Commercial Cultivation Of Cannabis Sativa For Production Of Industrial HempLegislative And Security Aspects Of Recent Australian Trials
Dr G R Boyd
Chief Advisor
Regulation and Safety
Ministry of Health
New Zealand
September 1997
Executive Summary
Four Australian states were visited in 1997 and discussions held with
government officials and persons carrying out trials of cultivating
cannabis for the purposes of producing industrial hemp.
A report is provided on the legislative and security aspects of these
trials and the information is used to develop recommendations about how
to consider applications for licences to cultivate cannabis pursuant to
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1974.
CONTENTS
- Executive Summary
- Cannabis Sativa
- Current New Zealand Regulation of Cannabis Sativa
- Applications for Licences in New Zealand
- Australian Regulation
- Commonwealth
- State and Territory
- Australian Cultivation
- Licensed Trials
- Reports on Feasibility
- Discussions with Producers, State Agriculture, Health and Police officials.
- Analysis
- Conclusions About Security Issues
- Recommendations
- Acknowledgments
- List of people consulted
Cannabis Sativa
This is one of the oldest crops known to man and has been cultivated
since ancient times for the provision of fibre (hemp). In this use it
competes with other plant fibres such as jute, sisal, woodpulp and
cotton and synthetic fibres such as rayon, nylon, polyester,
polypropylene and fibre glass. The seeds, leaf, cell fluid and the
non-fibrous stalk material (shives) have possible commercial uses also.
It is an annual herb which, when grown for fibre, is planted very close
together (about 100-200 per sq metre) and harvested before flowering,
growing to around 2 metres in height.
In this paper it is not proposed to describe or analyse the commercial
viability of cannabis cultivation as an agricultural crop. There has
been no commercial cultivation in Australia. Only trial crops have been
grown.
Two reports on opportunities for Australian hemp fibre production, a
1995 Feasibility Study and a 1997 report on market opportunities, both
published by the Australian Rural Industrial Research and Development
Corporation contain much more detail of cultivation, processing and
analysis of the possible commercial uses. They are reproduced, with
permission of the RIRDC as Appendices 1 and 2.
The same plant is known under many pseudonyms as the source of the
psychotropic substance tetrahydro cannabinol (THC), obtained mainly
from the flowering tops and the leaf material and used as a
recreational drug. There has been considerable material published about
cannabis use and its social effects. The Ministry of Health report
"Cannabis, the Public Health Issues, 1995-96" gives a summary of the
current situation. There have been many claims of therapeutic benefit
from cannabis products. None have been proven, although a synthetic
analogue has been used to control nausea in terminally ill patients.
Controls have been put on cannabis sativa because of its psychotropic
effects and there have been eradication programmes in countries like
the United States, where the plant was growing wild. Both in Australia
and New Zealand illicit indoor hydroponic cultivation under artificial
light is becoming more common and provides a high yield of THC per
plant.
Considerable effort, particularly in the European Union (Netherlands,
France) and the previously Communist Block (Hungary, Ukraine) has gone
into producing low-THC yielding strains of cannabis sativa.
These have been successful and the seeds are sold with a certificate
authenticating that they are a low-yield variety.
However, visually the seeds and the plant are indistinguishable from
other varieties, retaining the characteristic leaf morphology.
The plant,is an annual. When some of the crop is retained for seeds for
propagation there is some concern that there will be reversion to THC
production within about 8 generations.
New Zealand Regulation
Cannabis importation, possession, cultivation and supply is controlled
principally under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and Regulations 1977.
Cannabis preparations (ie any preparation containing any tetrahydro
cannabinols, including resin, oil and processed cannabis) are the more
strictly controlled and subject to severer penalties than cannabis
fruit, plant or seed. There is an exemption for cannabis products from
which all the resin has been extracted. This permits the importation
and sale of products like hemp ropes and textiles, but not the local
cultivation or processing without a licence.
The relevant sections of the New Zealand legislation are reproduced in
Appendix 3.
