Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Merijuana Law

How do we move from prohibition to legalization in my state?marijuana_protest
That’s one of the most asked questions.
With national media attention focusing on the favorable experience with legalization in Colorado and Washington, and on the not-yet-implemented legalization programs recently adopted in Oregon and Alaska, anyone living in a state that continues arresting and jailing marijuana smokers would naturally wonder why their state seems to have missed out on the drive to end marijuana prohibition.
More accurately, many of those states are lagging behind in the legalization movement, but that, too, will change. As we continue to gather data demonstrating these new laws are working as intended, with few unintended consequences, the drive to end marijuana prohibition will soon reach every state in the union, and beyond. We are no longer debating theory and conjecture; we now have real-life experiences that can be evaluated, and that data resource will grow with each new state.
Patience and persistence still required
We all need to accept the reality that changing public policy is a complex process that requires financial resources, re-education and political organizing. Following more than 75 years of criminal prohibition, and “reefer madness” propaganda by our state and federal governments, many Americans — especially older Americans — hold a negative view of marijuana and marijuana smoking, believing it presents a risk to health or public safety.
Since all but a few of us have lived under prohibition for our entire lives, it is understandable that many would presume there must have been some justification for those tens of millions of marijuana arrests. Surely our own government would not needlessly wreak havoc on all those lives and careers without a good reason.

Personal Use

Legalization
Legalization
The First pot POW
The First pot POW
For Employeer
For Employeer
Comics
Comics
Decriminalization
Decriminalization
Responsible Use
 

legalization

NORML supports the adoption of a legally controlled market for marijuana, where consumers can buy marijuana for personal use from a safe legal source. This policy, generally known as legalization, exists on various levels in a handful of European countries like The Netherlands and Switzerland, and was adopted by voter initiative in Washington (I-502), Colorado (A-64), Oregon (Measure 91), Alaska (Ballot Measure 2), and Washington, DC (Initiative 71).
Full legalization bills were introduced in a number of states and voter initiatives appeared on the ballot in 2014. Additional voter initiatives will appear on the ballot in 2016. NORML will be working with proponents to support these proposals, and we will continue to push Congress to amend federal law to permit states to experiment with different models of marijuana legalization without interference from the federal government.

Dicriminalization

NORML supports the removal of all penalties for the private possession and responsible use of marijuana by adults, including cultivation for personal use, and casual nonprofit transfers of small amounts. This policy, known as decriminalization, removes the consumer -- the marijuana smoker -- from the criminal justice system, while maintaining criminal penalties against those who sell or traffic large quantities of the drug.

States That Have Decriminalized

The following states have passed laws decriminalizing marijuana. Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation.
  • Alaska
  • California
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • District of Columbia
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Minnesota
  • Mississippi
  • Nebraska
  • Nevada
  • New York
  • North Carolina
  • Ohio
  • Oregon
  • Rhode Island
  • Vermont

