currently available for treatment of all symptoms alleged to be treatable by crude marijuana. —Brief of the Drug Free America Foundation, et al., 2004 84

The federal government—along with many state governments and private antidrug organizations—staunchly maintains that botanical marijuana is a dangerous drug without any legitimate medical use. Marijuana intoxication can impair a person‟s coordination and decision-making skills and alter

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

31

behavior. Chronic marijuana smoking can adversely affect the lungs, the cardiovascular system, and possibly the immune and reproductive systems.85 Of course, FDA‟s 1985 approval of Marinol proves that the principal psychoactive ingredient of marijuana—THC—has therapeutic value. But that is not the issue in the medical marijuana debate. Botanical marijuana remains a plant substance, an herb, and its opponents say it cannot substitute for legitimate pharmaceuticals. Just because certain molecules found in marijuana might have become approved medicines, they argue, does not make the unpollinated bud of the female Cannabis sativa plant a safe and effective medicine. The Drug Free America Foundation calls the medical use of crude marijuana “a step backward to the times of potions and herbal remedies.”86 The federal government‟s argument that marijuana has no medical value is straightforward. A drug, in order to meet the standard of the Controlled Substances Act as having a “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” must meet a five-part test:

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

The drug‟s chemistry must be known and reproducible, there must be adequate safety studies, there must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy, the drug must be accepted by qualified experts, and the scientific evidence must be widely available.87

According to the DEA, botanical marijuana meets none of these requirements. First, marijuana‟s chemistry is neither fully known nor reproducible. Second, adequate safety studies have not been done. Third, there are no adequate, well-controlled scientific studies proving marijuana is effective for any medical condition. Fourth, marijuana is not accepted by even a significant minority of experts qualified to evaluate drugs. Fifth, published scientific evidence concluding that marijuana is safe and effective for use in humans does not exist.88 The same DEA Final Order that set forth the five requirements for currently accepted medical use also outlined scientific evidence that would be considered irrelevant by the DEA in establishing currently accepted medical use. These include individual case reports, clinical data collected by practitioners, studies conducted by persons not qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the substance at issue, and studies or reports so lacking in detail as to preclude responsible scientific evaluation. Such information is inadequate for experts to conclude responsibly and fairly that marijuana is safe and effective for use as

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

32

Mark Eddy

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

medicine.89 The DEA and other federal drug control agencies can thereby disregard medical literature and opinion that claim to show the therapeutic value of marijuana because they do not meet the government‟s standards of proof. The official view of medical marijuana is complicated by the wider War on Drugs. It is difficult to disentangle the medical use of locally grown marijuana for personal use from the overall policy of marijuana prohibition, as the Supreme Court made clear in Raich. To make an exemption for medical marijuana, the Court decided, “would undermine the orderly enforcement of the entire regulatory scheme ... The notion that California law has surgically excised a discrete activity that is hermetically sealed off from the larger interstate marijuana market is a dubious proposition....”90 It remains the position of the federal government, then, that the Schedule I substance marijuana is harmful—not beneficial—to human health. Its use for any reason, including medicinal, should continue to be prohibited and punished. Despite signs of a more tolerant public attitude toward medical marijuana, its therapeutic benefits, if any, will continue to be officially unacknowledged and largely unrealized in the United States so long as this position prevails at the federal level.

Marijuana Effectively Treats the Symptoms of Some Diseases [I]t cannot seriously be contested that there exists a small but significant class of individuals who suffer from painful chronic, degenerative, and terminal conditions, for whom marijuana provides uniquely effective relief. —Brief of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, et al., 2004 91

Proponents of medical marijuana point to a large body of studies from around the world that support the therapeutic value of marijuana in treating a variety of disease-related problems, including • • • • • •

relieving nausea, increasing appetite, reducing muscle spasms and spasticity, relieving chronic pain, reducing intraocular pressure, and relieving anxiety.92

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Medical Marijuana

33

Given these properties, marijuana has been used successfully to treat the debilitating symptoms of cancer and cancer chemotherapy,93 AIDS, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, glaucoma, anxiety, and other serious illnesses.94 As opponents of medical marijuana assert, existing FDA-approved pharmaceuticals for these conditions are generally more effective than marijuana. Nevertheless, as the IOM Report acknowledged, the approved medicines do not work for everyone.95 Many medical marijuana users report trying cannabis only reluctantly and as a last resort after exhausting all other treatment modalities. A distinct subpopulation of patients now relies on whole cannabis for a degree of relief that FDA-approved synthetic drugs do not provide. Medical cannabis proponents claim that single-cannabinoid, synthetic pharmaceuticals like Marinol are poor substitutes for the whole marijuana plant, which contains more than 400 known chemical compounds, including about 60 active cannabinoids in addition to THC. They say that scientists are a long way from knowing for sure which ones, singly or in combination, provide which therapeutic effects. Many patients have found that they benefit more from the whole plant than from any synthetically produced chemical derivative.96 Furthermore, the natural plant can be grown easily and inexpensively, whereas Marinol and any other cannabis-based pharmaceuticals that might be developed in the future will likely be expensive—prohibitively so for some patients.97 In recognition of the therapeutic benefits of botanical marijuana products, various associations of health professionals have passed resolutions in support of medical cannabis. These include the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association, and the California Pharmacists Association. The New England Journal of Medicine has editorialized in favor of patient access to marijuana.98 Other groups, such as the American Medical Association, are more cautious. Their position is that not enough is known about botanical marijuana and that more research is needed. The recent discovery of cannabinoid receptors in the human brain and immune system provides a biological explanation for the claimed effectiveness of marijuana in relieving multiple disease symptoms. The human body produces its own cannabis-like compounds, called endocannabinoids, that react with the body‟s cannabinoid receptors. Like the better known opiate receptors, the cannabinoid receptors in the brain stem and spinal cord play a role in pain control. Cannabinoid receptors, which are abundant in various parts of the human brain, also play a role in controlling the vomiting reflex, appetite, emotional responses, motor skills, and memory formation. It is the

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

34

Mark Eddy

presence of these natural, endogenous cannabinoids in the human nervous and immune systems that provides the basis for the therapeutic value of marijuana and that holds the key, some scientists believe, to many promising drugs of the future.99 The federal government‟s own IND Compassionate Access Program, which has provided government-grown medical marijuana to a select group of patients since 1978, provides important evidence that marijuana has medicinal value and can be used safely. A scientist and organizer of the California medical marijuana initiative, along with two medical-doctor colleagues, has written: Nothing reveals the contradictions in federal policy toward marijuana more clearly than the fact that there are still eight patients in the United States who receive a tin of marijuana „joints‟ (cigarettes) every month from the federal government.... These eight people can legally possess and use marijuana, at government expense and with government permission. Yet hundreds of thousands of other patients can be fined and jailed under federal law for doing exactly the same thing.100

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Smoking Is an Improper Route of Drug Administration Can you think of any other untested, home-made, mind-altering medicine that you self-dose, and that uses a burning carcinogen as a delivery vehicle? —General Barry McCaffrey, U.S. Drug Czar, 1996-2000101

That medical marijuana is smoked is probably the biggest obstacle preventing its wider acceptance. Opponents of medical marijuana argue that smoking is a poor way to take a drug, that inhaling smoke is an unprecedented drug delivery system, even though many approved medications are marketed as inhalants. DEA Administrator Karen Tandy writes: The scientific and medical communities have determined that smoked marijuana is a health danger, not a cure. There is no medical evidence that smoking marijuana helps patients. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved no medications that are smoked, primarily because smoking is a poor way to deliver medicine. Morphine, for example has proven to be a medically valuable drug, but the FDA does not endorse smoking opium or heroin.102

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

35

Medical marijuana opponents argue that chronic marijuana smoking is harmful to the lungs, the cardiovascular system, and possibly the immune and reproductive systems. These claims may be overstated to help preserve marijuana prohibition. For example, neither epidemiological nor aggregate clinical data show higher rates of lung cancer in people who smoke marijuana.103 The other alleged harms also remain unproven. Even if smoking marijuana is proven harmful, however, the immediate benefits of smoked marijuana could still outweigh the potential longterm harms—especially for terminally ill patients.104 The therapeutic value of smoked marijuana is supported by existing research and experience. For example, the following statements appeared in the American Medical Association‟s “Council on Scientific Affairs Report 10—Medicinal Marijuana,”105 adopted by the AMA House of delegates on December 9, 1997: •

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

“Smoked marijuana was comparable to or more effective than oral THC [Marinol], and considerably more effective than prochlorperazine or other previous antiemetics in reducing nausea and emesis.” (p. 10) “Anecdotal, survey, and clinical data support the view that smoked marijuana and oral THC provide symptomatic relief in some patients with spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis (MS) or trauma.” (p. 13) “Smoked marijuana may benefit individual patients suffering from intermittent or chronic pain.” (p. 15)

The IOM Report expressed concerns about smoking (p. 126): “Smoked marijuana is unlikely to be a safe medication for any chronic medical condition.” Despite this concern, the IOM Report‟s authors were willing to recommend smoked marijuana under certain limited circumstances. For example, the report states (p. 154):

Until the development of rapid-onset antiemetic drug delivery systems, there will likely remain a subpopulation of patients for whom standard antiemetic therapy is ineffective and who suffer from debilitating emesis. It is possible that the harmful effects of smoking marijuana for a limited period of time might be outweighed by the antiemetic benefits of

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

36

Mark Eddy marijuana, at least for patients for whom standard antiemetic therapy is ineffective and who suffer from debilitating emesis. Such patients should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and treated under close medical supervision.

The IOM Report makes another exception for terminal cancer patients (p. 159):

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Terminal cancer patients pose different issues. For those patients the medical harm associated with smoking is of little consequence. For terminal patients suffering debilitating pain or nausea and for whom all indicated medications have failed to provide relief, the medical benefits of smoked marijuana might outweigh the harm.

Smoking can actually be a preferred drug delivery system for patients whose nausea prevents them from taking anything orally. Such patients need to inhale their antiemitic drug. Other patients prefer inhaling because the drug is absorbed much more quickly through the lungs, so that the beneficial effects of the drug are felt almost at once. This rapid onset also gives patients more control over dosage. For a certain patient subpopulation, then, these advantages of inhalation may prevail over both edible marijuana preparations and pharmaceutical drugs in pill form, such as Marinol. Moreover, medical marijuana advocates argue that there are ways to lessen the risks of smoking. Any potential problems associated with smoking, they argue, can be reduced by using higher potency marijuana, which means that less has to be inhaled to achieve the desired therapeutic effect. Furthermore, marijuana does not have to be smoked to be used as medicine. It can be cooked in various ways and eaten.106 Like Marinol, however, taking marijuana orally can be difficult for patients suffering from nausea. Many patients are turning to vaporizers, which offer the benefits of smoking—rapid action, ease of dose titration—without having to inhale smoke. Vaporizers are devices that take advantage of the fact that cannabinoids vaporize at a lower temperature than that required for marijuana to burn. Vaporizers heat the plant matter enough for the cannabinoids to be released as vapor without having to burn the marijuana preparation. Patients can thereby inhale the beneficial cannabinoids without also having to inhale the potentially harmful by-products of marijuana combustion.107

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

37

Marijuana Should Be Rescheduled to Permit Medical Use

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

[T]he administrative law judge concludes that the provisions of the [Controlled Substances] Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule Ii The Judge realizes that strong emotions are aroused on both sides of any discussion concerning the use of marijuana. Nonetheless it is essential for this Agency [DEA], and its Administrator, calmly and dispassionately to review the evidence of record, correctly apply the law, and act accordingly. —Francis L. Young, DEA Administrative Law Judge, 1988 108

Proponents of medical marijuana believe its placement in Schedule I of the CSA was an error from the beginning. Cannabis is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known.109 No one has ever died of an overdose.110 Petitions to reschedule marijuana have been received by the federal government, and rejected, ever since the original passage of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970. Rescheduling can be accomplished administratively or it can be done by an act of Congress. Administratively, the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) could find that marijuana meets sufficient standards of safety and efficacy to warrant rescheduling. Even though THC, the most prevalent cannabinoid in marijuana, was administratively moved to Schedule III in 1999, no signs exist that botanical marijuana will similarly be rescheduled by federal agency ruling anytime soon. An act of Congress to reschedule marijuana is only slightly less likely, although such legislation has been introduced in recent Congresses including the 111th.111 The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act (H.R. 2835/Frank), which would move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, has seen no action beyond committee referral.112 Schedule II substances have a high potential for abuse and may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence but have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Cocaine, methamphetamine, morphine, and methadone are classified as Schedule II substances. Many drug policy experts and laypersons alike believe that marijuana should also reside in Schedule II. Others think marijuana should be properly classified as a Schedule III substance, along with THC and its synthetic version, Marinol. Substances in Schedule III have less potential for abuse than the drugs in Schedules I and II, their abuse may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

38

Mark Eddy

psychological dependence, and they have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Rescheduling seems to be supported by public opinion. A nationwide Gallup Poll conducted in March 1999 found that 73% of American adults favored “making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe in order to reduce pain and suffering.” An AARP poll of American adults age 45 and older conducted in mid-November 2004 found that 72% agreed that adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if recommended by a physician. A January 2010 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that more than 8 in 10 Americans (81%) supported efforts to make marijuana legal for medical use.113 Few Members of Congress, however, publicly support the rescheduling option. The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act (H.R. 2835), which would move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, as mentioned above, currently has 30 cosponsors.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

State Medical Marijuana Laws Increase Illicit Drug Use The natural extension of this myth [that marijuana is good medicine] is that, if marijuana is medicine, it must also be safe for recreational use. —Karen P. Tandy, DEA Administrator, 2005 114

It is the position of the federal government that to permit the use of medical marijuana affords the drug a degree of legitimacy it does not deserve. America‟s youth are especially vulnerable, it is said, and state medical marijuana programs send the wrong message to our youth, many of whom do not recognize the very real dangers of marijuana. Studies show that the use of an illicit drug is inversely proportional to the perceived harm of that drug. That is, the more harmful a drug is perceived to be, the fewer the number of people who will try it.115 Opponents of medical marijuana argue that “surveys show that perception of harm with respect to marijuana has been dropping off annually since the renewal of the drive to legalize marijuana as medicine, which began in the early 1990s when legalization advocates first gained a significant increase in funding and began planning the state ballot initiative drive to legalize crude marijuana as medicine.”116 They point to the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), which “reveals that those states which have passed medical marijuana laws have among the highest levels of past-month marijuana use, of

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Medical Marijuana

39

past-month other drug use, of drug addiction, and of drug and alcohol addiction.”117 Indeed, all 11 states that have passed medical marijuana laws ranked above the national average in the percentage of persons 12 or older reporting past-month use of marijuana in 1999, as shown in Table 2. It is at least possible, however, that this analysis confuses cause with effect. It is logical to assume that the states with the highest prevalence of marijuana usage would be more likely to approve medical marijuana programs, because the populations of those states would be more knowledgeable of marijuana‟s effects and more tolerant of its use. It is also the case that California, the state with the largest and longestrunning medical marijuana program, ranked 34th in the percentage of persons age 12-17 reporting marijuana use in the past month during the period 20022003, as shown in Table 1. In fact, between 1999 and 2002-2003, of the 10 states with active medical marijuana programs, five states (AK, HI, ME, MT, VT) rose in the state rankings of past-month marijuana use by 12- to 17-yearolds and five states fell (CA, CO, NV, OR, WA).118 Of the five states that had approved medical marijuana laws before 1999 (AK, AZ, CA, OR, WA), only Alaska‟s ranking rose between 1999 and 2002-2003, from 7th to 4th, with 11.08% of youth reporting past-month marijuana use in 2002-2003 compared with 10.4% in 1999. No clear patterns are apparent in the state-level data. Clearly, more important factors are at work in determining a state‟s prevalence of recreational marijuana use than whether the state has a medical marijuana program. The IOM Report found no evidence for the supposition that state medical marijuana programs lead to increased use of marijuana or other drugs (pp. 67): Finally, there is a broad social concern that sanctioning the medical use of marijuana might increase its use among the general population. At this point there are no convincing data to support this concern. The existing data are consistent with the idea that this would not be a problem if the medical use of marijuana were as closely regulated as other medications with abuse potential.... [T]his question is beyond the issues normally considered for medical uses of drugs and should not be a factor in evaluating the therapeutic potential of marijuana or cannabinoids.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

40

Mark Eddy Table 1. States Ranked by Percentage of Youth Age 12-17 Reporting Past-Month Marijuana Use, 1999 and 2002-2003

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1999

2002-2003

Rank

State

%

Rank

State

%

1

Delaware

13.9

1

Vermont

13.32

2

Massachusetts

11.9

2

Montana

12.07

3

Nevada

11.6

3

New Hampshire

11.79

4

Montana

11.4

4

Alaska

11.08

5

Rhode Island

10.8

5

Rhode Island

10.86

6

New Hampshire

10.7

6

Maine

10.56

7

Alaska

10.4

7

Massachusetts

10.53

8

Colorado

10.3

8

New Mexico

10.35

9

Minnesota

9.9

9

Hawaii

10.23

9

Washington

9.9

10

Colorado

9.82

11

Oregon

9.6

11

Nevada

9.58

District of Columbia

9.6

12

South Dakota

9.57

12

Illinois

9.2

13

Delaware

9.41

12

New Mexico

9.2

14

Oregon

9.31

14

Maryland

8.8

15

Michigan

9.23

15

Indiana

8.7

16

Connecticut

9.22

16

Connecticut

8.6

17

Nebraska

9.13

17

Vermont

8.4

18

Washington

9.11

18

Hawaii

8.3

19

Minnesota

8.92

18

Wisconsin

8.3

20

New York

8.76

20

Michigan

7.8

21

Ohio

8.74

20

Wyoming

7.8

22

West Virginia

8.62

22

California

7.7

23

Florida

8.52

23

North Dakota

7.6

24

North Carolina

8.44

National

7.4

25

Virginia

8.43

24

South Carolina

7.4

26

Pennsylvania

8.18

27

Arizona

7.3

27

Kentucky

8.16

27

Arkansas

7.3

28

Oklahoma

8.13

27

New Jersey

7.3

National

8.03

28

Maine

7.2

29

Arkansas

7.97

29

West Virginia

7.1

30

Idaho

7.92

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

41

Medical Marijuana

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1999

2002-2003

Rank

State

%

Rank

State

%

31

Ohio

6.9

31

Maryland

7.87

31

South Dakota

6.9

32

Arizona

7.74

33

New York

6.8

33

Wisconsin

7.71

33

North Carolina

6.8

34

California

7.66

34

Mississippi

6.7

35

Illinois

7.61

37

Kansas

6.6

36

North Dakota

7.58

37

Louisiana

6.6

37

Missouri

7.43

37

Missouri

6.6

District of Columbia

7.43

38

Georgia

6.4

38

Kansas

7.39

40

Oklahoma

6.3

39

Indiana

7.37

40

Pennsylvania

6.3

40

New Jersey

7.33

41

Florida

6.2

41

South Carolina

7.25

43

Nebraska

6.1

42

Wyoming

7.14

43

Utah

6.1

43

Iowa

7.10

45

Idaho

5.9

44

Louisiana

6.92

45

Virginia

5.9

45

Georgia

6.87

46

Texas

5.7

46

Texas

6.38

47

Alabama

5.6

47

Alabama

6.37

48

Kentucky

5.3

47

Tennessee

6.37

50

Iowa

5.2

49

Mississippi

6.04

50

Tennessee

5.2

50

Utah

5.30

Sources: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1999, Table 3B, at http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/ NHSDA/99State Tabs/tables2.htm. Rankings calculated by CRS. SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002 and 2003, Table B.3, at http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k3State/appB.htm#tabB.3. Rankings calculated by CRS.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

42

Mark Eddy

Table 2. States Ranked by Percentage of Persons 12 or Older Reporting Past-Month Marijuana Use, 1999 and 2003-2004

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1999

2003-2004

Ra nk 1

State

%

Rank

State

%

Maryland

7.9

1

New Hampshire

10.23

2

Colorado

7.7

2

Alaska

9.78

3

Massachusetts

7.5

3

Vermont

9.77

4

Rhode Island

7.4

District of Columbia

9.60

5

Alaska

7.1

4

Rhode Island

9.56

District of Columbia

7.1

5

Montana

9.17

6

Washington

6.8

6

Oregon

8.88

7

Oregon

6.6

7

Colorado

8.49

8

Delaware

6.5

8

Maine

7.95

8

New Mexico

6.5

9

Massachusetts

7.80

10

California

6.0

10

Nevada

7.62

11

Montana

5.9

11

Washington

7.41

11

New Hampshire

5.9

12

New Mexico

7.37

13

Hawaii

5.8

13

New York

7.34

13

Maine

5.8

14

Michigan

7.20

15

Nevada

5.6

15

Hawaii

6.95

15

Wyoming

5.6

16

Connecticut

9.94

17

Vermont

5.4

17

Delaware

6.89

18

Michigan

5.3

18

Missouri

6.76

18

Minnesota

5.3

19

Florida

6.58

20

Arizona

5.2

20

California

6.50

21

Wisconsin

5.1

21

Ohio

6.49

22

Connecticut

5.0

22

Minnesota

6.37

22

Florida

5.0

National

6.18

22

New Jersey

5.0

23

Indiana

6.12

25

New York

4.9

24

Nebraska

5.97

25

Utah

4.9

25

Virginia

5.96

National

4.9

26

North Carolina

5.89

27

Illinois

4.8

27

Louisiana

5.77

29

Missouri

4.7

28

Maryland

5.73

29

North Carolina

4.7

29

Arizona

5.68

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

43

Medical Marijuana

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1999

2003-2004

Ra nk 30

State

%

Rank

State

%

Indiana

4.6

30

South Carolina

5.65

31

Pennsylvania

4.5

31

Pennsylvania

5.64

32

Ohio

4.3

32

Arkansas

5.63

34

Georgia

4.2

33

Kentucky

5.62

34

Idaho

4.2

34

Illinois

5.60

35

South Dakota

4.1

35

Oklahoma

5.58

36

Virginia

4.0

36

Wyoming

5.45

38

Nebraska

3.9

37

Wisconsin

5.40

38

North Dakota

3.9

38

North Dakota

5.35

39

South Carolina

3.8

39

South Dakota

5.24

40

Kansas

3.7

40

West Virginia

5.12

43

Kentucky

3.6

41

Idaho

5.09

43

Tennessee

3.6

42

New Jersey

5.05

43

West Virginia

3.6

43

Georgia

4.93

47

Arkansas

3.5

44

Kansas

4.91

47

Louisiana

3.5

45

Iowa

4.90

47

Oklahoma

3.5

46

Texas

4.79

47

Texas

3.5

47

Mississippi

4.64

50

Alabama

3.3

48

Tennessee

4.59

50

Iowa

3.3

49

Alabama

4.32

50

Mississippi

3.3

50

Utah

4.00

Sources: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1999, Table 3B, at http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NHSDA/ 99StateTabs/ tables2.htm. Rankings calculated by CRS. SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002 and 2003, Table B.3, at http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k3State/appB.htm#tabB.3. Rankings calculated by CRS.

The IOM Report further states (p. 126): Even if there were evidence that the medical use of marijuana would decrease the perception that it can be a harmful substance, this is beyond the scope of laws regulating the approval of therapeutic drugs. Those laws concern scientific data related to the safety and efficacy of drugs for individual use; they do not address perceptions or beliefs of the general population.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

.

44

Mark Eddy

The IOM Report also found (p. 102): “No evidence suggests that the use of opiates or cocaine for medical purposes has increased the perception that their illicit use is safe or acceptable.” Doctors can prescribe cocaine, morphine, amphetamine, and methamphetamine, but this is not seen as weakening the War on Drugs. Why would doctors recommending medical marijuana to their patients be any different? The so-called “Gateway Theory” of marijuana use is also cited to explain how medical marijuana could increase illicit drug use. With respect to the rationale behind the argument that marijuana serves as a “gateway” drug, the IOM Report offered the following (p. 6):

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a “gateway” drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, “gateway” to illicit drug use. There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.

A statistical analysis of marijuana use by emergency room patients and arrestees in four states with medical marijuana programs—California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington—found no statistically significant increase in recreational marijuana use among these two population subgroups after medical marijuana was approved for use.119 Another study looked at adolescent marijuana use and found decreases in youth usage in every state with a medical marijuana law. Declines exceeding 50% were found in some age groups.120 These studies are consistent with the findings of a 2002 report by the Government Accountability Office that concluded that state medical marijuana laws were operating as voters and legislators intended and did not encourage drug use among the wider population.121 Concerns that medical cannabis laws send the wrong message to vulnerable groups such as adolescents seem to be unfounded.

Medical Marijuana Undermines the War on Drugs The DEA and its local and state counterparts routinely report that large-scale drug traffickers hide behind and invoke Proposition 215, even when there is no evidence of any medical claim. In fact, many large-scale

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

45

marijuana cultivators and traffickers escape state prosecution because of bogus medical marijuana claims. Prosecutors are reluctant to charge these individuals because of the state of confusion that exists in California. Therefore, high-level traffickers posing as „care-givers‟ are able to sell illegal drugs with impunity. —“California Medical Marijuana Information,” DEA Web page122

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

It is argued by many that state medical marijuana laws weaken the fight against drug abuse by making the work of police officers more difficult. This undermining of law enforcement can occur in at least three ways: by diverting medical marijuana into the recreational drug market, by causing state and local law enforcement priorities to diverge from federal priorities, and by complicating the job of law enforcement by forcing officers to distinguish medical users from recreational users.

Diversion Marijuana grown for medical purposes, according to DEA and other federal drug control agencies, can be diverted into the larger, illegal marijuana market, thereby undermining law enforcement efforts to eliminate the marijuana market altogether. This point was emphasized by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in its prepublication review of a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on medical marijuana. DOJ criticized the GAO draft report on the grounds that the “report did not mention that state medical marijuana laws are routinely abused to facilitate traditional illegal trafficking.”123 GAO responded that in their interviews with federal officials regarding the impact of state medical marijuana laws on their law enforcement efforts, “none of the federal officials we spoke with provided information that abuse of medical marijuana laws was routinely occurring in any of the states, including California.”124 The government also failed to establish this in the Raich case. (It is of course possible that significant diversion is taking place yet remains undetected.) Just as with many pharmaceuticals, some diversion is inevitable. Some would view this as an acceptable cost of implementing a medical marijuana program. Every public policy has its costs and benefits. Depriving seriously ill patients of their medical marijuana is seen by some as a small price to pay if doing so will help to protect America‟s youth from marijuana. Others balance the harms and benefits of medical marijuana in the opposite direction. Legal analyst Stuart Taylor Jr. recently wrote, “As a matter of policy, Congress as well as the states should legalize medical marijuana, with strict regulatory

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

46

Mark Eddy

controls. The proven benefits to some suffering patients outweigh the potential costs of marijuana being diverted to illicit uses.”125

Changed State and Local Law Enforcement Priorities Following the passage of the California and Arizona medical marijuana initiatives in 1996, federal officials expressed concern that the measures would seriously affect the federal government‟s drug enforcement effort because federal drug policies rely heavily on the state‟s enforcement of their own drug laws to achieve federal objectives. For instance, in hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration stated:

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

I have always felt ... that the federalization of crime is very difficult to carry out; that crime, just in essence, is for the most part a local problem and addressed very well locally, in my experience. We now have a situation where local law enforcement is unsure.... The numbers of investigations that you would talk about that might be presently being conducted by the [Arizona state police] at the gram level would be beyond our capacity to conduct those types of individual investigations without abandoning the major organized crime investigations. 126

State medical marijuana laws arguably feed into the deprioritization movement, by which drug reform advocates seek to influence state and local law enforcement to give a low priority to the enforcement of marijuana laws. This movement to make simple marijuana possession the lowest law enforcement priority has made inroads in such cities as San Francisco, Seattle, and Oakland, but it extends beyond the medical marijuana states to college towns such as Ann Arbor, MI, Madison, WI, Columbia, MO, and Lawrence, KS.127 Federal officials fear that jurisdictions that “opt out” of marijuana enforcement “will quickly become a haven for drug traffickers.”128

Distinguishing Between Legal and Illegal Providers and Users Police officers in medical marijuana states have complained about the difficulty of distinguishing between legitimate patients and recreational marijuana smokers. According to the DEA: Local and state law enforcement counterparts cannot distinguish between illegal marijuana grows and grows that qualify as medical

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

47

exemptions. Many self-designated medical marijuana growers are, in fact, growing marijuana for illegal, “recreational” use.129

This reasoning is echoed in the Raich amici brief of Community Rights Counsel (p. 12):

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Creating an exception for medical use [of marijuana] could undermine enforcement efforts by imposing an often difficult burden on prosecutors of establishing the violator‟s subjective motivation and intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that marijuana used in response to medical ailments is not readily distinguishable from marijuana used for other reasons, Congress rationally concluded that the control of all use is necessary to address the national market for controlled substances.

