Industrial hemp cannabis sativa part 2

Canadian Regulations

The passage of Bill C-8 in June 1996, resulted in the modification of the Canadian Drug Act decriminalizing the low () 9 tetrahydrocannabinol) ) 9 THC Cannabis, industrial hemp. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) came into force on May 14 1997 replacing the Narcotic Control Act and Parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act and was published in March 12, 1998 (Health Canada 1998) to permit the commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in Canada. This put into place the appropriate regulations for commercial industrial hemp production for fibre and grain in Canada for prospective growers, researchers and processors. Thus, in 1998, industrial hemp was again legally grown under the new regulations as a commercial crop in Canada. These regulations allow for the controlled production, sale, movement, processing, exporting and importing of industrial hemp and hemp products that conform to conditions imposed by the regulations. The harvested hemp straw (free from foliage) is no considered a controlled substance. However, any harvested industrial hemp grain is considered a controlled substance until denatured. Therefore appropriate licenses must be obtained from Health Canada for purchase/movement of any viable seed, commercial field production (over 4 hectares), research and processing of viable grain. Any food products processed from industrial hemp seed must not exceed 10 ppm of delta 9 THC.

Health Canada is preparing a new draft for the review of the existing Industrial Hemp Regulations (Health Canada, 2001). To date this has not occurred. Speculations about new proposed regulation changes include clauses about volunteers, the status and disposal of "hemp dust", and a new, lower level of allowable delta 9 THC in hemp grain and derivatives. Health Canada is also anticipated in making changes to food labeling laws, all of which will have some positive impact on the marketing of industrial hemp. To date only the state of Hawaii has had licensed research activities in the United States and no other legal research or production exists in any other US states due to opposition by the federal government.

As of January 1, 2000, all seed planted for the production of industrial hemp in Canada must be of pedigreed status (certified, or better). This means that seed can no longer be imported from countries that are not members of one of the Seed Certification Schemes of which Canada is a member. Canada is a member of two schemes; the Organization for Economic Cooperation and the Development Seed Scheme administered by the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies. Most of the seed of approved hemp fibre and seed varieties to be cultivated in Canada is of European varieties and is still produced in Europe requiring importation. Several European varieties have been licensed for seed production under private contracts in Canada. The first registered and licenced monoecious early grain variety (ANKA), bred and developed in Canada by Industrial Hemp Seed Development Company was commercially produced in Kent County, Ontario, in 1999. Certified seed availability of Health Canada approved varieties is published by Health Canada each year. Hence seed cost and availability will continue to be a major production cost (about 25-30%) until a viable industrial hemp certified seed production industry is established in Canada. At this time the following are Canadian bred, registered and certified varieties sold in Canada: ANKA (monoecious/dual purpose), Carmen (dioecious/fibre), Crag (dioecious/grain) and ESTA-1 (dioecious/grain).

delt 9 THC Management

The Cannabis genus is the only known plant in the plant kingdom that prduces Cannabinoids. The produced resin (psychoactive) is characterized in North America as marijuana. The Spanish introduced marijuana into the Americas in the 16th century. The well-known term, "marijuana", originated from the amalgamation of two Spanish abbreviations: "Rosa-Mari-a" and "Juan-IT-a"; frequent users of the plant at that time. By assimilation, the name "marijuana" in North America refers to any part of the Cannabis plant or extract there from, considered inducing psychic reaction in humans. Unfortunately the reference to "marijuana" frequently erroneously includes industrial hemp. The dried resinous exudate of Cannabis inflorescence is called "hashish". The highest glandular resin exudation occurs during flowering.

Small and Cronquist (1976), split the classification of Cannabis sativa into two subspecies: C. sativa subsp. sativa and C. sativa subsp. indica (Lam.) E. Small & Cronq. on the basis of less and greater than 0.3% (dry weight) of delta 9 THC in the upper (reproductive) part of the plant respectively. This classification has since been adopted in the European Community, Canada, and parts of Australia as the dividing line between cultivars that can be legally cultivated under license and forms that are considered to have too high a delta 9 THC drug potential.

