Hawaii Rep. Cynthia Thielen recommended that I write to you. The current U.S. regulations concerning industrial hemp are draconian to say the least. Gen. McCaffrey's proposed amendments to the controlled substances act would effectively turn my customers into potential criminals and put me out of business.

The American people know the difference between hemp and marijuana. In 6 state-wide referendums, the American people voted to legalize the use of medical marijuana, showing that they know the difference between medical and recreational use. That just goes to show that the people also know the difference between pot and hemp and would approve it by even higher margins?

I think the only ones that don't know the difference is General McCaffrey and his office. The U.S will soon be the only country not farming industrial hemp, (though millions of acres grows wild). If these amendments go through the U.S. will become the only country to keep hemp out. 

Mr. President, my company distributes a poster, made from the original WWII poster; it features a sailor standing on a battleship. The caption reads, "Grow Hemp for the War." It went out to all the farming communities with the movie, "Hemp for Victory" That's Victory, not "Hemp for Help" or "Hemp for Rope", but "Hemp for Victory". The Germans had a similar program aimed at their farmers. Hemp has a long important history that the General is trying to wipe out.

In a letter from the Secretary of the Navy laid before the U.S. Congress in February 1811 (p 988). "...But when it is considered to what a variety of purposes hemp is applicable; that we are at this time greatly dependent upon foreign countries for hemp, for canvass and lines of various kinds made of hemp; that there exists a spirit of patriotism and of persevering industry ready to be exerted, when fit opportunities shall present, to shake off this dependence; ... ...A comprehensive view of this subject leads us to cherish the expectation that the United States will, at no very distant period, become exporters of hemp, as they now are of every other description of naval stores and of cotton; and that the individuals who raise it will ....experience all the beneficial effects resulting therefrom."

Mr. President, do not allow these amendments to reach your Congress. Do not allow your drug czar to dictate business conditions that have nothing to do with what you appointed him to do.

CC: VP Al Gore <vicepresident@whitehouse.gov and Customs.]

Sincerely,

name
address
phone
email

Don't know who represents you?  To quickly find and communicate with your representative, go to Vote-Smart.org.

However, NOW, McCaffrey is trying to change the law. He is actually trying to change the Controlled Substances Act to include non-drug Industrial Hemp. This is an issue of serious concern to hundreds of businesspeople in the U.S. and Canada. If McCaffrey gets his way, not only will the industry be barred from selling a legitimate hemp product, but if the Methamphetamine Act (Hatch-Feinstein) passes, any written correspondence or website postings explaining the industrial, health or environmental benefits of hemp will be considered "drug literature".

We are certain that the only thing that will truly raise awareness on this issue is media attention and we do feel the story is newsworthy. Gen. McCaffrey is currently the subject of an FCC investigation for an anti-drug message "payola" scandal involving major networks and is also the subject of a forthcoming article in the New Yorker by award winning writer Seymour Hersh raising troubling questions about McCaffrey's treatment of POWs in the Gulf War. We feel that taken together with McCaffrey's attempts to quash a legitimate industry in the face of broad based support from scientists, farmers, politicians and businesspeople, not to mention the fact that hemp is currently grown in 32 other countries around the world, it adds up to a disturbing image of the inner workings of our government.

I have included:
1. A letter from Hawaii State Representative Cynthia Thielen (R) who has sent a message alerting the hemp industry to McCaffrey's new tactic.
2. A paper detailing a brief legal/historical environment for hemp as well as a list of benefits
3. The web site www.hempembargo.com, which is a resource for the full story on what McCaffrey has done up until about a month ago.
4. The web site www.abouthemp.com for a very simple, non-technical introduction to Industrial Hemp for someone who has never heard of it before.
5. Atlas Corporation's letter which includes a review of a personal meeting with the ONDCP as well as legal and policy environment surrounding hemp. (See below.)

