More on North Dakota hemp
Published by gwen October 19th, 2007 in Agriculture, Beyond North Dakota, Politics and Government, Uncategorized.Max Lindberg at Greening the Golden Years has done some research showing where North Dakota falls regarding hemp production in relation to the rest of the nation.
According to Lindberg, North Dakota is the first state to have people sue the DEA over whether or not farmers can grow industrial hemp. It brings the state one step closer to being able to produce hemp as a saleable crop.
From a personal perspective, when I think of hemp I picture the hemp cord sold as a beading supply for making necklaces, bracelets and other crafts.
Quoted from Greening the Golden Years:
Twenty-eight states have introduced hemp legislation and fifteen have passed legislation; seven, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, West Virginia and North Dakota have removed barriers to its production or research. Of those five, only North Dakota has set into motion a state regulatory system administered by the state’s agriculture department. It placed into law strict guidelines concerning the cultivation and harvesting of hemp seed and oil, and a licensing process that makes it completely legal under not only North Dakota Law, but federal law as well, to grow industrial hemp and harvest the sterilized seeds and oil for sale in the marketplace.
But no matter what they’ve done, it’s still a catch-22 situation. The farmer’s intent doesn’t matter in the eyes of the DEA, plant one stalk of industrial hemp and the DEA can charge you with growing and possessing a controlled substance, fine you, and possibly take away your property.
Two North Dakota farmers, State Representative David Monson and Wayne Hauge have done something no one else has apparently done in the country, sue the DEA, asking it to make a distincting between industrial hemp and marihuana.
Lindberg’s explanation is the fullest explanation of the issue’s history that I have seen so far.
As far as the dangerous aspects of growing industrial hemp goes, the frequently-asked-questions list on Industrial Hemp.net describe industrial hemp as being a different variety of the plant used for making marijuana. I took this to mean marijuana couldn’t be produced from the plants grown for industrial hemp.
Either way, Lindberg’s article shows North Dakota to be a very progressive state on this issue.
I’m confused. The DEA states, “”When it comes to laws, we don’t have a dog in that fight,” he said.” And yet, they have a “position” on Marijuana?!?!?!
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/marijuana_position.html
That’s more than most presidential candidates and political parties have.
I thought (in a ideal world) Congress, the medical profession, research scientists, scholars and learned community leaders were the head scratchers, and these guys the bulls?
Why would a research scientist need to apply to an enforcement agency to study a substance, which they routinely deny because they have a position?
When two sides to a story only work for one side, it is called lopsided, a monopoly.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me a little like the old western movies where a particular commercial association in the territories, purchases its own laws in the form of mercenaries, regulators, you know, like in Clint Eastwood in “Pale Rider.” Their position is busting heads, threatening third party commercial interests, throwing terminally ill people in jail and denying opposition research. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck . . . maybe it is a duck, no?