BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1147
Page 1
Date of Hearing: January 10, 2006
Counsel: Kimberly Horiuchi
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Mark Leno, Chair
AB 1147 (Leno) - As Amended: January 5, 2006
SUMMARY : Clarifies the definition of "marijuana" contained in
the Uniformed Controlled Substance Act (CSA) to exclude
industrial hemp. Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines "industrial hemp" as an agricultural field crop
limited to the non-psychoactive varieties of the of the plant
Cannabis sativa L., having no more than three-tenths of 1%
tetrahydrocannabinol contained in the dry flowering tops and
cultivated from seeds originating in California, and processed
exclusively for the purpose of producing the mature stalks of
the plant and by-products of the stalk and seed.
2)States that nothing in this section shall be construed to
authorize the cultivation, production, or possession of resin,
flowering tops, or leaves that have been removed from the
field of cultivation and separated from the other constituent
parts of the industrial hemp plant.
3)Prohibits the transportation and/or sale of a seed capable of
germination across state lines of any variety of Cannabis
sativa L and any cultivation of the industrial hemp plant that
is not grown in a research setting or as an agricultural field
crop.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that "marijuana" is 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
AB 1147
Page 2
there from), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of
the plant which is incapable of germination. (Health & Safety
Code Section 11018.)
2)States that except as authorized by law, every person who
possesses any concentrated cannabis shall be punished by
imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than
one year, by a fine of not more than $500, by both such fine
and imprisonment, or shall be punished by imprisonment in the
state prison. [Health & Safety Code Section 11357(a).]
3)States that except as authorized by law, every person who
possesses not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than
concentrated cannabis, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be
punished by a fine of not more than $100). Notwithstanding
other provisions of law, if such person has been previously
convicted three or more times of an offense described in this
subdivision during the two-year period immediately preceding
the date of commission of the violation to be charged, the
previous convictions shall also be charged in the accusatory
pleading; if found to be true by the jury upon a jury trial or
by the court upon a court trial or if admitted by the person,
the provisions of existing law shall be applicable to him or
her, and the court shall divert and refer him or her for
education, treatment, or rehabilitation, without a court
hearing or determination or the concurrence of the district
attorney, to an appropriate community program which will
accept him or her. If the person is so diverted and referred
he or she shall not be subject to the fine specified in this
subdivision. If no community program will accept him or her,
the person shall be subject to the fine specified in this
subdivision. In any case in which a person is arrested for a
violation of this subdivision and does not demand to be taken
before a magistrate, such person shall be released by the
arresting officer upon presentation of satisfactory evidence
of identity and giving his or her written promise to appear in
court, as provided in existing law, and shall not be subjected
to booking. [Health & Safety Code Section 11357(b).]
4)States that except as authorized by law, every person who
possesses more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, other than
concentrated cannabis, shall be punished by imprisonment in
the county jail for a period of not more than six months, by a
fine of not more than $500, or by both such fine and
imprisonment. [Health & Safety Code Section 11357(c).]
AB 1147
Page 3
5)States that except as authorized by law, every person 18 years
of age or over who possesses not more than 28.5 grams of
marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, upon the grounds
of, or within, any school providing instruction in
Kindergarten or any of Grades 1 through 12 during hours the
school is open for classes or school-related programs is
guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not
more than $500, by imprisonment in the county jail for a
period of not more than 10 days, or both. [Health & Safety
Code Section 11357(d).]
6)Provides that every person who possesses for sale any
marijuana, except as otherwise provided by law, shall be
punished by imprisonment in the state prison. (Health &
Safety Code Section 11359.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "While hemp
fiber, oil and non-viable seed are used by many sectors of the
economy for a variety of purposes, the Federal Government
restricts the growing of hemp and the sale of viable hemp
seed."
"In 1937, the United States 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."
2)Industrial Hemp Defined : According to information provided by
the author, "Hemp is a crop grown and processed throughout the
world for paper, clothing, canvas, rope, food products and
many other commercial uses. Hemp is used by the automobile
industry as reinforcement fiber in "biocomposites" -
press-molded or injection molded parts used in doors panels,
AB 1147
Page 4
boot liners etc., where they are replacing fiberglass
composites or more expensive plastics. Hemp is used in foods
such as bread, energy bars, waffles, granola, coffee, beer,
veggie burgers, pretzels, salad dressings, and many food
products. Hemp seed oil is an excellent replacement for
unhealthy fats in foods due to its excellent balance of the
essential fatty acids linoleic acid (omega-6) and
alpha-linolenic acid (omega-3). Consuming the right balance
of essential fatty acids found in hemp seed oil offers
significant health benefits, including an improved HDL/LDL
cholesterol ratio and reducing the symptoms of dermatitis,
rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, as well
as improving and optimizing development in infants.
