BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1147
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 18, 2006
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Judy Chu, Chair
AB 1147 (Leno) - As Amended: January 5, 2006
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill revises the definition of marijuana in the California
Health and Safety Code to exclude industrial hemp.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines industrial hemp as an agricultural field crop limited
to nonpsychoactive varieties of the Cannabis plant, with no
more than three-tenths of 1% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
contained in the dry flowering tops and cultivated from seeds
originating in California, and processed exclusively for the
stalks of the plant and by-products of the stalk and seed.
2)States that this bill does not authorize cultivation,
production, or possession of resin, flowering tops, or leaves
that have been removed from the field of cultivation and
separated from the other parts of the industrial hemp plant.
3)Prohibits transportation or sale across state lines of
Cannabis seed capable of germination and prohibits cultivation
of industrial hemp not grown in a research setting or as an
agricultural field crop.
FISCAL EFFECT
No direct state costs.
To the extent this bill results in additional law enforcement
efforts - such as increased investigation and court time to
determine whether plants or materials are industrial hemp or
marijuana - there could be indeterminable state and
nonreimbursable local costs.
AB 1147
Page 2
To the extent this bill results in litigation to challenge
federal preemption issues, there could be indeterminable state
trial court costs.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to the author, "In 1937, the U.S.
Government mistakenly categorized hemp with marijuana due to
their physical similarities and the fact that hemp contains
THC (although hemp contains only a negligible amount of the
chemical). Hemp has so little THC that it physically cannot
be used as an intoxicant and is 100% safe for the consumer.
Because hemp has no psychoactive properties, the Federal
Government has allowed hemp products of every kind to be
manufactured and sold in the United States. Californians can
buy hemp clothing and food products in stores throughout the
state, but state law is silent on the legality of growing hemp
in California for in-state commerce."
a) According to Vote Hemp, a non-profit organization
dedicated to free market industrial hemp, while hemp is
grown and processed throughout the world for paper,
clothing, canvas, rope, food products and many other
commercial uses, only non-viable seeds are legal in the
U.S. without a DEA permit, meaning farmers cannot
realistically grow hemp.
2)Current state law defines marijuana as all parts of the
Cannabis plant, 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 stalks, oil or cake made from the
seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt,
derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks
(except the resin extracted there from), fiber, oil, or cake,
or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of
germination.
3)Other States' Efforts Regarding Industrial Hemp . According to
Vote Hemp, six states (Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, North
Dakota and Virginia) have removed barriers to the growth of
hemp for research purposes. Hawaii is the only state that has
permission from the Drug Enforcement Administration to grow
AB 1147
Page 3
industrial hemp - on a one-quarter acre of government land
under 24-hour security.
4)Prior hemp related legislation in California .
a) HR 32 (Strom-Martin, 1999) stated "the Assembly finds
and declares that industrial hemp is a vital, sustainable,
renewable resource for building materials, cloth, cordage,
fiber, food, fuel, industrial chemicals, oil, paint, paper,
plastics, seed, yarn, and many other useful products?and
declares the domestic production of industrial hemp can
help protect California's environment, contribute to the
growth of the state economy, and be regulated in a manner
that will not interfere with the enforcement of marijuana
laws? and declares the Legislature should consider action
to revise the legal status of industrial hemp to allow for
its growth in California as an agricultural and industrial
crop?"
b) AB 448 (Strom-Martin, 2001) directed the California
Department of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with
the Attorney General, to establish rules and regulations
for the licensure and growing of industrial hemp. AB 448
failed passage in the Assembly Agriculture Committee.
c) AB 388 (Strom-Martin, 2002), requested UC to assess the
economic opportunities of specialty or alternative fiber
crops, including industrial hemp, using information from
other states and countries. Gov. Davis vetoed AB 388,
stating, "There are a number of significant concerns
regarding the legality of producing industrial hemp in the
U.S. The U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded that
'legal issues currently preclude research into the
viability of industrial hemp fiber production in the U.S.'
"
5)Is Removing Industrial Hemp from the Definition of Marijuana
Preempted by Federal Law ? The federal Controlled Substance
Act of 1970 defined five schedules of narcotics based on
medical uses and the likelihood of addiction. The Act defines
marijuana 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
AB 1147
Page 4
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 there from), fiber,
oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is
incapable of germination." California has also adopted this
definition.
At issue is whether California can redefine marijuana
differently than federal statute. The U.S. Supreme Court has
stated that Congress is within its right to supersede state
drug laws because intrastate manufacturing and sales affects a
national and international drug trade that poses a risk to the
United States as a whole. [21 USCS 801, Gonzales vs. Raich
(2004) 125 S.Ct. 3195.]
In 2005, Ron Paul (R-TX) and George Miller (D-CA) attempted to
amend the Federal Controlled Substances Act by excluding
industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana. H.R. 3037
is pending in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
6)Author's amendments add findings and add Assemblymember DeVore
as a joint author.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081