textfiles/drugs/MARYJANE/illhemp.txt

State Of Minnesota Tries to Make Hemp Illegal.
     
     By John Birrenbach,
     Founder The Institute for Hemp
     
     In mid March of 1993 the Minnesota legislature tried to sneak a bill
through that would have made every hemp product as illegal as a bag of
marijuana.  Rep. Delmont, DFL, a first term legislator from Lexington is the
major sponsor of the bill.
     
     The Bill was disguised as a Bill relating to Controlled SubstanceUs.  In
the bill was the repeal of the exclusionary clause from the definition of the
word marijuana.  This effect would have made every hemp product a controlled
substance.
     
     The bill was introduced on Monday March 8th, with my discovery of it on
the 16th, and given its first committee hearing on March 19.  
     
     Three days was all the notice that I was given of this bill, but three
days was more than enough.
     
     When I discovered what was included in this bill I went into immediate
action.  My first action was to contact our distributor for Sterile Hemp Seed
and explain to them the implications of this bill.  They agreed that this was
something that had to be stopped, and agreed to notify as many people as they
could.
     
     Having had extensive connections in the Pet Industry, from years of
breeding birds, I decided that their clout could be very useful.  In the past
they had had very good success at defeating attempts at making various parts
of their industry illegal.  So I prepared a Industry information bulletin on
the bill, and faxed it to my local Pet Supply Distributors and the biggest pet
shops in the state.
     
     Immediately they response came in, fore score against this provision in
the bill.  I instructed them in who was responsible and what they could do to
help defeat this bill.  Within 24 hours I had heard from Great Lakes Pet
Supply, Special Commodities, Knight Seed Co, Pet Industry Joint Advisory
Counsel, Wildbird Feeding Institute, Kellogg Inc., Kay Tee Bird Food Mfgrs.,
C&S Specialty Lumber, and others.
     
     After faxing the members of the Pet Industry, I decided to do the same
for those that I knew in the Hemp Industries.  While there was a lot of verbal
support and expressions that many would send letters of support, surprisingly
their was little in the way of actual material received.  Those that did send
us a letter were Quick Trading Co., Gatewood Galbraith, The International Hemp
Coalition, Chris Conrad of B.A.C.H, Hemp Hack Co. & High Times.  Of the dozens
of the exclusively Hemp Businesses in the country this response was
depressingly small considering the Nonexclusive Hemp businesses that did
respond, most of whom I never actually talked to.
     
     The next step was to take the material I had prepared for the Industries
and make a Media Information Sheet with titles like
     
MINNESOTA TO MAKE 
BIRD SEED
ILLEGAL !
     
Bird Feed & ROPE ILLEGAL !
Industry responds RNOS
     
and of course the clincher
     
MARIJUANA
to be PRESENTED to Members of the
Judiciary Sub-Committee
TOMORROW !
     John Birrenbach, Founder of the St Paul based Institute for Hemp will
present members of the judiciary subcommittee with various products made from
hemp that will be considered MARIJUANA if house file #851 is passed as is.  RI
intend to show them in a graphic manner the absurdity of this change.S Mr.
Birrenbach said.
     
     Of course at the end of every fax I always gave the Names and phone
Numbers of the sponsors and where to call for more information.
     
     In the next 72 hours I was to make over 270 fax transmissions to the
media alone.  I decided that given the ability to send faxes to every media
outlet three times per day that I should take advantage of this technology. 
Believe me IT WORKED.  When the day of the hearing came I had at least 3 radio
stations including Minnesota Public Radio, a major contributor to the NPR
network, One TV station, and three print reporters at the hearing.  You could
tell that they were there for this bill because after the hearing they all
left.  
     
     I got the following out of this media relations work.  2 stories IUve
seen in print media,  MPR, WCCO & KSTP 15-30 seconds every hour for 24 hours,
Major play up to report on 6pm KSTP-TV, story supplied to CNN headline News
for Hourly local update (The KSTP-TV Story played on CNN each hour for 48
hours.)
     
