WE CAN DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN HEMP, MARIJUANA

It is time to separate reality from rhetoric. When I was governor, I
listened to all sides of the issues, carefully considered all opinions
before me and tried to be fair in my responses. Being actively involved in
public service, I am often asked for my opinion on various matters
affecting our state.

One of the most recent, the industrial hemp issue, has also proven to be
one of the most important.

Although Kentucky has long been known for its historical hemp industry, it
wasn't until about a year ago that I became educated about industrial hemp.
Frankly, I was opposed to the legalization of hemp for years because I had
been of the opinion that hemp was marijuana. I was shortsighted in my
thinking, and I was wrong.

Last year, as our farmers struggled with the loss of 65 percent of their
tobacco income, I was asked to examine information on hemp. What I learned
was that hemp is not a drug, and never was. After studying the facts, I
believe hemp cultivation has the potential to make a positive impact on our
faltering agricultural economy and to create economic opportunities for
Kentucky farmers and local industries.

I am concerned with all the misleading and intimidating rhetoric being
offered to politicians as facts. We Kentuckians have been so mired in
misinformation about industrial hemp that it has become difficult to
distinguish reality from rhetoric.

They say politics makes strange bedfellows, but none stranger than
marijuana growers and law enforcement. Like preachers and bootleggers, they
oppose legislation for different self-serving reasons.

Law enforcement opposes legalizing hemp production because officers get
paid to destroy it, while marijuana growers oppose legalization because
hemp cross-pollinates and destroys marijuana's potency. And neither side
talks about Orincon, a company with the technology to differentiate
marijuana and hemp from up to 5,000 feet in the air, and other simple
in-field tests that accomplish the same results.

But despite these diametrically opposing sides, there is a middle ground
where common sense and rational people exist together.\

For instance, the North American Industrial Hemp Council is so adamantly
opposed to ``mixing the message,'' it will not accept pro-marijuana
members. Its membership includes James Woolsey, former head of the CIA;
Jeff Gain, former director of the National Corn Growers Association; Erwin
Sholts, former head of the Wisconsin Department of Agricultural
Diversification; Raymond Berard, vice president of Interface Carpets (a
billion dollar industry); Curtis Koster, formerly of International Paper;
and Shelby Thames, a distinguished professor of polymer science at
University of Southern Mississippi.

The list goes on to include farmers, businessmen, legislators and 16 other
states in the process of passing legislation encouraging the growth of
industrial hemp. Is it rational to say all of these folks are involved with
the effort to legalize marijuana?

Should we listen when Canada's Royal Mounted Police report no problems
regulating hemp, or is that force also working to legalize marijuana?

I know Kentucky State Police are as well educated as their Canadian
counterparts and could as easily understand and incorporate industrial hemp
regulations.

As difficult issues are analyzed with just, unbiased and sensible minds,
solutions reached are usually fair and beneficial to all. Why should the
industrial hemp issue be treated any differently? We should be looking
forward to the time when intelligence and truth overshadow rhetoric and
lack of knowledge.

Remember, we can't distinguish between Kentucky white moonshine and spring
water by looking, but we haven't seen fit to outlaw spring water.