Comments on\nthe Establishment of a Domestic Hemp Production Program<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service USDA<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 ACTION: Interim final rule with request for\ncomments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please Note:\nPage Numbers reference the Federal Register<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               First of all we would like to\nlaud everyone in the US Government that had a part in completing the Herculean\nTask of compiling and completing this Interim Document.  However, we (the paid Shareholders, strategic\ncollaborative partners, and Friends of the Colorado Hemp Processing Cooperative)\nhave several concerns about some of the specifics of this document that require\nus to make the following comments. Thank you for allowing the 60 Comment Period\nthat permits us to make our concerns public for your consideration to help make\nthe Actual Final Rules the best they can be for everyone involved in this\nnascent revival of the US Hemp Industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               We appreciate your efforts and\nhope that all US Government employees involved with these rules remember that\nthey represent all US Citizens and that any Final Rules need to be formulated\nfor the Greatest and Highest Good of all Americans. Government Employees at all\nlevels, including Government Employees, Elected Officials and Government\nContractors, are not paid by special interests, lobbyists, campaign\ncontributors, and specific political parties, but by the taxes of all hard\nworking US Citizens. We all need to Collaborate and celebrate that The US Hemp\nIndustry is being revived after 80 years of dormancy.  We additionally have the added benefit that\nwe can revive it with 21st Century Technology. \nBeing that it is the 21st Century, it is time to let go of the 20th\nCentury’s manufactured “Reefer Madness” stigmatization that cannabis\nhas been subjected to for the last 80 years. \nHemp has the potential to bring economic stimulus to Rural America and\nas stewards of our future and our future generations prosperity, we need to\nmaximize this potential.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