Marijuana Decriminalization & Its Impact on Use

  • Introduction
  • U.S. Studies
  • International Studies
"The available evidence suggests that removal of the prohibition against possession itself (decriminalization) does not increase cannabis use. ... This prohibition inflicts harms directly and is costly. Unless it can be shown that the removal of criminal penalties will increase use of other harmful drugs, ... it is difficult to see what society gains."
- Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry. February 2001.
Introduction
Findings from dozens of government-commissioned and academic studies published over the past 25 years overwhelmingly affirm that liberalizing marijuana penalties does not lead to an increase in marijuana consumption or affect adolescent attitudes toward drug use.
Since 1973, 13 state legislatures -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon -- have enacted versions of marijuana decriminalization. In each of these states, marijuana users no longer face jail time (nor in most cases, arrest or criminal records) for the possession or use of small amounts of marijuana. Internationally, many states and nations have enacted similar policies.
The following studies examine these decriminalization policies and their impact on marijuana use. The studies' conclusions are listed chronologically.
U.S. Studies
"In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use." - National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C., 102.
"The Law Revision Commission has examined laws from other states that have reduced penalties for small amounts of marijuana and the impact of those laws in those states. ... Studies of [those] states found (1) expenses for arrest and prosecution of marijuana possession offenses were significantly reduced, (2) any increase in the use of marijuana in those states was less that increased use in those states that did not decrease their penalties and the largest proportionate increase occurred in those states with the most severe penalties, and (3) reducing the penalties for marijuana has virtually no effect on either choice or frequency of the use of alcohol or illegal 'harder' drugs such as cocaine."
- Connecticut Law Review Commission. 1997. Drug Policy in Connecticut and Strategy Options: Report to the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. State Capitol: Hartford.
"There is no strong evidence that decriminalization affects either the choice or frequency of use of drugs, either legal (alcohol) or illegal (marijuana and cocaine)." - C. Thies and C. Register. 1993. Decriminalization of Marijuana and the Demand for Alcohol, Marijuana and Cocaine. The Social Sciences Journal 30: 385-399.
"In contrast with marijuana use, rates of other illicit drug use among ER [emergency room] patients were substantially higher in states that did not decriminalize marijuana use. The lack of decriminalization might have encouraged greater use of drugs that are even more dangerous than marijuana."
- K. Model. 1993. The effect of marijuana decriminalization on hospital emergency room episodes: 1975-1978. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88: 737-747, as cited by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine in Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. [6]
"The available evidence indicates that the decriminalization of marijuana possession had little or no impact on rates of use. Although rates of marijuana use increased in those U.S. states [that] reduced maximum penalties for possession to a fine, the prevalence of use increased at similar or higher rates in those states [that] retained more severe penalties. There were also no discernible impacts on the health care systems. On the other hand, the so-called 'decriminalization' measures did result in substantial savings in the criminal justice system."
- E. Single. 1989. The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: An Update. Journal of Public Health 10: 456-466.
"Overall, the preponderance of the evidence which we have gathered and examined points to the conclusion that decriminalization has had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American young people. The data show no evidence of any increase, relative to the control states, in the proportion of the age group who ever tried marijuana. In fact, both groups of experimental states showed a small, cumulative net decline in annual prevalence after decriminalization."
- L. Johnson et al. 1981. Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth 1975-1980. Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper Series, paper 13, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.
"Consumption appears to be unaffected, or affected only minimally by decriminalization, and most people believe that it has had little impact. Further, decriminalization has proven to be administratively and economically advantageous for state law enforcement efforts."
- D. Maloff. 1981. Review of the effects of decriminalization of marijuana. Contemporary Drug Problems Fall: 307-322.
"Levels of use tended to be higher in the decriminalization states both before and after the changes in law. [S]tates which moderated penalties after 1974 (essentially a group of decriminalization states) did indeed experience an increase in rates of marijuana use, among both adolescents (age 12-17) and adults (18 or older). However, the increase in marijuana use was even greater in other states and the largest proportionate increase occurred in those states with the most severe penalties."
- W. Saveland and D. Bray. 1980. American Trends in Cannabis Use Among States with Different Changing Legal Regimes. Bureau of Tobacco Control and Biometrics, Health and Welfare: Ottawa, as cited by E. Single in The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: an Update.
"The reduction in penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use does not appear to have been a factor in people's decision to use or not use the drug."
- California State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse. 1977. A First Report on the Impact of California's New Marijuana Law. State Capitol: Sacramento.
"The number of [hospital] admissions directly due to marijuana use decreased from ... 1970 to ... 1975. In the same time, the number of admissions for drug abuse of all types, except alcohol, [also] decreased. ... The following conclusion seem[s] warranted: medically significant problems from the use of marijuana have decreased coincident with decriminalizing marijuana."
- P. Blachly. 1976. Effects of Decriminalization of Marijuana in Oregon. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282: 405-415.
"Data collected at four points in time in Ann Arbor [Michigan] and the control communities (which underwent no change in marijuana penalties) indicated that marijuana use was not affected by the change in law [to decriminalization.]"
- R. Stuart et al. 1976. Penalty for the Possession of Marijuana: An Analysis of Some of its Concomitants. Contemporary Drug Problems 5: 553, as cited by E. Single in The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: an Update.
International Studies
"The Dutch experience, together with those of a few other countries with more modest policy changes, provides a moderately good empirical case that removal of criminal prohibitions on cannabis possession (decriminalization) will not increase the prevalence of marijuana or any other illicit drug; the argument for decriminalization is thus strong."
- R. MacCoun and P. Reuter. 2001. Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128.
"Fear of apprehension, fear of being imprisoned, the cost of cannabis or the difficulty in obtaining cannabis do not appear to exert a strong influence on decisions about cannabis consumption. ... Those factors may limit cannabis use among frequent cannabis users, but there is no evidence, as of yet, to support this conjecture."
- D. Weatherburn and C. Jones. 2001. Does prohibition deter cannabis use? New South Wales (Australia) Bureau of Crime Statistics: Sydney.
"The available data indicate that decriminalization measures substantially reduced enforcement costs, yet had little or no impact on rates of use in the United States. In the South Australian community, none of the studies have found an impact in cannabis use which is attributable to the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation Scheme [decriminalization.]"
- E. Single et al. 2000. The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in Australia and the United States. Journal of Public Health Policy 21: 157-186.
"There is no evidence to date that the CEN [decriminalization] system ... Has increased levels of regular cannabis use, or rates of experimentation among young adults. These results are broadly in accord with our earlier analysis of trends in cannabis use in Australia. ...They are also consistent with the results of similar analyses in the United States and the Netherlands."
- N. Donnelly et al. 1999. Effects of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme on Levels and Patterns of Cannabis Use in South Australia: Evidence from the National Drug Strategy Household Surveys 1985-1995 (Report commissioned for the National Drug Strategy Committee). Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australia.
"The different laws which govern the use and sale of marijuana do not appear to have resulted in substantially different outcomes if we view those outcomes solely in terms of consumption patterns."
- Australian Institute of Criminology, and the New South Wales Department of Politics 1997. Marijuana in Australia, patterns and attitudes. Monograph Series No. 31, Looking Glass Press (Public Affairs): Canberra, Australia.
"While the Dutch case and other analogies have flaws, they appear to converge in suggesting that reductions in criminal penalties have limited effects on drug use, at least for marijuana." - R. MacCoun and P. Reuter. 1997. Interpreting Dutch cannabis policy: Reasoning by analogy in the legalization debate. Science 278: 47-52.
"General deterrence, or the impact of the threat of legal sanction on the cannabis use of the population at large, has been assessed in large scale surveys. These studies have compared jurisdictions in the USA and Australia where penalties have been reduced with those where they have not, and rates of use have been unaffected. ... Since no deterrent impact was found, this research illustrates a high-cost, low-benefit policy in action. Therefore, if any penalty is awarded, it should be a consistent minimum one. ... The greatest impact on reducing the harmful individual consequences of criminalization would be achieved by eliminating or greatly reducing the numbers of cannabis criminals processed in the first place."
- P. Erickson and B. Fischer. 1997. Canadian cannabis policy: The impact of criminalization, the current reality and future policies. In: L. Bollinger (Ed.) Cannabis Science: From Prohibition to Human Right. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, Germany. 227-242.
"There does not appear to be a consistent pattern between arrest rates and [marijuana] prevalence rates in the [United States] general population. ... Following precipitous increases, marijuana use began decreasing in the late 1970s, during a period of relative stability in arrest rates. The general deterrence effects of the law (i.e., arrest practices), are not apparent based on the intercorrelations of the measures presented here."
- L. Harrison et al. 1995. Marijuana Policy and Prevalance. [15] In: P. Cohen and A. Sas (Eds.) Cannabisbeleid in Duitsland, Frankrijk en de Verenigde Staten. University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam. 248-253.
"The evidence is accumulating ... that liberalization does not increase cannabis use [and] that the total prohibition approach is costly [and] ineffective as a general deterrent."
- L. Atkinson and D. McDonald. 1995. Cannabis, the Law and Social Impacts in Australia. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 48.
"It has been demonstrated that the more or less free sale of [marijuana] for personal use in the Netherlands has not given rise to levels of use significantly higher than in countries which pursue a highly repressive policy."
- Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. 1995. Drugs: Policy in the Netherlands: Continuity and Change. The Hague.
"It is clear ... that the introduction of the CEN scheme [decriminalization] in South Australia has not produced a major increase in rates of cannabis use in South Australia by comparison with changes occurring elsewhere in Australia. ... It is not possible to attribute the moderate increases in cannabis use rates in South Australia to the removal of criminal penalties for small-scale cannabis offenses in that state."
- N. Donnelly et al. 1995. The effects of partial decriminalization on cannabis use in South Australia, 1985 to 1993. Australian Journal of Public Health 19: 281-287.
"The available evidence suggests that those jurisdictions which have decriminalized personal cannabis use have not experienced any dramatic increase in prevalence of use." - National Drug and Alcohol Research Center. 1994. Patterns of cannabis use in Australia. Monograph Series No. 27, Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra, Australia.
"It appears clear that there is no firm basis for concluding that the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation Notice System in South Australia in 1987 has had any detrimental effect in terms of leading to increased levels of cannabis use in the Southern Australian community. ... In the context of a society which is increasingly well informed about the risks associated with drug use in general, a move toward more lenient laws for small scale cannabis offenses, such as the CEN [decriminalization] system, will not lead to increased cannabis use."
- Drug and Alcohol Services Council of South Australia, Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Unit. 1991. The Effects of Cannabis Legalization in South Australia on Levels of Cannabis Use. DASC Press: Parkside, Australia.