New Zealand is also a signatory to the United Nations Convention
against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
1988 and the Single Convention on Narcotic Substances 1961, which are
both administered by the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB),
a United Nations organisation which controls international trade and
sets requirements for national controls on substances. listed in the
schedules to the Narcotics and the Psychotropics Conventions. The
Narcotics Convention schedules include cannabis(defined as the
flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, but excluding the
leaves and seeds unless accompanied by the tops), cannabis resin and
extracts and tinctures of cannabis. Article 28 of the Convention,
however, states that the Convention shall not apply to the cultivation
of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre and
seed) or horticultural purposes.
In summary, there are prohibitions on the international trade in
cannabis and, under the Convention, member states are expected to have
controls over import, export and supply, cultivation and distribution.
There are, however, exemptions as noted above. National authorities are
still entitled to legislate for whatever stricter controls they
consider appropriate and in New Zealand the Misuse of Drugs legislation
controls all parts of the cannabis plant and has not differentiated out
cannabis cultivated for industrial or horticultural purposes for
exemption,.although it has exempted cannabis products which have had
the resin extracted.
The legislation in New Zealand makes it an offence to import, export,
possess, supply or prescribe without authority or cultivate without a
licence any part of the cannabis plant. The Schedules to the Misuse of
Drugs Act do, however, differentiate between plant material and
preparations derived by processing the plant, such as resin or oil,
which contains much higher THC content than the unprocessed plant.
Licences to cultivate prohibited plants (which includes the Cannabis
Sativa plant) are issued by the Director General of Health. The power
to issue these licences is currently delegated to the Manager of the
Therapeutics Section of the Ministry of Health and to the Team Leader
of that section's Compliance Team. The Therapeutics Section is the
national drug regulatory agency for pharmaceutical drugs. Two licences
to cultivate have been issued. Both to research establishments for
research projects to assist the police in law-enforcement activities.
Commercial cultivation to produce industrial hemp would require
licences to import seed, to possess and to deal in the plant material,
as well as a licence to cultivate. Individual shipments of seed would
also require a separate licence. Power to issue these licences also
resides within the Therapeutics Section of the Ministry of Health.
Applications for Licences
In the last seven years there have been around 20 expressions of
interest in obtaining a licence to cultivate cannabis in New Zealand.
Two licences have been granted, under strict conditions, to grow the
THC-yielding variety. Both were to Crown-owned research establishments,
contracted by the New Zealand Police to investigate methods of control
of illicit. crops, using a small number of plants under tight
security.
Several of those interested have been also in the media as strong
advocates of the legislation of cannabis as a recreational drug.
Currently, with the approval of both the Minister of Health and the
Board of the National Drug Intelligence Bureau (Chief Executives of NZ Police,
Department of Customs and Ministry of Health) replies to any enquirers
have been based on the following:
"In 1995 the Ministry obtained Ministerial agreement that it should not
consider any such application until after a review of the 1997 growing
season in the Australian pilot programmes. This review was recently
undertaken and a report is being prepared for consideration by the
Board of the National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NZ Police, Customs and
Health)."
AUSTRALIA
Australian Regulations
A full list of relevant Australian Regulations as at 1 May 1997 is
attached as Appendix 4.
Licences to cultivate for trial purposes have been issued in most
states and this report covers trials in Western Australia, Victoria,
South Australia and Tasmania.
In Victoria the State Premier and the Minister of Agriculture have
advocated commercial hemp fibre production and a bill has been
introduced into Parliament to enable commercial cropping. Although it
has received the Royal assent, the legislation is reported as being too
late to allow commercial growing in the 1997 -98 growing season. No
other state was reported as drafting similar legislation.
Australian Cultivation
Following the publication of the RIRDC report (Appendix 1) a workshop
was held in Melbourne in December of that year and the RIRDC informally
followed up with the participants before publishing a second report
(Appendix 2). There has been one published report of trials in
Victoria' and the researcher in Tasmania is finalising the report of
his work for submission as a PhD thesis. There have been no official
reports of the Western Australian and South Australian trials. In South
Australia the licence holders have expressed no further interest and
moved to other potentially more lucrative crops. Although the initial
trials in Western Australia were judged unsuccessful, some of the
growers were preparing to plant trial crops again in 199?.