               For the purposes of these\ncomments, we would like to remind you that hemp, as defined in the 2018 Farm Bill,\nmeans the plant species “Cannabis sativa L. and any part of the plant\nincluding the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extract, cannabinoids,\nisomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not with a\ndelta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a\ndry weight basis” (Federal Register IFR Introduction Page 58523 et\nal).  In the Sampling and Testing for\nDelta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (Section B Page 58524) it states that “…\nperson shall collect samples from the flower material from such cannabis plants\nfor delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration level testing”. This brings\nus to our first comment.  As the Statutes\nrequire that only the flower material is being tested, and the definition of\nhemp includes any part of the plant, it is a non sequitur that the whole\nplant be destroyed if the flower material tests over the .3 THC (delta-9\ntetrahydrocannabinol) level. The cannabinoids are the most concentrated in the\nflower, but since we are referring to any part of the whole plant\nin the definition and the various parts of the hemp plant are used for\ndifferent purposes, why are we only testing the flower?  Of course the flower is used for cannabinoids\nfor recreational and medical purposes, but the leaves and seeds are used for\nfood, and the stems and stalks used for fiber and paper among thousands of\nother uses.  We would propose that a much\nmore 21st Century scientifically accurate sampling procedure be utilized.  Specifically, to scientifically and\naccurately determine the THC level of the entire plant, we would strongly advocate\nand recommend that the sampling procedure collect material from not only the\nflower, but include equal parts (by dry weight) of the leaves, stems and stalks,\nincluding both the bark (Bast) of the stalk and the pith (Hurd) of the stalk.  These components from the entire hemp plant\ncould then be homogenized (blended together) and that more accurately\nrepresentative homogenized sample be used to determine the actual and much more\nprecise THC level of the entire plant.  Logically,\nthis would be a much more scientifically accurate analysis while still utilizing\nthe post decarboxylation methods of testing that is recommended by the Bill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               In our Research we’ve tried to\ndetermine why the .3% THC figure has been designated as the difference between\nHemp and marijuana, and our research indicates that it is just an arbitrary\nfigure with no scientific basis.  It\ncreates a confusing situation where all Hemp is cannabis, but not all cannabis\nis Hemp.  A much easier and more common\nsense solution than the above would be to take all cannabis off the Schedule I\nControlled Substance List as hemp has already been.  This would give Producers much more freedom\nto prosper without all the onerous regulations and burdensome fees that Hemp is\ncurrently subject to.  Even a change from\nthe 0.3% THC level to a 1.0% THC level would ease some of the Producers’\nconcerns about having to destroy a crop that they have put blood sweat, tears,\ntime and money into.  Unfortunately, these\npercentage changes can only be made by the President or Congress but we are\nconfident that this will happen sooner than later. The Rule states (Page 58524)\nthat “Sampling procedures, among other requirement, must ensure that a\nrepresentative sample of the hemp production is physically collected and\ndelivered to a DEA-registered laboratory for testing”. However, related to\nthe above, if only the flower material is tested, then only the flower material\nis subject to going over the 0.3% THC level. \nTherefore, logically, the only part of the plant that should be\ndestroyed if the test goes over 0.3% THC is the flower material, allowing the\nProducer to recoup some of his time and money by utilizing the remaining undestroyed,\nuntested segments of the plant.  A viable\nalternative that would not require and change in test sampling or THC % levels\nis that, using 21st century technology, the Authorized person (DEA reverse\ndistributor) charged with overseeing the corrective action of the non-compliant\ncrop could be Authorized to oversee the digitally tracked channeling of that\ncrop into an approved processing facility that would transform that crop into a\nnon-ingestible product like hempcrete, fiberboard, paper, or numerous other\nnon-ingestible products.  Alternatively,\nutilizing 21st Century technology, as an alternative corrective action, the THC\ncould be extracted from the flower material before it goes into the open\nmarket. Since the THC level is the only aspect of the plant that is not\ncompliant, then the THC could be extracted and destroyed using 21st Century\nTechnology without destroying the value of the rest of the plant for the\nProducers. The Producers would thus not be out their whole investment and may\neven realized a modest return to offset their expenses, but would not benefit\nfrom the THC portion of the plants.  The\nsuicide and bankruptcy rates of Farmers in America (Producers) are at an all\ntime high and we certainly don’t want exacerbate those rates with\nover-regulation in the revival of a once important crop that was crucial in\nhelping the US  win WWII in the\n“Hemp For Victory” Campaign. \nThese alternative considerations for corrective action are absolutely\nnecessary and critical in assuring that the revival of the US Hemp Industry is\ngiven every possible chance to succeed. \nUtilizing these actions could also significantly defray the projected\nannual cost of $6.432 million for the disposal of non-compliant crop disposal\nand would add more positive benefit to the Producers and the country.  This is also compliant with Executive Order\n13563 to “select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits, which\ninclude potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, effect\ndistributive impacts, and equity” (Page 58539). Although the “AMS\nadopted the best option among the alternatives” (Page 58548) for sampling\nprocedures, it is very possible and probable that they did not consider all\nof the alternatives including the ones presented above.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

