EDITORIAL PAGE

CARTOON depicts two disgruntled protesters outside of the Interim Joint
Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources’ hearing room, carrying signs
that read, “NO HEMP” and “Hemp Leads To The Harder Stuff! (Like Burlap).”
The cartoon caption reads, “AHA! I KNEW IT! A (JOINT) COMMITTEE!”

EDITORIAL

HEMP FEAR

It’s a cash crop, not pot

Looking over the audience Wednesday as the Interim Joint Committee on
Agriculture and Natural Resources settled down to hear testimony on
industrial hemp, you saw some faces familiar to this debate.
There was Gatewood Galbraith, who’s carried a prohemp platform
through a variety of unsuccessful political campaigns for 15 years or so.
There, too, was Donna Cockrel, who’s been in trouble with the Shelby
County school system ever since she invited actor and hemp activist Woody
Harrelson to a classroom discussion of the plant.
Now that we’ve mentioned the names most associated with this subject in
Kentucky, forget them. The hemp debate isn’t about political gadflys,
martyred teachers or publicityconscious actors.
It’s about farmers. Family farmers. Kentucky family farmers,
searching for another marketable crop one that just might spin off
processing and manufacturing jobs in the local economy.
They look at their state’s agrarian history, and they see that hemp
was the No. 1 cash crop during the 1800’s. They see that strategic
decisions led to its resurgence here during World War II.
They look beyond national boundaries; and they see their counterparts
growing hemp in China, in Canada, in Great Britain and other parts of Europe.
They see a growing market for this versatile plant. They see hemp fiber being
imported into the United States, where it’s turned into useful products.
What they don’t see is a single Kentucky farmer making a legal dime from
growing hemp. And they ask: Why? Why can’t the state at least authorize some
research into hemp production to see if it’s worth their effort?
That’s when they run into the other thing this debate is about: the
unreasoned paranoia of law enforcement officials. To them, legalization of
hemp equates to legalization of marijuana. Period. End of discussion. Even
allowing research is “a slippery slope leading to the worst possible
conclusion,” state Justice Secretary Dan Cherry said Wednesday.
In no way would we belittle our national drug problem. And we recognize
that it may be impossible with the naked eye to tell the difference between
industrial hemp and marijuana. But there are differences that can be detected
scientifically in the field.
Marijuana contains up to 20 percent THC, the chemical that produces a
“high.” Industrial hemp would contain no more than 1 percent THC. You could
smoke it all day and never get a buzz on.
Hemp proponents advocate barring people convicted of felonies or
misdemeanor drug crimes from being licensed to grow industrial hemp.
People obtaining licenses would agree to notify the state of the location
of their fields, and would consent to nonotice searches of those fields
at any time.
Similar procedures are working in other countries. They can work here,
too if our law enforcement officials could get past their fear and
accept the fact that the hemp you roll in paper isn’t the same as the
hemp used to make that paper. (END)