The first pot POW

The First Pot POW

Get Downloads
Downloads (PDF Print Poster,
Wallpaper, Web Graphics)
Get First Pot POW Gear

The First Pot POW

After a decade of U.S. government scare propaganda that convinced Americans that crazed Mexicans, blacks and fans of jazz clubs were pushing marijuana "reefers" on school children and honest youths, turning them into raving murderers, politicians decided to act.
The U.S. Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act. Growing and selling marijuana were still legal, but only if you bought a $1 government stamp. And that stamp was not for sale.
On the day the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act was enacted -- Oct. 2, 1937 -- the FBI and Denver, Colo., police raided the Lexington Hotel and arrested Samuel R. Caldwell, 58, an unemployed labourer and Moses Baca, 26. On Oct. 5, Caldwell went into the history trivia books as the first marijuana seller convicted under U.S. federal law. His customer, Baca, was found guilty of possession.
Caldwell's wares, two marijuana cigarettes, deeply offended Judge Foster Symes, who said: "I consider marijuana the worst of all narcotics, far worse than the use of morphine or cocaine. Under its influence men become beasts. Marijuana destroys life itself. I have no sympathy with those who sell this weed. The government is going to enforce this new law to the letter."
Caldwell was sentenced to four years of hard labour in Leavenworth Penitentiary, plus a $1,000 fine. Baca received 18 months incarceration. Both men served every day of their sentence. A year after Caldwell was released from prison, he died. (From Cannabis News)
Spread the Word! Download the image for your blog.

Click for larger image
Historical Information
1976 NORML Playboy, HighTimes Ad
NORML Report on Sixty Years of Marijuana Prohibition in the U.S. (1997)
30 Years After Nixon's Marijuana Commission Advocated Decriminalization (2002)
This speech by Charles Whitebread is derived from 'The Forbidden Fruit and the Tree of Knowledge: An Inquiry into the Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition' by Professor Richard J. Bonnie & Professor Charles H. Whitebread, II

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Responsible Use

Marijuana is the third most popular recreational drug in America (behind only alcohol and tobacco), and has been used by nearly 100 million Americans. Marijuana smoking can never be an excuse for misconduct or other improper behavior. Further information regarding the responsible use of marijuana is available here.

Principles of Responsible Use

  • Adults Only
  • No Driving
  • Set and Setting
  • Resist Abuse
  • Respect Rights of Others
When cannabis(marijuana) is enjoyed responsibly, subjecting users to harsh criminal and civil penalties provides no public benefit and causes terrible injustices. For reasons of public safety, public health, economics and justice, the prohibition laws should be repealed to the extent that they criminalize responsible cannabis use.
By adoption of this statement, the NORML Board of Directors has attempted to define "responsible cannabis use."
I. Adults Only
Cannabis consumption is for adults only. It is irresponsible to provide cannabis to children.
Many things and activities are suitable for young people, but others absolutely are not. Children do not drive cars, enter into contracts, or marry, and they must not use drugs. As it is unrealistic to demand lifetime abstinence from cars, contracts and marriage, however, it is unrealistic to expect lifetime abstinence from all intoxicants, including alcohol. Rather, our expectation and hope for young people is that they grow up to be responsible adults. Our obligation to them is to demonstrate what that means. (This provision does not apply to the physician supervised and recommended use of medical cannabis by patients of any age.)
II. No Driving
The responsible cannabis consumer does not operate a motor vehicle or other dangerous machinery while impaired by cannabis, nor (like other responsible citizens) while impaired by any other substance or condition, including some medicines and fatigue.
Although cannabis is said by most experts to be safer than alcohol and many prescription drugs with motorists, responsible cannabis consumers never operate motor vehicles in an impaired condition. Public safety demands not only that impaired drivers be taken off the road, but that objective measures of impairment be developed and used, rather than chemical testing.
III. Set and Setting
The responsible cannabis user will carefully consider his/her set and setting, regulating use accordingly.
"Set" refers to the consumer's values, attitudes, experience and personality, and "setting" means the consumer's physical and social circumstances. The responsible cannabis consumer will be vigilant as to conditions -- time, place, mood, etc. -- and does not hesitate to say "no" when those conditions are not conducive to a safe, pleasant and/or productive experience.
IV. Resist Abuse
Use of cannabis, to the extent that it impairs health, personal development or achievement, is abuse, to be resisted by responsible cannabis users.
Abuse means harm. Some cannabis use is harmful; most is not. That which is harmful should be discouraged; that which is not need not be.
Wars have been waged in the name of eradicating "drug abuse", but instead of focusing on abuse, enforcement measures have been diluted by targeting all drug use, whether abusive or not. If cannabis abuse is to be targeted, it is essential that clear standards be developed to identify it.
V. Respect Rights of Others
The responsible cannabis user does not violate the rights of others, observes accepted standards of courtesy and public propriety, and respects the preferences of those who wish to avoid cannabis entirely.
No one may violate the rights of others, and no substance use excuses any such violation. Regardless of the legal status of cannabis, responsible users will adhere to emerging tobacco smoking protocols in public and private places.

For Employers

For Employers

One of the most pernicious and ubiquitous effects of cannabis prohibition is the conveyance of what traditionally should be law enforcement costs and duties onto the public and private employers.
In the mid 1980s, government officials acknowledged, first privately then publicly, that the federal and state law enforcement could not arrest and incarcerate their way to a so-called victory in the war on some drugs. As a result, government planners suggested laying the legal groundwork necessary to transfer part of the government's traditional responsibility to public and private workplace managers by helping to establish the drug testing industry.
Today, according to the American Management Association over 60% of all employees face pre-employment or on-the-job drug testing to get or maintain employment in the US.
Nevertheless, there are over 20 years of social, legal and economic data and research indicating that drug testing employees for off-the-job cannabis use is a poor use of company resources. Furthermore this policy is arbitrary, discriminatory and inherently unfair in an American workforce replete with alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical consumers.
In the last few years, more and more companies, large and small, have contacted NORML wanting to implement a more tolerant and enlightened workplace drug policy, especially for those employees who may use cannabis for medicinal and/or recreational purposes.
In response to this growing trend, a major business software company named Jian recently contacted NORML and requested us to provide them with a new and updated 'Substance Abuse' policy for their best-selling 'Employee Manual Builder' software. They requested NORML to draft a HR policy that treats employees who responsibly consume cannabis the same as responsible alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical-consuming employees.
Everyone—managers, employees and the general public—has a vested interest in safe workplaces and roadways. By contrast neither cannabis prohibition nor non-impairment drug testing achieves safe workplaces or roadways. Rather, NORML believes that a greater recognition of personal responsibility and privacy, and better use of science and technology, will greatly improve workplace and highway safety.
If you manage or own a business and want to have a better informed and modern 'Workplace Substance Abuse' policy regarding cannabis, or if you're employed by a company or organization that can benefit by updating their current employment practices, please consider adopting NORML's model workplace policy.
Since 1970, if it is important to cannabis consumers it is important to NORML.
*Please direct any questions, comments or suggestions

medical use intro

Introduction

  • Introduction
  • Evidence Supporting Marijuana's Medical Value
  • Government Commissions Back Legalization
  • Administrative Ruling Supports Medical Use
  • Public Support
  • Medical Marijuana and the Supreme Court

