Subj: US: Woody Harrelson Hemp Case Returned To Lee District Court



Pubdate: 14 Nov 1998



Source: Lexington Herald-Leader





WOODY HARRELSON HEMP CASE RETURNED TO LEE DISTRICT COURT



Frankfort - Actor Woody Harrelson's efforts to legalize hemp hit a snag

yesterday.



The three-member state Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that Harrelson's

case should be sent back to Lee District Court, which previously found that

the state law outlawing marijuana is too broad. The actor was cited in Lee

County in June 1996 for marijuana possession after he planted four hemp seeds.



"The appellate ruling is kind of a win for us," said Harrelson's attorney,

Charles E. Beal II of Lexington. "We don't know yet if we will appeal this

to the Kentucky Supreme Court to try to get some ruling more quickly on the

state law." If the case is not appealed to Kentucky's highest court, it

would go back to Lee District Court, and the case would start anew. The

high court could review the state's marijuana law and decide on its

constitutionality.



Lee County Attorney Tom Jones said yesterday that the plans to ask the

Supreme Court to review the appellate court ruling. "I'm very disappointed

that the appeals court did not rule on the state law," he said.



Hemp proponents claim the plant has a wondrous future in medicine, fiber,

fuel and food, but opponents contend it's difficult to differentiate from

marijuana.



Harrelson argues that the state law outlawing marijuana possession is

unconstitutional because it makes no distinction between the plant that

contains THC, which gives marijuana smokers their high, and its industrial

cousin, which contains minute amounts of the drug. Lee District Court found

in January 1997 that the state law was too broad. But it also left

unanswered a question about whether the seeds planted by Harrelson were

capable of germination or producing plants that produced marijuana.



Jones appealed the district court ruling, which was upheld by Lee Circuit

Court.



The Court of Appeals said there is no provision for the prosecution to

appeal an adverse ruling by a district judge.



"We appreciate that this case involves issues of significant interest to

the parties and to the public at large," Judge William Knopf said. "It is

not this court's intention to cause undue delay in the adjudication of this

case upon its merits."