Indiegogo is committed to accessibility. If you have difficulty using our site, please contact support@indiegogo.com for assistance or view our accessibility notice by clicking here

This campaign is closed

Relegalizing Industrial Hemp Project

An official Drug Enforcement Administration petition to distinguish industrial hemp from marijuana.

You may also be interested in

Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed

Relegalizing Industrial Hemp Project

Relegalizing Industrial Hemp Project

Relegalizing Industrial Hemp Project

Relegalizing Industrial Hemp Project

Relegalizing Industrial Hemp Project

An official Drug Enforcement Administration petition to distinguish industrial hemp from marijuana.

An official Drug Enforcement Administration petition to distinguish industrial hemp from marijuana.

An official Drug Enforcement Administration petition to distinguish industrial hemp from marijuana.

An official Drug Enforcement Administration petition to distinguish industrial hemp from marijuana.

Andy Kerr
Andy Kerr
Andy Kerr
Andy Kerr
1 Campaign |
Washington, United States
$1,436 USD 36 backers
3% of $40,000 Flexible Goal Flexible Goal

United State Government Out of Touch on Industrial Hemp

Most of the world—including now a majority of these united states—understands industrial hemp to be a valuable plant that can be grown sustainably for oil, seed and fiber and is useful in the manufacture of food, body care, textiles, paper and construction and other products. (See Hemp Industries Association and North American Industrial Hemp Council websites for more information.)

From the seeds and the stalks of industrial hemp can be made many useful products. Source: Congressional Research Service, adapted from d. G. Kraenzel et al. “Industrial Hemp as an Alternative Crop in North Dakota. North Dakota State University. 1998.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) irrationally conflates industrial hemp with marijuana. The scientific literatures of biology, chemistry and medicine all agree: industrial hemp is not marijuana. The evidence is compelling and it’s time to compel DEA to heed such evidence.

Interior panel of a car door made with a biocomposite of hemp fibers and polyethylene. Source: Christian Gahle, nova-Institut GmbH from Wikipedia under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license.

Industrial Hemp is Not Marijuana

Industrial hemp and marijuana are different varieties of Cannabis sativa L. The former has a long history as a raw material for a variety of useful products (rope, canvass, etc.), while the latter is favored for its intoxicating properties. Industrial hemp is not intoxicating, so it cannot be “abused” as a drug—because industrial hemp is not a drug.

It all comes down to the cannabinoid ratio of the intoxicating THC (∆-9 tetrahydrocannabinol) and the non-intoxicating CBD (cannabidiol) in a C. sativa plant. If the THC:CBD ratio is <1, it is industrial hemp; if >1, it is marijuana.

The Drug Enforcement Administration is the only entity that conflates industrial hemp and marijuana. Source: Andy Kerr, The Larch Company, Ashland, OR and Washington, DC. 2015 (Source for each entity will be cited in the formal administrative rulemaking petition).
There are many lines of evidence that industrial hemp is not marijuana. Here’s one of them. 

Industrial Industrial hemp and marijuana are distinguished by widely different THC:CBD ratios. Source: Hillig, Karl W. and Paul G. Mahlberg. 2004 A Chemotaxonomic Analysis of Cannabinoid Variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae). American Journal of Botany 91(6): 966-975.

The THC and CBD levels in 157 accessions of cannabis are plotted above. It’s clear that selective breeding for marijuana has produced strains high in THC (x symbols on chart) and low in CBD (the antidote to THC). Selective breeding for industrial hemp has produced just the opposite (black box symbols on chart). In between are intermediates (the remaining symbol on chart) that approach THC:CBD ratios of 1.

When ingested, CBD acts as an antidote to THC, so it’s obvious why marijuana growers select for not only high THC, but low CBD. It’s also obvious that industrial hemp isn’t marijuana.

A Very Brief Legal History

In 1937, Congress enacted the Marihuana Tax Act. It placed a prohibitively high tax on marihuana that was a crime not to pay. At the time, Congress didn’t know as much about industrial hemp not being marijuana, but it knew that what we now call industrial hemp was useful and the tax was reduced to a very low amount for licensed “marihuana” (pronounced “industrial hemp”) growers. Over the decades, it became increasingly difficult for farmers to get licenses, save for World War II when the Japanese cut off our supplies of Manila hemp (not a true hemp). Until 2014, the last legal industrial hemp crop was grown in Wisconsin in 1957.