"Hemp is used in body care products such as lotions, lip balms,
conditioners, shampoos, and soaps. Hemp also may be used as
biofuel in the production of ethanol, a plant-based gasoline
additive and replacement. The Declaration of Independence was
actually written on hemp paper and hemp has a long history of
commercial use and cultivation in California and the United
States."
3)Other States and Federal Government Attempt to Allow
Industrial Hemp : Several other states and the Federal
Government have attempted to pass legislation allowing the
commercial and personal growth and development of industrial
hemp. The substance of the proposed legislation has varied,
but six states (Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, North Dakota
and Virginia) have all removed barriers to the growth of hemp.
However, those states that have passed legislation have
limited growth for research purposes only and have not sought
to redefine criminal marijuana sections. Currently, Hawaii is
the only state that has permission from the Drug Enforcement
Administration to grow industrial hemp on a one-quarter acre
of government land and under 24 hours of maximum security.
[See generally, www.votehemp.com/legislation .]
California attempted to pass its own hemp research bill in 2002.
AB 388 (Strom-Martin), of the 2001-2002 Legislative Session,
requested that the University of California conduct a study of
the economic opportunities associated with the production of
alternative fiber crops, including industrial hemp, flax and
kenaf. However, Gray Davis vetoed AB 388 in September of 2002
stating, "There are a number of significant concerns regarding
the legality of producing industrial hemp in the United
AB 1147
Page 5
States. The United States Department of Agriculture concluded
that 'legal issues currently preclude research into the
viability of industrial hemp fiber production in the United
States.' In addition, the Drug Enforcement Administration
applies the same strict controls to industrial hemp as it does
to marijuana. That is, it is a Schedule I Controlled
Substance under federal law." This past year, House
Representatives 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.
[109 H.R. 3037 is currently still pending in House Energy and
Commerce Committee.] This bill also seeks to exclude
industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana although it
seems likely that such a change is pre-empted by the current
federal definition of marijuana.
4)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. [21 USCS
801-844.] 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 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." [21 USCS 802(16)] California has also adopted
this definition. (See Health & Safety Code Section 11018.)
The issue is whether the State of California can redefine
"marijuana" differently than federal statute. A significant
way in which the Federal Government regulates state conduct is
through the interstate commerce clause. The United States
Constitution states that of the powers granted to Congress is
"[the power] [t]o regulate commerce with foreign nations, and
among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes".
[United State Constitution Article I, Section 8.] The United
States Supreme Court has stated that the Congress is within
its right to supersede state drug laws because even intrastate
manufacturing and sales affects a national and international
AB 1147
Page 6
drug trade that poses a risk to the United States as a whole.
[21 USCS 801, Gonzales vs. Raich (2004) 125 S.Ct. 3195.]
The Federal Government may use the interstate commerce clause to
affect state law if the activity regulates the use of the
channels of interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of
interstate commerce, and activities that substantially affect
interstate commerce. [ Lopez v. United States (1995) 514 US
549.] In viewing those factors, the court has held that if
legislators have a rational basis for believing that a
regulation affects interstate commerce and the means chosen
are reasonable and appropriate, congressional action will
probably be deemed a fair use of the interstate commerce
clause. [ Heart of Atlanta of Atlanta Motel vs. United States
(1964) 379 U.S. 241 and Katzenbach vs. McClung (1964) 379 U.S.
294.]
There are two analogous cases that might shed light on whether
the State of California may amend its marijuana statute in
manner different than the federal statute. First, in Wickard
vs. Filburn , the Supreme Court held that the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 which permitted the Secretary of
Agriculture to regulate the growth and consumption of wheat on
every farm in the United States. The Court reasoned that even
one farmer's growth and consumption because of the "cumulative
effect" each farmer might have on the overall wheat industry
and, hence, the national economy. [ Wickard vs. Filburn (1942)
317 U.S. 111.]
Second, is Gonzales vs. Raich and related cases relating to
medical marijuana. In late 2004, the United States Supreme
Court, relying heavily on the aforementioned Wickard case,
held that California could not exempt marijuana for medicinal
purposes from the criminal possession statute. The court
based its ruling on the idea that use of "any commodity, be it
wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on the supply and
demand in the national market for that commodity." [ Raich at
2208.]