     I think that the real key to this media success is the fact that we sent
each faxes three times a day.  Once in the Morning, once in Early Evening, and
again in the middle of the night.  This allowed us to get this material into
the hands of every shift of workers at the media outlets, thus greater
exposure.
     
     The day before, the hearing, Rep Delmont had called me and we discussed
the possibility of changing the change in the definition.  After considerable
discussion it was clear that a meeting before the hearing was in order.
     
     Finally the day of the hearing had arrived.  When I arrived a half hour
before the hearing I was greeted by Rep Delmont.  The first words out of his
mouth was R I wish that you hadnUt contacted the media.S  My immediate thought
was RSmartest thing I did so far.S
     
     We discussed the bill, and why the change was necessary.  He claimed the
change was brought about because of a court case in Anoka County.  I explained
to him that it was the prosecution of the case that had to have been flawed
because of the wording of Minnesota law, and a change was not needed.
     
     It was about this time that the person from the Minnesota Bureau of
Criminal Apprehension (BCA) arrived. After a considerable amount of
discussion, in which the agent claimed to have talked to DEA and among other
things said that they had no record of Hemp seed being imported into the US. 
This agent even had the gall to at one point say RWell I donUt know who you
are so I canUt verify your story that hemp is legally imported.S  The agent
even had the guts to make a veiled threat to the effect that they are here and
going to play hard ball.   At this point I could see that nothing was going to
come from this.  Without coming to any sort of agreement we ended the meeting
and headed for the hearing room.
     
     My bill was to be fifth in the agenda but when I arrived at the room I
found out that the bill had been advanced to the second thing on the agenda. 
When I entered the room I had found out why, the Media was there in force.
     
     After sitting around for a half hour it was time to hear my bill.  First
up was the Sponsor and the B.C.A.,  They went through the entire bill and
answered questions about the other parts of the bill.  When the time came they
answered questions about the purposed changed and why it was necessary.  
     

     Then it came to be my turn.  I sat down and asked that a page distribute
copies of letters and flags that we made form 100% hemp fiber cloth to the
members of the Committee.  After which I made the following opening statement.
     
     Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee
     
     My name is John Birrenbach, I am the owner of The Institute for Hemp,
based in St Paul.
     
     I come before you in opposition, and to express my concerns regarding a
part of the bill before us House File 851
     
     I speak to you as a member of and on behalf of the industry that will be
unduly effected by this bill.
     
     Mine and the industry concerns about this bill is in regard to the
redefining the definition of the word Marijuana.
     
     In 1937, congress held hearings to make marijuana illegal.  At that time
the hemp industry came before the congressional committee and asked that this
definition of marijuana be used so as not to affect their legitimate
industries.  Congress had the foresight to take the industries concerns to
heart and made the definition of marijuana that has been upheld in court till
this day.
     
     In striking from the definition the exclusion for the legitimate
industrial uses you will suppress an industry that is flourishing in the state
of Minnesota. You will in effect make the use of sterile hemp seed, that has
been approved by the Drug Enforcement Agency, and federally as a legal
substance, into a controlled substance.  In addition any product that contains
a MIXTURE of sterile hemp seed will be a controlled substance as well.  The
effect of this upon the Pet & Wild bird industry will be catastrophic. 
Currently the manufacturers of bird feeds use a percentage of sterile hemp
seed in some of their mixtures.  If the definition of marijuana is changed
these bird feeds will be considered a marijuana, because they contain mixture
of sterile hemp seed.  This would subject anyone who has a pet bird to all of
the laws regarding marijuana.  This means that a person with 5lbs of bird seed
that has a percentage of hemp seed will be subject to the forfeiture, and
sentencing guidelines resulting from a conviction in possession or sale of
that quantity of feed.  I do not think that it is the intention of this
committee to make bird food illegal, but this is what the result of this
change will in effect bring about.
     
