BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                            Senator Loni Hancock, Chair              S
                             2013-2014 Regular Session               B

          SB 566 (Leno)                                               
          As Amended April 11, 2013 
          Hearing date:  April 30, 2013
          Health and Safety Code
          Food and Agriculture Code

                                    INDUSTRIAL HEMP  


          Source:  Hemp Industries Association; Vote Hemp

          Prior Legislation: SB 676 (Leno) 2011, vetoed
                       AB 1147 (Leno) - 2006, vetoed
                       AB 684 (Leno) - 2007, vetoed
                       HR 32 (Strom-Martin) - 1999, adopted
                       AB 388 (Strom-Martin) - 2002, vetoed

          Support:  American Civil Liberties Union; Business Alliance for  
                    Commerce in Hemp; California Certified Organic  
                    Farmers; California State Grange; California State  
                    Sheriffs' Association; California Teamsters Public  
                    Affairs Council; Colorganics Inc.; Dash Hemp;  
                    Datsusara; Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps; Drug Policy  
                    Alliance; Ecological Farming Association; Hempsteads;  
                    Hempy's Inc.; Humboldt Traders; Instituto Laboral de  
                    la Raza; Jungmaven Ltd.; Kings County Sheriff David S.  
                    Robinson; Knoll Farms; Lafe's Natural BodyCare; The  
                    Living Temple; Nutiva, Inc.; Planning and Conservation  



                                                              SB 566 (Leno)

                    League; Santa Barbara Hemp Company; United Food &  
                    Commercial Workers 8 Golden State; United Food &  
                    Commercial Workers; Western States Council; US Hemp  
                    Oil Inc.; Lazy Dog Designs; Hemptopia, Inc.

          Opposition:    California Narcotic Officers' Association;  
          California Police Chiefs' 
                                 Association; Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs'  
          Association; Orange County
                                 Deputy Sheriffs' Association; California  
          Fraternal Order of Police; California
                                 Narcotic Officers Association; California  
          Police Chiefs' Association; Long Beach
                                 Officers' Association; Los Angeles County  
          Professional Peace Officers' 
                                 Association; Los Angeles Police  
          Protective League; Riverside Sheriffs' 
                                 Association; Sacramento Deputy Sheriffs'  
          Association; Santa Ana Police 

                                         KEY ISSUE


          The purposes of this bill are to 1) define "industrial hemp," as  
          specified;  2) define marijuana as excluding industrial hemp; 3)  
          allow the closely-regulated cultivation and processing of  
          industrial hemp, as specified; 4) impose a testing regimen to  
          ensure industrial hemp has no psychoactive properties; and 5)  
          require reports from the Attorney General on any attempts to use  
          the hemp law to circumvent marijuana restrictions and the Hemp  
          Industries Association on the economic impact of hemp  



                                                              SB 566 (Leno)

          cultivation in California.
           Existing federal and California law  places controlled  
          substances in five schedules, ranked by medical benefit and  
          potential for abuse.  Schedule I controlled substances are  
          deemed to have no medical benefits and a high potential for  
          abuse.  (21 U.S.C.  812; Health & Saf. Code 11054-11058.)

           Existing federal and California law  includes marijuana in  
          Schedule I.  (21 U.S.C.  812; Health & Saf. Code  11054.)

           Existing California law  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 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 therefrom),  
          fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which  
          is incapable of germination.  (Health & Saf. Code  11018.)

          Existing federal law  defines marijuana as the following:   
          "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."  (21 U.S.C.   
          802 (16) and 812 (10).)

           Existing federal law  separately lists THC as a Schedule I  
          substance.  (21 U.S.C. 812 (17).)  Federal court decisions have  
          held that THC in Schedule I applies only to synthetic THC,  



                                                              SB 566 (Leno)

          because "if naturally-occurring THC were covered under THC,  
          there would be no need to have a separate category for  
          marijuana, ? which contains naturally-occurring THC."  (Hemp  
          Industries v. DEA (2004) 357 F.3d 1012, 1015, quoting a related  

           Existing law  provides that cultivation of marijuana is a felony,  
          punishable by a prison term of 16 months, two years or three  
          years and a fine of up to $10,000.  (Health & Saf. Code   

           This bill  defines "industrial hemp" as follows:

           An agricultural field crop limited to the non-psychoactive  
            varieties of the of the plant Cannabis sativa L., and the  
            seeds produced therefrom;
           Industrial hemp shall have no more than three-tenths of 1%  
            (0.3%) tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the dry  
            flowering tops;
           Industrial hemp shall be cultivated and processed exclusively  
            for the purpose of producing the mature stalks of the plant  
            and by-products of the stalk and seed, including oil or cake  
            made from seeds, and other preparations.

           This bill  redefines "marijuana" to exclude industrial hemp when  
          cultivated or processed for defined purposes.  
           This bill  defines "industrial hemp" to mean a nonpsychoactive  
          type of the plant Cannabis sativa L. that contains no more than  
          0.3% THC contained in the flowering tops, and cultivated and  
          processed exclusively for the purpose of producing the mature  
          stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake  
          made from the seeds of the plant, or for other defined purposes.

           This bill  states findings, declarations, and intent of the  
          Legislature in regards to industrial hemp. 

           This bill  creates a new division for hemp under the Food and  
          Agriculture Code. 



                                                              SB 566 (Leno)


          This bill  provides for cultivation requirements, minimum  
          acreage, signage, and various plant cultivation prohibitions to  
          allow visual differentiation between hemp and marijuana fields,  
          with exceptions for established agricultural research  
          institutions or seed breeders.

           This bill  includes industrial hemp, hemp seed, oil, yarn, and  
          woven fabrics as products imported under the Harmonized Tariff  
          Schedule of the United States of the United States International  
          Trade Commission.

           This bill  provides that a person who grows industrial hemp and  
          is not an established agricultural research institution or seed  
          breeder shall abide by specified sampling and laboratory testing  

           This bill  requires that laboratory test reports be issued by a  
          laboratory registered with the federal DEA and such reports  
          shall state the percentage content of THC, the date and location  
          of samples taken, the Global Positioning System coordinates, and  
          total crop acreage.

           This bill  requires that laboratory test reports be marked with  
          the appropriate test result of "PASSED AS CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL  
          HEMP" or "FAILED AS CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL HEMP" at or near the  
          top of the report.  A "passed" result is a THC level at or below  
          0.3% content in a random sample of dried flowering tops of the  
          industrial hemp grown.  

           This bill  requires the testing laboratory to provide not less  
          than 10 original signed copies of the report for the farmer.   
          The farmer shall retain at least one copy of this report for a  
          minimum of two years and he or she shall make copies available  
          to law enforcement and to each person purchasing, transporting,  
          or otherwise obtaining hemp plant materials.

           This bill  provides that industrial hemp be destroyed if  



                                                              SB 566 (Leno)

          laboratory testing indicates THC content greater than 0.3%.  

           This bill  provides that a person who grows hemp with THC content  
          greater than 0.3% not be prosecuted for cultivation or  
          possession of marijuana.

           This bill  authorizes the California Department of Food and  
          Agriculture (CDFA) to regulate the development, growth,  
          harvesting, and sale of industrial hemp seeds.

           This bill  authorizes CDFA to promulgate additional regulations  
          to ensure compliance with this division or federal law.


          This bill  defines "established agricultural research  
          institution" and "seed breeder" as follows:

                 An "established agricultural research institution" is a  
               public or private institution or organization that  
               maintains land for agricultural research, including  
               colleges, universities, agricultural research centers, and  
               conservation research centers."
                 A "seed breeder" is an individual or public or private  
               institution or organization that develops viable industrial  
               hemp seed for sale or research.

           This bill  prohibits the possession of hemp resin, flowering  
          tops, or leaves, except as necessary to conduct laboratory  

           This bill requires the following reports by January 1, 2019, or  
          within five years after hemp agriculture is approved under  
          federal law:
                 The Attorney General shall report to the Legislature any  
               incident where marijuana is falsely claimed to be hemp, or  
               where hemp cultivation is used to disguise marijuana  
                 The Hemp Industries Association shall also provide a  



                                                              SB 566 (Leno)

               report on the economic impacts of industrial hemp  

           This bill  provides that this act not be operative unless  
          authorized under federal law.

           This bill  states findings and intent of the Legislature in  
          regard to industrial hemp and this act.

          For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's  
          prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation  
          relating to conditions of confinement.  On May 23, 2011, the  
          United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its  
          prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two  
          years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the  
          state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.   

          Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to  
          hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the  
          prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony  
          prosecutions.  Under the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which  
          stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the  
          Committee held measures which created a new felony, expanded the  
          scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased  
          the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate  
          the prison overcrowding crisis.  Under these principles, ROCA  
          was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary  
          to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards  
          reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation which would  
          increase the prison population.  ROCA necessitated many hard and  
          difficult decisions for the Committee.