Patients and caregivers, on the other hand, have complained that their marijuana that is lawful under state statute has been seized by police and not returned. In some cases, patients and caregivers have been unexpectedly arrested by state or local police officers. A November 2002 GAO report on medical marijuana stated that “Several law enforcement officials in California and Oregon cited the inconsistency between federal and state law as a significant problem, particularly regarding how seized marijuana is handled.”130 The failure of state and local law enforcement officers to observe state medical marijuana laws has especially been a problem in California. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has, on numerous occasions, arrested patients or confiscated their medical marijuana during routine traffic stops. “Although voters legalized medical marijuana in California nearly nine years ago,” reports the Los Angeles Times, “police statewide have wrangled with activists over how to enforce the law.”131 As a result of a lawsuit brought against the CHP by a patient advocacy group, CHP officers will no longer seize patients‟ marijuana as long as they possess no more than 8 ounces and can show a certified-user identification card or their physician‟s written recommendation. The CHP‟s new policy, announced in August 2005, will likely influence the behavior of other California law enforcement agencies. The Committee on Drugs and the Law of the Bar of the City of New York concluded its 1997 report “Marijuana Should be Medically Available” with this statement: “The government can effectively differentiate medical marijuana and recreational marijuana, as it has done with cocaine. The image of the Federal authorities suppressing a valuable medicine to maintain the

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

48

Mark Eddy

rationale of the war on drugs only serves to discredit the government‟s effort.”132

Patients Should Not Be Arrested for Using Medical Marijuana

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Centuries of Anglo-American law stand against the imposition of criminal liability on individuals for pursuing their own lifesaving pain relief and treatment.... Because the experience of pain can be so subversive of dignity—and even of the will to live—ethics and legal tradition recognize that individuals pursuing pain relief have special claims to non-interference. —Brief of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, et al., 2004 133

Medical marijuana advocates believe that seriously ill people should not be punished for acting in accordance with the opinion of their physicians in a bona fide attempt to relieve their suffering, especially when acting in accordance with state law. Even if marijuana were proven to be more harmful than now appears, prison for severely ill patients is believed to be a worse alternative. Patients have enough problems without having to fear the emotional and financial cost of arrest, legal fees, prosecution, and a possible prison sentence. The American public appears to agree. The Institute of Medicine found that “public support for patient access to marijuana for medical use appears substantial; public opinion polls taken during 1997 and 1998 generally reported 60-70 percent of respondents in favor of allowing medical uses of marijuana.”134 The federal penalty for possessing one marijuana cigarette—even for medical use—is up to one year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine,135 and the penalty for growing a cannabis plant is up to five years and up to a $250,000 fine.136 That patients are willing to risk these severe penalties to obtain the relief that marijuana provides appears to present strong evidence for the substance‟s therapeutic effectiveness. Although the Supreme Court ruled differently in Raich, the argument persists that medical marijuana providers and patients are engaging in a class of activity totally different from those persons trafficking in marijuana for recreational use and that patients should not be arrested for using medical marijuana in accordance with the laws of the states in which they reside. With its position affirmed by Raich, however, DEA continues to investigate—and sometimes raid and shut down—medical marijuana

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

49

distribution operations in California and other medical marijuana states. DEA‟s position is that:

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

[F]ederal law does not distinguish between crimes involving marijuana for claimed “medical” purposes and crimes involving marijuana for any other purpose. DEA likewise does not so distinguish in carrying out its duty to enforce the CSA and investigate possible violations of the Act. Rather, consistent with the agency‟s mandate, DEA focuses on large-scale trafficking organizations and other criminal enterprises that warrant federal scrutiny. If investigating CSA violations in this manner leads the agency to encounter persons engaged in criminal activities involving marijuana, DEA does not alter its approach if such persons claim at some point their crimes are “medically” justified. To do so would be to give legal effect to an excuse considered by the text of federal law and the United States Supreme Court to be of no moment.137

Because nearly all arrests and prosecutions for marijuana possession are handled by state and local law enforcement officers, patients and caregivers in the medical marijuana states can, as a practical matter, possess medical marijuana without fear of arrest and imprisonment. DEA enforcement actions against medical marijuana dispensaries—as occurred in San Francisco shortly after the Raich decision was announced138—can, however, make it more difficult for patients to obtain the drug. The situation that Grinspoon and Bakalar described in 1995 in the Journal of the American Medical Association persists a decade later: “At present, the greatest danger in medical use of marihuana is its illegality, which imposes much anxiety and expense on suffering people, forces them to bargain with illicit drug dealers, and exposes them to the threat of criminal prosecution.”139

The States Should Be Allowed to Experiment Doctors, not the federal government, know what‟s best for their patients. If a state decides to allow doctors to recommend proven treatments for their patients, then the federal government has no rightful place in the doctor‟s office. —Attorney Randy Barnett, 2004140

Three States—California, Maryland, and Washington—filed an amici curiae brief supporting the right of states to institute medical marijuana programs. Their brief argued, “In our federal system States often serve as

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

50

Mark Eddy

democracy‟s laboratories, trying out new, or innovative solutions to society‟s ills.”141 The Raich case shows that the federal government has zero tolerance for state medical marijuana programs. The Bush Administration appealed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, which reversed the Ninth Circuit and upheld the federal position against the states. Framed as a Commerce Clause issue, the case became a battle for states‟ rights against the federal government. The Raich case created unusual political alliances. Three southern states that are strongly opposed to any marijuana use, medical or otherwise— Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi—filed an amici curiae brief supporting California‟s medical marijuana users on the grounds of states‟ rights. Their brief argued

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

As Justice Brandeis famously remarked, “[i]t is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”142 Whether California and the other compassionate-use States are “courageous—or instead profoundly misguided—is not the point. The point is that, as a sovereign member of the federal union, California is entitled to make for itself the tough policy choices that affect its citizens.143

States‟ rights advocates argue that authority to define criminal law and the power to make and enforce laws protecting the health, safety, welfare, and morals reside at the state level and that a state has the right to set these policies free of congressional interference. For Justice O‟Connor, the Raich case exemplified “the role of States as laboratories.”144 She wrote in her dissenting opinion: If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California‟s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.145

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

51

Medical Marijuana Laws Harm the Drug Approval Process

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The current efforts to gain legal status of marijuana through ballot initiatives seriously threaten the Food and Drug Administration statutorily authorized process of proving safety and efficacy. —Brief of the Drug Free America Foundation, et al., 2004 146

Although the individual states regulate the practice of medicine, the federal government has taken primary responsibility for the regulation of medical products, especially those containing controlled substances. Pharmaceutical drugs must be approved for use in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act gives HHS and FDA the responsibility for determining that drugs are safe and effective, a requirement that all medicines must meet before they can enter interstate commerce and be made available for general medical use.147 Clinical evaluation is required regardless of whether the drug is synthetically produced or originates from a natural botanical or animal source. Opponents of medical marijuana say that the FDA‟s drug approval process should not be circumvented. To permit states to decide which medical products can be made available for therapeutic use, they say, would undercut this regulatory system. State medical marijuana initiatives are seen as inconsistent with the federal government‟s responsibility to protect the public from unsafe, ineffective drugs. The Bush Administration argued in its brief in the Raich case that “excepting drug activity for personal use or free distribution from the sweep of [federal drug laws] would discourage the consumption of lawful controlled substances and would undermine Congress‟s intent to regulate the drug market comprehensively to protect public health and safety.”148 Three prominent drug abuse experts argued in their amici brief: This action by the state of California did not create a “novel social and economic experiment,” but rather chaos in the scientific and medical communities. Furthermore, under Court of Appeals ruling, such informal State systems could be replicated, and even expanded, in a manner that puts at risk the critical protections so carefully crafted under the national food and drug legislation of the 20th century.149

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

52

Mark Eddy The Food and Drug Administration itself has stated that FDA is the sole Federal agency that approves drug products as safe and effective for intended indications.... FDA‟s drug approval process requires well-controlled clinical trials that provide the necessary scientific data upon which FDA makes its approval and labeling decisions.... Efforts that seek to bypass the FDA drug approval process would not serve the interests of public health because they might expose patients to unsafe and ineffective drug products. FDA has not approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease indication.150

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The Drug Free America Raich brief elaborates further (pp. 12-13): The ballot initiative-led laws create an atmosphere of medicine by popular vote, rather than the rigorous scientific and medical process that all medicines must undergo. Before the development of modern pharmaceutical science, the field of medicine was fraught with potions and herbal remedies. Many of those were absolutely useless, or conversely were harmful to unsuspecting subjects. Thus evolved our current Food and Drug Administration and drug scheduling processes, which Congress has authorized in order to create a uniform and reliable system of drug approval and regulation. This system is being intentionally undermined by the legalization proponents through use of medical marijuana initiatives.

The organizers of the medical marijuana state initiatives deny that it was their intent to undermine the federal drug approval process. Rather, in their view, it became necessary for them to bypass the FDA and go to the states because of the federal government‟s resistance to marijuana research requests and rescheduling petitions. As for the charge that politics should not play a role in the drug approval and controlled substance scheduling processes, medical marijuana supporters point out that marijuana‟s original listing as a Schedule I substance in 1970 was itself a political act on the part of Congress. Scientists on both sides of the issue say more research needs to be done, yet some researchers charge that the federal government has all but shut down marijuana clinical trials for reasons based on politics and ideology rather than science.151 In any case, as the IOM Report pointed out, “although a drug is normally approved for medical use only on proof of its „safety and efficacy,‟ patients with life-threatening conditions are sometimes (under protocols for

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

53

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

„compassionate use‟) allowed access to unapproved drugs whose benefits and risks are uncertain.”152 This was the case with the FDA‟s IND Compassionate Access Program under which a limited number of patients are provided government-grown medical marijuana to treat their serious medical conditions. Some observers believe the pharmaceutical industry and some politicians oppose medical marijuana to protect pharmaceutical industry profits. Because the whole marijuana plant cannot be patented, research efforts must be focused on the development of synthetic cannabinoids such as Marinol. But even if additional cannabinoid drugs are developed and marketed, some believe that doctors and patients should still not be criminalized for recommending and using the natural substance. The New England Journal of Medicine has editorialized that [A] federal policy that prohibits physicians from alleviating suffering by prescribing marijuana for seriously ill patients is misguided, heavyhanded, 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 of 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.153

Some observers suggest that until the federal government relents and becomes more hospitable to marijuana research proposals and more willing to consider moving marijuana to a less restrictive schedule, the medical marijuana issue will continue to be fought at state and local levels of governance. As one patient advocate has stated, “As the months tick away, it will become more and more obvious that we need to continue changing state laws until the federal government has no choice but to change its inhumane medicinal marijuana laws.”154

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

54

Mark Eddy

The Medical Marijuana Movement Is Politically Inspired

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Advocates have tried to legalize marijuana in one form or another for three decades, and the “medical marijuana” concept is a Trojan Horse tactic towards the goal of legalization. —Brief of the Drug Free America Foundation, et al., 2004 155

Medical marijuana opponents see the movement to promote the use of medical marijuana as a cynical attempt to subvert the Controlled Substances Act and legalize the recreational use of marijuana for all. They see it as a devious tactic in the more than 30-year effort by marijuana proponents to bring an end to marijuana prohibition in the United States and elsewhere. They point out that between 1972 and 1978, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) successfully lobbied 11 state legislatures to decriminalize the drug, reducing penalties for possession in most cases to that of a traffic ticket. Also, in 1972, NORML began the first of several unsuccessful attempts to petition DEA to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II on the grounds that crude marijuana had use in medicine.156 Later, beginning with California in 1996, “drug legalizers” pushed successfully for passage of medical marijuana voter initiatives in several states, prompting then-Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey, writing in Newsweek, to warn that “We‟re on a Perilous Path.” “I think it‟s clear,” he wrote, “that a lot of the people arguing for the California proposition and others like it are pushing the legalization of drugs, plain and simple.”157 Is it cynical or smart for NORML and other drug reform organizations to simultaneously pursue the separate goals of marijuana decriminalization for all, on the one hand, and marijuana rescheduling for the seriously ill, on the other? It is not unusual for political activists tactically to press for—and accept—half-measures in pursuit of a larger strategic goal. Pro-life activists work to prohibit partial-birth abortions and to pass parental notification laws. Gay rights activists seek limited domestic partner benefits as a stepping stone to full marriage equality. Thus is the tactic used on both sides of the cultural divide in America, to the alarm of those opposed. It is certainly true that the medical cannabis movement is an offshoot of the marijuana legalization movement. Many individuals and organizations that support medical marijuana also support a broader program of drug law reform. It is also true, however, that many health professionals and other individuals who advocate medical access to marijuana do not support any other changes in

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

55

U.S. drug control policy. In the same way, not everyone in favor of parental notification laws supports banning abortions for everyone. And not every supporter of domestic partner benefits believes in same-sex marriage. In these hot-button issues, ideology and emotion often rule. Marijuana users in general, and medical marijuana users in particular, are demonized by some elements of American society. The ideology of the “Drug Warriors” intrudes on the science of medical marijuana, as pointed out by Grinspoon and Bakalar in the Journal of the American Medical Association: Advocates of medical use of marihuana are sometimes charged with using medicine as a wedge to open a way for “recreational” use. The accusation is false as applied to its target, but expresses in a distorted form a truth about some opponents of medical marihuana: they will not admit that it can be a safe and effective medicine largely because they are stubbornly committed to exaggerating its dangers when used for nonmedical purposes.158

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

The authors of the IOM Report were aware of the possibility that larger ideological positions could influence one‟s stand on the specific issue of patient access to medical marijuana when they wrote that [I]t is not relevant to scientific validity whether an argument is put forth by someone who believes that all marijuana use should be legal or by someone who believes that any marijuana use is highly damaging to individual users and to society as a whole. (p. 14)

In other words, it is widely believed that science should rule when it comes to medical issues. Both sides in the medical marijuana debate claim adherence to this principle. The House Government Reform Committee‟s April 2004 hearing on medical marijuana was titled “Marijuana and Medicine: The Need for a Science-Based Approach.” And medical marijuana advocates plead with the federal government to permit scientific research on medical marijuana to proceed. Rescheduling marijuana and making it available for medical use and research is not necessarily a step toward legalizing its recreational use. Such a move would put it on a par with cocaine, methamphetamine, morphine, and methadone, all of which are Schedule II substances that are not close to becoming legal for recreational use. Proponents of medical marijuana ask why marijuana should be considered differently than these other scheduled substances.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

56

Mark Eddy

It is also arguable that marijuana should indeed be considered differently than cocaine, methamphetamine, morphine, and methadone. Scientists note that marijuana is less harmful and less addictive than these Schedule II substances. Acceptance of medical marijuana could in fact pave the way for its more generalized use. Ethan Nadelmann, head of the Drug Policy Alliance, has observed, “As medical marijuana becomes more regulated and institutionalized in the West, that may provide a model for how we ultimately make marijuana legal for all adults.”159 Medical marijuana opponents have trumpeted his candor as proof of the hypocrisy of those on the other side of the issue. Others note, however, that his comment may be less hypocritical than astute.

End Notes

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1

The terms medical marijuana and medical cannabis are used interchangeably in this report to refer to marijuana (scientific name: Cannabis sativa) and to marijuana use that qualifies for a medical use exception under the laws of certain states and under the federal Investigational New Drug Compassionate Access Program. 2 The terms botanical cannabis, herbal cannabis, botanical marijuana, and crude marijuana, used interchangeably in this report, signify the whole or parts of the natural marijuana plant and therapeutic products derived therefrom, as opposed to drugs produced synthetically in the laboratory that replicate molecules found in the marijuana plant. 3 Gregg A. Bliz, “The Medical Use of Marijuana: The Politics of Medicine,” Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy, vol. 13, spring 1992, p. 118. 4 Oakley Ray and Charles Ksir, Drugs, Society, and Human Behavior, 10th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004), p. 456. 5 Bill Zimmerman, Is Marijuana the Right Medicine for You? A Factual Guide to Medical Uses of Marijuana (New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing, 1998), p. 19. 6 In Spanish, the letter “j” carries the sound of “h” in English. This alternative spelling of marijuana (with an “h”) was formerly used by the federal government and is still used by some writers today. 7 P.L. 75-238, 50 Stat. 551, August 2, 1937. In Leary v. United States (395 U.S. 6 (1968)), the Supreme Court ruled the Marihuana Tax Act unconstitutional because it compelled selfincrimination, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. 8 P.L. 63-223, December 17, 1914, 38 Stat. 785. This law was passed to implement the Hague Convention of 1912 and created a federal tax on opium and coca leaves and their derivatives. 9 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Taxation of Marihuana, hearings on H.R. 6385, 75th Cong., 1st sess., May 4, 1937 (Washington: GPO, 1937), p. 114. 10 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Taxation of Marihuana, hearing on H.R. 6906, 75th Cong., 1st sess., July 12, 1937 (Washington: GPO, 1937), p. 33. 11 U.S. President, 1969-1974 (Nixon), “Special Message to the Congress on Control of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs,” July 14, 1969, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States 1969 (Washington: GPO, 1971), pp. 513-518.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

12

57

U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, conference report to accompany H.R. 18583, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 911603 (Washington: GPO, 1970). 13 Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, P.L. 91-513, October 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. §801, et seq. 14 Ibid., Sec. 202(b)(1), 84 Stat. 1247, 21 U.S.C. §812(b)(1). 15 Ibid., Sec. 202(c), 84 Stat. 1248. 16 Ibid., Sec. 404 (21 U.S.C. §844) and 18 U.S.C. §3571. Sec. 404 also calls for a minimum fine of $1,000, and Sec. 405 (21 U.S.C. §844a) permits a civil penalty of up to $10,000. 17 Sec. 102(15), (22) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. §802(15), (22)). 18 Sec. 401(b)(1)(D) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(D)). 19 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, P.L. 105-277, October 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-760. 20 Ibid., District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1999, Sec. 171, 112 Stat. 2681-150. 21 “The Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998, also known as Initiative 59, approved by the electors of the District of Columbia on November 3, 1998, shall not take effect.” (District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2006 (Division B of P.L. 109-115, Sec. 128 (b); 119 Stat. 2521.) This recurring provision of D.C. appropriations acts is known as the Barr Amendment because it was originally offered by Rep. Bob Barr. Since leaving Congress in 2003, Barr changed his position and worked for a period of time in support of medical marijuana as a lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project. See his website http://www.bobbarr.org. 22 When last considered in July 2007, the amendment stated: “None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” The wording of previous versions of the amendment was similar. 23 “Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hinchey,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149 (July 22, 2003), pp. H 7302-H7311 and vol. 149 (July 23, 2003), pp. H7354-H7355. 24 “Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Farr,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 150 (July 7, 2004), pp. H5300-H 5306, H5320. 25 “Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151 (July 15, 2005), pp. H4519-H 4524, H4529. 26 “Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 152 (June 28, 2006), pp. H4735-H 4739. 27 “Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153 (July 25, 2007), p. H8484. 28 For a legal analysis of the amendment, see CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, “Possible Legal Effects of the Medical Marijuana Amendment to S. 1082,” by Vanessa Burrows and Brian Yeh. 29 “Frank Introduces Legislation to Remove Federal Penalties on Personal Marijuana Use,” press release from the office of Rep. Barney Frank, April 17, 2008. 30 When it was first introduced in the 108th Congress, the bill was called the Steve McWilliams Truth in Trials Act. It was named after a Californian who took his own life while awaiting federal sentencing for marijuana trafficking. At his trial, it was impermissible to inform the jury that he was actually providing marijuana to seriously ill patients in San Diego in compliance with state law. 31 The Common Law Doctrine of Necessity argues that the illegal act committed (in this case, growing marijuana) was necessary to avert a greater harm (blindness). 32 Despite the program‟s name, it was not a clinical trial to test the drug for eventual approval, but a means for the government to provide medical marijuana to patients demonstrating

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

58

Mark Eddy

necessity. Some have criticized the government for its failure to study the safety and efficacy of the medical-grade marijuana it grew and distributed to this patient population. 33 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, “Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Synthetic Dronobinol in Sesame Oil and Encapsulation in Soft Gelatin Capsules From Schedule I to Schedule II; Statement of Policy,” 51 Federal Register 17476, May 13, 1986. 34 Ibid., “Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of the Food and Drug Administration Approved Product Containing Synthetic Dronabinol [(-)-delta nine-(trans)Tetrahydrocannabinol] in Sesame Oil and Encapsulated in Soft Gelatin Capsules From Schedule II to Schedule III,” 64 Federal Register 35928, July 2, 1999. 35 Ibid., Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, “Schedule of Controlled Substances: Petition to Remove Marijuana or in the Alternative to Control Marijuana in Schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act,” 37 Federal Register 18097, September 7, 1972. 36 Ibid., Drug Enforcement Administration, “In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, Docket No. 86-22, Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of Administrative Law Judge,” Francis L. Young, Administrative Law Judge, September 6, 1988. This quote and the following two quotes are at pp. 58-59, 68, and 67, respectively. This opinion is online at http://www.druglibrary.net/olsen/ MEDICAL/YOUNG/ young.html. 37 Ibid., “Marijuana Scheduling Petition; Denial of Petition,” 54 Federal Register 53767 at 53768, December 29, 1989. The petition denial was appealed, eventually resulting in yet another DEA denial to reschedule. See Ibid., “Marijuana Scheduling Petition; Denial of Petition; Remand,” 57 Federal Register 10499, March 26, 1992. 38 National Institutes of Health. The Ad Hoc Group of Experts. Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana: Report to the Director, August 1997. (Hereafter cited as NIH Workshop.) 39 Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A. Benson, Jr., eds., Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (Washington: National Academy Press, 1999). (Hereafter cited as the IOM Report.) http://www.nap.edu/books/ 0309071550/html/ 40 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, “Notice of Denial of Petition,” 65 Federal Register 20038, April 18, 2001. 41 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a Medicine,” press release, April 20, 2006, p. 1. Although not cited in the press release, the “past evaluation” referred to is apparently the 2001 denial of the petition to reschedule marijuana discussed above. 42 See, for example, “The Politics of Pot,” editorial, New York Times, April 22, 2006, p. A26, which calls the FDA statement “disingenuous” and concludes: “It‟s obviously easier and safer to issue a brief, dismissive statement than to back research that might undermine the administration‟s inflexible opposition to the medical use of marijuana.” 43 “Hinchey Leads Bipartisan House Coalition In Calling For FDA To Explain Baseless AntiMedical Marijuana Policy,” press release, April 27, 2006. (The press release, which includes the full text of the letter, is available on Rep. Hinchey‟s website at http://www.house.gov/hinchey/newsroom/press_2006/042706medmarijuanafdaletter.html.) 44 Jessica Winter, “Weed Control: Research on the Medicinal Benefits of Marijuana May Depend on Good Gardening—and Some Say Uncle Sam, the Country‟s Only Legal Grower of the Cannabis Plant, Isn‟t Much of a Green Thumb,” Boston Globe, May 28, 2006. 45 “The UMass Amherst MMJ Production Facility Project,” on the MAPS website at http://www.maps.org/mmj/ mmjfacility.html. See the entry for February 8, 2005. (Numerous documents related to the Craker/MAPS application are linked here.) 46 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, “In the Matter Lyle E. Craker, Ph.D., Docket No. 05-16, Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of Administrative Law Judge,” Mary Ellen Bittner, Administrative Law Judge, February 12, 2007, p. 87. This opinion is online at http://www.maps.org/ mmj/DEAlawsuit.html.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

47

59

Department of Justice, “Lyle E. Craker; Denial of Application,” 74 Federal Register 21012133, January 14, 2009. 48 The documents in this case, including the ones cited here, can be found at http://www.maps.org/mmj/ DEAlawsuit.html. 49 Rone Tempest, “DEA Targets Larger Marijuana Providers,” Los Angeles Times, January 1, 2007. 50 These include medical marijuana activist and author Ed Rosenthal, whose first federal jury, in 2003, renounced its guilty verdict when it learned after the trial that he was legally helping patients under state law. He was retried and reconvicted in 2007 but not re-sentenced because he had already served his sentence of one day. See “„Guru of Ganja‟ Convicted on Marijuana Charges,” Associated Press, May 30, 2007. 51 Sec. 416 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 856) as amended by P.L. 99-570, Title I, sec. 1841(a), October 27, 1986; 100 Stat. 3207-52. Actually, the crack house statute was amended in 2003 by the “rave act” (§ 608 of P.L. 108-21, May 1, 2003; 117 Stat. 691), which broadened the language of the crack house statute to include outdoor venues and other possible places where raves could be held by striking the words “building, room, or enclosure” (which appear in the DEA letter) and replacing them with “place.” This and other subtle but significant changes in the language of the law were designed to penalize rave promoters and the owners and managers of the venues where raves (all-night music festivals) occur at which Ecstasy (MDMA) and other club drugs might be used. The July 2007 DEA letter cites the language of the pre-2003 version of the crack house statute rather than the provision of law currently in force. This section of the CSA has also been used by the DEA against fund-raising events put on by drug law reform organizations. 52 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). 53 “New Challenges for Medical Marijuana,” Los Angeles Times editorial, July 19, 2007. 54 County of Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft, 314 F.Supp.2d 1000 (N.D.Cal. 2004); the decision, however, rests on the 9th Circuit‟s ruling in Raich, subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court, as described below. 55 Stephen Dinan and Ben Conery, “DEA Continues Pot Raids Obama Opposes,” Washington Times, February 5, 2009. 56 David Johnston and Neil A. Lewis, “Obama Administration to Stop Raids on Medical Marijuana Dispensers,” New York Times, March 19, 2009. 57 The memorandum is available at http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192. 58 For a legal analysis of the three Supreme Court cases mentioned here, see CRS Report RL31100, Marijuana for Medical Purposes: The Supreme Court’s Decision in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative and Related Legal Issues, by Charles Doyle. 59 The necessity defense argues that the illegal act committed (distribution of marijuana in this instance) was necessary to avert a greater harm (withholding a helpful drug from seriously ill patients). 60 190 F.3d 1109. 61 532 U.S. 483 (2001) at 494 n. 7. 62 Conant v. McCaffrey, 172 F.R.D. 681 (N.D. Cal. 1997). 63 Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 636 (9th Cir. 2002); the parties agreed that “a doctor who actually prescribes or dispenses marijuana violates federal law,” ibid. at 634. 64 Raich v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2003). 65 Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 2205 (2005). 66 Ibid. at 2211 n. 37. For a legal analysis of this case, see CRS Report RS22167, Gonzales v. Raich: Congress’s Power Under the Commerce Clause to Regulate Medical Marijuana, by Todd B. Tatelman. 67 Ibid. at 2215.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

60

Mark Eddy

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

68

P.L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763A-153, 44 U.S.C. § 3516 note. For background on the DQA see CRS Report RL32532, The Information Quality Act: OMB’s Guidance and Initial Implementation, by Curtis W. Copeland. 69 The original petition and all subsequent documents relating to the case can be found at http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=4401. See also Carolyn Marshall, “U.S. Is Sued Over Position on Marijuana,” New York Times, February 22, 2007. 70 The information in this and the following section is drawn largely from State-By-State Medical Marijuana Laws: How to Remove the Threat of Arrest, Marijuana Policy Project, 2008, available at http://www.mpp.org/legislation/state-by-state-medical-marijuana-laws.html. More recent information is from press reports. 71 Alaska (Stat. §11.71.090); California (Cal.Health & Safety Code Ann. §11362.5 and §§11362.7 to 11362.83); Colorado (Colo.Const. Art. XVIII §14); Hawaii (Rev.Stat. §§329121 to 329-128); Maine (Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit.22 §1102 or 2382-B(5)); Michigan (MCL §§333.26421 to 26430); Montana (Mont.Code Ann. §§50-46-101 to 50-46-210); Nevada (Nev.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§453A.010 to 453A.400); New Jersey (N.J. Stat. §24:6I); New Mexico (N.M. Stat. Ann. §26-2B-1); Oregon (Ore.Rev.Stat. §§475.300 to 475.346); Rhode Island (RI ST §§21 to 28.6-1); Vermont (Vt.Stat.Ann. tit. 18, §§4472 to 4474d); Washington (Wash.Rev.Code Ann. §§69.51A.005 to 69.51A.902). 72 Dale Gieringer, “The Acceptance of Medical Marijuana in the U.S.,” Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, vol. 3, no. 1 (2003), pp. 53-67. The author later estimated that there were more than 100,000 medical marijuana patients in California alone (personal communication dated April 30, 2004). 73 Susan Okie, “Medical Marijuana and the Supreme Court,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 353, no. 7 (August 18, 2005), p. 649. 74 The telephone survey was conducted for this report by CRS summer intern Broocks Andrew Meade. 75 Ian Yarett, “Back Story: How High Are You?,” Newsweek, February 15, 2010, p. 56. 76 The California Department of Public Health Medical Marijuana Program homepage is available on the Web at http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/MMP. 77 Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §13-3412.01(A). 78 Md. Crim.Code Ann. §5-601. 79 State-By-State Medical Marijuana Laws: How to Remove the Threat of Arrest, Marijuana Policy Project, 2008, p. 2 and Appendix A. The laws in some of these states have expired or been repealed. 80 Tim Craig, “D.C. Council Proposes Legalization of Medical Marijuana,” Washington Post, January 20, 2010, p. B1. 81 The questions asked and the results obtained can be viewed at http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.additionalresource.php?resourceID=151. 82 Gary Langer, “High Support for Medical Marijuana,” ABC News/Washington Post Poll, January 18, 2010. 83 Robert J. Blend on and John T. Young, “The Public and the War on Illicit Drugs,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 279, no. 11 (March 18, 1998), p. 831. 84 Brief for the Drug Free America Foundation, Inc. et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners at 13, Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005) (No. 03-1454). The amici curiae briefs filed in Raich contain a wealth of information and arguments on both sides of the medical marijuana debate. They are available online at http://www.angeljustice.org. 85 See, for example, “Exposing the Myth of Medical Marijuana,” on the DEA website at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/marijuanap.html. 86 Ibid., at 25. 87 This test was first formulated by the DEA in 1992 in response to a marijuana rescheduling petition. See U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, “Marijuana Scheduling Petition; Denial of Petition; Remand,” 57 Federal Register 10499, March 26, 1992, at 10506.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana 88

Ibid., p. 10507. Ibid., pp. 10506-10507. 90 Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195, at 2212 and 2213 (2005). 91 Brief for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents at 4, Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005) (No. 03-1454). 92 Ibid., at 1-2. 93 A 1990 survey of oncologists found that 54% of those with an opinion on medical marijuana favored the controlled medical availability of marijuana and 44% had already broken the law by suggesting at least once that a patient obtain marijuana illegally. R. Doblin and M. Kleiman, “Marijuana as Antiemetic Medicine,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 9 (1991), pp. 1314-1319. 94 There is evidence that marijuana might also be useful in treating arthritis, migraine, menstrual cramps, alcohol and opiate addiction, and depression and other mood disorders. 95 IOM Report, pp. 3-4: “The effects of cannabinoids on the symptoms studied are generally modest, and in most cases there are more effective medications. However, people vary in their responses to medications, and there will likely always be a subpopulation of patients who do not respond well to other medications.” 96 Brief for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents at 18, Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005) (No. 03-1454). 97 Marinol currently sells at retail for about $17 per pill. 98 “Federal Foolishness and Marijuana,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 336, no. 5 (January 30, 1997), pp. 366-367. 99 For a summary of the growing body of research on endocannabinoids, see Roger A. Nicoll and Bradley N. Alger, “The Brain‟s Own Marijuana,” Scientific American, December 2004, pp. 68-75, and Jean Marx, “Drugs Inspired by a Drug,” Science, January 20, 2006, pp. 322-325. 100 Bill Zimmerman, Is Marijuana the Right Medicine For You? A Factual Guide to Medical Uses of Marijuana (Keats Publishing, New Canaan, CT: 1998), p. 25. 101 Barry R. McCaffrey, “We‟re on a Perilous Path,” Newsweek, February 3, 1997, p. 27. 102 Karen Tandy, “Marijuana: The Myths Are Killing Us,” Police Chief Magazine, March 2005, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr042605p.html. 103 Lynn Zimmer and John P. Morgan, Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts (New York: Lindesmith Center, 1997), p. 115. 104 Medicines do not have to be completely safe to be approved. In fact, no medicine is completely safe; every drug has toxicity concerns. All pharmaceuticals have potentially harmful side effects, and it would be startling, indeed, if botanical marijuana were found to be an exception. The IOM Report states that “except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications.” (p. 5) 105 American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs Report: Medical Marijuana (A01), June 2001. An unpaginated version of this document can be found on the Web at http://www.mfiles.org/Marijuana/medicinal_use/ b2_ama_csa_report.html. 106 Cannabis preparations are also used topically as oils and balms to soothe muscles, tendons, and joints. 107 Several companies offer vaporizers for sale in the United States, but their marketing is complicated by marijuana prohibition and by laws prohibiting drug paraphernalia. The advantages of the vaporizer were brought to the attention of the IOM panel. The IOM Report, however, devoted only one sentence to such devices, despite its recommendation for research into safe delivery systems. The IOM Report said, “Vaporization devices that permit inhalation of plant cannabinoids without the carcinogenic combustion products found in smoke are under development by several groups; such devices would also require regulatory review by the FDA.” (p. 216) 108 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, “In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, Docket No. 86-22, Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of 89

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

61

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

62

Mark Eddy

Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of Administrative Law Judge,” Francis L. Young, Administrative Law Judge, September 6, 1988, p. 67. This opinion is online at http://www.druglibrary.net/olsen/MEDICAL/YOUNG/young.html. 109 Ibid., pp. 58-59. 110 Ibid., p. 56. 111 When Congress directly schedules a drug, as it did marijuana in 1970, it is not bound by the criteria in section 202(b) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 812(b)). 112 Congress could also follow the lead of some states that have a dual scheduling scheme for botanical marijuana whereby its recreational use is prohibited (Schedule I) but it is permitted when used for medicinal purposes (Schedules II or III). Congress could achieve the same effect by leaving marijuana in Schedule I but removing criminal penalties for the medical use of marijuana, commonly called decriminalization. Congress could also opt for legalization by removing marijuana from the CSA entirely and subjecting it to federal and state controls based on the tobacco or alcohol regulatory models or by devising a regulatory scheme unique to marijuana. None of these options seem likely given the current political climate in which both political parties support continued marijuana prohibition. 113 These and other poll results can be consulted at http://medicalmarijuana. procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID= 000148. This website states: “Because the majority (98% or more) of the voter initiatives and polls we located were favorable towards the medical use of marijuana, we contacted several organizations decidedly „con‟ to medical marijuana—two of which were federal government agencies—and none knew of any voter initiatives or polls that were „con‟ to medical marijuana.” 114 Karen Tandy, “Marijuana: The Myths Are Killing Us,” Police Chief Magazine, March 2005, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr042605p.html. 115 See, for example, J.G. Bachman et al., “Explaining Recent Increases in Students‟ Marijuana Use: Impacts of Perceived Risks and Disapproval, 1976 through 1996,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 88 (1998), pp. 887-892. 116 Brief for the Drug Free America Foundation, Inc. et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners at 26, Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005) (No. 03-1454). 117 Ibid., at 27. The 1999 NHSDA was the first to include state-level estimates for various measures of drug use. Unfortunately, comprehensive state-level data prior to 1999 are not available from other sources. 118 Care should be taken in comparing NHSDA data for 1999 with NSDUH data for 2002 and after, due to changes in survey methodology made in 2002. The trend observations drawn here from these data should therefore be considered suggestive rather than definitive. 119 Dennis M. Gorman and J. Charles Huber, Jr., “Do Medical Cannabis Laws Encourage Cannabis Use?” International Journal of Drug Policy, vol. 18, no. 3 (May 2007), pp. 160167. 120 Karen O‟Keefe, et al., “Marijuana Use by Young People: The Impact of State Medical Marijuana Laws,” updated June 2008, available at http://www.mpp.org/research/teen-usereport.html. (New Mexico was excluded from the study because it passed its law too recently.) 121 U.S. General Accounting Office, Marijuana: Early Experiences with Four States’ Laws That Allow Use for Medical Purposes, GAO-03-189, November 2002. 122 Available at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/calimarijuanap.html. 123 U.S. General Accounting Office, Marijuana: Early Experiences with Four States’ Laws That Allow Use for Medical Purposes, GAO-03-189, November 2002, p. 36. 124 Ibid., p. 37. 125 Stuart Taylor, Jr., “Liberal Drug Warriors! Conservative Pot-Coddlers!,” National Journal, June 11, 2005, p. 1738. 126 Testimony of Thomas A. Constantine in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Prescription for Addiction? The Arizona and California Medical Drug Use Initiatives, hearing, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., December 2, 1996 (Washington: GPO, 1997), pp. 42-43, 45.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Medical Marijuana

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

127

63

“Marijuana: Lawrence, Kansas, Ponders City Marijuana Ordinance—Impact of HEA Cited,” available at http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/401/lawrence.shtml. 128 Brief for U.S. Representative Mark E. Souder et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners at 20, Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005) (No. 03-1454). 129 “California Medical Marijuana Information,” available on DEA‟s website at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ongoing/ calimarijuanap.html. 130 U.S. General Accounting Office, Marijuana: Early Experiences with Four States’ Laws That Allow Use for Medical Purposes, GAO-03-189, November 2002, p. 64. GAO interviewed 37 law enforcement agencies and found that the majority indicated that “medical-marijuana laws had not greatly affected their law enforcement activities.” (p. 4) 131 Eric Bailey, “CHP Revises Policy on Pot Seizures,” Los Angeles Times (national edition), August 28, 2005, p. A12. 132 Committee on Drugs and the Law, “Marijuana Should be Medically Available,” Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, vol. 52, no. 2 (March 1997), p. 238. 133 Brief for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents at 1,2, Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005) (No. 03-1454). 134 IOM Report, p. 18. 135 21 U.S.C. §844 and 18 U.S.C. §3571. 21 U.S.C. §844 also calls for a minimum fine of $1,000, and 21 U.S.C. §844a permits a civil penalty of up to $10,000. 136 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(D). 137 Communication from DEA Congressional Affairs to author dated September 27, 2005. 138 Stacy Finz, “19 Named in Medicinal Pot Indictment, More than 9,300 Plants Were Seized in Raids,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 24, 2005, p. B4. 139 Lester Grinspoon and James B. Bakalar, “Marihuana as Medicine: A Plea for Reconsideration,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 273, no. 23 (June 21, 1995), p. 1876. 140 Angel Wings Patient OutReach press release, November 29, 2004. Barnett represented Raich et al. in Supreme Court oral argument on this date. 141 Brief for the States of California, Maryland, and Washington et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents at 3, Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005) (No. 03-1454). 142 New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). 143 Brief for the States of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents at 3, Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005) (No. 03-1454). 144 Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 2220 (2005) (O‟Connor, J., dissenting). 145 Ibid. at 2229. 146 Brief for the Drug Free America Foundation, Inc. et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners at 12, Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005) (No. 03-1454). 147 21 U.S.C. §351-360 148 Brief for Petitioners at 11, Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2002) (No. 03-1454). 149 Brief for Robert L. DuPont, M.D. et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners at 19, Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005) (No. 03-1454). 150 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a Medicine,” press release, April 20, 2006, p. 1. 151 See, for example, Lila Guterman, “The Dope on Medical Marijuana,” Chronicle of Higher Education, June 2, 2000, p. A21. 152 IOM Report, p. 14. 153 “Federal Foolishness and Marijuana,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 336, no. 5 (January 30, 1997), p. 366. 154 Chuck Thomas, quoted in “National Drug War Leaders Disregard Science in Medicinal Marijuana Debate,” Marijuana Policy Project press release dated April 20, 1999, available at http://www.mpp.org/news/press-releases/ national-drug-war-leaders-disregard-science-inmedicinal-marijua.html. 155 Brief for the Drug Free America Foundation, Inc. et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners at 9, Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005) (No. 03-1454).

