THE COLORADO HEMP PRODUCTION ACT OF 1995:
FARMS AND FORESTS WITHOUT MARIJUANA

by THOMAS J. BALLANCO

CU Law Review, Volume


"Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it
everywhere." -- George Washington, 1794 (1)

I.INTRODUCTION

Colorado became the first state in the country to take
legislative action aimed at re-establishing a commercial hemp
industry, when State Senator Lloyd Casey introduced the Colorado
Hemp Production Act of 1995 (2) (Colorado Act) on January 25,
1995. Earlier, in November 1994, Kentucky Governor Brereton
Jones established a commission to decide how to re-create the
industry in that state. (3) The commission has been studying the
prospect informally for eighteen months and intends to allow
Kentucky farmers to begin planting hemp as soon as possible.(4)
As of this writing, at least six other states are taking action
to revive the dormant commercial hemp industry.(5) This Comment
explores the Colorado Act in light of current federal law and
explains how domestic hemp production can proceed while
maintaining existing prohibitions against marijuana.

II.THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HEMP AND MARIJUANA

Hemp is an ancient fiber and seed crop that is often
described as marijuana's misunderstood cousin. (6) The once
prosperous American hemp industry was dealt a fatal blow when it
was made the inadvertent victim of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
(7) ("1937 Act"). While hemp and marijuana are both products
derived from the same plant species, Cannabis sativa, they are
produced independently by different Cannabis strains.(8) Hemp
generally refers to the high fiber Cannabis varieties that have
extremely low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content.(9) THC is a
Cannabis by-product that is found in the resin secreted by the
plant, and it is this ingredient that gives marijuana its
psychoactive properties.(10) Marijuana refers to the leaves and
flowers of certain Cannabis species containing one percent to ten
percent THC concentrations.(11) High-fiber hemp strains are
incapable of producing marijuana, and high-THC marijuana strains
produce small amounts of low-quality fiber.(12)
In order for Cannabis plants to be classified as hemp under
European Economic Community standards, which have been proposed
in Kentucky and Colorado, the plants must contain no more than
0.3% THC.(13) Marijuana on the other hand, ranges from one
percent to over ten percent THC.(14) THC was only identified as
the active ingredient in marijuana in 1974,(15) so classification
based on psychoactive content was not possible when Cannabis was
first regulated in the 1930s. In 1995 however, a simple chemical
analysis can accurately differentiate between Cannabis-hemp and
Cannabis-marijuana.(16) The European Economic Community certifies
twelve Cannabis seed varieties that produce only high-fiber,
low-THC hemp.(17)

III. BENEFITS OF HEMP PRODUCTION

Hemp is touted by activists and environmentalists as a
possible solution to deforestation.(18) Activists claim that
hemp, the source of the world s longest and strongest natural
fiber, is a far more efficient source of industrial fiber and
pulp for paper than timber.(19) According to industry estimates,
up to fifty percent of the annual commercial timber harvest is
chipped for use in industrial fiber products, such as particle
board and as pulp for paper mills.(20)

Less than twenty percent of the harvest is used as raw
lumber for planks and beams.(21) A dated United States
Department of Agriculture ("U.S.D.A.") report claims that an acre
of hemp can produce four times as much pulp and fiber as an acre
of trees.(22) However, recent reports from Europe, Australia,
and Canada indicate that the pulp and fiber return from hemp may
be even greater than the old U.S.D.A. estimates.(23)
Additionally, unlike kenaf and other alternative paper crops,
hemp can grow in a variety of climates.(24) Farmers claim that
they can grow hemp without pesticide or herbicide application
because it grows quickly and is not likely to fall to
disease.(25) Hemp also has water and fertilizer requirements
similar to corn and wheat.(26)
In addition to fiber, hemp produces cellulose-rich hurds and
seeds. The hurds are used to make paper and a variety of other
cellulose-based products ranging from insulation to degradable
plastics.(27) Hemp seeds are a rich source of oil and, like soy
beans, are very high in protein.(28) Hemp seed oil contains
several essential fatty acids which some researchers claim
strengthen the human immune system.(29) The seed oil can also be
synthesized into methanol and burned like diesel fuel.(30) While
some of these applications are established aspects of the
hemp-fiber industry, strong and plentiful fibers along with
edible seeds continue to be hemp s most attractive economic
qualities.(31) Industrial hemp's economic potential interests
many Colorado farmers who are eager to begin production.(32)

