BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1147
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 1147 (Leno)
As Amended August 7, 2006
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |44-32|(January 16, |SENATE: |26-13|(August 16, |
| | |2006) | | |2006) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |44-29|(August 21, | | | |
| | |2006) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.
SUMMARY : Clarifies the definition of "marijuana" contained in
the Uniformed Controlled Substance Act (CSA) to exclude
industrial hemp.
The Senate amendments :
1)Include in the definition of "industrial hemp" the seeds
produced from non-psychoactive varieties of the plant Cannabis
sativa L.
2)Delete the requirement that the industrial hemp be cultivated
from seeds originating in the State of California.
3)Require the industrial hemp be cultivated only from seeds
imported in accordance with the laws of the United States
(U.S.) or from seeds grown in California from feral plants,
cultivated plants, or plants grown in a research setting.
4)Mandate a person who grows industrial hemp prior to the
harvest of each crop to obtain a laboratory test report
indicating the Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) levels of a random
sampling of the dried flowering tops of the industrial hemp
grown.
AB 1147
Page 2
5)Require a laboratory test report be issued by a laboratory
registered with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration to
state the percentage content of THC, and indicate the date and
location of samples taken.
6)Specify that if the laboratory test report indicates a
percentage content of THC that is equal to or less than
three-tenths of 1%, the words "PASSED AS CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL
HEMP" shall appear at or near the top of the laboratory test
report. If the laboratory test report indicates a percentage
content of THC that is greater than three-tenths of 1%, the
words "FAILED AS CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL HEMP" shall appear at
or near the top of the laboratory test report.
7)Provide that the person who grows industrial hemp shall retain
a copy of the laboratory test report for two years from its
date of sampling, make the laboratory test report available to
law enforcement officials upon request, and shall provide a
copy of the laboratory test report to each person purchasing,
transporting, or otherwise obtaining the oil, cake, or seed of
the plant.
8)Clarify that notwithstanding the provisions of this bill, a
person may not engage in 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 unless it
is necessary for a grower, agent of a grower, employee or
agent of an employee of a laboratory registered with the
federal Drug Enforcement Administration to perform the
laboratory testing provided by this bill.
9)Except conduct in accordance with the laws of the U.S. from
the prohibition against transportation or sale across state
borders of seed of any variety of Cannabis sativa L. that is
capable of germination.
10)Provide that all industrial hemp seed sold for planting in
California shall be from a crop having no more than
three-tenths of 1% THC contained in a random sampling of the
AB 1147
Page 3
dried flowering tops and tested, as specified.
11)State sampling shall occur as practicable when the THC
content of the leaves surrounding the seeds is at its peal and
shall commence as the seeds being to mature, when the first
seeds of approximately 50% of the plants are resistant to
compression.
12)Provide that the entire fruit-bearing part of the plant
including the seeds shall be used as a sample. The sample cut
shall be made directly underneath the inflorescence found in
the top one-third of the plant.
13)Specify if the required laboratory test report indicated a
percentage content of the THC that is greater than
three-tenths of 1% and does not exceed 1%, the person who
grows industrial hemp shall submit additional samples for
testing.
14)Require a person to destroy industrial hemp grown upon
receipt of a first laboratory test report indicating a
percentage content of THC that exceeds 1% or a second
laboratory test report, as specified, indicating a percentage
content of THC that exceeds three-tenth of 1%. The
destruction shall take place as soon as practicable but no
later than 45 days after the receipt of a laboratory test
report that requires crop destruction.
15)State crop destruction, as defined, shall not apply to
industrial hemp grown in a research setting if the destruction
of the industrial hemp grown will impede the development of
types of industrial hemp that will comply with the
three-tenths of 1% THC limit, as specified.
16)Make clarifying, technical amendments.
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
AB 1147
Page 4
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.
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.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Defined "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% THC
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)Stated 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)Prohibited 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.
4)Found and declared the following:
a) Industrial hemp is produced in at least 30 nations
AB 1147
Page 5
including Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Romania,
Australia, and China and is used by industry to produce
thousands of products including: paper; textiles; food;
oils; automotive parts; and, personal care products;
b) The U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit has ruled in
Hemp Industries v. Drug Enforcement Administration that the
Controlled Substances Act of 1970 explicitly excludes
non-psychoactive hemp from the definition of marijuana, and
the federal government has declined to appeal that
decision.;
c) The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. Section
812(b)) specifies the findings to which the government must
attest in order to classify a substance as a Schedule I
Drug and those findings include that the substance has a
high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use, and
has a lack of accepted safety for use, none of which apply
to industrial hemp;
d) According to a study commissioned by the Hemp Industries
Association, sales of industrial hemp products have grown
steadily since 1990 to more than $250 million in 2005,
increasing at a rate of approximately $26 million per year;
and,
e) California manufacturers of hemp products currently
import from around the world tens of thousands of acres
worth of hemp seed, oil, and fiber products that could be
produced by California farmers at a more competitive price
and intermediate processing of hemp seed, oil, and fiber
could create jobs in close proximity to the fields of
cultivation.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : 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."
AB 1147
Page 6
"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."
Please see the policy committee analysis for full discussion of
this bill.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
I appreciate and applaud the Legislature's interest in
actually expanding California's economy; however, I am
concerned about the impact of the particular type of
expansion that is being proposed. I recognize and am
proud of the fact that California is a national and
world leader in the production of high quality
agricultural commodities. Our state has a rich
agricultural environment and we must strive to protect
and promote farming, ranching, and agri-business in
California, while preserving natural resources and
protecting consumers.
Given these facts, I would like to support the
expansion of a new agriculture commodity in this
state. Unfortunately, I am very concerned that this
bill would give legitimate growers a false sense of
security and a belief that production of 'industrial
hemp' is somehow a legal activity under federal law.
Under current federal statutes, t here is no
definition of 'industrial hemp' nor is there a
distinction between cannabis plants based on
Tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) content as delineated in
AB 1147
Page 7
AB 1147. In fact, under federal law, all cannabis
plants, regardless of variety or THC content, are
simply considered to be 'marihuana', which is a
federally regulated Schedule I controlled substance.
Any person in the United States, who wishes to grow
cannabis plants for any purpose, including industrial
purposes, must first obtain permission and register
with the U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Failure to do so would be a violation of federal law
and could subject an individual to criminal penalties.
I understand that there are several court decisions
that may cloud this issue such as Hemp Industries
Association v. DEA , 357 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2004)
and United States v. White Plume , 447 F.3d 1067 (8th
Cir.2006). Yet, no court has specifically rules that
a live cannabis plant is a non-controlled substance or
that farming these plants is not a regulated activity.
As a result, it would be improper to approve a
measure that directly conflicts with current federal
statutes and court decisions. This only serves to
cause confusion and reduce public confidence in our
government system.
Finally, California law enforcement has expressed
concerns that implementation of this measure could
place a drain on their resources and cause significant
problems with drug enforcement activities. This is
troubling given the needs in this state for the
eradication and prevention of drug production.
In the future, I would encourage the Legislature to
work with state and federal law enforcement agencies
to craft a measure that would reduce the burden on law
enforcement agencies and would comply with federal law
in order to avoid the unnecessary prosecution of
unwitting individuals in this state."
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
AB 1147
Page 8
FN: 0018032