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

64

Mark Eddy

156

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

For example, the amici curiae brief of the Drug Free America Foundation et al. reveals this history to discredit the medical marijuana movement (pp. 9-11). Actually, NORML and some other drug reform organizations are open in acknowledging that they support patient access to marijuana as a first step toward decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana for use by adults in general. See, for example, Joab Jackson, “Medical Marijuana: From the Fringe to the Forefront,” Baltimore City Paper, March 28, 2002, available at http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/12714. 157 Barry R. McCaffrey, “We‟re on a Perilous Path,” Newsweek, February 3, 1997, p. 27. 158 Lester Grinspoon and James B. Bakalar, “Marihuana as Medicine: A Plea for Reconsideration,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 273, no. 23 (June 21, 1995), p. 1876. 159 Quoted in MSNBC.com story, “Western States Back Medical Marijuana,” November 4, 2004, available at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6406453.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

In: Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp ISBN: 978-1-61209-982-8 Editor: Ethan L. Clark © 2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 2

HEMP AS AN AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY

*

Renée Johnson SUMMARY

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Industrial hemp is a variety of Cannabis sativa and is of the same plant species as marijuana. However, hemp is genetically different and distinguished by its use and chemical makeup. Hemp has long been cultivated for non-drug use in the production of industrial and other goods. Some estimate that the global market for hemp consists of more than 25,000 products. It can be grown as a fiber, seed, or other dualpurpose crop. Hemp fibers are used in a wide range of products, including fabrics and textiles, yarns and raw or processed spun fibers, paper, carpeting, home furnishings, construction and insulation materials, auto parts, and composites. The interior stalk (hurd) is used in various applications such as animal bedding, raw material inputs, low-quality papers, and composites. Hemp seed and oilcake are used in a range of foods and beverages, and can be an alternative food protein source. Oil from the crushed hemp seed is an ingredient in a range of body-care products and also nutritional supplements. Hemp seed is also used for industrial oils, cosmetics and personal care, and pharmaceuticals, among other composites. Precise data are not available on the size of the U.S. market for hemp-based products. Current industry estimates report that U.S. retail sales of all hemp-based products may exceed $300 million per year. *

This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a Congressional Research Services publication, dated December 22, 2010.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

66

Renée Johnson Because there is no commercial industrial hemp production in the United States, the U.S. market is largely dependent on imports, both as finished hemp-containing products and as ingredients for use in further processing. Under the current U.S. drug policy, all cannabis varieties, including hemp, are considered Schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA, 21 U.S.C. §§801 et seq.; Title 21 CFR Part 1308.11). As such, while there are legitimate industrial uses, these are controlled and regulated by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Strictly speaking, the CSA does not make growing hemp illegal; rather, it places strict controls on its production and enforces standards governing the security conditions under which the crop must be grown, making it illegal to grow without a DEA permit. Currently, cannabis varieties may be legitimately grown for research purposes only. Among the concerns over changing current policies is how to allow for hemp production without undermining the agency‟s drug enforcement efforts and regulation of the production and distribution of marijuana. In the early 1990s a sustained resurgence of interest in allowing commercial cultivation of industrial hemp began in the United States. Several states have conducted economic or market studies, and have initiated or passed legislation to expand state-level resources and production. To date, nine states have legalized the cultivation and research of industrial hemp, including Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia. However, because federal law still prohibits cultivation, a grower still must get permission from the DEA in order to grow hemp, or face the possibility of federal charges or property confiscation, despite having a state-issued permit. Over the past few Congresses, Representative Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would open the way for commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in the United States (H.R. 1866, 111th Congress; H.R. 1009, 110th Congress; H.R. 3037, 109th Congress). The Industrial Hemp Farming Act would amend Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) to specify that the term “marijuana” does not include industrial hemp, which the bill would define based on its content of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana‟s primary psychoactive chemical. Such a change could remove low-THC hemp from being covered by the CSA as a controlled substance and subject to DEA regulation, thus allowing for industrial hemp to be grown and processed under some state laws.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

67

INTRODUCTION For centuries, industrial hemp (plant species Cannabis sativa) has been a source of fiber and oilseed used worldwide to produce a variety of industrial and consumer products. Currently, more than 30 nations grow industrial hemp as an agricultural commodity, which is sold on the world market. In the United States, however, production is strictly controlled under existing drug enforcement laws. There is no known commercial domestic production and the U.S. market depends on imports. Over the past few Congresses, Representative Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would open the way for commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in the United States (H.R. 1866, 111th Congress; H.R. 1009, 110th Congress; H.R. 3037, 109th Congress). This legislation, or other legislation related to hemp cultivation, could be introduced in the 112th Congress.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

OVERVIEW OF CANNABIS VARIETIES Although marijuana is also a variety of cannabis, it is genetically distinct from industrial hemp and is further distinguished by its use and chemical makeup. In this report, “hemp” refers to industrial hemp, “marijuana” (or “marihuana” as it is spelled in the older statutes) refers to the psychotropic drug (whether used for medicinal or recreational purposes), and “cannabis” refers to the plant species that has industrial, medicinal, and recreational varieties.1

Comparison of Hemp and Marijuana There are many different varieties of cannabis plants. Marijuana and hemp come from the same species of plant, Cannabis sativa, but from different varieties or cultivars. However, hemp is genetically different and is distinguished by its use and chemical makeup.2 Hemp, also called “industrial hemp,”3 refers to cannabis varieties that are primarily grown as an agricultural crop (such as seeds and fiber, and byproducts such as oil, seed cake, hurds) and is characterized by plants that are

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

68

Renée Johnson

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

low in THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, marijuana‟s primary psychoactive chemical). THC levels for hemp are generally less than 1%. Marijuana refers to the flowering tops and leaves of psychoactive cannabis varieties, which are grown for their high content of THC. Marijuana‟s high THC content is primarily in the flowering tops and to a lesser extent in the leaves. THC levels for marijuana are much higher than for hemp, and are reported to average about 10%; some sample tests indicate THC levels reaching 20%- 30%, or greater.4 A level of about 1% THC is considered the threshold for cannabis to have a psychotropic effect or an intoxicating potential.5 Current laws regulating hemp cultivation in the European Union (EU) and Canada use 0.3% THC as the dividing line between industrial and potentially drug-producing cannabis. Cultivars having less than 0.3% THC can be cultivated under license, while cultivars having more than that amount are considered to have too high a drug potential.6 Some also claim that industrial hemp has higher levels of cannabidiol (CBD), the non-psychoactive part of marijuana, which might mitigate some of the effects of THC.7 A high ratio of CBD to THC might also classify hemp as a fiber-type plant rather than a drug-type plant. However, opinions are still mixed about how CBD levels might influence the psychoactive effects of THC.

Production Differences Production differences depend on whether the cannabis plant is grown for fiber/oilseed or for medicinal/recreational uses. These differences involve the varieties being grown, the methods used to grow them, and the timing of their harvest (see discussion in “Hemp” and “Marijuana,” below). Concerns about cross-pollination among the different varieties are critical. All cannabis plants are open, wind and/or insect pollinated, and thus cross-pollination is possible. Because of the compositional differences between the drug and fiber varieties of cannabis, farmers growing either crop would necessarily want to separate production of the different varieties or cultivars. This is particularly true for growers of medicinal or recreational marijuana in an effort to avoid cross-pollination with industrial hemp, which would significantly lower the THC content and thus degrade the value of the marijuana crop. Likewise, growers of industrial hemp would seek to avoid cross-pollination with marijuana plants, especially given the illegal status of marijuana. Plants grown

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

69

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

of oilseed are also marketed according to the purity of the product, and the mixing of off-type genotypes would degrade the value of the crop.8 The different cannabis varieties are also harvested at different times (depending on the growing area), increasing the chance of detection of illegal marijuana, if production is commingled. Because of these differences, many claim that drug varieties of cannabis cannot easily be grown with oilseed or fiber varieties without being easily detected.9

Hemp To maximize production of hemp fiber and/or seed, plants are encouraged to grow taller in height. Cultivated plants become a tall stalky crop that usually reaches between 6 and 15 feet, and generally consist of a single main stalk with few leaves and branches. Hemp plants grown for fiber or oilseed are planted densely (about 35-50 plants per square foot)10 to discourage branching and flowering. The period of seeding to harvest ranges from 70 to 140 days, depending on the purpose, cultivar or variety, and climatic conditions. The stalk and seed is the harvested product. The stalk of the plant provides two types of fibers: the outer portion of the stem contains the bast fibers, and the interior or core fiber (or hurds). Industrial hemp production statistics for Canada indicate that one acre of hemp yields an average of about 700 pounds of grain, which can be pressed into about 50 gallons of oil and 1,300 pounds of meal.11 That same acre will also produce an average of 5,300 pounds of straw, which can be transformed into about 1,300 pounds of fiber.12 Marijuana When cannabis is grown to produce marijuana, it is cultivated from monoecious fiber varieties that have both male and female flowers on each plant, but where the female flowers are selected to prevent the return of separate male and female plants (known as dioecious varieties). The female flowers are short and tightly clustered. In marijuana cultivation, growers remove all the male plants to prevent pollination and seed set. Some growers will hand-pollinate a female plant to get seed; this is done in isolation of the rest of the female plants. The incorporation and stabilization of monoecism in cannabis cultivation requires the skill of a competent plant breeder, and rarely occurs under non-cultivated conditions. If marijuana is grown in or around industrial hemp varieties, the hemp would pollinate the female marijuana plant. Marijuana growers would not

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

70

Renée Johnson

want to plant near a hemp field, since this would result in a harvest that is seedy and lower in THC, and degrade the value of their marijuana crop. Marijuana is cultivated to encourage the plant to become bushy with many leaves, with wide branching to promote flowers and buds. This requires that plants be well-spaced, by as much as about 1-2 plants per square yard.13 The flower and leaves are the harvested products.

HEMP PRODUCTION AND USE

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Commercial Uses of Hemp Industrial hemp can be grown as a fiber, seed, or dual-purpose crop.14 The interior of the stalk has short woody fibers called hurds; the outer portion has long bast fibers. Hemp seed/grains are smooth and about one-eighth to onefourth of an inch long.15 Hemp fibers are used in a wide range of products, including fabrics and textiles, yarns and spun fibers, paper, carpeting, home furnishings, construction and insulation materials, auto parts, and composites. Hurds are used in various applications such as animal bedding, material inputs, papermaking, and composites. Hemp seed and oilcake are used in range of foods and beverages, and can be an alternative food protein source. Oil from the crushed hemp seed is used as an ingredient in a range of body-care products and nutritional supplements. Hemp seed is also used for industrial oils, cosmetics and personal care products, and pharmaceuticals, among other composites. Some estimate that the global market for hemp consists of more than 25,000 products in nine submarkets: agriculture; textiles; recycling; automotive; furniture; food/nutrition/beverages; paper; construction materials; and personal care (Figure 1). For construction materials, such as hempcrete (a mixture of hemp hurds and lime products), hemp is used as a lightweight insulating material.16 Hemp has also been promoted as a potential biodiesel feedstock,17 although some analysts suggest that competing demands for other products might make it too costly to use as a feedstock.18 These types of commercial uses are widely documented in a range of feasibility and marketing studies conducted by researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and various land grant universities and state agencies. (A listing of these studies is in the Appendix.)

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

71

Source: CRS, adapted from D. G. Kraenzel et al., “Industrial Hemp as an Alternative Crop in North Dakota,” AER-402, North Dakota State University, July 23, 1998, http://purl.umn.edu/23264.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Figure 1. Hemp Products Flowchart.

Demand in the United States Although hemp is not grown in the United States, both finished hemp products and raw material inputs are imported and sold for use in manufacturing for a wide range of product categories (Figure 1). Several feasibility and marketing studies have been conducted by researchers at the USDA and various land grant universities and state agencies (see Appendix). A USDA study in 2000 projected that U.S. hemp markets “are, and will likely remain, small, thin markets” and also cited “uncertainty about long-run demand for hemp products and the potential for oversupply” among possible downsides of potential future hemp production.19 More recent studies have been conducted by researchers in Canada, following that country‟s emerging hemp production. These studies by Canadian agriculture agencies, among others, provide a more positive market outlook, given growing consumer demand and also certain production advantages to growers, such as relatively low input and management requirements for the crop. For example, a 2008 study reported that acreage under cultivation in Canada, “while still showing significant annual

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

72

Renée Johnson

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

fluctuations, is now regarded as being on a strong upward trend.”20 A 2004 study noted that “hemp ... has such a diversity of possible uses, is being promoted by extremely enthusiastic market developers, and attracts so much attention that it is likely to carve out a much larger share of the North American marketplace than its detractors are willing to concede.”21 Other studies highlight certain production advantages associated with hemp, including that “it thrives without herbicides, it reinvigorates the soil, it requires less water than cotton, it matures in three to four months, and it can yield four times as much paper per acre as trees.”22 Other studies acknowledge hemp‟s benefits as a rotational crop23 or further claim that hemp may be less environmentally degrading than other agricultural crops.24

U.S. Retail Market There is no official estimate of the value of U.S. sales of hemp-based products. Industry representatives claim that U.S. retail sales exceed $350 million annually.25 This reported retail value is a rough estimate and is difficult to verify. Included in the industry estimate of total U.S. retail sales are estimates of the size of the U.S. market for hemp clothing and textiles, which is approximated at about $100 million annually.26 The estimate of total sales also includes between $60 million and $100 million annually for hemp-based foods, nutritional supplements, and body care products.27 Underlying data for this estimate are from SPINS survey data;28 however, because the data reportedly do not track retail sales for The Body Shop and Whole Foods Market—two major markets for hemp-based products—as well as for restaurants, hemp industry analysts have adjusted these upward to account for this gap in the reported survey data.29 Available industry sources estimate that product sales for some categories, such as the market for foods and body care products, is growing.30 Growth in hemp specialty food products is driven, in part, by sales of hemp milk and related dairy alternatives, among other hemp-based foods.31 Market estimates are not available for the value of hemp-based construction or other manufacturing products, nor of paper and other product uses. U.S. Hemp Imports The import value of hemp-based products imported and sold in the United States is difficult to estimate accurately. For some traded products, available statistics have only limited breakouts or have been expanded only recently to capture hemp subcategories within the broader trade categories for oilseeds and fibers. Reporting errors are evident in some of the trade data, since

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

73

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

reported export data for hemp from Canada do not consistently match reported U.S. import data for the same products (especially for hemp seeds). Given these data limitations, available trade statistics indicate that the value of U.S. imports under categories actually labeled “hemp,” such as hemp seeds and fibers, which are more often used as inputs for use in further manufacturing, was nearly $8 million in 2008-2009. Available data also show that import volumes have increased for some product categories such as hemp seeds and oilcake; however, import volumes for other products such as hemp oil and fabrics are lower (Table 1). Data are not available for most hempbased finished products, such as clothing or other products including construction materials, carpets, or paper products. The single largest supplier of U.S. imports of raw and processed hemp fiber is China. Other leading country suppliers include Romania, Hungary, India, and other European countries. The single largest source of U.S. imports of hemp seed and oilcake is Canada. The total value of Canada‟s exports of hemp seed to the United States has grown significantly in recent years, following resolution of a long-standing legal dispute over U.S. imports of hemp foods in late 2004 (see discussion under “Dispute over Hemp Food Imports (1999-2004)”). European countries such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland also have supplied hemp seed and oilcake to the United States.

GLOBAL PRODUCTION Current International Production Approximately 30 countries in Europe, Asia, and North and South America currently permit farmers to grow hemp. Some of these countries never outlawed production, while some countries banned production for certain periods in the past. Recent, reliable, aggregated data on the number of acres worldwide devoted to industrial hemp production are not readily available. China is among the largest producing and exporting country of hemp textiles and related products, as well as a major supplier of these products to the United States. The European Union (EU) has an active hemp market, with production in most member nations. Production is centered in France, the United Kingdom, Romania, and Hungary.32 EU hemp acreage was about 30,000 acres in 2008,

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

74

Renée Johnson

which was below previous years, when more than 50,000 acres of hemp were under production.33 Most production is of hurds, seeds, and fibers. Many EU countries lifted their bans on hemp production in the 1990s and, although it is a minor crop, the EU‟s farm programs support “flax and hemp” production under the Common Agricultural Policy.34 Other non-EU European countries with reported hemp production include Russia, Ukraine, and Switzerland. Other countries with active hemp grower and/or consumer markets are Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, Korea, Turkey, Egypt, Chile, and Thailand.35 Canada is another major supplier of U.S. imports, particularly of hempbased foods and related imported products. Canada‟s commercial hemp industry is fairly new: Canada began to issue licenses for research crops in 1994, followed by commercial licenses starting in 1998; since then production has grown rapidly. The development of Canada‟s hemp market followed a 60-year prohibition and is strictly regulated.36 Its program is administered by the Office of Controlled Substances of Health Canada, which issues licenses for all activities involving hemp. Under the regulation, all industrial hemp grown, processed, and sold in Canada may contain THC levels no more than 0.3% of the weight of leaves and flowering parts. Canada also has set a maximum level of 10 parts per million (ppm) for THC residues in products derived from hemp grain, such as flour and oil.37 To obtain a license to grow hemp, Canadian farmers must submit extensive documentation, including background criminal record checks, the Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of their fields, and supporting documents (from the Canadian Seed Growers‟ Association or the Canadian Food Inspection Agency) regarding their use of low-THC hemp seeds and approved cultivars; and they must allow government testing of their crop for THC levels.38 Since hemp cultivation was legalized in 1998, production has been variable, ranging from a high of 48,000 acres planted in 2006, to under 4,000 acres in 2001-2002, to a reported 13,800 acres in 2009.39 About 100 Canadian farmers are engaged in hemp production, mostly in the central and western Canadian provinces.40

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Table 1. Value and Quantity of U.S. Imports of Selected Hemp Products, 1996-2009 units

1996

1999

2001

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Value of Imports Hemp Seeds (HS 1207990220)a

$1000

—

—

—

271

1,232

2,350

3,111

3,320

Hemp Oil and Fractions (HS 1515908010) Hemp Seed Oilcake and Other Solids (HS 2306900130) True Hemp, raw/processed not spun (HS 5302)

$1000

—

—

—

3,027

2,301

1,481

1,177

1,042

$1000

—

—

—

—

—

—

460

1,811

$1000

100

357

577

228

183

155

139

114

True Hemp Yarn (HS 5308200000)

$1000

25

369

640

904

961

989

531

568

True Hemp Woven Fabrics (HS 5311004010)

$1000

1,291

2,090

2,258

1,232

1,605

1,826

2,335

894

Total

1,416

2,816

3,475

5,662

6,282

6,801

7,753

7,749

metric ton

—

—

—

92

211

355

523

602

metric ton

—

—

—

287

281

189

154

128

metric ton

—

—

—

—

—

—

56

201

Quantity Hemp Seeds (HS 1207990220)a Hemp Oil and Fractions (HS 1515908010) Hemp Seed Oilcake and Other Solids (HS 2306900130)

Table 1. (Continued) units

1999

2001

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

True Hemp, raw/processed not spun (HS 5302)

metric ton

53

355

678

181

172

151

103

83

True Hemp Yarn (HS 5308200000)

metric ton

6

68

89

113

102

115

78

76

Subtotal

59

423

767

673

766

810

914

1,090

m2 (1000)

435

805

920

478

452

470

560

263

True Hemp Woven Fabrics (HS 5311004010) Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1996

Source: Compiled by CRS using data from the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), http://dataweb.usitc.gov. Data are by Harmonized System (HS) code. Data shown as “—” indicate data are not available as breakout categories for some product subcategories were established only recently. a. Data for 2007-2009 were supplemented by reported Canadian export data for hemp seeds (HS 12079910, Hemp seeds, whether or not broken) as reported by Global Trade Atlas, http://www.gtis.com/gta/. Official U.S. trade data reported no imports during these three years for these HS subcategories.

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

77

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Historical U.S. Production Hemp was widely grown in the United States from the colonial period into the mid-1800s; fine and coarse fabrics, twine, and paper from hemp were in common use. By the 1890s, labor-saving machinery for harvesting cotton made the latter more competitive as a source of fabric for clothing, and the demand for coarse natural fibers was met increasingly by imports. Industrial hemp was handled in the same way as any other farm commodity, in that USDA compiled statistics and published crop reports,41 and provided assistance to farmers promoting production and distribution.42 In the early 1900s, hemp continued to be grown and researchers at USDA continued to publish information related to hemp production and also reported on hemp‟s potential for use in textiles and in paper manufacturing.43 Several hemp advocacy groups, including the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) and Vote Hemp Inc., have compiled other historical information and have copies of original source documents.44 Between 1914 and 1933, in an effort to stem the use of Cannabis flowers and leaves for their psychotropic effects, 33 states passed laws restricting legal production to medicinal and industrial purposes only.45 The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act defined hemp as a narcotic drug, requiring that farmers growing hemp hold a federal registration and special tax stamp, effectively limiting further production expansion. Hemp was briefly brought back into large-scale production during World War II, at the urging of USDA, to provide for “products spun from Americangrown hemp” including “twine of various kinds for tying and upholsters work; rope for marine rigging and towing; for hay forks, derricks, and heavy duty tackle; light duty fire hose; thread for shoes for millions of American soldiers; and parachute webbing for our paratroopers,” as well as “hemp for mooring ships; hemp for tow lines; hemp for tackle and gear; hemp for countless naval uses both on ship and shore.”46 In 1943, U.S. hemp production reached more than 150 million pounds (140.7 million pounds hemp fiber; 10.7 million pound hemp seed) on 146,200 harvested acres. This compared to prewar production levels of about 1 million pounds. After reaching a peak in 1943, production started to decline. By 1948, production had dropped back to 3 million pounds on 2,800 harvested acres, with no recorded production after the late 1950s.47 Currently, industrial hemp is not commercially produced in the United States. No active federal licenses allow U.S. commercial cultivation at this time.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

78

Renée Johnson

LEGAL STATUS IN THE UNITED STATES Federal Law

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

In 1937, Congress passed the first federal law to discourage Cannabis production for marijuana while still permitting industrial uses of the crop (the Marihuana Tax Act; 50 Stat. 551). Under this statute, the government actively encouraged farmers to grow hemp for fiber and oil during World War II. After the war, competition from synthetic fibers, the Marihuana Tax Act, and increasing public anti-drug sentiment resulted in fewer and fewer acres of hemp being planted, and none at all after 1958. Strictly speaking, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et. seq.) does not make growing hemp illegal; rather, it places strict controls on the production of hemp, making it illegal to grow the crop without a DEA permit. The CSA adopted the same definition of Cannabis sativa that appeared in the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act. The definition of “marihuana” (21 U.S.C. § 802(16) reads: The term marihuana means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound ... or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.

The statute thus retains control over all varieties of the cannabis plant by virtue of including them under the term “marijuana” and does not distinguish between low- and high-THC varieties. The language exempts from control the parts of mature plants—stalks, fiber, oil, cake, etc.—intended for industrial uses. Some have argued that the CSA definition exempts industrial hemp under its term exclusions for stalks, fiber, oil and cake, and seeds.48 DEA refutes this interpretation.49 Since federal law prohibits cultivation without a permit, DEA determines whether any industrial hemp production authorized under a state statute is permitted, and it enforces standards governing the security conditions under which the crop must be grown. In other words, a grower needs to get

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

79

permission from the DEA to grow hemp or faces the possibility of federal charges or property confiscation, regardless of whether the grower has a stateissued permit. DEA issued a permit for an experimental quarter-acre plot in Hawaii in 1999 (now expired). Most reports indicate that the DEA has not granted any current licenses to grow hemp, even for research purposes. To date, all commercial hemp products sold in the United States are imported or manufactured from imported hemp materials. Even if DEA were to approve a permit, it could be argued that production might be limited or discouraged because of the perceived difficulties of working through DEA licensing requirements and installing the types of structures necessary to obtain a permit (such as fencing and security to prevent public access). It could also be argued that, because of the necessary timeconsuming steps involved in obtaining and operating under a DEA permit, the additional management and production costs from installing structures, as well as other business and regulatory requirements, could ultimately limit the operation‟s profitability. The United States is a signatory of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961).50 The principal objectives of the convention are to “limit the possession, use, trade in, distribution, import, export, manufacture and production of drugs exclusively to medical and scientific purposes and to address drug trafficking through international cooperation to deter and discourage drug traffickers.”51 The convention requires that each party control cannabis cultivation within its borders; however, Article 28.2 of the convention states: “This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre and seed) or horticultural purposes.”52 Thus the convention need not present an impediment to the development of a regulated hemp farming sector in the United States.

Previous DEA Actions DEA’s 2003 Rules In March 2003, DEA issued two final rules addressing the legal status of hemp products derived from the cannabis plant. The DEA found that hemp products “often contain the hallucinogenic substance tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) ... the primary psychoactive chemical found in the cannabis (marijuana)

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

80

Renée Johnson

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

plant.”53 Although the DEA acknowledged that “in some cases, a Schedule I controlled substance may have a legitimate industrial use,” such use would only be allowed under highly controlled circumstances. These rules set forth what products may contain “hemp” and also prohibit “cannabis products containing THC that are intended or used for human consumption (foods and beverages).”54 This development of the 2003 rule sparked a fierce battle over the permissibility of imported hemp-based food products that lasted from 1999 until 2004.

Dispute over Hemp Food Imports (1999-2004) In late 1999, during the development of the 2003 rules (described in the previous section), the DEA acted administratively to demand that the U.S. Customs Service enforce a zero-tolerance standard for the THC content of all forms of imported hemp, and hemp foods in particular. The DEA followed up, in October 2001, with publication of an interpretive rule in the Federal Register explaining the basis of its zerotolerance standard.55 It held that when Congress wrote the statutory definition of marijuana in 1937, it “exempted certain portions of the Cannabis plant from the definition of marijuana based on the assumption (now refuted) that such portions of the plant contain none of the psychoactive component now known as THC.” Both the proposed rule (which was published concurrently with the interpretive rule) and the final 2003 rule gave retailers of hemp foods a date after which the DEA could seize all such products remaining on shelves. On both rules, hemp trade associations requested and received court-ordered stays blocking enforcement of that provision. The DEA‟s interpretation made hemp with any THC content subject to enforcement as a controlled substance. Hemp industry trade groups, retailers, and a major Canadian exporter filed suit against the DEA, arguing that congressional intent was to exempt plant parts containing naturally occurring THC at non-psychoactive levels, the same way it exempts poppy seeds containing trace amounts of naturally occurring opiates.56 Industry groups maintain that (1) naturally occurring THC in the leaves and flowers of cannabis varieties grown for fiber and food is already at below-psychoactive levels (compared with drug varieties); (2) the parts used for food purposes (seeds and oil) contain even less; and (3) after processing, the THC content is at or close to zero. U.S. and Canadian hemp seed and food manufacturers have in place a voluntary program for certifying low, industrydetermined standards in hemp-containing foods. Background information on the TestPledge Program is available at http://www.TestPledge.com. The intent of the program is to assure that consumption of hemp foods will not interfere

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

81

with workplace drug testing programs or produce undesirable mental or physical health effects. On February 6, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit permanently enjoined the enforcement of the final rule.57 The court stated that “the DEA‟s definition of „THC‟ contravenes the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in the CSA and cannot be upheld.”58 In late September 2004 the Bush Administration let the final deadline pass without filing an appeal.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Other Recent Policy Statements In a recent DEA report, the agency acknowledged that it has been reviewing inquiries about the legal status of hemp-based products (such as those shown in Figure 1), including inquiries from U.S. Customs inspectors regarding the need for guidance regarding imported hemp products. It concluded:59 DEA took the position that it would follow the plain language of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which expressly states that anything that contains “any quantity” of marijuana or THC is a schedule I controlled substance. However, as a reasonable accommodation, DEA exempted from control legitimate industrial products that contained THC but were not intended for human consumption (such as clothing, paper, and animal feed).

