FEDS SHIELD OUR FARMS' MORAL FIBER

Sometimes there are aspects of lawmaking that remind one of scenes
from "Alice in Wonderland," such as when Alice has a circular
conversation with the hookah-smoking caterpillar.

This came to mind Tuesday morning, whilst sitting in Room 113 at the
Capitol and observing the state Senate Agriculture Committee.

The topic under consideration was hemp. Hemp is an oft-misunderstood
plant. Many people think it's the same as marijuana, when actually
they're just good friends.

They're both members of the same plant genus, and look very similar.
But hemp has only trace levels of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which
is the stuff in marijuana that gets you buzzed.

Hemp is nonetheless a very useful plant. It is a very strong fiber.
European car manufacturers are using it as a substitute for
fiberglass in some parts. The seed has nutritional value. You can
make paper, clothes, shampoo and other products from it.

And you can legally sell all that stuff in the U.S., thanks to a 2004
federal appeals court ruling that blocked an effort by the Drug
Enforcement Administration to ban hemp product sales. (The DEA
decided not to pursue an appeal.)

But while you can sell hemp products, you still have to import the
raw materials, because growing hemp is illegal in the U.S. Which is
where Assembly Bill 684 comes in.

The bill by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-S.F., would allow state farmers
to grow hemp. Before any harvest, they would have to get a lab report
certifying its THC level was less than 0.3 percent, as well as inform
the gendarmes as to the exact location and size of the crop.

Leno told the committee his bill would free hemp product purveyors
from having to import it from Canada or the other 30-plus countries
that allow its cultivation. It would give California farmers the
option to grow a crop that is very kind to soil and is so
bug-resistant it doesn't need pesticides.

But some cop groups don't like the idea, and their lobbyist, John
Lovell, put forth two seemingly plausible arguments in opposing
Leno's bill. One is that it's hard to tell the difference between
hemp and marijuana plants, and wily pot growers would disguise their
crop by buffering the illegal plants in hemp fields, thus making the
cops' job more difficult.

The other is that it's moot, since the state can't trump federal
jurisdiction in this area, and the feds aren't budging from opposing
any domestic hemp farming.

The first of these arguments is pretty thin. Hemp plants are grown
much closer together than marijuana plants. Moreover, savvy pot
growers don't want hemp plants anywhere near their crop, since the
two species cross-pollinate and ruin the potency of the marijuana.

The other argument is a tougher nut to crack. Seven states have
already passed laws similar to Leno's bill, but the DEA has so far
refused to sanction any domestic crop.

On Monday, in fact, two North Dakota farmers, one of them a state
legislator, sued in federal court in an effort to force the feds to
approve hemp-growing licenses issued to them by the state.

As for Leno's bill, it was shot down on a 3-2 vote. What's likely to
happen is he'll amend it to make it some kind of pilot project and
try again in two weeks. But even if he gets it out of the Senate,
Leno may be just tilting at windmills. A similar measure was approved
by legislators last year but vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger,
and there's been no indication the guv has changed his mind.

So you can buy hemp products, you can sell hemp products, you can
make hemp products.

You just can't grow hemp. Makes you wonder just what that caterpillar
was smoking in that hookah.