IV.THE COLORADO HEMP PRODUCTION ACT OF 1995

The Colorado Act attempts to clarify the language in the
1937 Act by defining hemp as "all parts of the plant Cannabis
sativa L. ... contain[ing] less than one and four-tenths percent
[1.4%] concentration of THC."(33) It also amends the definitions
of marijuana and marijuana concentrate to include only those
Cannabis plants that contain an amount equal to or more than 1.4%
THC.(34) As a safety provision, the Colorado Act includes a
requirement that hemp plants contain cannabidiol (CBD) in
concentrations equal to or greater than the THC
concentration.(35) Plants with high CBD content overpower any
psychoactive effects associated with the THC.(36) The Colorado
Act requires the commissioner of the state Department of
Agriculture to license all hemp farmers and handlers in the
state, and to designate authorized sources of industrial hemp
seed.(37) Under the Colorado Act, farmers may only plant
designated hemp cultivars, and hemp fields must be inspected at
least twice during the growth cycle with samples taken for THC
analysis.(38) Crops that exceed the THC limits must be destroyed
at the farmer's expense.(39) The Colorado Act incorporates a
0.4% buffer between hemp and marijuana requiring criminal
prosecution only when crops test greater than 1.4% THC.(40)
However, this is an unlikely consequence because generally no
commercial hemp strains produce THC concentrations greater than
one percent.(41)

V. HEMP PRODUCTION UNDER FEDERAL LAW

As of this writing, the United States Drug Enforcement
Administration ("D.E.A.") fails to acknowledge the difference
between hemp and marijuana.(42) A letter faxed by the Special
Agent in Charge of the D.E.A.'s Rocky Mountain Division to the
members of the Colorado State Senate Committee on Agriculture
just two hours before the final committee hearing on the Colorado
Act caused the committee to postpone the measure
indefinitely.(43) The letter characterized the Colorado Act as a
subterfuge, charging that the Colorado Act was no more than a
shallow ruse being advanced by those who seek to legalize
marijuana.(44) The D.E.A. expressed concern that, if passed, the
Colorado Act would add the force of a Colorado statute to the
perception that marijuana is `OK.'(45)

The letter also pointed out that in the D.E.A.'s opinion,
the Colorado Act would conflict with standing federal law.(46)
The federal law cited by the D.E.A. defines marihuana as "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, manufacture, salt, derivative,
mixture, 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."(47)

This statutory language is identical to that in the 1937 Act.(48)
Before passage of the 1937 Act, proponents of marijuana
regulation had assured Congress that this language would not
interfere with the legitimate commercial hemp industry.(49) In
1937 and again in 1945, Congress made clear that it was not
delegating to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics ("F.B.N.") the
authority to destroy the legitimate commercial hemp industry.(50)
After the 1937 Act began to impede the domestic hemp
industry in the late 1930s, the United States Army and Navy,
large consumers of hemp for rope and canvas, relied on imports
from the Philippines to meet their needs.(51) When the
Philippines fell to the Japanese in early 1942, the United
States was left without a source of hemp.(52) The government
responded by launching the Hemp for Victory campaign that
encouraged American farmers to grow hemp.(53) Between 1942 and
1945, without any change in the federal law, the United States
cultivated over 400,000 acres of hemp.(54)
After World War II ended, the commercial hemp industry began
to decline, due in part to the F.B.N.'s registration
requirements.(55) In 1945, at the request of commercial hemp
farmers, the United States Senate conducted hearings regarding
the coverage of certain drugs under the federal narcotics
laws.(56) During testimony before the Senate Finance Committee,
William S. Wood, Deputy Commissioner of the F.B.N.,(57)
commenting on the definition of marijuana, guaranteed that the
definition would not have a negative impact on the commercial
hemp industry.(58) In fact, the Rens Hemp Company raised
industrial hemp in Wisconsin legally under the federal definition
of marijuana until 1957.(59) But by 1958, there were no longer
any commercial hemp producers in the United States.(60)
In 1970, Congress repealed the 1937 Act(61) and replaced it with
the current federal narcotics law, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (62) ("1970 Act"). During
passage of the 1970 Act, Congress did not amend the federal
statutory definition of marijuana,(63) nor did it ex-
press an intent to do so.(64) In fact, the House commission
explicitly recommended exempting the emergency production of hemp
from prohibition.(65) The 1970 Act expresses an intent(66) to
bring the United States into compliance with the United Nations
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961.(67) The
Convention recognizes that there is a difference between Cannabis
grown for its resin (marijuana) and Cannabis grown exclusively
for industrial purposes.(68) The Convention also exempts
industrial Cannabis from coverage and requires parties to the
Convention only to adopt such measures as may be necessary to
prevent the misuse of, and all traffic in, the leaves of the
cannabis plant.(69) This is exactly what the Colorado Act
attempts to accomplish.
In 1973, President Nixon transferred drug enforcement
authority from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department,
abolishing the F.B.N. and creating the D.E.A.(70)
The Reorganization Plan mentions narcotics and marijuana but
neither limits nor expands the D.E.A. s authority beyond that of
the F.B.N.(71) This transfer was the last federal executive or
legislative action that could have affected the federal statutory
definition of marijuana. When attempting to discern the meaning
of the federal definition of marijuana, courts have consistently
returned to the intent of the 1937 Congress.(72)
However, these cases all involved questions about Cannabis
in the drug context. No federal or state court has ever extended
the federal statutory definition of marijuana to include the
legitimate commercial hemp industry.(73)
The Colorado Act was the first legislative attempt by a
state to revive its commercial hemp industry. The D.E.A.'s
position on that legislation reflects an intent to wipe out the
legitimate hemp industry.(74) Such an intent seems to exceed that
agency's delegated authority under the ultravires doctrine.(75)
If Congress did somehow delegate authority to the D.E.A. to
include commercial hemp crops in the definition of marijuana,
then that agency's 1995 position represents a reversal of policy
in existence since 1957 (when the F.B.N. knew that the Rens Hemp
Company was growing hemp in Wisconsin) (76) and, in effect,
creates law.(77)

This reversal should impose the notice and comment
requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure
Act,(78) with which the D.E.A. did not comply.(79)
In short, no federal law or authority should prevent farmers
in Colorado or any other state from raising legitimate industrial
hemp crops. To quote Harry Anslinger, "they can go ahead and
raise hemp just as they have always done it."(80)

VI.CONCLUSION

Other federal actions reflect an ambiguity that, at least
implicitly, notes a difference between hemp and marijuana. As
recently as June 3, 1994, President Clinton issued an executive
order that lists hemp as one of several strategic crops that are
essential to national security in times of crisis.(81) The
U.S.D.A. retained ten bags of hemp seed from the Hemp for Victory
program at the National Seed Laboratory in Ft. Collins, Colorado,
for future emergencies. When those seeds were tested in 1994,
however, they were not viable, leaving the United States without
the means to produce one of its designated strategic crops.(82)
In this era of thermonuclear war, it is unlikely that hemp, or
any other crop, is essential to the national defense. Yet hemp's
environmental and economic promise have spurred research efforts
in several countries and
incrementally imposing general, extra-statutory obligations ).
may contribute to our future economic security.
As of 1994, the governments of Canada, Australia, Great
Britain, and the Netherlands all permitted their farmers to grow
hemp crops for research and limited industrial applications.(83)
France, Spain, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovenia, China, and
Russia, on the other hand, continue to produce industrial hemp as
they have for hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of
years.(84) Cannabis-hemp strains are distinct from psychoactive
Cannabis-marijuana strains and this distinction is identifiable
and predictable. There is a cognitive difference, a botanical
difference, and a legal difference. If the federal government
adopted the Colorado Act's new definition of marijuana,
existing law would be clarified. This clarification would allow
for the strict regulation of narcotics, while preventing the
D.E.A. from continuing to misinterpret the federal law and the
inadvertent suppression of the legitimate hemp industry.


