from Hemp Education Mobilization Project, May 16, 1998

Small family farmers seek ruling from federal court for right to grow industrial hemp, Earth's most useful sustainable resource

The plaintiffs base their suit on three principal grounds:

1. Congress never intended to prohibit the legitimate production of industrial hemp and that therefore the defendants interpretation and enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to prohibit industrial hemp, violates the separation of powers.
2. Because Congress has never preempted the regulation of industrial hemp, its production should be left to individual States and citizens, and States may enact legislation regarding the production of industrial hemp without violating federal law.
3. Hemp and marijuana are botanically and legally distinct products of the cannabis plant and should be treated differently.

The farmer-plaintiffs, citing an uncertain market and increasingly restrictive regulations, see industrial hemp, which was grown and marketed in Kentucky from colonial times through the 1930's, as a viable alternative. (A 1942 film produced by the Department of Defense, "Hemp for Victory," praised Kentucky's illustrious history of successful industrial hemp farming and encouraged Kentucky farmers to grow hundreds of acres of industrial hemp as a crop "vital" to the war effort.)

Grown by historic figures including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, industrial hemp is renowned as a multi-purpose and versatile plant. Its seed can be converted into food, oil, animal feed, and cosmetics. The fiber can be utilized textile, rope, carpets, paper products and construction materials. It is considered an environmentally rotational crop that is disease and pest-resistant. Remarkably, industrial hemp is one of the few crops that can be grown in all 50 states.

In this landmark lawsuit attorney Michael Kennedy describes the legislative history of the marijuana laws, first formulated in 1937 when the Marijuana Tax Act was passed. The complaint details how Congress specifically distinguished industrial hemp from marijuana.

The suit details the botanical and legal differences between industrial hemp and marijuana pointing to distinctions noted by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Services. The case will also point out that under the international NAFTA and GATT agreement industrial hemp is recognized as a valid agricultural crop around the world.

The DEA argues that removing industrial hemp from regulatory control would enable marijuana growers to camouflage their product. However, contrary to their assertions, industrial hemp has been scientifically demonstrated to cross-pollinate with marijuana, diminishing its quality. In any event, industrial hemp has a minimal THC content, the pyscho-active ingredient in marijuana.

For further information, call Michael Kennedy at 212-935-4500.