DEA‟s position that “anything that contains „any quantity‟ of marijuana or THC” should be regarded as a controlled substance is further supported by reports published by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which is part of the National Institutes of Health. Although NIDA does not have a formal position about industrial hemp, NIDA‟s research tends to conflate all cannabis varieties, including marijuana and hemp. For example, NIDA reports: “All forms of marijuana are mind-altering (psychoactive)” and “they all contain THC (delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol), the main active chemical in marijuana.”60 The DEA further maintains that the CSA does not differentiate between different varieties of cannabis based on THC content.61 Regarding DEA‟s issuance of its 2003 rules and the import dispute that followed (discussed in the previous report sections), the agency continues to maintain that the courts have expressed conflicting opinions on these issues:62

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

82

Renée Johnson Despite the plain language of the statute supporting DEA‟s position, the ninth circuit ruled in 2004 that the DEA rules were impermissible under the statute and therefore ordered DEA to refrain from enforcing them. Subsequently, in 2006, another federal court of appeals (the eight circuit) took a different view, stating, as DEA had said in its rules: “The plain language of the CSA states that schedule I( c) includes „any material ... which contains any quantity of THC‟ and thus such material is regulated.”...63 Thus, the federal courts have expressed conflicting views regarding the legal status of cannabis derivatives.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Regarding interest among growers in some states to cultivate hemp for industrial use, DEA claims that the courts have supported the agency‟s current policy that all hemp growers—regardless of whether a state permit has been issued and of the THC content—are subject to the CSA and must obtain a federal permit:64 Under the CSA, anyone who seeks to grow marijuana for any purpose must first obtain a DEA registration authorizing such activity. However, several persons have claimed that growing marijuana to produce so-called “hemp” (which purportedly contains a relatively low percentage of THC) is not subject to CSA control and requires no DEA registration. All such claims have thus far failed, as every federal court that has addressed the issue has ruled that any person who seeks to grow any form of marijuana (no matter the THC content or the purpose for which it is grown) must obtain a DEA registration.65

Regarding states that have enacted laws legalizing cannabis grown for industrial purposes, “these laws conflict with the CSA, which does not differentiate, for control purposes, between marijuana of relatively low THC content and marijuana of greater THC content.”66

Other Federal Actions In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12919, entitled “National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness,” which was intended to strengthen the U.S. industrial and technology base for meeting national defense requirements. The order included hemp among the essential agricultural products that should be stocked for defense preparedness

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

83

purposes.67 Some hemp supporters have argued that the executive order gives hemp a renewed value as a strategic crop for national security purposes, in line with its role in World War II.68 USDA has supported research on alternative crops and industrial uses of common commodities since the late 1930s. Some alternative crops have become established in certain parts of the United States—kenaf (for fiber) in Texas, jojoba (for oil) in Arizona and California, and amaranth (for nutritious grain) in the Great Plains states, for example. Many have benefits similar to those ascribed to hemp, but are not complicated by having a psychotropic variety within the same species. The Critical Agricultural Materials Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-284, 7 U.S.C. § 178) supports the supplemental and alternative crops provisions of the 1985 and 1990 omnibus farm acts and other authorities, and funds research and development on alternative crops at USDA and state laboratories. In 2010, USDA recommended $1.083 million for programs under the act.69 In addition, Section 1473D of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA, 7 U.S.C. § 3319d(c)) authorizes USDA to make competitive grants toward the development of new commercial products derived from natural plant material for industrial, medical, and agricultural applications.70 In 2010, USDA recommended $835,000 for the program.71 To date, these authorities have not been used to develop hemp cultivation and use.

State Laws The past decade has witnessed a resurgence of interest in the United States in producing industrial hemp. Farmers in regions of the country that are highly dependent upon a single crop, such as tobacco or wheat, have shown interest in hemp‟s potential as a high-value alternative crop, although the economic studies conducted so far paint a mixed profitability picture. Beginning around 1995, an increasing number of state legislatures began to consider a variety of initiatives related to industrial hemp. Most of these have been resolutions calling for scientific, economic, or environmental studies, and some are laws authorizing planting experimental plots under state statutes. Nonetheless, the actual planting of hemp, even for state-authorized experimental purposes, remains regulated by the DEA under the Controlled Substances Act.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

84

Renée Johnson

To date, nine states have legalized the cultivation of and research on industrial hemp. These states include Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia (see text box). Several states also have conducted feasibility and/or marketing studies, including Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Vermont. Several other states have passed various bills or resolutions related to industrial hemp, including Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Virginia, among others.72

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Actions in Selected States Although several states have established programs under which a farmer may be able to grow industrial hemp under certain circumstances, a grower would still need to obtain a DEA permit and abide by the DEA‟s strict production controls. This relationship has resulted in some high-profile cases, wherein growers have applied for but been denied a DEA permit to grow hemp even in states that authorize cultivation under state laws. Two ongoing cases involve attempts to grow hemp under state law in North Dakota and Montana. North Dakota passed its state law authorizing industrial hemp production in 1999.73 In 2007, researchers at North Dakota State University applied for, but did not receive, a DEA permit to cultivate hemp for research purposes in the state. That same year two North Dakota farmers were granted state hemp farming licenses and, in June 2007, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court (North Dakota) seeking “a declaratory judgment” that the CSA “does not prohibit their cultivation of industrial hemp pursuant to their state licenses.”74 The case was dismissed in November 2007.75 The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals (8th Circuit), but was again dismissed in December 2009.76 Their latest appeal was filed in May 2010.77 Montana passed its state law authorizing hemp production in 2001. In October 2009, Montana‟s Agriculture Department issued its first state license for an industrial hemp-growing operation in the state. Media reports indicate that the grower does not intend to request a federal permit, which would make the grower‟s attempt to grow hemp technically illegal.78 Some argue that this case could pose a potential challenge to DEA of whether it is willing to override the state‟s authority to allow for hemp production in the state, as well as a test of state‟s rights.79

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

State Laws Providing for Hemp Cultivation and Research To date, nine states have taken steps to allow for the cultivation and research of industrial hemp, including Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia. Several states also have passed legislation to conduct feasibility and/or marketing studies, including Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Vermont. Hawaii (2002, 2001, 1996): Provided an extension on previous legislation allowing for privately funded industrial hemp research to be conducted in Hawaii under certain conditions (HB57, http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2002/status/HB57.asp;HB32, http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session1999/bills/hb32_sd2_.htm). Defined industrial hemp as containing “0.3 percent or less of THC.” Provides for the cultivation of an initial test plot of industrial hemp. A previous 1996 law provided for “a study on the economic potential, problems, and other related matters of growing nonpsychoactive industrial cannabis hemp as an agricultural product in Hawaii” (completed in 1997). Kentucky (2001): Provided for an industrial hemp research program to conduct research on industrial hemp as an agricultural product in Kentucky (HB 100, http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/recarch/01rs/HB100.htm). The state study is ongoing. Maine (2009, 2003): Provided for the growing of industrial hemp if a person holds a license issued by the Commissioner of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources and the hemp is grown under a federal permit in compliance with the conditions of that permit (LD 1159, http://www. mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID= 280032156). A previous 2003 law authorized the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station to study cultivation of industrial hemp and defined industrial hemp as any variety of Cannabis sativa L. with a THC concentration that “does not exceed 0.3% on a dry weight basis” and that is “grown under a federal permit in compliance with the conditions of that permit” (LD 53, http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills_121st/LD.asp?LD=53). The state study is ongoing. Maryland (2000): Established a pilot program to study the growth and marketing of industrial hemp under certain conditions and in consultation with specified State and federal agencies; also established licensing procedures for researchers who wish to grow hemp for research purposes (HB 1250, http://mlis.state.md.us/2000rs/billfile/ HB1250.htm). The state study is ongoing. Montana (2001): Authorized the production of industrial hemp as an

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

85

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

86

Renée Johnson agricultural crop under certain conditions; recognized hemp with no more than 0.3 percent THC as an “agricultural crop” (SB 261). North Dakota (2007, 2005, 1999, 1997): Authorized the production of industrial hemp, and established licensing procedures to allow local farmers to grow hemp commercially (HB 1428, http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/ 56-1999/ bill-actions/ba1428.html). Other subsequent bills allowed for feral hemp seed collection and breeding at North Dakota State University (2005, HB 1492), and related to the sale of industrial hemp seed (2007, HB 1490), among other actions (including resolution related to federal policies and appropriations). A previous action in 1997 provided for a study of industrial hemp production in the state (completed in 1998). Oregon (2009): Permitted production and possession of industrial hemp and trade in industrial hemp commodities and products. Authorized the State Department of Agriculture to administer licensing, permitting and inspection program for growers and handlers of industrial hemp. Allowed the department to charge fees to growers and handlers, and to impose civil penalty not exceeding $2,500 for violation of license or permit requirements (SB 676, http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measures/sb0600.dir/ sb0676. intro.html). Vermont (2008, 1996): Provided for the development of an industrial hemp industry in Vermont (H 267, http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/ status/summary.cfm?Bill=H%2E0267&Session=2008). A previous action in 1996 provided for a study of industrial hemp production in the state (completed in 1997). West Virginia (2002): Provided for licensing procedures to allow local farmers to plant, grow, harvest, possess, process and sell hemp commercially (SB 447, http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2002_ SESSIONS/ RS/Bills/ SB447%20INTR.htm). Source: Compiled by CRS from legislation information at various state website and summary information posted by Vote Hemp (http://www.votehemp.com/state.html) and NORML (http://norml.org/ index.cfm?Group_ID=3395).

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY In the past three legislative sessions (109th-111th Congress), Representative Ron Paul has introduced the Industrial Hemp Farming Act (H.R. 1866 in 2009; H.R. 1009 in 2007; and H.R. 3037 in 2005). This

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

87

legislation, or other legislation related to hemp cultivation, could be introduced in the 112th Congress. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act is the first legislative proposal at the federal level intended to facilitate the possible commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in the United States. The bill would amend the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 802(16)) to add language stating that the term “marijuana” does not include industrial hemp, which the bill would define based on its THC content. Each Congress, this measure was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and to the House Committee on the Judiciary. With each Congress, the number of cosponsors has increased, totaling 25 co-sponsors in the 111th Congress. If enacted, Representative Paul‟s bill could remove low-THC hemp from being covered by the CSA as a controlled substance and subject to DEA regulation. The bill could grant authority to any state permitting industrial hemp production and processing to determine whether any such cannabis plants met the limit on THC concentration as set forth in the CSA. In any criminal or civil action or administrative proceeding, the state‟s determination may be conclusive and binding. An addition to groups such as HIA and Vote Hemp Inc. that are actively promoting reintroducing hemp as a commodity crop in the United States, some key agricultural groups also support U.S. policy changes regarding industrial hemp. For example: •

•

The National Farmers Union (NFU) has adopted as part of its 2010 farm policy regarding specialty crops a policy that supports “urging the President, Attorney General and Congress to direct the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to differentiate between industrial hemp and marijuana and adopt policy to allow American farmers to grow industrial hemp under state law without requiring DEA licenses.”80 The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) “supports revisions to the federal rules and regulations authorizing commercial production of industrial hemp,” and has urged USDA, DEA, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to “collaboratively develop and adopt an official definition of industrial hemp that comports with definitions currently used by countries producing hemp.” NASDA also “urges Congress to statutorily distinguish between industrial hemp and marijuana and to direct the DEA to revise its policies to allow USDA to establish a

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

88

Renée Johnson

•

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

regulatory program that allows the development of domestic industrial hemp production by American farmers and manufacturers.”81 The National Grange voted in 2009 to support “research, production, processing and marketing of industrial hemp as a viable agricultural activity.”82 Regional farmers organizations also have policies regarding hemp. For example, the North Dakota Farmers Union (NDFU), as part of its federal agricultural policy recommendations, has urged “Congress to legalize the production of industrial hemp.”83 The Rocky Mountain Farmers Union (RMFU) has urged “Congress and the USDA to recommit and fully fund research into alternative crops and uses for crops” including industrial hemp; also they “support the decoupling of industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana” under the CSA and “demand the President and the Attorney General direct the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to differentiate between industrial hemp and marijuana and adopt a policy to allow American farmers to grow industrial hemp under state law without requiring DEA licenses,” to “legalize the production of industrial hemp as an alternative crop for agricultural producers.” 84

Some groups continue to oppose policy changes regarding cannabis, claiming that proposals to reintroduce hemp as an agricultural crop are merely a strategy by “the international pro-drug lobby to legalize cannabis and other illicit substances.”85 Given the DEA‟s current policy positions (see section titled “Previous DEA Actions”) and perceived DEA opposition to changing its current policies because of concerns over how to allow for hemp production without undermining the agency‟s drug enforcement efforts and regulation of the production and distribution of marijuana, further policy changes regarding industrial hemp are likely not forthcoming absent congressional legislative action.

CONCLUDING REMARKS Hemp production in the United States faces a number of obstacles in the foreseeable future. The main obstacles facing this potential market are U.S. government drug policies and DEA concerns about the ramifications of U.S. commercial hemp production. These concerns are that commercial cultivation could increase the likelihood of covert production of high-THC marijuana,

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

89

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

significantly complicating DEA‟s surveillance and enforcement activities and sending the wrong message to the American public concerning the government‟s position on drugs. DEA officials and a variety of other observers also express the concern that efforts to legalize hemp—as well as those to legalize medical marijuana—are a front for individuals and organizations whose real aim is to see marijuana decriminalized.86 Hemp production in the United States also faces competition from other global suppliers. The world market for hemp products remains relatively small, and China, as the world‟s largest hemp fiber and seed producer, has had and likely will continue to have major influence on market prices and thus on the year-to-year profits of producers and processors in other countries.87 Canada‟s head start in the North American market for hemp seed and oil also would likely affect the profitability of a start-up industry in the United States. Nevertheless, the U.S. market for hemp-based products has a highly dedicated and growing demand base, as indicated by recent U.S. market and import data for hemp products and ingredients, as well as market trends for some natural foods and body care products. Given the existence of these small-scale, but profitable, niche markets for a wide array of industrial and consumer products, commercial hemp industry in the United States could provide opportunities as an economically viable alternative crop for some U.S. growers.

APPENDIX. LISTING OF SELECTED HEMP STUDIES Below is a listing of reports and studies, ranked by date (beginning with the most recent). •

•

•

•

C. A. Kolosov, “Regulation of Industrial Hemp under the Controlled Substances Act” UCLA Law Review, vol. 57, no. 237, October 2009, http://uclalawreview.org/pdf/57-1-5.pdf. Manitoba Agriculture, National Industrial Hemp Strategy, March 2008 (prepared for Food and Rural Initiative Agriculture and AgriFood Canada). Reason Foundation, “Illegally Green: Environmental Costs of Hemp Prohibition,” Policy Study 367, March 2008, http://www.reason.org/ps367.pdf. Agriculture Canada, Canada‟s Industrial Hemp Industry, March 2007, http://www.agr.gc.ca/misb/spcrops/sc-cs_e.php?page+hemp-chanvre.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

90

Renée Johnson • •

•

•

•

•

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

•

• •

Maine Agricultural Center, An Assessment of Industrial Hemp Production in Maine, January 2007, http://www.mac.umaine.edu/. T. R. Fortenbery and M. Bennett, “Opportunities for Commercial Hemp Production,” Applied Economics Perspectives and Policy, 26(1): 97-117, 2004. E. Small and D. Marcus, “Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America,” In: Trends in New Crops and New Uses, 2002, http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html. T. R. Fortenbery and M. Bennett, “Is Industrial Hemp Worth Further Study in the U.S.? A Survey of the Literature,” Staff Paper No. 443, July 2001, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/12680/1/stpap443.pdf. J. Bowyer, “Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) as a Papermaking Raw Material in Minnesota: Technical, Economic and Environmental Considerations,” Department of Wood & Paper Science Report Series, May 2001. K. Hill, N. Boshard-Blackey, and J. Simson, “Legislative Research Shop: Hemp,” University of Vermont, April 2000, http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/ hemp.htm USDA, Economic Research Service, Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and Market Potential, AGES001E, January 2000, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ages001e/ages001em.pdf. M. J. Cochran, T. E. Windham, and B. Moore, “Feasibility of Industrial Hemp Production in Arkansas,” University of Arkansas, SP102000, May 2000. D. G. Kraenzel et al. “Industrial Hemp as an Alternative Crop in North Dakota,” AER 402, North Dakota State University, Fargo, July 1998, http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/23264. E. C. Thompson et al., Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky, University of Kentucky, July 1998. D. T. Ehrensing, Feasibility of Industrial Hemp Production in the United States Pacific Northwest, SB 681, Oregon State University, May 1998, http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/html/sb/sb681/.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

91

End Notes

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1

This report does not cover issues pertaining to medical marijuana. For information on that subject, see CRS Report RL33211, Medical Marijuana: Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies, or related CRS reports. 2 See, for example, S. L. Datwyler and G. D. Weiblen, “Genetic variation in hemp and marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.) according to amplified fragment length polymorphisms, Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 51, No. 2 (2006). 3 Use of this term dates back to the 1960s; see L. Grlic, “A combined spectrophotometric differentiation of samples of cannabis,” United Nations Office On Drugs and Crime (UNODC), January 1968, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/dataandanalysis/bulletin/bulletin_1968-01-01_3_page005.html. 4 National Institute of Drug Abuse, “Quarterly Report, Potency Monitoring project,” Report 100, University of Mississippi, 2008, http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pdf/ FullPotencyReports.pdf. Based on sample tests of illegal cannabis seizures (December 16, 2007, through March 15, 2008). 5 E. Small and D. Marcus, “Hemp: A new crop with new uses for North America,” In: Trends in New Crops and New Uses, J. Janick and A. Whipkey (eds.), American Society for Horticultural Science (ASHS) Press, 2002, http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html. 6 E. Small and D. Marcus, “Tetrahydrocannabinol levels in hemp (Cannabis sativa) germplasm resources,” Economic Botany, vol. 57, no. 4 (October 2003); and G. Leson, “Evaluating Interference of THC Levels in Hemp Food Products with Employee Drug Testing” (prepared for the Province of Manitoba, Canada), July, 2000, http://www.gov.mb.ca/ agriculture/research/ardi/projects/98-231.html. 7 U. R. Avico, R. Pacifici, and P. Zuccaro, “Variations of tetrahydrocannabinol content in cannabis plants to distinguish the fibre-type from drug-type plants,” UNODC Bulletin on Narcotics, January 1985, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-andanalysis/bulletin/bulletin_1985-01-01_4_page008.html; C. W. Waller, “Chemistry Of Marihuana,” Pharmacological Reviews, vol. 23 (December 1971); K.W. Hillig and P. G. Mahlberg, “A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae),” American Journal of Botany, vol. 91, no. 6 (June 2004); and A. W. Zuardi et al., “Cannabidiol, a Cannabis sativa constituent, as an antipsychotic drug,” Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, vol. 39 (2006). 8 CRS communication with Anndrea Hermann, Hemp Oil Canada Inc., December 2009. Pollen is present a very early plant development stage. 9 D. P. West, “Hemp and Marijuana: Myths & Realities,” February 1998, http://www.gametec.com/hemp/ hempandmj.html. Also see information posted by Vote Hemp Inc., “Different Varieties Of Cannabis” (no date), http://www.votehemp.com/ different_varieties.html. 10 Innvista, “Hemp Biology” (no date), http://www.innvista.com/health/ foods/hemp/hempbiol.htm. 11 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, “Industrial Hemp” (no date), http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/displayafficher.do?id=1174595656066&lang=eng. 12 Ibid. 13 Innvista, “Hemp Biology” (no date), http://www.innvista.com/health/foods/ hemp/ hempbiol.htm.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

92

Renée Johnson

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

14

Different varieties have been developed may be better suited for one use or the other. Cultivation practices also differ depending upon the variety planted. 15 For additional information, see U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and Market Potential, ERS Report AGES001E, January 2000. 16 “Hemp Homes are Cutting Edge of Green Building,” USA Today, September 12, 2010; and “Construction Plant,” Financial Times, January 22, 2010. 17 Manitoba Agriculture, National Industrial Hemp Strategy, March 2008, p. 293; J. Lane, “Hemp Makes Comeback as Biofuels Feedstock in 43-acre California Trial,” Biofuels Digest, August 24, 2009; and H. Jessen, “Hemp Biodiesel: When the Smoke Clears,” Biodiesel Magazine, February 2007. 18 North Dakota State University (NSDU), “Biofuel Economics: Biocomposites—New Uses for North Dakota Agricultural Fibers and Oils” (no date), http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/news/ columns/biofuels-economics/biofuel-economicsbiocomposites-new-uses-for-north-dakotaagricultural-fibers-and-oils/. 19 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and Market Potential, ERS Report AGES001E, January 2000. 20 Manitoba Agriculture, National Industrial Hemp Strategy, March 2008. A study prepared for Food and Rural Initiative Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 21 E. Small and D. Marcus, “Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America,” In: Trends in New Crops and New Uses, 2002, p. 321. 22 Agriculture Canada, Canada’s Industrial Hemp Industry, March 2007. 23 See USDA‟s summary of available state studies: USDA, ERS, Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and Market Potential, AGES001E, January 2000, p. 24. 24 See, for example, Reason Foundation, “Illegally Green: Environmental Costs of Hemp Prohibition,” Policy Study 367, March 2008, http://www.reason.org/ps367.pdf; and J. B. Kahn, “Hemp ... Why Not?” Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress) Legal Series, Paper 1930, 2007, http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9156&context=expresso. 25 Reported by Vote Hemp, Inc., “The State of Hemp,” vol. 3, no. 1, February 4, 2008, http://www.votehemp.com/vhr/ vhr_v3no1.html; also widely reported in 2010 as part of Hemp History Week. 26 HIA, “Hemp Fabric goes High Fashion,” February 11, 2008, http://www.thehia.org/PR/02-1108_hemp_fashion.html. Estimate is for 2007. 27 Hans Fastre, CEO of Living Harvest Foods, based on his comments and presentation, “The Future of Hemp,” HIA Convention, Washington DC, October 2009. Market estimates derived from available SPINS data for 2009. Other estimates reported by HIA are at http://www.thehia.org/PR/2010-05-03-hia-Hemp_Food_Growth.html. 28 SPINS tracks data and market trends on the Natural Product Industry sales (http://www.spins.com/). 29 CRS communication with representatives of Vote Hemp, Inc., May 2010. See explanation in HIA‟s press release, “Growing Hemp Food and Body Care Sales is Good News for Canadian Hemp Seed and Oil Producers,” April 29, 2009, http://www.thehia.org/PR/04-2909_growing_hemp_food.html. 30 Hans Fastre, CEO of Living Harvest Foods, based on his comments and presentation, “The Future of Hemp,” HIA Convention, Washington DC, October 2009; and HIA, “Growing Hemp Food and Body Care Sales is Good News for Canadian Hemp Seed and Oil Producers,” April 29, 2009. 31 HIA, “Hemp Milk Products Boosted Growth of Hemp Food Market in 2007,” March 14, 2008.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

32

93

Other EU producing countries include Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain. 33 European Industrial Hemp Association (EHIA), “European Commision: Hemp and Flax, AGRI C5, 2009,” February 2009, http://www.eiha.org/attach/553/09-02_C1_Flax_hemp_ presentation_26_February_2009_circa.pdf. 34 See, for example, “Health Check of the CAP,” May 2008, http://ec.europa.eu/ agriculture/healthcheck/guide_en.pdf. 35 Additional country information is available at Hemp Industries Association, http://www.thehia.org/facts.html. 36 Industrial Hemp Regulations (SOR/98-156), as part of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-38.8/SOR-98-156/index.html. 37 Agriculture Canada, “Canada‟s Industrial Hemp Industry,” March 2007, http://www4.agr.gc.ca/ AAFC-AAC/displayafficher.do?id=1174595656066&lang=eng. 38 See Health Canada‟s FAQs on its hemp regulations (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcps/substancontrol/hemp-chanvre/ about-apropos/faq/index-eng.php#a3) and its application for obtaining permits (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/pubs/ precurs/hemp-induschanvre/guide/app-demande/hemp-chanvre/guid_append_1-annexe-eng.php). Other information is at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency website (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/seesem/indust/ hemchae.shtml). 39 Agriculture and Rural Development, “Industrial Hemp Production in Canada” February 2010, http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/econ9631. 40 Agriculture Canada, “Canada‟s Industrial Hemp Industry,” March 2007, http://www4.agr.gc.ca/ AAFC-AAC/displayafficher.do?id=1174595656066&lang=eng. 41 See, for example, editions of USDA Agricultural Statistics. A compilation of U.S. government publications is available from the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) at http://www.hempology.org/ ALLARTICLES.html. 42 See, for example, USDA‟s 1942 short film “Hemp for Victory,” and University of Wisconsin‟s Extension Service Special Circular, “What about Growing Hemp,” November 1942. 43 Regarding papermaking, see L. H. Dewey and J. L. Merrill, “Hemp Hurds as Paper-Making Material,” USDA Bulletin No. 404, October 14, 1916. A copy of this document is available, as posted by Vote Hemp Inc., at http://www.votehemp.com/17855-h/17855-h.htm. Other USDA and state documents from this period are available at http://www.hempology.org/ALLARTICLES.html. 44 See links at http://www.thehia.org/history.html and http://www.hemphistory week.com/timeline.html. 45 R. J. Bonnie and C. H. Whitebread, The Marihuana Conviction: A History of Marihuana Prohibition in the United States (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1974), p. 51. 46 Text from a short film produced by USDA in 1942, “Hemp for Victory,” to promote the cultivation of hemp during WWII. Text from this film, as reported by HIA, is available at http://www.hempology.org/ALLARTICLES.html. 47 USDA Agricultural Statistics, various years through 1949. A summary of data spanning 19311945 is available in the 1946 edition. See “Table 391—Hemp Fiber and hempseed: Acreage, Yield, and Production, United States.” 48 See, for example, Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 357 F.2d (9th Circuit 2004). 49 66 Federal Register 51530.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

94

Renée Johnson

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

50

United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961), Article 28, http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/conv/convention_1961_en.pdf. 51 International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), http://www.incb.org/incb/ convention_ 1961.html. 52 Ibid. 53 DEA, “DEA History in Depth,” 1999-2003, http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/history/19992003. pdf and http://www.justice.gov/ dea/pubs/history/history_part2.pdf. Also see http://www.justice. gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/ pr032103a.html. 54 Ibid. 55 66 Federal Register 51530. 56 21 U.S.C. §802 (19) and (20). 57 68 Federal Register 14113. 58 Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 357 F.2d (9th Circuit 2004). 59 DEA, “DEA History in Depth,” 2003-2008, p. 176, http://www.justice.gov/dea/ pubs/history/2003-2008.pdf. Other related DEA documents are at http://www.justice.gov/dea/history.htm. 60 NIDA, “Marijuana: Facts for Teens” (no date), http://www.drugabuse.gov/ MarijBroch/teenpg1-2.html. 61 DEA, “DEA History in Depth,” 2003-2008, p. 176, http://www.justice.gov/dea/ pubs/history/2003-2008.pdf. Other related DEA documents are at http://www.justice.gov/dea/history.htm. 62 Ibid. 63 DEA-cited court case: United States v. White Plume, 447 F.3d 1067, 1073 (8th Cir. 2006). 64 DEA, “DEA History in Depth,” 2003-2008, p. 176, http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/history/ 2003-2008.pdf. Other related DEA documents are at http://www.justice.gov/de a/history.htm. 65 DEA-cited court cases: New Hampshire Hemp Council, Inc. v. Marshall, 203 F.3d I (1st Cir 2000); United States v. White Plume, supra; Monson v. DEA, 522 F.Supp.2d 1188 (D. N.D. 2007), No. 07-3837 (8th Cir. 2007). 66 DEA, “DEA History in Depth,” 2003-2008, p. 176, http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/ history/2003-2008.pdf. Other related DEA documents are at http://www.justice.gov/dea/history.htm. 67 Hemp is included under the category of “food resources,” which it defined to mean, in part, “all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, cotton, tobacco, wool, mohair, hemp, flax, fiber and other materials, but not any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or product.” The text of EO 12919 is available at USDA‟s website: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12919.htm. 68 J. B. Kahn, “Hemp ... Why Not?” Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress) Legal Series, Paper 1930, 2007, http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9156&context=expresso. 69 USDA‟s 2011 Explanatory Notes, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), http://www.obpa. usda. gov/ 17nifa2011notes.pdf. 70 Information on USDA‟s Supplemental and Alternative Crops Competitive Grants Program is at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfas/pdfs/10_alt_crops.pdf. 71 USDA‟s 2011 Explanatory Notes, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), http://www.obpa.usda.gov/ 17nifa2011notes.pdf. 72 Additional current state-level activity is available at Vote Hemp Inc. website, http://www.votehemp.com/state.html.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

73

95

The North Dakota Department of Agriculture issued final regulations in 2007 on licensing hemp production. For information on the state‟s requirements, see http://www. agdepartment.com/Programs/Plant/HempFarming.htm. 74 David Monson and Wayne Hauge v. Drug Enforcement Administration and United States Department of Justice, Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, June 18, 2007. For an overview, see Vote Hemp Inc. website: http://www.votehemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html#overview 75 Monson v. DEA, 522 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D.N.D. 2007). 76 Monson v. DEA, 589 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2009). 77 S. Roesler, “ND farmers file another industrial hemp appeal in district court,” Farm & Ranch Guide, June 4, 2010, http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/ 2010/06/04/ag_news/ regional_news/news0.txt. 78 M. Brown, “First license issued to Montana hemp grower,” Missoulian, October 27, 2009, http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/article_48c091d2-c2f9-11de-a4b7001cc4c002e0.html. 79 Ibid. 80 NFU, “National Farmers Union Adopts New Policy on Industrial Hemp,” March 22, 2010, press release, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/national-farmers-union-adoptsnew-policy-on-industrial-hemp88824362.html. Also see NFU, “Policy of the National Farmers Union,” enacted by delegates to the 108th annual convention, Rapid City, SD, March 14-16, 2010 http://nfu.org/wp-content/2010-final-policy.pdf. 81 NASDA, “New Uses of Agricultural Products,” February 2010, http://www.nasda. org/cms/7196/9017/9350/7945.aspx. 82 The National Grange, “Legislative Policies,” http://www.nationalgrange.org/ legislation/policy/policy_ag.htm; also see The National Grange, “Hemp Policy,” http:// www.grangehemppolicy.info/. 83 NDFU, “2010 Program of Policy & Action,” http://www.ndfu.org/data/upfiles/policy/ 2009POLICYandACTION.pdf, p. 8. 84 RMFU, “Policy 2010,” http://www.rmfu.org/pdfs/RMFUPolicy10.pdf, p. 6, pp. 15-16, and p. 24. 85 See, for example, Drug Watch International, “Position Statement on Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.),” November 2002, http://www.drugwatch.org/Hemp.htm. 86 For more information on legislative and executive branch actions concerning illegal drugs, see CRS Report RL32352, War on Drugs: Reauthorization and Oversight of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. For information on issues pertaining to medical marijuana, see CRS Report CRS Report RL33211, Medical Marijuana: Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies. 87 T. R. Fortenbery and M. Bennett, “Opportunities for Commercial Hemp Production,” Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 26, no. 1, Spring 2004, pp. 97-117. The time period covered in this study ends with the year 2000.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

In: Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp ISBN: 978-1-61209-982-8 Editor: Ethan L. Clark © 2011 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Chapter 3

INDUSTRIAL HEMP IN THE UNITED STATES: STATUS AND MARKET POTENTIAL U.S. Department of Agriculture

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACT Industrial hemp has been the focus of official interest in several States. However, hemp and marijuana are different varieties of Cannabis sativa, which is classified as a controlled substance in the United States. With Canada now allowing hemp production, questions have been raised about the demand for hemp products. U.S. markets for hemp fiber (specialty textiles, paper, and composites) and seed (in food or crushed for oil) are, and will likely remain, small, thin markets. Uncertainty about longrun demand for hemp products and the potential for oversupply discounts the prospects for hemp as an economically viable alternative crop for American farmers.

Keywords: industrial hemp, markets, bast fiber, hurds, seed, oil.