As there was a war on, the federal government actively promoted industrial hemp cultivation during World War II. Source: Internal Revenue Service, US Department of the Treasury available from Wikipedia.

In 1970, Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act and any distinction federal law made in regard to what was increasingly called industrial hemp was lost to the statute books.

While Much Policy and Political Progress Has Occurred, It’s Still Generally Illegal to Cultivate Industrial Hemp in the United States

While there has been much political progress to relegalize industrial hemp, it is not enough to sustain the ecologically, economically and socially viable domestic cultivation of industrial hemp. In the United States, while it is generally legal to possess industrial hemp and products made from it, it is generally not legal to grow industrial hemp.

The good news is that 27 of these united states have reformed their drug laws so as to no longer treat industrial hemp as marijuana (some other states may soon follow). Some states have even enacted laws to promote industrial hemp cultivation. In the 2014 farm bill, Congress allowed for the limited cultivation of industrial hemp for research purposes. However, U.S. industrial hemp cultivation is limited solely:

•  (a) to states that have legalized industrial hemp;

•  (b) by state or academic institutions; and

•  (c) for research purposes.

That means that industrial hemp cultivation is still illegal in 23 states and cannot be freely grown in any state.

In the U.S. House of Representatives, 66 Members (including 23 Republicans) have signed on to the Industrial Hemp Farming Act (H.R. 525), sponsored by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) that would fully legalize industrial hemp cultivation. In the U.S. Senate, 11 senators have cosponsored companion legislation (S.134) sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and presidential candidates Rand Paul (R-KY) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Alas, neither bill has been given a hearing. You can find the latest information on political actions to relegalize industrial hemp on the Vote Hemp website.  

The combine and the tractor may be American-made, but the trailer and the industrial hemp are French. Source: Aleks on Wikipedia under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License.

Petitioning the Government for Redress of Grievances

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” One way this right has been operationalized is through the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which provides for citizens to file formal administrative rulemaking petitions, in this case to change the rules that say industrial hemp is marijuana.

Under the law, a government rule must be based on “substantial evidence.” Industrial hemp is, as a matter of fact, not marijuana. Most other industrial democracies distinguish the two varieties of C. sativa as now do the majority of U.S. states. It’s not rational for DEA to continue to conflate industrial hemp and marijuana. If accepted, the formal petition will end the near eight decades of inappropriate illegality for a very useful plant.

The Relegalizing Industrial Hemp Formal Administrative Rulemaking Petition

First, we file the petition. It will be fully documented and fully cited and be at least 100 pages.

Then, it is likely that DEA will sit on the petition and not do what is required by its own regulations and by the APA. After a reasonable amount of time (around a year), if DEA hasn’t told the petitioners that it is actually considering the petition, petitioners will file a procedural lawsuit in federal court to compel DEA to act. The judge would likely put DEA on a timeline such that if DEA failed to adhere, the agency or its officials could be held in contempt of court.

Eventually, DEA will decide on the petition. But before that, under its own regulations to carry out the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), DEA must refer our petition to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for an expert scientific opinion on whether industrial hemp is marijuana.

If HHS agrees that industrial hemp is not marijuana, then DEA must accept that finding and change its rules meaning industrial hemp would be removed from the Controlled Substances Schedule! While the scientific and medical evidence is overwhelming that industrial hemp is not marijuana, it is likely that HHS and DEA will not change their contention.

Petitioners will seek an evidentiary hearing and an opportunity to cross-examine the HHS official who prepares the recommendation report to DEA. We will build the administrative record to prepare for substantive litigation to ask a federal judge to find DEA’s decision on the petition, if contrary to the requested result, arbitrary and capricious and without substantial evidence.

If DEA Says Yes

If DEA accepts our formal administrative rulemaking petition, then the Relgalizing Industrial Hemp Project was a stunning success. It’s farming time!

If DEA Says No

If DEA rejects our formal administrative rulemaking petition, then the Relegalizing Industrial Hemp Project was a qualified success. It’s litigation time!

A Relegalizing Industrial Hemp Project—Phase II will be launched to fund the substantive litigation over the denial of the official petition submitted under this Relegalizing Industrial Hemp Project—Phase I.

How About Those Perks?!