1. Note from President George Washington to Mt. Vernon's gardener
(1794), reprinted in CHRIS CONRAD, HEMP: LIFELINE TO THE FUTURE
305 (1993).

2.Colo. S.B. 132, 60th Gen. Assembly, 1st Gen. Sess. (1995).

3. Kentucky to Study Hemp, LEXINGTON REG., Nov. 25, 1994, at A1.

4. Telephone Interview with Jake Graves, Member of the Kentucky
Governor's Task Force on Hemp and Related Products Commission
(Jan. 25, 1995).

5. Oregon, California, and Hawaii are considering legislation
similar to the Colorado Act, while the state Departments of
Agriculture in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Georgia are negotiating
with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to find a way for
their farmers to legally cultivate hemp. Telephone Interview
with David Martin and Laura Kriho, Members of the Colorado Hemp
Initiative Project (Apr. 3, 1995).

6. Julie Deardorff, Clothing Industry Going to Pot, CHI. TRIB.,
Jan. 24, 1995, at A12.

7. Pub. L. No. 75-238, ch. 553, 50 Stat. 551 (1937) (repealed
1970). But see Taxation of Marihuana: Hearings on H.R. 6906
Before the Senate Comm. on Finance, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. 7, (17)
(1937) [herein after Hearings] (statement of Clinton M. Hester,
Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Dep't of Treasury: The production
and sale of hemp and its products for industrial purposes will
not be adversely affected by this bill.) (statement of Harry J.
Anslinger, Commissioner, Federal Bureau of Narcotics: I would
say [persons engaged in the legitimate uses of the hemp plant]
are not only amply protected under this act, but they can go
ahead and raise hemp just as they have always done it.).

8. Robert C. Clarke & David W. Pate, Medical Marijuana, in HEMP
TODAY 303, 304 (Ed Rosenthal ed., 1994).

9.Id. at 305.

10. MEL FRANK & ED ROSENTHAL, MARIJUANA GROWER'S GUIDE 21 (rev.
ed. 1990).

11. Clarke & Pate, supra note 8, at 305.

12. Id.

13. Commission Regulation 1164/89 of 28 April 1989 Laying Down
Detailed Rules Concerning the Aid for Fibre Flax and Hemp, Annex
C, 1989 O.J. (L 121) 10.
14. Clarke & Pate, supra note 8, at 305. The strongest marijuana
on record, seized by the United States Drug Enforcement
Administration in Alaska, contained 37% THC. Telephone Interview
with Special Agent Ron Wilson, U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (Nov.
22, 1994).

15. Ed Rosenthal, Foreword to HEMP TODAY, supra note 8, at xiii,
xiv.

16. See Commission Regulation 1164/89, supra note 14, at 9-10
(detailing the method for quantitative determination of THC
content).

17. Id. at Annex B, 9.

18. See, e.g., CONRAD, supra note 1, at 66-68; JACK HERER, HEMP &
THE MARIJUANA CONSPIRACY: THE
EMPEROR WEARS NO CLOTHES 11 (9th ed. 1993).

19. HERER, supra note 18, at 7.

20. RAINFOREST ACTION NETWORK, CUT WASTE, NOT TREES: HOW TO SAVE
FORESTS, CUT POLLUTION AND CREATE JOBS 8 (1995).

21. FOREST SERV., U.S. DEP'T OF AGRIC., AN ANALYSIS OF THE TIMBER
SITUATION IN THE UNITED STATES: 1989-2040, reprinted in
RAINFOREST ACTION NETWORK, supra note 20, at 16 n.2.

22. Lester H. Dewey & Jason L. Merrill, Hemp Hurds as Papermaking
Material, in U.S. DEP'T OF AGRIC., BULLETIN NO. 404, at 24
(1916).

