Reed Nelson Archives — Page 2 of 2 — San Francisco Bay Guardian Archive 1966

Industrial hemp legalized in California

Michael Redmond

-

October 1, 2013

After being stuck in legislative limbo for 14 years, industrial hemp will soon be a legally sanctioned agricultural crop in the state of California.

The California Industrial Hemp Farming Act (SB 566) was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on Sept. 25, ending years of deliberation dating back to 1999, a process that included multiple gubernatorial vetoes. The freshly signed law will allow approved California residents to grow hemp for industrial purposes by reclassifying the once-felonious plant as a “fiber or oilseed crop.”

SB 566, a bill championed since 2005 by Sen. Mark Leno (D-SF), defines industrial hemp as the “nonpsychoactive types of the plant Cannabis saliva L. and the seed produced therefrom, having no more than 3/10 of 1 percent of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the dried flowering tops.”

In simpler terms: It doesn’t protect marijuana, but rather marijuana’s less mind-bending cousin, which is far more useful as a raw industrial material.

“We are very pleased to have the signature,” Sen. Leno told the Guardian. “It’s been a 10-year effort to get here. It’s a job still, but [the passing of SB 566] will help sustain family farms in California for the future and likely create more job opportunities. Hemp is a $500 million a year industry in California, and it’s growing at 10 percent annually.”

California now follows in the footsteps of nine other states and 30 other countries that have reclassified the innocuous plant as a crop with agricultural and commercial value. And it is quite valuable.

“This is a miracle plant that has served the planet Earth well for, literally, millennia, and that we currently legally manufacture and sell thousands of hemp products including food, clothing, shelter, paper, fuel, all biodegradable products,” said Leno. “It’s renewable every 90 days, grows without herbicides, pesticides and fungicides, and needs less water than corn. It is the definition of sustainability.”

But the reputation of hemp hasn’t always had champions like Leno. Since the initial proposal of Assembly House Resolution 32 back in 1999, the legislation has been vetoed four times by three different governors. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger cited a “false sense of security” he feared would be cultivated among the growers of the crop, due to its illegality at a federal level.

Gov. Brown had previously shot down the proposed legislation in 2011, citing a gap in state and federal law as the reason. However, he did remark in his veto message at the time that “it is absurd that hemp is being imported into the state, but our farmers cannot grow it.”

And it would seem that Brown’s recognition of hemp’s merits finally outweighed his concern over the potential for California growers to face federal prosecution, which is a major relief for the architects of SB 566. Now Californians can stop relying on imported hemp from Mexico and Canada (among other places) and start legally manufacturing their own.

“We currently manufacture literally thousands of [hemp] products — legally — and sell them,” said Leno. “This is why this issue has been so nonsensical.”

The “nonsensical” issue has had deep roots, given hemp’s historically ambiguous federal standing. As Brown’s 2011 veto message noted, “federal law clearly establishes that all cannabis plants, including industrial hemp, are marijuana, which is a federally regulated controlled substance.”

But that isn’t a universally held assertion. Back in 1970, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 “explicitly excludes nonpsychoactive hemp from the definition of marijuana,” a decision that the federal government never appealed. It’s a decision that Leno agrees with.

“We’ve always believed that there is no federal preemption, because we believe that that court case ruled that Congress had knowingly exempted industrial hemp from the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 –because it’s not a drug,” said Leno.

Now the state of California can do what more than 30 countries (including Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and China) and nine states are already doing: cultivating and processing a plant that many have touted as the “miracle plant.”

Now that SB 566 has passed, however, the looming question still remains as to how the federal government will respond. But Leno is confident that it will respect the will of California lawmakers.

“I have great confidence in a recent statement by Attorney General Eric Holder,” said Leno. “He’s said that if a state puts into place a legal allowance and regulatory scheme, that the federal government would not interfere with marijuana. Now, we need clarification between hemp and marijuana, but there’s no sensical way that that could be interpreted that hemp is excluded, given that hemp’s not a drug.”

Either way, hemp is on the horizon here in California.

Industrial hemp legalized in California

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee

-

September 27, 2013

132

After being stuck in legislative limbo for 14 years, industrial hemp will soon be a legally sanctioned agricultural crop in the state of California.

The California Industrial Hemp Farming Act (SB 566) was signed into law on Wednesday by Gov. Jerry Brown, after years of deliberation dating back to 1999, a process that included multiple gubernatorial vetoes. The freshly signed law will allow approved California residents to grow hemp for industrial purposes by reclassifying the once-felonious plant as a “fiber or oilseed crop.”

SB 566, a bill championed since 2005 by Sen. Mark Leno (D), defines industrial hemp as the “nonpsychoactive types of the plant Cannabis saliva L. and the seed produced therefrom, having no more than 3/10 of 1 percent of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the dried flowering tops.”

In simpler terms: It doesn’t protect marijuana, but rather marijuana’s less mind-bending cousin, which is far more useful as a raw industrial material.

