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."
"My question is, what in the Constitution gives the Feds authority to prohibit farming of this crop, provided the state has approved it?"
It's the "whatever congress wants to" clause of the constitution.
If congress wants to do it and they can get enough support for it, they have the legal authority to do anything, or so some would have you believe.
It's funny that a farmer has to jump through all these hoops to grow the same crop Washington and Jefferson grew.
This nation has gone bat-sh&$ insane with laws.
Fingerprints for growing hemp. God I hate the government.
ROTFL. The government can do anything they damn well please. The Constitution is just for looks, until the citizens decide otherwise.
The problem is that most citizens can't be bothered, and others like to use it to restrict people they don't like.
Article VI, Section 2 (Supremacy Clause) which says that federal law trumps state law.
The same clause that gives the Feds authority to prohibit medical marijuana when the state has approved it. Nothing new, ellery.
I have a 37-year old Amazon parrot that would sell her soul for hemp seed.
Back when it was available in a seed mix, she would start sorting through the seed I put in her bowl, eating all the hemp seed first.
Her favorite food of all time is still raw beef (go figure) and she can detect the scent of beef brought home from the store and still sealed in packages in the fridge...and starts asking for it in plain English.
Guess the founders forgot that they were writing on hemp when they outlawed in in that invisible amendment of yours.
Next you'll be telling us the purpose of the Constitution is to limit citizens' rights and enumerate powers for the state.
It's legal to import industrial hemp (provided it's not for consumption). What's this great urge to grow it domestically?
And they rode in carriages. Times change.
Same reason farmers cultivate any crop domestically, I'd guess.
ping
Unlike for "any crop", this guy is jumping through hoops to do so. I would think it would be easier and cheaper to import the raw hemp from 20 miles away. Or the finished hemp product.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
But the interpretation of the Constitution isn't supposed to.
Yep.
"If the founders intended to allow federal powers to trump state powers in any and all ways, the 10th Amendment would make no sense."
Well, there are federal powers ... and all the rest are state powers. So says the 10th.
The powers don't conflict. In this case, the federal law written under the power to regulate commerce conflicts with the state law written under the police power of the state.
"I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
-Clarence Thomas
We desperately need more ratty clothes and bio rope.
The fact that Congress, with the consent of the people, chooses to regulate something today that wasn't regulated 200 years ago has nothing whatsoever to do with "interpreting" the Constitution.
Because you disagree with what's being regulated doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.
Wihout hemp crops we will surely fail in the global market.
It might be worth it just to be able to document just exactly what kind of totally effedup bureaucratic abominiation they've created with out tax dollars, for our own good.
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.