Hemp industry with joint stance.
In the recent past, especially in Europe, manufacturers and distributors of industrial hemp products have repeatedly come into conflict with bureaucracy and authorities, now the industry has reacted. A large number of associations and associations are now jointly positioning themselves against the senselessly restrictive use of cannabis. The aim is also to ensure compliance with international law that industrial hemp must be legally demarcated and processed separately from intoxicating cannabis. The position paper was signed by the ACU Aisa-Pacific CBD, the Australian Hemp Council, the British Hemp Alliance BHA, the CHTA / ACCC Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance, Commerciale Canadienne du Chanvre and the European Hemp Industry Association EIHA, HIHA Hokkaido JP. The Hemp Industry Association, the Latin American Industrial Hemp Association LAIHA, the Mongolian Hemp Association, the National Hemp Association NHA and the New Zealand Hemp Growers Association NZHIA.
Industrial hemp and areas of responsibility of drug control authorities.
In a joint position paper, the aforementioned major cannabis growers’ associations comment on the recognition of international law. Accordingly, industrial hemp is not a drug and does not fall within the purview of government drug control authorities. The President of the European Industrial Hemp Association (EIHA) is demanding, “It’s time for our industry to finally be able to grow, produce and market in accordance with internationally applicable regulations without constantly facing new obstacles.” Our logic is clear: it is legal to grow and use all parts of cannabis for industrial purposes. The single convention only covers the illicit cultivation and trade of cannabis or cannabis resin with a high THC content.
The UN Narcotics Conventions do not apply to industrial hemp.
Major cannabis growers’ associations have come together to advocate for a clear legal situation for their industry in a position paper. The joint statement refers to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1972 amended Protocols, and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. A single convention was signed by about 180 countries, and the Convention was adopted, psychotropic substances are an addition to it. The restrictive treatment of industrial hemp is not provided for in any of the international treaties, and it is not listed as a narcotic drug. The reason for this is as simple as it makes sense. The low concentration of THC makes industrial hemp unsuitable as a medicine. If you follow these UN conventions in national legal relations, then industrial hemp is an agricultural product, not a drug. Thus, drug authorities are not responsible for industrial hemp.
The industry needs legal certainty, not a chicane.
In the position paper, the associations want to ensure that a transparent set of rules for industrial hemp is developed in collaboration with international and national regulatory bodies. This would finally allow the many benefits of cannabis to be harnessed around the world without fear of reprisals from authorities that are virtually not responsible. In particular, Europe is taking big steps back on this issue. In the 70s of the last century, subsidized cultivation still existed, in 1997 it was confirmed that fodder hemp was not new. Over the past two years, parts of the plant were first classified as new food, and now they are even trying to classify them as drugs. This approach is not only lacking logic and reasonable argumentation. In fact, it looks like it is controlled by the economic interests of the pharmaceutical industry, which influences policy and wants to claim market access for itself.