The News April 15: Woody's letter to the IRS Source: Woody Harrelson To Whom It May Concern: I have decided to hold out a small percentage of my income tax this year as a protest against the way this government does business. April 15, 1996 Internal Revenue Service To Whom It May Concern: I have decided to hold out a small percentage of my income tax this year asa protest against the way this government does business. There are a lot of us who feel that our government is failing us. We loveour country but fear our government. Expression through the ballot box doesnot seem to adequately, or accurately, represent our interests. I believethe reason that only a small percentage of the population votes is not dueto laziness, but because we have lost faith in the system. The money ittakes to get elected leaves our legislators beholden to special interestgroups who are the politician's real constituency. The people's concernsare not represented, while the industries that make the government jump readlike a "Who's Who" of enemies to the environment. Perhaps being an environmentalist has gone out of fashion, but anyone whohas flown over Washington, Oregon, or Northern California and seen theclearcuts and the immense destruction to our forests cannot possibly let goof that image. Last week a court in San Francisco overturned a logging banin sensitive spotted owl habitat in the Pacific Northwest. I realize thatthe fate of the spotted owl may be a low priority to many people who arejust trying to pay their bills and feed their families. But it is my beliefthat our destiny is inextricably tied to the plight of the forest, thespotted owl, and our millions of other relations in nature, with whom weshare this planet in the grand and interconnected Web of Life. It does notmake sense that we have a series of federal laws, including the EndangeredSpecies Act and the Wilderness Act, designed to protect the forest, yet westill use federal tax dollars to subsidize its destruction. The recent passage of the Salvage Logging Bill now allows the timberindustry to go into any area of our forest, including sensitive wildernessareas, with roads built by our tax dollars, to take out any trees damaged byfire or insects. Believe it or not, the bill also allows logging any treesthat could be in danger of fire or insect damage, which amounts to everytree in the forest. There is also unprecedented language in the bill thatallows no judicial review of the logging. This has effectively doubledprivate logging of public land. I would think that with only four percentof the native old growth forest remaining in this country, our governmentwould be doing everything in its considerable power to preserve what is leftinstead of leading the charge to destroy it. I do not see why we cannot have both jobs and a clean environment. Nor doI see why we do not subsidize alternatives to all these destructiveindustries. Why do our tax dollars go to subsidize timber, coal,petrochemical, mining, nuclear, and war industries? Our future success and survival depends on the life in the forest in a verypragmatic and economic way. During the housing boom after the end of WorldWar II, the Department of Agriculture decided to increase the amount oftimber harvested from our national forest reserves from less than onebillion board feet annually to more than ten billion board feet. Thisincrease was justified as a means to provide lumber to build affordablehomes for returning American soldiers. Fifty years later, the ForestService still has a multi-billion board feet delivery quota and our taxdollars subsidize the timber industry to the tune of almost $500 milliondollars annually. Yet our national forests no longer supply lumber foraffordable homes. Now the overwhelming majority of the timber harvest iseither chipped to make paper or exported, along with jobs, to Japan. [Forspecific numbers, see the Thoreau Institute: http://www.teleport.com/~rot] Ironically, forests do not have to be used to make paper or most buildingmaterials. Another program begun by the Department of Agriculture duringWorld War II to ensure an adequate supply of natural resources was the "Hempfor Victory" campaign. Industrial hemp, a non-psychoactive type of Cannabissativa that is genetically distinct from marijuana, along with otheragricultural crops like wheat, rice straw and kenaf, can be used to makepaper, particle board, paint, clothing, and thousands of other products. Itis a potential alternative crop for struggling American farmers who recentlylost their federal subsidies. The timber, mining, nuclear, and oilindustries, on the other hand, have not lost their federal subsidies. [TheMining Law of 1872 routinely requires the United States to give awaybillions of dollars worth of minerals for a fraction of their fair marketvalue. The Oil Depletion Allowance allows the petroleum industry to avoidpaying hundreds of billions of dollars worth of federal taxes.] Industrial hemp is grown legally in Canada, England, Australia, China,South Korea, the former Soviet Union, and at least thirty other countriesworldwide, without any reported problems. Still, a government agency,namely the Drug Enforcement Administration, has used federal tax dollars tointimidate every state legislature that has tried to return this valuablecrop to its farmers. Just last week, four senior agents from the RockyMountain Division of the DEA, spent the entire day on duty at the Coloradostate capital, testifying and lobbying against passage of the ColoradoIndustrial Hemp Production Act. They misrepresented the federal law as itapplies to industrial hemp and once again, "successfully" thwarted anotherstate's attempt to develop an alternative fiber industry. [See, Thomas J.Ballanco, The Colorado Hemp Production Act of 1995: Farms and ForestsWithout Marijuana, 66 U.Colo.L.Rev. 1165 (1995).] I fail to see the rationale behind using our federal tax dollars to blockthe development of a new, environmentally sound, sustainable, andeconomically profitable industry while continuing to allocate billions ofdollars to the industries that threaten our very survival on the planet. Wecan, and we must, work to develop those industries that provide both jobsand environmental protection. I refuse to fall for the false dilemma ofchoosing one or the other. Our tax revenues must buy us both. Instead ofgiving ten thousand dollars to the IRS, I donated it to aid the developmentof a domestic hemp industry. I lived for ten years in Los Angeles where the air is unfit to breathe, thewater unfit to drink and the beaches frequently post "Swim at your ownRisk" signs. I rationalized living there in the name of my drive toward"success." But I cannot rationalize it for my daughter. I envision a worldof non-polluting cars and solar powered houses. I have my piece of theforest to live in and enough money for my family, but the fact is, I care.To borrow a phrase from the Lorax, somebody has to, "Speak for the trees." Two hundred and twenty years ago, we embarked on an historic journey to"form a more perfect union" because we refused to submit to taxation withoutrepresentation. Until my tax dollars stop going to subsidize destructiveindustries like timber, I cannot in good conscience continue to give. Wethe people must recognize the power that we have as consumers and tax payerswhen our votes do not work. I refuse to continue to submit to taxationwithout representation. If boycott and tax resistance are the only avenuesleft to us, then that is the route I will take. Sincerely, Woody Harrelson Follow-Ups: Top