Cali smoke
- 302
- 0
Pot -- or not pot. That seems to be the question.
Two North Dakota farmers on Wednesday took their battle to grow industrial hemp to the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in St. Paul, where their attorney argued that hemp is so distinct from marijuana that it should not be subject to federal regulation. At stake, say hemp sellers and would-be farmers, is a potentially booming commodity that would help U.S. growers and consumers alike.
"I get real excited about it because of our economic times. It's a crop that would be very, very lucrative," said Lynn Gordon, owner of the French Meadow Bakery, who attended oral arguments at the U.S. Courthouse in St. Paul. French Meadow makes Healthy Hemp bread, muffins and bagels -- all big sellers, Gordon said -- but must buy its hemp from Canada.
"I pay so much for it now," she said.
Federal law allows the import and sale of non-drug hemp stalk, fiber, oil and seeds in the U.S., saying it is separate from marijuana. In fact, hemp is used in paper, textiles, food and even fuel. But federal law also lumps hemp and marijuana together -- they both are classified as Cannabis sativa L. -- when it comes to growing the plants, making it almost impossible for U.S. farmers to legally raise the crop.
Garrison Courtney, a spokesman for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the reason for the prohibition is simple -- hemp and marijuana come from the same plant and all parts of the marijuana plant contain some level of THC, the narcotic that produces the "high." THC is a controlled substance under federal law.
"To get hemp, you have to grow a marijuana plant. To grow a marijuana plant, you have to be registered with the DEA," Courtney said.
Still, in 2006, North Dakota put the finishing touches on a law that established the licensing of industrial hemp farms. The law requires the plants to be nearly narcotic-free and establishes strict rules that no other part of the hemp plant -- mainly, the leaves or flowers -- can leave the farm. At the time, the law also required farmers to go to the DEA for a certificate of registration.
David Munson and Wayne Hauge, licensed hemp farmers in North Dakota, did that. Munson, who is also a state legislator, said he paid $2,300 for a DEA permit in February 2007. He's still waiting. A request by North Dakota State University to grow a small hemp crop for research was recently approved after nearly a decade of waiting.
"We needed to get the decision early enough so we could actually get the crop in the ground," Munson said.
In the meantime, the North Dakota Legislature amended its law to no longer require DEA approval. But Hauge and Munson held off planting, saying they have no desire to run afoul of the feds.
"I don't want to risk losing my farm," Munson said.
So the men filed a lawsuit in June 2007, seeking to have the federal courts decide the issue.
Last November, U.S. Chief Judge Daniel Hovland of North Dakota ruled against them, saying: "Industrial hemp may not be the terrible menace the DEA makes it out to be, but industrial hemp is still considered to be a Schedule I controlled substance under the current state of the law in this circuit and throughout the country."
Now, it will be up to the appellate court to decide. A ruling could take months.
Melissa Patterson, a Justice Department attorney, told the judges that the issue shouldn't really be decided by the courts. She said the farmers should first complete the registration process set up by the DEA. After the hearing, Patterson declined to comment further.
Joe Sandler, an attorney for the farmers, urged the appeals court to recognize that with strong state regulations in place, there really is no need for federal oversight of North Dakota-licensed hemp producers.
Hemp advocates say the federal government used to encourage hemp production. It should do so again, Gordon said.
"It really is a wonder crop," she said, touting its diversity of uses and high nutritional value. "But I think the real answer is going to be Congress saying 'Hey, it's okay.'"
Munson said he just wants to legally grow a crop that would be healthy for his fields -- and his bottom line.
North Dakota farmers have been battling wheat scab, he said. Planting hemp -- a hearty plant that needs little attention -- into his rotation of wheat, barley and sunflowers would help. It would also mean about $800 per acre in gross income, a nice number for the 10 acres he has planned.
Source:
Two North Dakota farmers on Wednesday took their battle to grow industrial hemp to the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in St. Paul, where their attorney argued that hemp is so distinct from marijuana that it should not be subject to federal regulation. At stake, say hemp sellers and would-be farmers, is a potentially booming commodity that would help U.S. growers and consumers alike.
"I get real excited about it because of our economic times. It's a crop that would be very, very lucrative," said Lynn Gordon, owner of the French Meadow Bakery, who attended oral arguments at the U.S. Courthouse in St. Paul. French Meadow makes Healthy Hemp bread, muffins and bagels -- all big sellers, Gordon said -- but must buy its hemp from Canada.
"I pay so much for it now," she said.
Federal law allows the import and sale of non-drug hemp stalk, fiber, oil and seeds in the U.S., saying it is separate from marijuana. In fact, hemp is used in paper, textiles, food and even fuel. But federal law also lumps hemp and marijuana together -- they both are classified as Cannabis sativa L. -- when it comes to growing the plants, making it almost impossible for U.S. farmers to legally raise the crop.
Garrison Courtney, a spokesman for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the reason for the prohibition is simple -- hemp and marijuana come from the same plant and all parts of the marijuana plant contain some level of THC, the narcotic that produces the "high." THC is a controlled substance under federal law.
"To get hemp, you have to grow a marijuana plant. To grow a marijuana plant, you have to be registered with the DEA," Courtney said.
Still, in 2006, North Dakota put the finishing touches on a law that established the licensing of industrial hemp farms. The law requires the plants to be nearly narcotic-free and establishes strict rules that no other part of the hemp plant -- mainly, the leaves or flowers -- can leave the farm. At the time, the law also required farmers to go to the DEA for a certificate of registration.
David Munson and Wayne Hauge, licensed hemp farmers in North Dakota, did that. Munson, who is also a state legislator, said he paid $2,300 for a DEA permit in February 2007. He's still waiting. A request by North Dakota State University to grow a small hemp crop for research was recently approved after nearly a decade of waiting.
"We needed to get the decision early enough so we could actually get the crop in the ground," Munson said.
In the meantime, the North Dakota Legislature amended its law to no longer require DEA approval. But Hauge and Munson held off planting, saying they have no desire to run afoul of the feds.
"I don't want to risk losing my farm," Munson said.
So the men filed a lawsuit in June 2007, seeking to have the federal courts decide the issue.
Last November, U.S. Chief Judge Daniel Hovland of North Dakota ruled against them, saying: "Industrial hemp may not be the terrible menace the DEA makes it out to be, but industrial hemp is still considered to be a Schedule I controlled substance under the current state of the law in this circuit and throughout the country."
Now, it will be up to the appellate court to decide. A ruling could take months.
Melissa Patterson, a Justice Department attorney, told the judges that the issue shouldn't really be decided by the courts. She said the farmers should first complete the registration process set up by the DEA. After the hearing, Patterson declined to comment further.
Joe Sandler, an attorney for the farmers, urged the appeals court to recognize that with strong state regulations in place, there really is no need for federal oversight of North Dakota-licensed hemp producers.
Hemp advocates say the federal government used to encourage hemp production. It should do so again, Gordon said.
"It really is a wonder crop," she said, touting its diversity of uses and high nutritional value. "But I think the real answer is going to be Congress saying 'Hey, it's okay.'"
Munson said he just wants to legally grow a crop that would be healthy for his fields -- and his bottom line.
North Dakota farmers have been battling wheat scab, he said. Planting hemp -- a hearty plant that needs little attention -- into his rotation of wheat, barley and sunflowers would help. It would also mean about $800 per acre in gross income, a nice number for the 10 acres he has planned.
Source:
