The 21st century has seen an increased national desire to become more environmentally friendly, and Kentucky is no exception. We have some of the most fertile soil in the United States, and with tobacco and coal on their way out the door, we need viable income alternatives that can steer us in a sustainable direction. As this is the case, one of the smartest moves that we Kentuckians can make is to write and enact legislation that will make the growing and selling of industrial hemp and marijuana legal again.
It is important to understand that there are differences between hemp and marijuana because they have different functions that are important to the present and future of Kentucky. In resolving some of the problems that we humans have created during the Age of Patriarchy, we will need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, synthetics (including plastics), and trees. We will also need to heal the wounds of those who suffer from mental disorders, imbalances, dis–eases, and other ailments and reduce the needless deaths caused by prescription drugs that medical marijuana can replace. In achieving these goals, we the people need to resurrect locally and nationally the legal cultivation and selling of both industrial hemp and marijuana.
In 2010, many people still think of industrial hemp and marijuana as being one and the same or indistinguishable, even though botanically speaking they are cousins. Hemp is an English word that has been used for varieties (i.e., cannabis sativa) of the Cannabis plant that have been bred and used for food, fiber, paper, fuel, seeds, oil, etc. Marihuana is derived from the Spanish word marijuana—used "colloquially in the Sonoran region of Mexico"1 and has been used for Cannabis varieties that have been bred over time and used for medicinal, therapeutic, and/or recreational purposes like cannabis indica.
Hemp and marijuana both belong to the plant family Cannabaceae and genus Cannabis L. They did originally belong to different species (see above) but since the mid to late 20th Century have been botanically grouped together with 6 other species into Cannabis sativa L. This intentional grouping made it possible for the Controlled Substances Act of 19702 to classify marijuana and industrial hemp as the same plant, even though the Marihuana Tax Act of 19373—the heavy taxes, excessive paperwork, and possible fines and/or prison time for marihuana commerce that came as a result of the 1937 Act led to a decrease in the cultivation and personal use of marihuana, thereby making it easier for later laws to make it illegal—made a distinction between industrial hemp and marihuana.
The Cannabis (or Cannabis L.) genus is a native of central Asia and may have been cultivated as early as 10,000 B.C. Around 3000 B.C., Ayurvedic medicine used bhang—produced from the dried and crushed leaves, seeds, and stems—to treat problems that included diarrhea, epilepsy, nausea, fever, diabetes, asthma, and menstrual disorders. In 2700 B.C., the first written record of medicinal usage is made in the pharmacopoeia of Shen Nung (one of the fathers of Chinese medicine) for constipation, gout, malaria, fevers, menstrual problems, and rheumatism.
The West came late to using marihuana as medicine, but in 1621 English clergyman Robert Burton wrote in The Anatomy of Melancholy that marihuana could be used for the treatment of depression. Between 1840 and 1900, more than 100 papers were written and published in Western medical literature about using marihuana to treat various dis–eases and ailments. Marihuana was listed in the United States Pharmacopoeia and National Formulary from around 1852 until 1941, which means that it was used for prescription and/or over–the–counter medicines. Also, marihuana was listed as one of the least toxic substances in the United States Pharmacopoeia.
On the other hand, even though prescription (non–illicit) drugs have a much shorter history than marihuana, the deaths caused by adverse drug reactions in hospitals have been listed as being between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death in the United States.4
I am not an expert in law, but the actions taken by the federal government through the passage of laws by Congress related to the regulation of hemp marijuana can be brought to the U.S. Supreme Court on their (possible) illegality.
This is because in United States v. Butler (1936)5, it was decided that the "regulation and control of agricultural production are beyond the powers delegated to the Federal Government" (United States v. Butler). This means states can argue that the Controlled Substances Act (a subset of The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act) of 1970 is in violation of United States v. Butler because industrial hemp was an agricultural product prior to the Revolutionary War and was grown by farmers at the request of the federal government during World War II—it will be harder for marijuana since it’s name is of Spanish origin. California is a good example of a state that is defending its rights in this regard.
Following the passage of the Controlled Substances Act, Congress recommended the creation of a presidential commission to study marihuana because it did not want to permanently categorize marihuana as a Schedule 1 substance—illegal drug with no medicinal uses—without having substantial knowledge about it. The commission was called the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse and consisted of 14 members named by President Nixon and Congress. Of his allotted ten appointees, President Nixon named Raymond Shafer, former Republican Governor of Pennsylvania and former prosecutor, the chair of the commission.