     In the manufacture of many commonly used products hemp is used.  From the
production of paper, to the manufacture of furniture hemp is used in its
construction.  If the definition of marijuana is changed then these products
by virtue of their containing a mixture of cannabis fiber in their
construction will in effect become a controlled substance.  The effect of this
will be like that of those people who have bird food with hemp seed, with one
exception that a couch can weigh hundreds of pounds, and the implications of
having hundreds of pounds of MARIJUANA are enormous. 
     
     I am also informed by members of the industry that paper used to
manufacture cigarettes contain a small percentage of hemp fiber in them as
well.  This would in effect make the sale of cigarettes as illegal as selling
a marijuana cigarette.
     
     Additionally, the original drafts of the Declaration of Independence, The
United States Constitution, and many bibles and books in our libraries also
contain MIXTURES of cannabis fiber in the paper.  This change in the
definition of the word marijuana will in effect make these items as illegal as
a bag of marijuana mixed with oregano.
      

     I hope that you can see why I am so concerned with this introduced change
in the current statute.
     
     I also question the constitutionality of this change in the definition as
it will interfere with interstate commerce.  As has been previously upheld in
the United States courts the states have repeatedly lost in their battle to
regulate interstate & international commerce.  This change is likely to
challenged and overturned in the courts.
     
     I have talked with the B.C.A. and I understand their concerns with the
recent court decisions.  I have not yet examined these court decisions they
site but I am sure that the method used to prosecute these cases were flawed. 
Minnesota's law is not flawed.  In our state law we make it specific that a
MIXTURE of marijuana is considered all marijuana by weight, so that the
concerns of the BCA are unfounded.
     
     I am also very concerned with the manner in which this bill was
introduced.  It concerns me that the authors of this bill did not read the
bill before introducing it.  It further concerns me that the industries that
are effected by this bill are not notified that a bill of this nature is
before this committee.  If it were not for the fact that I receive the House
Session weekly I would have never known that this bill had been presented.
     
     I ask that you make amendments to this bill to exclude this change in the
definition of marijuana.  
     
     In closing I say to you that Minnesota's definition of marijuana is not
in need of change as the BCA implies.  Further that with the current status of
Minnesota law it would be imprudent of you to make this change at this time. 
I ask that you amend this bill so as to exclude any change in the legal 
definition of marijuana.
      
     I ask that the letters I have received, and presented to you, from
members of the industry be read into the official record.
     I thank you for allowing me a chance to voice mine and the industries
concerns regarding this matter. I am now open to questions from the
committee.      
     After My opening statement I took several questions from the members of
the committee.    After about a total of an hour answering questions from the
committee it was voted that a break for lunch would be in order.  It was at
this time that I found out later that the committee meet in a closed door
meeting, which for other government operations is considered illegal, but as
usual the legislature is exempt from that law.     
     After the lunch break, I returned and found that they had tabled the
entire bill and where moving on to the next item on the agenda.  I asked the
sponsor, Rwhat next.S He replied that they would contact me to work out a
compromise.  I then left and on the way out Spoke to the agent for the BCA and
shook his hand, and said RWeUll be talking.S
         After the hearing I was deluged by the media and the other agents of
the BCA asking questions about the different commercial application of hemp. 
It was rather bazaar.
          I had defeated the bill, and the BCA, even if only temporarily. 
This not only gave me a shoot of pleasure but also a bit of a paranoia.  The
pleasure being that I had stopped this bill, basically on my own.  The
paranoia comes from the fact that I may have made some enemies at the BCA a
very powerful organization in Minnesota, kind of like the FBI only for the
state.     
     I have since come to find out that the BCA intends to push again for this
legislation again in 94.  SO the fight is still on, and who knows who is on
the run.  Personally I think that at this point itUs stalemate, with the ball
in their court.