Only cultivars with 0.3% delta 9 THC levels or less are approved for production in Canada. A list of approved cultivars (not based on agricultural merits but merely on basis of meeting delta 9 THC criteria) is published annually by Health Canada). A Canadian industrial hemp regulation system (see ‘Industrial Hemp Technical Manual’, Health Canada 1998) of rigidly monitoring the delta 9 THC content of commercial industrial hemp within the growing season has restricted hemp cultivation to cultivars that consistently maintain delta 9 THC levels below 0.3% in the plants and plant parts.

Environmental effects (soil characteristics, latitude, fertility and climatic stresses) have been demonstrated to effect delta 9 THC levels including seasonal and diurnal variations (Scheifele et al.1999; Scheifele and Dragla 2000; Small 1979, Pate 1998b). The range of delta 9 THC levels within low-delta 9 THC cultivars (< or = 0.3%) under different environmental effects is relatively limited by the inherent genetic stability (Scheifele et al. 1999; Scheifele & Dragla 2000). A few cultivars have been eliminated from the "Approved Health Canada" list because they have on occasion been identified to exceed the 0.3% level (Kompolti, Secuieni, Irene, Fedora 19, Futura) and Finola (FIN 314) and Uniko B are presently under probation because of detected elevated levels. Most of the "Approved Cultivars" have maintained relatively consistent low levels of delta 9 THC.

Hemp vs. Marijuana: Joseph W. Hickey, Sr., executive director of the Kentucky Hemp Growers Cooperative Association, is quote: "Calling hemp and marijuana the same thing is like calling a rottweiler a poodle. They may both be dogs, but they just aren’t the same". Health Canada’s fact sheet on Regulations for the Commercial Cultivation of Industrial Hemp states: "Hemp usually refers to varieties of the Cannabis sativa L. plant that have a low content of delta-9 THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) and that are generally cultivated for fibre. Industrial hemp should not be confused with varieties of Cannabis with a high content of THC, which are referred to as marijuana". The leaves of industrial hemp and marijuana look similar but hemp can be readily distinguished from marijuana from a distance. The cultivation of marijuana consists of one to two plants per square meter and industrial hemp is cultivated in stands of 100 to 250 plants per square meter and plant characteristics are quite distinctively different (due to selective breeding). The established limits for THC content in the inflorescence of industrial hemp at time of mid pollen shedding is 0.3% (less than 1%) whereas levels of THC in marijuana are in the 10 to 20% range.

Present industrial hemp breeding programs apply strict screening at the early generation breeding level selecting only genotypes with less than 0.3% THC and then select for high fibre, stalk, grain quality and yield

It is impossible to "get high" on hemp. Hemp should never be confused with marijuana and the genetics for THC and Cannabinoid levels in hemp cannot be reversed even though over several generations of multiplication will creep into higher levels by several percentages, but never into marijuana levels. Feral hemp in Ontario, which has been under self propagation for 100 years or more has been tested (Baker 2003) and demonstrated to be very stable at <0.2% THC.

Affirmative action is it good or bad

This article does not discuss the legalities of affirmative action, I leave that to the courts. This article is solely about the philosophy of affirmative action.

According to Wikipedia, affirmative action "is a policy or a program promoting the representation in various systems of people of a group who have traditionally been discriminated against, with the aim of creating a more egalitarian society". In my opinion, affirmative action, at least as it has been instituted in this country, is wrong, harmful, racist and prejudicial. Affirmative action, at least in this country, seems to be based, solely, on race or gender.

In example, take two male high school students, both attend the same low income area high school, one is 'black' and one is 'white'. The 'black' student's family, immigrated to this country from Canada fourteen years ago, his father works full time and his mother is a 'stay at home mom'. The 'white' student's ancestors immigrated to this country eighty years ago, his father was killed, in a home invasion robbery, when he was six years old and his mother works part time as a waitress in a diner. The 'black' student has a grade point average of 3.05 with an S. A.T. score of 1085. The 'white' student has a grade point average of 3.55 and a S. A.T. score of 1270. Both students are polite and well mannered. Neither belongs to a gang or has any criminal record. Both want to go to a good university so both apply to U. C.L. A.. Under affirmatve action, which student would be accepted? The 'white' student would not be covered under affirmative action, as 'whites' have not traditionally been discriminated against, and no duty is owed him for being poor and fatherless (being poor and fatherless is not considered disadvantaged and the fact that he attended the same low income school as the 'black' student is also not considered a disadvantage for a 'white'). The 'black student, however, is considered disadvantaged and is considered to come from a race that has traditionally been discriminated against (The fact that his family recently came here from Canada, the fact that he has a parent that works full time and the fact that he has not suffered racial discrimination does not matter.). Under affirmative action, the 'black' student would not only be accepted, he would be eligible for financial aid. The 'black' student would go to U. C.L. A. and the 'white' student would probably end up at a community college.