23. Id.; S. Hennink et al., Fiber Hemp in the Ukraine, 1991, in
HEMP TODAY, supra note 8, at 261, 274; Wolfgang Speilmeyer, Hemp
in Australia: Tasmanian Trials, in HEMP TODAY, supra note 8, at
189,191; H.M.G. van der Werf, Fiber Hemp in France, in HEMP
TODAY, supra note 8, at 213, 215; Hayo M.G. van der Werf, Paper
from Dutch Hemp?, in HEMP TODAY, supra note 8, at 225, 230. The
four to one ratio reported in Bulletin 404 is based on an average
yield of 3.5 tons per acre of hemp fiber and hurds. Present
yields exceed five tons per acre.

24. David P. West, Fiber Wars: The Extinction of Kentucky Hemp,
in HEMP TODAY, supra note 8, at 5, 14-19.

25. HEMPTECH, INDUSTRIAL HEMP 18-19 (1995).

26. Id. at 19.

27. See generally id. at 24-30.

28. Don Wirtshafter, Why Hemp Seeds?, in HEMP TODAY, supra note
8, at 169, 171.

29. UDO ERASMUS, FATS AND OILS: THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO FATS AND
OILS IN HEALTH AND NUTRITION 38-39 (1986).

30. Ed Rosenthal, Hemp as Biomass?, in HEMP TODAY, supra note 8,
at 139, 141.

31. Id. at 142-43; Ed Rosenthal, Introduction to Section 3:
National Reports, in HEMP TODAY, supra note 8, at 185, 186-87.

32. Interview with Bob Winter, President of the Weld County Farm
Bureau, in Denver, Colorado (Apr. 5,1995).

33. Colo. S.B. 132, supra note 2, 1 (would amend COLO. REV.
STAT. 35-27.5-103(4)).

34. Id. (would amend COLO. REV. STAT. 35-27.5-103(6)-(7)).

35. Id. (would amend COLO. REV. STAT. 35-27.5-106(1)(b)). CBD
is another chemical compound found in Cannabis resin, but it has
no psychoactive properties. Rather, when smoked, CBD produces
feelings of drowsiness and a headache in the user. FRANK &
ROSENTHAL, supra note 10, at 36.

36. FRANK & ROSENTHAL, supra note 10, at 22, 36; West, supra note
24, at 43.

37. Colo. S.B. 132, supra note 2, 1 (would amend COLO. REV.
STAT. 35-27.5-105(1)-(2)).

38. Id. (would amend COLO. REV. STAT. 35-27.5-106(1)).

39. Id. (would amend COLO. REV. STAT. 35-27.5-106(1)(b)).

40. Id.

41. HEMPTECH, supra note 25, at 4, 20.

42. Letter from Philip W. Perry, Special Agent in Charge, D.E.A.
Rocky Mountain Division, to Don Ament, Chairman, Colorado State
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Energy 1-2
(Feb. 16, 1995) (on file with the University of Colorado Law
Review).

43. Telephone Interview with Lloyd Casey, Colorado State Senator
(Feb. 17, 1995).

44. Letter from Philip W. Perry to Don Ament, supra note 42, at
3.

45. Id. at 2.

46. Id. at 1. D.E.A. headquarters confirmed that Perry s letter
reflected the official position of the D.E.A. Letter from
Catherine H. Shaw, Chief, D.E.A.Office of Congressional and
Public Affairs, to Thomas J. Ballanco 1 (Mar. 23, 1995) (on file
with the University of Colorado Law Review).

47. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970,
21 U.S.C. 802(16) (1988).

48. Pub. L. No. 75-238, ch. 553, 50 Stat. 551(1937) (repealed
1970).

49. Hearings, supra note 7, at 7, 17; see also infra note 60 and
accompanying text.

50. Hearings, supra note 7, at 7, 17.

51. CONRAD, supra note 1, at 56 (quoting SACKETT & HOBBS, HEMP:
A WAR CROP (1942)); Hemp Being Grown in U.S. as War Cuts off
Imports, SCI. NEWSL., May 30, 1942, at 140, reprinted in HERER,
supra note 18, at 159; West, supra note 24, at 36.