I have at my disposal a list of senators and representatives who will speak with a reporter on the benefits and legal environment surrounding both the importation of hemp (legal under federal law) and the passage of state acts around the country either legalizing hemp or providing research grants for this crop (hemp is currently illegal to grow in the U.S., a separate but related issue).

I also personally have an excellent command of the facts of the case as well as the facts about hemp, should you wish to use our organization as a resource. It is critical that this story be picked up quickly.

Yours sincerely,

Erik Rothenberg
Atlas Corporation
100 Corporate Point, Suite 398, Culver City, CA 90230-8753
Tel: 310-568-9889 x101 Fax: 310-568-9959
http://www.atlascor.com & http://www.abouthemp.com

********

Historical and Modern Uses for Industrial Hemp

Cannabis Sativa L., literally useful hemp in Latin, has been employed in the manufacture of textiles, paper and food for thousands of years in virtually every culture, including our own. The U.S.S. Constitution was equipped with sixty tons of hemp rope and ship sails. The pioneers' covered wagons were fitted with hemp cloth. The original drafts of the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written on hemp paper. Betsy Ross sewed the first colonial flag out of hemp yarn. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were hemp farmers and advocates of growing hemp for the economic necessity of the state.

The hemp fiber is the longest, strongest and most durable fiber in the plant kingdom, enabling the manufacture of apparel, biocomposites and high quality paper to name a few. The oilseed is one of the most nutritious, with 41% protein and 75% essential fatty acids, opening markets for cosmetics and food. The fiber core provides cost and performance benefits against materials commonly used in industrial, pharmaceutical and cosmetic markets. These modern uses replace much of the synthetics, fiberglass, petroleum oils, timber products and other environmentally harmful materials currently used in industry. Farming hemp requires relatively minimal water and pesticides and leaves the soil nitrogen rich for rotating crops. Compared to other crops such as cotton or tobacco, hemp is a boon for the environment.

Hemp prohibition in the U.S. can be traced to a specific set of events. In the early 1930ís, Du Pont Corporation recognized hemp fiber as a threat to its new synthetic fibers business and commenced political lobbying in Washington, resulting in the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Justification for this law, drafted in secret and enacted without congressional review, was led by a media campaign. William Randolph Hearst, who saw hemp paper as a threat to his timber business which, in turn, fed his newspaper business, published a steady stream of sensationalist and baseless 'reefer madness' type articles on the evils of marijuana. Up to that point, the term marijuana was not in the American popular lexicon, nor was a distinction made between Cannabis for industrial and medicinal purposes and that which was smoked. During that year, hemp was outlawed under the pretense that it was the same plant as marijuana (Cannabis Sativa L.) and by failing to make a distinction between high-THC marijuana (about 15-20%) and low-THC hemp (less than 0.3%), the entire hemp industry was effectively outlawed.

Facing raw material shortages during World War II, the federal government reversed its stance and made hemp legal once more. Promotional materials were developed to encourage farmers to grow hemp and licenses were issued. After the war, the program was dropped and never mentioned again.

In 1991, the global hemp industry began to resurface due to the publication of materials that recounted these facts. By 1993 worldwide hemp sales (retail smoke shop credit card processing receipts only) were counted at $5,000,000. By 1999 that number had increased to over $150,000,000 with the U.S. consumer purchasing 60% of that volume.

Review of Exhibits:

Legal and Policy Environment Surrounding Hemp

The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act (Exhibit A):

The original text of the law making both hemp and marihuana illegal, describing which parts of the plant are permitted or restricted:

Excerpt:
The term "marihuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds, or resin- but shall not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination.

According to this statute, the operative concept in prohibiting hemp seed is germination capability. Further, the law specifically names extracted
resins as a prohibited compound.

1971 Controlled Substances Act (Exhibit B)

The Controlled Substances Act classified marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic under 21 U.S.C. Section 802(16) and utilized the identical 1937 definition of marihuana, down to the old colloquial spelling.