          In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the  
          historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of  
          California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the  
          federal court order issued by the Three-Judge Court three years  
          earlier to reduce the state's prison population to 137.5 percent  



                                                              SB 566 (Leno)

          of design capacity.  The State submitted in part that the, ". .  
          .  population in the State's 33 prisons has been reduced by over  
          24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public safety realignment  
          went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates compared to the  
          2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000 inmates since 2006  
          . . . ."  Plaintiffs, who opposed the state's motion, argue in  
          part that, "California prisons, which currently average 150% of  
          capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity at one prison,  
          continue to deliver health care that is constitutionally  
          deficient."  In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal  
          court granted the state a six-month extension to achieve the  
          137.5 % prisoner population cap by December 31st of this year.  

          In an order dated April 11, 2013, the Three-Judge Court denied  
          the state's motions, and ordered the state of California to  
          "immediately take all steps necessary to comply with this  
          Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to reduce overall  
          prison population to 137.5% design capacity by December 31,  

          The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and  
          related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain  
          unresolved.  However, in light of the real gains in reducing the  
          prison population that have been made, although even greater  
          reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review  
          each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration.  The following  
          questions will inform this consideration:

                 whether a measure erodes realignment;
                 whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly  
               dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there  
               is no other reasonably appropriate sanction; 
                 whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or  
               legislative drafting error; 
                 whether a measure proposes penalties which are  
               proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other  
               reasonably appropriate remedy; and
                 whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety  
               or criminal activity for which there is no other  
               reasonable, appropriate remedy.



                                                              SB 566 (Leno)


          1.  Need for this Bill  

          According to the author:

               SB 566 will allow California farmers to be some of the  
               most prepared farmers in America to grow hemp once the  
               federal government allows it.  Industrial hemp is a  
               variety of the species Cannabis sativa L. that has no  
               psychoactive qualities because it contains less than  
               three-tenths of one percent THC. Even though it is a  
               distant cousin of marijuana, which ranges from three  
               to 15 percent THC content, industrial hemp is not a  
               drug, and it is not marijuana.

               Hemp is extremely beneficial to farmers and  
               agricultural processors.  Because it grows in dense  
               groves, hemp requires little or no pesticides or  
               herbicides.  Hemp is also a great crop rotator, as it  
               leaves nutrients in the soil for the next crop.  Hemp  
               cultivation will create the need for seed and fiber  
               processing facilities.  Investors will support the  
               many hemp companies and processing operations that  
               would employ numerous Californians.  

               Because of the perceived similarity to marijuana,  
               industrial hemp has not been grown in United States  
               since the 1950s; however, the two are very different.  
               The industrial hemp plant is a stalk similar to  
               bamboo, has few branches, and has been bred for  
               maximum production of seed, and grows to a height up  
               to 16 feet.  It is planted in densities of 100 to 300  
               plants per square yard.  Marijuana is a tropical  
               variety of cannabis that usually grows to a height of  
               six feet and has been bred to have many branches to  
               maximize flowering and minimize seeding.  Unlike hemp,  
               marijuana is planted with wide spaces between plants  



                                                              SB 566 (Leno)

               to maximize flowering. 

               This bill is operative only upon federal approval.   
               Federal approval may take several different forms  
               including a federal administrative waiver or a change  
               in law.  Industrial hemp legislation has been  
               introduced in both houses of Congress with strong  
               bipartisan support.  If the current federal  
               legislation passes, the federal government will defer  
               to states to regulate hemp cultivation.  .

               SB 566 ensures that law enforcement will not be  
               negatively impacted.  The bill provides that all  
               flowering tops of the industrial hemp plant, which  
               have no legal commercial application, are not  
               permitted if removed from the field of cultivation.  
               Although hemp flowers have no psychoactive effect,  
               this relieves law enforcement of any need to  
               distinguish hemp from marijuana.  For these reasons,  
               the bill enjoys the support of the California State  
               Sheriffs' Association.  Hemp must be grown in a  
               minimum of five continuous acres and farmers must post  
               signage to indicate that only industrial hemp is  
               grown. Similar requirements in Canada have thwarted  
               theft of hemp crops.  This bill ensures that hemp  
               crops meet the three-tenths of one percent THC  
               standard.  Prior to harvest, growers must obtain a  
               report from a DEA registered laboratory documenting  
               the THC content of their crop, the size of the  
               acreage, and its G.P.S. location. Farmers must retain  
               copies of the report for two years, make it available  
               to law enforcement and provide a copy to each person  
               purchasing, transporting, or obtaining the oil, fiber,  
               or seed of the plant. If you do not pass the test, you  
               cannot sell your product.

               Five years after federal approval, the Attorney  
               General will report to the Legislature on any law  
               enforcement impacts of industrial hemp cultivation.   
               The Hemp Industries Association also is required to  



                                                              SB 566 (Leno)

               report to the Legislature regarding the economic  
               impacts of hemp cultivation.  The California  
               Department of Food and Agriculture will have  
               enforcement authority and implement regulations to  
               ensure that the provisions of the bill are met and  
               there is full compliance with federal approval.

