context: Under the CSA, marijuana is defined to include all Cannabis sativa L. plants, regardless of THC concentration. We also noted that "[t]he language of the CSA unambiguously bans the growing of marijuana, regardless of its use," id. at 1072, and we concluded that "[bjecause the CSA does not distinguish between marijuana and hemp in its regulation, and because farming hemp requires growing the entire marijuana plant which at some point contains psychoactive levels of THC, the CSA regulates the farming of hemp," id. at 1073. Considering the legislative history of the CSA, we found "no evidence that Congress intended otherwise" than to ban the growth of all varieties of the Cannabis sativa L. plant absent compliance with the registration requirements of the CSA.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 965 F.2d 610, 616
citation_a.parenthetical: observing that male marijuana plants, which may have lower THC concentrations than female plants, are still marijuana plants for sentencing purposes
citation_a.sentence: Id. at 1072; see also N.H. Hemp Council, 203 F.3d at 6-8 (concluding that cannabis cultivated for industrial use and possessing a low THC concentration is nevertheless marijuana under the CSA and is subject to regulation by the DEA); cf. United States v. Curtis, 965 F.2d 610, 616 (8th Cir.1992) (observing that male marijuana plants, which may have lower THC concentrations than female plants, are still marijuana plants for sentencing purposes).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 203 F.3d 6, 6-8
citation_b.parenthetical: concluding that cannabis cultivated for industrial use and possessing a low THC concentration is nevertheless marijuana under the CSA and is subject to regulation by the DEA
citation_b.sentence: Id. at 1072; see also N.H. Hemp Council, 203 F.3d at 6-8 (concluding that cannabis cultivated for industrial use and possessing a low THC concentration is nevertheless marijuana under the CSA and is subject to regulation by the DEA); cf. United States v. Curtis, 965 F.2d 610, 616 (8th Cir.1992) (observing that male marijuana plants, which may have lower THC concentrations than female plants, are still marijuana plants for sentencing purposes).