Hemp crop 6

Every step of hemp growing involved guarantees that no portion of
crops would be diverted for illicit marijuana use.

Toward the end of the war, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics decided to
regard mature hemp stalks as marijuana if a single leaf remained on them, a
stand later modified to permit 10% of the leaves. (277) It was unclear
who would count and record the original number of leaves on each stalk in
order to calculate the percentage. Because marijuana taxes ranged from $
1 to $ 100 an ounce, and stalk harvests were measured in tons, the effect
would have been to extinguish the American hemp industry. Narcotics Bureau
chief Harry Anslinger told the industry that the tax would include the
entire stalk and come to about $ 32,000 a ton. (278) Bureau Assistant
Chief Counsel B. T. Mitchell stated that Anslinger personally decided to
classify mature stalks as marijuana. "He handled that himself," agreed
Deputy Commissioner Will S. Wood. Neither Mitchell nor Wood offered an
explanation for Anslinger's action, nor apparently did Anslinger reveal
one. (279)

The reason cannot have been diversion of industrial hemp crop leaves
or flowers from the growing field into the illicit marijuana market. In
1937 when Anslinger urged federal regulation of cannabis commerce he told
the U. S. Senate that only one instance had ever been involved in the
illicit traffic at all. This case in Texas is the only case I know of."
(280) In 1945 a private Wisconsin mill operator declared, "In the 30
years we have operated and grown large acreages we have never heard of one
instance where there was an illicit use made of the leaves of this hemp
plant....We have never heard of anybody trying to get into a field and take
the leaves for illicit purposes." (281) An Illinois hemp plant manager
(who was a former school board member in his community) concurred, saying
he was "on the alert and made considerable effort to determine if this
hemp plant was being harvested by anyone for narcotic uses...[but] never
observed anyone in the act of gathering the plant for this purpose." (282)

Nor can the reason have been diversion of residual leaves of flowers
after harvest. Upon inquiry in 1991, a senior French hemp industry
official dismissed the possibility of marijuana thieves attacking between
time of harvest and delivery of stalks to mills: "There is never a theft
between the harvest and utilization by industry for at this stage the
foliage (leaves and flowers) have practically disappeared as dust."
(283) As to conditions at mills themselves, in 1945 a senior U. S.
Department of Agriculture official stated, "We have never had any
difficulty at our own [government] mills. We have had no reports of
anyone attempting to secure leaves or blossoms nor have I heard of such
attempts being made at the privately-owned mills." (284)

The definition of "mature stalks" was discussed when Congress passed
the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, as hemp industrialists wanted to be sure fiber
harvest was permitted before the plant reached biological maturity, and
that regular cultivation, harvest, and milling practices would be
unaffected by the law. (285) The Treasury Department also accepted
amendments to the bill that exempted oil, oil meal, oil cake, and seed cake
products that happened to contain small residual quantities of "a few
twigs, leaves, or portions of the flowering tops." (286)

The definition of "mature stalks," the acceptance of small amounts
of marijuana in hemp delivered to mills, and the absence of any illicit
diversion of hemp crops were all well established in 1945 when the Bureau
of Narcotics issued its ruling about residual leaves on stalks. Having
failed to discover any reason for the ruling, Congress amended the
anti-marijuana law to nullify the Bureau's action.

First, Congress exempted from the marijuana tax "any transfer of
marihuana from one miller to another miller, or from a farmer to a miller."
(287) Millers, like hemp growers, now had to register with the Treasury
Department but Congress specified criteria for miller registration:
The Secretary [of the Treasury] shall not permit the
registration of any
person....unless in the opinion of the Secretary such person (or if a
corporation, each officer thereof) is a person of good moral character and
unless in the opinion of the Secretary such person is a person of suitable
financial standing, intends to engage in good faith in the business of
manufacturing or producing fiber or fiber products from the plant Cannabis
sativa L. on a commercial basis, and is not seeking registration under this
section for the purpose of facilitating the unlawful diversion of
marihuana. Any person who is registered under this section....shall afford
agents of the Bureau of Narcotics ready access at all times to any part of
the premises of such person and the right to inspect any and all books,
papers, records, or documents connected with the activities of such person
in dealing in, manufacturing, and processing Cannabis sativa L.--and fiber
or fiber products thereof, and the handling of marihuana. The Secretary
may cancel or may refuse to renew....the registration of any such person.
(288)

Administrative regulations supplemented the law. For example:
Investigation shall include a comprehensive inquiry to determine
whether the applicant is equipped with technical facilities and technical
skill adequate to establish and maintain the proposed milling operation
with a reasonable degree of efficiency; whether the applicant has a market
for the prospective fiber products; and whether there are or will be
appropriate safeguards against diversion of marihuana while en route to, or
at, the mill premises. (289)

Upon learning of plans to exempt hemp stalks from the marijuana
transfer tax even if they had residual leaves or flowers, the Federal
Bureau of Narcotics declared that upon passage of such legislation the
Bureau would require mills to erect high fences and to hire guards to
patrol the premises. (290) Apparently no such requirement resulted,
however.

