Every year
more than 40% of the industrial timber logged worldwide
goes toward making paper. That percentage is expected to
reach 50% in the near future. More than 90% of the writing
paper made in the United States is from virgin tree fiber.(1)
American magazines and newspapers alone account for the
loss of 272 million trees annually which is roughly equivalent
to one tree per person per year.(2)
Unfortunately, only limited efforts have been made to research
and develop alternative materials that could be used to
meet America’s need for paper products without destroying
our forests. Alternative sources of fiber such as banana
fiber, kenaf, flax, esparto grass, ramie, sisal, abaca and
industrial hemp are all renewable resources that can be
grown and harvested to produce paper products in an efficient
and sustainable fashion. Industrial hemp is widely recognized
as having the greatest potential as an alternative source
of paper and can also be used as a raw material for many
other products including oil, clothing, plastic, building
materials, rope, carpeting, and even bioenergy. In addition,
industrial hemp is a very fast-growing and robust crop and
can be produced with no dangerous pesticides or herbicides.(3)
A report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that
10,000 acres of industrial hemp could produce the same amount
of pulp for paper as 40,500 acres of forest.(4)
Unfortunately, misguided policies have prevented American
farmers from growing what could be a sustainable and profitable
crop. Federal drug enforcement policymakers mistakenly consider
industrial hemp a threat because it is related to the group
of plants commonly called marijuana. While industrial hemp
and marijuana are members of the same species, industrial
hemp contains such small amounts of the substances in marijuana
that produce a psychotropic response that industrial hemp
simply cannot be used as a drug. Furthermore, industrial
hemp plants look different from marijuana plants and are
grown with very different farming techniques.
The United States has a long tradition of hemp production
and the misguided policies that restrict its cultivation
have only come about during the last several decades. Many
of our nation’s founding fathers including George
Washington and Thomas Jefferson recognized the value of
hemp and grew the crop on their farms. In addition, the
Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper and
the first American flag was made from hemp fiber.(5)
Many state legislatures and governors are beginning to
rediscover the potential environmental and economic benefits
of permitting and encouraging the production of alternative
fibers such as industrial hemp. The following is a list
of state legislative initiatives designed to protect forests,
prevent pollution, promote a stronger economy, and help
farmers become more profitable by growing industrial hemp
and other fibrous crops.
Arizona
Senate
Bill 1519 declares that universities under the jurisdiction
of the Arizona board of regents may study the feasibility
and desirability of industrial hemp production. The bill
requests the studies to include an analysis of all of the
following:
- Required soils and growing conditions
- Seed availability and varieties
- Harvest methods
- Market economies
- Environmental benefits
- Levels of THC required for successful crops
- Identification of industrial hemp and its THC content
Senate
Bill 1431 was introduced in 2002 and is similar to SB
1519. The bill allows state universities to study the feasibility
and desirability of industrial hemp production in the state
if the university receives private funding to conduct the
study.
California
Assembly
Bill 448 was introduced in 2001 and died in committee.
The bill would have given individuals who meet specific
requirements the opportunity to obtain a license to grow,
harvest, possess, process, sell, and buy industrial hemp
for commercial purposes. Under the bill, the licenses would
be reviewed by the Attorney General’s office and issued
by the Secretary of Food and Agriculture. The bill defines
industrial hemp as all parts and varieties of the plant
Cannabis sativa that contain a tetrahydrocannabinol concentration
of 3/10 of 1% (0.003), or less, by weight.
Assembly
Bill 388 was introduced in 2001 and vetoed by the governor
in 2002. The bill requested that the University of California
conduct an assessment of economic opportunities available
through the production of specialty or alternative fiber
crops including industrial hemp, kenaf, and flax. The assessment
would have included:
- An estimation of market demand and likely crop prices
- Identification of potential barriers to profitability
- Identification of production, legal, processing, and
marketing
Hawaii
House Concurrent Resolution 51 was introduced in 2002 and
asks the state procurement office to study the feasibility
of requiring state and county agencies to give preference
to the purchase of recyclable or compostable carpeting for
government office buildings. The bill points out that one
percent of the state’s landfill space is occupied
by non-biodegradable and non-recyclable carpeting, and most
carpeting is made from synthetic materials that require
large energy expenditures for production and sometimes contain
toxic materials. In addition, the bill highlights the multiple
environmental benefits of using hemp carpeting; it is strong
and durable, it can be composted instead of landfilled,
it is manufactured from a renewable resource, and it is
not toxic to human and animal life.
House Bill 32 authorizes the state to conduct privately
funded industrial hemp research in Hawaii when state and
federal agencies issue registration. The bill was passed
in July of 1999 and the first patch of hemp was planted
in December establishing the first legal hemp field in nearly
50 years.