Discussions with Producers, Agriculture, Health and Police Officials
During six days in April/May 1997 discussions were held with people
involved in administering, supervising and undertaking licensed trials
in four states. The review covered the following -
- the legislation
- the criteria for licensing
- issuing licences
- Blackstock, Lolicato, Bluett. Low THC Cannabis Sativa in Victoria
- supervision
- administrative burden
- security
- diversion
The review did not aim to cover the financial viability of farming
cannabis or comparisons of soil-type, growing conditions and potential
markets between Australia and New Zealand. Most of those spoken to did
comment on these issues and some of their comments are included without
attribution to any individual. The comments have not been analysed and
they do not represent an official view of governments, and, where
appropriate, these should be the subject of further research by experts
in those particular fields.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Contact agencies
- Agriculture Western Australia
- Health Department of Western Australia
Applications to cultivate as part of a trial
Following the establishment of a Ministerial Review Committee into the
prospects for an industrial hemp industry in Western Australia, the
Committee reported (Appendices 5 and 6) to the Minister for Primary
Industry and Fisheries in October 1995. An Industrial Hemp Steering
Committee comprising the chair of the Review Committee (a member of the
State Legislative Assembly), senior Police, Health and Agriculture
officials and a farmer was then established. The steering committee
developed criteria for selecting participants in an agronomic trial of
industrial hemp production, to start by October 1996. It also produced
an application form. (Appendix 8). Nine applicants were chosen, ranging
from remote farms to an agricultural college and a university. The
plots were to be no greater than 1 hectare and adequate security
arrangements were expected to include fencing of a minimum height of
1.5 metres, topped with barbed wire and an electrified wire. The plots
were to be located close to a residence and there were to be metal
signs prohibiting unauthorised access and warning that the crop was
"low-THC yielding". All supervised visitors were to be recorded in a
log-book.
Seeds were to be obtained through Agriculture West Australia which
co-ordinated the trial and provided technical advice on a
fee-for-service basis. Customs and the Australian Quarantine and
Inspection Service clearance was required for imported seed.
Testing of plant material for THC content during the trial was to be
carried out at a laboratory,approved by the Health Department,
according to sampling methods and timing of samples specified by the
Department and at the grower's expense. Leaf
samples were to contain no more than 0.35% w/w dry weight of THC. lf
any sample exceeded that level the crop was to be destroyed.
Harvesting was to take place before flowering.
All end-users, laboratories and other persons coming into possession of
the cannabis material required separate authorisation to be in
possession of the controlled substance.
Results of the 1996-97 trial
Six different cultivars (ie strains of seed) were planted between
August and November and harvested after between 47 and 90 days. They
were planted at densities of between 41 to 237 plants per square metre
and those that grew, achieved heights of up to 140 cm. The best
estimated yield was at the agricultural college, which was calculated
to produce a mean of 9.1 tonnes per hectare. The purpose of this report
is not to calculate commercial viability, but it should be noted that
the positive comments made in the media by politicians after the trials
about future prospects for the industry were not matched by the views
of the officials involved.
Issues arising from the trials
Many of the pre-conditions were not met by the applicants:
- Plots were not fenced in the prescribed way.
- THC-testing was not done to a schedule, proving too expensive for the
growers.
- Flowering occurred in all plants that reached 40 days, which was at
least 20 days before harvesting.
Plants required pesticides and agricultural management. They were
very susceptible to waterlogging of the soil and some plots had sections
which failed to produce any harvestable material.
The most successful crop, calculated at 9.1 tonnes per hectare from
taking the weight of oven-dried samples, actually produced only half that yield
when the harvested crop was baled and weighed.
Security and Abuseability
There were no leaf samples over the 0.35% limit for THC. The early
flowering provided a~bonus, in that the plants produced resin (which
usually contains the highest levels of THC in the cannabis plant). The
resin was also below the limit.
There was one observed and reported theft of plants, but otherwise
little interest in the crops was detected by the Police or the property
owners.