The use of commercial or trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

98

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Industrial hemp and marijuana are different varieties of the same species, Cannabis sativa L. Marijuana typically contains 3 to 15 percent of the psychoactive ingredient delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on a dry-weight basis, while industrial hemp contains less than 1 percent. However, the two varieties are indistinguishable by appearance. In the United States, Cannabis sativa is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, regardless of its narcotic content, under the Controlled Substances Act as amended. Since 1990, varieties containing less than 0.3 percent THC have been legalized in Great Britain, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Canada and Australia legalized hemp production in 1998. In other countries, such as China, Russia, and Hungary, hemp production was never outlawed. With Canada now allowing production of industrial hemp, questions have been raised about the potential commercial market demand for industrial hemp products in the United States. Hemp cultivation has been the focus of official interest in several States. The Governor of Kentucky established a Hemp and Related Fiber Crops Task Force in 1994. Legislation passed in Vermont, Hawaii, and North Dakota in 1996 and 1997 authorized agronomic and economic feasibility studies. In 1999, nine States (Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Virginia) passed legislation concerning the research, study, or production of industrial hemp as a crop. The first test plots of industrial hemp in the United States were planted in Hawaii in December 1999. Previous experience in the United States and other countries indicates that industrial hemp grows well in areas where corn produces high yields. Plants require plentiful moisture throughout the growing season and need substantial amounts of available nutrients to produce high yields. Hemp can be grown as a fiber, seed, or dual-purpose crop. It is a bast fiber plant similar to flax, kenaf, and jute. The interior of the stalk contains short woody fibers called hurds, while the outer portion contains the long bast fibers. Hemp seeds are smooth and about one-eighth to one-fourth of an inch long. No data are available on imports of hemp seed and oil into the United States, but data do exist on hemp fiber, yarn, and fabrics. Imports of raw hemp fiber have increased dramatically in the last few years, rising from less than 500 pounds in 1994 to over 1.5 million pounds for the first 9 months of 1999. Yarn imports also have risen substantially, peaking at slightly less than 625,000 pounds in 1997. The switch from yarn to raw fiber in the last 2 years probably reflects the development of U.S. spinning capacity. At least two

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Industrial Hemp in the United States

99

companies are now spinning hemp yarn from imported fibers. Imports of hemp fabric have more than doubled from over 222,000 pounds in 1995 to about 523,000 pounds in 1998. Current markets for bast fibers like industrial hemp include specialty textiles, paper, and composites. Hemp hurds are used in various applications such as animal bedding, composites, and low-quality papers. As joint products, finding viable markets for both hemp bast fiber and hurds may increase the chances of a successful business venture. Hemp industry sources and some academic studies cite many potential uses for hemp fiber and hurds. However, for these applications to develop or expand, hemp will have to compete with current raw materials and manufacturing practices. The U.S. market for hemp fibers is, and will likely remain, a small, thin market. Changes in price or quantity could be more disruptive and have a greater adverse impact on market participants than would be the case in a larger market. Since there is no commercial production of industrial fiber hemp in the United States, the “size” of the market can only be gauged from hemp fiber and product imports. The near-term, low-end size of the U.S. market for hemp as a textile fiber might be defined by considering the domestic production and acreage required to replace imports of hemp fiber, yarn, and fabric in 1999. Assuming a potential U.S. yield of 1,550 pounds of fiber per acre and using linen yarn and fabric conversion factors, the estimated import quantity of hemp fiber, yarn, and fabric in 1999 could have been produced on less than 2,000 acres of land. Given the average size of farms in the United States (near 500 acres), just a few farms could have supplied the hemp fiber equivalent of 1999 import levels. As a specialty bast fiber, hemp‟s closest competing textile fiber is linen. A longer term, high-end size of the potential U.S. market for hemp fiber could be defined as domestic production and acreage required to replace hemp and linen imports. The hemp fiber required to replace the equivalent level of hemp and linen fiber, yarn, and fabric imports in 1999 could have been produced on 250,000 acres—roughly 40 percent of 1999 tobacco acreage, 5 percent of U.S. oat acreage, or 0.4 percent of wheat acreage. Despite the similarities between hemp and linen, there is no industry consensus as to how closely the markets for the two fibers are allied. But since hemp fiber imports were just 0.5 percent of linen imports during the first 9 months of 1999, the near-term market potential for hemp in the United States for domestic textile production is closer to the low end of the 2,000- to 250,000-acre production-equivalent range. Moreover, the absence of a thriving textile flax (linen) production sector in this country (despite no legal barriers)

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

100

U.S. Department of Agriculture

suggests that hemp, flax‟s close cousin in fiber uses and in production techniques, will be unable to sustain adequate profit margins for a large production sector to develop. In 1998, imports of hemp seed into North America were estimated at 1,300 tons. Given yields in Germany of about 1,000 pounds per acre, it would take 2,600 acres to satisfy the demand for hemp seed. As with fiber imports, it would take only a few average-sized farms to meet this demand. Hemp seeds can be used directly as a food ingredient or crushed for oil and meal. Hemp seeds and flour are being used in nutrition bars, tortilla chips, pretzels, beer, salad dressings, cheese, and ice cream. The market potential for hemp seed as a food ingredient is unknown. However, it probably will remain a small market, like the markets for sesame and poppy seeds. Some consumers may be willing to pay a higher price for hemp-seed-containing products because of the novelty, but otherwise hemp seed will have to compete on taste and functionality with more common food ingredients. Hemp oil is being used as an ingredient in body-care products, such as lotions, moisturizers, and shampoos, and sold in health food stores as a nutritional supplement. The market for hemp oil is limited by a number of factors. First, mechanical crushing produces a lower oil yield than crushing combined with solvent extraction. Nor does hemp oil undergo degumming and bleaching as do many other vegetable oils. Some consumers prefer an oil that has been processed without chemicals, but others may dislike hemp oil‟s color or taste. Second, the oil is high in unsaturated fatty acids, which can easily oxidize, so it is not used for frying and must be kept in dark-colored bottles and has a limited shelf life. Third, to be used as a salad oil, it will have to be tested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and found “generally recognized as safe.” Last, as a drying oil, hemp would have to compete on functionality and price with current raw materials, such as linseed and tung oils, in established industrial markets. Several States have published reports or authorized agronomic and economic feasibility studies of hemp production. The four reports summarized here have focused on different aspects of supply and/or demand. Their estimates of hemp costs and returns reflect these various focuses, as well as different assumed production practices and costs. However, the widest range of estimates exhibited among the reports is for stalk and seed yields and prices—not surprising given the uncertainty about hemp production and current and potential hemp markets. Overall, hemp production was profitable only at the higher end of estimated yields and prices. It seems questionable

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States

101

that U.S. producers could remain profitable at the low end of the estimated net returns, particularly given the thinness of current U.S. hemp markets. The market for hemp products might easily be oversupplied, as in Canada where the 35,000 acres of hemp produced in 1999 was seemingly more than the market could handle. The Minneapolis Star Tribune quotes the general manager of Kenex Ltd., Canada‟s biggest hemp processor, as saying “It‟s given us one hell of a glut of grain and fiber. There‟s been a major overestimation of the market that‟s out there” (von Sternberg, 1999).

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Industrial hemp and marijuana are different varieties of the same species, Cannabis sativa L. In the United States, Cannabis sativa is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, regardless of its narcotic content, under the Controlled Substances Act as amended. Regulatory authority is vested in the Office of the Attorney General and is carried out by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Since 1990, varieties containing very low levels of the psychoactive ingredient delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) have been legalized in Great Britain, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Canada and Australia legalized hemp production in 1998. In other countries, such as China, Russia, and Hungary, hemp production was never outlawed. With Canada now allowing production of industrial hemp, questions have been raised about the potential commercial market demand for industrial hemp products in the United States. Several companies import hemp fabrics and garments into the United States. Other firms import hemp fiber or sterile hemp seed for further processing and manufacturing into products, such as paper, nutrition bars, and beer. Hemp cultivation has been the focus of official interest in several States. The Governor of Kentucky established a Hemp and Related Fiber Crops Task Force in 1994. Legislation passed in Vermont, Hawaii, and North Dakota in 1996 and 1997 authorized agronomic and economic feasibility studies. Published study results are available from Kentucky, Oregon, and North Dakota (McNulty, 1995; Thompson et al., 1998; Ehrensing, 1998; Kraenzel et al., 1998). Since 1995, a total of 19 States (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont,

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

102

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Virginia, and Wisconsin) have introduced hemp legislation. In 1999, nine States (Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Virginia) passed legislation concerning the research, study, or production of industrial hemp as a crop (Nelson, 1999). The legislation in Minnesota and North Dakota permits the production of industrial hemp, provided farmers obtain licenses from DEA. Farmers are looking for alternative crops, particularly for tobacco, but also for rotation crops to break pest and disease cycles. The first test plots of industrial hemp in the United States were planted in Hawaii in December 1999. To gain DEA approval of the project, scientists were required to enclose the plot inside a 12-foot-high fence with infrared surveillance (Welna, 1999; Associated Press, 2000). The project received $200,000 in funding from a hair-care company that uses hemp oil in its products (Hanks, July 1999). This report examines the similarities and differences between industrial hemp and marijuana. It then reviews hemp‟s history as a crop; its plant characteristics and growing requirements; and harvesting, retting, and fiber separation. This is followed by a brief review of Canadian hemp production and a discussion of U.S. hemp fiber and fabric imports. The next two sections assess hemp fiber and seed markets. The following two sections discuss some of the issues involved in potential U.S. hemp production and processing and review estimated costs and returns for hemp production from four Statesponsored studies.

IDENTIFICATION: INDUSTRIAL HEMP OR MARIJUANA? Marijuana and industrial hemp are different varieties of the same plant species, Cannabis sativa L. Marijuana typically contains 3 to 15 percent THC on a dry-weight basis, while industrial hemp contains less than 1 percent (Blade, 1998; Vantreese, 1998). Most developed countries that permit hemp cultivation require use of varieties with less than 0.3 percent THC. However, the two varieties are indistinguishable by appearance. DeMeijer et al. (1992), in a study of 97 Cannabis strains, concluded that short of chemical analysis of the THC content, there was no way to distinguish between marijuana and hemp varieties.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States

103

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Industrial hemp can be grown as a fiber and/or seed crop. Grown for fiber, it is planted in dense stands to maximize stalk production. Grown for seed or for seed and fiber, plants are spaced farther apart to encourage branching and seed production. Marijuana varieties are grown for their leaves and flower buds, and therefore are grown under low-density conditions to maximize branching. Thus, planting density and other production characteristics do not offer a reliable way to distinguish varieties for law enforcement purposes. Health Canada announced regulations on March 12, 1998, that control activities relating to the production, import, export, transport, and sale of industrial hemp (see Appendix I for the fact sheet from Health Canada). Production is highly regulated, with farmers required to obtain annual government permits. Farmers cannot have had a drug offense in the past 10 years and need to have a criminal background check done at their own expense. Federal agronomists and police will check fields and test plants to make sure that no narcotic plants are grown along with the industrial hemp. The European Union (EU) issued rules governing hemp production in 1989, which include registration of the area to be planted in advance, the use of seed from certified low-THC varieties, and testing of fields to determine THC content.

HISTORY The first records of hemp cultivation and use are from China, where the species most likely originated (Ehrensing). Migrating peoples likely brought hemp to Europe where, by the 16th century, it was widely distributed, cultivated for fiber, and the seed cooked with barley or other grains and eaten (Dempsey, 1975). Hemp reportedly was first grown in the New World in Chile in 1545 (Blade). The Puritans brought hemp to New England in 1645 as a fiber source for household spinning and weaving, but it never rivaled flax in importance. Cultivation spread to Virginia and, in 1775, to Kentucky, where the crop grew so well a commercial cordage industry developed. The hemp industry flourished in Kentucky, Missouri, and Illinois between 1840 and 1860 because of strong demand for sailcloth and cordage by the U.S. Navy. However, increased production of cotton in the South, due to the development of the cotton gin, and imports of cheaper jute and abaca eventually displaced most domestic hemp production (Dempsey, Ehrensing).

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

104

U.S. Department of Agriculture

In 1937, Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act, which placed all Cannabis culture under the regulatory control of the U.S. Treasury Department. The Act required the registration and licensing of all hemp growers with the Federal Government in an effort to restrict production of marijuana in the United States (Dempsey; Rawson, 1992; Ehrensing). During World War II, when imports of abaca and jute were unavailable, the Government instituted an emergency program to produce hemp as a domestic substitute. USDA‟s Commodity Credit Corporation contracted with War Hemp Industries, Inc., a quasi-official organization, to produce planting seed and fiber. Production peaked in 1943 and 1944. After the war, production rapidly declined as imports resumed and legal restrictions were reimposed. A small hemp fiber industry continued in Wisconsin until 1958 (Dempsey, Ehrensing).

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

INDUSTRIAL HEMP IN CANADA In 1998, Health Canada permitted 259 farmers to grow hemp on 6,180 acres, mostly in Ontario and Manitoba (Health Canada, June 1998; Health Canada, June 1999). As of June 1999, Health Canada had issued 674 hemp production licenses, allowing cultivation on 35,000 acres. Manitoba accounted for over half of the acreage, followed by Saskatchewan and Ontario (HansenTrip, 1999). Actual acreage under cultivation was lower because of a wet spring in western Canada, lack of certified seed, and license delays (Hanks, Fall 1999). Most of the production was for seed, especially in western Canada. Gardner and White (1998) and Hanks (Fall 1999) profile the leading Canadian companies involved in hemp production and processing. Most process seed or oil using existing facilities. Two Manitoba companies, Hemp Oil Canada and Fresh Hemp Foods, have their own presses. Only two companies, Ontario-based Hempline, Inc. and Kenex Ltd., operate fiber processing facilities.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States

105

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

PLANT CHARACTERISTICS AND GROWING REQUIREMENTS Cannabis sativa L. is often referred to as true hemp to distinguish it from other fiber crops. These include Musa textilis (abaca or manila hemp), Agave sisalina (sisal hemp), and Crotalaria juncea (sunn hemp). Cannabis sativa is normally dioecious, meaning the species has separate male and female plants. Monoecious varieties, with the male and female flower parts on the same plant, have been developed in a number of countries through breeding and selection (Dempsey, Ehrensing). Several countries, such as France, the Netherlands, Hungary, Romania, and China, have ongoing breeding programs. The industry is seeking high-yielding strains that are low in THC and meet various end-use needs. For example, breeders are looking for fiber lines that are high in primary fiber yields (for pulping), extra-fine fibers (for textiles), and cellulose content (for biomass fuel) and for seed lines with various seed sizes (for easier hulling and assorted food uses), special amino acid profiles (for human and animal feeds), and specific components in the oil for industrial uses (such as industrial lubricants) (Vantreese, 1998). Hemp is sensitive to day length; the plant matures (sets seed) as days get shorter in the fall. Since production has historically been concentrated in northern temperate regions, industrial hemp varieties have been selected to mature in early fall (Blade; Reichert, 1994). Industrial hemp can be grown as a fiber, seed, or dual-purpose crop. Hemp is a bast fiber plant similar to flax, kenaf, and jute. The interior of the stalk is hol-low, surrounded by a pith layer of woody fibers called hurds (fig. 1). Outside the cambium layer, where cells grow and differentiate, is the phloem or parenchyma layer, which contains the long cells known as bast fiber. Hemp seeds are smooth and about one-eighth to one-fourth of an inch long. The seeds usually contain from 29 to 34 percent oil. The oil is similar in composition to drying oils such as linseed and tung and consists primarily of three fatty acids: linoleic (54-60 percent), linolenic (15-20 percent), and oleic (11-13 percent) (Ehrensing). Both the fiber and seed can be used in a wide range of applications (fig. 2). Industrial hemp grows well in areas where corn produces high yields (Ehrensing). It can be grown on a variety of soils, but it does best on loose, well-drained loam soils with high fertility and abundant organic matter. Plants require plentiful moisture throughout the growing season, especially during the first 6 weeks (Dempsey; Blade; Baxter and Scheifele, 1999). Hemp also needs

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

106

U.S. Department of Agriculture

substantial amounts of available nutrients to produce high yields. Both Dempsey (1975) and Ehrensing (1998) review numerous fertilization studies and conclude that hemp requires liberal fertilization for high fiber yields. Hemp diseases are not widespread and occur sporadically. They are usually caused by seed- and soil-borne fungi, which can be controlled by seed treatment before planting or by rotation (Dempsey). Under favorable conditions, hemp is very competitive with weeds so herbicides are generally unnecessary in hemp fiber production (Ehrensing). Due to lower planting densities, weed suppression may be less complete when hemp is grown for seed (Baxter and Scheifele).

HARVESTING, RETTING, AND FIBER SEPARATION

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Harvesting and fiber processing differ depending on whether the crop is grown for high-quality textile fiber, for seed, or for fiber and seed. The Oregon study, Feasibility of Industrial Hemp Production in the United States Pacific Northwest, summarizes current information and research on hemp harvesting, retting, and fiber separation when the crop is grown for fiber (Ehrensing).

Harvesting When grown for textile fiber, the crop is harvested when the fiber is at its highest quality. During World War II, tractor-drawn harvester-spreaders were used to cut hemp stems and lay them in windrows for field retting. After retting, a second machine was used to gather and tie the stems into bundles for pickup and delivery to the mill. A similar harvest system is still used in Europe, but with more modern, specialized equipment. Because these systems are designed to maintain the parallel alignment of hemp stems throughout harvest and processing in order to maximize the recovery of long textile fibers, the equipment has limited throughput capacity. For seed, hemp is harvested when the seed is mature and ready for combining. When produced as a dual-purpose crop in countries such as France and Hungary, the seed is harvested near maturity with combines modified to cut high off the ground, and then the stems are harvested. The fiber from a dual-purpose crop is usually of lower quality and is often used in low-value

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States

107

applications such as pulp and paper. The 1998 crop in Canada was for dual production, and farmers found that the length and strength of hemp fibers were very rough on equipment during harvest (Gardner and White; Vantreese, 1998; Scheifele, 1999). In 1999, some Canadian farmers planted early flowering cultivars, which are shorter than traditional varieties and easier to combine (Baxter and Scheifele). The first Canadian-bred seed strain, which will be available next year in limited quantities, is also short (Hanks, Fall 1999).

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Retting If hemp or flax (linen) fibers are to be used in textiles and other highquality applications, the bast fibers must be separated from the rest of the stalk. Retting is a microbial process that breaks the chemical bonds that hold the stem together and allows separation of the bast fibers from the woody core. The two traditional types of retting are field and water retting. With field or dew retting, plant stems are cut or pulled up and left in the field to rot. Farmers monitor the process closely to ensure that the bast fibers separate from the inner core without much deterioration in quality. Moisture is needed for the microbial breakdown to occur, but then the weather must be dry enough for the stalks to dry for bailing. Although varying weather conditions affect the quality of fiber, field retting has been used extensively for hemp because it is inexpensive, mechanized, and does not use water. Water retting produces more uniform and high-quality fiber, but the process is very labor- and capital-intensive. Stems are immersed in water (rivers, ponds, or tanks) and monitored frequently. Not only is this laborintensive, farmers and/or workers must be knowledgeable about fiber quality. Also, the process uses large volumes of clean water that must be treated before being discharged. Water retting has been largely abandoned in countries where labor is expensive or environmental regulations exist. Most hemp fiber currently used in textiles is water retted in China or Hungary. Scientists speculate that improved microorganisms or direct use of enzymes may allow countries in Europe and North America to produce textile-quality bast fibers.

Fiber Separation Once the stalks are retted, dried, and baled, they are brought to a central location for processing. With mechanical separation, in a process called

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

108

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

breaking, stalks are passed between fluted rollers to crush and break the woody core into short pieces (called hurds), separating some of it from the bast fiber. The remaining hurds and fiber are separated in a process called scutching. Fiber bundles are gripped between rubber belts or chains and carried past revolving drums with projecting bars that beat the fiber bundles, separating the hurds and broken or short fibers (called tow) from the remaining long fiber (called line fiber). Fiber and hurds also can be separated with one machine called a decorticator (Kerr, 1998). Figure 3 presents a generalized schematic of plant and fiber yields, when grown for high-quality textile fiber, from harvest through to fiber separation.

1 Bast

fibers are composed of primary bast fibers, which are long and low in lignin, and secondary bast fibers, which are intermediate in length and higher in lignin.

Figure 1. Cross section of a hemp stem.

Although partially mechanized, these procedures are functionally identical to traditional hand methods of preparing hemp line fiber and tow for twisting into twine or rope or for spinning into yarn. Not only are these methods time

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States

109

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

consuming, they require skilled workers and considerable investment in capital equipment. It is also possible to mechanically convert virtually all of the bast fiber directly into tow using flax breaking and tow processing machinery. This eliminates traditional scutching and allows processing of randomly oriented baled straw. Compared with scutching machinery, tow-processing equipment usually has higher throughput, requires fewer and less skilled workers, and costs less. However, a tow processing system cuts all of the bast fiber into short lengths, making it appropriate only for lower value uses, such as pulp and paper, instead of textiles. Research in Europe has sought methods for separating the bast fiber that bypass traditional retting and scutching. Steam explosion and ultrasound are under investigation in Germany, but the processes produce only short fiber. Neither technology has moved beyond laboratory or pilot scale trials. For hemp to be a viable fiber crop in the United States, modern hemp harvesting and processing methods would need to be developed.

Figure 2. Hemp products flowchat.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

110

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Note: Although these stem and fiber yields are from 1970, they illustrate how bast fibers are only a small portion of total crop yields. Source: Dempsey, p. 82. Figure 3. A typical breakdown of the green- and dry-plant components of hemp grown for fiber.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States

111

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

U.S. HEMP FIBER AND FABRIC IMPORTS No data are available on imports or exports of hemp seed and oil into the United States, but data do exist on hemp fiber, yarn, and fabrics. Imports of raw hemp fiber have increased dramatically in the last few years, rising from less than 500 pounds in 1994 to over 1.5 million pounds for the first 9 months of 1999 (table 1). Yarn imports also have risen substantially, peaking at slightly less than 625,000 pounds in 1997. The switch from yarn to raw fiber in the last 2 years probably reflects the development of U.S. spinning capacity. At least two companies are now spinning hemp yarn from imported fibers (Gross, 1997). According to industry sources, domestic spinning capacity for hemp was not available earlier in the decade. No direct information is available on the uses of the yarn, but it is likely used to manufacture apparel, household furnishings, and/or floor coverings. A separate import code for hemp fabrics was added to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule in 1995, so only a few years of data are available. Imports more than doubled from over 222,000 pounds in 1995 to about 523,000 pounds in 1998. The volume dropped for the first 9 months of 1999, again probably reflecting domestic production of hemp-containing fabrics. China is the largest supplier of hemp fabric to the United States, followed by Hungary, Poland, and Romania. Data are not available on how much hemp clothing and household furnishings are imported into the United States. Imports of tow and yarn waste have declined since the late 1980‟s and early 1990‟s and have varied from year to year (table 1). No direct information is available on the uses of hemp tow and yarn waste. However, both hemp and flax are bast fibers and flax tow and yarn wastes are byproducts of linen processing and spinning. Since the main use of flax tow and waste is in specialty papers, hemp tow and waste may be used for the same purpose. The United States also exports hemp raw fiber, tow and yarn waste, and yarn. During 1997-99, hemp exports were around 10 percent of imports. The data for earlier years, however, are suspect as exports of raw fiber are unexplainably larger than imports. A full discussion of world production and trade of hemp fiber and seed can be found in Charest (1998) and Vantreese (1998). Wang and Shi (1999) also review the decade-long decrease in world hemp fiber production and highlight China‟s critical role in declining world production and exports. Dempsey (1975) and Ehrensing (1998) provide historic information on world fiber production.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

112

U.S. Department of Agriculture Table 1. U.S. hemp imports, by category, 1989-99

Ye ar

Total fiber, tow/waste, and yarn

Fabric

Total1

Raw fiber

Tow and yarn waste

19 89 19

0

166,200

0

166,200

na

166,200

0

74,697

542

75,239

na

75,239

90 19 91 19

1,900

127,429

132

129,462

na

129,462

904

15,410

88

16,402

na

16,402

92 19 93 19

0 463

121 6,089

16,848 11,570

16,969 18,122

na na

16,969 18,122

94 19 95 19

14,844

7,754

8,181

30,779

222,495

253,274

72,991

43,568

12,899

129,458

291,517

96 19 97 19

193,535

13,340

624,682

831,557

451,174

420,975 1,282,7 31 1,454,6

Yarn Pounds

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

708,918 73,471 149,447 931,836 522,789 98 25 19 1,890,4 1,587,674 35,170 65,927 1,688,771 201,650 2 99 21 na = Not available. A separate import code for hemp fabrics was added in 1995.

1 Includes fabric for 1995-99. 2 January to September. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.

FIBER MARKETS Currently, the markets for bast fibers like industrial hemp include specialty textiles, paper, and composites. Cordage markets have long disappeared, as natural fibers have largely been replaced by plastic and steel (Miller, 1991; Orgel and Ravnitzky, 1994). In recent years, Canada, Australia, and a few European countries, including the Netherlands and Germany, have researched industrial hemp as a possible fiber for textile and paper production. Hungary and China currently are the major producers of high-quality, waterretted hemp textile fibers (Ehrensing). Small specialty pulp and paper mills in Britain, Spain, and Eastern Europe process flax, hemp, and other specialty fibers. Other potential uses of hemp bast fiber include molded automobile parts and as a replacement for fiberglass. In addition, hurds are utilized in various applications such as animal bedding.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States

113

Industry sources and some academic studies, such as Thompson et al. (1998) and Gardner and White (1998), cite numerous current and potential uses for hemp bast fiber and hurds. For these applications to develop or expand, hemp will have to compete with current raw materials and manufacturing practices. In the market for nonwood fibers, hemp would have to compete with cotton, flax, abaca, sisal, and other non-wood fibers in terms of fiber characteristics, fiber quality, and price. The U.S. market for hemp fibers is, and will likely remain, a small, thin market. Changes in price or quantity could be more disruptive and have a greater adverse impact on market participants than would be the case in a larger market. For example, small increases in world hemp fiber and tow production caused export prices to fall by half to a world average of 35 cents per pound in 1996 (Vantreese, 1998). See Appendix II for a discussion and some examples of oversupply in small, thin markets.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Specialty Textiles According to Ehrensing (1998), hemp textile production is based primarily in Asia and central Europe. Most hemp fiber used in textiles is water-retted in China or Hungary. However, water retting has been largely abandoned in countries where labor is expensive or environmental regulations are enforced. Several companies in Poland also make hemp yarn and fabrics (Gardner and White). A small market based on hemp textiles imported from China, Poland, and Hungary has developed in North America and western Europe during the 1990‟s. In the last few years, a couple of U.S. companies have begun producing hemp yarns and/or fabrics (Gross, Gardner and White). The current, low-end size of the U.S. market for hemp raw materials may be defined as the equivalent domestic production and acreage required to replace imports of hemp fiber, yarn, and fabric in 1999.1 Reichert (1994) reports hemp fiber yields of 800 to 2,320 pounds of fiber per acre. Assuming a potential U.S. yield of 1,550 pounds of fiber per acre (midpoint of the range) and using linen yarn and fabric conversion factors (1.0989 and 1.1447, respectively), the total import quantity of hemp fiber, yarn, and fabric in 1999 could have been produced on less than 2,000 acres of land. Given the average size of farms in the United States (near 500 acres), just a few farms could have supplied the hemp fiber equivalent of 1999 import levels. Detailed data are not 1

Nine months of import data were extrapolated to estimate a full year of imports.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

114

U.S. Department of Agriculture

available on the amount of hemp seed or oil or the levels of hemp-containing clothing and household furnishings imported into the United States. Thus, this calculation understates the production capacity needed to replace all hemp product imports. Nevertheless, the calculation does demonstrate the small, thin nature of the market for industrial hemp and its products in the United States. Hemp‟s closest competing fiber for textile uses—in terms of fiber production, processing, and characteristics—is linen, which is derived from textile flax. Textile flax is not grown in the United States, with demand met wholly by imports. While U.S. imports of hemp fiber, yarn, and fabric have increased dramatically in recent years, 1999 hemp imports (JanuarySeptember) represented just 0.5 percent of U.S. linen yarn, thread, and fabric imports. However, the U.S. market for linen may indicate the longer term potential demand for hemp fiber and products. During 1989-99, imports of linen yarn, thread, and fabrics accounted for 62 percent of total linen imports (table 2). Linen apparel accounted for another 33 percent, with household furnishing and floor coverings taking up the remainder. The United States also exports a small amount of linen products (table 3). A long-term, high-end size of the potential U.S. market for hemp fiber could be defined by considering the equivalent domestic production and acreage required to replace both hemp and linen imports. The hemp fiber required to replace the equivalent level of hemp and linen fiber, yarn, and fabric imports in 1999 could have been produced on 250,000 acres—roughly 40 percent of 1997 tobacco acreage, 5 percent of U.S. oat acreage, or 0.4 percent of wheat acreage. Table 2. U.S. linen imports, by category, 1989-991 Year

Yarn, thread, and fabric

Apparel

Household furnishings

Floor covering

Total2

1,000 pounds 1989

388,036

178,957

1,799

9,555

578,347

1990

408,078

170,367

1,512

9,611

589,568

1991

368,383

177,722

3,137

10,812

560,054

1992

320,325

192,787

1,611

22,877

537,600

1993 1994

321,186 339,604

193,040 196,292

914 1,797

22,286 34,089

537,426 571,782

1995

368,778

163,492

3,171

35,736

571,177

1996

246,191

144,194

1,990

32,559

424,934

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

115

Industrial Hemp in the United States Year 1997 1998 1999

3

Yarn, thread, and fabric 329,590

Apparel

Floor covering 36,846

Total2

154,634

Household furnishings 1,835

253,270

183,602

1,954

44,995

483,821

186,301

148,106

3,142

41,707

379,256

522,905

1 Estimated raw-fiber equivalent quantity contained in the products. 2 Does not include imports of raw fiber and tow/yarn waste. 3 January to September. Source: Meyer.

Table 3. U.S. linen exports, by category, 1989-991 Floor covering

Total2

2,471

8,154

47,041

15,794

4,267

12,011

64,799

28,005

16,072

4,300

15,440

63,817

30,755

14,878

3,274

15,431

64,338

1993 1994

30,178 35,511

19,629 23,038

2,610 2,457

17,455 14,569

69,872 75,575

1995

35,106

24,397

3,011

13,733

76,247

1996

39,681

27,745

2,729

14,844

84,999

1997

54,604

19,803

3,980

26,784

105,171

1998

56,282

19,976

3,738

22,906

102,902

19993

48,045

16,598

1,733

14,093

80,469

Year

Yarn, thread, and fabric

Apparel

1989

24,256

12,160

1990

32,727

1991 1992

Household furnishings

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1,000 pounds

1 Estimated raw-fiber equivalent quantity contained in the products. 2 Does not include exports of raw fiber and tow/yarn waste. 3 January to September. Source: Meyer.

Hemp and linen are specialty textile fibers. Since 1980, linen and hemp together have accounted for less than 3 percent of world textile fiber production (table 4). Cotton and noncellulosic fibers are the dominant components. Worldwide production of hemp fibers decreased from a high of 569 million pounds in 1980 to 222 million pounds in 1995, a decline of 61 percent. A new data series was started in 1996, which does not include production estimates from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

116

U.S. Department of Agriculture

During 1996-98, production averaged 146 million pounds, with China as the dominant producer. Table 4. World textile fiber production, 1980-98.

Year

Rayon and acetate

Noncellulosic fibers

Cotton

Wool (clean)

Silk

Flax

Hemp (soft)1

Total fibers

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Million pounds 1980

7,147

23,095

31,427

3,675

123

1,389

569

67,425

1981

7,064

23,869

30,474

3,719

126

1,347

492

66,969

1982

6,493

22,368

31,993

3,656

121

1,437

459

66,603

1983

6,457

24,418

31,560

3,759

121

1,733

406

69,779

1984

6,605

26,023

42,552

3,831

123

1,512

443

71,669

1985

6,462

27,533

38,541

3,816

150

1,642

481

77,011

1986

6,304

28,499

33,880

3,924

139

1,605

485

80,688

1987

6,229

30,293

38,891

4,079

139

2,108

474

82,213

1988

6,385

31,784

40,514

4,202

141

2,039

465

85,530

1989

6,488

32,512

38,280

4,431

146

1,799

397

84,053

1990

6,079

32,838

41,808

4,359

146

1,570

364

87,164

1991

5,365

33,678

45,636

3,929

148

1,541

439

90,736

1992

5,130

35,629

39,650

3,794

148

1,484

432

86,267

1993

5,171

36,566

37,234

3,695

150

1,369

260

84,445

1994

5,087

39,549

41,229

3,437

152

1,261

209

90,924

1995

5,342

40,514

44,868

3,283

203

1,537

223

95,970

1996

5,004

43,887

43,219

3,289

194

1,448

139

97,180

1997

5,102

48,837

44,132

3,181

192

1,400

148

102,992

1998

4,817

50,135

40,629

3,120

192

1,424

152

100,469

1 Cannabis sativa. Figures prior to 1996 include rough estimates for the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. A new data series was started in 1996 that does not include estimates from these regions. Source: Meyer.