          2.  Research Studies from Purdue University and the University of  
            Kentucky Evaluating Hemp for Various Applications and Uses  

          Industrial hemp has received significant attention in recent  
          years.  Researchers at Purdue University published an exhaustive  
          study of the potential value for hemp cultivation in the United  
          States.<1>  The study noted:  Hemp "is extremely unusual in the  
          diversity of products for which it is or can be cultivated." 

            Oilseeds  :  Hemp seeds produce nutritious oil, high in fatty  
            acids found in fish oils.  "[T]hese essential fatty acids ?  
            [serve] as raw materials for cell structure and as precursors  
            for biosynthesis?"  Hemp oil contains antioxidants known as  
            "tocopherols." Hemp oils have been used in paints, inks and  
            other similar industrial and personal applications.  
            Fiber  :  Hemp fibers are strong and durable.  China leads in  
            the development of hemp fibers for textiles.  Technological  
            advances will be necessary before North American producers can  
            successfully compete with Chinese firms.
            Pulp and Paper  :  Hemp is useful for applications such as  
            currency where strength is needed, but is not currently  
            competitive with wood pulp for newsprint and general paper  
            Plastic Composites for Automobiles and Other Manufacturing  
            Uses  :  Light and strong hemp plastic composites may be  
            particularly valuable.  Mercedes currently uses hemp  
            composites.  Rising oil prices may make hemp products  
            competitive for plastics.   
           Building Construction Products  :  Hemp is increasingly used for  
            insulation in Europe.  Hemp fiberboard is strong and hemp  

          <1>  See



                                                              SB 566 (Leno)

            could be used in high-quality concrete and building products.   

            Animal Bedding and Absorbent Material  :  Hemp is a superior  
            material for animal bedding.  Absorbent hemp stalk cores can  
            be used for oil spills and other pollution control uses.
            Soil Erosion Control  :  Hemp materials are useful to control  
            erosion and are good alternatives to plastics for weed control  
            and planting material.
            Cosmetics  :  Hemp is popularly used in shampoo, soaps and  
            Biofuels Potential  :  Researchers in Europe have touted hemp  
            Ecological Benefits of Hemp  :  [Hemp] is well suited for  
            organic agriculture, and is much less "ecotoxic" than most  
            other crops.  Pesticides and fungicides are usually  


          University of Kentucky Study
          The University of Kentucky released a study in 1998 that reached  
          many of the same conclusions as the Purdue study.  The Kentucky  
          study, however, specifically considered how industrial hemp  
          could benefit Kentucky.  The study noted that hemp had  
          historically been an important crop in Kentucky.  Kentucky  
          produced one-half on national hemp production in the 1800s.   
          Kentucky is well-suited for hemp production because of its soil  
          and relatively long growing season.  
          (Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky (1998) Center  
          for Business and Econ. Res., Univ. of Kentucky.)  The Kentucky  
          study was funded by the Kentucky Hemp Museum and Library and the  



                                                              SB 566 (Leno)

          Deni Montana Foundation.<2>  

          3.  2010 Congressional Research Report on Hemp  

          The Congressional Research Service wrote a hemp economic  
          analysis in 2010.  The report listed the wide uses for hemp  
          products and noted criticisms that the hemp market was limited.   
          However, the report cited the growth of the Canadian hemp  
          industry:  "[S]tudies by Canadian agriculture agencies ? 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 ?" (CSR, 2010,  
          Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity, p. 10.)

          4.  The THC Issue - Negligible THC in Hemp, High  
            Concentrations of CBD, a THC Chemical Antagonist  

          It is generally accepted that the dominant marijuana "high" is  
          caused by TCH.  The prohibition on marijuana is based on the  
          presence of THC in the flowering tops and leaves.  Other parts  
          of the plant essentially have negligible THC content.

          Smoked marijuana generally has about 25 times more THC than  
          hemp.  Equally important, hemp contains CBD, an antagonist to  
          THC that cancels the effects of THC.  CBD is abundant in  
          industrial hemp, but not in the drug marijuana.  A ratio 2:1 CBD  
          to THC suppresses any intoxicating effect of THC.  Industrial  
          hemp typically has a CBD-THC ratio of 5:1.  Smoking or otherwise  
          ingesting any amount of hemp could not intoxicate someone.

