Victory for Hemp!

FEDERAL JUDGES REJECT DEA EFFORT TO BAN HEMP FOODS

The hemp industry has won a three-year battle with the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) over the agency's effort to ban foods
containing hemp products, and now the industry wants the feds to say
they're sorry. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled February 6
that the DEA overstepped the bounds of the law when, in contradiction
to the plain language of the Controlled Substances Act, it attempted
to ban foods containing trace elements of THC, the psychoactive
component of cannabis.

And based on official documents obtained by the Hemp Industry
Association's VoteHemp project (http://www.votehemp.com), the industry
is charging that the Justice Department knew all along it didn't have
a legal leg to stand on, but that it plotted the commerce-sabotaging
move as part of its culture war against marijuana.

The court held that while the DEA does have regulatory authority over
marijuana and synthetic THC, that authority does not extend to the
"non-marijuana" parts of cannabis plants. The Controlled Substances
Act explicitly exempts stalks, seeds, and fiber from regulation under
the act. "The DEA cannot regulate naturally-occurring THC not
contained within or derived from marijuana -- i.e., non-psychoactive
hemp is not included in Schedule I," wrote federal Judge Betty
Fletcher for a three-judge panel. "The DEA has no authority to
regulate drugs that are not scheduled, and it has not followed
procedures required to schedule a substance. The DEA's definition of
THC contravenes the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in the
CSA and cannot be upheld."

"The decision in HIA v. DEA is a huge boost to the hemp food market,
and we expect to see many more hemp food products on store shelves,"
said David Bronner, maker of the AlpSnack organic hemp nutrition bar
and chair of the HIA Food and Oil Committee. "The three-judge panel
agreed with our main argument that the DEA's 'Final Rule' ignores
Congress's specific exemption in the Controlled Substances Act under
the definition of marijuana that excludes hemp seed and oil from
control along with hemp fiber. Based on today's decision, the court
reasonably views trace insignificant amounts of THC in hemp seed in
the same way as it sees trace amounts of opiates in poppy seeds,"
Bronner said.

Unless the Justice Department appeals the decision to the Supreme
Court -- it has not yet made any announcement -- or seeks to move
against hemp foods through other means, possibly using the Food and
Drug Administration, the ruling marks an end to a legal battle that
began in October 2001, when the DEA issued an "interpretative rule"
banning the sale of hemp products for human consumption because they
contained traces of THC. The DEA and its Justice Department attorneys
argued that people might get high from hemp food and that hemp foods
could affect drug testing, but those contentions were ill-founded and
almost literally laughed out of court, first by the 9th Circuit in
June 2003, when it invalidated the "interpretive rule," and again last
week, when the court threw out the DEA's "final rule."

While industry figures hailed the ruling, the fight cost the HIA at
least $200,000 in legal expenses and damaged the nascent industry as
some retailers pulled hemp food products from their shelves. And with
recently uncovered official documents in hand, the industry is crying
foul. "The public and media should question the motives of the DEA,"
said Eric Steenstra, president of Vote Hemp. "We have uncovered
documents through the Freedom of Information Act that prove the DEA's
own attorneys at the Department of Justice as far back as March 2000
knew they lacked the authority to ban hemp food products. The DEA owes
over 200 companies and every American an apology for wasting taxpayer
money pursuing a ban on hemp foods."

Steenstra was referring to a March 22, 2002, letter from John Roth,
chief of the Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Division of the Justice
Department's Criminal Division. In that letter responding to a request
for a legal opinion from then Customs Commissioner Raymond Kelly, Roth
reviewed the history of court decisions relating to the issue and
after noting differences between the treatment of marijuana and hemp,
concluded: "With hemp, by contrast, Congress has made its intent known
by specifically excluding these products from its definition of
marijuana. While the department's overall policy toward the
cultivation of cannabis for hemp purposes is currently undergoing
review by the Attorney General, it is our legal opinion that we
presently lack the authority to prohibit the importation of hemp
products..."

But wait, there's more. Two years earlier, in another letter obtained
by Vote Hemp, then Office of National Drug Control Policy general
counsel Ed Jurith was plotting efforts to ban hemp foods because, as
he put it, "hemp-hype has become a stalking horse for the marijuana
movement." Allowing the importation and sale of hemp consumables
"threatens the viability of our federal drug testing system and
supports a movement to cultivate cannabis sativa in this country,"
Jurith warned head Customs lawyer Alfonso Robles. Such an outcome
would be "unacceptable," wrote Jurith, suggesting that an
"interpretation of the plain language of Schedule I of the Controlled
Substances Act" might serve to block such evil.

But Jurith's interpretation, or one of its bureaucratic descendants,
is what died in federal court in San Francisco last week. And with it
died what can only be called a conspiracy impelled by the imperatives
of drug war absolutism to disrupt and bankrupt a legal, healthful
industry. "The truth is that the DEA, at the direction of the Office
of National Drug Control Policy and the urging of the Family Research
Council, attempted to kill the legitimate, burgeoning hemp foods
industry not because hemp is harmful to the human body, but because
they see it as a 'stalking horse' for the marijuana movement," said
Patrick Goggin, an attorney for the HIA, who warned of possible legal
action against the government. "The damages this egregious policy have
caused are widespread to say the least. The industry is fully
considering its options for recovering these damages and the cost of
defending against this underhanded governmental action."

While the hemp industry celebrates its victory, it also seeks to
punish governmental wrongdoers. And it's looking over its shoulders to
see what, if anything, the feds throw at it next. "We are prepared for
an appeal," declared HIA publicist Adam Eidinger. "An appeal would
help us, it would be more mud on the DEA's reputation and more
publicity for us."

Read the US 9th Circuit Court decision in HIA vs. USA online at:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90DC066FE8E8955688256E31007ACE3B/$file/0371366.pdf?openelement

Read the Roth letter online at: http://www.votehemp.com/PDF/roth_letter.pdf

Read the Jurith letter online at: http://www.votehemp.com/PDF/jurith_robles.pdf