We’re not making a great new device or creating a work of art. We’re seeking to change public policy for the benefit of this and future generations. This all makes offering rewards more challenging. We cannot provide you a new and useful device or a book or a DVD or a streaming opportunity and other tangible items. We cannot offer you the opportunity to see a play or a film or any other sensory experience. Fundamentally, your reward will be knowing that you helped fund the relegalization of industrial hemp in the United States after nearly eight decades of irrational illegality.

What we are offering as rewards is an opportunity to let the Drug Enforcement Administration know directly that you believe they are wrong about industrial hemp and are putting some money where your mouth is. In an appendix to the formal administrative rulemaking petition we’ll be submitting to DEA, we’ll include a list of the Relegalizing Industrial Hemp Project supporters (if you don’t want on that list, but still want to contribute, just let us know after you donate).

The larger the donation, the more prominent the listing. Here’s what we mean:

Progressively larger contributions result in progressively more prominent visibility of your name. If you make a $10,000 contribution (yay!!), alas we can’t add any visual prominence to your name in the petition, as it will be on the cover page along with other official petitioners!

While the legend that the 18th Century Massachusetts merchant, smuggler, statesman, and prominent patriot of the American Revolution John Hancock signed his name so large on the Declaration of Independence was that so King George III could see it without his spectacles is apocryphal, here’s your chance to not require the DEA Administrator to reach for their glasses.

Conclusion

To fully relegalize industrial hemp in the United States, either the:

• Congress must amend the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to redefine “marihuana” to not include industrial hemp; or 

• the Drug Enforcement Administration must do the same thing by amending its regulations, using authority to do so granted by Congress in the CSA.

While we believe the votes would be there in both houses of Congress to enact the Industrial Hemp Farming Act into law—if the bills were allowed to receive a floor vote—the general dysfunction of Congress these days mean that such events are highly unlikely. When Congress enacted the CSA, it provided for the DEA to add to, delete from, or move within the official drug schedules, based on new information. In regard to industrial hemp, DEA has failed to do its job. Congress doesn’t have to act on legislation, but DEA has to act upon a formal administrative rulemaking petition. There is no doubt as to whether industrial hemp will be fully relegalized in the United States; the only question is when. The formal administrative rulemaking petition is to ensure timely relegalization. Industrial hemp advocates must continue to exert political pressure on Congress. The formal administrative rulemaking petition will exert political pressure on the Administration and if it doesn’t work, legal pressure will also be applied. 

What If We Exceed the Indiegogo Project Goal?

The $40,000 goal was chosen to meet the minimum bare-bones project budget. $40,000 is enough to get the project done (and we will!), but it doesn’t actually cover all the legitimate costs that should be covered.

A proper and fair budget for the project is $207,000 and we are also trying to raise funds from sources outside of Indiegogo. As $167,000 is quite a difference, just what would we do with the “extra” money?

First and foremost, the chief petitioners would be compensated equitably. Under the $40,000 budget, we’ll be working for far less than minimum wage. If we raise more than $40,000—either in Indiegogo and/or outside of Indiegogo—we’ll pay ourselves closer to what we make per hour working for other clients. We wouldn’t have to sleep on people’s floors, we could avoid red-eye plane flights and we wouldn’t have to reach into our own pockets to cover legitimate project expenses. We could compensate the outside experts the project needs at a level they deserve and are worth.

If we were merely soulless economic actors, we’d simply do an Indiegogo campaign for $207,000 and if not enough of you stepped up, we’d step out and go back to making our livings doing other work. However, we are in a very poor bargaining position, because our passion is relegalizing industrial hemp for the benefit of this and future generations. This twin curses of caring and commitment means that to do this project for $40,000 (and we will!), we’re sacrificing money that we could be making elsewhere, at the cost of having less money today and for retirement.

If we exceed our total fundraising goals, any funds will be reserved for the Relegalizing Industrial Hemp Project—Phase II—litigation in federal court to overturn a negative decision by the Drug Enforcement Administration (see “Risks and Challenges” below). 

This Indiegogo campaign will fund the creation and filing and pursuit of a formal administrative rulemaking petition, including a final decision by DEA.

If again true to form, DEA will continue to stonewall by incorrectly conflating industrial hemp and marijuana and the agency will deny the administrative rulemaking petition. This will be the end this Relegalizing Industrial Hemp Project: Phase I and we would launch another Indiegogo Campaign entitled Regalizing Industrial Hemp Protect: Phase II to raise funds for the litigation (perhaps we’ll subtitle it “Suing the Bastards”).