An agricultural scientist gave his personal view that if cultivated
crop was reserved for local seed production, the cannabis would revert
to a higher THC content within 8 generations. To counterbalance this
there were anecdotal reports that illicit cannabis growers with plots
near the trial sites were concerned that these new cultivars would
cross with their crops to produce less saleable product.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Contact Agencies:
- South Australia Police
- Health Commission of South Australia
- Yorke Peninsula Development Board
Background to trials
Following the RIRDC feasibility study in 1995, farmers in the Yorke
Peninsula area sought permission to cultivate trial plots of cannabis
sativa to investigate industrial hemp fibre production as an
alternative crop. Three sites were selected, two at agricultural
training establishments and one close to a small town. The application
process and the preconditions was similar to these described in Western
Australia although the maximum limit for THC was set at 0.3% w/w. A
research permit was issued in 1995.
Results of trials
In the first year two sites produced an early flowering, stunted crop,
unsuitable for harvesting. The third site produced 486 kg at an
estimated yield of 10 tonnes/hectare of dry stem matter. The project
continued into a second phase of investigating potential markets and
potential return to growers until March 1997. The project manager
reported that the crop required arable farmland, needed pesticides and
irrigation and would not produce sufficient income to make it a viable
proposition for farmers wishing to diversify. Her opinion was that
cultivating Italian eucalyptus would produce a better return. The
project ceased and the farmers are now involved in a new industry
producing, marketing and exporting fresh and dried native flora and
associated products.
Issues arising out of the trials
Several of the preconditions were not met, particuiarly security and
THC testing. The research was not written up.
Claims that the crops required very little management were not borne
out.
Security and abuseability
Enforcement procedures related to cannabis in South Australia are more
lenient than most other Australian states or territories and New
Zealand.
Cultivation and possession of cannabis below certain levels have become
decriminalised, resulting in an instant fine of $150 and subsequent
expiation, so no record of conviction is retained. The limit was set at
10 plants or 100g of plant material with the aim of separating the
"home-user" from the "commercial supplier". However, recently most
cannabis is grown indoors hydroponically and under lights and the drug
taskforce reports that 9 plants (below the arbitrary cut-off for
instant-fines) grown under these conditions can easily fill a double
garage and can provide an excellent financial return for the grower and
for the dealer for whom it was contract-grown. Amendments to the
legislation have been proposed.
It was reported that this was the major reason why there was no
evidence of interest in the industrial hemp trials from illicit
growers. Also, the plots were four to five hours drive from the main
urban centre of Adelaide.
Security and abuseability were not a problem in South Australia.
TASMANIA
Contact Agencies
- Tasmania Police
- Tasmania Department of Health
- Poppy Advisory and Control Board
- Tasmanian Hemp Company
- Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries
Background to trials
There have been 2 Tasmanian trials and considerable political support
related to the 'green' vote in that state. The proprietors of the
Tasmanian Hemp Company, a husband and wife team, were the first
adcvocates for commercial hemp production, but it has to be realised
that after 3 growing seasons they have not developed any
markets for their product and have given up on fibre in favour of
trialing hemp-seed oil.
Tasmania commercially grows opium poppies for the production of
pharmaceuticals (codeine) and so already Had a system of regulating and
policing the cultivation of a controlled plant through the Poppy
Advisory and Control Board, attached to the Department of Justice.
Application forms, pre requisites for issuing a licence and licensing
procedures are similar to those described for Western Australia. There
is close liaison between the Board and Police, Health and Agriculture
officials.
Applications to cultivate as part of a trial
Two applicants have carried out trials over 3 years. New licences were
needed for each year, as the sites of the research plots have altered.
Both trials have been associated to some extent with Australian
Newsprint Mills, (a large Tasmanian paper producer) with the aim of
trialing industrial hemp as a replacement for radiata pine kraft pulp
imported from New Zealand.
Apparently the indigenous Australian woods need the addition of a
longer fibre length pulp to make satisfactory paper products.
Both trials have now been concluded.