               Because\nthe Rule (Page 58524) requests comments and information regarding the 15-Day\nsampling and harvest timeline we are offering the following comments.  Not only is this protocol unrealistic from\nthe Producer’s perspective, there are too many significant extraneous variables\nand conflicts to pinpoint an exact harvesting timeline to this level of\nspecificity.  Some of these variables are\nunpredictable weather, optimum maturity of the crop, availability of harvesting\nequipment and personnel. There is also a huge difference between procedures for\nsuccessful harvesting Hemp to be used in CBD products and procedures for successfully\nharvesting Hemp to be used in whole plant processing.  CBD products have been shown to have positive\nuses, but we feel that whole plant processing is the realistic future of the\nHemp Industry because all parts of the Hemp plant have value, not just the\nflower material. The growing protocols for CBD production and whole plant\nprocessing are vastly different.  The\nprotocol for growing CBD crops involves only using feminized seed or clones or,\nalternatively, the male plants uprooted to prevent pollination.  The reason for this is that Pollination\ndecreases the cannabinoids in the plant and CBD producers want to maximize\ntheir CBD production.  These plants are\nplanted at about one plant every three feet and are bushy short plants that do\nnot decorticate well.  For whole plant\nprocessing, our recommended protocol for growing Agriculturally Cultivated\nIndustrial Hemp is that seeds are planted at a rate of 75-90 plant per square\nyard.  This planting method crowds out\nweeds, requires less herbicides, and forces the plant to grow straight and tall\n(for  optimum decortication) and produces\nthe majority of seed and flower at the top of the plant.  For CBD Harvesting when the flower material is\nharvested, the stalks often go to waste and the plants are not allowed to\nproduce seed.  For whole plant\nprocessing, the seeds, residual flower, and stalks (decorticated into the Bast\nand the Hurd) are all valuable raw materials that are the basis for the thousands\nof products that can be produced from Hemp. \nHarvesting for these whole plant materials is really a two step process\nwhere, when the seeds are at their optimum maturity and dryness, the seeds and\nresidual flower are harvested and taken to the processing facility for sorting\nand separating, leaving the erect stalks in the field to additionally dry out\nand not get moldy for optimum decortication. \nWhen (weeks or months later) the stalks are sufficiently dry, a\ndifferent harvesting machine is used to cut them and then they are transported\nto the processing facility for decortication into the Bast and the Hurd.  Thus, when harvesting for whole plant\nprocessing, there is really two harvesting periods which can occur months\napart. How does this two-part harvesting procedure fit into the directive of\nhaving to sample within 15 days of harvest? In reality, we have a Preliminary\nHarvest for seed (which has virtually no THC) and residual flower (which has\nlower THC levels due to pollination) and a Main (final) Harvest for the higher\ntonnage stalks.  To comply with this Rule\nas written for testing purposes, we would advise our Producers to submit the\ndate of the main Harvest to comply with the Rule, as this is when we would be\nharvesting the bulk of the crop with the most THC due to the much larger\nbiomass involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                There were over 90 million acres of corn grown\nin the United States last year, but only 78,000 acres of hemp.  To facilitate Hemp Acreage to grow into the\ncommodity levels of corn and other major crops, it is crucial that Hemp be\nallowed to be grown from seed to seed, fully mechanized from seed to sale, and\ninclude whole plant processing with the two-step harvesting protocol we have\noutlined above. Any regulations that hinder this process are not in line with\nthe IFR’s good cause in carrying out ” … the Public’s interest in\nexpediting the ability of the nation’s farmers to enter the new agricultural\nmarket presented by Hemp” ( Good Cause Analysis page 58554).  This restrictive rule as written will have a\nnegative effect on the current and future innovation in the areas of industrial\nHemp usage.  This will produce a negative\neffect on Rural Communities who have the most potential to Benefit from successful\nHemp cultivation including processing, manufacturing, and retail sales which in\nthe end produces true trickle-down economics. This is acknowledged in the\nIntroduction to the Rule as “Hemp is a commodity that can be used for\nnumerous industrial and horticultural purposes including fabric, paper, construction\nmaterials, food products, cosmetics, production of cannabinoids (such as\ncannabidiol or CBD) and other products” (Page 58522).  Since Hemp, as defined in the 2018 Farm Bill\nis no longer a controlled substance, the utilization of homogenized sample\ntesting is virtually mandated to be the prevailing and preferred testing protocol.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               Other\nconcerns regarding the 15-Day sampling protocol is that there is a great\npossibility there are currently not enough trained and certified personnel to\neffectuate a smooth harvest in a timely manner as the harvesting of the vast majority\nof the Hemp crops will occur within a very short time period.  Another alternative that should be considered\nis to sample after 60 days of planting which will also give the samplers more\nflexibility in their whole plant sampling schedule and avoid the rush as\nharvesting time. In addition we are concerned that there are not enough DEA\ncertified labs to test the samples in a timely manner. In searching the DEA’s\nwebsite we could find no listing of the number and location of DEA\nCertified  Testing Labs.  As above, this is probably not compliant with\nExecutive Order 13563 to “select regulatory approaches that maximize net\nbenefits, which include potential economic, environmental, public health and\nsafety, effect distributive impacts, and equity” (Page 58539). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

