The Drug Enforcement Administration has kicked its lobbying against legalizing industrial hemp into high gear, hoping to block an amendment in the House that would decriminalize the crop for research purposes. The amendment to the farm bill, proposed by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), is far more modest than a Senate effort by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to fully legalize the crop for industrial purposes. That measure never found its way into the Senate version of the bill. The House may vote on Polis' amendment as soon as Tuesday evening.

The Huffington Post has obtained a copy of talking points the DEA is circulating among members of Congress to press them to oppose the amendment -- raising the seemingly incongruous specter of the government using its resources to lobby itself. The talking points, paradoxically, represent a step forward in the debate. In the Senate, hemp advocates were left only to counter vague "law enforcement concerns" that senators told HuffPost were a factor in their willingness to support reform. By laying out those specific reforms, hemp backers will attempt to rebut them point by point.

Broadly, the DEA's case focuses on the supposed inability to easily distinguish between hemp and its cousin, marijuana. The similarity, the DEA argues, would allow pot growers to shield their plants behind rows of hemp plants. But the DEA appears not to have gotten the talk about the birds and the bees. A pot grower who allowed hemp plants near a prized marijuana crop would risk cross-pollination, which would result in a dramatically inferior product. In fact, California pot growers have been avid opponents of legalized hemp for just that reason. Hemp is legal to grow in many industrialized countries, including Canada, and is legal to import into the U.S. States such as Polis' Colorado and McConnell's Kentucky have legalized hemp growing, but await federal action.

Talking points from hemp advocates can be found here. The Senate bill was cosponsored by McConnell and Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Ron Wyden (R-Ore.).

Below are the talking points circulated by the DEA on Wednesday:

The amendment (Polis) relates to marijuana (hemp) cultivation for industrial purposes. Marijuana (hemp) cultivation is already permitted under current law, provided the grower has obtained a DEA registration. This bill would eliminate the DEA registration requirement and completely decontrol marijuana grown for industrial purposes by defining "hemp" as marijuana that contains 0.3 percent or less THC, then declaring this "hemp" to be a noncontrolled substance. This would clearly impede law enforcement in several respects. First, it is impossible to distinguish a marijuana plant containing 0.3% or less of THC from a marijuana plant containing higher THC levels without scientific analysis. The bill would thereby make it essentially impossible for law enforcement to enter a grow site to determine the THC content of the "hemp" plants since there would be no way to establish probable cause to obtain a search warrant without first entering the premises to collect samples. As a result, the bill would provide easy cover to hide more potent marijuana plants. Second, even if all the marijuana plants contained 0.3 percent or less THC, they would still provide an enormous quantity of psychoactive material because it is very easy and inexpensive to convert low-grade marijuana into high-grade hashish oil. YouTube videos already provide easy-to-follow instructions on how to make hashish oil.

Listed below are the official Obama-era government talking points for refusing to allow the Hemp option for Farmers and America in general, especially during these hard times.

Hemp Talking Points, or "Our Excuses For Making War and You Suffer in general"
by - The DEA

What is "hemp"?

"Hemp" is not a term found in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Historically, "hemp" was simply an alternative term used to refer to the cannabis plant (i.e., an alternative to the Spanish-derived term "marihuana"). However, starting in approximately the late 1990s, the term "hemp" increasingly was used to refer specifically to cannabis grown for industrial purposes. (The term "industrial hemp" is also used in this context.) During this time period, some persons have erroneously asserted that "hemp" was a distinct species from marijuana. Botanically speaking, any plant of the genus "cannabis" constitutes marijuana under the CSA -– regardless of whether the plant is referred to as "hemp," "marijuana," or any other name.

Does "hemp" have different psychoactive properties than marijuana?

The psychoactive properties of a given cannabis plant will depend on the chemical makeup of the plant -– not the name (e.g., "marijuana" or "hemp") that the grower assigns to the plant. The cannabis plant contains roughly 500 different chemicals. The primary psychoactive chemical found in cannabis is tetrahydrocannabinols (THC). Another chemical found in marijuana is cannabidiol (CBD). Among the primary factors that determine the psychoactive properties of a cannabis plant are (1) the amount of THC in the plant and (2) the ratio of THC to CBD in the plant. To oversimplify what is a complex scientific consideration, it is generally the case that the greater the percentage of THC in the plant, the greater the psychoactive effect. However, there is no established minimum threshold amount of THC that a cannabis plant must contain to produce a psychoactive effect. Moreover, the amount of THC that will cause a psychoactive effect will vary among individual users.

Cannabis grown for industrial purposes does, generally, have a lower THC content than cannabis grown for smoking. However, from a scientific perspective, there is no maximum or minimum amount of THC that will necessarily be contained in a cannabis plant grown for industrial purposes. The genetic makeup of the plant and the environmental conditions in which it is grown will dictate THC content.

For what purposes is "industrial hemp" grown?

In broadest terms, there are two general categories of "industrial" products that are made from the cannabis plant: fiber-derived products and seed-derived products. From the fiber of the plant, one can produce textiles and paper products. The seeds of the plant can be pressed into oil, which is used as additive in food and beverage products. (It should be noted that the FDA has expressly declined to recognize "hemp seed oil" as generally recognized as safe.) The oil from the seeds is also used as an ingredient in personal care products such as soaps, lotions, and shampoos. Cannabis seeds can also be used in bird feed.

Is it legal to grow "hemp" in the United States?

The CSA permits the cultivation of cannabis for industrial purposes, provided the grower has obtained a DEA registration to do so. This requirement applies with respect to all cannabis plants, regardless of the THC content. Every federal court that has examined this issue has so ruled. Monson v. DEA, 589 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. White Plume, 447 F.3d 1067 (8th Cir. 2006); New Hampshire Hemp Council v. Marshall, 203 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000). To obtain such a registration, an applicant must demonstrate, among other things, that it will install security measures consistent with the requirements set forth in the DEA regulations.

Does a "hemp" plant with low THC content present any real concerns?

It is true that, if given a choice, marijuana smokers will seek cannabis with a relatively high THC concentration over the type of cannabis typically grown for industrial purposes. However, as indicated, there is no guarantee that a cannabis plant grown for industrial purposes will not cause a psychoactive effect when smoked. Indeed, there have been reported thefts from "industrial hemp" grow facilities. More significantly, even those cannabis plants that have a relatively low THC concentration provide a substantial source of psychoactive material that would be readily exploited by drug seekers if such plants could be easily acquired. Using a relatively simple and inexpensive process of chemical extraction, low grade cannabis (including so-called "industrial hemp") can be readily converted into a highly potent concentrate known as "hash oil." Anyone can learn how to make hash oil by watching instructional videos on YouTube.

Indeed, the illicit production of hash oil appears to be a growing and dangerous trend in the United States, and poses a significant harm to our communities and the environment. Just recently, on February 7, 2013, the U.S. Fire Administration (a component of the Federal Emergency Management Agency) issued a bulletin entitled "Hash Oil Explosions Increasing Across U.S." In this bulletin, which is available atwww.usfa.fema.gov/fireservice/emr-isac/infograms/ig2013/6-13.shtm#1, the U.S. Fire Administration stated, among other things, that explosions in residences and hotels are being traced back to the production of hash oil using butane and that the number of these incidents appears to be increasing.

Can one tell "industrial hemp" and marijuana apart?

It can be extremely difficult to distinguish cannabis grown for industrial purposes from cannabis grown for smoking. This is especially true if law enforcement is attempting to make this determination without entering the premises on which the plants are being grown. It should be noted here that "hemp" grown to produce seeds will appear different from "hemp" grown to produce fiber. Plants grown to produce fiber may (depending on the stage of growth) appear taller and stalkier. In contrast, plants grown to produce seeds may appear bushy and thus more difficult to distinguish from plants for smoking.

As for the THC content of a cannabis plant, this is impossible to determine without performing a chemical analysis of the particular plant. Further, the THC content can vary significantly from plant-to-plant within a given grow site, meaning that testing one plant cannot be relied upon to prove the THC content of neighboring plants. SOURCE = DEA Wages Hemp War Behind The Scenes In House, by Ryan Grim, HuffingtonPost.com

Why Do Patients Care? | Some Cannabis Law Reform activists consider the Hemp sub-issue to be the linch-pin of Prohibition as that is where the 'real' money is. When Hemp is allowed it will be the End of the War. This is because while the Medical side of Prohibition has Special Interest of Big Pharma, Hemp has - among others, Big Oil, Big Textile, Big Chemical and Corporate Farming of America in general - as represented by Monsanto, and their ilk. Although there will be some cross-pollination and effect on medical cannabis crops and gardens, the increased freedom to grow and process, along with environmental and nutritional benefits from the hemp itself it outweigh the negative effects to those who utilize it for therapeutic reasons. When we End the War, we will be able to find solutions to these issues and more. But with the War, we'll have all the issues and the War too.

You see, there is an abundant amount of feral hemp in the U.S. already, as well as several plants in the same phyllum that can fake out a cannabis plant. If we End the War, the Patients and Farmers will be free to find the best long-term, big picture situation for We, the People - instead of what profits Special Interests - and the government lackeys who serve them - the most.

Contact your U.S. Rep on the issue - votehemp.com/takeaction

For more facts on hemp, contact: VoteHemp.com

back to [ Top of Page ]