Schedule I classified tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) by way of 21 C.F.R. Section 1308.22 (d) (26) as:

"synthetic equivalents of the substances contained in the plant, or in the resinous extractives of Cannabis, sp.and/or synthetic substance, derivatives and their isomers with similar chemical structure and pharmacological activity such as the following... delta 1, delta 6, delta 3 or 4 transtetrahydrocannabinol ..."

Organic (from a living plant) THC is not in itself in schedule, only chemically derived products of equal or similar chemistry. Put simply, if one were to take high potency marijuana and concentrate the resins, it would fall under the definition of marijuana under 21 U.S.C. Section 802 (16). No matter how highly refined or concentrated these resins were, they would still be in Schedule I as marijuana and not THC, since 21 C.F.R. Section 1308.22 (d) (26) only covers synthetic THC.

Hemp seeds or hemp seed products containing organic THC fall into neither the federal definition of THC nor marijuana and therefore are exempted. Far from being concentrated, the bulk of natural THC resins are removed with modern processing techniques, producing hemp seed and hemp seed products that are considerably more free of THC than 63 years ago when the original law was enacted.

1991 Drug Enforcement Agency Memo (Exhibits C & D)

In this year, a bird seed importer's case was reviewed by the DEA. The attached exhibits established the DEA's policy concerning the difference in THC (resin) particulate matter on sterilized hemp seeds versus extracted resins as provided for in the definition of marijuana under Schedule I.
The Affidavit of Charles Metcalf, DEA Senior Investigator states:

When evaluating material which visually appears to be primarily marijuana seed, the DEA's determination of whether the material constitutes a
controlled substance must be made by viability testing of the seeds, rather than separate THC analysis of the residue and particulate matter.

Correspondingly, the Affidavit of Susan Miller, DEA Forensic Chemist states:

Viability is the critical aspect of the analysis because the law specifically states that sterilized seeds incapable of germination are not included in the term "Marihuana" and are therefore not controlled.

The DEA's policy on importation of hemp seeds, therefore, made it clear that not only is the viability of the seed the critical factor in determining legality of importation, but the residue and particulate matter on hemp seeds, not being concentrated or extracted, are not covered as a controlled substance.

October 6, 1999 Drug Enforcement Agency Memo (Exhibit E)

On August 9th of this year, U.S. Customs officials seized a truck carrying sterilized hemp seed grown at the Kenex farm near Chatham, Ontario. U.S. Customs and the DEA demanded that Kenex, one of Canada's leading producers and processors of industrial hemp products recall previous shipments of other hemp products such as oil, granola bars, horse bedding and animal feed. For weeks, the DEA and U.S. Customs were unable to articulate their policy or position on the legal rationale for this seizure, citing only the rhetoric of a zero tolerance policy.

On October 6, the DEA finally provided its rationale for the seizure in the form of a policy statement on importation of hemp products . In this memo, the DEA cites the Controlled Substances Act's definition of marijuana. It also notes that THC (or resins) is a Schedule I controlled substance. The conclusion is then drawn that hemp seeds and products thereof can only be imported under DEA registration.

Unfortunately, while the statements made therein are true out of context, the argument is completely specious. The memo makes no mention of the fact established above that organic, unconcentrated THC in the form of particulate matter on seed or in oil, is not prohibited by either the
original 1937 federal statute, the 1971 Controlled Substances Act, nor the DEA's own established 1991 policy. The weakness of this argument set the stage for litigation in which the DEA was forced to essentially acknowledge they had violated the same laws which they were charged to enforce as well as their own policies developed to enforce them.

December 7, 1999 U.S. Customs Memo (Exhibit F)

The battle between Kenex and the DEA was resolved in November in Kenex's favor. The DEA acknowledged that they would no longer seize hemp seed products, nor direct U.S. Customs to do so. The seized merchandise was returned and the fines were waived. Pursuant to this development, U.S. Customs developed importation guidelines, which were intended to clarify the situation.