Vote Hemp, a non-profit organization involved in the efforts to
legalize hemp, argues that federal law does not preempt hemp
specifically. In its letter of support, Vote Hemp argues,
"This bill in the form in which, we understand, will be
presented in Committee would amend the Health and Safety Code
AB 1147
Page 7
to exclude from the definition of 'marijuana', 'industrial
hemp' which would be defined as the plant Cannabis sativa
having no more than 3/10 of 1% THC, cultivated from seed
originating within California, and cultivated and processed
exclusively for the purposes of producing hemp fiber,
sterilized seed and seed oil. It would be unlawful to remove
the resin, flowering tops or leaves of the Cannabis plant from
the field of cultivation, and as well as to sell or transport
industrial hemp seed that is capable of germination across
state borders."
"The concern about federal pre-emption, of course, is based on
the definition of 'marihuana' under the federal Controlled
Substances Act as including 'all parts of the plant Cannabis
sativa L., whether growing or not . . . . ' [2 U.S.C.
802(16).] While industrial hemp is a specially bred,
non-psychoactive variety of the species Cannabis sativa L.,
the plant still belongs to that species.
"On the other hand, the Controlled Substances Act definition of
"marihuana" specifically excludes hemp stalk, fiber, seed and
oil: 'Such term [marihuana] does not include the mature
stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or
cake made from seeds of such plant, any other compound . . .
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.' [2
U.S.C. 802(16).]
"By reason of this specific exclusion, it is currently lawful
under federal law - and has been for almost 70 years - to
import into the United States, sell within the United States
and make and sell products made from, the excluded parts of
the Cannabis plant - i.e., hemp fiber, stalk, seed and oil.
The question is whether federal law would automatically
prohibit the growing of industrial hemp plants under state law
- as contemplated by this bill - in a way that allows only the
excluded, i.e., federally permissible, parts of the Cannabis
plant to enter any commerce at all. That is, under this bill,
as we understand its operation, no part of the Cannabis plant
could leave a farmer's field other than the excluded parts of
the plant."
"The courts have never before confronted such a state law regime
for licensing and regulating the cultivation of industrial
AB 1147
Page 8
hemp. The basic legal framework in which such a regime would
be analyzed consists of the following elements:
(b It is not completely settled whether the low-THC,
industrial hemp variety of the Cannabis sativa L. plant
itself is a Schedule I substance under the CSA. The United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has answered
that question in the affirmative. [ New Hampshire Hemp
Council, Inc. v Marshall , 203 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.), cert.
denied, 531 U.S. 828 (2000).] However, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit just heard oral
argument in the case of United States v. White Plume , Nos.
05-1654 et al., (8th Cir., argued and submitted Dec. 12,
2005); during that argument, two of the judges indicated
that they would not necessarily accept that Congress
intended to allow hemp seed, oil, fiber and stalk to be
imported, used and processed in the United States but not
allow the hemp plants themselves to be grown.
b) As noted above, the CSA does not cover - and the Drug
Enforcement Administration cannot regulate, that is, it
cannot ban the possession, importation or sale of - the
exempted parts of the plant, i.e., sterilized hemp seed,
oil, stalk and fiber. [ Hemp Indus. Ass'n v. DEA , 357 F.3d
1012 (9th Cir. 2004).] 'Congress knew what it was doing,
and its intent to exclude non-psychoactive hemp from
regulation is entirely clear.' (Id. at 1018.) 'DEA cannot
regulate naturally-occurring THC not contained within or
derived from
marijuana - i.e., non-psychoactive hemp products - because
non-psychoactive hemp is not included in Schedule I.' [Id.
(emphasis in original).]
(c In order to control the interstate market in marijuana,
Congress has the power, under the Commerce Clause, to
regulate the intrastate cultivation and possession of the
regulated parts of the Cannabis plant, regardless of any
effort by the state to legalize such intrastate cultivation
or possession for any purpose. [ Gonzales v. Raich , 125 S.
Ct. 2195 (2005).] In Raich , the Supreme Court, first,
re-affirmed a general principle of Commerce Clause
jurisprudence that Congress has the power to regulate
activities that 'substantially affect' interstate commerce
and that even a purely local activity, and even one that is
not commercial by its nature, 'may still, whatever its
AB 1147
Page 9
nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial
economic effect on interstate commerce.' [125 S. Ct. at
2205-06, quoting Wickard v. Filburn , 317 U.S. 111, 125
(1942).]"
