A Yes vote on Amendment X is as much of a no-brainer as it was to vote for legalizing hemp in the first place with Amendment 64 in 2012.
Colorado leads the nation in the growing, processing, sale and, more importantly, the regulation of hemp as a crop. As of June 1, 2018, there were 688 registered hemp growers in Colorado cultivating 23,500 outdoor acres and 3.9 million indoor square feet of industrial hemp. Hemp has created hundreds of jobs in rural Colorado and has revitalized small farms across this great state.
Colorado truly leads the hemp industry. It is our state that the nation looks to when legalizing hemp in the Federal Farm Bill, and it is Colorado that states look to when bringing their own hemp programs online. Colorado is the model.
That doesn’t mean our laws are perfect. Defining hemp in our Constitution was at first a benefit in the industry’s start-up phase but now threatens to constrain our burgeoning program, and the economic stimulus being realized. Amendment X allows our lawmakers to do what they do best: lead on the issue of hemp.
It’s a rare to see an issue, let alone an industry, receive overwhelming bipartisan support. Hemp does just that and as a result, we have witnessed a boon. Since the program began in 2014, Colorado has seen a 208 percent increase in registrants (jobs), a 555 percent increase in acres of hemp grown (farms), and a 730 percent increase in indoor square footage (more jobs and farms).
The opposition to Amendment X, fueled primarily by a small minority of leftover home-grow activists, is rooted in a generalized distrust of lawmakers, even though the factual record tells a different story. What opponents truly fear is that Amendment X acts as a trial balloon to see if voters favor changes to cannabis laws in our state Constitution. While I understand their fears, they are antiquated.
Colorado’s success is rooted in the fact that Republicans and Democrats, with the input of dedicated industry stakeholders, continue to regulate hemp just like any agricultural commodity. There are no obtrusive applications. There are no felony background checks. There are no arbitrary caps on acreage. There are no limits for who can grow this traditional American crop or where they can grow it. We’ve created the nation’s first hemp seed certification program. We are constantly breaking ground in innovative new processing and harvest technology. Colorado lawmakers laid out a common sense regulatory framework that allows farmers and entrepreneurs do what they do best. And guess what? It’s working.
But we can do more.
The definition of hemp in our Constitution is inflexible, creating a problem for farmers who carefully test THC levels throughout the season. While it is a rare occurrence, if their hemp exceeds the constitutionally mandated ceiling of 0.3 percent THC, they have no recourse but to destroy the crop. They do not qualify for crop insurance. They cannot ship it to a bio-fuel facility where the unprocessed “hot hemp” could be put to good use. That’s because, in the eyes of the Constitution, hemp farmers are now accidentally growing unlicensed marijuana outside the robust licensed marijuana system. The General Assembly has been unable to offer farmers a remedy because the constitutional definition of hemp is absolute. Amendment X gives lawmakers the ability to address this issue.
We also need this flexibility in order to address changes to hemp when it is fully legalized in the 2018 Federal Farm Bill, which offers a more expansive definition of hemp than ours. In fact, some members of Congress in our sister rural states are pushing to increase the THC level in hemp to 1 percent. If they succeed, Colorado’s industry would be placed at a disadvantage that could take several years to fix because of how difficult it is to amend our Constitution. Amendment X prepares Colorado in the event the THC levels are increased federally.
If we want Colorado to continue to lead the nation, we shouldn’t wait to make this minor change by passing Amendment X.
Samantha Walsh is a political consultant in the hemp industry. She was the lobbyist for the Amendment 64 campaign during implementation, and currently sits on the board of Colorado Hemp Industries Association.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