Results of trials
Tasmanian Hemp Company has grown small plots in several sites. No
markets have been developed and the principals in the company reported
that they no longer had an interest in fibre production.
University of Tasmania (Mr Shaun Lisson) cultivated cannabis over 3
years in 2 sites at research establishments as part of a research
project to compare flax and hemp as reinforcing agents in newsprint.
The research covered 3 areas:
- Crop management
- Pulping and papermaking
- Economic analysis.
The results have been written up as a PhD thesis and enquires about
availability of the paper can be made to the researcher -
Shaun Lisson
3/12 Star Street
Sandy Bay
Hobart
Tasmania 7001.
The crop management research was assisted by computer modelling and
compared with work done in the Netherlands and involved using cultivars
from France, Hungary and the Ukraine, grown between October and
February at an optimum density of 100 plants/sq metre. There were also
glasshouse trials looking at the effect of day length and temperature
on crop development.
Reported conclusions were that cannabis required fertiliser,
irrigation, and pesticide spraying, but when planted close together a
vigorous crop could outgrow weeds. Long (14 hours of sunshine) days
were required and it was unrealistic to demand that the crop be
cultivated before flowering, as that is the time of maximum fibre yield
and the crops always include variation in time to flowering. However,
the quality of hemp fibre drops quickly after maturity and so it is not
a commercial proposition to produce a double (ie seed/fibre) crop.
Flax, by comparison, produces a lower fibre yield per hectare, but has
lower production costs, needing less irrigation and fertiiiser and can
be used to produce a double crop.
The agronomists involved in growing the crop reported that cannabis had
to be treated as an intensively farmed cash crop. It required heavy
fertiliser application compared to other crops (eg potatoes, onions)
and, contrary to their expectations it did not condition the soil but
compacted the soil through having an extensive root system. This meant
that they needed to put a potato-digger through where the crop had
been, before preparing for the next rotational crop. Storage of the
large volume of harvested material before fibre extraction presented a
problem.
The research on pulping and paper-making from cannabis concluded that
the fibre was unsuitable to replace New Zealand kraft pulp. The trials
concentrated on the costs of cultivation and small-scale studies of the
fibre.
The crops were never subjected to bulk processing and the costs and
environmental impact were not factored into the evaluation. Further
information on these are included in the RIRDC reports (Appendices 1
and 2).
The full economic evaluation was not available at the time this report
was prepared.
Issues arising from the trials
The costs of administration, THC testing and supervision must be
factored into the overall economic projections. Testing THC content
during vegetative growth of the crop is meaningless, although it has
been a requirement for these trials.
No commercial market was developed during the 3 years of Tasmanian
trials. The Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries estimated that
to replace the New Zealand kraft pulp, Tasmania would have needed to
plant 25,000 hectares of cannabis, equivalent to the whole of the
current vegetable crops on the island, utilising the same land.
Security and Abuseability
There were thefts of plant material during the first year. Police
reported that smokers told them the effect was indistinguishable from
their usual illicit cannabis supply. No further thefts were reported.
The THC content was below the cut-off level at all times.
Hiding an illicit crop of cannabis in a commercial fibre producing crop
would be easily detected, because crops for fibre are planted very
close together, while a drug-producing crop requires space between the
plants to develop the THC-yielding flowering tops. Seed crops, however
are planted further apart and so would provide better camouflage.
Revertion to higher-THC producing strains after several generations can
be expected.
High fences around fibre-producing crops are unnecessary, if the THC
content of the crop is controlled. Opium poppy crops have conventional
fences and security has not been a major problem for the poppy Advisory
and Control Board in Tasmania.
VICTORIA
Contact Agency
Applications to cultivate as past of a trial
A total of twenty licences were issued by the Minister of Health to
cultivate and possess cannabis for the purposes of research in 1995 and
1996, following the results of a working party established by
Government which included officials from the departments of Police,
Health, Agriculture, Development, Premier and Cabinet, plus a Farmers'
Federation representative and a botanist from a forensic laboratory.
Cannabis was, at that time, classed as a noxious weed in Victoria and
is reported as having been naturalised in the Hunter Valley region.