"The Raich Court then invoked the holding of the Wickard
decision as the principal precedent for upholding Congress's
power to regulate intrastate production of a regulated
commodity. In Wickard , a farmer challenged the federal
program setting quotas on raising wheat on the grounds that
the only wheat he was growing would actually be consumed on
the very farm on which he was growing it. The Court ruled
that federal law could, nevertheless, regulate and restrict
that farming operation, because even home-grown wheat
-multiplied by every farm that might grow wheat only for home
consumption - could have a significant effect on the
interstate wheat market."
"The Court reasoned that even if the farmer's 'activity be
local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may
still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it
exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce,
and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at
some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'
(317 U.S. at 125.) In this case, the Court found, that the
farmer's 'own contribution to the demand for wheat may be
trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope
of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken
together with that of many others similarly situated, is far
from trivial.' (Id. at 127.)"
"In Raich , the Court found that the Wickard case established
the principle that 'Congress can regulate purely intrastate
activity that is not itself 'commercial, in that it that is
not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to
regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation
of the interstate market in that commodity.' (125 S. Ct. at
2206.) The Court then reasoned that:
"Here, too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that
leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would
similarly affect price and market conditions. . . . The
parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana
grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that
the high demand in the interstate market will draw such
AB 1147
Page 10
marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown
wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing
prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in
the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana
tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating
commercial transactions in the interstate market in their
entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within
Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity
meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a
substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market
for that commodity. [Id. at 2207 (emphasis added).]"
5)Arguments in Support : Vote Hemp states, "A strong argument
can be made that the state law enacted by this bill would not
be federally pre-empted. The key distinction between the
state law that would be enacted by this bill and the laws at
issue in the cases dealing with congressional power to
regulate particular activity (including Wickard and Raich ) is
that, in the case of this bill, the only subjects of the
commerce - the only products that could enter interstate or
intrastate commerce, or affect interstate commerce - are
actually ones which Congress has chosen not to regulate: the
exempt parts of the plant, including hemp stalk; fiber;
sterilized seed and oil. There is no possibility here that
'the high demand in the interstate market' could 'draw such
marijuana into that market.' The flowers of the hemp form of
cannabis are useless as a drug, and are not
fungible/substitutable for drug marijuana, so there is no
'pull' from the interstate (or intrastate for that matter)
marijuana market - under this bill, under state law, no
non-exempt parts of the plant could leave the farmer's
premises.
"Based on the above framework, the argument would be that even
if Congress intended to ban the possession or sale of any
species of the Cannabis sativa plant, regardless of THC
content, i.e., including industrial hemp plants, as one court
held in New Hampshire Hemp Council, supra , for three reasons,
Congress could not have intended that the CSA would cover the
situation in which the plants themselves would be grown
in-state, under state law and supervision, in such a way that
neither the plants nor any of the regulated parts of the plant
could enter commerce of any kind."
"First, Congress's own findings in the CSA, read together with
AB 1147
Page 11
the legislative history of the Act, suggest that Congress did
not intend to preclude a state regulated regime in which only
the non-regulated parts of the plant would enter commerce at
all. As the Court observed in New Hampshire Hemp Council ,
'While in 1937 Congress had indicated in legislative history
that production for industrial uses would be protected . . .
we can find no indication that Congress in 1970 [in enacting
the CSA] gave any thought to how its new statutory scheme
would affect such production.' (203 F.3d at 7.) To be sure,
Congress did not take any steps to exclude any
non-psychoactive type of Cannabis plant from the definition of
'Marihuana,' the Court found: 'The difficulty is that
Congress' main vehicle for protecting industrial-use plant
production in 1937 was . . . the complex scheme of
differential tax rates[,] . . . the regime that was
drastically modified in 1970 in favor of a broad criminal ban
. . . a ban which read literally embraces production of
cannabis sativa plants regardless of use.' (Id.)
"But that does not answer the question of what Congress intended
as to purely intrastate, state-regulated production of
Cannabis plants - themselves covered by the CSA - that would
not result in any regulated part of the plant entering
commerce. Did Congress intend to exclude state regulation in
that situation? In enacting the CSA, Congress made specific
findings as to the need to regulate intrastate transactions:
(3 ' . . . Incidents of the traffic which are not an
integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as
manufacture, local distribution and possession,
nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon
interstate commerce because:
(3? 'After manufacture, many controlled
substances are transported in interstate commerce;
(3? 'Controlled substances distributed
locally usually have been transported in interstate
commerce immediately before their distribution;
and,
(3? 'Controlled substances possessed commonly
flow through interstate commerce immediately prior
to such possession.
AB 1147
Page 12
(4 'Local distribution and possession of controlled
substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic
in such substances.