According to industry sources, the fineness and quality of flax and hemp overlap depending upon growing conditions, variety, and how the crop is handled after harvesting. There is no industry consensus as to how closely the markets for the two fibers are allied (Gross). Nonetheless, with hemp fiber imports just 0.5 percent of linen imports, the near-term market potential for

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Industrial Hemp in the United States

117

hemp in the United States (for domestic textile production) is closer to the low end of the 2,000- to 250,000-acre production-equivalent range. The general manager of Kenex Ltd. indicated that the 1999 supply of hemp fiber and seed from 35,000 Canadian acres has oversupplied the North American hemp market (von Sternberg, 1999). Some people will buy hemp apparel and related items simply because they are made from hemp. This is probably a small but stable component of demand. A more volatile component is based on fashion trends and whether designers use hemp- or linen-containing fabrics in their designs. In the last few years, some famous designers, including Calvin Klein, Giorgio Armani, and Ralph Lauren, have included hemp fabrics in their clothing lines (Gross; The Economist, 1998; Copeland, 1999). Because of changing fashion trends, markets for specialty textile fibers tend to be cyclical. Cyclical markets would be more disruptive to fibers with small markets than to fibers with large market shares, such as cotton. Hemp also is being used in the manufacture of household furnishings and floor coverings, particularly carpets (Gross; von Hahn, 1999). Competition with linen for traditional upholstery, drapery, and floor covering markets would depend on the fiber‟s quality and price. A comparison of the import values for hemp and linen yarns reveals that hemp may be able to compete on price (table 5). From 1994 to 1998, the import value of hemp yarn averaged $1.93 per pound, while the value for single- and multiple-strand linen yarn averaged $2.97 per pound. Information on yarn quality is not available, which may account for linen‟s higher value. Nevertheless, the value of hemp imports per pound, calculated by dividing the value of hemp yarn imports by the volume, has fluctuated widely since the early 1990‟s. During 1990-92, the value of hemp yarn ranged from $12.92 to $21.19 per pound. Between 1993 and 1999, the value ranged from $1.01 in 1997 to $3.31 for the first 9 months of 1999. The lower values in recent years may be to due to the increased volume of imports, enabling companies to spread their costs over more tonnage. Similar variations occurred in the import values of raw hemp fiber, which settled at around 40 cents per pound in 1997 and 1998.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

118

U.S. Department of Agriculture Table 5. U.S. import value of linen and hemp yarns, 1989-99

Year

Linen yarn, single

Linen yarn, multiple

Hemp yarn

1989

2.47

6.76

na

1990

2.50

6.34

12.92

1991

2.38

5.33

21.19

1992

2.14

5.67

18.26

1993 1994

2.38 3.49

4.61 2.26

1.34 1.34

1995

3.73

2.24

2.89

1996

2.39

1.86

1.93

1997

3.14

2.62

1.01

1998

2.86

3.34

2.47

19991

2.79

3.09

3.31

Dollars/pound

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

na = Not available. 1 January-September. Source: U.S.Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.

Paper and Composites The specialty and recycled paper markets are also possibilities for industrial hemp bast fibers. Specialty paper markets include currency, cigarette papers, filter papers, and tea bags. A number of companies in U.S. and European markets are selling paper that contains small amounts of hemp fiber, usually blended with less expensive nonwood fibers. These papers have gained some market acceptance as ecologically friendly or tree-free, but at present are considerably more expensive than wood-based paper (Ehrensing, Gardner and White). Within the mainstream pulp and paper market, fibers compete on quality characteristics, with cotton predominant among nonwood fibers, then flax, and then kenaf and other specialty fibers. Manufacturers are willing to pay more for specialty fibers if quality dictates. For example, abaca fibers retain their strength and form when wet, commanding a high price. Rising wood prices and regulatory practices have promoted the growth of recycled pulp and paper. Therefore, a potential market may exist for agricultural fibers as an additive to strengthen paper made from recycled

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States

119

materials. Recent Dutch and German research suggests that industrial hemp may not be competitive in the specialty paper market, but may be used as a fiber supplement to recycled paper pulp. In North America, use of nonwood fibers, such as hemp, in composites is still largely in research and development or the early stages of commercialization. Flax, kenaf, jute, hemp, and wheat straw—in combination with various resins—can be used to make composite board. Wheat straw is the dominant nonwood fiber in these applications (Glaser and Van Dyne, 1997). Hemp fibers could be desirable in this market because of their length and strength. Composites made using agricultural fibers are being developed in companies and research institutes in Europe, Canada, and the United States. The USDA Forest Service‟s Forest Products Laboratory is a leader in the research of non-wood fibers in composites. The percentage of the composites market captured by nonwood fibers in coming years will depend on economics and availability of raw materials.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Other Potential Uses The Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky cites molded automobile parts and fiberglass replacement as potential uses for hemp bast fiber. Hemp fibers have been used in the manufacture of trunk liners and press-molded airbag parts for several BMW models. Kenex Ltd. has developed prototype molded car parts. Transit buses are being retrofitted in Florida with molded hemp parts for use in Orlando (Thompson et al.). In recent years, several automobile companies have investigated using nonwood fibers, such as hemp and kenaf, in the manufacture of molded car parts because they are lighter and more recyclable than current raw materials (Domier, 1998; Copeland). For nonwood fibers to gain a part of this market, they will have to be supplied in adequate quantities throughout the year at prices competitive with current raw materials. The Kentucky report also suggests that hemp and other nonwood fibers could replace fiberglass in certain applications. The short fiber length and absorbent properties of these fibers would limit their use to replacing chopped fiberglass and in applications where moisture is not a problem. Given current market conditions, it can be assumed that synthetic fibers are the raw material of choice because of their properties (e.g., moisture resistance), their price, or both.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

120

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Hemp Hurds In countries currently producing industrial hemp, hurds are sold for a variety of uses, including animal bedding, composites, and low-quality papers. According to Thompson et al. (1998), industrial hemp hurds appear to be price-competitive with wood chips, fine wheat straw, and other types of bedding used for high-value racehorses. Hemp hurds are favored over cheaper alternatives since they are more absorbent, and thus, reduce illness. Companies in England, France, and the Netherlands are making horse bedding from hurds. Some members of the racehorse industry in Kentucky have expressed interest in using hemp hurds (Patton, 1999). In addition, hurd-based cat litter is being sold in England, France, and Germany (Gardner and White). Since hurds are a joint product with the bast fiber, finding markets for hemp hurds may make the difference between a profitable and unprofitable industrial hemp enterprise.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

SEED MARKETS Thompson et al. (1998) estimated the demand for hemp seed by asking seed processing firms in the United States and Canada how many tons they purchased per month. They estimated North American demand at 1,300 tons at an average price of 39 cents per pound. Given yields in Germany of 1,000 pounds per acre, it would take 2,600 acres to satisfy the estimated demand for hemp seed. Ehrensing (1998) found bulk hemp seed prices at about 45 cents per pound, with strong demand. Hanks (Fall 1999) reports an average Canadian seed price of 41 cents per pound (60 cents Canadian) in 1999, but states that many observers fear overproduction of hemp in western Canada may bring crop prices down. In comparison, during the 1994/95-1998/99 marketing years, soybean, canola, and flaxseed prices averaged 10, 11, and 10 cents per pound, respectively (Ash, 1999). According to Vantreese (1998), export prices of hemp seed have been extremely volatile in the last 20 years, mainly due to the variability of Chinese exports. China began producing and exporting hemp seed in large quantities in 1986, causing world prices to fall from 25 cents in 1985 to 15 cents per pound in 1986. In 1991, China stopped exporting hemp seed and prices nearly doubled in 1992. Prices peaked in 1995 at 41 cents a pound. During the 1990‟s, increased EU production of hemp also increased the demand for seed stock for planting, thereby raising export values.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Industrial Hemp in the United States

121

Hemp seeds can be used as a food ingredient or crushed for oil and meal. The seed contains 20 percent high-quality, digestible protein, which can be consumed by humans, animals, and birds (Vantreese, 1998). The seed is approximately 29 to 34 percent oil by weight. The oil can be used both for human consumption and industrial applications (fig. 2). Due to the high content of polyunsaturated oils, it is fairly unstable and becomes rancid quickly unless preserved. The meal (seed cake) contains 25 to 30 percent protein and can be used in food and animal feed (Vantreese, 1998; Hinz, 1999). Companies are using hemp seed in their products. Natural-product magazines, such as the Natural Food Merchandiser and Organic & Natural News, have advertised products containing hemp ingredients such as roasted hulled seed, nutrition bars, tortilla chips, pretzels, and beer. At least two breweries in the United States, as well as breweries in Canada, Germany, and Switzerland, make hemp beer (The Economist; Gardner and White; Louie, 1998). One article touts hulled hemp seeds as more shelf-stable than flax and more digestible than soybeans and finds the seed in snacks, spreads, salad dressings, cheese, and ice cream (Rorie, 1999). The market potential for hemp seed as a food ingredient is unknown. However, it probably will remain a small market, like those for sesame and poppy seeds. Some consumers may be willing to pay a higher price for hemp-seed-containing products because of the novelty, but otherwise hemp seed will have to compete on taste and functionality with more common food ingredients. Currently, a trendy use of hemp oil is for body-care products, such as lotions, moisturizers, shampoos, and lip balms (Marshall, 1998; Rorie). For example, The Body Shop, a British-based international skin products company, began selling hemp-oil-containing products about 2 years ago in the United States. In June 1999, the company reported that those seven or eight products now account for 10 percent of total sales. However, to meet this demand, The Body Shops imports only 12 tons of organic hemp seed oil a year into the United States (Patton). Hemp oil is also sold in health food stores as a nutritional supplement. The oil is mechanically (cold) pressed from the seed to maintain its quality and integrity. According to one industry participant, cold-pressed hemp oil has a dark green color and nutty flavor (Hemp-Agro). It contains roughly the same ratio of linoleic and linolenic acids that would be found in a nutritionally balanced diet (Marshall, Hinz). In addition to these two essential fatty acids, hemp oil contains 1 to 4 percent gamma-linolenic acid (GLA). GLA is also

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

122

U.S. Department of Agriculture

available from evening primrose and borage oils that, because of their unpleasant taste, are sold only in capsule form (Marshall, Hemp-Agro). The market for hemp oil is limited by a number of factors. First, mechanical crushing produces a lower oil yield than crushing combined with solvent extraction. Nor does hemp oil undergo degumming and bleaching as do many other vegetable oils. Some consumers prefer an oil that has been processed without chemicals, but others may dislike hemp oil‟s color or taste. Second, the oil is high in unsaturated fatty acids, which can easily oxidize, so it must be kept in dark-colored bottles and has a limited shelf life. Like flax and safflower oils, which also are highly unsaturated, hemp oil should not be used for frying. Third, to be used as a salad oil, it will have to be tested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and found “generally recognized as safe.” In Canada, hemp foods are now regulated as novel foods, a legislative category developed primarily for products containing genetically modified organisms (Hanks, Fall 1999).

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table 6. U.S. use of selected vegetable oils in industrial applications, 1978/79-19981 Year2

All fats and oils3

1978/79

4,443.9

1979/80

Linseed oil

Tung oil

Linseed and tung oils

207.5

13.5

221.0

4,216.1

160.0

15.7

175.7

1980/81

4,163.2

127.6

16.6

144.2

1981/82 1982/83

3,721.0 3,649.6

92.7 97.6

14.6 12.2

107.3 109.8

1983/84

3,982.1

121.2

19.7

140.9

1984/85

3,665.0

166.0

12.4

178.4

1985/86

3,571.3

176.9

11.6

188.5

1986/87 1987/88

5,990.6 4,098.1

280.8 159.3

12.2 14.8

293.0 174.1

1988/89

3,805.4

154.9

7.7

162.6

1989/90

3,509.8

110.5

8.9

119.4

1991

3,745.1

95.8

6.4

102.2

1992 1993

3,727.9 3,646.2

154.4 125.8

7.3 11.2

161.7 137.0

1994

4,307.5

124.3

9.3

133.6

Million pounds

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

123

Industrial Hemp in the United States Year2

Linseed oil

Tung oil

1995

All fats and oils3 3,760.2

112.8

20.2

Linseed and tung 133.0oils

1996

3,588.7

98.6

21.3

119.9

1997 1998

3,889.8 3,695.4

83.0 79.4

19.4 14.3

102.4 93.7

1 Includes soaps, paints, varnishes, resins, plastics, lubricants, fatty acids, and other products. 2 Crop year runs from October 1 to September 30. Annual totals reported on a calendar year basis beginning in 1991. 3 Includes castor oil, coconut oil, tallow (beef fat), lard (pork fat), linseed oil, rapeseed oil, soybean oil, tall oil, and tung oil. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

As a drying oil, hemp oil would have to compete with manmade chemicals and plant-based oils, such as linseed and tung oils, in industrial applications. As with industrial uses of all plant and animal oils and fats, use of linseed and tung oils has fluctuated in the last two decades, with no apparent upward or downward trend (table 6). Hemp oil would have to compete on functionality and price with current raw materials in these established industrial markets.

POTENTIAL U.S. PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING Potential yields and processing methods, along with farmer costs and returns, are important considerations when evaluating industrial hemp as a potential U.S. crop. Revenue is dependent on yields and market prices. Generally, the lower the market price, the greater the yield must be for producers to break even or make a profit. In addition, U.S. experience with kenaf and flax may lend insights into the processing hurdles hemp may face in the United States.

Possible Yields The Oregon study summarizes hemp yields reported by researchers from various countries since the 1900‟s (Ehrensing). Early in this century, U.S. drystem yields ranged from 2 to 12.5 tons per acre, but averaged 5 tons per acre under good conditions. Research trials in Europe during the last four decades

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

124

U.S. Department of Agriculture

had dry-matter yields that ranged from 3.6 to 8.7 tons per acre. In the Netherlands, research trials during the late 1980‟s reported dry-stem yields of 4.2 to 6.1 tons per acre. Recent commercial production in England produced average dry-matter yields of 2.2 to 3 tons per acre on several thousand acres over several years. Experimental production in Canada during 1995 and 1996 yielded 2.5 to 3 tons of dry stems per acre. According to the study, some of the variation in yield can be attributed to different measurement practices. For example, European authors generally report total above-ground dry matter, including stems, leaves, and seed, versus the dry-stem yields reported by other researchers. Vantreese (1998) reports that hemp seed yields have increased dramatically in recent years. In 1997, world average yields reached 876 pounds per acre. Yields ranged significantly, from a high of 1,606 pounds per acre in China, where the seed is consumed, to 595 pounds per acre in France, where much of the production is certified planting seed. In Germany, current seed yields are about 1,000 pounds per acre (Thompson et al.), while those in Eastern Europe range from 350 to 450 pounds per acre (Mackie, 1998). In Canada, seed yields in 1999 averaged 800 pounds per acre (Hanks, Fall 1999).

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Processing In addition to the uncertainty about yields, there is some question as to whether hemp fibers can be profitably processed in the United States. As was outlined earlier, the technologies used to process hemp fiber have not changed much and they require capital investment and knowledgeable workers. Research is under way to streamline harvesting, retting, and fiber separation, but those technological breakthroughs have yet to occur. Traditional retting and fiber-separation processes—both labor and resource intensive—could limit the ability of U.S. hemp producers to compete against major suppliers such as China, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

125

Industrial Hemp in the United States Table 7. Estimated enterprise costs for hemp production in Kentucky, 1994 Costs Variable costs: Seed (pounds)

(40)

Fertilizer

Fiber1

Seed Dollars/acre

Certified seed

80.00

(10)

(10)

33.58

20.00 33.58

20.00 33.58

Lime (tons)

(1)

10.82

(1)

10.82

(1)

10.82

Fuel, oil (hours)

(4.5)

16.02

(2.2)

12.22

(2.2)

12.22

Repairs

9.35

17.60

17.60

Interest

7.93

4.24

4.24

Total

184.12

98.46

98.46

Fixed costs2

46.08

41.25

64.84

3

Operator labor (hours)

(8)

Total enterprise costs

56.00 286.20

(8)

56.00 195.71

(10)

70.00 233.30

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1 Harvested and sold as raw stalks. 2 Depreciation, taxes, insurance. 3 At $7 per hour. Source: McNulty.

Specialty oilseed crushing mills that could accommodate hemp seed do exist in the United States. According to the Soya & Oilseed Bluebook, companies in North Dakota, Minnesota, Georgia, and North Carolina mechanically crush flaxseed, borage, safflower, canola, sunflowerseed, crambe, peanuts, and cottonseed (Soyatech, 1999).

Estimated Costs and Returns Both the 1995 Kentucky Task Force report (McNulty) and the 1998 Kentucky impact analysis (Thompson et al.), as well as the Oregon and North Dakota studies (Ehrensing, Kraenzel et al.), present estimated costs and returns for hemp production. All include estimates for fiber (stalk) production. The 1995 Kentucky, 1998 Kentucky, and North Dakota reports also present estimates on seed production. In addition, most of the studies compare the estimated hemp costs and returns to those for other crops. The Kentucky Task Force estimated total costs— which include variable costs, fixed costs, and operator labor—to be $286 per acre for hemp fiber,

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

126

U.S. Department of Agriculture

$196 for seed, and $233 for certified seed (table 7). These costs were comparable to 1993 estimated expenses for producing corn and double-crop wheat/soybeans in Kentucky (table 8). The analysis assumed that hemp grown for fiber would be harvested and sold as raw stalks on a dry-weight basis. Various sources priced raw, dry defoliated stalks at $60 to $125 per metric ton. Yields were assumed to range from 7 to 15 metric tons per hectare (2.8-6.1 metric tons per acre), based largely on European studies. Thus, potential returns for hemp fiber ranged from a low price/low yield estimate of $170 per acre to a high price/high yield return of $759 per acre (table 8). With estimated production expenses of $286, net returns for hemp for fiber ranged from -$116 to $473 per acre. Returns for hemp seed were estimated to range from $60 to $800 per acre. Given costs of production at $196 per acre, net returns ranged from -$136 to $604 per acre (McNulty). The Oregon report also estimated costs and returns for hemp grown for fiber, using typical costs associated with irrigated field corn in the Pacific Northwest (table 9). Variable and fixed costs for hemp were estimated at $371 and $245 per acre, respectively. The dry-matter yield was assumed to be 5 tons per acre, which is consistent with the higher average yields reported in Western Europe using well-adapted cultivars. A price of $75 per dry ton was based on the price of wood chips in the Pacific Northwest, as it was anticipated that the fiber could be used by local composite and paper companies. Given this yield and price, gross revenue would be $375 per acre and net returns would be -$241 per acre (Ehrensing). Table 8. Estimated costs of production and returns for various crops in Kentucky, 1993 or 1994 Variable

Crop1

Yield per acre

Return per acre

2.8-6.1 metric tons na

170-759

184

60-800 231

Estimated cost per acre Labor

Total

Net return per acre

46

56

286

-116 to 473

98

41

56

196

-136 to 604

155

46

32

233

-2

Fixed Dollars

Fiber hemp2

Hemp seed3 Corn grain

110 bushels

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

127

Industrial Hemp in the United States Variable

Crop1 Wheat/soybeans (double crop)

Yield per acre

Return per acre

45/28 bushels

300

27 tons 2,500 pounds

Estimated cost per acre Fixed

Labor

Total

Net return per acre

149

44

37

230

70

2,430

1,278

154

231

1,663

767

4,375

1,905

626

700

3,231

1,144

Tomatoes (for processing)

Burley obacco

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

na = Not available. 1 For all crops except hemp, source is University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics crop budgets for 1993. 2 Various sources priced dry, defoliated stalks at $60 to $125 per metric ton. 3 One source estimated returns at $60 to $171 per acre for seed (for oil and feed), while another estimated seed returns at $800 per acre (2,000 pounds per acre at 40 cents per pound). Source: McNulty.

The Oregon report presents a sensitivity analysis of net returns based on various yields and potential market prices (table 10). Most of the net returns remain negative except under the highest yield/price combinations. The analysis was further refined to see if dual production was any more profitable. The cost of combine seed harvest, $20 per acre, was added to variable costs, and stalk yields were lowered to 2.5 tons per acre with a price of $75 per ton. Again, most of the net returns are negative except for the highest yield/price combinations (table 11) (Ehrensing). The 1998 Kentucky report estimates costs and returns for hemp grown for fiber (straw), seed (grain), certified seed, and both fiber and seed (table 12). The cost estimates are based on the 1995 Kentucky report and updated to 1997 with some modifications. The yields used in the analysis are from Germany. The prices, based on import prices and/or prices paid in Canada, were estimated to be 39 cents per pound for seed, $1.20 per pound for certified seed for planting, and $200 per ton for hemp stalks. The residual stalks from seed production were estimated to fetch $120 per ton. Total costs ranged from $257 to $403 per acre. According to the report, these cost estimates are consistent with those made by Reichert (1994), by Kenex Ltd., and from German cultivation data (Thompson et al.).

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

128

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Table 9. Estimated production budget for hemp in the Pacific Northwest1 Item

Dollars/acre

Dollars/ton (dry weight)

Tillage and planting

40.00

8.00

Hemp seed

34.00

6.80

Fertilizer and application3

85.00

17.00

Irrigation

62.00

12.40

Total

221.00

44.20

Forage chopper ($3/ton)

15.00

3.00

Raking ($1.50/ton)

7.50

1.50

Baling, large square bales ($9.80/ton)

49.00

9.80

($3.00/ton)

15.00

3.00

Total

86.50

12.80

Operating capital interest

29.78

5.96

Pickup

7.68

1.54

Farm truck

6.34

1.27

General overhead

20.00

4.00

Total

63.80

12.76

Total variable costs

371.30

69.76

Variable costs: Cultural

Harvest4

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Loading and trucking

Miscellaneous

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States Item

Dollars/acre

Dollars/ton (dry weight)

150.00

30.00

3.00

0.60

44.00

8.80

48.00

9.60

Total

245.00

49.00

Total production costs

616.30

118.76

Gross income (yield = 5 tons/acre)5

375.00

75.00

Net projected returns

-241.30

-43.76

129

Fixed costs: Land rent

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Insurance, machinery and equipment Irrigation system, depreciation and interest Machinery and equipment, depreciation and interest

1 Budget was developed using typical costs associated with irrigated field corn in the Pacific Northwest. Production practices were chosen to maximize stem dry-weight yield for possible production of composite wood products or paper. 2 25 pounds/acre at $1.36/pound. The assumed cost of hemp seed is the average of prices reported for commercially available European hemp varieties. Cost of shipping from Europe was not included. 3 600 pounds/acre 16-16-16 at $250/tn. 4 Based on cost of operating silage corn harvesters and local cost of raking and baling hay and grass seed straw. No costs associated with retting, such as additional irrigation, are included. 5 The dry matter yield is assumed to be 5 tons/acre, which is consistent with the higher average yields reported in Western Europe using well-adapted hemp cultivars. An assumed price of $75 per dry ton was used in the analysis since prices for wood chips in the Pacific Northwest have risen over the past decade and this trend is expected to continue. Source: Ehrensing.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

130

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Table 10. Estimated net return per acre from hemp production in the Pacific Northwest at various price and yield levels Yield (tons per acre)

Price (dollars/ton) 50

75

100

125

Dollars/acre 3

-431.70

-356.70

-281.70

-206.70

4

-399.00

-299.00

-199.00

-99.00

5

-366.30

-241.30

-116.30

8.70

6

-333.60

-183.60

-33.60

116.40

7

-300.90

-125.90

49.10

224.10

Source: Ehrensing.

Table 11. Estimated net return per acre from dual-purpose hemp production in the Pacific Northwest at various seed prices and yield levels1 Seed price (dollars/pound)

Seed yield (pounds/acre) 500

750

1000

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Dollars/acre 0.30

-255

-181

-106

0.35

-231

-143

-56

0.40

-206

-106

-6

0.45

-181

-68

45

0.50

-156

-31

94

0.55

-131

7

144

1

The cost of combine seed harvest, $20 per acre, was added to variable costs. Hemp stem yield was assumed to be 2.5 tons per acre with a price of $75 per ton. Other assumptions are the same as those used for table 9. Source: Ehrensing.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Table 12. Estimated growing costs and returns for industrial hemp in Kentucky using 1997 technology, yields, and, prices1 Fiber2

Item

Seed2

Certified seed

Fiber and seed2

(10)

(50)

Dollars/acre Seed (pounds)

(50)

Fertilizer

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Herbicides

125.00

(10)

25.00

45.01

45.01

0.00

10.95

Lime (tons)

(1)

12.12

(1)

Fuel, oil (hours)

(4.5)

18.43

(2.2)

25.00

125.00

45.01

45.01

10.95

0.00

12.12

(1)

12.12

(1)

12.12

14.06

(2.2)

14.06

(2.2)

22.25

Repair

16.14

30.38

30.38

23.12

Interest

8.38

5.24

5.24

8.94

Storage

5.00

5.00

5.00

5.00

Transport to processor

27.20

8.00

5.60

24.00

Total

257.28

155.76

153.36

265.44

50.27

45.00

70.73

75.05

Fixed costs

3

Operator labor4 (hours) Total enterprise costs

(8)

56.00

(8)

56.00

(10)

70.00

(9)

63.00

363.55

256.76

294.09

403.49

Stalk revenue

680.00

60.00

60.00

450.00

Stalk yield

3.4 tons/acre

0.5 tons/acre

0.5 tons/acre

2.25 tons/acre

Price per ton

200/ton

120/ton

120/ton

200/ton

Seed revenue

na

416.91

840.00

273.00

Seed yield

na

1,069 lbs/acre

700 lbs/acre

700 lbs/acre

Table 12. (Continued).

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Item

Fiber2

Seed2

Certified seed

Fiber and seed2

Price per pound

na

0.39/pound

1.20/pound

0.39/pound

Total revenue

680.00

476.91

900.00

723.00

Profit

316.45

220.15

605.91

319.51

na = Not applicable. 1 Figures are based on estimates in McNulty (1995) and updated to 1997 based on the increased costs of growing corn. Also, herbicide, storage, and transport-to-processor costs were added; estimates for repair were increased by 50 percent; 50 pounds of hemp seed per acre were assumed for cultivating hemp for fiber rather than 40 pounds. 2 Referred to in the report as straw and grain. 3 Fixed costs include depreciation, taxes, and insurance. 4 At $7 per hour. Source: Thompson et al.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Industrial Hemp in the United States

133

Estimated revenue ranges from $477 per acre for seed to $900 per acre for certified seed. Thompson et al. admit that the very high returns calculated in these estimates cannot be sustained. While most of their discussion focuses on why the price of certified seed will decrease, little attention is given to stalk prices. The price they used for stalks is the first-year (1998) price offered by Kenex Ltd., the Ontario firm contracting for hemp acreage, which is not representative of long-term stalk prices. With new crops, firms often have to offer farmers an initial premium to induce them to experiment with a new crop and to compensate them for lower initial yields and the forgone returns of a conventional crop. Thus, many of the revenue estimates likely overstate average annual returns. Given the high estimates, it is not surprising that when compared with conventional field crops, hemp net returns were higher than those for all the selected crops except tobacco (table 13). The costs and returns in the North Dakota report are based on a dualpurpose crop in Ontario, Canada. Information from Vantreese (1997) was used as the basis for the three price/yield scenarios. Prices ranged from $5.51 to $6.80 per bushel for seed and from $40.44 to $51.45 per ton for fiber (table 14). Yield estimates ranged from 14.3 to 23.8 bushels of seed per acre and 2.5 to 3 tons of fiber per acre. Total costs were estimated at $175 per acre, while potential revenue ranged from $180 to $316 per acre, resulting in net returns of $5 to $142 per acre. The return for the low-price/low-yield hemp scenario was comparable to those for most of the comparison crops in the study. Only irrigated potatoes had higher net returns than any of the three hemp scenarios (Kraenzel et al.). Among the studies, total costs ranged from $175 for North Dakota to $616 in Oregon (table 15). A lot of the variation can be attributed to differences in fixed costs. For example, fixed costs in the Kentucky studies, which do not include land rent, are estimated at $75 per acre or below. In the Oregon report, fixed costs are $245 per acre, including land rent and irrigation-system depreciation. When land and irrigation costs are removed, fixed costs drop to $51. Also, when land rents, estimated at $65 to $75 (Vantreese, personal communication), are added to the Kentucky estimates, fixed costs range from $106 to $150. The estimates also may differ due to varying assumptions about production practices and may reflect different cost structures among the States. The Oregon study did cite high land costs as one reason hemp production may not be viable in the Pacific Northwest (Ehrensing).

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

134

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Table 13. Estimated returns to land, capital, and management per acre for industrial hemp and common Kentucky crops, 1997 Crop

Estimated return to land, capital, and management Dollars/acre

Hemp, seed only Hemp, fiber only

220.15 316.45

Hemp, seed and fiber

319.51

Hemp, certified seed only

605.91

Grain sorghum, conventional tillage Wheat, reduced tillage

10.51 14.24

Continuous corn

75.71

Popcorn, reduced tillage Soybeans, no-till, rotation following crop

78.25 102.20

No-till corn, rotation following soybeans

106.48

White corn, rotation following soybeans, reduced tillage Alfalfa hay

135.84

Barley/no-till soybeans, double-crop following corn Wheat/no-till soybeans, double-crop following corn Grass legume hay, round bales

158.09

Dark air-cured tobacco

182.48

Dark fire-cured tobacco

1,104.87

Burley tobacco, baled, nonirrigated

1,563.48

141.34

158.43 161.56

Source: Thompson et al.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

135

Industrial Hemp in the United States Table 14. Estimated costs and returns for hemp and other crops in North Dakota, 1998 Average yield

Average price

Total revenue

Per acre

Dollars/unit

------------------Dollars/acre------------------

14.3 bushels;

$5.51/bushel;

179.96

174.63

5.33

2.5 tons

$40.44/ton

19 bushels;

$6.16/bushel;

248.13

174.63

73.49

2.75 tons

$45.96/ton

23.8 bushels;

$6.80/bushel;

316.29

174.63

141.65

3 tons

$51.47/ton

Corn grain2

54 bushels

2.25

121.50

159.70

-38.20

Spring wheat2

31 bushels

3.71

115.01

117.32

-2.31

Confectionery sunflowers2

1,080 pounds

0.131

141.48

140.62

0.86

Malting barley2

50 bushels

2.41

120.50

115.02

5.48

Irrigated potatoes2

32,500 pounds

0.045

1,462.5 0

1,017. 59

444.91

Crop

Low-price/lowyield hemp1

Average hemp1

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

High-price/highyield hemp1

1 Estimates are for a dual-purpose crop in Ontario, Canada. 2 From projected 1998 crop budgets for Northeast North Dakota. Source: Kraenzel et al.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Total costs

Net returns

136

U.S. Department of Agriculture Table 15. Comparison of estimated costs and returns for hemp from the various State studies

Report

Variable costs

Fixed costs1

Operator Total labor costs Dollars/acre

Revenue

Net returns

Fiber

184

46

56

286

170 to 759

-116 to 473

Seed

98

41

56

196

60 to 800 -136 to 604

Certified seed

98

65

70

233

na

na

371

245

na

616

375

-241

Fiber

257

50

56

364

680

316

Seed

156

45

56

257

477

220

Certified seed

153

71

70

294

900

606

Fiber and seed

265

75

63

403

723

320

na

na

na

175

180 to 316

5 to 142

1995 Kentucky:

Oregon: Fiber

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1998 Kentucky:

North Dakota: Fiber and seed

na =not available 1 In the two Kentucky studies, fixed costs include depreciation, taxes, and insurance. In the Oregon study, fixed costs include land rent ($150), irrigation-system depreciation and interest ($44), machinery depreciation and interest, and insurance.