Licence conditions included sampling by the Police, auditing by
Agriculture officials and Police checking of all applicants, including
fingerprinting.
Plots were to be 1 hectare or less with an electric fence, barbed wire
gate, on-site supervision virtually 24 hours a day, and located away
from public access.
Before the second year of the trials had concluded and before any
results had been obtained, Government instructed officials to urgently
draft legislation enabling commercial farming and processing of low-THC
cannabis. Ministers were reported in the media supporting the industry
and predicting a great future for it.
Results of the trials
No results are available. There has been a published report about
establishing the trials by Blackstock et al.
Issues arising from the trials
Seed certification was unreliable, with some certified low THC-seed
producing results over the 0.35% THC content cut-off level.
Sampling took up to 3 weeks to get results.
Commercial viability was not proven.
Auditing and testing costs were to have been met by growers, but all
departments involved were reported to have faced additional costs which
were not recovered from the growers.
Security and abuseability
One wire fence was cut, but the crop was undisturbed. There was little
interest in the crops detected amongst the drug-using community.
Legislation
Legislation was introduced into the State legislature and was due to
have its second reading in late April. lt finally received Royal assent
on 21 October and therefore would not come into force in time for the
97-98 growing season. The Victoria Police report that the passage of
the Bill into law was uncontroversial.
The legis(ation requires that no licence will be issued to cultivate
cannabis unless the grower has a contract with a processor. Strict
requirements will be placed on imported seed which will include the
need for a certificate of analysis of the THC content of the actual
crop from which the seed was harvested. Victoria authorities continue
to have no confidence in the credibility of certified seed.
Analysis
Australia has not developed a commercial market for industrial hemp.
There are no results from Australian research projects showing that
cultivation of cannabis sativa to produce industrial hemp is a viable
proposition. No commercial-scale processing has been trialed and there
are serious concerns about the cost and the environmental impact of
large-scale processing.
Research has stopped in 2 states, but continues on a small scale in the
other 2 states visited. Legislation permitting commercial cultivation
and processing has been passed in Victoria, but licences are unlikely
to be issued within the next two years.
Imported seed labelled as low-THC cannot always be depended upon.
Careful selection of the country of origin (eg restricting supply to
European Union countries France, Netherlands, Germany) and requiring
authenticated certificates of analysis of the crop from which the seed
was harvested are ways to achieve greater certainty.
Importation of the seed, its storage, release in quantities sufficient
for planting and the actual planting have been carried out for most
trials by government officers.
Conclusions About Security Issues
Trial cultivation of cannabis sativa has been carried out in Australia
over the last 3 years. These trials have involved considerably effort
for officials over and above their normal duties, particularly for
Health, Agriculture and Police officers. Costs have not all been met by
the growers.
Licences have been issued in similar ways and with similar conditions
in all four states visited, several of the conditions were not adhered
to. With hindsight, officials consider that the licence conditions and
the monitoring/auditing requirements were unnecessarily stringent.
Requiring crops to be harvested before there is any flowering
considerably decreases the overall yield of fibre.
Security of the crops has not been the problem that was expected. There
has been minimal interference with the crops and no arrests.
There has been little evidence of interest in the crops from the
drug-using community and people appear to have accepted them as a
low-THC crop. Hydroponic growing of cannabis for drug purposes is
proving so lucrative and so easily concealed that there is little
incentive for interfere with the trial plots and possibly attract the
attention of enforcement agencies.
It is impossible to distinguish whether an individual plant is low - or
high - THC producing by appearance alone.
Cannabis crops grown for fibre and crops grown for their drug content
differ in the density of planting and so can be easily distinguished.
It was not possible to ascertain whether these trials have changed the
public perception of cannabis sativa as a drug, making it more
acceptable in society. No one interviewed considered that this had
happened.
Trial crops have been grown on ordinary farms and at research
establishments. There has been Police and Health Department involvement
in vetting the applicants. Publicity has all emphasised the different
natures of the low THC cannabis and the cannabis grown illicitly. The
differences may not be as great as is being suggested, and there is an
expectation that the THC content will revert over several generations
to levels attractive to illicit users. Therefore there will be a
continuing need to test THC levels in mature crops. Testing THC durirg
the premature stages of the plant is unnecessary.