Change the above example to a 'black student and a 'hispanic' student and the 'black' student would be accepted because 'blacks' rank higher on the disadvantaged charts. Between a 'hispanic' and a 'white' the hispanic would be accepted because 'whites' don't rank on the chart, neither do 'orientals', South East Asians or Jews. The fact that Orientals, South East Asians and Jews have been discriminated against in this country doesn't matter as the 'political correctness' police in this country do not consider them, to have traditionally been discriminated against enough, to be disadvantaged. The only student that would be ranked higher on the disadvantaged chart would be a 'black' female student. Furthermore, a rich 'black' student who attended the best schools would rank the sames as a poor 'black' student who attended a low income school.

Some universities are no longer allowed to use affirmative action as a criteria so they now use 'cultural diversity' as their criteria. To me affirmative action and cultural diversity are the same thing. Both use racial and gender profiling in order to decide who is accepted. This is America and everyone is supposed to be equal and recieve equal treatment. Racial and gender profiling tells people that some races and females are less capable than others and therefore need special help in reaching their potential. Profiling harms this country by telling people that they are not all equal under the eyes of the law. Profiling tells some people that they are not as intelligent or as capable as other people and that they can't make it without help. It tells other people that because they are 'white', they don't deserve help. It rewards some people while punishing other people. This divides the country and causes, in effect, class warfare. America is a land of immigrants who should have been melded into one great class of people, Americans. To tell them that 'blacks', whites', 'hispanics', 'orientals', etc. are all different and have different abilities keeps this country from being united. To grant advantages to one group over another is discriminitory and divisive. To tell 'blacks', 'hispanics' and others that they can't make it without outside help is to tell them that that they are not as capable as 'whites', 'orientals' and others.

Some of you may be wondering why I keep placing single quotation marks around certain words like 'black', 'white', etc.. It is because I do not like using labels like 'black' and 'white' to describe people. Other words like 'hispanic' are, in my opinion, used improperly as they tend to catagorize people from many different countries or groups into one group. All 'blacks' are not the color of black, all 'whites' are not the color of white and all 'hispanics' are not necessarily of Spain or Spanish speaking (Brazilians, for example, are classified 'hispanic' even though they speak Portuguese and most are descended from Portugal or some African country.). As far as I am concerned all people that are American citizens (naturalized or other) or live permanently in the United State Of America are either American citizens or American residents. To label them otherwise is to denigrate, isolate and seperate them from each other. Discussing concepts, like affirmative action and cultural diversity, force the use of such labels.

The people of this country need to be brought together, not seperated. Being proud of your ancestors and your heritage is one thing, being rewarded, punished or seperated because of your ancestors or heritage is something else entirely. Being rewarded because others of your race or gender were mistreated in the past is wrong and being punished for what others of your race or gender did in the past is equally wrong. How would you like to be fined for horse stealing because you are a 'white' male and some other 'white' male stole a horse over fifty years ago or even last week? Untill all people in this country are treated equally, and with the same respect, and are given the same chances, we will never be "One nation under God, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all". Discrimination is wrong, no matter who is being discriminated against.

Note: For any of you that object to my keeping the phrase "under God" in that last quote, tough. That is the way I say it. If you don't want to say it that way, then don't. Just don't try to tell me that I can't say it that way. To those of you that object to my using the word 'black' instead of the words 'African-American', again I say tough. To me 'African-American' is just as much a misnomer as 'Hispanic'. I believe that the word 'black' is improper, however, I hate to use the word American when there is a hyphen before it. To me an American is an American. I didn't write this article to be 'politicaly correct', I wrote this artice in order to say what I think. If you want 'political correctness', go elsewhere.