None of the cost estimates include costs for monitoring, licensing, or regulating hemp production. These external expenses would be part of the cost of producing industrial hemp and could be borne by taxpayers or passed on to growers and/or processors. According to Thompson et al. (1998), Kenex Ltd. estimates that Canadian farmers will pay US$50 annually for a background

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States

137

check and to obtain the satellite coordinates for their hemp fields (fields are monitored via satellite as part of the Canadian program). The studies also present a range of revenue estimates, which is not surprising given the uncertainty about demand and expected market prices. Overall, it seems questionable that U.S. producers could remain profitable at the low end of the estimated net returns. In addition, given the thinness of the current U.S. hemp fiber market, any overproduction could lead to lower prices and lost profitability.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

U.S. Experience with Kenaf and Flax Both kenaf and flax can be legally grown in the United States. Their recent production history may lend additional insights into the potential for hemp in the United States. Kenaf is a relatively new crop. It can be grown in many parts of the United States, but it generally needs a long growing season to produce the necessary yield to make it a profitable crop. With a long growing sea-son, like that found in the southern United States, kenaf can reach a height of 12 to 18 feet and produce 5 to 10 tons of dry fiber per acre annually. An estimated 8,000 acres of kenaf was grown in the United States in 1997, up from 4,000 acres in 1992 and 1993. Primary production areas are Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, Delaware, and Louisiana (Glaser and Van Dyne). Processing and product technology for kenafbased pulp and for about six other markets have been developed, but markets must be established in each geographic area since the core fraction is very low density and expensive to ship. Flax is grown in the United States in small quantities. Production is almost totally oilseed varieties (for linseed oil). Textile or linen flax has not been grown commercially in North America for 40 years (Domier). The United States does not produce textile flax for several reasons. First, the market for linen is very small compared with other natural fibers like cotton, which accounts for nearly one-third of U.S. fiber mill use. Linen textile imports have accounted for an annual average of 2 to 3 percent of the quantity of all fibers consumed in the United States (mill use plus net textile trade). Additionally, since 1989, linen textile imports as a percentage of total textile imports have consistently fallen from 12 percent to 4 percent in 1998 and 1999. The market remains small because the economics of producing textile flax is not very price/cost competitive. As noted earlier, many inefficiencies continue to exist in this industry, particularly the methods of harvesting and processing.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

138

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Because of the length of the fiber and the variation in quality, U.S. mills are reluctant to use textile flax. Some recent developments, however, have allowed the use of textile flax waste on cotton-spinning systems. Also, a flax fiber mill reopened in Quebec in December 1997, and research and development activities are occurring in Alberta, Connecticut, Maine, Oregon, and Saskatchewan (Domier; Hanks, Fall 1999).

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

STATE STUDY FINDINGS Each of the three 1998 studies focused on different aspects of supply and/or demand. Since Kentucky was a major producer of certified hemp seed in the past, it is one of the main markets mentioned in the 1998 study. Also, the horse racing industry in the State could be a significant buyer of hemp hurds for animal bedding. North Dakota has an oilseed crushing industry. Thus, the North Dakota study concluded that the largest market opportunity for the State may be hemp seed oil. The Oregon report concentrated on fiber production because of the pulp and paper industry in the Pacific Northwest. (Summaries from each of the reports are in Appendix III.) All three of the studies do mention hemp‟s benefits as a rotation crop. As stated in the Oregon report, industrial hemp may provide an excellent rotation crop for traditional crops to avoid outbreaks of insect and disease problems or to suppress weeds (Ehrensing). The North Dakota report further states that hemp rebuilds and conditions soils by replacing organic matter and providing aeration through its extensive root system (Kraenzel et al.). The Kentucky Task Force had a broad mandate to examine legal, agronomic, and economic aspects of hemp production. In 1995, the majority of the Kentucky Task Force concluded that legal prohibition of Cannabis cultivation was the overriding obstacle to reintroduction of fiber hemp production in Kentucky. Significant progress on agronomics, marketing, or infrastructure development is unlikely, and of relatively little importance, unless legal issues are resolved (McNulty). The North Dakota report takes a different position. Since industrial hemp may have potential as an alternative rotation crop, the report recommends that the North Dakota Legislature consider action that would allow controlled experimental production and processing. This would allow collection and analysis of necessary baseline production, processing, and marketing data. At the same time, the concerns and costs of law enforcement agencies could be addressed (Kraenzel et al.).

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States

139

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

CONCLUSIONS Current markets for bast fibers like industrial hemp include specialty textiles, paper, and composites. Hemp hurds, the inner woody portion of the plant stem, are used in various applications such as animal bedding, composites, and low-quality papers. As joint products, finding viable markets for both hemp bast fiber and hurds may increase the chances of a successful business venture. Hemp industry sources and some academic studies cite many potential uses for hemp fiber and hurds. However, for these applications to develop or expand, hemp will have to compete with current raw materials and manufacturing practices. The U.S. market for hemp fibers is, and will likely remain, a small, thin market. Changes in price or quantity could be more disruptive and have a greater adverse impact on market participants than would be the case in a larger market. Since there is no commercial production of industrial fiber hemp in the United States, the “size” of the market can only be gauged from hemp fiber and product imports. The near-term, low-end size of the U.S. market for hemp as a textile fiber might be defined by considering the domestic production and acreage required to replace imports of hemp fiber, yarn, and fabric in 1999. Assuming a potential U.S. yield of 1,550 pounds of fiber per acre and using linen yarn and fabric conversion factors, the estimated import quantity of hemp fiber, yarn, and fabric in 1999 could have been produced on less than 2,000 acres of land. Given the average size of farms in the United States (near 500 acres), just a few farms could have supplied the hemp fiber equivalent of 1999 import levels. As a specialty bast fiber, hemp‟s closest competing textile fiber is linen. A longer term, high-end size of the potential U.S. market for hemp fiber could be defined as domestic production and acreage required to replace hemp and linen imports. The hemp fiber required to replace the equivalent level of hemp and linen fiber, yarn, and fabric imports in 1999 could have been produced on 250,000 acres—roughly 40 percent of 1999 tobacco acreage, 5 percent of U.S. oat acreage, or 0.4 percent of wheat acreage. Despite the similarities between hemp and linen, there is no industry consensus as to how closely the markets for the two fibers are allied. But since hemp fiber imports were just 0.5 percent of linen imports during the first 9 months of 1999, the near-term market potential for hemp in the United States for domestic textile production is closer to the low end of the 2,000- to 250,000-acre production-equivalent range. Moreover, the absence of a thriving textile flax (linen) production sector in this country (despite no legal barriers)

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

140

U.S. Department of Agriculture

suggests that hemp, flax‟s close cousin in fiber uses and in production techniques, will be unable to sustain adequate profit margins for a large production sector to develop. Thompson et al. (1998) estimate imports of hemp seed into North America at 1,300 tons. Given yields in Germany of about 1,000 pounds per acre, it would take 2,600 acres to satisfy the demand for hemp seed. As with fiber imports, it would take only a few average-sized farms to meet this demand. Hemp seeds can be used directly as a food ingredient or crushed for oil and meal. Hemp seeds and flour are being used in nutrition bars, tortilla chips, pretzels, beer, salad dressings, cheese, and ice cream. The market potential for hemp seed as a food ingredient is unknown. However, it probably will remain a small market, like the markets for sesame and poppy seeds. Some consumers may be willing to pay a higher price for hemp-seedcontaining products because of the novelty, but otherwise hemp seed will have to compete on taste and functionality with more common food ingredients. Hemp oil is being used as an ingredient in body-care products, such as lotions, moisturizers, and shampoos, and sold in health food stores as a nutritional supplement. The market for hemp oil is limited by a number of factors. First, mechanical crushing produces a lower oil yield than crushing combined with solvent extraction. Nor does hemp oil undergo degumming and bleaching as do many other vegetable oils. Some consumers prefer an oil that has been processed without chemicals, but others may dislike hemp oil‟s color or taste. Second, the oil is high in unsaturated fatty acids, which can easily oxidize, so it is not used for frying, must be kept in dark-colored bottles, and has a limited shelf life. Third, to be used as a salad oil, it will have to be tested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and found “generally recognized as safe.” Last, as a drying oil, hemp would have to compete on functionality and price with current raw materials, such as linseed and tung oils, in established industrial markets. Several States have published reports or authorized agronomic and economic feasibility studies of hemp production. The four reports summarized here have focused on different aspects of supply and/or demand. Their estimates of hemp costs and returns reflect these various focuses, as well as different assumed production practices and costs. However, the widest range of estimates exhibited among the reports is for stalk and seed yields and prices—not surprising given the uncertainty about hemp production and current and potential hemp markets. Overall, hemp production was profitable only at the higher end of estimated yields and prices. It seems questionable

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States

141

that U.S. producers could remain profitable at the low end of the estimated net returns, particularly given the thinness of current U.S. hemp markets. The market for hemp products might easily be oversupplied, as in Canada where the 35,000 acres of hemp produced in 1999 was seemingly more than the market could handle. The Minneapolis Star Tribune quotes the general manager of Kenex Ltd., Canada‟s biggest hemp processor, as saying “It‟s given us one hell of a glut of grain and fiber. There‟s been a major overestimation of the market that‟s out there” (von Sternberg).

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

REFERENCES Ash, Mark (coordinator), Oil Crops Situation and Outlook Yearbook, OCS1999, USDA, ERS, Oct. 1999, 102 pp. Associated Press, “Georgia Farmers Call for Hemp Research,” January 2, 2000. Baxter, W.J. (Bill), and Gordon Scheifele, Growing Industrial Hemp, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, April 1999, http://www.gov.on.ca:80/OMAFRA/english/crops/ hort/hemp/hempinfosheet-apr-99.htm. Blade, Stanford F., “Industrial Hemp in Alberta,” Alberta Hemp Symposium Proceedings, Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, March and April 1998, http://www. agric.gov.ab.ca/crops/ special/hemp/symposia2.html. Charest, Nicole, “Industrial Hemp: Markets, The Next Challenge,” Alberta Hemp Symposium Proceedings, Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, March and April 1998, http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/crops/special/hemp/symposia15.html. Copeland, Julie, “North Dakota Professor Promotes Potential Uses for Hemp,” Grand Forks Herald, April 10, 1999. DeMeijer, E.P.M., H.J. van der Kamp, and F.A. van Eeuwijk, “Characterization of Cannabis Accessions with Regard to Cannabinoid Content and Relation to Other Plant Characters,” Euphytica, Vol. 62, No. 3, 1992, pp. 187-200. Dempsey, James M., “Hemp,” in Fibers Crops, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1975, pp. 46-89. Domier, Kenneth W. “The Potential for Agricultural Fibres,” Alberta Hemp Symposium Proceedings, Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, March and April 1998,

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

142

U.S. Department of Agriculture

http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/ crops/ special/hemp/symposia6.html. The Economist, “Hemp‟s Good Habits,” Aug. 1, 1998, p. 55. Ehrensing, Daryl T., Feasibility of Industrial Hemp Production in the United States Pacific Northwest, Station Bulletin 681, Oregon State University, Corvallis, May 1998, 35 pp. Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Ltd. and Jim White of InfoResults Ltd., A Maritime Industrial Hemp Product Marketing Study, prepared for the Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing and the New Brunswick Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Canada, September 1998, http://agri.gov.ns.ca/pt/agron/hemp/ hempms.htm. Glaser, Lewrene, and Donald Van Dyne, “Straw and Kenaf Make Inroads in Building Materials and Paper,” Industrial Uses of Agricultural Materials Situation and Outlook Report, IUS-7, USDA, ERS, July 1997, pp. 17-25. Gross, Elaine, “Hemp: Historic Fiber Remains Controversial,” Textile World, Vol. 147, No. 11, 1997, pp. 42, 44-46. Hanks, Arthur, “Top of the Crop,” The Hemp Commerce & Farming Report, Vol. 1, No. 3, AHEM, Vancouver, Canada, July 25, 1999, http://www.hemphasis.comIhcfr/ hcfr0799.htm. Hanks, Arthur, “The Great Canadian Hemp Experiment: Year II,” The Carbohydrate Economy, Vol. 2, No. 3, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Minneapolis, MN, Fall 1999, pp. 1, 4-6. Hansen-Trip, Niels, Industrial Hemp Licensing and Authorization, Statistical Summary, June 1999, Health Canada, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpbdgps/therapeut/zfiles/ english/hemp/revrep99_e.html. Health Canada, Therapeutic Products Programme Report on Industrial Hemp Licences, June 1998, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb-dgps/therapeut/zfiles/ english/hemp/statsq-a_e.html. Health Canada, Therapeutic Products Report on Industrial Hemp Licences, June 1999, Questions and Answers, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpbdgps/therapeut/zfiles/ english/hemp/revrep_e.html. Hemp-Agro, “Guide to Hemp Oil,” http://www.hempagro .com, undated. Hinz, Herb A., “Brief Analysis of the Characteristics of Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Seed Grown in Northern Ontario in 1998,” undergraduate thesis, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, May 19, 1999, http://www.gov.on.ca:80/OMAFRA/english/ crops/hort/hemp/ hempthesis.htm Kerr, Nancy, “Evaluating Textile Properties of Alberta Hemp,” Alberta Hemp Symposium Proceedings, Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Industrial Hemp in the United States

143

Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, March and April 1998, http://www.agric. gov.ab.ca/crops/special/hemp/symposia5.html. Kraenzel, David G., Tim Petry, Bill Nelson, Marshall J. Anderson, Dustin Mathern, and Robert Todd, Industrial Hemp as an Alternative Crop in North Dakota, Agricultural Economics Report 402, North Dakota State University, Fargo, July 23, 1998, 22 pp. Louie, Elaine, “Cannabis Beer? Not What You Think,” New York Times, Sept. 15, 1998. Mackie, Gordon, “Hemp: The Acceptable Face Of Cannabis,” Textile Month, Oct. 1998, pp. 49-50. Marshall, Tony, “Is There a Market for Hemp Oil?,” Alberta Hemp Symposium Proceedings, Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, March and April 1998, http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/crops/ special/hemp/symposia14.html. McNulty, Sara (editor), Report to the Governor’s Hemp and Related Fiber Crops Task Force, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Frankfort, June 1995. Meyer, Leslie A. (coordinator), Cotton and Wool Situation and Outlook Yearbook, USDA, ERS, various issues. Miller, Richard Lawrence, Hemp as a Crop for Missouri Farmers, Report to Agriculture Task Force, Missouri House of Representatives, Jefferson City, Summer 1991. Nelson, Peter A., State Hemp Legislation Updates: Individual State Action in Relation to the Development of a United States Industrial Hemp Industry, Agro-Tech Communications, Memphis, TN, Fall 1999, http://www.naihc.org/hemp_policy/state_updates_fall_99. html. Oliver, Al, and Howard Joynt, Industrial Hemp Fact Sheet, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada, April 1999, 20 pp. Orgel, Stephen, and Michael Ravnitzky, “Hemp: The First Industrial Textile,” Industrial Fabrics Review, Vol. 71, No. 6, Oct. 1994, pp. 24, 26-27. Patton, Janet, “Founder of The Body Shop Sees Hemp as Viable Kentucky Crop,” Lexington Herald-Leader, Lexington, KY, June 25, 1999. Rawson, Jean M., Growing Marijuana (Hemp) for Fiber: Pros and Cons, Report 92-510, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, June 1992, 5 pp. Reichert, Gordon, “Government of Canada: Report on Hemp,” Bi-Weekly Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 23, Dec. 16, 1994. Rorie, Somlynn, “The Rediscovery of Hemp,” Organic & Natural News, Aug. 1999, pp. 17-19.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

144

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Scheifele, Gordon, Determining the Feasibility and Potential of Field Production of Low THC Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa) for Fibre and Seed Grain in Northern Ontario, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, March 1999, http://www.gov.on.ca:80/OMAFRA/english/crops/ hort/hemp/info_final_report.htm. Soyatech, Inc., Soya & Oilseed Bluebook, Bar Harbor, ME, 1999, 242 pp. Thompson, Eric C., Mark C. Berger, and Steven Allen, Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky, University of Kentucky, Center for Business and Economic Research, Lexington, July 1998, 66 pp. Vantreese, Valerie L., Industrial Hemp: Global Markets and Prices, University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics, Lexington, revised June 1997, 33 pp. Vantreese, Valerie L.,Industrial Hemp: Global Operations, Local Implications, University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics, Lexington, July 1998, 29 pp. von Hahn, Karen, “Trendwatch: Hemp,” Canadian House & Home, Feb./March 1999. von Sternberg, Bob, “In Canada, Hemp Hasn‟t Lived Up To the Hype,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, Minneapolis, MN, Oct. 16, 1999. Wang, Qingbin, and Guanming Shi, “Industrial Hemp: China‟s Experience and Global Implications,” Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 21, No. 2, 1999, pp. 344-57. Welna, David, “Reintroducing Hemp,” Morning Edition, National Public Radio, December 14, 1999.

APPENDIX I: HEALTH CANADA— COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP MARCH 1998 Effective March 12 , 1998, the commercial production (including cultivation) of industrial hemp is now permitted in Canada, under licences and authorizations, issued by Health Canada. Industrial Hemp usually refers to varieties of the Cannabis plant that have a low content of THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol) and that are generally cultivated for fibre. Industrial hemp should not be confused with varieties of

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States

145

Cannabis with a high content of THC which are referred to as marijuana. The psychoactive ingredient in marijuana is THC. Internationally, Cannabis is regulated by the United Nation‟s Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Canada has signed and ratified this Convention. The Controlled Drug and Substance Act (CDSA) came into force effective May 14, 1997. The Industrial Hemp Regulations to the CDSA will permit the commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in Canada. The Regulations control the activities relating to importation, exportation, possession, production, sale, provision, transport, sending, delivering and offering for sale of industrial hemp. The Regulations define industrial hemp as the plants and plant parts of the Cannabis plant, whose leaves and flowering heads do not contain more than 0.3 percent THC. It includes derivatives of the seeds such as oil and seedcake. It does not include non-viable Cannabis seed, but it includes its derivatives. It also does not include the mature stalks or the fibres derived from those stalks. This means that such fibres or the products made from the mature cannabis stalk may be imported, treated and sold in Canada. The Regulations consist of the following components:

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

•

•

Importers and exporters of industrial hemp, in the form of seed or viable grain, will be licensed. In addition to holding a licence they will also be required to obtain a permit for each shipment. The importer must ensure that shipments of viable grain are accompanied by foreign certification. A list will be published by Health Canada indicating which countries are designated as having equivalent controls on the production of viable grain. Viable grain may only be imported from listed countries. This will ensure that viable grain imported will not produce a plant containing more than 0.3% THC. Seed growers will be restricted to a 0.4 hectare minimum plot size and will be required to demonstrate current membership in the Canadian Seed Growers Association as part of their licence application. Seed growers will be required to provide the number of hectares grown in the previous two years as part of their licence application. Plant breeders will not be restricted to minimum plot sizes. Persons applying for a licence as a plant breeder must be registered with the Canadian Seed Growers Association and may only cultivate industrial hemp under this regulatory framework. The pedigreed seed restriction

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

146

U.S. Department of Agriculture

•

•

•

•

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

•

•

which applies to growers in the year 2000 does not apply to plant breeders nor does the limitation to the List of Approved Cultivars. Growers for fibre or viable grain will require a licence before they can purchase seeds from a distributor or cultivate industrial hemp. Growers will be required to provide the number of hectares grown in the previous two years as part of their licence application. Only approved varieties of industrial hemp seeds, as listed on Health Canada‟s List of Approved Cultivars may be planted. Commencing January 1, 2000, only pedigreed seeds of approved varieties may be planted. Growers will be required to identify their fields, and maintain records of production and distribution. Licences and audit trails will also be required for processing activities such as pressing seeds into oil. All parties licensed or authorized will be required to identify a person resident in Canada who will be responsible for the licensed activities. To obtain a licence for the importation, exportation, production or sale of industrial hemp, applicants will be required to produce a police security check. Derivatives of seed or viable grain, such as oil and seed cake, will be exempted from the Regulations if there is evidence that the derivatives contain no more than 10 micrograms of delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol per gram and carry appropriate labelling statements. Products made from derivatives of seed or viable grain will be exempted if there is evidence that each lot or batch contains no more than 10 micrograms of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol per gram. Importers and exporters of derivatives will be required to provide proof with each shipment that the shipment contains no more than 10 micrograms of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol per gram for each lot to ensure that the product is within the limit. Similarly products made from the derivatives of seed or viable grain must be accompanied with evidence that each shipment contains no more than 10 micrograms of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol per gram. No person will be permitted to import or export a derivative or a product produced from a derivative that contains more than 10 micrograms of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol per gram. No person will be permitted to import or sell whole plants, including sprouts or the leaves, flowers or bracts of industrial hemp; or import, sell, or produce any derivative or any product made from a derivative of the above.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States •

• •

147

Authorizations will be required for transportation, when products are transported outside the direction or control of a licence holder, or for possession for the purpose of testing for viability. No person shall advertise to imply that a derivative or product is psychoactive. Testing for the level of THC in leaves or in derivatives must be done by a competent laboratory according to standards defined by Health Canada.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Health Canada will continue to issue licenses for approved research studies related to the cultivation of hemp for industrial purposes. Application Forms and relevant Guidance Documents, aimed at expediting the review of licences and authorizations for the commercial cultivation of industrial hemp and also for research licences, are available. The documents are available from: Internet: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb-dgps/therapeut Section: Hemp or Jean Peart, Manager, Hemp Project Bureau of Drug Surveillance Therapeutic Products Directorate Address Locator 4103A, 122 Bank Street, 3rd Floor Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 1B9 Phone: (613) 954-6524 FAX: (613) 952-7738 Internet: [email protected] Copies of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are available from: Internet: canada.justice.gc.ca/FTP/EN/Laws/ or Canada Communications Group Ottawa, Ontario KlA 0S9 Telephone - (613) 956-4802

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

148

U.S. Department of Agriculture

APPENDIX II OVERSUPPLY OF SMALL, THIN MARKETS This appendix presents the general economic theory behind the operations of small, thin commodity markets and provides three case studies to illustrate the consequences of oversupply.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

General Economic Theory Agricultural commodities are generally homogeneous and undifferentiated. Small, thin (niche-like) markets may develop due to changes in demand, such as a shift in consumer tastes, or changes in supply, such as a new production technology, a new product, or a new use for a traditional product. Oversupply in small, thin markets can result from supply-side phenomena, demand-side phenomena, or both. When the stimulus comes from the supply side, innovators may actually have to cultivate a market for their product. Provided that expectations about production efficiencies hold true, early firms that discover and serve the market are able to realize a significant return. However, the early firms may not be able to deter new entries. When new firms enter, they are not aware of the number of other new entrances or the extent to which original firms are expanding production. Total supply may increase by more than what firms expect, driving prices down. For less efficient firms, price may be below average cost and they will exit the market. As the market matures, information is exchanged among buyers and sellers and parties develop more accurate expectations of market behavior. On the demand side, changes in consumer preferences may stimulate a new or added demand for a product. With expectations for continued growth in demand, producers respond to initial price incentives by entering the market. If demand does not expand as expected, the market finds itself oversupplied and prices decline. In some cases, expectations about production efficiencies and future growth in demand combine to define a potential niche market. When one or both of the expectations fall short, the market becomes oversupplied and prices fall. The extent of any price decline in small, thin markets that are oversupplied depends on secondary markets. The availability of a secondary market limits

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States

149

the price decline in the primary market; its absence sharpens the price decline and may force out all but the most efficient producers. Losses incurred by producers/growers in an oversupplied niche market are a function not only of net returns to the production process, but of the size and specialized nature of the initial investment. Investment losses of the firms who exited the market will depend on the firms' sunk costs and the degree of specialization. If the initial investment was high, the losses may be greater. The degree of specialization is also important. If the plant and equipment can be used for another economic activity, some of the losses may be recouped or offset. However, if the equipment is specialized, the salvage value may be low.

Case Studies

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

A review of particular niche markets—poinsettias, emus, and mesclun— may serve to illustrate the issues involved in oversupply.

Poinsettias Large numbers of entrants led to oversupply. No secondary markets were available, so prices declined. Investment in specialized resources was minimal, so that many producers were able to shift resources to other horticultural products. U.S. growers produce more than $900 million of potted flowering plants annually, with poinsettias the most important. Only small quantities are imported from and exported to Canada. Poinsettias are a perishable product, demand is highly seasonal (November-December), and no secondary markets exist. Therefore, with imperfect knowledge about market supply and prices, growers can easily overproduce and prices can fall quickly, particularly since no secondary markets exist. Grower numbers probably peaked in 1992 and have since trended downward due to declining profit margins. Similar cases are found with other potted flowering plants, such as Easter lilies. Because production processes are similar, growers will typically switch to producing other flowering plants, foliage plants, or bedding and garden plants if profit margins decline.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

150

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Emus Significant investment in specialized resources (breeding stock), unexpectedly high production costs, and limited demand created substantial losses to growers. Production of ratites—ostriches, emus, and rhea—has occurred on a small scale in the United States for about 100 years. Starting about 1985, a few studies indicated that ratites might be efficient converters of feed. At the time, there was a known, albeit small, market for meat, hides, emu oil, eggs, and feathers, but it was expected to expand as production increased. This raised the price of breeding stock. U.S. ratite production entered into what is called the breeder phase. As more producers became convinced that ratites would be profitable, the demand for birds grew and the price of breeding stock skyrocketed. As long as producers were convinced that more breeding stock (and eventually products) could be marketed, the price remained very high. When the demand for products did not develop as growers had hoped, the demand for breeding stock declined and the price of breeding stock plummeted. Investment in the production of ratites, particularly in breeding stock, expanded much more rapidly than demand for products. Emus have received the most attention, as producers have let them run wild or killed the birds to avoid having to feed and care for them. In many cases, growers incurred significant losses when prices fell. There will probably continue to be a small market for some products and market size may even expand over time, but investment and production increased too fast, too soon. Organic Mesclun Increased consumer demand for a popular new product led to high prices. Production costs and efficiencies for organic mesclun were not distinctly different from alternative (nonorganic) production practices. Nonorganic mesclun producers entered the market, supplies increased, and prices declined. Requirements for highly specialized investments were minimal. Firms with land certified for organic production could switch to other organic products with more profitable returns, which limited losses from oversupply of this market. For several years, USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has collected data on prices for organic mesclun mix (salad mix of baby lettuces, herbs, and greens) in the Boston wholesale market. Organic mesclun prices are higher than regular (nonorganic) mesclun, but the price premiums have declined in recent years. In 1996, regular mesclun from California or Arizona cost an average of $8.64 per 3-pound carton (ranging from $7.50 to $10.00)

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Industrial Hemp in the United States

151

and organic mesclun cost $9.72 per 3-pound carton (ranging from $7.75 to $10.75). The monthly organic premium averaged 14 percent, ranging from 8 percent in November to 22 percent in December. Mesclun is a relatively new commercial crop in the United States. Initially, mesclun was a very small market; it was produced organically and garnered high prices. Other producers—both organic and regular— entered the mesclun market, attracted by high returns. By 1996, only about 30 percent of the mesclun in the Boston wholesale market was organic. As production expanded, mesclun prices declined and the premium between organic and regular mesclun narrowed. Industry insiders say that as long as there is a large supply of regular mesclun, organic prices will continue to be low. The market will bear a very small premium for organic mesclun. As the gap between organic and regular mesclun prices decreased, organic mesclun producers could remain in the market because variable production costs are not much higher than for regular mesclun. Since the lettuces and greens are harvested when quite small, they are not in the ground very long and are less prone to insect and disease problems than other organic crops. The investment required to make land certified for organic production can be significant. Some industry experts think the organic share of the mesclun market will continue to decrease. But, since the production of organic mesclun requires little, or no, specialized investment, producers exiting the market will shift to other organic crops that yield a higher return on relatively expensive certified organic land.

APPENDIX III. STATE REPORT SUMMARIES Summary. Report to the Governor's Hemp and Related Fiber Crops Task Force Commonwealth of Kentucky, June 1995 •

Most analysts forecast long-term increases in world demand for all types of fibrous materials, and some predict limitations in production capacity. New fiber crops, new industrial uses of nonwood fibers, and agricultural diversification in general are therefore subjects of widespread interest. Kentucky agriculture is not alone in efforts to

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

152

U.S. Department of Agriculture

•

•

•

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

•

pursue these possibilities, and will be required to compete with producers in other states and nations. Kentucky history, as well as recent research in other temperate zone countries, demonstrates that hemp can be produced in the Commonwealth. Selection of adapted varieties, crop management practices, harvesting technology and several other agronomic aspects may require a significant research and development effort if hemp is to be a large scale crop. Yet there is no reason to believe that these production issues are insurmountable. The historical advantages (for example: favorable climate, naturally fertile soils, labor supply) held by Kentucky hemp producers, particularly hemp seed producers, have been made somewhat less important by modern agronomic technology. Hemp and kenaf may have a slight advantage over certain other annual row crops with regard to potential environmental impacts. This might result from projected requirements for less pesticide and modest reductions in soil erosion. Currently, established markets for hemp in the U.S. are generally limited to specialty/novelty textiles, oils, foods, paper and other materials. The specialized nature of this market does not require competition with other fiber sources. The potential market size is difficult to predict, but it is unlikely to support the large acreage of a major new field crop. Bast fibers contribute an exceedingly small fraction of world textile fiber supply, which is overwhelmingly dominated by cotton. Increasing world demand and price for cotton in recent years has generated some interest in alternative fibers. However, extraction and processing of bast fibers for high-quality textiles is more difficult than for cotton. A large investment, and perhaps some technological innovation, will be required by the textile industry if bast fibers are to become competitive as mass market textiles. Use of annual fiber crops for most paper applications or for building materials, as a substitute for wood or recycled fiber, could create a very large but relatively low value market. Crop prices above $60/ton would probably be required to interest most producers; this price might preclude extensive competition in this market. Vast quantities of fibrous waste materials (sugar cane bagasse, straw) are available world wide and would also compete for such applications.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States •

•

153

A large and long-term USDA effort on kenaf has addressed many production and processing challenges. Infrastructure for significant utilization of kenaf fiber is beginning to develop in the southern U.S. The University of Kentucky College of Agriculture is actively investigating kenaf production. Development of this alternative fiber crop in Kentucky will be dependent on nearby location of processing facilities and a profitable market for farmers. Legal prohibition of Cannabis cultivation is the overriding obstacle to reintroduction of fiber hemp production in Kentucky. Significant progress on agronomics, marketing, or infrastructure development is unlikely, and of relatively little importance, unless legal issues are resolved. Legislative action would be required at both the state and federal level. Such consideration would likely receive strong diverse reactions from both private and public sectors.

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Source: McNulty.

Summary. Feasibility of Industrial Hemp Production in the United States Pacific Northwest May 1998 For many centuries hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) has been cultivated as a source of strong stem fibers, seed oil, and psychoactive drugs in its leaves and flowers. Environmental concerns and recent shortages of wood fiber have renewed interest in hemp as a raw material for a wide range of industrial products including textiles, paper, and composite wood products. This report assesses the agricultural feasibility of industrial hemp production in the Pacific Northwest (PNW). Hemp is an herbaceous annual that develops a rigid woody stem ranging in height from 1 to over 5 meters (3 to 19 feet). Hemp stalks have a woody core surrounded by a bark layer containing long fibers that extend nearly the entire length of the stem. Plant breeders have developed hemp varieties with increased stem fiber content and very low levels of delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient of marijuana. Historically, hemp fiber was used mainly for cordage, but it can also be made into textiles, paper, and composite wood products. Demand for hemp cordage peaked in the late 1800's, and world hemp production has

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

154

U.S. Department of Agriculture

continuously declined since that time, except for brief increases during both World Wars. Hemp fiber has largely been replaced by relatively inexpensive natural and synthetic fibers. Although hemp is well adapted to the temperate climatic zone and will grow under varied environmental conditions, it grows best with warm growing conditions, an extended frost-free season, highly productive agricultural soils, and abundant moisture throughout the growing season. When grown under proper conditions, hemp is very competitive with weeds, and herbicides are generally not required in hemp production. Although a number of insect pests and diseases have been reported on hemp, significant crop losses from pests are not common. High levels of soil fertility are required to maximize hemp productivity. Cultural requirements and production costs are quite similar to those of corn. Reported hemp yields range from 2.5 to 8.7 tons of dry stems per acre. The climatic and soil requirements of hemp can be met in some agricultural areas of the PNW, however, hemp will almost certainly require irrigation to reliably maximize productivity in the region. The requirement for supplemental irrigation will place hemp in direct competition with the highest value crops in the PNW, limiting available acreage. Stem yields will have to be substantially higher than those previously recorded for hemp to be economically feasible in the PNW at current prices. It is unlikely that the investment needed to improve hemp production technology will be made until legislative restrictions are removed from the crop. Source: Ehrensing.