Conclusion

The evidence is overwhelming and there is no substantial evidence for DEA to continue to conflate industrial hemp and marijuana in the federal drug schedules. Therefore, DEA would be acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner and that is illegal under federal law. The continued legal entwining of industrial hemp and marijuana is not based on substantial evidence and pretending that there is, DEA is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

A federal court judge is unlikely to tell DEA what to do, but only that what it did is illegal. The case will be remanded by the court to DEA for further consideration. While we would have won the litigation, industrial hemp will still not be relegalized.

DEA may try to concoct new “substantial evidence” in support of a new negative decision. If they do, we’ll take them to court again (a Releglizing Industrial Hemp Project—Phase III, if need be). DEA will run out of excuses before we run out of Indiegogo projects.

The wheels of justice may grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine. We’ll all have a fine time grinding away.

In any case, we are in it for the long term. It usually takes about a generation (defined by demographers as ~30 years) to change the world. The good news is that clock on industrial hemp relegalization isn’t starting now, but started over two decades ago. Historically, we’re right on track for historic change. The policy, political, social, economic and environmental stars are aligning. This alignment is a convergence of outside forces unrelated (but beneficial to this effort) and the great past and continuing work of thousands of Americans who advocate for industrial hemp. This formal rulemaking petition can be what bumps that most important star into alignment and brings down DEA’s house of cards, once and for all.

Looking for more information? Check the project FAQ
Need more information
Let us know if you think this campaign contains prohibited content.

Choose your Perk

Weighing In

$5 USD
Your name in 12-point regular font as a supporter of the administrative rulemaking petition.
Estimated Shipping
April 2016
1 claimed
Ships worldwide.

Saying Something

$10 USD
Your name in 12-point italic as a supporter of the administrative rulemaking petition.
Estimated Shipping
April 2016
3 claimed
Ships worldwide.

Saying Something Louder

$25 USD
Your name in 12-point bold as a supporter of the administrative rulemaking petition.
3 claimed

Saying Something LOUDER

$50 USD
Your name in 36-point underlined italic as a supporter of the administrative rulemaking petition.
Estimated Shipping
April 2016
5 claimed

Hey! Pay Attention!

$100 USD
Your name in 12-point underlined italic bold as a supporter of the administrative rulemaking petition.
Estimated Shipping
April 2016
1 claimed

You Talking to Me?

$500 USD
Your name in 16-point underlined italic bold as a supporter of the administrative rulemaking petition.
0 claimed
Ships worldwide.

I'm Talking to You!

$1,000 USD
Your name in 20-point underlined italic bold as a supporter of the administrative rulemaking petition. In addition: invitation to participate in an exclusive conference call to learn more, ask questions and offer advice about the petitioning effort as it gets underway; and invitation to participate in an exclusive conference call to either to plan the victory party or prepare for the litigation.
Estimated Shipping
April 2016
0 claimed
Ships worldwide.

Do You Hear Me?

$2,500 USD
Your name in 24-point underlined italic bold as a supporter of the administrative rulemaking petition. In addition: invitation to participate in an exclusive conference call to learn more, ask questions and offer advice about the petitioning effort as it gets underway; and invitation to participate in an exclusive conference call to either to plan the victory party or prepare for the litigation.
Estimated Shipping
April 2016
0 claimed
Ships worldwide.

Do You HEAR Me?

$5,000 USD
Your name in 36-point underlined italic bold as a supporter of the administrative rulemaking petition. Also: invitation to participate in conference call to learn more and ask questions about the petitioning effort as it gets underway; invitation to participate in conference call to either to plan the victory party or prepare for the litigation; and confidential and candid conversation over dinner (at a mutually acceptable place and place with project leaders).
Estimated Shipping
April 2016
0 claimed
Ships worldwide.

See You In Court

$10,000 USD
You as a formal official petitioner in the administrative rulemaking petition (assuming you meet the requirements of legal standing and political acceptability, as determined by the project principals). Also: invitation to participate in conference call to learn more and ask questions about the petitioning effort as it gets underway; invitation to participate in conference call to either to plan the victory party or prepare for the litigation; and confidential and candid conversation over dinner
Estimated Shipping
April 2016
0 claimed
Ships worldwide.

You may also be interested in

Up Caret