               Also\nin regard to testing, the USDA is seeking comment on a testing lab approval as\nto whether or not to incorporate it into the subsequent final rule (Page\n28525).   Because “USDA is considering establishing\na fee-for-service hemp laboratory approval process for labs that wish to offer\nTHC testing services” (Page 58525), we would welcome more labs for\ntesting.  We would also strongly\nrecommend that the fee for testing be very reasonable and not more than $25-50\nper test as they currently are in Colorado. \nThe more reasonable the Fee, the higher the likelihood that Producers\nwill test more often to assure that they are remaining in compliance with the\nrule.   In a lot of rural areas there are\na lack of testing facilities and so we would welcome an increase in the number\nof USDA\/DEA approved Labs to ease the burden of having to transport material long\ndistances to be tested. Because the USDA is also requesting comment in regard\nto ISO 17025 accreditation (Page 58525), we would offer that the more accurate\nthe testing is,  the better it is for\neveryone.  As long as this additional\nrequirement doesn’t increase the fees beyond a reasonable level, we would\naccept that laboratories testing hemp should also  have ISO 17025 accreditation if the USDA feels\nthis is important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               In\nregard to The Farm Service Agency collecting information on crop acreage\nthrough the “Report of Acreage” form (Page 58547 and \u00a7990.7\nPage 58559), we feel that this is an additional burden on the Producers.  The State, Tribal Agencies and the USDA\nalready have this information in regard to Hemp production and this information\ncan be easily shared electronically with the FSA by the State Agencies, Tribal\nAgencies and the USDA.  This is also in\nalignment with the Paper Reduction Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               We\nrespectfully request that in consideration of all of the comments above \u00a7990.24\n(Page 58560) be amended to read: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

               “(a)\nAt approximately 60 days post planting, a producer shall have an approved\nFederal, State, local law enforcement agency or other USDA designated person\ncollect samples from the entire plant including flower material, leaves, stems\nand stalk of equal dry weight, and these equal samples be homogenized (blended\ntogether) for delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration level testing.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               Our\nlast comment references your reasoning as to why hemp went out of favor in the\n1930s (Page 58522 et al).  Your\nstatements are marginally true, but do not do justice to the real truth.  Any student of Hemp knows that hemp was\nintentionally included in the same legislation that made marijuana illegal\nbecause Industrial Hemp was a threat to other industries controlled by the\nbusiness magnates of the time.  These\nincluded the oil holdings of John D. Rockefeller, the forest and paper industries\nof William Randolph Hearst, and the lucrative financial schemes of DuPont’s\nsynthetic nylon and DuPont’s chief financial backer, Andrew Mellon of the\nMellon Bank of Pittsburgh.  This was done\nin conjunction with the “Reefer Madness” campaign promulgated by the\nfirst Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Anslinger. Mellon,\nwho was Secretary of the Treasury and \nAnslinger’s Uncle In-Law, designed Harry Anslinger’s position to help\neliminate Hemp’s as a primary competitor to DuPont’s new synthetic fiber,\nnylon.  We only bring this up because the\nwhole truth should be told regarding the real reasons that Hemp was made\nillegal and this should be correctly noted in the Federal Register.  In addition, the cotton gin was invented in\nthe 18th Century and according to your rational, all of a sudden it eased the\nharvesting of cotton in the 20th century (Page 58522 et al).  The cotton gin is not used for harvesting, it\nis use for processing the harvested cotton and Hemp was a threat to this\nindustry as well.  We only mention this because\nHemp has been demonized for long enough and we just want you to paint a more\naccurate picture of the unconscionable conspiracy to wipe out the competition\nto these other industries.  These are the\nreal reasons Hemp was made illegal in the first place, which was a travesty of\njustice.  Fortunately we have slowly overcome\nthis manufactured bias and we now have the opportunity to utilize this\nversatile plant for the good of all Earth Citizens. This can be effected as\nlong as these regulations are based on facts and common sense in order to\npromote the cultivation of Hemp in such a way as to not be in contradiction\nwith Executive Order 13563 to “select regulatory approaches that maximize\nnet benefits, which include potential economic, environmental, public health\nand safety, effect distributive impacts, and equity” (Page 58539).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