“We are very pleased to have the signature,” Sen. Leno told the Guardian. “It’s been a 10-year effort to get here. It’s a job still, but [the passing of SB 566] will help sustain family farms in California for the future and likely create more job opportunities. Hemp is a $500 million a year industry in California, and it’s growing at 10 percent annually.”

California now follows in the footsteps of nine other states and 30 other countries that have reclassified the innocuous plant as a crop with agricultural and commercial value. And it is quite valuable.

“This is a miracle plant that has served the planet earth well for, literally, millennia, and that we currently legally manufacture and sell thousands of hemp products including food, clothing, shelter, paper, fuel, all biodegradable products,” said Leno. “It’s renewable every 90 days, grows without herbicides, pesticides and fungicides, and needs less water than corn. It is the definition of sustainability.”

But the reputation of hemp hasn’t always had champions like Sen. Leno. Since the initial proposal of HR 32 back in 1999, the bill has been vetoed four times by three different governors. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger cited a “false sense of security” he feared would be cultivated amongst the growers of the crop, due to its illegality at a federal level.

Gov. Brown had previously shot down the proposed legislation in 2011, citing a gap in state and federal law as the reason. However, he did remark in his veto message at the time that “it is absurd that hemp is being imported into the state, but our farmers cannot grow it.”

And it would seem that Brown’s recognition of hemp’s merits finally outweighed his concern over the potential for California growers to face federal prosecution, which is a major relief for the architects of SB 566. Now Californians can stop relying on imported hemp from Mexico and Canada (among other places) and start legally manufacturing their own.

“We currently manufacture literally thousands of [hemp] products — legally — and sell them,” said Leno. “This is why this issue has been so nonsensical.”

The “nonsensical” issue has had deep roots, given hemp’s historically ambiguous federal standing. As Brown’s 2011 veto message noted, “federal law clearly establishes that all cannabis plants, including industrial hemp, are marijuana, which is a federally regulated controlled substance.”

But that isn’t a universally held assertion. Back in 1970, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 “explicitly excludes nonpsychoactive hemp from the definition of marijuana,” a decision that the federal government never appealed. It’s a decision that Sen. Leno agrees with.

“We’ve always believed that there is no federal preemption, because we believe that that court case ruled that Congress had knowingly exempted industrial hemp from the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 –because it’s not a drug,” said Leno.

Now the state of California can do what more than 30 countries (including Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany and China) and nine states are already doing: Cultivating and processing a plant that many have touted as the “miracle plant.”

Now that SB 566 has passed, however, the looming question still remains as to how the federal government will respond. But Leno is confident that it will respect the will of California lawmakers.

“I have great confidence in a recent statement by Attorney General Eric Holder,” said Leno. “He’s said that if a state puts into place a legal allowance and regulatory scheme, that the federal government would not interfere with marijuana. Now, we need clarification between hemp and marijuana, but there’s no sensical way that that could be interpreted that hemp is excluded, given that hemp’s not a drug.”

Either way, hemp is on the horizon here in California.

After an exciting America’s Cup finish, San Francisco tallies its score

Sasha Cuttler

-

September 26, 2013

72

When Oracle Team USA completed a stunning comeback yesterday to retain the America’s Cup, winning eight consecutive races, it was indeed a big sporting moment. It even had us skeptics at the Bay Guardian, who had already expressed sympathies for the Kiwi team, anxiously following the action. But the question remains whether this overhyped sailing competition will be a win for the host city of San Francisco.

That verdict won’t come in until November when race organizers and city officials finish collecting and counting revenues and expenditures related to the regatta. But it’s certain to be better from a fiscal perspective than it looked like a week ago, when the New Zealand team seemed to be headed for a blowout victory.

For Larry Ellison — Oracle co-founder, team owner, lead champion for the AC-72 cause and de facto face of the 34th America’s Cup — it must have felt like a disaster. His $100-plus million nautical investment was tanking, attendance and revenue figures were falling far short of expectations and the support he had from the local sailing community was quickly turning malignant after Oracle lost the day’s only race, falling to 1-8 and facing seven consecutive match-points.

But then Oracle started winning. They figured out the tricky upwind legs that had plagued them for the first two weeks of racing. They replaced their fired tactician with four-time Olympic gold medal winner Ben Ainslie. They started beating the snot out of Team New Zealand and in the races they were losing, Mother Nature would toss them lifesavers disguised as strange patches of wind.

After weeks of fumbling, it looked like the moles had found their own mallet and were whacking away at their tormentors, and they were doing so to the tune of an unprecedented winning streak. And with it, the America’s Cup image underwent a radical transformation; both in sport and in reception.

The change in sport is simple — both teams have figured out how to race the 13-story tall sailboats through the unpredictable weather patterns and intense ebb tides —but the change in reception is anything but. As of last Wednesday, Pier 27 was dominated by Team New Zealand supporters. Nearly everyone in attendance was waving a New Zealand flag or wearing one, and the few Oracle fans left seemed to be nothing more than lost tourists who stumbled upon the international event.