In May 1945 the Bureau's Deputy Commissioner Will S. Wood told
Congress that the Bureau did not wish to destroy the hemp industry. (291)

In the 1940's, as in the 1930's, when hemp industrialists protested
anti-marijuana measures that would harm the hemp industry, Congress took
decisive action to guarantee continuance of the industry. Clearly Congress
intended to encourage hemp growing, not discourage it. Hemp producing
states took a similar attitude. Growing marijuana was illegal in Iowa in
1946, but the anti-marijuana law said, "Any person, firm, or corporation
engaged in growing cannabis for the purpose of obtaining therefrom seed or
fiber or engaged in the processing of hemp for either of such purposes
under contract and holding a federal license therefor shall be exempt from
the provisions of this section." (292)

In the 1960's Congress provided further protection to hemp growers by
ratifying the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which took force in the
United States in 1967. The treaty explicitly protects "cultivation of the
cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre and seed) or
horticultural purposes." (293) Under the long standing judicial doctrine,
treaties supersede any conflicting federal or state legislation. By
ratifying this treaty Congress protected the hemp industry against any
subsequent national or state prohibition attempt.

Although hemp farming declined dramatically in the late 1940's, a half
dozen private hemp companies remained active. In 1952 the U. S. Department
of Agriculture published a pamphlet advising farmers how to grow hemp, and
in 1953 124 growers were still registered. By 1958, however, commercial
hemp farming no longer existed in the United States. (294) When the
federal anti-marijuana laws underwent a major revision in 1970, Congress
deleted mechanisms for registering growers and processors. (295)
Commercial hemp production and processing remained legal, but federal
registration mechanism under which the industry had operated since 1937
were abandoned, apparently as irrelevant to the production agriculture
scene of 1970.

When the federal government abandoned regulation of commercial hemp,
regulatory authority passed to the states. Each state has authority to
establish a mechanism by which producers and processors of hemp can
register as legitimate business enterprises, with such state certification
allowing them to operate even though marijuana remains illegal--just as was
done under the federal system.



UNITED STATES--LAW IN 1991

The current federal definition of marijuana still keeps the hemp
industry legal:
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, 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.
(296)

Missouri statute language is almost the same:
"Marihuana," all parts of the plant genus Cannabis in any species or
form thereof, including, but not limited to Cannabis Sativa L., Cannabis
Indica, Cannabis Americana, Cannabis Ruderalis, and Cannabis Gigantua,
whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any
part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,
mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. It does not
include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the oil or cake
made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt,
derivative, mixture or preparation of the stalks (except the resin
extracted therefrom), fiber, oil or cake, or the sterilized seed of the
plant which is incapable of germination." (297)

Hemp growing in Missouri is as legal as it has always been. The
grower, however, must be able to prove that the crop is not being used
illicitly for marijuana. Although technically a state certificate is not
necessary for such proof, state registration would officially identify a
grower or processor as pursuing legal commerce. Without a registration
system, anyone interested in growing or processing hemp will likely fear
prosecution for cultivating or transacting in marijuana. A state
registration system would benefit hemp farmers and simplify marijuana law
enforcement. Any grower without a state certificate would be hard pressed
to claim that the crop is legitimate.

Because hemp commerce is legal and is exempt from drug control laws,
interstate commerce in hemp is legal. Missouri farmers and processors
would have a right to engage in interstate and international commerce.

Note: The federal government has not relinquished its regulatory
authority over drugs. State registration as a hemp grower or processor
would not give the registrant permission to grow or process cannabis for
medicinal purposes.

Also: Holders of a state registration certificate would be allowed to
produce hemp, not marijuana. Holders would not be exempt from obeying
anti-marijuana laws. Holders could not lawfully permit someone to strip
leaves from fields or otherwise divert any part of the crop for illicit
purposes. Such conduct would be liable to harsh criminal penalties, and we
may be confident that law enforcement authorities would take keen interest
in observing the fate of hemp crops.

A certificate would merely shift the legal "burden of proof."
Currently, without a registration system, a Missouri hemp cultivator would
be presumed to be cultivating marijuana. Upon such accusation, the hemp
farmer would have to prove otherwise. If a cultivator is a registered hemp
producer, however, the legal assumption is that the crop is lawful hemp,
and the prosecutor has to prove otherwise. Without a registration system,
criminal charges against a hemp cultivator would be automatic (although
the farmer might eventually prevail in court). With a registration system,
criminal charges would never be filed unless a prosecutor believed the
farmer was diverting part of the crop for use as marijuana--and authorities
never detected even one such incident while the federal registration system
was operating. Under state registration hemp farmers could go about their
business unmolested, just as corn or hog farmers do. Although a
registration system would not change anti-marijuana laws, the shift in
legal burden of proof would make hemp production a viable agricultural
proposition.