Executive Summary. Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky July 1998 In recent years, industrial hemp has been viewed worldwide as a versatile and environmentally friendly plant that has many industrial applications. Although it is currently grown in many European and Asian countries and even in Canada, industrial hemp is still prohibited from being grown in the United States. This situation exists even though the current consumer and business environment in the United States may make industrial hemp cultivation and processing commercially feasible. Many consumers are starting to prefer

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Industrial Hemp in the United States

155

products made from natural materials. The industrial hemp plant is a good source of natural raw materials for a number of products and is a superior source in some cases. Moreover, many farmers in Kentucky and throughout the nation are looking to alternative crops to replace their current crops, and some have touted hemp as an excellent rotation crop with much potential for agriculture. Kentucky should be in a position to benefit from the establishment of an industrial hemp cultivation and processing industry in the United States. Historically, Kentucky has been a good location to grow hemp. Before hemp cultivation was outlawed, it had been a major crop in Kentucky and grew well in the climate. In the 1800's, Kentucky regularly accounted for one-half of the industrial hemp production in the United States. The climate, soil, and growing season in Kentucky also make the state a superior location for growing certified hemp seed to be planted by farmers raising an industrial hemp crop. The Kentucky Hemp Museum and Library contracted with the University of Kentucky Center for Business and Economic Research to conduct an analysis of the potential economic impact of industrial hemp in Kentucky. This study looks at the different markets for hemp products, examining both the current markets in which foreign-grown hemp is being used, and potential or burgeoning markets that may have uses for industrial hemp. In the report, we estimate costs for growing industrial hemp in Kentucky and provide information on potential prices farmers could expect for their hemp crop. We also compare the return from cultivating industrial hemp with the returns for other crops in Kentucky. In addition, we detail the costs of a hemp processing facility to separate the hemp into fiber and other materials. Finally, we estimate the potential jobs and earnings impacts of growing industrial hemp in Kentucky under several scenarios. Among the key findings of this report are: •

• •

A market for industrial hemp exists in a number of specialty or niche markets in the United States, including specialty papers, animal bedding, and foods and oils made from hemp. Additional markets could emerge for industrial hemp in the areas of automobile parts, replacements for fiberglass, upholstery, and carpets. Using current yields, prices, and production technology from other areas that have grown hemp, Kentucky farmers could earn a profit of approximately $320 per acre of hemp planted for straw production only or straw and grain production, $220 for grain production only,

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

156

U.S. Department of Agriculture

•

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

and $600 for raising certified seed for planting by other industrial hemp growers. In the long run, it is estimated that Kentucky farmers could earn roughly $120 per acre when growing industrial hemp for straw alone or straw and grain, and $340 an acre from growing certified hemp seed. Industrial hemp, when grown in rotation, may reduce weeds and raise yields for crops grown in following years. Several agronomic studies have found that industrial hemp was more effective than other crops at reducing selected weeds. One study found that industrial hemp raised yields by improving soil ventilation and water balance. The economic impact if Kentucky again becomes the main source for certified industrial hemp seed in the United States is estimated at 69 full-time equivalent jobs and $1,300,000 in worker earnings. The total economic impact in Kentucky, assuming one industrial hemp processing facility locating in Kentucky and selling certified seed to other growers, would be 303 full-time equivalent jobs and $6,700,000 in worker earnings. If two processing facilities were established in Kentucky, industrial hemp would have an economic impact of 537 full-time equivalent jobs and $12,100,000 in worker earnings. If one processing facility and one industrial hemp paper-pulp plant were established in Kentucky, industrial hemp would have an economic impact of 771 full-time equivalent jobs and $17,600,000 in worker earnings. These economic impact estimates reflect possible outcomes for Kentucky given a national industrial hemp industry that is focused in specialty niche activities that have been demonstrated to work in Europe. It is important to remember, however, that technologies are under development that may allow industrial hemp products to compete in bulk commodity markets. The economic impacts that would occur if these technologies were found to be commercially feasible would be substantially greater than those identified in this report.

Source: Thompson et al.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Industrial Hemp in the United States

157

Executive Summary. Industrial Hemp as an Alternative Crop in North Dakota July 1998 This preliminary study reports on current efforts to define existing world markets and possible United States markets for industrial hemp as well as resulting economic feasibility should production be legalized. A large percentage of the information available on industrial hemp is by nonagriculturists. This indicates a need for North Dakota to continue working with its agricultural counterparts to bring this potential alternative crop into the agricultural research domain. •

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

•

•

•

•

The industrial hemp world market consists of over 25,000 products in nine submarkets: agriculture, textiles, recycling, automotive, furniture, food/nutrition/beverages, paper, construction materials, and personal care. These products are made or manufactured from raw materials derived from the industrial hemp plant: fiber, hurds, and hemp seed/grain. World hemp fiber production has declined from over 400,000 tons in 1961 to 113,000 tons in 1996. India, China, Russia and Korea are the major low cost producers. This constitutes about 250,000 acres under production worldwide. Preliminary figures for 1997 indicate that this downward trend continues. A revitalization of industrial hemp may be occurring as indicated by projected increased demand (retail sales) from $75 million in 1997 to $250 million by 1999 worldwide (Wall Street Journal, April 24, 1998). Various reasons that would explain this phenomenon include technological advances in processing, an increase in pricing, or interpretation of existing information. The largest market opportunity for North Dakota identified in this report may be hemp seed oil. This opportunity was also identified by the University of Kentucky (July 1998). North Dakota may have a comparative advantage because a state of the art multi-oil processing facility already exists that is capable of processing hemp seed. Hemp hurds appear to be price competitive with wood chips, fine wheat straw, other types of animal bedding, and other high-end pet needs. Hurds may also be a complement or substitute material in strawboard production.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

158

U.S. Department of Agriculture • •

• •

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

•

Certified seed production is a market opportunity. Initially, hemp appears to be comparable to barley. However, a 1998 Kentucky study projects higher returns from $220.15 per acre for producing hemp seed for crushing to $605.91 for certified seed. Historically, imported jute and abaca were intense competitors with American industrial hemp. Law enforcement agencies have legitimate concerns about their ability to enforce laws regulating industrial hemp production. Advances in biotechnology such as terminator genes may create solutions. Recommendations. Since industrial hemp may have potential as an alternative rotation crop, it is recommended that the North Dakota Legislature consider action that would allow controlled experimental production and processing, then, necessary baseline production, processing, and marketing data could be collected and analyzed. For example, all new enterprises would require a critical threshold volume in order to succeed in terms of economic profit. What is the volume and the acreage required to produce it? At the same time the concerns and costs of law enforcement agencies could be addressed.

Source: Kraenzel et al.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

CHAPTER SOURCES

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Chapter 1 - This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a Congressional Research Service publication, RL33211, dated April 2, 2010. Chapter 2 - This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a Congressional Research Service publication, RL32725, dated December 22, 2010. Chapter 3 - This is an edited, reformatted and augmented version of a U.S. Department of Agriculture publication, dated January, 2000.

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

INDEX

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

A abuse, 5, 11, 13, 37, 39, 44, 45 access, 20, 29, 33, 48, 53, 54, 55, 64, 79 accommodation, 81 accounting, 23 acid, 121 adolescents, 44 adults, 29, 38, 56, 64 adverse effects, 53, 61 advocacy, 20, 47, 77 Africa, 3 age, 29, 38, 39, 44 agencies, 14, 20, 32, 45, 47, 62, 63, 70, 71, 85, 138, 158 agricultural producers, 88 agriculture, 70, 71, 91, 93, 151, 155, 157 AIDS, 11, 12, 13, 24, 27, 33 Alaska, 22, 24, 39, 40, 42, 57, 60 alcohol use, 44 amino, 105 amino acid, 105 anorexia, 11, 24 antiemetics, 35 antipsychotic, 91 anxiety, 32, 33, 49 appetite, 11, 13, 20, 32, 33 appropriations, 2, 6, 7, 10, 28, 57, 85 Appropriations Act, 57 arrest, 5, 8, 11, 18, 29, 48, 49 arrests, 15, 49

arthritis, 24, 61 Asia, 73, 113 Asian countries, 154 atmosphere, 52 audit, 146 Austria, vii, 93, 98, 101 authorities, 47, 83 authority, 7, 8, 10, 19, 50, 84, 87, 101 automobile parts, 112, 119, 155

B ban, 28 barriers, 99, 139 base, 82, 89 bedding, vii, 65, 70, 99, 112, 120, 138, 139, 149, 155, 157 beef, 123 beer, 100, 101, 121, 140 beneficial effect, 36 benefits, 4, 12, 13, 18, 26, 35, 36, 45, 53, 54, 55, 72, 83, 138 beverages, vii, 65, 70, 80, 157 biodiesel, 70 biofuel, 92 biomass, 105 biotechnology, 158 birds, 121, 150 black market, 11 bleaching, 100, 122, 140 blindness, 57 blogs, 59

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

162

Index

brain, 33 brain stem, 33 branching, 69, 70, 103 breakdown, 107, 110 breeding, 85, 105, 150 Britain, 112 bullying, 16 burn, 36 business environment, 154 buyer, 138 buyers, 4, 148 by-products, 36

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

C cambium, 105 cancer, 6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 24, 26, 27, 33, 36 cannabinoids, 13, 33, 34, 36, 39, 53, 61 cannabis, vi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33, 44, 48, 54, 56, 66, 67, 68, 69, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 87, 88, 91, 145 CAP, 93 capsule, 11, 122 carcinogen, 34 cardiovascular system, 31, 35 caregivers, 6, 15, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 47, 49 case studies, 148 castor oil, 123 category d, 122 cellulose, 105 Census, 112, 118, 123 certificate, 15 certification, 145 challenges, 6, 18, 153 chaos, 51 cheese, 100, 121, 140 chemical, vi, 20, 33, 65, 66, 67, 68, 79, 81, 102, 107 chemical bonds, 107 chemicals, 100, 122, 123, 140 chemotherapy, 11, 12, 13, 33 Chile, 74, 103 China, vii, 3, 73, 89, 98, 101, 103, 105, 107, 111, 112, 113, 116, 120, 124, 144, 157

cities, 28, 46 citizens, 50 City, 16, 47, 63, 64, 95, 143 civil action, 87 climate, 62, 152, 155 clinical trials, 13, 30, 52 Clinton Administration, 18 clothing, 72, 73, 77, 81, 111, 114, 117 cocaine, 5, 44, 47, 55, 56 coconut oil, 123 combustion, 36, 61 commerce, 19, 51 commercial, 17, 66, 67, 70, 74, 77, 79, 83, 87, 88, 89, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103, 124, 139, 144, 145, 147, 151 commercial crop, 151 commodity, vi, 67, 77, 87, 94, 148, 156 commodity markets, 148, 156 communication, 91, 92 communities, 34, 51 comparative advantage, 157 compensation, 16, 24 competition, 78, 89, 152, 154 competitors, 158 compilation, 93 complement, 157 compliance, 2, 17, 57, 85 composite wood, 129, 153 composites, vii, 65, 70, 97, 99, 112, 119, 120, 139 composition, 105 compounds, 33 conference, 5, 57 conflict, 82 consensus, 20, 99, 116, 139 construction, vii, 65, 70, 72, 73, 157 consumer markets, 74 consumer taste, 148 consumers, 100, 121, 122, 140, 154 consumption, 51, 80, 81, 121 controlled studies, 31 Controlled Substances Act, vi, vii, 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, 28, 31, 37, 38, 54, 58, 59, 66, 78, 81, 83, 87, 89, 98, 101

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Index convention, 79, 94, 95 cooperation, 79 coordination, 30 cosmetics, vii, 65, 70 cost, 45, 48, 126, 127, 129, 130, 133, 136, 137, 148, 150, 157 cost structures, 133 costs of production, 126 cotton, 72, 77, 94, 103, 113, 117, 118, 137, 152 counsel, 4 Court of Appeals, 15, 18, 19, 50, 51, 81, 84 covering, 21, 114, 115, 117 crimes, 49 crop, vii, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 77, 78, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91, 97, 98, 102, 103, 105, 106, 109, 110, 116, 120, 123, 126, 127, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 158 crops, 72, 74, 83, 88, 94, 102, 105, 125, 126, 127, 133, 134, 135, 138, 141, 142, 143, 144, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156 CRS report, 91 cultivars, 67, 68, 74, 107, 126, 129 cultivation, 19, 21, 24, 25, 57, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 74, 77, 78, 79, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 93, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 127, 138, 144, 145, 147, 153, 154, 155 culture, 104 cure, 34 currency, 118 current prices, 154 Customs Service, 80 cycles, 102

D danger, 34, 49 database, 85 decoupling, 88 defendants, 2, 10 degumming, 100, 122, 140 delegates, 35, 95 democracy, 50 denial, 20, 58 Denmark, 93

163

Department of Agriculture, 25, 70, 85, 92, 95, 142 Department of Commerce, 118 Department of Health and Human Services, 11, 13, 37, 51 Department of Justice (DOJ), 2, 18, 45, 57, 59, 60, 95 Departments of Agriculture, 87 depreciation, 129, 132, 133, 136 depression, 61 derivatives, 4, 5, 56, 82, 145, 146, 147 designers, 117 destruction, 19 detection, 69 developed countries, 102 dew, 107 diet, 121 dignity, 48 diseases, 2, 6, 12, 27, 30, 106, 154 dissenting opinion, 50 distress, 12 distribution, 16, 17, 18, 24, 26, 27, 49, 51, 57, 59, 66, 77, 79, 88, 146 District of Columbia, 2, 6, 10, 28, 40, 41, 42, 57 diversification, 151 diversity, 72 doctors, 9, 12, 18, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30, 38, 44, 49, 53 dosage, 36 draft, 45 dressings, 100, 121, 140 drug abuse, 45, 51 drug addict, 39 drug addiction, 39 drug delivery, 13, 34, 35, 36 drug offense, 103 drug testing, 81 drug therapy, 29 drug trafficking, 79 drugs, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 43, 44, 45, 48, 51, 53, 54, 56, 59, 79, 89, 95 dry matter, 124, 129 drying, 100, 105, 123, 140

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

164

Index

dyspnea, 53

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

E earnings, 155, 156 Easter, 149 Eastern Europe, 112, 115, 116, 124 economic activity, 149 economic theory, 148 economics, 92, 119, 137 Egypt, 74 election, 24, 26 emergency, 44, 104 emotion, 55 emotional responses, 33 enforcement, 16, 17, 32, 45, 46, 47, 49, 63, 66, 67, 80, 81, 88, 89, 158 England, 120, 124 environmental conditions, 154 environmental impact, 152 environmental regulations, 107, 113 enzymes, 107 epilepsy, 33 equality, 54 equipment, 106, 107, 109, 129, 149 essential fatty acids, 121 ethics, 48 Europe, 73, 103, 106, 107, 109, 113, 119, 123, 129, 156 European market, 118 European Union, 68, 73, 103 evidence, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 31, 34, 37, 39, 43, 44, 48, 53, 61, 146 executive branch, 17, 20, 95 Executive Order, 82 exporter, 80 exporters, 145, 146 exports, 73, 111, 114, 115, 120 extraction, 100, 122, 140, 152

F faith, 19 families, 7

farmers, 68, 73, 74, 77, 78, 84, 85, 87, 88, 95, 97, 102, 103, 104, 107, 133, 136, 153, 155 farms, 99, 100, 113, 139, 140 fat, 123 fatty acids, 100, 105, 122, 123, 140 FDA, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 31, 33, 34, 51, 52, 53, 58, 61 fear, 46, 48, 49, 120 federal agency, 37 federal courts, 82 federal government, 2, 4, 9, 11, 14, 19, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 62 Federal Government, 104 federal law, 3, 15, 16, 21, 22, 27, 34, 49, 59, 66, 78 Federal Register, 58, 59, 60, 80, 93, 94 federalism, 50 feedstock, 70 fencing, 79 fertility, 105, 154 fertilization, 106 fiber bundles, 108 fiber content, 153 fibers, vii, 65, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 77, 92, 98, 99, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 137, 139, 151, 152, 153 field crops, 133 Fifth Amendment, 56 financial, 48 Finland, 93 fixed costs, 125, 126, 133, 136 flavor, 121 flax fiber, 138 flour, 74, 100, 140 flowers, 69, 70, 77, 80, 146, 153 fluctuations, 72 food, vii, 51, 65, 70, 72, 80, 92, 94, 97, 100, 105, 121, 140, 157 food products, 72, 80 force, 21, 59, 145, 149 France, 73, 105, 106, 120, 124 frost, 154

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

165

Index funding, 38, 94, 102 funds, 6, 57, 83 fungi, 106

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

G Gallup Poll, 38 General Accounting Office (GAO), 45, 47, 62, 63 genes, 158 Georgia, 41, 43, 125, 137, 141 Germany, vii, 30, 93, 98, 100, 101, 109, 112, 120, 121, 124, 127, 140 germination, 78 glaucoma, 7, 10, 12, 18, 24, 26, 27, 33 governance, 53 governor, 26, 27 GPS, 74 grants, 83 grass, 129 Great Britain, vii, 98, 101 Greece, 3 growth, 85, 118, 148 guidance, 81 guidelines, 20 guilty, 59

H hair, 102 harmful effects, 4, 35 harvesting, 77, 102, 106, 109, 116, 124, 137, 152 Hawaii, 22, 25, 27, 40, 42, 57, 60, 66, 79, 84, 85, 98, 101, 102 healing, 3 health, 5, 13, 24, 25, 33, 34, 50, 54, 91, 100, 121, 140 Health and Human Services (HHS), 8, 13, 14, 20, 21, 37, 51 health condition, 25 health risks, 25 height, 69, 137, 153 hemp fiber, 69, 73, 77, 89, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107, 111, 113, 114, 115,

116, 117, 118, 124, 125, 137, 139, 153, 157 hepatitis, 26 herbicide, 132 heroin, 5, 14, 34 high school, 5 history, 3, 64, 93, 94, 102, 137, 152 HIV, 6, 18, 26 HIV/AIDS, 18, 26 House, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 35, 55, 56, 58, 87, 143, 144 House of Representatives, 143 human, 14, 30, 32, 33, 80, 81, 105, 121 human body, 33 human brain, 33 human health, 32 human subjects, 30 Hungary, vii, 73, 98, 101, 105, 106, 107, 111, 112, 113, 124 hypocrisy, 56

I identification, 24, 25, 47 identity, 94 ideology, 52, 55 illicit drug use, 2, 44 illicit substances, 88 image, 47 immune system, 33 import prices, 127 imported products, 74 imports, 66, 67, 73, 74, 76, 77, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 121, 137, 139, 140 imprisonment, 49 incarceration, 11 income, 129 India, 3, 73, 74, 157 individuals, 17, 20, 32, 45, 48, 54, 89 industry, 53, 65, 72, 74, 80, 85, 89, 99, 103, 104, 105, 111, 116, 120, 121, 137, 138, 139, 151, 152, 155, 156 infection, 6 infrastructure, 138, 153 ingredients, 66, 89, 100, 121, 140

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

166

Index

initiation, 44 inspectors, 81 insulation, vii, 65, 70 integrity, 20, 121 interference, 8, 16, 48, 50 International Narcotics Control, 94 intervention, 53 intoxication, 30 intraocular, 32 intraocular pressure, 32 investment, 109, 124, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154 investments, 150 Iowa, 41, 43, 101 irrigation, 129, 133, 136, 154 isolation, 69 issues, 36, 39, 55, 74, 81, 91, 95, 102, 143, 149, 152 Italy, 93

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

J Japan, 74 joints, 34, 61 journalists, 2 judicial branch, 18 Judiciary Committee, 46 juries, 2, 3, 10

K Korea, 74, 157

L labeling, 52 law enforcement, 18, 23, 24, 28, 45, 46, 47, 49, 63, 103, 138, 158 laws, vi, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 63, 67, 68, 77, 82, 83, 93, 158 lead, 2, 37, 39, 62, 137 learning, 30 legal issues, 138, 153 legislation, 4, 5, 7, 28, 37, 51, 60, 66, 67, 85, 87, 95, 98, 102

legume, 134 light, 12, 77 lignin, 108 linen, 99, 107, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 137, 139 lobbying, 7 local government, 17, 20 loss of appetite, 12, 20 Louisiana, 41, 42, 43, 50, 63, 137 lower prices, 137 LSD, 5, 14 lubricants, 105, 123 lung cancer, 35

M machinery, 77, 109, 129, 136 magazines, 121 majority, 8, 19, 29, 62, 63, 138 man, 12 management, 71, 79, 134, 152 manufacturing, 5, 16, 71, 72, 73, 77, 99, 101, 113, 139 market share, 117 marketing, 8, 61, 70, 71, 84, 85, 88, 120, 138, 153, 158 marketplace, 72 marriage, 54, 55 Marx, 61 Maryland, 22, 27, 40, 41, 42, 49, 63, 66, 84, 85, 101 mass, 152 materials, vii, 65, 70, 73, 79, 94, 119, 151, 152, 155 matter, iv, 16, 36, 45, 49, 82, 124, 126 measurement, 124 meat, 150 Medicaid, 18 medical, vi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 79, 83, 89, 91,뫰95

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

167

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Index Medicare, 18 medication, 13, 35 medicine, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 47, 51, 52, 54, 55, 61 membership, 145 memory, 33 memory formation, 33 methodology, 62 Mexico, 21, 22, 23, 26, 40, 42, 57, 60, 62, 84, 98, 101 micrograms, 146 microorganisms, 107 Middle East, 3 Minneapolis, 101, 141, 142, 144 Missouri, 41, 42, 101, 103, 143 mixing, 69 MMP, 60 models, 62, 119 moderates, 29 modifications, 127 moisture, 98, 105, 119, 154 molecules, 31, 56 monopoly, 15 Montana, 22, 26, 40, 42, 57, 60, 66, 84, 85, 95, 98, 101 mood disorder, 61 morphine, 3, 37, 44, 53, 55, 56 motivation, 47 motor skills, 33 movement disorders, 12 MSNBC.com, 64 multiple sclerosis, 26, 27, 33, 35 muscle spasms, 18, 27, 32 muscles, 61 muscular dystrophy, 27 music, 59

N narcotic, vii, 77, 98, 101, 103 National Institutes of Health, 58, 81 National Public Radio, 144 national security, 83 National Survey, 41, 43 natural food, 89 nausea, 11, 12, 13, 20, 27, 32, 35, 36

Netherlands, 93, 105, 112, 120, 124 New England, 23, 33, 53, 60, 61, 63, 103 New Zealand, 74 niche market, 89, 148, 149, 155 North America, 72, 89, 90, 91, 92, 100, 107, 113, 117, 119, 120, 137, 140 nutrients, 98, 106 nutrition, 70, 100, 101, 121, 140, 157

O Obama, 2, 17, 59 Obama Administration, 2, 17, 59 objectivity, 20 obstacles, 88 officials, 18, 28, 45, 46, 47, 89 oil, 67, 69, 73, 74, 78, 80, 83, 89, 97, 98, 100, 102, 104, 105, 111, 114, 121, 122, 123, 125, 127, 131, 137, 138, 140, 145, 146, 150, 153, 157 oilseed, 67, 68, 69, 125, 137, 138 Oklahoma, 40, 41, 43 operations, 16, 17, 18, 49, 148 opiates, 44, 80 opinion polls, 29 opportunities, 89 opt out, 46 organic matter, 105, 138 overlap, 116 overproduction, 120, 137 oversight, 8

P Pacific, 90, 106, 126, 128, 129, 130, 133, 138, 142, 153 pain, 3, 12, 13, 20, 24, 26, 27, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 48, 53 paints, 123 parallel, 106 parenchyma, 105 participants, 26, 99, 113, 139 penalties, 21, 24, 25, 48, 54, 62 permit, vi, 1, 2, 3, 9, 12, 15, 17, 28, 37, 38, 51, 55, 61, 66, 73, 78, 79, 82, 84, 85, 102, 145

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

168

Index

personal communication, 60, 133 pesticide, 152 pests, 154 pharmaceutical, 36, 52, 53 pharmaceuticals, vii, 8, 31, 33, 45, 61, 65, 70 phloem, 105 physical health, 81 physicians, 3, 18, 24, 25, 26, 29, 48, 53 pith, 105 plants, 10, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 67, 68, 69, 70, 78, 87, 91, 103, 105, 145, 146, 149 plastics, 123 Poland, 93, 111, 113, 124 police, 15, 45, 46, 47, 103, 146 policy, 4, 11, 17, 32, 34, 37, 45, 47, 50, 53, 55, 66, 82, 87, 88, 95, 143 policy choice, 50 policymakers, 2 political parties, 62 politics, 14, 52 pollination, 68, 69 polymorphisms, 91 ponds, 107 popular vote, 52 population, 21, 23, 39, 43, 44, 58 Portugal, 93 potential benefits, 25 preparation, iv, 36, 78 preparedness, 82 President, 5, 56, 82, 87, 88 President Clinton, 82 presidential campaign, 2, 17 prevention, 4 primary caregivers, 18 principles, 50 producers, 89, 101, 112, 123, 124, 137, 141, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 157 production costs, 79, 129, 150, 151, 154 production technology, 148, 154, 155 professionals, 5, 33, 54 profit, 16, 17, 100, 123, 140, 149, 155, 158 profit margin, 100, 140, 149 profitability, 79, 83, 89, 137 project, 91, 102

proposition, 32, 54 prototype, 119 psychoactive drug, 153 public concern, 89 public education, 29 public health, 26, 51, 52 public interest, 15 public opinion, 29, 38, 48 public policy, 45 public sector, 153 public support, 48 pulp, 107, 109, 112, 118, 137, 138, 156 purity, 69

Q questioning, 8

R racehorses, 120 racing, 138 rancid, 121 raw materials, 99, 100, 113, 119, 123, 139, 140, 155, 157 reactions, 153 reasoning, 47 receptors, 33 recognition, 33 recommendations, iv, 23, 88 recovery, 106 recreational, 5, 29, 38, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 54, 55, 62, 67, 68 recycling, 70, 157 reform, 46, 54, 59, 64 Reform, 54, 55 registries, 23 regulations, 87, 93, 95, 103 regulatory controls, 11, 46 regulatory framework, 145 regulatory requirements, 8, 79 reintroduction, 9, 138, 153 relief, vi, 1, 13, 19, 24, 32, 33, 35, 36, 48, 53 rent, 16, 129, 133, 136 repair, 132

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

Index requirements, 4, 8, 31, 71, 79, 82, 85, 95, 102, 152, 154 researchers, 14, 15, 52, 70, 71, 77, 84, 85, 123 residues, 74 resins, 119, 123 resistance, 52, 119 resolution, 2, 6, 10, 16, 73, 85 resources, 8, 17, 66, 91, 94, 149, 150 response, 6, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 47, 60 restaurants, 72 restrictions, 4, 8, 104, 154 retail, 61, 65, 72, 157 revenue, 126, 131, 132, 133, 135, 137 risk, 8, 13, 48, 50, 51, 53 risks, 13, 18, 26, 36, 53 Romania, 73, 105, 111, 124 root, 138 root system, 138 rubber, 108 rules, 7, 26, 79, 80, 81, 82, 87, 103 Russia, vii, 74, 98, 101, 157 Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

S safety, 5, 7, 12, 14, 31, 37, 43, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58 sanctions, 11 science, 14, 21, 52, 55, 63 scientific validity, 55 scope, 43 security, 66, 78, 79, 146 seed, vii, 65, 67, 69, 70, 73, 77, 78, 79, 80, 85, 89, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 111, 114, 117, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 138, 140, 145, 146, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158 seeding, 69 seizure, 16 sellers, 4, 148 Senate, 4, 5, 6, 8, 24, 46, 56, 62 sensations, 53 sensitivity, 127 sentencing, 57

169

sex, 55 shelf life, 100, 122, 140 showing, 10, 71 side effects, 53, 61 signs, 32, 37 skilled workers, 109 skin, 121 smoking, vi, 1, 2, 9, 13, 31, 34, 35, 36, 44, 53, 61 society, 50, 55 soil erosion, 152 South America, 73 South Dakota, 22, 40, 41, 43 Soviet Union, 115, 116 soybeans, 121, 126, 127, 134 Spain, 93, 112 spasticity, 11, 20, 24, 32, 35 specialization, 149 specialty crop, 87 species, vi, vii, 65, 67, 83, 98, 101, 102, 103, 105 speech, 18 spelling, 56 spinal cord, 33 Spring, 95, 135 stabilization, 69 state, vi, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 38, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 62, 66, 70, 71, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 95, 143, 153, 155, 157 state control, 62 state laws, 1, 2, 3, 10, 17, 27, 30, 53, 66, 84 state legislatures, 22, 23, 54, 83 states, vi, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 35, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 56, 60, 61, 62, 66, 77, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 120, 138, 152 statistics, 16, 69, 72, 73, 77 statutes, 22, 67, 83 steel, 112 sterile, 101 stimulus, 148

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

170

Index

storage, 132 street drugs, 5 subgroups, 44 substitutes, 33 succession, 12 supervision, 5, 12, 14, 25, 26, 36 supplier, 73, 74, 111 suppliers, 28, 73, 89, 124 suppression, 106 Supreme Court, 10, 18, 19, 20, 28, 32, 48, 49, 50, 56, 59, 60, 63 surveillance, 89, 102 Switzerland, vii, 73, 74, 98, 101, 121 symptoms, 2, 24, 27, 30, 33, 53, 61 syndrome, 26 synthetic fiber, 78, 119, 154

T

tobacco, 13, 62, 83, 94, 99, 102, 114, 133, 134, 139 total costs, 125, 133 toxicity, 61 tracks, 92 trade, 11, 72, 73, 76, 79, 80, 85, 97, 111, 137 traffic stops, 47 trafficking, 16, 18, 45, 48, 49, 57 training, 31 transport, 9, 103, 132, 145 transportation, 147 trauma, 35 treatment, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 20, 24, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37, 38, 48, 106 trial, 18, 19, 53, 57, 59 Turkey, 74

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

U tanks, 107 target, 55 taxes, 125, 132, 136 taxpayers, 136 techniques, 100, 140 technological advances, 157 technologies, 124, 156 technology, 82, 109, 131, 137, 152 telephone, 23, 60 temperature, 36 tendons, 61 terminal patients, 29, 36 terminally ill, 29, 35 testing, 74, 103, 147 textiles, vii, 65, 70, 72, 73, 77, 97, 99, 105, 107, 109, 112, 113, 139, 152, 153, 157 Thailand, 74 therapeutic benefits, 32, 33 therapeutic effects, 13, 33 therapeutic use, 1, 51 therapy, 35, 53 thin market, 71, 97, 99, 113, 139, 148 threats, 16 tin, 34 Title I, 57, 59 Title II, 57

U.S. Department of Commerce, 112, 123 U.S. policy, 87 U.S. Treasury, 104 Ukraine, 74 ultrasound, 109 uniform, 52, 107 United Kingdom, 73 United Nations, 79, 91, 94 universities, 70, 71 upholstery, 117, 155 USA, 92 USDA, 70, 71, 77, 83, 87, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 97, 104, 119, 141, 142, 143, 150, 153

V vapor, 36 variable costs, 125, 127, 128, 130 variations, 117 varieties, vii, 66, 67, 68, 69, 78, 80, 81, 91, 92, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103, 105, 107, 129, 137, 144, 146, 152, 153 vegetable oil, 100, 122, 140 ventilation, 156 veto, 26

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,

171

Index violent crime, 4 vomiting, 11, 33 vote, 5, 6, 7, 8 voters, 9, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 44, 47

W

Y yarn, 98, 99, 108, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 139 yield, 72, 99, 100, 113, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133, 135, 137, 139, 140, 151 young people, 7

Copyright © 2011. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

war, 2, 17, 48, 63, 78, 104 Washington, 10, 16, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 38, 40, 42, 44, 49, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 92, 143 waste, 111, 112, 115, 138, 152 water, 72, 107, 112, 113, 156 wealth, 60 websites, 30 weight loss, 11 welfare, 50 well-being, 8

Western Europe, 126, 129 wholesale, 150, 151 Wisconsin, 40, 41, 42, 43, 93, 102, 104 wood, 113, 118, 119, 120, 126, 129, 152, 153, 157 wool, 94 workers, 107, 124 workplace, 81 World War I, 77, 78, 83, 104, 106 worldwide, 67, 73, 154, 157

Cannabis Sativa for Health and Hemp, Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,