1999 U.S. Customs Tariff Schedule (Exhibit G)

Long before the original Kenex seizure, U.S. Customs had already introduced harmonized codes unique to hemp importation into the U.S. tariff schedule. The lack of a specified THC level in these codes was consistent with the dictates of the original 1937 federal statute as well as the 1971 Controlled Substances Act. The implementation of specific codes instead of other or N.E.S. (not elsewhere specified) validated the modern commercial growth in imports of hemp products.

December 30, 1999 Office of National Drug Control Policy Memo and January 5, 2000 U.S. Customs Memo (Exhibit H)

Three weeks after the U.S. Customs directive was issued, the ONDCP requested Customs to suspend the December 7 guidelines in favor of a policy that would subject to seizure any hemp product or part thereof which contains any amount of THC. The rationale given for this was so that the ONDCP, together with the DEA, could review the issue to determine whether the policy to allow for traces of THC in hemp products is consistent with their National Drug Control Strategy.

The U.S. Customs Congressional Liaison was kept completely uninformed about these changes in policy.


One Company's Unique Perspective

The above misinterpretation and subsequent usurpation of U.S. law carries a political charge.

On Saturday, November 7, 1998, the management of Atlas Corporation personally met with Mr. Bob Weiner of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, along with his wife, Pat Weiner, in conjunction with a hemp-awareness documentary project that Atlas was partially funding. After shooting, we had lunch and got to the bottom of the rhetoric promulgated by the ONDCP.

Mr. Weiner told us that the hemp issue is about kids and health. He reiterated the ONDCPs main objection to hemp is that 'it sends the wrong message to children'. By this, he meant that if kids think hemp is cool, by way of hemp hats, T-shirts, jeans, granola bars etc., it may induce them to use marijuana more so than they would in a world without hemp products.

Mr. Weiner also proposed that hemp plants look identical to marijuana plants and would confound and confuse the law enforcement officials charged with marijuana control. He further indicated that marijuana growers could plant their marijuana in a field of hemp, making it impossible to distinguish between legitimate hemp growers and marijuana growers.

Finally, Mr. Weiner reiterated Barry Gen. McCaffrey's famous statement that the market for hemp is too small to concern the nation's time with and that hemp does not even make a good fiber for textiles- that pants made with hemp do not even hold a crease.

Hemp is legally grown in 30 industrialized countries including all other G-8 countries, none of which have reported any problems with either increased marijuana use or confused law enforcement officials. In fact, the hemp plants are only similar to marijuana plants in the first few weeks of development, but quickly begin to look much different to a layman's eye. Even so, economics dictate that marijuana plants are seeded far apart to maximize flower and resin production, while hemp plants are planted close together to maximize stalk production, which makes distinguishing a field of hemp quite easy. No marijuana grower would seed as densely as a hemp grower because the lack of sunlight and lack of space would severely weaken resin production, if not kill the plants. Nor would a marijuana grower plant under cover of a legitimate hemp field; as the low-THC hemp plant would cross-pollinate with the high-THC marijuana, reducing the potency of the drug plant.

Mr. Weiner retorted that to accept this version of reality (one that could be supported by the testimony of countless agronomists) would mean to
disregard and discount the information provided to him by the law enforcement officials who heed the ONDCP's directives.

We pointed out that these are the same law enforcement officials who receive $500,000,000 per year under the federal government's Cannabis Eradication Program to destroy marijuana plants in the U.S. In fact, it seems that our law enforcement officers indeed do have a problem distinguishing hemp from marijuana, since between 94-99% of the plants eliminated under this program are simply feral (wild) hemp, known also as ditchweed. When confronted with this egregious waste of taxpayer money, Mr. Weiner resorted to questioning our statistics, which in fact came directly from the DEA's own records.

With respect to the health issue, we provided him with published materials explaining that when it comes to hemp seed food products, it is difficult to find a more nutritious plant. The high protein and essential fatty acid levels rank hemp along with quinoa and soybeans as a top world food source. Mr. Weiner replied that people who eat hemp foods would register a false positive on a urine test and therefore, it is problematic for employers and the military. In a recent statement, Mr. Weiner reiterated this stance saying hemp foods "really would make drug testing difficult. One of the main points our director made is that hemp foods are a threat to drug testing." Weiner says the ONDCP wants the DEA and U.S. Customs to offer scientific proof that hemp foods are not a threat to "enforcement, drug testing, drug policy or health."

