BILL NUMBER:  AB 1147
  VETOED	DATE: 09/30/2006




To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1147 without my signature.

I appreciate and applaud the Legislatures interest in actually
expanding Californias economy; however, I am concerned about the
impact of the particular type of expansion that is being proposed.  I
recognize and am proud of that fact that California is a national
and world leader in the production of high-quality agricultural
commodities. Our state has a rich agricultural environment and we
must strive to protect and promote farming, ranching and
agri-business in California, while  preserving natural resources and
protecting consumers.

Given these facts, I would like to support the expansion of a new
agricultural commodity in this State.  Unfortunately, I am very
concerned that this bill would give legitimate growers a false sense
of security and a belief that production of industrial hemp is
somehow a legal activity under federal law.

Under current federal statutes there is no definition of industrial
hemp nor is there a distinction between cannabis plants based on
Tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) content as delineated in AB 1147. In
fact, under federal law, all cannabis plants, regardless of variety
or THC content, are simply considered to be marihuana, which is a
federally regulated schedule I controlled substance. Any person in
the United States that wishes to grow cannabis plants for any
purpose, i ncluding industrial purposes, must first obtain permission
and register with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Failure to do so would be a violation of federal law and could
subject an individual to criminal penalties.

I understand there are several court decisions that may cloud this
issue such as Hemp Industries  Association v. DEA, 357 F.3d 1012,
1018 (9th Cir.2004) and United States v. White Plume, 447 F.3d 1067
(8th Cir. 2006).  Yet, no court has specifically ruled that a live
cannabis plant is a non-controlled substance or that farming these
plants is not a regulated activity. As a result, it would be improper
to approve a measure that directly conflicts with current federal
statutes and court decisions .  This only serves to cause confusion
and reduce public confidence in our government system.

Finally, California law enforcement has expressed concerns that
implementation of this measure could place a drain on their resources
and cause significant problems with drug enforcement activities.
This is troubling given the needs in this state for the eradication
and prevention of drug production.

In the future, I would encourage the Legislature to work with state
and federal law enforcement agencies to craft a measure that would
reduce the burden on law enforcement agencies and would comply with
federal law in order to avoid the unnecessary prosecution of
unwitting individuals in this state.

For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,



Arnold Schwarzenegger