Sunday, June 5, 2011

Legal California Hemp Bill - SB 676



Existing law makes it a crime to engage in any of various transactions relating to marijuana, as defined, except as otherwise authorized by law, such as the Medical Marijuana Program. For the purposes of these provisions, marijuana is defined as not including the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted therefrom, and fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.
This bill would revise the definition of “marijuana” so that the term would exclude industrial hemp, as defined, except where the plant is cultivated or processed for purposes not expressly allowed. The bill would define industrial hemp as a fiber or oilseed crop, or both, that is limited to the nonpsychoactive types of the plant Cannabis sativa L. and the seed produced therefrom, having no more than 310 of 1% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the dried flowering tops, and that is cultivated and processed exclusively for the purpose of producing the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin or flowering tops extracted therefrom, fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.
The bill would enact certain provisions relating to growing industrial hemp which would apply only in Imperial, Kern, Kings, San Joaquin, and Yolo Counties and which would be operative only until January 1, 2020. The bill would require the person growing the industrial hemp to obtain, prior to the harvest of each crop, a laboratory test of a random sample of the crop to determine the amount of THC in the crop. The bill would require that samples to perform the testing be taken in the presence of, and be collected and transported only by, an employee or agent of a laboratory that is registered with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration. The bill would require that the test report contain specified language, that the testing laboratory provide not less than 10 original signed copies to the cultivator, and that the testing laboratory and cultivator retain an original signed copy for a minimum of 2 years. The report would be required to be made available to law enforcement officials and provided to purchasers, as specified. The bill would require all industrial hemp seed sold for planting in California to be from a crop having no more than 310 of 1% THC contained in a random sampling of the dried flowering tops and tested under these provisions, and would require the destruction of crops exceeding that content, as specified.
The bill would provide that growing industrial hemp shall not be construed to authorize the possession, outside of a field of lawful cultivation, of resin, flowering tops, or leaves that have been removed from the hemp plant, except to perform required testing by an employee or agent of the testing laboratory or any cultivation of the industrial hemp plant that is not grown by an established agricultural research institution. This bill would require the Attorney General and the Hemp Industries Association to submit reports to the Legislature by January 1, 2018, regarding the economic and law enforcement impacts of industrial hemp cultivation.
The bill would state the findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to industrial hemp.
By revising the scope of application of existing crimes relating to marijuana, this bill would impose a state?mandated local program.
By specifying the conditions of cultivation, the violation of which would be a misdemeanor pursuant to other provisions of existing law, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

No comments:

Post a Comment