"Federal authorities should rescind their prohibition of the medical use of marijuana for seriously ill patients and allow physicians to decide which patients to treat. The government should change marijuana's status from that of a Schedule I drug ... to that of a Schedule II drug ... and regulate it accordingly."
- The New England Journal of Medicine, January 30, 1997
Introduction
Marijuana prohibition applies to everyone, including the sick and dying. Of all the negative consequences of prohibition, none is as tragic as the denial of medicinal cannabis to the tens of thousands of patients who could benefit from its therapeutic use.
Evidence Supporting Marijuana's Medical Value
Written references to the use marijuana as a medicine date back nearly 5,000 years.[1] Western medicine embraced marijuana's medical properties in the mid-1800s, and by the beginning of the 20th century, physicians had published more than 100 papers in the Western medical literature recommending its use for a variety of disorders.[2] Cannabis remained in the United States pharmacopoeia until 1941, removed only after Congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act which severely hampered physicians from prescribing it. The American Medical Association (AMA) was one of the most vocal organizations to testify against the ban, arguing that it would deprive patients of a past, present and future medicine.[3]
Modern research suggests that cannabis is a valuable aid in the treatment of a wide range of clinical applications.[4] These include pain relief -- particularly of neuropathic pain (pain from nerve damage) -- nausea, spasticity, glaucoma, and movement disorders.[5] Marijuana is also a powerful appetite stimulant, specifically for patients suffering from HIV, the AIDS wasting syndrome, or dementia.[6] Emerging research suggests that marijuana's medicinal properties may protect the body against some types of malignant tumors[7] and are neuroprotective.[8]
Currently, more than 60 U.S. and international health organizations -- including the American Public Health Association [9] , Health Canada[10] and the Federation of American Scientists[11] -- support granting patients immediate legal access to medicinal marijuana under a physician's supervision. (Click here for a complete listing of organizations.) Several others, including the American Cancer Society[12] and the American Medical Association[13] support the facilitation of wide-scale, clinical research trials so that physicians may better assess cannabis' medical potential. In addition, a 1991 Harvard study found that 44 percent of oncologists had previously advised marijuana therapy to their patients.[14] Fifty percent responded they would do so if marijuana was legal. A more recent national survey performed by researchers at Providence Rhode Island Hospital found that nearly half of physicians with opinions supported legalizing medical marijuana.[15]
Government Commissions Back Legalization
Virtually every government-appointed commission to investigate marijuana's medical potential has issued favorable findings. These include the U.S. Institute of Medicine in 1982[16] the Australian National Task Force on Cannabis in 1994[17] and the U.S. National Institutes of Health Workshop on Medical Marijuana in 1997.[18]
More recently, Britain's House of Lord's Science and Technology Committee found in 1998 that the available evidence supported the legal use of medical cannabis.[19] MPs determined: "The government should allow doctors to prescribe cannabis for medical use. ... Cannabis can be effective in some patients to relieve symptoms of multiple sclerosis, and against certain forms of pain. ... This evidence is enough to justify a change in the law."[20] The Committee reaffirmed their support in a March 2001 follow-up report criticizing Parliament for failing to legalize the drug.[21]
U.S. investigators reached a similar conclusion in 1999. After conducting a nearly two-year review of the medical literature, investigators at the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine affirmed: "Scientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs ... for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation. ... Except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range tolerated for other medications."[22] Nevertheless, the authors noted cannabis inhalation "would be advantageous" in the treatment of some diseases, and that marijuana's short- term medical benefits outweigh any smoking-related harms for some patients. Predictably, federal authorities failed to act upon the IOM's recommendations, and instead have elected to continue their long-standing policy of denying marijuana's medical value.
Administrative Ruling Supports Medical Use
NORML first raised this issue in 1972 in an administrative petition filed with the Drug Enforcement Administration. NORML's petition called on the federal government to reclassify marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule II drug so that physicians could legally prescribe it. Federal authorities initially refused to accept the petition until mandated to do so by the US Court of Appeals in 1974, and then refused to properly process it until again ordered by the Court in 1982.
Fourteen years after NORML's initial petition in 1986, the DEA finally held public hearings on the issue before an administrative law judge. Two years later, Judge Francis Young ruled that the therapeutic use of marijuana was recognized by a respected minority of the medical community, and that it met the standards of other legal medications. Young found: "Marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record."[23] Young recommended, "The Administrator transfer marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II, to make it available as a legal medicine."
DEA Administrator John Lawn rejected Young's determination, choosing instead to invoke a differing set of criteria than those used by Judge Young. The Court of Appeals allowed Lawn's reversal to stand, effectively continuing the federal ban on the medical use of marijuana by seriously ill patients. It is urgent that state legislatures and the federal government act to correct this injustice.
Public Support for Medical Marijuana
Since 1996, voters in sixteen states -- Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington -- and the District of Columbia have adopted initiatives exempting patients who use marijuana under a physician's supervision from state criminal penalties. (Click here for a summary of state medical marijuana laws.) These laws do not legalize marijuana or alter criminal penalties regarding the possession or cultivation of marijuana for recreational use. They merely provide a narrow exemption from state prosecution for defined patients who possess and use marijuana with their doctor's recommendation. Available evidence indicates that these laws are functioning as voters intended, and that reported abuses are minimal.
As the votes in these states suggest, the American public clearly distinguishes between the medical use and the recreational use of marijuana, and a majority support legalizing medical use for seriously ill patients. A March 2001 Pew Research Center poll[24] reported that 73 percent of Americans support making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe, as did a 1999 Gallup poll.[25] Similar support has been indicated in every other state and nationwide poll that has been conducted on the issue since 1995. (Click here for a complete listing of polls.) Arguably, few other public policy issues share the unequivocal support of the American public as this one.
Medical Marijuana and the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled on May 14, 2001 that federal law makes no exceptions for growing or distributing marijuana by third party organizations (so-called "cannabis buyers' cooperatives"), even if the goal is to help seriously ill patients using marijuana as a medicine. Nevertheless, the Court's decision fails to infringe upon the rights of individual patients to use medical cannabis under state law, or the ability of legislators to pass laws exempting such patients from criminal penalties. This fact was affirmed by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter, who wrote in a concurring opinion: "By passing Proposition 215, California voters have decided that seriously ill patients and their primary caregivers should be exempt from prosecution under state laws for cultivating and possessing marijuana. ... This case does not call on the Court to deprive all such patients of the benefit of the necessity defense to federal prosecution when the case does not involve any such patients."