               We\nwant to Thank You again for allowing us to submit these comments and would like\nto iterate that we are working diligently to collaborate and co-create the\nrevival of the Hemp Industry onto one that is fully compliant and produces the\ngreatest and Highest Good for all participants and especially for all US\nCitizens.  We Thank you for Supporting\nall our efforts in your consideration of all of the above. We also hope that\nyou will make decisions to change the current IFR with regard to our comments,\nand that any changes made to the IFR will also include those that benefit the\nGreatest and Highest Good for all US Citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thank You for Your Consideration of Our Comments!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Stjernholm<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Co-Founder and Operator<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Colorado Hemp Processing Cooperative<\/p>\n\n\n\n

713 Cimarron Ave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

La Junta, CO 81050<\/p>\n\n\n\n

303-525-2611<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additional Comments\non the Establishment of a Domestic Hemp Production Program<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service USDA<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 ACTION: Interim final rule with request for\ncomments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please Note:\nPage Numbers reference the Federal Register<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               Thank\nyou again USDA for your efforts in formulating the IFR and allowing us to make\ncomments.  We have previously made\ncomments on this issue with Comment Tracking Number: 1k3-9dbc-34z8.  Please consider the comments below as\nadditional comments on the IFR.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

               <\/strong>            We the People <\/strong>would again\nlike to remind all those involved and working in government at all levels,\nincluding Government Employees, Elected Officials and Government Contractors, that\nyou are not paid by special interests, lobbyists, campaign contributors, and\nspecific political parties, but by the taxes of all hard working US Citizens\nand you need to be attentively responsive to all of our concerns.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

               For\nreference and clarification our first comments require “A  Legal Status of US Cannabis\/Hemp History Review”<\/strong>.\nWe have posted this review at the end of these comments. We have\ncited  the review below as a courtesy to\nremind you that hemp stalks and sterile seeds are exempt from Schedule I\nrestrictions, just as they have been since 1937.  Thus, the DEA has absolutely no statutory jurisdiction\nregarding the handling of stalk and sterile seeds.  It is a blatant violation of Producer’s\nRights by the DEA to mandate that Producers have to destroy their entire crop\nbecause the flower material tested over .3% THC.  We are hereby putting you on notice that we\nwill defend these Statutory Rights with every legal mechanism available if these\nexemptions are not included in the IFR. \nIn addition, the language for the destruction of entire crops must be\neliminated from the IFR to be compliant with current US statutes and Internal DEA\nDirectives.  The Legal recourses\navailable to us if this is not changed in the IFR include redress of grievances\nand financial compensation for all Producers who were illegally mandated by the\nDEA to destroy their entire crops since the 2014 Farm Bill.  We demand that these regulations be based\non facts and common sense in order to promote the cultivation of Hemp in such a\nway as to not be in contradiction with Executive Order #13563 to “select\nregulatory approaches that maximize net benefits, which include potential\neconomic, environmental, public health and safety, effect distributive impacts,\nand equity” (Page 58539).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

               It is\npretty ridiculous that we are even having to have this discussion as Medical\nand Recreational cannabis Producers right down the country road can legally\ngrow high THC cannabis (often over 20% THC) while we are discussing tenths of\npercentages of THC for hemp. Even at a level of 5 times the .3%  directive, hemp at 1.5% THC would get no one high\nunless they decided to make a rope out of it and climb a tree.  Even at the highest levels of THC, cannabis\nhas never killed anyone so what exactly are these onerous DEA regulations\nprotecting us from?  Hemp is one of the\nfew plants on our planet that can provide food, shelter, clothing, natural\nmedicine and fuel.  Why are there such\ndraconian regulations regarding this versatile plant unless its production is an\neconomic threat to big corporations’ hidden agendas, just like when it was effectively\nmade illegal in 1937.  Yes, every\nsubstance can be abused. You can commit suicide with water, but we are\ncertainly not going to make water illegal because of its potential for\nabuse.  We need to focus on the positive  and practical uses of the hemp plant and not\nits artificially manufactured, hypothetical, governmental, and “Reefer Madness”\ndetriments.  With this in mind we respectfully\nrequest that testing procedures must be amended in the IFR as we proposed in\nour prior comments. To iterate a summary of our previous comments, “since\nHemp, as defined in the 2018 Farm Bill, is no longer a controlled substance,\nthe utilization of homogenized sample testing is virtually mandated to be the\nprevailing and preferred testing protocol”.  As outlined in our review below, because the\nstalks and sterile seeds are exempt from Schedule I prohibitions, they can\nnever be legally mandated to be destroyed. And, as we have stated in our\nprevious comments, there are 21st century options to assure that the THC in any\n“hot” hemp can be extracted and isolated,  or, alternatively, material tracking of the\nharvested crop can be instituted so the plants can only be utilized for non-ingestible\nuses at approved whole plant processing facilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               This\ncorrelates with our next comments regarding hemp use as animal feed.  We have scoured the available literature and\nfind that there are no significant detrimental effects from feeding hemp to\nanimals.  Animals, like humans, have an\nendocannabinoid system (ECS). The ECS is the\nnatural, balanced condition that optimally supports life. When CBD interacts\nwith the ECS, it further reinforces the proper balancing functions within the\nbody and its major systems. (Source:  https:\/\/www.holistapet.com\/potential-side-effects-of-cbd-for-dogs-and-cats\/)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               The\nprocess for adding substances to the approved substances list of the\nAssociation of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) is very onerous and\nburdensome and to get hemp on this list will take years as well as substantial\nfunding for all the necessary approved trials for all species of animals.  Our question is, because of the centuries of history\nof the hemp plant being safely used as animal feed and the positive benefits\nseen from the use of hemp as animal food by people currently doing it around\nthe world, why is hemp even on this list? \nFrom all available sources we have looked into, prior to the 1937\nMarihuana Tax Act hemp was an unregulated animal food.    Because\nof expediency due to the current high suicide and bankruptcy crisis of American\nProducers, we are compelled to affirm that we will advise our producers that it\nis, in our opinion, permissible to feed hemp to animals as there is absolutely no\nscientific data to prove that it causes significant harm.  The government has not shown any valid reasons\nwhy it is prohibited, and in fact, the government cannot show this because\nthere are no compelling or scientifically proven justifications to show that it\nis detrimental throughout recorded animal consumption history. We have no good\nreason to go through the expensive process of proving that hemp is safe as\nanimal fodder if this exemption is not included in the Final Rules.  It is\nincumbent on the USDA, the FDA, and the DEA, not citizens, to prove it is\nharmful  to animals. There are no reasonable scientific justifications for\nkeeping hemp off the list and it should be added to the approved Animal Food Lists\nimmediately.  Hemp seed is already approved for humans, and its\nconsumption has never caused any harm and in fact shows many benefits. So, why\nis it not okay for animals? We would easily win this case in an impartial and\nrational court of law because the government has absolutely no compelling\nevidence to prove otherwise. The fact that hemp is not on the approved animal food\nlist is an illegal, blatant, unjustified restraint of trade and is in\ncontradiction with Executive Order #13563 to “select regulatory\napproaches that maximize net benefits, which include potential economic,\nenvironmental, public health and safety, effect distributive impacts, and\nequity” (Page 58539).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                As per the history research below, sterile\nhemp seeds, like stalks, have never been on CSAs Schedule I list. However, the\nseeds cannot be sterilized until they are harvested so they must be allowed to\nreach full fruition and proper moisture content for harvesting to minimize the\nnegative effects of mold and other pathogens, and also to attain maximum\nnutritional and industrial value.  The\ntiming of when harvest needs to occur is highly variable and dependent on a\nnumber of extraneous variables like temperature, precipitation, growth period,\namount of sunlight, humidity, etc.  To\nenact the IFRs with proper changes, we must have the assurance that the harvest\nof mature seeds is preformed at the most optimum time and is not highly\ncompromised by erroneous, egregious, burdensome and unnecessary pre-testing regulations.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

               Hemp, like all American Citizens,\nmust be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.  It is the burden of government to prove this\nguilt, not the unjustified governmentally manufactured onerous encumbrance of\nUS Citizens to prove its innocence.  We\nwould like to believe that the USDA, the FDA, the DEA, and all other government\nagencies want every US Hemp Producer to \nbe successful. Our hope is that your actions  in modifying and approving the IFRs don’t impel\nus to resort to any drastic Legal and Jurisdictional actions as we’ve outlined\nabove. That path does not quickly move the Hemp Industry forward.  Our overriding mantra is collaboration in\nmaking the US Hemp Industry the best it can be, and by incorporating these necessary\nand vital changes to the IFR before they become the Final Rules, the\ngovernmental agencies involved will demonstrate the good faith and pragmatism of\nall government agencies in aligning with We the People’s <\/strong> collective\nand collaborative goals in promoting the success of Industrial Hemp. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thank you again\nfor allowing us to comment and we pray that you take these comments to Heart\nfor the Greatest and Highest Good!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Stjernholm<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Co-Founder and Operator<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Colorado Hemp Processing Cooperative<\/p>\n\n\n\n

713 Cimarron Ave.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

La Junta, CO 81050 \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

303-525-2611<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A  Legal Status of US Cannabis\/Hemp History Review:<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

               When “Marihuana”\nwas first “taxed”   by the\n“Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 ” the definition of “marihuana”\nwas listed in Chapter II, Section 1 (b) and read: “The term\n“marihuana” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether\ngrowing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such\nplant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivatives, mixture, or\npreparation of such plant, its seeds or resins; but shall not include the\nmature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made\nfrom the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt,\nderivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin\nextracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant\nwhich is incapable of germination.” (Source: http:\/\/www.druglibrary.org\/schaffer\/hemp\/taxact\/mjtaxact.htm)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               In\n1969, Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, a court case was filed against\nTimothy Leary, a professor and activist for the possession of marijuana in\nviolation of the Marihuana Tax Act.  Leary\nchallenged the act on the ground that the act require self-incrimination with\nviolated the Fifth Amendment.  The\nunanimous opinion of the court was penned by Justice John Marshall Harlan II\nand declared the Marihuana Tax Act unconstitutional. Congress responded shortly\nthereafter by replacing the Marihuana Tax Act with the newly written Controlled\nSubstances Act (CSA) while continuing the prohibition of certain drugs,\nincluding marijuana, in the United States. (Source: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Leary_v._United_States)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               The\nControlled Substances Act placed all substances which were in some manner\nregulated under existing Federal Law into one of five schedules.  This placement is based upon the substance’s\nmedical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability.  In determining into which schedule a drug or\nother substance should be placed, or whether a substance should be decontrolled\nor rescheduled, certain factors are required to be considered.  These factors are listed in Section 201 (c),\n[21 U.S.C. \u00a7\n811 (c) of the CSA as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 (1)\nIts actual or relative potential for abuse.
\n(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
\n(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other\nsubstance.
\n(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
\n(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
\n(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
\n(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
\n(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already\ncontrolled under this subchapter.  (Source:\nhttps:\/\/www.dea.gov\/controlled-substances-act)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               Federal policies, tightened by\nthe Controlled Substances Act<\/a> of 1970,\nvirtually banned the production of industrial hemp during the war on drugs<\/a>.\nAccording to an industry group, “the 1970 Act abolished the taxation\napproach [of the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act<\/a>] and effectively\nmade all cannabis<\/em> cultivation illegal”. The Drug Enforcement Administration<\/a> (DEA)\nrefused to issue permits for legal hemp cultivation and held that, since\nindustrial hemp is from the same species plant as prohibited cannabis (despite\nits being of lower THC yield), both were prohibited under the Controlled\nSubstances Act.  In the words of a 2015 PBS NewsHour<\/a><\/em> segment\non hemp, “[t]o the federal government, hemp is just as illegal as\nmarijuana”, and according to Newsweek<\/a><\/em>,\n“all cannabis sativa<\/em>\u2014whether grown to ease chronic pain, get\nstoned or make rope\u2014is a schedule I controlled substance<\/a>“.\nAgricultural hemp was allowed on an experimental\nbasis by federal law under the Agricultural Act of 2014 (farm bill).  Under the 2018 United States farm\nbill, commodity hemp production was federally\nlegalized. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Source: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Hemp_in_the_United_States)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               In 2004, the U.S. Court of\nAppeals for the Ninth Circuit enjoined DEA from enforcing certain regulations\nwith respect to tetrahydrocannabinols (THC). See Hemp Industries Ass’n v. DEA<\/em>,\n357 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2004). The government did not seek Supreme Court review\nof that decision. In response to various inquiries, DEA thereby issued to DEA\npersonnel the following internal directive on how to carry out their duties in\nlight of the Ninth Circuit’s decision.  “The\nNinth Circuit enjoined enforcement of what is now 21 C.F.R. \u00a7 1308.11(d)(31) (drug code 7370)\nwith respect to products that are excluded from the definition of marijuana in\nthe Controlled Substances Act (CSA). DEA thus does not enforce that provision\nas to such products.  Consistent with the\nNinth Circuit’s decision, DEA does not enforce 21\nC.F.R. \u00a7 1308.35.  Products and\nmaterials that are made from the cannabis plant and which fall outside the CSA\ndefinition of marijuana (such as sterilized seeds, oil or cake made from the\nseeds, and mature stalks) are not controlled under the CSA. Such products may\naccordingly be sold and otherwise distributed throughout the United States\nwithout restriction under the CSA or its implementing regulations. The mere\npresence of cannabinoids is not itself dispositive as to whether a substance is\nwithin the scope of the CSA; the dispositive question is whether the substance\nfalls within the CSA definition of marijuana.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Source: https:\/\/www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov\/schedules\/marijuana\/dea_internal_directive_cannabinoids_05222018.html)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

               In the Title\n21 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1308 – Schedules of Controlled Substances\nthere is a list of exempt cannabis plant material, and products made therefrom\nthat contain tetrahydrocannabinols.  It\nreads as follows: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00a71308.35 Exemption\nof certain cannabis plant material, and products made therefrom, that contain\ntetrahydrocannabinols.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

(a) Any processed plant material\nor animal feed mixture containing any amount of tetrahydrocannabinols (THC)\nthat is both:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1) Made from any portion of a\nplant of the genus Cannabis excluded from the definition of marijuana under the\nAct [i.e., the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks,\noil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture,\nsalt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the\nresin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such\nplant which is incapable of germination] and (2) Not used, or intended for use,\nfor human consumption, has been exempted by the Administrator from the\napplication of the Act and this chapter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(b) As used in this section, the\nfollowing terms shall have the meanings specified:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1) The term processed plant\nmaterial means cannabis plant material that has been subject to industrial\nprocesses, or mixed with other ingredients, such that it cannot readily be\nconverted into any form that can be used for human consumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2) The term animal feed mixture\nmeans sterilized cannabis seeds mixed with other ingredients (not derived from\nthe cannabis plant) in a formulation that is designed, marketed, and\ndistributed for animal consumption (and not for human consumption).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(3) The term used for human\nconsumption means either:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(i) Ingested orally or (ii)\nApplied by any means such that THC enters the human body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(4) The term intended for use for\nhuman consumption means any of the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(i) Designed by the manufacturer\nfor human consumption; (ii) Marketed for human consumption; or (iii)\nDistributed, exported, or imported, with the intent that it be used for human\nconsumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Source: https:\/\/www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov\/21cfr\/cfr\/1308\/1308_35.htm)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Comments on the Establishment of a Domestic Hemp Production Program  AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service USDA  ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments. Please Note: Page Numbers reference the Federal Register                First of all we would like to laud everyone in the US Government that had a part in completing the Herculean Task of compiling and completing this Interim Document.  However, we (the paid Shareholders, strategic collaborative partners, and Friends of the Colorado Hemp Processing Cooperative) have several concerns about some of the specifics of this document that require us to make the following comments. Thank you for allowing the 60 Comment Period that permits us to make our concerns public for your consideration to help make the Actual Final Rules the best they can be for everyone involved in this nascent revival of the US Hemp Industry.                We appreciate your efforts and hope that all US Government […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[381,363,375,374,376,372,370,380,379,378],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8250"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8250"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8250\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8251,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8250\/revisions\/8251"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8250"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8250"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cohpc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8250"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}