U.S. Senator Rand Paul, who represents Kentucky, last week re-introduced his Hemp Economic Mobilization Plan (HEMP) Act.
In the USA, hemp is defined as Cannabis sativa L. with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.
Why 0.3 per cent? That’s a really good question. It was an arbitrary standard never intended to be used as a legal measure for THC concentration in hemp. It originated from a scientific research paper entitled ” A Practical and Natural Taxonomy for Cannabis” by Ernest Small and Arthur Cronquist published back in 1976 that sought to differentiate between hemp and marijuana. So, the number was basically pulled out of thin air.
The 0.3 per cent limit presents a number of challenges for farmers. First, it reduces their choice of varieties, second, it leaves little wiggle room for THC levels fluctuating due to weather or environmental conditions. Third, it puts US farmers at a disadvantage to those in other jurisdictions where maximum THC levels are much higher.
There’s a lot at stake as plants above the 0.3 per cent threshold, known as a “hot” crop, can also land farmers in legal hot water.
Rand Paul’s bill seeks to amend the definition of hemp from 0.3 percent THC to 1 percent. Additionally, it stipulates testing of hemp-derived products rather than the hemp flower or plant itself. And to help prevent hemp from being seized during transport, the bill requires shipments be accompanied by one of two easily accessible types of documentation.
“For years, I’ve led the fight in Washington to restore one of Kentucky’s most historically vital crops by legalizing industrial hemp,” said Dr. Paul. “We achieved a hard-won victory, but there is still work to do to prevent the federal government from weighing down our farmers with unnecessary bureaucratic micromanaging. My legislation will help this growing industry reach its full economic potential and bring transparency to government regulations.”
The full text of the Hemp Economic Mobilization Plan Act can be viewed here.
This isn’t the first time the Senator has attempted to get this legislation over the line. That was in 2021, when it was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry without further action.
Source link