NORML filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in this case, and hoped the Court would protect California's patient-support efforts from federal prosecution. The sad result of this decision is that tens of thousands of seriously ill patients who use marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering no longer have a safe and secure source for their medical marijuana. NORML calls on our elected officials to correct this injustice and is currently lobbying Congress to legalize marijuana as a medicine.
Endnotes
1. L. Grinspoon and J. Bakalar. 1997. Marihuana the Forbidden Medicine (second edition). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; B. Zimmerman et al. 1998. Is Marijuana the Right Medicine for You? A Factual Guide to Medical Uses of Marijuana. New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing.
2. T. Mikuriya. (Ed.) 1973. Marijuana: Medical Papers 1839-1972. Oakland: Medi-Comp Press.
3. AMA (American Medical Association) Legislative Counsel William C. Woodword told Congress on July 12, 1937: "The obvious purpose of and effect of this bill is to impose so many restrictions on the medicinal use [of cannabis] as to prevent such use altogether. ... It may serve to deprive the public of the benefits of a drug that on further research may prove to be of substantial benefit."
4. Several books explore this issue in further detail. These include: A. Mack and J. Joy. 2001. Marijuana as Medicine: The Science Beyond the Controversy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; L. Iverson. 2000. The Science of Marijuana. New York: Oxford University Press; B. Zimmerman et al. 1998. Is Marijuana the Right Medicine for You?; C. Conrad. 1997. Hemp for Health: The Medicinal and Nutritional Uses of Cannabis Sativa. Rochester VT: Healing Arts Press; L. Grinspoon and J. Bakalar J. 1997. Marihuana the Forbidden Medicine; E. Rosenthal et al. 1997. Marijuana Medical Handbook. Oakland: Quick American Archives; and R. Mechoulam. (Ed.) 1986. Cannabinoids as Therapeutic Agents. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
5. NSW (New South Wales) Working Party on the Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes. 2000. Report of the Working Party on the Use of Cannabis for Medical Purposes. Sydney: Parliament House; J. Joy et al. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 1998. Ninth Report. Cannabis: The Scientific and Medical Evidence. London: The Stationary Office; J. Morgan and L. Zimmer. 1997. Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence. New York: Lindesmith Center; Grinspoon and Bakalar. 1997. Marihuana the Forbidden Medicine.
6. Joy et al. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base.
7. I. Galve-Roperph et al. 2000. Antitumoral action of cannabinoids: involvement of sustained ceramide accumulation of ERK activation. Nature Medicine 6: 313-319.
8. M. Van der Stelt et al. 2001. Neuroprotection by delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active compound in marijuana, against ouabain-induced in vivo excitotoxicity. The Journal of Neuroscience 21: 6475-6479; J. Joy et al. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base.
9. APHA (American Public Health Association) Resolution 9513: "Access to Therapeutic Marijuana/Cannabis," adopted November 1995 states in part, "[The APHA] encourages research of the therapeutic properties of various cannabinoids and combinations of cannabinoids, and ... urges the Administration and Congress to move expeditiously to make cannabis available as a legal medicine."
10. Health Canada legalized the possession and cultivation of medical marijuana on July 31, 2001.
11. The FAS' (Federation of American Scientists) position on medical marijuana, adopted November 1994, states in part: "Based on much evidence, from patients and doctors alike, on the superior effectiveness and safety of whole cannabis compared to other medications, ... the President should instruct the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration to make efforts to enroll seriously ill patients whose physicians believe that whole cannabis would be helpful to their conditions in clinical trials, both to allow data-gathering and to provide an alternative to the black market while the scientific questions about the possible utility of cannabis are resolved."
12. In a July 24, 1997 letter to California Senator John Vasconcellos, American Cancer Society Legislative Advocate Theresa Renken wrote: "[California Senate Bill] 535 focuses on medical marijuana research. [The] American Cancer Society ... Supports S.B. 535 because it is consistent with our long-held position of supporting research of any agent or technique for which there may be evidence of a therapeutic advantage."
13. AMA (American Medical Association) Council on Scientific Affairs 1997 Report #10: Medical Marijuana contains the following statements supporting a physician's right to freely discuss marijuana therapy with a patient, and favoring further research into medical marijuana's therapeutic potential: "The AMA recommend that adequate and well-controlled studies of smoked marijuana be conducted in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy, including AIDS wasting syndrome, severe acute or delayed emesis induced by chemotherapy, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, dystonia and neuropathic pain."
14. R. Doblin and M. Kleiman. 1991. Marijuana as anti-emetic medicine: a survey of oncologists attitudes and experiences. Journal of Clinical Oncology 9: 1275-1280.
15. Reuters News Wire. April 23, 2001. "Physicians divided on medical marijuana."
16. "Cannabis and its derivatives have shown promise in a varieties of disorders. The evidence is most impressive in glaucoma, ... asthma, ... and in [combating] the nausea and vomiting of cancer chemotherapy. ... Smaller trials have suggested cannabis might also be useful in seizures, spasticity, and other nervous system disorders." Conclusion of the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. 1982. Marijuana and Health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17. "First, there is good evidence that THC is an effective anti-emetic agent for patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy. ... Second, there is reasonable evidence for the potential efficacy of THC and marijuana in the treatment of glaucoma, especially in cases which have proved resistant to existing anti-glaucoma agents. Further research is ... required, but this should not prevent its use under medical supervision. ... Third, there is sufficient suggestive evidence of the potential usefulness of various cannabinoids as analgesic, anti- asthmatic, anti-spasmodic, and anti-convulsant agents." W. Hall et al. 1994. The health and psychological consequences of cannabis use: Monograph prepared for the National Task for on Cannabis. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
18. "Marijuana looks promising enough to recommend that there be new controlled studies done. The indications in which varying levels of interest was expressed are the following: appetite stimulation/cachexia, nausea and vomiting following anti-cancer therapy, neurological and movement disorders, analgesia [and] glaucoma." Conclusions of the National Institutes of Health. 1997. Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana: Report to the Director. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health.
19. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 1998. Ninth Report: Cannabis: the Scientific and Medical Evidence. London: The Stationary Office.
20. "Lords Say, Legalise Cannabis for Medical Use." 1998. Press Release. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Press Office.
21."We are concerned that the MCA [Medicines Control Agency] approach to the licensing of cannabis-based medicines ... place the requirements of safety and the needs of patients in an unacceptable balance. ... Patients with severe conditions such as multiple sclerosis are being denied the right to make informed choices about their medication. There is always some risk in taking any medication, ... but these concerns should not prevent them from having access to what promises to be the only effective medication available to them." Conclusion of the British House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 2001. Second Report: Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis. London: The Stationary Office.
22. J. Joy et al. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base.
23. In the Matter of Marihuana Rescheduling Petition, Docket 86-22, Opinion, Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of Administrative Law Judge, September 6, 1988. Washington, DC: Drug Enforcement Administration.
24. Seventy-three percent of respondents supported allowing doctors "to prescribe marijuana." Sample size: 1,513.
25. Seventy-three percent of respondents said they "would vote for making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe." Sample size: 1,018. Released March 1999.