The urine test issue seems to be a matter of grave concern to the ONDCP. However, they do not advocate providing alternative testing methods to determine false positives, as is done in the case of opium and poppy seeds. Instead, the official solution seems to advocate the prohibition of a highly nutritious food source at a time when 70% of the people on earth are malnourished for the purpose of protecting the sanctity of the urine test and the inertia of the drug testing industry. The policy of the world's wealthiest nation is curious and begs the question: why is the burden of proof on the hemp industry instead of where it should be- on the drug testing industry?

The ONDCP dismisses the notion of putting the burden on the drug testing industry by its claim that there is no market for hemp in the U.S. To the contrary, not only is the U.S. the world's largest consumer market for hemp, but the 'no market' argument raises the question as to why such considerable government resources are being spent on squelching its potential. Finally, putting forth this argument in the first place is completely off base because the ONDCP is in no position to determine the future of U.S. agricultural development.

Coincidentally, within two weeks of the ONDCP's Dec. 30 memo, a report from the USDA was released that provides similar misleading and specious arguments that appear to support the ONDCP's 'no market' claims. The USDA report, using incomplete data, concluded that there would only be a ìsmall, thin marketî for hemp products in the United States if growing the crop were legalized; that all of the hemp fiber, yarn and fabric that the nation imports could be grown on less than 2,000 acres. This report ignores the large volume of hemp fiber imported into the U.S. not suitable for apparel (Ford and GM's next three model years are being produced with hemp biocomposites) as well as hemp seed derivatives, which make oil, meal cake and a host of food products. In fact, in 1999, 30,000 acres of hemp were planted in Canada alone and 90% of the production was exported to the U.S.

Even if the report's statistics were true and complete, the implication that hemp has no future because it has no present is circular reasoning; if U.S  farmers grew and processed hemp, costs would drop and the market would develop as it has in 30 other countries. One is reminded of Bill Gates famous words in the early days of the Internet; that if you told him in 1994 that in two years' time, company web site addresses (URL's) would commonly appear on corporate promotional advertising, he would have laughed.

The lack of a credible answer to any of the above concerns leads us to conclude that the ONDCP is operating according to a well orchestrated political agenda only tangentially connected to law enforcement, food, drug tests, kids or health.

The ONDCP indicates that the policies of U.S. Customs are under review to determine whether the THC limits are in line with their National Drug Control Strategy. This means that hemp fiber, containing 0.0% THC can enter but hemp seed, containing 0.03% THC, cannot. However, this statement does not fit with Mr. Weiner's rationale that 'hemp sends the wrong message to children'. The depth of absurdity is exposed when one considers that by ONDCP reasoning, hemp jeans send a neutral message but granola bars send the wrong message.

Clearly, if Gen. McCaffrey is concerned that hemp products in the marketplace send the wrong message to children, the only solution would be to eliminate all hemp products from the market and therefore from the public consciousness. Indeed, since the ONDCP knows they cannot get away with this, they have chosen to impose a nearly impossible standard on the industry, requiring hemp seed products to be completely free of THC resins. Again, one must be reminded that the ONDCP has no authority to do this.

Since the economics of hemp in countries with high labor costs and no subsidies do not compute by processing only low value stalks, high value hemp seed derivatives are important in providing another income stream to the farmer. Furthermore, Canada, with a proven model for hemp farming in North America, is a country skilled in oil and food processing, not in fiber processing.

