Ranting to /dev/null

It's more than that - it gets the debate going. When the federal government challenges this law, as it must, the argument will be made not for the benefit of the judge so much as for the interested public. And a law like this will see a lot of interest. Making hemp cultivation illegal was a foolish law to begin with, as we simply deprived ourselves of a very useful natural resource out of fear that it would be abused by pot-heads. I don't support the recreational use of marijuana personally, due to the long-term damage I believe it can cause to brain cells - but I don't think that that reason alone should be sufficient to criminalize its use either recreationally or industrially.

Bravo California.

The reason for outlawing industrial hemp is not that hemp, as such, is abusable. It isn't, at least not easily. The reason is that the plant bears so much superficial resemblance to marijuana that most people will not be able to tell the difference without chemical anaylsis. This means that all any clever pot-heads need do is covertly plant a few pot plants in a hemp field and they'll be pretty much immune to prosecution. As such the feds have outlawed it.

The one thing this case will not do is "get the debate going". Legal arguments are always for the judge (or jury, depending), and if California makes arguments "for the interested public", they may score PR points - and that may be the sole purpose of the bill - but they'll lose the case.

All the feds need to do is demonstrate that this is a usurpation of federal privilege and they automatically win. It doesn't matter if the law is silly: federal law always trumps state law. This is not a question of agriculture. This is question of federalism, and it's one which the courts have long familiarity.

This isn't a principled move to change the war on drugs. It's a publicity stunt.