In March 1972, The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, commonly called the Shafer Commission, released their findings in "The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse: Drug Use In America: Problem in Perspective."6 It has been called the "most comprehensive review of marihuana conducted by the federal government."7 The commission advised that marihuana be treated similarly to alcohol in the Volstead Act of 19198 (used to enforce the 18th Amendment) in that an individual who possessed (including casual or non–monetary transfer) marihuana in public would be fined but would not receive a warrant or a record of any kind as the criminal justice system was to not be involved or marijuana was to be decriminalized. Law enforcement could not search a private establishment without probable cause of "unlawful sale." In addition, the Shafer Commission recommended changes to the treatment of marihuana—classified as contraband—in the Controlled Substances Act. Several members of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse also favored legalization of marihuana.
However, President Nixon denounced the report and started the "War on Drugs" through an onslaught of propaganda and myths that continue today through the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and other groups, which have made it difficult to enact state and federal legislation to re–legalize industrial hemp and marihuana. Some of the myths include the following:
Lynn Zimmer, Ph.D. and John Morgan, M.D. have determined that the low–THC levels of marihuana used by the DEA (around 0.5%) are not representative of what was smoked in the 1960s and 1970s (possibly because the DEA’s sample was not marihuana). They also asserted that potency data from the 1980s (more reliable data) suggests that there has not been an increase in THC levels over time.9
Industrial hemp is grown in narrow fields with 4 inch spacing, with little to no branching and no flowers. The plants have small stems and foliage develops only on the top. Marihuana on the other hand is grown far apart to encourage thick branching (similar to a tree used for Christmas) and flower production (the flowers are harvested). Industrial hemp and marihuana are harvested at different times. Furthermore industrial hemp has lower levels of THC, one of the active chemicals in marihuana that produces the feeling of being "high" and higher levels of CBD (cannabidiol) that "block the effect of THC in the central nervous system."
The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse reported in their findings that peer pressure—since there is a desire to oversimplify cause and effect in the U.S.—is what leads to polydrug users. They reviewed multiple studies and determined that tobacco, followed closely by alcohol led users to using marihuana and other drugs. And the Shafer Commission stated the following:
...emphasized that the overwhelming majority of marihuana users do not progress to other drugs. They either remain with marihuana or foresake its use in favor of alcohol. In addition, the largest number of marihuana users in the United States today are experimenters or intermittent users, and 2% of those who have ever used it are presently heavy users. Only moderate and heavy use of marihuana is significantly associated with persistent use of other drugs. (The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse: Drug Use In America: Problem in Perspective, March 1972).
When it comes to aggressive or violent behavior, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that "...marihuana does not cause violent or aggressive behavior, if anything, marihuana generally serves to inhibit the expression of such behavior." They also reported that "no evidence exists that marihuana use will cause or lead to the commission of violent or aggressive behavior by the large majority of psychologically and socially mature individuals in the general population" (The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse: Drug Use In America: Problem in Perspective, March 1972).
Even though prescription (non–illicit) drugs have a much shorter history than marihuana, the deaths caused by adverse drug reactions in hospitals were listed as being between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death in the United States. In addition, prescription drugs are usually synthesized in labs by using different chemical compounds to create a pill, liquid, gel capsule, or other. Since the end product is a synthetic compound with various chemicals (not normally found together in nature), there is no natural buffer to safeguard humans when it is chewed, taken orally, received intravenously, etc., and this means that the physical, emotional, psychological, and physiological effects are not known. Therefore, the effects have to be determined during clinical trials before being released to the general public via our personal physician, psychiatrist, or local pharmacy. Often times, because the effects are not completely known or studied (due to the speed at which they are synthesized and brought to market) people (sometimes unknowingly) suffer from the following side effects: fever, depression, moodiness, amnesia, hypotension, hypertension, blurred vision, accidental injury, vertigo, mental confusion, myalgia, bone disorder, infection (viral, ear), nausea, vomiting, multiple organ failure, influenza, anemia, and even death (for example, Aldactazide, Aldactone, Chantix, etc.).,10 To date, there have been no reported deaths from smoking or taking an overdose of marihuana. There was a case in which marihuana was blamed for the death of an individual involved in a car accident. However, the toxicology reported that the individual had other illicit drugs in his system (other than marihuana) and alcohol.