House Resolution 110 was adopted in 1999 and requests the
state’s Department of Business, Economic Development,
and Tourism to examine the possibility of growing hemp for
biomass energy.
Idaho
House Joint Memorial 003 was passed in 2001 and finds that
there are many farmers facing uncertain times in the agricultural
marketplace who view the reintroduction of industrial hemp
as a potential alternative crop that will have long-term
economic benefits for farmers. In addition, the Joint Memorial
finds that farmers can grow hemp to be used as textiles,
paper products, fiberboard, concrete reinforcement, automobile
parts, plastics, organic foods and natural body products.
Based on these and other findings, the Idaho House of Representatives
urges the U.S. Congress to acknowledge the difference between
industrial hemp and marijuana and to acknowledge that allowing
and encouraging farmers to produce industrial hemp will
improve the balance of trade by promoting domestic sources’
hemp products. In addition, the Joint Memorial asks Congress
to assist United States producers by clearly authorizing
the commercial production of industrial hemp and by being
a leading advocate for the industrial hemp industry.
Illinois
Senate Resolution 49 and House Resolution 168 were adopted
in March of 1999 and created the Industrial Hemp Investigative
and Advisory Task Force. The duty of the task force is to
study, evaluate, and report on the economic potential of
industrial hemp production. The task force consists of the
Director of Agriculture and 12 committee members chosen
by the President of the Senate and the Minority Leader of
the Senate. The resolution states that the members of the
task force should collectively have expertise in plant science,
food processing, law enforcement, herbology, and manufacturing.
Iowa
Senate
Study Bill 1031 begins by pointing out that industrial
hemp historically has contributed to the economic welfare
of the United States, and is a renewable natural resource
manufactured for textiles, pulp, paper, oil, building materials,
and other products. The stated purpose of the act is to
promote the economy of the state by promoting industrial
hemp as a viable crop. The bill requires the Department
of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, in cooperation with
the Department of Public Safety, to administer a program
to license persons involved in industrial hemp production.
The bill establishes standards that must be met for a person
to be granted a license and it creates punishments for hemp
production outside of the terms of the bill.
Kentucky
House
Bill 855 would require the Kentucky Department of Agriculture,
in cooperation with selected Kentucky universities’
agricultural research programs, to promote the research
and development of markets for industrial hemp and hemp
products. One of the goals of the bill was to lessen the
negative economic effects that decreasing prices and a lower
demand for tobacco were having on farmers. Some Kentucky
lawmakers wanted a more progressive bill that would have
allowed farmers statewide to begin growing industrial hemp
as a profitable substitute to tobacco.
Maine
LD
53 passed into law in 2003. It defines “industrial
hemp” and authorizes, but does not require, the Director
of the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station to obtain the
necessary federal permits to study the feasibility of growing
industrial hemp.
H 882 permits the use of hemp for agricultural purposes
and requires the Departments of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Resources, and Public Safety to examine the legalizing and
use of hemp for such purposes.
Maryland
House
Bill 374 was introduced in 1999 and is referred to as
the Commercial Use of Industrial Hemp Act. The bill authorizes
the growth, maintenance, manufacture, and the regeneration
of seed for the growth of industrial hemp. The bill requires
the Secretary of Agriculture to develop criteria for issuing
a license to engage in the commercial use of industrial
hemp.
House
Bill 1250 passed the House and Senate by wide margins
and was signed by the Governor in 2000. The bill establishes
a pilot program to study the growth and marketing of industrial
hemp. In addition, the bill requires the secretary of agriculture
to administer the program in collaboration with state and
federal agencies and the bill mandates the creation of licensing
requirements for individuals participating in the study.
Missouri
SCR
42 requests the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration
to review its continual denial of states' ability to authorize
the growing of industrial hemp for research and commercial
purposes. The resolution urges the DEA to review the programs
in Canada for the growing and regulation of hemp in order
to replicate such procedures in the United States.
Montana
Senate
Bill 261 exempts the production of industrial hemp from
criminal status. The bill was passed to the house in 2001.
House Resolution 2 was passed by the House Agriculture
committee by a vote of 19-0 and was later passed on the
house floor by a vote of 95-4. The resolution requests that
the federal government repeal restrictions on the production
of industrial hemp as an agricultural and industrial product.
The bill finds that existing international treaties provide
for the agricultural production and sale of industrial hemp
as a valuable agricultural product and current federal restrictions
are inconsistent with international agricultural policy
and place unnecessary financial restriction on the Montana
agricultural community.
Nebraska
Legislative
Bill 1079 would allow a registered person to grow industrial
hemp. The bill was "indefinitely postponed" in
2000.