what is hemp?

Hemp

Hemp (from Old English hænep) is a commonly used term for high-growing varieties of the Cannabis plant and its products, which include fiber, oil, and seed. Hemp is refined into products such as hemp seed foods, hemp oil, wax, resin, rope, cloth, pulp, paper, and fuel.
Other variants of the herb Cannabis sativa are widely used as a drug, commonly known as marijuana. These variants are typically low-growing and have higher content of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The legality of Cannabis varies widely from country to country, and from state to state in the United States. In many countries regulatory limits for concentrations of psychoactive drug compounds, particularly THC, in hemp require the use of strains of the plant which are bred for low content.[1]

Uses


 
Hemp grown for milk animal fodder.
Hemp is used for many varieties of products including the manufacture of cordage of varying tensile strength, durable clothing and nutritional products. The bast fibers can be used in 100% hemp products, but are commonly blended with other organic fibers such as flax, cotton or silk, for apparel and furnishings, most commonly at a 55%/45% hemp/cotton blend. The inner two fibers of hemp are more woody and are more often used in non-woven items and other industrial applications, such as mulch, animal bedding and litter. The oil from the fruits ("seeds") oxidizes (commonly, though inaccurately, called "drying") to become solid on exposure to air, similar to linseed oil, and is sometimes used in the manufacture of oil-based paints, in creams as a moisturizing agent, for cooking, and in plastics. Hemp seeds have been used in bird feed mix as well.[2] A survey in 2003 showed that more than 95% of hemp seed sold in the EU was used in animal and bird feed.[3]
In modern times hemp is used for industrial purposes including paper, textiles, clothing, biodegradable plastics, construction (as with Hempcrete and insulation), body products, health food and bio-fuel.
In a new development hemp is being processed relatively inexpensively into electrodes possibly even more efficient than graphene for use in supercapacitors.[4]

Food


 
Hemp seeds.
Hemp seeds can be eaten raw, ground into a meal, sprouted, made into hemp milk (akin to soy milk), prepared as tea,[5] and used in baking. The fresh leaves can also be consumed in salads. Products include cereals, frozen waffles, hemp milk ice cream, hemp tofu, and nut butters. A few companies produce value added hemp seed items that include the seed oils, whole hemp grain (which is sterilized by law in the United States, where they import it from China and Canada), dehulled hemp seed (the whole seed without the mineral rich outer shell), hemp flour, hemp cake (a by-product of pressing the seed for oil) and hemp protein powder. Even though hemp is marijuana's cousin, hemp seeds contain no THC (tetrahydrocannabinol),[citation needed] which is the psychoactive substance in marijuana.

Market share

Within the UK, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has treated hemp as purely a non-food crop. Seed appears on the UK market as a legal food product, and cultivation licenses are available for this purpose. In North America, hemp seed food products are sold, typically in health food stores or through mail order. The United States Department of Agriculture has concluded that "the market potential for hemp seed as a food ingredient is unknown. However, it probably will remain a small market, like those for sesame and poppy seeds."[6] Since 2007 the commercial success of hemp food products has grown considerably.[7][8]

Nutrition

Typical nutritional analysis
of hulled hemp seeds[citation needed]
Calories/100 g567 kcal
Protein30.6
Carbohydrate10.9
Dietary fiber6.0
Fat47.2
Saturated fat5.2
Palmitic 16:03.4
Stearic 18:01.5
Monounsaturated fat5.8
Oleic 18:1 (Omega-9)5.8
Polyunsaturated fat36.2
Linoleic 18:2 (Omega-6)27.6
Linolenic 18:3 (Omega-3)8.7
Gamma-Linolenic 18:3 (Omega-6)0.8
Cholesterol0 mg
Moisture4.7
Ash6.6
Vitamin A (B-Carotene)4.0 IU/100g
Thiamine (Vit B1)1.4 mg
Riboflavin (Vit B2)0.3 mg
Pyridoxine (Vit B6)0.1 mg
Vitamin C1.0 mg
Vitamin E9.0 IU/100g
Sodium9.0 mg
Calcium74.0 mg
Iron4.7 mg
Approximately 44% of the weight of hemp seed is edible oils, containing about 80% essential fatty acids (EFAs); e.g., linoleic acid, omega-6 (LA, 55%), alpha-linolenic acid, omega-3 (ALA, 22%), in addition to gamma-linolenic acid, omega-6 (GLA, 1–4%) and stearidonic acid, omega-3 (SDA, 0–2%). Proteins (including edestin) are the other major component (33%). Hempseed's amino acid profile is comparable to other sources of protein such as meat, milk, eggs and soy.[9]
Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score values, which measure the degree to which a food for humans is a "complete protein", were 0.49-0.53 for whole hemp seed, 0.46-0.51 for hemp seed meal, and 0.63-0.66 for dehulled hemp seed.[10] Hemp proteins thus have a PDCAAS equal to or greater than certain grains, nuts, and some legumes. Soy protein, by comparison, has a PDCAAS value of 1.0.

Storage

Hemp oil, like any food oil rich in essential fatty acids, will spontaneously oxidize and turn rancid within a short period of time if not stored properly; Its shelf life is extended when stored in a dark airtight container and refrigerated.

Fiber


 
Hemp stem showing fibers.
Hemp fiber has been used extensively throughout history, with production climaxing soon after being introduced to the New World. Items ranging from rope, to fabrics, to industrial materials were made from hemp fiber. Hemp was often used to make sail canvas, and the word canvas derives from cannabis.[11][12] Today, a modest hemp fabric industry exists, and hemp fibers can be used in clothing.[13] Pure hemp has a texture similar to linen.[14]