There have been few incidents of crop theft and no evidence of interest
in the crops from the drug-using community. High cost fencing is
considered unnecessary by those involved in the Australian trials.
It seems unlikely that any illicit crops were "hidden" amongst the
trial plots. Crops grown for fibre production need to be planted very
close together (over 100/sq metre) and illicit drug-producing crops need
much more space between plants, making identification relatively easy.
Trials carried out under the existing legislation (which is similar in
all states and New Zealand) can be audited and supervised 'by officials
during the importation of seed, planting and growing phases. In most
Australian trials the costs were to have been borne by the growers, but
the state governments appear to have met many of the costs related to
these trials.
The pre-conditions attached to licences were not always adhered to, but
no growers were penalised or prosecuted. The conditions were
considered, in hindsight, by some of the officials to have been too
stringent.
Once trial crops had been harvested, problems arose because of the bulk
of the material and the storage requirements needed to comply with the
existing legislations. It was classed as cannabis plant material under
the drug control legislation and should have been securely stored. This
was compounded by the non-availability of appropriate processing. If
not burned, or used in small-scale processing research projects, the
harvested plant material was held outside the terms of the licence.
Some was ploughed back into the ground, which was not permitted under
the licence.
Industrial hemp processing has not been researched in Australia.
Officials in the 3 mainland states visited all report that growers were
being promised massive overseas markets for their products by an
individual named Daniel Tepevac, who was initially based in Perth,
Western Australia and then moved to Melbourne, Victoria. One growers'
representative spoken to reported that Mr Tepevac was unwilling to
commit anything to paper.
Recomendations
- The moratorium on considering applications to commercially cultivate
cannabis should be lifted to allow trial plots for research purposes.
- A working party should be established to consider and recommend to
the Director-General of Health the criteria to be used in considering
applications for licences to cultivate cannabis plants, the degrees of
control and audit and testing required, the conditions to be attached
to any such licences, and the controls needed for other consequential
licences required for importing, dealing in and possessing cannabis
seeds and plant material.
- The working party should comprise representatives of:
- NZ Police
- Customs Department
- Ministry of Agriculture
- Ministry of Health
- Federated Farmers
- N Z Hemp Industries Association Inc.
- The process of policy development should take into account that the
growing season for cannabis for industrial hemp is between October and
February and that licences would need to have been issued some time in
advance to enable planting to take place at the optimum time, early
spring.
Acknowledgements
This report could not have been compiled without the assistance of the
following:
- Peter Hughes, General Manager, Implementation Group, Ministry of Health
Peter Pratt, Team Leader, Compliance Team, Therapeutics Section,
Ministry of Health.
- Harry Quinn„ National Bureau of Investigation Support, GIB Support
Group, New Zealand Police.
- John Manning, New Zealand Police Liaison Officer, Sydney, Australia.
Officials of Health, Agriculture and Police Departments in the states
of West Australia, South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania.
List Of People Consulted
- Dr Micheal Jelly, South Australia Health Commission
- MR Bill Dolman
- Denis Edmonds, South Australia Police
- Caroline Graham. Australian Food & Flora
- Phillip Wilkinson, Tasmanian Police
- John Galloway, Tasmanian Department of Community & Health Services
- Maureen Sheehan, Tasmanian Poppy Advisory and Control Board
- Fritz K Patsy Harms n, Tasmanian Hemp Company
- Shaun Lisson, University of Tasmania
- Peter Simmul, Tasmanian Dept of Primary Industry and Fisheries
- Tina Cartwright, Victoria Police
- John Blackstock, Victorian Dept of Agriculture
- Murray Paterson, Health Dept of WA
- Brian Beetson, Agriculture WA
Unless stated otherwise, copyright © 1998-2005 by NORML New Zealand, working for marijuana law reform Published on: 2003-03-02 (5142 reads) [ Go Back ] |