52. West, supra note 24, at 36.

53. HEMP FOR VICTORY (U.S. Dep't of Agric. 1942) (film transcript
in HEMP TODAY, supra note 8, app. at 413-14).

54. CONRAD, supra note 1, at 56-58; West, supranote 24, at 37.

55. Richard L. Miller, Hemp as a Crop for Missouri Farmers:
Markets, Economics, Cultivation, Law 38-41 (Summer 1991) (on file
with the University of Colorado Law Review); see also West, supra
note 24, at 39-46 (discussing the demise of commercial hemp
production after World War II).

56. Hemp and Marihuana: Hearings on H.R. 2348 Before the Senate
Comm. on Finance, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. 1 (1945) (statement of
Rep. Joseph P. O'Hara).

57. The F.B.N. was the Treasury Department agency created to
enforce federal narcotics laws. It was the forerunner of the
D.E.A.

58. Hemp and Marijuana, supra note 56, at 18 (statement of
William S. Wood, Deputy Commissioner of the F.B.N.). During the
hearings, the following exchange also took place: Sen. La
Follette: Because it is perfectly clear if you read those Senate
committee hearings that the Senate committee was very much
concerned to be certain that in enacting this drastic piece of
legislation they weren't putting the [F.B.N.] in a position to
wipe out this legitimate hemp industry. Mr. Wood: Which, of
course, the [F.B.N.] doesn't want to do. Id.

59. West, supra note 24, at 41.

60. See id. at 42.

61. Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1292 (1970).

62. 21 U.S.C. 801-971 (1988 & Supp. V 1993).

63. Compare id. 802(15) with Pub. L. No. 75-238, ch. 553, 50
Stat. 551 (1937) (repealed 1970).

64. H.R. REP. NO. 1444, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 12(1970), reprinted
in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4566, 4569 (The drugs with respect to which
these controls are enforced initially are those listed in the
bill. These drugs are those which by law or regulation have been
placed under control under existing law. (emphasis added)).

65. Id. at 18, reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4566, 4584.

66. 21 U.S.C. 801(7) (1988).

67. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Mar. 30,1961, 18 U.S.T.
1408.

68. Id. at 1421, art. 28, 2.

69. Id. 3.

70. Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1973, 38 Fed. Reg. 15,-932 (1973),
reprinted in 5 U.S.C. app. at 1563 (199-4).

71. Id.

72. See, e.g., United States v. Gagnon, 635 F.2d 766, 770 (10th
Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1018 (1981); United States v.
Kelly, 527 F.2d 961, 964 (9th Cir. 1976); United States v.
Walton, 514F.2d 201, 203 (D.C. Cir. 1975).

73. Neither the annotations to the federal statute nor an
extensive search of the Westlaw state and federal databases
revealed any cases interpreting the definition of marijuana in
the context of the commercial hemp industry. The only case
involving commercial hemp was a suit in tort by the United States
to recover damages to some of its hemp in storage in a
warehouse in 1946. See United States v. City of Columbus, 209
F.2d 857 (6th Cir. 1954).

74. Hemp and Marijuana, supra note 56, at 18.

75. For an explanation of the ultra vires doctrine in the context
of administrative law, see ARTHUR E. BONFIELD & MICHAEL ASIMOW,
STATE AND FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 422-31 (1989).

76. See supra text accompanying note 59.

77. Alcaraz v. Block, 746 F.2d 593, 613 (9th Cir. 1984)
(substantive rules are rules which create law and are usually
implementary to an existing law,
78. 5 U.S.C. 553 (1994).

79. An exhaustive search of the Federal Register indicates that
the D.E.A. never proposed an amendment to the federal definition
of marijuana to include industrial hemp.

80. Hearings, supra note 7, at 17.

81. Exec. Order No. 12,919, 59 Fed. Reg. 29,525 (1994).

82.West, supra note 24, at 43-44.

83. HEMPTECH, supra note 25, at 31-38.

84.Id.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Re-distributed as a public service by the:
Colorado Hemp Initiative Project
P.O. Box 729, Nederland, CO 80466
Hotline: (303) 784-5632
Email: <cohip@levellers.org>
Web: http://www.welcomehome.org/cohip.html
"Fighting 60 years of lies and dis-information
with 10,000 years of history and fact."
**********************************************
To be added to or removed from our mailing list,
send email with the word SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE in the title.

INDEX

HOME