Building material

Main article: hempcrete
Concrete-like blocks made with hemp and lime have been used as an insulating material for construction. Such blocks are not strong enough to be used for structural elements; they must be supported by a brick, wood, or steel frame.[15] However hemp fibres are extremely strong and durable and have been shown to be used in replacement of wood for many jobs including creating very durable and breathable homes.
The first example of the use of hempcrete was in 1986 in France with the renovation of the Maison de la Turque in Nogent-sur-Seine by the innovator Charles Rasetti.[16] In the UK hemp lime was first used in 2000 for the construction of two test dwellings in Haverhill.[17] Designed by Modece Architects,[18] who pioneered hemp's use in UK construction, the hemp houses were monitored in comparison with other standard dwellings by BRE. Completed in 2009, The Renewable House is one of the most technologically advanced made from hemp-based materials.[19] The first US home made of hemp-based materials was completed in August 2010 in Asheville, North Carolina.[20]
A panellized system of hemp-lime panels for use in building construction is currently under test in a European Union funded research collaboration lead by the University of Bath. The panels are being designed to assure high quality construction, rapid on-site erection, optimal hygrothermal performance from day one and energy and resource efficient buildings. The 36 month long work programme aims to refine product and manufacturing protocols, produce data for certification and marketing, warranty, insurance cover and availability of finance. It also includes the development of markets in Britain, France and Spain.[21]
Hemp is used as an internal plaster and is a mixture of hemp hurd (shive) mixed with larger proportions of a lime based binder. Hemp plaster has insulative qualities.[22]

Plastic and composite materials

Main article: Bioplastic
A mixture of fibreglass, hemp fiber, kenaf, and flax has been used since 2002 to make composite panels for automobiles.[7][23] The choice of which bast fiber to use is primarily based on cost and availability. Various car makers are beginning to use hemp in their cars, including Audi, BMW, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Iveco, Lotus, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Porsche, Saturn, Volkswagen[24] and Volvo. For example, the Lotus Eco Elise[25] and the Mercedes C-Class both contain hemp (up to 20 kg in each car in the case of the latter).[26]

Paper

History and development


 
Wrapping paper with hemp fiber excavated from the Han Tomb of Wu Di (140-87 BC) at Baqiao, Xi'An.
The first identified coarse paper, made from hemp, dates to the early Western Han Dynasty, two hundred years before the nominal invention of papermaking by Cai Lun, who improved and standardized paper production using a range of inexpensive materials, including hemp ends, approximately 2000 years ago.[27] Recycled hemp clothing, rags and fishing nets were used as inputs for paper production.
The Saint Petersburg, Russia paper mill of Goznak opened in 1818. It used hemp as its main input material. Paper from the mill was used in the printing of "bank notes, stamped paper, credit bills, postal stamps, bonds, stocks, and other watermarked paper."[28]
In 1916, U.S. Department of Agriculture chief scientists Lyster Hoxie Dewey and Jason L. Merrill created paper made from hemp pulp and concluded that paper from hemp hurds was "favorable in comparison with those used with pulp wood."[29][30] Modern research has not confirmed the positive finding about hemp hurds. They are only 32% and 38% cellulose.[31] On the other hand, hemp contains only 4-10% lignin against the 18-30% found in wood. This lignin must be removed chemically and wood requires more use of chemicals in the process.[32] The actual production of hemp fiber in the U.S continued to decline until 1933 to around 500 tons/year. Between 1934-35, the cultivation of hemp began to increase but still at a very low level and with no significant increase of paper from hemp.[33][34]

Contemporary

Hemp has never been used for commercial high-volume paper production due to its relatively high processing cost.[citation needed] Currently there is a small niche market for hemp pulp, for example as cigarette paper.[35] Hemp fiber is mixed with fiber from other sources than hemp. In 1994 there was no significant production of 100% true hemp paper.[36] World hemp pulp production was believed to be around 120,000 tons per year in 1991 which was about 0.05% of the world's annual pulp production volume.[37] The total world production of hemp fiber had in 2003 declined to about 60,000 from 80,000 tons.[35] This can be compared to a typical pulp mill for wood fiber, which is never smaller than 250,000 tons per annum.[36][38] The cost of hemp pulp is approximately six times that of wood pulp,[37] mostly because of the small size and outdated equipment of the few hemp processing plants in the Western world, and because hemp is harvested once a year (during August)[citation needed] and needs to be stored to feed the mill the whole year through. This storage requires a lot of (mostly manual) handling of the bulky stalk bundles. Another issue is that the entire hemp plant cannot be economically prepared for paper production. While the wood products industry uses nearly 100% of the fiber from harvested trees, only about 25% of the dried hemp stem — the bark, called bast — contains the long, strong fibers desirable for paper production.[39] All this accounts for a high raw material cost. Hemp pulp is bleached with hydrogen peroxide, a process today also commonly used for wood pulp.

Market share

Around the year 2000, the production quantity of flax and hemp pulp total 25000-30000 tons per year, having been produced from approximately 37000-45000 tonnes fibers. Up to 80% of the produced pulp is used for specialty papers (including 95% of cigarette paper). Only about 20% hemp fiber input goes into the standard pulp area and are here mostly in lower quality (untreated oakum high shive content added) wood pulps. With hemp pulp alone, the proportion of specialty papers probably at about 99%. The market is considered saturated with little or no growth in this area.[40][41]

Jewelry

Main article: Hemp jewelry

 
Hemp and bead Jewelry.
Hemp jewelry is the product of knotting hemp twine through the practice of macramé. Hemp jewelry includes bracelets, necklaces, anklets, rings, watches and other adornments. Some jewelry features beads made from glass, stone, wood and bones. The hemp twine varies in thickness and comes in a variety of colors. There are many different stitches used to create hemp jewelry, however, the half knot and full knot stitches are most common.

Cordage


 
Hemp rope.
Hemp rope was used in the age of sailing ships, though the rope had to be protected by tarring, since hemp rope has a propensity for breaking from rot, as the capillary effect of the rope-woven fibers tended to hold liquid at the interior, while seeming dry from the outside.[42] Tarring was a labor-intensive process, and earned sailors the nickname "Jack Tar". Hemp rope was phased out when Manila, which does not require tarring, became widely available. Manila is sometimes referred to as Manila hemp, but is not related to hemp; it is abacá, a species of banana.

Animal bedding


 
Hemp straw animal bedding.
Hemp shives are the core of the stem, hemp hurds are broken parts of the core. In the EU, they are used for animal bedding (horses, for instance), or for horticultural mulch.[43] Industrial hemp is much more profitable if both fibers and shives (or even seeds) can be used.

Water and soil purification

Hemp can be used as a "mop crop" to clear impurities out of wastewater, such as sewage effluent, excessive phosphorus from chicken litter, or other unwanted substances or chemicals. Eco-technologist Dr. Keith Bolton from Southern Cross University in Lismore, New South Wales, Australia, is a leading researcher in this area. Hemp is being used to clean contaminants at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. This is known as phytoremediation - the process of clearing radioisotopes as well as a variety of other toxins from the soil, water, and air.[44]

Weed control

Main article: Weed control § Organic methods

 
The dense growth of hemp helps kill weeds, even thistle.
Hemp, because of its height, dense foliage and its high planting density as a crop, is a very effective and long used method of killing tough weeds in farming by minimizing the pool of weed seeds of the soil.[45] Using hemp this way can help farmers avoid the use of herbicides, to help gain organic certification and to gain the benefits of crop rotation per se. Due to its rapid, dense growth characteristics, in some jurisdictions hemp is considered a prohibited noxious weed, much like Scotch Broom. It has been used extensively to kill weeds in agriculture.

