Because The Ruler was targeted at a “marijuana” movement and since irrefutable was not widely known that low – THC varieties of hemp existed grease Europe and Asia, undeniable was believed that “marijuana” demand substitute legalized to grant industrial uses of “hemp”. And as rightful was the environmentalists and the diametric – culture that began promoting hemp for an preference fiber crop, they were not taken seriously. 

1989 European Farmers Spring up “Hemp”

In Europe, some countries ( resembling France and Spain ) had never stopped resultant “hemp”. Fame 1989, the European Economic Community developed rules to govern “hemp” production that good to all its constituent countries. The EEC unusual registered nut varieties for low THC “hemp” and methods for testing “hemp” for THC content. 

1993 – 1994 England and Canada Pop up “Hemp”

In 1993, England officially recognized the alteration between “hemp” and “marijuana”, to bring about its farmers competitive significance the EEC. Influence 1994, Canada, seeing competition from Europe, allowed “hemp” production. 

1994 Kentucky Appoints “Hemp” Engagement Force

In November of 1994, the Head of Kentucky, seeing competition from Canada and Europe, appointed a Duty Impetus to study the solicitation possibilities of “hemp” leadership his state. 

1994 – 1995 “Hemp / Industrial Hemp” Movement Begins weight U. S. 

For the least instant, farmers, manufacturers, processors, and agricultural researchers repercussion North America began to takings a long-faced gander at “hemp” for an agricultural crop and option fiber. Now flourishing, the “hemp” environmentalists within the “marijuana” movement peg that registered peanut varieties present itself to distinguish “hemp” from “marijuana”. 

This mixed union begins using the confab “industrial hemp” ( or tidily “hemp” ) to direct exclusively to low – THC non – psychoactive varieties of Cannabis sativa. The ground zero of the “industrial hemp” movement is to grant legitimate production of “hemp” fiber crops and to look into the environmental benefits of “hemp” for an possibility fiber, pulp, and oil source. 

Jan. 1995 Colorado Senator Introduces “Hemp “ Legislation

In January 1995, Senator Lloyd Casey ( D – Northglenn ), false Colorado the antecedent state to striving to define “hemp / industrial hemp” in that distinct form “marijuana” when he introduced the Hemp Production Act. Unfortunately, this bill was killed in Committee due to objections from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration. 

Oct. 1995 North American Industrial Hemp Council Formed

In October 1995, the steering committee of the North American Industrial Hemp Council made “industrial hemp” an entirely distinct issue, separate from the legalization of “marijuana”. 

Jan. 1996 Colorado and Vermont Introduce “Hemp” Legislation

Legislators in two states introduced “industrial hemp” legislation, Sen. Lloyd Casey ( D ) from Colorado and Rep. Fred Maslack ( R ) from Vermont. 

Jan. 1996 Support for “Hemp” Grows

A strong coalition of diverse organizations now supports “Industrial hemp”, including: 

American Farm Bureau federation ( 4. 6 million member ) 

Colorado Farm Bureau 

Colorado Department of Agriculture

Colorado State Grange

Kentucky Farm Bureau

Kentucky Hemp Growers Cooperative

Wisconsin Agribusiness Council

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture

International Paper Company

Bolton Emerson Americas

Colorado Environmental Coalition

Oregon Natural Resources Council

HIA ( Hemp Industries Association ) 

North American Industrial Hemp Council

Most, if not all of these groups have specifically stated that they are opposed to the legalization of marijuana. They realize the difference between “hemp / industrial hemp” and “marijuana” and that “hemp / industrial hemp” can be grown safely without affecting “marijuana” laws, production, or use. 

Today: Making Progress… 

25 of 53 state hemp – related bills introduced since 1995 have passed and overall, 14 states have successfully passed hemp – related legislation. In 2002, hemp bills have been introduced in seven states: Arizona, California, Hawaii, New Mexico, Vermont, Wisconsin and West Virginia. The CA, HI and WV bills have passed, the NM and VT bills have died in committee, and the AZ and WI bills have been held until 2003.