But support for Oracle steadily grew during their winning streak — Americans do love a winner — and now it looks like support for the event has been as well, something that can be attributed both to Oracle’s winning streak and the necessity for Kiwi fans to finally go home after over a month of competition.

As four-time Cup attendee Sonny Shaw told the Guardian, “I had to change my flight and pay a lot of money, about 400 US dollars at this stage, to stay till [Tuesday]. I was hoping it would be finished by Monday.”

As it was every single Kiwi in the park. But the numbers are representative of this trend: As of Sept. 18, according to Cup organizers, the gates had drawn just 700,000 of the 2 million anticipated attendees. Ellison and his team had raised $16.5 million of the $20 million needed to offset the city’s costs (with a reported $14 million going toward the reimbursement), and broadcasts were drawing about 1 million viewers domestically, which meant that the Cup was failing to deliver on virtually all of its promises.

But the extra race days have drummed up interest both in the competition and in the precariously perched Oracle Team USA. The crowds — by the end ostensibly split between Emirates and Oracle as each passing day thins out the Kiwi crowds — became far larger, more raucous and more star-spangled.

The decks were packed, the cheers are both loud and informed, and the local venom present for the first week-and-a-half of racing is at a minimum.

Even expectations might be met. The overall goal of 2 million attendees still seems downright impossible, but as of Monday evening, 926,000 official attendees had been counted, not including those who watched the race outside of officially designated areas (up 226,000 in less than a week, according to Cup officials). In addition to the attendance spike, the 6,500 jobs that were created for the event are still paying out and the extra time only increases the likelihood that the full $20 million bill the City was expected to foot will be offset by private funds.

It was a helluva ride, San Francisco. Was it worth it? We’ll see.

Due Process For All must wait another week

Sasha Cuttler And Mary Magee

-

September 18, 2013

54

Sup. John Avalos’ Due Process for All ordinance, legislation barring San Francisco law enforcement agencies from honoring detainer requests issued by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the federal Secure Communities (S-Comm) program, faced obstacles at the Sept. 17 Board of Supervisors meeting and was ultimately continued to the following week.

The legislation initially had enough support for a veto-proof supermajority, but opposition has surfaced to prevent the legislation from winning approval as written.

In a recent editorial, Police Chief Greg Suhr called for it to be scaled back. Meanwhile, the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association came out against it and Mayor Ed Lee threatened to veto the legislation in its current form.

At issue was whether to amend the legislation by including “carve-outs” — exceptions requiring law enforcement to honor ICE requests in cases where offenders are suspected of serious violent crimes, child molestation or human trafficking.

District 6 Sup. Jane Kim, an initial supporter of Avalos’ Due Process for All Ordinance, proposed an amendment that would grant the Sheriff discretion to honor ICE detainer requests in cases where the offender had been convicted of one of the aforementioned crimes in the past seven years.

Kim characterized her amendment as “thoughtful and limited,” but the proposal met with resistance from Avalos and Sup. David Campos. “I am afraid that in the process of trying to do the right thing, we’re going to end up with unintended consequences,” Campos said.

Board President David Chiu indicated that he agreed with including carve-outs in narrow circumstances.

Under S-Comm, if an arrestee shows up in a shared database as an undocumented immigrant, ICE can ask the arresting local law enforcement agency to detain the person in question, even after they would be otherwise eligible for release. Detainer requests, which police have no legal obligation to comply with, are routinely issued without warrants or a requirement to show probable cause.

Avalos’ legislation seeks to extend due process to all San Franciscans by making it illegal for local law enforcement to comply with such requests. In San Francisco, ICE detainer requests issued under S-Comm have resulted in at least 784 deportations since 2010.

The Board Chamber at City Hall was filled to capacity with supporters of Avalos’ legislation before the hearing even began. The line to get into the main chamber stretched all the way down the hallway to the first overflow room, which had standing room only just five minutes after the meeting began. When Avalos initially stood to speak, the chamber resonated with chants of “Si se puede! Si se puede!”

Cinthya Muñoz, Immigrant Rights Organizer with Causa Justa, remained hopeful despite the setbacks. “We’re excited that we were able to push back on the amendments being proposed because of how they would impact the vast majority of our communities,” she said. “And we’re still hopeful that we’ll be able to get our Due Process for All policy passed next week.”

Up until recently, Lee lacked veto power due to the ordinance’s supermajority approval. But when Avalos lost his supermajority support due to what he called “political pressure,” Lee regained that power. “Whether it’s relationships directly with the police chief, the mayor, the Police Officers Association,” Avalos told the Guardian, “[the pressure] kind of withered eight sponsor support for not having carve-outs.”

Not to be deterred, however, are those groups and individuals fighting for Due Process for All. Following the continuation announcement, the throngs of supporters filed out of the main chamber and down into the lobby of City Hall, where they gathered and prepared for another hearing, same time, same place.

“It’s actually really great because I think it gives us a bigger chance for the supervisors to hear from community members,” Muñoz said. “That what community wants is Due Process for All, everybody to be treated equally and to not make a differentiation between who’s worth it in our communities.”