The ONDCP is aware of this. By limiting the ability of Canadian hemp oil and food processors to export to the U.S., their largest market, they will cripple the Canadian hemp industry. This, in turn, will cut off valuable supply sources, stymie market forces, dampen U.S. statesí enthusiasm for hemp legislation, prevent hemp awareness from spreading to consumers, and in the end, kill a fledgling hemp industry. This would amount to another pyrrhic victory in the ëdrug warí. It is clearly capricious, baseless and illegal policymaking at the expense of the profits of farmers and businesses, benefits to consumers and benefits to the environment. Again, all in the name of keeping a drug out of a country which, in spite of spending $500,000,000 a year to eradicate, still has the dubious distinction of the same drug being one of its largest cash crops. This is the agenda that the ONDCP is pursuing and the evidence is in this report.

Finally, we are troubled by the notion of established federal law, DEA policy and U.S. Customs rulings being overruled by ìNational Drug Control Strategyî. A ìstrategyî is just that: a set of behaviors intended to accomplish a particular purpose. The ONDCPís ìstrategyî is not a set of laws approved by Congress but rather is ultimately a fluid and malleable wish set by Gen. McCaffrey whose executive appointee position amounts to no more than that of a bureaucratic functionary.

Gen. McCaffrey and the ONDCP wield their power via misinformation and demagoguery; those who do not accept their version of the truth are labeled "soft on drugs"- in an election year. Indeed, the ONDCP's well-publicized flaps over screening anti-drug programming content on major television networks has only strengthened the case that Gen. McCaffrey is willing to subvert basic Bill of Rights issues to enact his agenda.

It is clear to this organization that a figurehead with the politically charged title of Drug Czar being effectively handed the de facto power to change federal statutes without the approval of lawmakers and congressional liaisons is a significant first step down the slippery slope to an authoritarian state.

Proposed Remedies and Actions

With all due respect, the management of Atlas insists that its lawmakers and enforcers pay particular and immediate heed to what may be appropriately regarded as a perversion of the U.S. legal process. The ONDCP is clearly violating rules established by the federal government, making it impossible for a legitimate and profitable global hemp industry to gain a foothold in the largest potential market, the United States. 
Specifically, we call for:

An immediate retraction of ONDCP's December 30, 1999 memo. An immediate reinstatement of U.S. Customs December 7, 1999 guidelines. A statement by the ONDCP and DEA that they will no longer seek to limit the THC content in hemp imports so long as they conform to the U.S. Customs guidelines. A statement by the ONDCP calling for a shift in the burden of proof concerning drug testing to the drug testing industry.

Further, we encourage lawmakers to educate themselves about industrial hemp and its myriad uses. We strongly believe that the hemp argument speaks for itself and that any reasonable individual armed with the facts will reach the conclusion that the growing of industrial hemp in the United States is of tremendous benefit to farmers, processors, marketers, consumers and the environment.

We are troubled by the fact that in spite of hemp legislation passing in certain states, the federal government still prohibits state law from being executed. This boils down to a classic states rights vs. federal rights argument, with the ultimate solution having resided in the 10th amendment for over 200 years: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.

The American people and American industry have voted for hemp with their ballots, their pocketbooks and their investment dollars. Please support your constituents by exerting the necessary political influence to make our voices heard.

Don't know who represents you?  To quickly find and communicate with your representative, go to Vote-Smart.org.

[Legislator Letterhead]

October __, 1999

Robert C. Gleason, Esq.

Dan Dormont, Esq.

Office of the Chief Counsel

Drug Enforcement Administration

600 Army-Navy Drive

Arlington, Virginia

Re: Kenex Ltd. Sterilized Hemp Seed

Dear Sir:

I am a legislator of _(state)____who supported our State's industrial hemp law because I understand the significant potential economic, agricultural and environmental benefits of industrial hemp to the people of our State. It has come to my attention that based on DEA advice that sterilized hemp seed is a controlled substance, US Customs has seized and recalled several shipments of Kenex hemp products. 

These seizures and recalls have taken place notwithstanding the plain language of the statutory definition of "marihuana" to exclude "the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted  therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination." 21 U.S.C. §802(16). Kenex' hemp products are also completely legal under Canada law.

