Ted Yoho on Drugs

Exclude industrial hemp from definition of marijuana.

• Amends the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of "marihuana."
• Defines "industrial hemp" to mean the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis.
• Deems Cannabis sativa L. to meet that concentration limit if a person grows or processes it for purposes of making industrial hemp in accordance with state law.

Sponsor's Remarks:
Rep. PAUL: Nine States allow industrial hemp production or research in accord with State laws. However, Federal law is standing in the way of farmers in these States growing what may be a very profitable crop. Because of current Federal law, all hemp included in products sold in the US must be imported instead of being grown by American farmers. Since 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act's inclusion of industrial hemp in the "schedule one" definition of marijuana has prohibited American farmers from growing industrial hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp has such a low content of THC (the psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana plant) that nobody can be psychologically affected by consuming hemp.

The US is the only industrialized nation that prohibits industrial hemp cultivation. Industrial hemp is a crop that was grown legally throughout the US for most of our Nation's history. In fact, during World War II, the Federal Government actively encouraged American farmers to grow industrial hemp to help the war effort. It is unfortunate that the Federal Government has stood in the way of American farmers competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed, the founders of our Nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited Government.

Exempt industrial hemp from marijuana laws.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of "marihuana." Defines "industrial hemp" to mean the plant Cannabis sativa and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a THC concentration of not more than 0.3%.

Argument in favor (Sen. Ron Wyden):

Members of Congress hear a lot about how dumb regulations are hurting economic growth and job creation. The current ban on growing industrial hemp is hurting job creation in rural America and increasing our trade deficit. This bill will end this ridiculous regulation. Right now, the US is importing over $10 million in hemp products--a crop that US farmers could be profitably growing right here at home, if not for government rules prohibiting it. Now, even though hemp and marijuana come from the same species of plant, there are major differences between them. The Chihuahua and St. Bernard come from the same species, too, but no one is going to confuse them.

Argument in opposition (Drug Enforcement Agency):

The DEA regulatory opposition to industrial hemp production is based upon:
• The difficulty in distinguishing legitimate hemp with low narcotic concentration from illicit cannabis, and
• the perception that industrial hemp advocates have a hidden agenda of favoring legalization of marijuana.

Argument in opposition (DrugWatch.org 10/30/2013):

• The DEA ban on THC in hemp food products, though characterized as a drug war issue, is, in fact, a food safety issue. No state or country has scientifically established the safety of food products made from hemp.
• Smoking hemp/marijuana with a low THC level of 0.25 percent could result in psychological effects on inexperienced users (children, for example).
• Supporting industrial hemp/marijuana sends an ambivalent and harmful message to youth and others regarding marijuana.

Rated B by NORML, indicating a pro-drug-reform stance.

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2016 NORML scores as follows:

• C-/D/F: "hard-on-drugs" stance (approx. 243 members)
• C: mixed record on drug reform (approx. 45 members)
• A/B: pro-drug-reform stance (approx. 293 members)

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law's mission is to move public opinion sufficiently to achieve the repeal of marijuana prohibition so that the responsible use of cannabis by adults is no longer subject to penalty.

NORML is a nonprofit, public-interest lobby that for more than 30 years has provided a voice for those Americans who oppose marijuana prohibition. We represent the interests of the tens of millions of Americans who smoke marijuana responsibly and believe the recreational and medicinal use of marijuana should no longer be a crime.

NORML supports the removal of all criminal penalties for the private possession & responsible use of marijuana by adults, including the cultivation for personal use, and the casual nonprofit transfers of small amounts. This model is called "decriminalization."

NORML additionally supports the development of a legally controlled market for marijuana, where consumers could purchase it from a safe, legal and regulated source. This model is referred to as "legalization."

NORML believes that marijuana smoking is not for kids and should only be used responsibly by adults. As with alcohol consumption, it must never be an excuse for misconduct or other bad behavior. Driving or operating heavy equipment while impaired from marijuana should be prohibited.

NORML strongly supports the right of patients to use marijuana as a medicine when their physician recommends it to relieve pain and suffering.

Lastly, NORML supports the right of farmers to commercially cultivate hemp for industrial purposes, such as food and fiber production.

Disallow buying marijuana with food stamps.

Congressional Summary:To prohibit the use of [food stamp and welfare] benefits to purchase marijuana products, to prohibit assistance provided under block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families (TANF} from being accessed through the use of an electronic benefit transfer card at any store that offers marijuana for sale. States that have not implemented such policies shall have the amount of their family assistance grants reduced by 5%.

Argument In Favor: [Countable.us]: Prohibits using funds from assistance programs like TANF and SNAP (food stamps) to purchase marijuana sold at legal dispensaries. Aids in preventing misuse of assistance funds. Reinforces existing USDA guidelines in regard to what is or is not eligible for SNAP benefits.

Political Argument Opposed: [Countable.us]: It is impossible to use SNAP benefits to purchase legal marijuana. Much of the furor over this issue originates from a single, satirical article published by political satire web publication "the National Report." The story was picked up by numerous social media sites, many of which believed welfare recipients were using funds from assistance programs to purchase marijuana. In regard to TANF, where cash assistance is provided, this is possible. In regard to Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, it is not.

Legal Argument Opposed: [ACLU March 2, 2012]: Drug testing welfare recipients as a condition of eligibility is a policy that is scientifically, fiscally, and constitutionally unsound:

• Science and medical experts overwhelmingly oppose the drug testing of welfare recipients [because] the stigma associated with testing impacted those on welfare negatively.
• Random drug testing of welfare recipients is fiscally irresponsible: Drug testing is expensive.
• Random drug testing of welfare recipients is likely unconstitutional under both the U.S. Constitution and some state constitutions: