Bagel Break
Vote Hemp has posted the transcript from this month's oral arguments in Hemp Industries Association v. DEA, which challenges the Drug Enforcement Administration's proposed ban on hemp foods. The DEA originally tried to ban these products, which are not psychoactive but may contain trace amounts of THC, through an "interpretive rule," saying it was simply clarifying the law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected that maneuver, which contradicted what everyone (including the Justice Department) had always thought the law required. Now the DEA is trying to ban hemp foods through regulations issued the usual way, after a public comment period.
The problem is that the rule, which has been stayed pending the outcome of the case, still contradicts Congress's explicit exemption of hemp seeds (used in the food products the DEA wants to ban) from the federal prohibition of marijuana. During the oral arguments, Judge Alex Kozinski repeatedly pressed the DEA's attorney to explain how the agency could ignore this exemption:
Congress knew full fell that stalks and seeds and fiber could be carriers of some level of tetrahydrocannabinol….Nevertheless, it says that unless you do the extracting part they are not marijuana under the definition. That is what it says to me. And hasn't the agency, in fact, nullified this sentence in the statute by modifying the definition of THC to cover exactly what Congress exempted?
Kozinski also observed that poppy seeds, like hemp seeds, contain trace amounts of controlled substances, asking, "Can you tell me how you are going to save the bagel?"
A decision in the case is expected within six months.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Could the exemption by congress be for future wars where they will once again call on the farmers to grow hemp for victory? Of course, congress of that day assuming technology would not introduce a superior synthetic fiber.
Not to mention saving poppy-seed muffins! Again I must say Americans are truly mad!
We MUST save the bagels! It's for the children! (Sorry, I just wanted to be the first to use that line on this thread)
Is hemp-as-an-energy-source as bogus as ethanol, or is there really something to it? I'd love to grow our own fuel instead of importing it.
Nah, Congress exempted hemp because someone let them know that if you smoke it, you won't get high enough to rape white women, laze around like a Mexican, or feel like passing on tonite's donation to the alcohol industry.
joe
I don't know about "hemp-as-an-energy-source" (but I suspect probably, as you say "as bogus as ethanol"), but I've heard a very high grade lubricating oil can be extracted with none of the high energy consumption that makes ethanol self-defeating (ie takes more energy to produce than it produces itself when burned).
i think hemp could help the community in certain ways they are healthier for the enviorment its good paper so we'll save more trees plus if you do legalise it, its just like cigarettes and alchohol you can legalise it and let people decide weither or not they want to hert there body so if you dont theres no point in haveing alchohol and cigarettes because they can do almost pretty much the same thing.
i think hemp could help the community in certain ways they are healthier for the enviorment its good paper so we'll save more trees plus if you do legalise it, its just like cigarettes and alchohol you can legalise it and let people decide weither or not they want to hert there body so if you dont theres no point in haveing alchohol and cigarettes because they can do almost pretty much the same thing.
i think hemp could help the community in certain ways they are healthier for the enviorment its good paper so we'll save more trees plus if you do legalise it, its just like cigarettes and alchohol you can legalise it and let people decide weither or not they want to hert there body so if you dont theres no point in haveing alchohol and cigarettes because they can do almost pretty much the same thing.
i think hemp could help the community in certain ways they are healthier for the enviorment its good paper so we'll save more trees plus if you do legalise it, its just like cigarettes and alchohol you can legalise it and let people decide weither or not they want to hert there body so if you dont theres no point in haveing alchohol and cigarettes because they can do almost pretty much the same thing.