(5) 'Controlled substances manufactured and distributed
intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled
substances manufactured and distributed interstate.
Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish in terms of
controls between controlled substances manufactured and
distributed interstate and controlled substances
manufactured and distributed intrastate . . . . [21
U.S.C. Section 801(3), (4) and (5)].'
"Not one of these findings applies to the situation in
which intrastate industrial hemp is grown and processed in
such a way that no regulated part of the plant enters
commerce. In that situation, no controlled substance
enters either intrastate or interstate commerce, either
before or after production of the hemp seed, oil, stalk and
fiber. No Cannabis plant, or any regulated part of the
plant, will have been transported in, or flowed through,
interstate commerce, assuming feral hemp seed from within
California is used, as required by this bill. There is no
possibility of local growing of industrial hemp, regulated
by the state, contributing to increasing the supply of
controlled parts of the plant, either within the state or
in interstate commerce. And it is easy to differentiate
the controlled substance grown intrastate from what enters
interstate commerce - only items that Congress specifically
intended not to regulate. Congress's own findings, then
suggest that Congress may well have not intended to
preclude state regulation of intrastate cultivation of
industrial hemp that does not result in any regulated part
of the plant entering commerce at all.
"Second, Congress has clearly decided to allow the
non-regulated parts of the plant to enter foreign commerce,
that is, to be imported directly into the United States.
Why would Congress intend to allow someone in Canada to
grow Cannabis and import the non-regulated parts of the
plant into Washington State but not allow someone in
California to grow Cannabis and import the same
non-regulated parts of the plant into Washington State
through Oregon? The answer is obvious: because the latter
situation poses the risk of diversion of the regulated item
AB 1147
Page 13
itself, the Cannabis plant including its regulated parts,
into and within the United States. But would Congress
still have intended to achieve this anomalous result where
there is no such realistic risk by reason of state
regulation? A strong argument can be made that the answer
is no.
"Third, to interpret the statute as reaching the subject
activity - state-regulated intrastate industrial hemp
cultivation where the regulated parts of the plant never
enter commerce - would arguably result in an
unconstitutional exercise of Congressional power - i.e.,
beyond what the Commerce Clause would allow. Certainly,
Congress could choose to regulate hemp stalk, fiber seed
and oil. But it has not. Congress having chosen not to
regulate foreign or interstate commerce in that class of
products, how could Congress then regulate intrastate
activity that results only in putting that same class of
products into commerce? Therein lays the critical
distinction between this situation and Raich , with respect
to congressional authority to regulate intrastate
cultivation of Cannabis. As noted above, in Raich the
Court held that regulation of home-grown marijuana for
medical use 'is squarely within Congress' commerce power
because production of the commodity meant for home
consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial
effect on supply and demand in the national market for that
commodity.' 125 S. Ct. at 2207.
"Significantly, that is not true of cultivation of
industrial hemp under strict state regulation. The only
things that would be purchased or used, within or without
California, are hemp stalk, fiber, sterilized seed and oil
- which Congress has chose not to regulate. The
manufacture and sale of hemp stalk, fiber, seed and oil
in-state will, of course, affect interstate commerce in
those items, but again, Congress has chosen not to restrict
those items. It seems clear that this activity will not
affect the interstate market for marijuana, in any way.
The original seeds for in-state cultivation must come from
feral plants, under the requirements set forth in this
bill. No marijuana will be used as such, anywhere or any
time. No 'controlled substance' can cross a state line -
unlike the situation in Raich in which, once marijuana is
in the hands of a medical user, it could be sold,
AB 1147
Page 14
transported, exchanged, etc. And in this case, the
'illicit drug' - the regulated commodity, the industrial
hemp plant - can easily be distinguished, with respect to
origin, use, etc., from the articles that enter commerce,
the hemp stalk, fiber, seed and oil.
"For these reasons, a strong argument could be made that
the in-state cultivation of industrial hemp under strict
conditions allowing only the unregulated articles to enter
commerce, cannot affect market supply or demand for
marijuana and, indeed, does not affect interstate commerce
at all, except in those articles Congress has chosen not to
regulate. It could then be argued further that, having
chosen not to regulate foreign or interstate commerce hemp
stalk, fiber, seed and oil, Congress cannot exercise its
Commerce Clause power to prevent the states from regulating
activity that does nothing more than put these articles
into commerce."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Vote Hemp (Sponsor)
Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco
Community Alliance with Family Farmers
Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps
Drug Policy Alliance Network
Hemp Industries Association
Nutiva
Rainforest Action Network
Sierra Club California
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744