Medical marijuana has been made legal in thirteen states including Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
The first state to make the selling of medical marijuana legal was California with Oakland as the epicenter of the movement. In the summer of 2009, the citizens of Oakland voted to impose a 1.8% sales tax on the sale of marijuana that would go directly into the city’s general funds. The Harborside Health Center which sells the drug has a yearly revenue of $20 million, therefore Oakland receives approximately $360,000 annually in taxes on medical marijuana.11 If California legalizes marijuana with the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act, they anticipate additional yearly revenue of $1.38 billion. In California, newspapers have reported that some of the medical marijuana growers (many that were almost destitute a few years ago) are now achieving taxable and legal incomes that exceed $100, 000.12 Since Kentucky has yet to enact legislation to legalize medical marijuana, we are losing an annual revenue of $38,757,429.00, which can help to buffer our expected budget shortfall.13
In addition to the financial benefits of medical marijuana, the people can benefit from seeing a decrease in the prescribing of non–illicit drugs by doctors. This will greatly benefit Kentucky because the majority of deaths attributed to prescription drugs disproportionately affects the rural population. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated in 2004 that, with its 164% increase from 1999 to 2004, Kentucky had one of the highest increases in accidental deaths due to deadly drug overdoses.14 To counteract this trend, the legal sale of marijuana should be promoted and established for the illnesses and ailments for which humans have known to benefit like AIDS, cancer treatment, glaucoma, pain reduction, seizure control, affective disorders (including depression), gout, etc.
The people can also benefit financially from being allowed to grow and sell marijuana legally. The ten–year depression (in the news it has been called a recession) has devastated families, single parents, small and even large businesses and has hurt those that live at or below the poverty line. Kentucky is one of the five poorest states, and in 2007, 17.2% of our population lived under the federal poverty level, which was about 4% higher than the national average.15
Hemp has long been known for its strength, durability, and vitality, which has made it one of the most functional agricultural products in history. The plant has more than 200 uses, including food (for humans and birds), fuel, oil, textiles (including canvas bags and clothes), plastics, paint, paper, livestock bedding and food, building materials, rope, sails, and now eco–friendly bricks that have a very low conductivity and good insulation in both the heat and cold. 16 One acre of industrial hemp can produce more usable fiber than four acres of trees or two acres of cotton.
In addition, when growing hemp, insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides are not needed. It can also be used in crop rotation cycles (used in the system of organic gardening) to add vital nutrients back to the soil that are lost when growing crops like corn and tobacco.
It was reported in 1951 in A History of the Hemp Industry in Kentucky that Kentucky accounted for 50% of the industrial hemp production during the 1800’s. In a 1998 study, The Center for Business and Economy Research at the University of Kentucky reported that if Kentucky were to create hemp processing plants that it would "have an economic impact of 771 full–time equivalent jobs and $17,600,000 in worker earnings." 17 Because of the increased desire for environmentally friendly and/or sustainable products in the past decade, the economic impact of industrial hemp may be more than reported.
The total amount of money lost in the United States and Kentucky from importing hemp and its by products is not known, however, based on the increase in popularity of hemp products, it can be assumed that we are losing millions, if not billions of dollars yearly in revenue from having to import hemp products.
By growing hemp on more than family farms, there is the real possibility of increasing the production capacity of industrial hemp for sale, which will increase the state’s taxable revenue streams. Since its cultivation will be legal, Kentucky will generate income through the sales tax (on non–food related hemp by–products), income taxes of the growers, from the processing plants, etc.
We the people and the states (through states’ rights) need to reassess our view of industrial hemp and marihuana. We must put an end to the demonization and fear mongering that keeps them illegal.18 In doing so, we need to educate ourselves on the facts and work to change the laws at the state and national level, so we can collectively benefit from these agricultural products with histories as old as agriculture itself.
After we arm ourselves with knowledge, we need to lobby our elected officials in the state to sponsor and pass the House and Senate bills that have been introducted in the House and Senate that will legalize the growing of industrial hemp19. We need to contact our elected state officials 20 and let them know that they need to add industrial hemp and marijuana in the crop diversification that resulted from House Bill 611. Lastly, we need to circulate factual information to our lawmakers in Frankfort, to our neighbors, farmers, gardeners, schools, public and private, and newspapers to educate the populace about the truth.
Obiora Embry is a free thinker that has been doing independent research for 15+ years on a variety of topics including hemp and marijuana. He has addressed some of the common marijuana and hemp myths that can be read within the context of the article @ http://utgift.freehostia.com/KY/.