          Industrial hemp is generally defined as cannabis plants with a  
          THC content of less than 0.3%.  The Purdue report states that  
          <2> The museum describes its mission:  "The Kentucky Hemp  
          Growers Cooperative Museum & Library was established in October  
          1994, as a non-profit organization, to educate the public about  
          the cultural, historic and economic importance of the hemp  
          industry in Kentucky and the United States."  According to a  
          July 4, 1998 article in the Lexington Herald-Leader, the study  
          cost $23,000.  The Deni Montana Foundation appears to be  
          associated with actor Woody Harrelson.



                                                              SB 566 (Leno)

          marijuana in the illicit market typically has a THC content of  
          5-10%.  This is about 17-35 times the amount of THC found in  
          industrial hemp.  

          It appears that 0.3% THC became the standard for industrial hemp  
          because this level was the standard for French farmers.  France,  
          unlike much of Western Europe, never banned hemp production.   
          Hemp was also unrestricted in the Soviet Union.  Russia has  
          developed hemp with lower THC content.  

          Some law enforcement officials have expressed concerns that  
          wide-spread use of hemp products could interfere with drug tests  
          because it could not be determined whether the metabolites of  
          TCH found in blood or urine samples was produced by legitimate  
          hemp seed products or marijuana.  The Purdue study found this  
          concern largely unsupported.  "Federal US [drug



          testing] programs utilize a THC metabolite level of 50 parts per  
          billion in urine.  Leson (2000) found that this level was not  
          exceeded by consuming hemp products, provided that THC levels  
          are maintained below 5 ppm [parts per million] in hemp oil, and  
          below 2 ppm in hulled seeds."<3>  
          Drug marijuana growers have become extremely sophisticated in  
          producing very strong strains of sinsemilla marijuana (female  
          marijuana plants without seeds) in small spaces.  Pollination  
          of drug marijuana by industrial hemp fields would be extremely  
          harmful to drug marijuana growers.  Drug marijuana growers  
          would thus not hide marijuana in hemp fields.  Drug marijuana  
          growers would seek to avoid being anywhere near hemp fields.
          Arguments have been made that hemp legalization could be the  
          proverbial camel's nose under the tent leading to marijuana  
          legalization.  This argument appears to assume that the public  
          would conclude that the benefits of hemp indicate that  
          marijuana, because it comes from the same species of plant, is  
          an appropriate and beneficial drug.  It does not appear that  
          countries that allow hemp cultivation have higher rates of  
          marijuana consumption than comparable countries that do not.   
          While many European countries have authorized hemp cultivation  
          in the last 15 years, marijuana use has not risen with hemp  
          production.  Numerous studies have noted that European  
          consumption of marijuana (for intoxication) is much lower than  
          in the United States.  (EU Annual Report on Drug Problems in  
          Europe, 2005.)  Many European countries with low rates of  
          marijuana use allow hemp cultivation.  Marijuana consumption  
          appears to be tied to the urbanization of a country.

          5.  Legislation Concerning Industrial Hemp in Other Jurisdictions

           Several states and the federal government have passed or sought  
          to pass hemp legislation.  The substance of the proposed  
          legislation has varied, but at least eight states (Hawaii,  
          Kentucky, Maine, Maryland Montana, North Dakota, Oregon and  
          Vermont and West Virginia) have sought to remove barriers to the  
          cultivation of hemp.  Hawaii received DEA permission to grow  

          <3> See fn. (2), supra.



                                                              SB 566 (Leno)

          industrial hemp on a one-quarter acre of government land under  
          24-hour security.  The Hawaii hemp experiment terminated at the  
          end of September 2003.  According to the David P. West, Ph.D.,  
          an agronomist hired to conduct the project, the DEA effectively  
          frustrated attempts to fully implement the program.  (Kolosov,  
          Evaluating The Public Interest: Regulation Of Industrial Hemp  
          Under The Controlled Substances Act, UCLA Law Review, Vol. 57,  
          No. 1, 2009, p 253.)

          AB 388 (Strom-Martin), of the 2001-2002 Legislative Session,  
          requested the University of California to conduct a study of  
          the economic opportunities associated with the production of  
          alternative fiber crops, including industrial hemp.  The bill  
          was vetoed.

          In 2005, 2007 and 2009, Representatives Ron Paul (R-TX)  
          introduced federal legislation to exclude industrial hemp from  
          the definition of marijuana.  

          6.  Federal Preemption Issues Generally  

          The federal government can regulate state conduct through the  
          commerce clause of the U.S.   Constitution.  (Art. I,  8.)   
          The Supreme Court has stated that the Congress can supersede  
          state drug laws because even intrastate drug activity affects  
          the national and international drug trade.  "[A]ny commodity,  
          be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on the  
          supply and demand in the national market for that commodity."   
          (Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1, 19.)