July 12, 2011 – Drug-policy reformers are worried about a new Obama administration memo instructing federal prosecutors on how to deal with the growing number of medical marijuana dispensaries.

The Justice Department memo, sent to U.S. attorneys around the nation, addresses a central problem with the growing number of states that have legalized medical marijuana: The drug remains illegal under federal law, whether used for medical purposes or not. The new guidance memo reiterates the illegality of medical marijuana and appears to encourage prosecutors to go after some marijuana dispensaries, particularly the large operations.

President Obama suggested during the campaign in 2007-08 that his Justice Department would not prioritize going after medical marijuana. To find out more about the new medical marijuana memo, and for an update on the broader drug war, I spoke to Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which lobbies for alternatives to the drug war.

Can you give an overview of the legal status of medical marijuana around the country?

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana either through the ballot initiative process or a state legislative process. The federal law remains that it is all illegal. Strictly speaking, marijuana remains a Schedule 1 substance. The DEA just issued an announcement Friday confirming that it still regards marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance with no legitimate medical uses and no margin of safety in its use — which is sort of an absurdity on its face. Marijuana remains entirely illegal under federal law.

And “Schedule 1″ means what?

Well, back in 1970, when Congress unified all the drug laws in the Controlled Substances Act, they divided drugs into a variety of schedules. Schedule 1 refers to drugs that supposedly have no legitimate medical use and have no margin of safety in their use. So heroin, LSD, and marijuana are in that category. Schedule 2 are drugs that have some substantial risk but also have some legitimate medical uses. So for example cocaine, opiates and stimulant drugs are in that category.

So medical marijuana is illegal in the eyes of the federal government. But what has the actual enforcement policy of the Obama administration been up till this week?

During the presidential campaign in 2008, Obama made a number of commitments, one of which was that federal law enforcement would not prioritize prosecution of medical marijuana facilities operating legally under state law. Then in summer 2009, the Justice Department issued a memo called the Ogden memo, which basically affirmed much of Obama’s promise. It affirmed the idea that marijuana is illegal under federal law, but then said that federal prosecutors should not prioritize the prosecution of medical marijuana facilities operating legally under state law. Drug policy reform advovates felt quite optimistic about that 2009 memo, even though it was a qualified statement. What followed was a proliferation of dispensaries in places like Colorado, and California, and Montana. There were growing concerns that this was going too far. I think the Justice Department was hearing from local federal prosecutors and others who did not like these developments.

So what does the new memo sent out to U.S. attorneys say?

It’s called the Cole memo. It reiterates that all marijuana is illegal under federal law. They say that clearly federal resources should not be used to go after patients and their caregivers. They also say that any very large-scale operations — multimillion-dollar operations — will be prosecuted even if they are operating legally under state law. So that represents a modest change in policy. What they are not clear on is what will happen with the midlevel dispensaries. They’re not multimillion-dollar operations, they’re operating legally under state law, and they seem to be serving a population that has medical marijuana recommendations from their physicians. With those operations we’re in a kind of wait-and-see mode as to what prosecutors will do state by state.

The language of the Cole memo is quite aggressive in saying to everybody, “You better watch out, because any one of you could be prosecuted.” On the other hand there are some other messages being sent saying, “Watch what we do, not what we say.” So the real test cases will be whether or not the feds decide to go after medical marijuana dispensaries that are operating legally under state law and are being responsibly regulated by state authorities. If they do that, then we’ll know they really seriously backtracked on the president’s commitment.

So from the beginning of the administration to the present, have they actually gone after dispensaries?

There was a proliferation of dispensaries in states like Colorado and California. So there have in fact been more raids under the Obama administration than there were under the Bush administration. It’s hard to say whether that’s a reflection of the proliferation of dispensaries or whether that’s a real change in policy. What’s also not clear is whether the feds are only targeting those facilities that are not clearly operating legally under state law. So the feds have really created a growing sense of confusion in the medical marijuana community about where the line is between what will be permitted and what won’t.

Stepping back from medical marijuana, has there been much of a shift from the Bush to Obama administrations with “drug war” policy more broadly?

I was pleasantly surprised by the first 18 months of the administration. Obama made three explicit promises during the campaign. He said the feds would not go after medical marijuana facilities operating legally under state law, and he appeared to make good on that. He said the crack-powder laws needed to be rolled back, and they got a major reform of that law last year. Third, he said he would support federal funding for needle exchange, and they did support the efforts in Congress on that. Since that time, it looks more and more like the drug czar’s office has been captured by the drug warriors and the anti-drug fanatics who dominated policy-making in the Clinton and Bush administrations. The rhetoric coming out of the drug czar’s office is almost indistinguishable from the rhetoric of past administrations. The personnel they’ve been hiring, and the people they talk to, are overwhelmingly those who have been associated with the failed drug war policies of the past. And meanwhile the Justice Department seems to be getting more and more engaged in enforcement of marijuana laws in ways that really make no sense as a matter of [the] responsible [use] of resources. By Justin Elliott. Source.

July 11, 2011 – Hemp is fast becoming a staple of daytime TV as Oprah, Dr. Oz and others extol the health virtues of hemp oil, protein powders and pasta. At the same time, industrial interests tout it as a potential base for products ranging from textiles to car parts. As a result, demand is surging in the United States, Germany and Japan.

But American farmers are prohibited from growing hemp. That leaves farmers in Canada – where it’s been a legal crop since 1998 – free to tap the growing U.S. interest in hemp-based products.

First, though, they must navigate the shifting sands of public opinion – or, as one Alberta report called it, “the snicker factor.”

According to an Alberta Agriculture Department report on industrial hemp production in Canada, the plant’s cultivation evokes chuckles “largely because of its hippy-dippy image and close association with marijuana, its consciousness-altering cousin.”

Nevertheless, this is serious stuff. The North American market for industrial hemp – which has only a minuscule amount of the chemical that gives marijuana its punch – is booming.

For centuries, hemp had been ubiquitous in global commerce – from paper making to the rope used on sailing vessels – until synthetic fibres usurped its naval role and global anti-drug sentiment put paid to the rest.

Now the market, while still small, is growing by about 10 per cent a year, with annual sales estimated between $350-million and $400-million, according to some estimates.

Mike Fata, co-founder and chief executive officer of Winnipeg-based Manitoba Harvest Hemp Foods & Oils, believes Canada’s hemp industry has a golden opportunity to turn lingering taboos on their heads – especially south of the border. Hemp-based foods, he notes, are rich sources of protein and essential fatty acids like Omega-3 and Omega-6.

“The great thing about marketing hemp is that hemp is in everyone’s psyche – whether they think that hemp is marijuana or they think that hemp is clothing or rope or they already know that hemp is a food product …” Mr. Fata said. “It is easy when you have their attention to educate them about what hemp really is and all the great things that it can offer.”

Canadian hemp exports have increased by 500 per cent over the past four years. Even so, total exports were worth just $10.38-million in 2010.

The industry’s goal is to generate more than $100-million for the Canadian economy by 2015, partly by boosting production from 10,855 hectares to 40,000 hectares over that time.

Eager to capitalize on that burgeoning potential, the federal government recently boosted its investment in the industry. In December, 2010, Agriculture Canada announced an investment of more than $728,000 to help the industry boost production capacity and to increase exports to the United States. That amount was split among three funding streams – including some repayable contributions. Ottawa is also handing out more licences to grow the value-added crop and has increased the number of approved varieties for the 2011 growing season.

Canada’s hemp industry, though, is also grappling with some serious growing pains after years of boom-and-bust production. The high Canadian dollar is eroding the value of exports, and celebrity endorsements notwithstanding, hemp has yet to fully shake its “ditch weed” image with U.S. consumers and regulators.

Toward that end, Canadian hemp food products have yet to overcome a key regulatory hurdle with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by achieving “GRAS” status, an acronym for Generally Recognized As Safe.

Without that certification, Canadian companies are prevented from selling hemp to big multinationals like General Mills and Kellogg’s, and another three years’ worth of costly study is required before the Canadian industry can even apply, says the Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance.

Mr. Fata of Manitoba Harvest says he recognizes those obstacles but is optimistic about the industry’s long-term potential.

Manitoba Harvest is now one of the world’s largest hemp food manufacturers. Its sales growth has averaged about 50 per cent every year since 1998. It currently makes 68 per cent of its sales in the United States, 30 per cent in Canada and 2 per cent in Europe and Asia.

In addition to health food stores, it is penetrating mainstream grocery chains in the United States and collaborating with Maple Leaf Foods Inc. on hemp-based research and development in Canada. Manitoba Harvest has provided product and technical support to Maple Leaf’s majority-owned subsidiary Canada Bread as it experiments with hemp bakery products, Mr. Fata said.

While hemp foods continue to represent the bulk of the Canadian industry’s exports, there is also a growing appetite for hemp fibre for industrial uses. German auto maker Mercedes-Benz, for instance, has been using natural fibre such as hemp, flax, sisal and abaca for many years in various components. One example is the Mercedes-Benz CLS, where hemp is used in the door panels.

“A typical example is the application as a base for car interior lining parts. In these parts, the natural fibres replace mineral fibres such as fibreglass,” said Matthias Brock, spokesman for parent company Daimler AG. “As reinforcing material, natural fibres have the same characteristics like mineral fibres but they are much lighter.”

With the price of cotton still high, albeit down from its peak, garment makers are also eyeing hemp as a substitute textile as manufacturers increasingly experiment with new blended fabrics to contain costs.

Vancouver-based Naturally Advanced Technologies Inc., established in 1998 as Hemptown Clothing Inc., is developing alternative fibres made out of flax and hemp. Its Crailar technology uses an enzyme process to remove lignin, which is the natural glue that binds fibres like flax and hemp. Doing so gives those fibres a smoother texture and allows them to be processed in new blended fabrics that can result in savings for clothing makers because they require less cotton and are less prone to shrinkage.

Earlier this year, Naturally Advanced signed purchasing and development agreements for its Crailar flax fibre product with apparel giants Hanes and Levi Strauss & Co., along with pulp-and-paper manufacturer Georgia-Pacific LLC and specialized-products manufacturer Cintas Corp.

Flax is currently much cheaper for Naturally Advanced to process than hemp partly because it contains less lignin and also because it can be grown in the United States, where both its pilot facility and major partners are based.

“We’re not giving up on hemp. Hemp is just going to follow in or feed in after we lead off with flax,” chief executive officer Ken Barker said. “None of our agreements preclude us from having hemp being part of them.”

Moreover, the company is also fielding enquires about its hemp fibre product from a range of other industries, including mattress makers and the medical sector.

Still, Mr. Barker recognizes that there remains a marketing challenge for hemp: “That’s just the reality of the U.S. consumer.” By RITA TRICHUR . Source.