New Hampshire
HB653
was introduced in 2003 and was retained in committee. The
bill would authorize the production of industrial hemp,
would mandate licensing requirements for those who intend
to grow industrial hemp, and would charge growers a fee,
that would be deposited in a fund for use by the Department
of Justice for supervision and enforcement purposes.
Senate
Bill 239 was introduced in 2000 and was ultimately voted
down by a close vote on the house floor. The bill would
have permitted the development of an industrial hemp industry
in New Hampshire and would have continually appropriated
a special fund.
House
Joint Resolution 0025 urges the United States Secretary
of Agriculture, the Director of the Drug Enforcement Administration,
and the Director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy to revise regulations to permit the controlled, experimental
cultivation of industrial hemp in New Hampshire. The resolution
finds that hemp is a growing industry that is providing
profits for Canadian and European farmers. In addition,
the resolution points out that while the growing of industrial
hemp in the United States is allowed by federal permit,
the conditions of such a permit are so restrictive that
they make the experimental cultivation of hemp, even under
the auspices of a state university with strict controls,
essentially impossible.
New Mexico
House
Bill 350 establishes systems for the licensing of individuals
planning to produce or sell industrial hemp seed or fiber.
In order to receive a license, growers must submit a $150
application fee and they must meet certain standards including
a clean record based on a nationwide criminal background
check. The bill additionally establishes rules and penalties
relating to the unlicensed production of hemp or other violations
of production regulations. The bill includes an appropriation
of $150,000 to fund programs needed to begin the safe and
profitable production of hemp in the state. Of the $150,000,
$50,000 is allocated to fund the establishment and maintenance
of seed banks and seed certification programs, $50,000 is
for the regulation and licensing department, and $50,000
is earmarked for the department of public safety to educate
law enforcement officers regarding the identification of
industrial hemp and to implement a law enforcement program
to monitor growth and sale. The bill was introduced in 2002
and sent to the House committee on Agriculture and Water
Resources.
North Dakota
House Bill 1428 passed the House and Senate and was signed
into law in 1999. The law authorizes the production of industrial
hemp and recognizes industrial hemp as an oilseed. Additionally,
the law requires anyone wishing to grow industrial hemp
to apply for and obtain a license, and the bill authorizes
state supervision of the growth and harvest.
HCR 3038 was adopted in 1999 and urges the U.S. Congress
to acknowledge the difference between marijuana and industrial
hemp and clearly authorize hemp production.
Oregon
HB
2769 was introduced in February of 2003. The bill, introduced
at the request of Living Tree Paper Co., permits the production,
possession, and trade of industrial hemp. It authorizes
the Department of Agriculture to manage the licensing, permitting,
and inspection programs for growers and handlers. A maximum
$2,500 civil penalty can be imposed for a violation of the
license requirements.
House
Bill 2933 was introduced on March 11, 1999 and died
in committee. The bill would have permitted the growing
of industrial hemp and would have authorized the State Department
of Agriculture to administer a licensing and inspection
program for the process.
South Dakota
House
Bill 1267 was introduced on January 24, 2000 and would
allow any person registered with the Department of Agriculture
to grow industrial hemp.
House
Concurrent Resolution 1015 urges the United States government
to remove its barriers to the production of industrial hemp.
It also requests that South Dakota State University gather
information on research being done on hemp and, if federal
requirements are met, establish for research purposes an
industrial hemp test plot not to exceed ten acres in size.
Tennessee
House
Bill 864 was introduced in February, 1999 and would
authorize agribusiness to develop industrial hemp seed varieties
suitable for propagation in the United States and import
hemp seed from Europe and Canada.
Vermont
JRS 98 was adopted in 2000 and urges the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S.
Congress to reconsider federal policies that restrict the
cultivation and marketing of industrial hemp.
S
119 permits the development of an industrial hemp industry
in Vermont and establishes an application process for growers
and definitions of products.
Virginia
HJR 605 passed the House and Senate in 2001. It requests
that state agencies and the Virginia State Police develop
guidelines for the growth and production of industrial hemp.
HJR 94 was adopted in 1999 and urges the U.S. Secretary
of Agriculture, the Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency,
and Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
to permit the controlled, experimental cultivation of industrial
hemp in Virginia.
Wisconsin
Assembly
Joint Resolution 49 points out that agriculture is the
largest source of income for Wisconsin and fluctuations
in the price of agricultural goods is a constant threat
to Wisconsin’s farmers. In addition, the resolution
finds that industrial hemp is a renewable resource that
can grow to maturity in 100 days without the use of pesticides
and can be used to make over 25,000 different products.
The resolution asks the U.S. Congress to acknowledge the
difference between marijuana and industrial hemp, to recognize
the economic benefits of allowing farmers to grow hemp,
and to clearly authorize industrial hemp production. |