There is nothing contradictory about encouraging hemp while
discouraging marijuana. Although they come from the cannabis plant, they
are different products. While the federal registration system operated,
agriculture agencies encouraged cannabis growth while law enforcement
agencies destroyed unregistered cannabis acreage. This policy is
documented by government records: (298)

Year Registered Growers Legal Harvest Illegal Harvest
Destroyed

1938 371 1,400 acres
12,900 acres
1939 174 1,650
6,500
1940 219 2,600
19,300
1941 566 9,600
23,300
1942 8,929 43,800
6,600
1943 14,913 186,700
150
1944 ------ 54,600
110


Experience suggests that the following elements would help a state
hemp registration system to succeed.

1. Evidence that grower has identified a buyer for crop, or that
processor will receive raw materials from identified growers.

2. Evidence that applicants have sufficient financial backing for
their enterprise.

3. Posting bond to guarantee compliance with anti-marijuana laws.
A percentage of such bond might be returned annually if good conduct
continues.

4. Strict record keeping by which farmers identify exact areas used
for raising crops and report disposition of crops, and records by which
processors account for all raw materials received.

5. Periodic renewal of registration, and means for revoking
registration.

6. Regulating agency should be one that encourages cannabis hemp
commerce (such as Agriculture, Conservation, Natural Resources) rather
than one oriented toward restricting cannabis marijuana commerce (such as
Public Safety, Mental Health).

Examination of old federal statutes and regulations, noted above, could
benefit discussion of a Missouri hemp commerce registration system. The
systems of Minnesota, France, and Canada may also be of interest.

MINNESOTA

Minnesota has a system for hemp commerce. For many years registered
persons could harvest wild hemp as well as cultivated crops, (299) but in
1969 the law was changed to allow only commerce in cultivated crops. (300)
As of 1981 Minnesota law read as follows:

18.321 Growing hemp (cannabis sativa L.) for commercial purposes;
licenses
Growing or maintenance of hemp, Cannabis sativa L., is permitted only
for commercial uses, as herein defined. Commercial uses are such
adaptations of hemp as are necessary and proper for the manufacture of
rope, sacks, and other sisal hemp products and such other non-injurious
commercial products, including the manufacture of batts, yarn, thread,
cordage, merchandise, cloth, and such other products as may be made from
linen fiber, as have been or may be developed; submitted to the
commissioner and approved by him. The commissioner is hereby authorized,
and it shall be his duty, to license and authorize the growing of hemp when
the derivatives thereof are to be used solely for the commercial uses
herein defined. Any person desiring to grow hemp for commercial purposes,
as herein defined, shall file an application for a license therefor with
the commissioner, giving a description and the area of land intended to be
so used. The commissioner shall issue a license to the applicant for the
growing such hemp for such commercial uses as are specified in the
application and license, and the growing of hemp, pursuant to the terms of
the license issued by the commissioner shall be lawful to the extent
granted by the license.

18.322 Licensee to notify commissioner
Any person to whom a license for commercial growing of hemp, Cannabis
sativa L., is issued shall notify the commissioner of the sale or
distribution thereof, and the names of the persons to whom such hemp is
sold or distributed.

18.323 Penalty
Any person violating any of the provisions of sections 18.321 to
18.322 is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Those statutes remained essentially unchanged into 1991, except for
modifications designed to remove gender prejudice in Minnesota statutes.
Apparently Minnesota had no registered commercial hemp growers in 1991.


FRANCE

Although marijuana is prohibited, hemp is protected as a textile plant
throughout the European Economic Community. (301) In France a farmer who
wishes to raise hemp must first obtain a contract for the crop. A person
cannot simply grow hemp on speculation. Crop yield is estimated and a
price for the crop is set before field production begins. The producer
must notify the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Agriculture. Only seed
certified for producing cannabis with low drug content can be used. Crops
are tested during the growing season to be sure drug content remains low.
In 1991 a senior hemp industry official described anti-marijuana
regulations as "very strict." (302)


CANADA

Canadian anti-marijuana legislation is even more stringent than U. S.
law. In Canada marijuana is defined as all parts of Cannabis sativa. No
exceptions are made for mature stalks or any other portion of the plant.
(303) This rigid definition is confirmed by case law. The law, however,
explicitly allows farmers to apply for a license to grow hemp. (304)
Apparently such a license is obtainable, otherwise the Canadian hemp paper
operation (described above) would have been impossible.

GO TO NEXT PART

GO TO PREVIOUS PART

INDEX

HOME