« Interview with Ted Smith on A Channel news | Main | Bill will double the maximum penalty for cannabis production to 14 years »
Advocates of legalizing industrial hemp disappointed with ruling
By Hempology | December 2, 2007
Minot Daily News, ND
30 Nov 2007
Marvin Baker
JUDGE: CONGRESS SHOULD DECIDE ON HEMP
BISMARCK — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit two North Dakota farmers filed against the federal government in an effort to grow and harvest industrial hemp without reprisal.
Judge Daniel Hovland stated in his 22-page judgment Wednesday that Wayne Hauge of Ray and David Monson of Osnabrock should allow Congress to settle the issue of whether industrial hemp is a legal agricultural commodity or a controlled substance.
Hovland said the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007, introduced in the House of Representatives in February by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, was designed to address the current issue. Hovland referred to the act numerous times during a Nov. 14 hearing. It is yet to be debated.
“Congress can best address this problem and passage of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 would accomplish what the plaintiffs seek in this issue,” Hovland wrote. “Whether efforts to amend the law prevail, and whether North Dakota farmers will be permitted to grow industrial hemp in the future, are issues that should ultimately rest in the hands of Congress rather than in the hands of a federal judge.”
Monson is out of the state and couldn’t be reached for comment Thursday.
Hauge told The Associated Press he is disappointed but not surprised by the decision.
North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson said the dismissal leaves the farmers with little recourse except to appeal to a higher court.
“The judge said this is a matter best left to Congress,” Johnson said. “It is disappointing because realistically, I don’t think Congress will deal with it.”
Johnson issued state industrial hemp licenses to Monson and Hauge earlier this year under regulations developed under state law by the North Dakota Department of Agriculture. However, the licenses required Drug Enforcement Administration approval to take effect.
“Mr. Monson and Mr. Hauge did everything they were supposed to do; they submitted to background checks; they filled out a lot of paperwork, and they paid considerable fees,” Johnson said. “Now, the growing season is long over, and they still have had no word from DEA, other than a complaint that there was not enough time for the agency to conduct a complete review for a license that, if approved, would have been for only one year.”
Tim Purdon, a Bismarck attorney representing Monson and Hauge, said he is disappointed with the court’s decision, but added that he respects and appreciates the court’s thorough analysis of the case.
“I will be meeting with Dave Monson and Wayne Hauge to explore our options,” Purdon said. “We are pleased that, related to our lawsuit, DEA has apparently decided to finally move forward with NDSU’s ( North Dakota State University ) application to begin its important research into the valuable agriculture crop that is industrial hemp.”
In a related development, the DEA has sent a memorandum of agreement to NDSU, which if signed, would clear the way for industrial hemp research in Fargo.
NDSU filed an amicus brief in support of the farmers’ lawsuit, which highlighted the university’s eight-year struggle to secure a license from the DEA to grow industrial hemp for research as mandated by state law.
Hauge said he is enthused that a positive benefit is coming out of this litigation.
“This is a positive stimulus to allow NDSU to start research,” Hauge said. “If nothing else, we can get some varieties in place.”
Originally, NDSU was given permission to collect ferel hemp seeds from across the state for the research that never materialized. Now, should NDSU sign the memorandum, accessing specific varieties will put the university years ahead of where it might have been otherwise, according to Hauge.
“If Congress can empower the U.S. Department of Agriculture ( to regulate ), it would be as I’ve contended all along, another crop,” Hauge said. “And as long as the process has been started, farmers will eventually be allowed the opportunity.”
Tom Murphy of the Vote Hemp advocacy organization, has been watching the case from his home in Rockport, Maine. Like Hauge, he said he is disappointed with the ruling but isn’t surprised.
Murphy said neither farmer should have to risk his integrity or his farm to challenge the government on this issue. Instead, Murphy said the DEA should realize industrial hemp is a valuable agricultural commodity and that with all the security measures in place in the law, farmers should be allowed to grow it.
Even though the DEA considers marijuana and hemp one and the same because both are Cannabis sativa plant species and because both have at least trace amounts of the psychoactive ingredient tetrahydracannabinol, there are botanical differences, as well as separate harvesting methods, according to Murphy.
“These guys want to grow a seedless crop for better-quality fiber,” Murphy said. “The government is more than aware of seedless varieties.”
Rob Robinson, Minot, a longtime advocate of legalizing industrial hemp, is disappointed with the ruling because he believes that if this issue does go to Congress, it will take a long time to settle.
Robinson, who operates the educational organization Modern Hemp, said the next step is to convince congressmen to debate and pass the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007.
He said few lawmakers outside those involved with agriculture are aware of the potential of the commodity. Thus, it’s time to start contacting members of Congress to get debate started and ultimately get the bill passed, said Robinson.
“We need to start lobbying our congressmen,” he said. “We ( North Dakota ) have agriculture strength in Congress and Congress needs to realize this is not a drug issue. This is an agricultural issue.”
Robinson added that the memorandum of agreement offered to NDSU is a step in the right direction, but a small one.
“I think they’re throwing us a bone to keep us quiet,” Robinson said of the DEA. “And as slow as Congress works, this could take years. It’s a great accomplishment, maybe even a silver lining. But what I don’t understand is why they need NDSU’s signature when they applied for this eight years ago.”
Robinson called the industrial hemp issue a very powerful and political issue, and was dismayed the judge didn’t have the foresight to rule in favor of North Dakota’s farmers.
“I believe we’re being hit by a wall of ignorance and the best way to treat that is with education,” Robinson said. “Rather than a giant step forward that would have solved a lot of problems, we’ve tripped and taken a small step with NDSU.”
Topics: Articles | Comments Off
Comments are closed.