Many interested parties including our State legislature have relied on the existing definition and statutory exclusions of industrial hemp fiber, oil, cake and sterilized seeds. Investors, entrepreneurs, researchers (including our State University), farmers, legislators and large industrial companies such as International Paper, Interface Corporation, The Body Shop and Crane & Co. have devoted substantial time and money to promote industrial hemp from economic, agricultural and environmental standpoints. From the standpoint of both fundamental fairness and due process, the DEA should not change its policy regarding hemp from the statutory definition without complying with applicable rulemaking laws and regulations.

In addition, we must consider that farm prices are the lowest in generations and that Canadian farmers are earning about $200/acre profit on hemp. Further, industrial hemp reduces the harm caused by each of the 7 most ecologically harmful activities identified by the Union of Concerned Scientists that are credited with collectively causing 80% of the ongoing environmental damage. With this knowledge in mind, who can stand against hemp as a renewable agricultural and recyclable industrial resource?

We hope that your office will carefully consider the gravity of this situation and the substantial harm that will be suffered by various 
constituencies, including the citizens of my State, and the millions of dollars of investment that will be lost if the DEA acts precipitously. 

I understand that the DEA's advice and the seizures and recalls may be related to recent incidents where individuals accused of failing drug tests cited use of hemp oil with trace THC levels as a defense. I also understand that available and on-going research, private and governmental through the Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services, which includes human trials indicates that contaminated or high-THC hemp seed (above 1300 ppm THC) may result in detectable levels of THC in the oils pressed and may trigger a positive drug test. Based on this it would seem that there must be a way to deal with a legitimate DEA concern, i.e., accurate drug testing, without undermining an entire industry that is already benefiting communities around the US and is already creating and maintaining new jobs and new opportunities for farmers and entrepreneurs, investors and others.

The economic and ecological imperatives involved with industrial hemp require a judicious use of the DEA's awesome power in 
this field. I call upon you as a fellow public servant to take a balanced view of this situation and to work with Kenex and other interested parties to resolve this matter in a coordinated way. Any delay in resolving the matter or any litigation that may result from a failure to reach an accord would likely create irreparable harm to the economic and ecological opportunities presented by industrial hemp.

Please contact me if you would like to discuss the foregoing in greater detail.

Sincerely,

Unless you are purposefully working to destroy the industrial hemp-based food market, this demand to Kenex to recall prior hempseed shipments makes no sense. For example, I and many others at the Hawaii State Capitol have already consumed hemp granola bars which contained Kenex hempseeds. Obviously, it would be impossible for Kenex to reclaim those products or others which entered the stream of commerce and have been used or consumed.

It appears to me that the seizure of hempseeds, recall of prior shipments and the threat of excessive fines are intended to intimidate Kenex. I find this action by federal officials to be unwarranted and excessive.

Until some common sense can be brought to this matter, I ask you to reverse your product recall demand to U.S. Customs and to cease any and all punitive actions against Kenex.

Please respond to me without delay.

Sincerely,
Cynthia H. Thielen.
Assistant Minority Floor Leader

Contact: "Rep. Cynthia Thielen" thielen@aloha.net

Unless you are purposefully working to destroy the industrial hemp-based food market, this demand to Kenex to recall prior hempseed shipments makes no sense. For example, I and many others at the Hawaii State Capitol have already consumed hemp granola bars which contained Kenex hempseeds. Obviously, it would be impossible for Kenex to reclaim those products or others which entered the stream of commerce and have been used or consumed.

It appears to me that the seizure of hempseeds, recall of prior shipments and the threat of excessive fines are intended to intimidate Kenex. I find this action by federal officials to be unwarranted and excessive.

Until some common sense can be brought to this matter, I ask you to reverse your product recall demand to U.S. Customs and to cease any and all punitive actions against Kenex.

Please respond to me without delay.

Sincerely,
Cynthia H. Thielen.
Assistant Minority Floor Leader

Contact: "Rep. Cynthia Thielen" thielen@aloha.net