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."
Rather than people like Clarence Thomas who merely had an opinion about it 230 years later. Which was my point.
"Citizens could vote with their feet and take themselves and their wealth elsewhere if subject to abuse."
Yeah. If the citizens of one state didn't like the restrictions of expressing their religion, or didn't like the pornography laws they could move to another state that suited them better.
No. Wait. They can't.
The U.S. Supreme Court "incorporated" the first amendment and applied it to every state. Whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says the firsts amendment means, it means that for every state.
Well, well, well. Here the Founders were worried about Congress "joining" the states into one entity and it turns out that the U.S. Supreme Court did it. I take it, then, that you favor repeal of the 14th amendment, thereby returning us to federalism?
Ah. So the power could be lodged there. Well then, what's your point?
Madison is saying that interstate conflicts can be resolved "by the states themselves" (the intended way) or through Congress. Most interstate conflicts ARE resolved this way. You're simply stating the obvious.
Save your time. Talk to a brick. It's smarter and more willing to listen.
This is about Freedom! America! Liberty! The U.S. Constitution! The Bill of Rights!
These aren't a bunch of potheads looking to legalize and validate their recreational drug use. These are patriots, fighting for truth, justice, and the American Way!
So you watch that sarcasm there, you, you, communitarian.
According to the article, hemp is grown a mere 20 miles away across the Canadian border from this guy. He can hop in his pick-up truck and, within an hour, have all the raw hemp his little heart desires.
Absolute control, or total anarchy. It's not hard to see what's wrong with that argument. It's also not hard to see why the bureaucrats try to use it.
You work for the federal government, don't you?
Madison is saying what he said - that the power to regulated commerce was "not intended for the positive purposes of the general government". It was never intended to become the "catch-all" blank check it has become.
ping
Be careful there. You putting words in his mouth.
Read your own quote. Madison is talking about commerce conflicts between states, not some general federal regulation involving interstate commerce among all the states.
"It was never intended to become the "catch-all" blank check it has become."
Yet Madison admits that the power could be lodged there. Again I ask. What's your point?
Going by the original intent of the Commerce Clause, the substantial effects doctrine is a fraudulent exercise of power.
That wasn't STUPID, it was FUNNY!
Here we go with the humorless hemp pushers.
(Before we go around again, I'm amenable to some liberalization of drug laws. It WAS just humor...)
A professor of mine in law school said that the Commerce Clause wasn't a legal theory, but a talisman, which the Federal Government displayed whenever its power was questioned.
Me no understand.
"Only the federal government could effectively resolve and enforce the resolution of conflicts between states."
Oh baloney. States take their conflicts to federal court and the commerce conflicts are resolved there. Congress doesn't even get involved. That was the original intent since that was the pressing problem at the time.
"And he is indeed talking about commerce among all the states."
Just read your own cite, for crying out loud. Madison illustrates his point by saying, "by the importing States in taxing the non-importing". That's not commerce among all the states. That's an example he's giving of some states (the importing) committing an injustice (taxing) on some other states (the non-importing).
That has nothing to do with Congress passing some general commerce regulation on all the states.
"Going by the original intent of the Commerce Clause, the substantial effects doctrine is a fraudulent exercise of power."
Going by the original intent of the Commerce Clause, the substantial effects doctrine is not even relevant. It's only relevant when it comes to Congressional regulation.
The substantial effects doctrine is not relevant to the original intent of the Commerce Clause because it is not and never was part of that intent.
Your professor knew his conlaw, and the nature of federal bureaucracy.
Oh I know him quite well.
You must be careful with this line of logic. You must admit that the gun-grabbers use the same argument, right?
Perhaps it would be more cost-efficient? Would you have any real objection to domestic production if farmers were subject to having the THC levels of their crops regularly tested by authorities?
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.