Posted on 01/15/2007 2:07:51 PM PST by ellery
BISMARCK, N.D. - David Monson began pushing the idea of growing industrial hemp in the United States a decade ago. Now his goal may be within reach but first he needs to be fingerprinted. Monson plans this week to apply to become the nation's first licensed industrial hemp farmer. He will have to provide two sets of fingerprints and proof that he's not a criminal.
The farmer, school superintendent and state legislator would like to start by growing 10 acres of the crop, and he spent part of his weekend staking out the field he wants to use.
"I'm starting to see that we maybe have a chance," Monson said. "For a while, it was getting really depressing."
Last month, the state Agriculture Department finished its work on rules farmers may use to grow industrial hemp, a cousin of marijuana that does not have the drug's hallucinogenic properties. The sturdy, fibrous plant is used to make an assortment of products, ranging from paper, rope and lotions to car panels, carpet backing and animal bedding.
Applicants must provide latitude and longitude coordinates for their proposed hemp fields, furnish fingerprints and pay at least $202 in fees, including $37 to cover the cost of criminal record checks.
Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson said the federal Drug Enforcement Administration still must give its permission before Monson, or anyone else, may grow industrial hemp.
"That is going to be a major hurdle," Johnson said.
Another impediment is the DEA's annual registration fee of $2,293, which is nonrefundable even if the agency does not grant permission to grow industrial hemp. Processing the paperwork for Monson's license should take about a month, Johnson said.
A DEA spokesman has said North Dakota applications to grow industrial hemp will be reviewed, and Johnson said North Dakota's rules were developed with the agency's concerns in mind. Law enforcement officials fear industrial hemp can shield illicit marijuana, although hemp supporters say the concern is unfounded.
North Dakota is one of seven states that have authorized industrial hemp farming. The others are Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana and West Virginia, according to Vote Hemp, an industrial hemp advocacy organization based in Bedford, Mass.
California lawmakers approved legislation last year that set out rules for industrial hemp production, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it. The law asserted that the federal government lacked authority to regulate industrial hemp as a drug.
In 2005, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, introduced legislation to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana in federal drug laws. It never came to a vote.
Monson farms near Osnabrock, a Cavalier County community in North Dakota's northeastern corner. He is the assistant Republican majority leader in the North Dakota House and is the school superintendent in Edinburg, which has about 140 students in grades kindergarten through 12.
In 1997, during his second session in the Legislature, Monson successfully pushed a bill to require North Dakota State University to study industrial hemp as an alternative crop for the state's farmers.
Canada made it legal for farmers to grow the crop in March 1998. Last year, Canadian farmers planted 48,060 acres of hemp, government statistics say. Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the provinces along North Dakota's northern border, were Canada's biggest hemp producers.
"I do know that industrial hemp grows really well 20 miles north of me," Monson said. "I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be a major crop for me, if this could go through."
Times change. The laws change. The U.S. Constitution remains.
In Washington's day, hemp was legal. Today it's not. So?
I see no reason to be careful with that line of logic. Anyone who dared challenge that would find themselves embarrassed by my acerbic wit and profound grasp of the facts.
Would that be like medical marijuana users getting a recommendation from their doctor then appling to the state for a get-out-of-jail-free card to smoke all the recreational marijuana they want?
THAT kind of governmental "regulation"? Uh, no.
Geez Louise. They scammed us with medical marijuana. Don't tell me you're falling for this "industrial hemp" campaign also.
Actually I'm against the hemp scam. Looks just like the medical marijuana scam. Backed by the same people and just as disingenuous.
Twice as many teens drink alcohol than smoke pot, despite the fact that alcohol is harder to get. Maybe we should legalize pot, thereby making IT harder to get and increasing its use to catch up with alcohol?
"I would have a deep respect for your opinion if you were consistent enough to advocate banning booze"
We tried that and it didn't work. I see no reason to add to the problem by legalizing other drugs so as not to appear "hypocritical".
I am a gun owner, supporter, and member of the NRA. And I agree.
Prohibition started in 1920 while Wilson was president.
Hey, but you were the first one to catch the typo.
April, -- do you dispute the position below?
"There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to wage war against the citizens of the United States, no matter how well-meaning the intent. The Bill of Rights means just as much today, as it did on the day it was written. And its protections are just as valid and just as important to freedom today, as they were to our Founders two hundred years ago.
The danger of the drug war is that it erodes away those rights. Once the fourth amendment is meaningless, it's just that much easier to erode away the first and then the second, etc. Soon we'll have no rights at all. "
http://www.dea.gov/pubs/states/newsrel/neworleans112006.html
Operation Central Hub also produced important connections to Mexico, revealing direct criminal links and associations between select Mississippi organization heads and Mexican drug sources of supply. Texas based organization members were found to be functioning as logistics coordinators in arranging the delivery of drug loads from Mexico to Mississippi. This same group arranged for the subsequent collection of money as payment for the drugs.
Now after reading this can you say we dont have a the Constitutional right to wage war on drugs?
We tried that and it didn't work
And can you tell me why it didn't work?
You study constitutional law by reading the newpaper?
From your link:
HEMPOLA Brownies are made with protein rich HEMPOLA Hempseed Flour and HEMPOLA Hempseed Oil full of essential fatty acids in a perfect balance of Omega 3, Omega 6 and GLA (gamma linolenic acid).
Of course, there's nothing in there that would get anyone "high", but don't let that stop you from looking foolish.
April, -- do you dispute the position below?
"There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to wage war against the citizens of the United States, no matter how well-meaning the intent. The Bill of Rights means just as much today, as it did on the day it was written. And its protections are just as valid and just as important to freedom today, as they were to our Founders two hundred years ago.
The danger of the drug war is that it erodes away those rights. Once the fourth amendment is meaningless, it's just that much easier to erode away the first and then the second, etc. Soon we'll have no rights at all. "
I don't know how you could object to the DEA doing there job under our Constitution in these circumstances unless your an open border one world order type of person?
Read much april? -- I asked you if you dispute the constitutional position quoted above as a "pothead liberal leftwing hippies of the 60's" type comment.
Is it a using of "-- Freerepublic as a forum for trying legalize --- addiction? --"
Sometimes when people get told what they don't want to hear they resort to insults, too.
You read the Constitution, the debates of the convention, the Federalist Papers and other historical documents to find out what "constitutional" is.
There's a big debate brewing about our health care system, and putting Congress in charge of it. I expect in the course of that debate that I'm going to have lots of articles shoved at me about doctors that make too much money, poor people that don't have health insurance, etc. The people waving these articles around are going to say "How can you read this and say that it's unconstitutional?
I'm going to tell them the same thing I have to tell you. I can read your article and say that because your article doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.