Why Did Governor Brown Veto Industrial Hemp Bill?

Read Time:6 Minute, 17 Second

Did Brown Veto the Industrial Hemp Bill: or did the federal government?

Did Governor Brown have good reason to veto SR 676, the Industrial Hemp bill? Is the situation more complex than it appears on its face?

Governor Brown’s veto of the bill allowing farmers to grow hemp in California’s Central Valley is disappointing. However, the veto apparently arises from political intricacies that are not immediately clear. The ramifications, at best, could have further damaged the state’s already terrible economy. Although I personally wish the situation were different, Brown had to consider the ramifications of the actions of the federal government.

California Cannabis Coalition supports hemp farming

I initially found myself extremely upset about Governor Brown’s decision, until I sat down and thought about why he might have made this choice. In reviewing the events of the past week, I came to the following conclusion.

The federal government gave a dictum to medical marijuana dispensaries in California to shut down in 45 days or the feds would to shut down stores and confiscate medicinal marijuana. I have no doubt this decision was based in no small part on the heels of DEA Administrator, Michele M. Leonhart’s, untenable and medically uninformed statement that marijuana is as dangerous as heroin.

According to Big Government.com the crackdown:

comes a little more than two months after the Obama administration toughened its stand on medical marijuana. For two years before that, federal officials had indicated they would not move aggressively against dispensaries in compliance with laws in the 16 states where pot is legal for people with doctors’ recommendations.

There are few—if any—thinking people that reject legalization of marijuana legalization for medical or even recreational use. I do not believe the governor wanted to reject the Industrial Hemp bill—he may have had no choice in considering the potential harm the bill could have caused.

The text of California’s Industrial Hemp bill specifically provides that “hemp must contain less than 0.3% THC,” there’s a strong potential the feds would raid farmland.” The bill also specifies:

This bill would revise the definition of marijuana so that the term would exclude industrial hemp, as defined, except where the plant is cultivated or processed for purposes not expressly allowed. The bill would define industrial hemp as a fiber or oilseed crop, or both, that is limited to the nonpsychoactive types of the plant Cannabis sativa L. and the seed produced therefrom, having no more than 310 of 1% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the dried flowering tops, and that is cultivated and processed exclusively for the purpose of producing the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin or flowering tops extracted therefrom, fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.

[See the full text of SB 676 here]

The Industrial Hemp bill was well-written and took into account any potential objections from the federal government.

The insidious undercurrent stems from federal law making marijuana a controlled substance. That perspective does not differentiate between hemp and marijuana. Accordingly, repercussions from DEA raids could have further bankrupted California.

California supplies provides more agricultural crops to America—and the world—than any other state. Potential damage to decreasing farmlands would have deleterious effect on the world food supply.

Given the impending property damage and loss of revenues to dispensaries, I feel certain the governor was left in the unenviable position of signing the bill knowing that a strong potential of farmers losing their crops exists. It’s no stretch of the imagination to see the DEA allow some growth of hemp plants then raid immature crops in another crack down.

Such endeavor would likely destroy farmland and potentially create a situation where farmers could not sow new crops in time for the plants to mature, be harvested, and then shipped to markets. That scenario would affect the entire country in terms of food availability and dramatically increase unemployment nationwide, such as the trucking industry, grocery markets. An argument can be made that had this bill passed, the crackdown might have created a further economic downfall where food prices could skyrocket even more.

As Brown stated in his letter to the California Senate, Failure to obtain a permit from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration prior to growing such plants will subject a California farmer to federal prosecution. I’m not sure the DEA is inclined to issue such permits, leaving farmers wide open to seizure and potential damage to farmland.

Brown called the federal government’s hemp ban “absurd.” I am of the opinion that the FDA and the federal government cornered the governor was and put him into a rotten position. He clearly stated his objection to such law, as well as his reluctance to veto the Industrial Hemp bill, in his letter to the state:

Federal law clearly establishes that all cannabis plants, including industrial hemp, are marijuana, which is a federally regulated controlled substance. Failure to obtain a permit from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration prior to growing such plants will subject a California farmer to federal prosecution.

Although I am not signing this measure, I do support a change in federal law. Products made from hemp—clothes, food, and bath products—are legally sold in California every day. It is absurd that hemp is being imported into the state, but our farmers cannot grow it.

I do not believe he wanted to veto the Hemp Industrial Bill. A strong case can be made that Brown, a fourth-generation, native Californian, was watching out for the best interests of the state’s farmers. Agriculture is one of the few profit-making industries left in California where small businesses can flourish. That is a strong factor that deserved consideration.

The potential of farmers losing their livelihoods if the DEA raids their hemp farms would further burden on California’s already dire economic crisis. I can envision Big Agra coming in on the heels of many foreclosures of family owned farms, scooping up thousands of acres of farmland, and putting farmers out of a job had this bill become law.

Hemp crops, of course, would have almost immediately turned the state economy around. Further benefits of the Industrial Hemp bill is far less impact on: hemp would no longer need to be shipped into the state, but a locally grown crop. Again, the federal government seems to have trouble differentiating between hemp and marijuana, even though the rapid economic growth of America came directly from hemp cultivation.

If, as I suspect, the governor was looking at the potential devastation legalization of the Industrial Hemp Bill had cause in the form of federal raids, it would seem little choice was left to Brown other than a veto.

I am more disgusted at the useless “war” on drugs that ostensibly forced Brown to make this decision; however, the governor has a history of finding different avenues to effect profound change when he disagrees with what he rightly feels is an absurd law. I suspect he already has a plan in place.

Stay tuned. I feel certain the hemp battle between Governor Brown and the federal government is far from over.


Mad Mike’s America thanks the California Senate, Around the Capital, and Big Government.com.


Given the federal government crackdown on marijuana and hemp, did Governor Brown make the correct decision?

About Post Author

Dorothy Anderson

I want to know what you think and why, especially if we disagree. Civil discourse is free speech: practice daily. Always question your perspective.
Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Admin
12 years ago

This makes sense. As you note, Dorothy, “political intricacies” came into play here. Good read. Thanks.

kraken Previous post KRAKEN remains discovered
Next post Gonorrhea may soon be incurable
1
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x