Fuel

Biofuels, such as biodiesel and alcohol fuel, can be made from the oils in hemp seeds and stalks, and the fermentation of the plant as a whole, respectively. Biodiesel produced from hemp is sometimes known as "hempoline".[46]

 
Biodiesel sample.
Filtered hemp oil can be used directly to only power diesel engines. In 1892, Rudolf Diesel invented the diesel engine, which he intended to fuel "by a variety of fuels, especially vegetable and seed oils, which earlier were used for oil lamps, i.e. the Argand lamp."[47][48][49]
Production of vehicle fuel from hemp is very small. Commercial biodiesel and biogas is typically produced from cereals, coconuts, palmseeds and cheaper raw materials like garbage, wastewater, dead plant and animal material, animal feces and kitchen waste.[50]

Cultivation


 
Hemp being harvested
Hemp is usually planted between March and May in the northern hemisphere, between September and November in the southern hemisphere.[51] It matures in about three to four months.
Millennia of selective breeding have resulted in varieties that look quite different. Also, breeding since circa 1930 has focused quite specifically on producing strains which would perform very poorly as sources of drug material. Hemp grown for fiber is planted closely, resulting in tall, slender plants with long fibers. "Until the early 1900s industrial hemp was a valuable crop used all over the world for its strong fibers and oil seeds. Today, however, the common perception of the industrial hemp plant is generally negative and associated with the drug marijuana. This perception is the legacy of a century of powerful influences constructing hemp as a dangerous drug, even though it is not a drug and it has the potential to be a profitable alternative crop. In the United States, the public's perception of hemp as marijuana has blocked hemp from becoming a useful crop and product,"[52] in spite of its vital importance prior to World War II.[53] Ideally, according to Britain's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the herb should be desiccated and harvested towards the end of flowering. This early cropping reduces the seed yield but improves the fiber yield and quality.[54] In these strains of industrial hemp the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content would have been very low.[52]
The seeds are sown from mid April to mid May with grain drills to 4–6 cm sowing depth. Hemp needs less fertilizer than corn does. A total of 60–150 kg of nitrogen, 40–140 kg phosphorus (P2O5) and 75–200 kg of potassium [5] per acre for hemp fiber made before sowing and again later, maybe three to four weeks. When practiced, especially in France double use of fiber and seed fertilization with nitrogen doses up to 100 kg / ha rather low. Organic fertilizers such as manure can utilize industrial hemp well. Neither weeds nor crop protection measures are necessary.[52]

Cultivars

longitudinal section photo
 
Cannabis sativa stem
low-angle photo-shot
 
Hemp strains USO-xx and Zolotoniski-xx
A total of 46 varieties of hemp with low levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are certified by the European Union (EU).[55] They have, unlike other types, a very high fiber content of 30-40%. In contrast to cannabis for medical use, varieties grown for fiber and seed have less than 0.2% THC and they are unsuitable for producing hashish and marijuana.[56] The most important cannabinoid in industrial hemp is cannabidiol (CBD) with a proportion of 1 to 5%.
black and white drawing: C. sativa tall, C. indica middle, C. ruderalis small
 
The variety of appearances for cannabis. Only C. sativa (left) is suited for industrial hemp, but it also has medicinal varieties.
Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa var. sativa is the variety grown for industrial use, while C. sativa subsp. indica generally has poor fiber quality and is primarily used for recreational and medicinal purposes. The major difference between the two types of plants is the appearance and the amount of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) secreted in a resinous mixture by epidermal hairs called glandular trichomes, although they can also be distinguished genetically.[57] Oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis approved for industrial hemp production produce only minute amounts of this psychoactive drug, not enough for any physical or psychological effects. Typically, hemp contains below 0.3% THC, while cultivars of Cannabis grown for recreational use can contain anywhere from 2% to over 20%.[58]

Harvesting


 
Industrial hempseed harvesting machine in France.
Smallholder plots are usually harvested by hand. The plants are cut at 2 to 3 cm above the soil and left on the ground to dry. Mechanical harvesting is now common, using specially adapted cutter-binders or simpler cutters.
The cut hemp is laid in swathes to dry for up to four days. This was traditionally followed by retting, either water retting (the bundled hemp floats in water) or dew retting (the hemp remains on the ground and is affected by the moisture in dew, and by molds and bacterial action). Modern processes use steam and machinery to separate the fiber, a process known as thermomechanical pulping.

Location and crop rotation


 
Hemp maze in France
For profitable hemp farming, particularly deep, humus-rich, nutrient-rich soil with controlled water flow is preferable. Water logged acidic, compressed or extremely light (sandy) soils primarily affect the early development of plants.[citation needed] Steep slopes and high altitudes of more than 400 m above sea level are best avoided. Hemp is relatively insensitive to cold temperatures and can withstand frost down to -5 degrees C.[citation needed] Seeds can germinate down to 1-3 degrees.[citation needed] Hemp needs a lot of heat, so earlier varieties come to maturation. The water requirement is 300-500 l / kg dry matter.[citation needed] Up to 3 feet growing roots into the soil can also use water supplies from deeper soil layers. Worth noting is that the water requirement of hemp is at least 14 times lower than that of cotton which takes between 7 000-29 000 l/kg, according to WWF.[citation needed]
Hemp benefits crops grown after it. For this reason it is generally grown before winter cereals. Advantageous changes are high weed suppression, soil loosening by the large hemp root system and the positive effect on soil tilth. Since hemp is very self-compatible, it can also be grown several years in a row in the same fields (monoculture).

Diseases

Main article: List of hemp diseases
Hemp plants can be vulnerable to various pathogens, including bacteria, fungi, nematodes, viruses and other miscellaneous pathogens. Such diseases often lead to reduced fiber quality, stunted growth, and death of the plant. These diseases rarely affect the yield of a hemp field, so hemp production is not traditionally dependent on the use of pesticides.

Environmental impact

Hemp is considered by a 1998 study in Environmental Economics to be environmentally friendly due to a decrease of land use and other environmental impacts, indicating a possible decrease of ecological footprint in a US context compared to typical benchmarks.[59] A 2010 study, however, that compared the production of paper specifically from hemp and eucalyptus concluded that "industrial hemp presents higher environmental impacts than eucalyptus paper"; however, the article also highlights that "there is scope for improving industrial hemp paper production".[60] Hemp is also claimed to require few pesticides and no herbicides, and it has been called a carbon negative raw material.[61][62] Results indicate that high yield of hemp may require high total nutrient levels (field plus fertilizer nutrients) similar to a high yielding wheat crop.[63]