Dec 31, 2007 - 09:04:50 CST
WASHINGTON - The three members of North Dakota's congressional delegation see little hope in Congress for state farmers who want to grow industrial hemp.Members of the state's all-Democratic delegation - Sens. Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad and Rep. Earl Pomeroy - say they have no plans to introduce or push legislation that would make it easier for farmers around the country to grow the crop.
U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland last month dismissed a lawsuit filed against the U.S government by two North Dakota farmers, saying federal law considers industrial hemp to be the same as marijuana, which is an illegal drug. In his ruling, Hovland suggested asking Congress to change the definition of industrial hemp to explicitly distinguish it from marijuana.
That idea has no traction in Congress, the state's delegation says.
"When the (federal) drug enforcement agency takes this hard line position, there is not the political will in Congress to challenge them," Pomeroy said. "No one wants to be involved in something that some might perceive as loosening our drug laws."
Hemp can be used for a variety of products, from rope to lotion, and farmers view it as a possibly lucrative new crop. North Dakota's Agriculture Department has rules that regulate industrial hemp production, but farmers need a permit from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, which the DEA has declined to grant. This year, the agency did not act on the applications in time for the farmers to get a crop in the ground - inaction the farmers said amounted to a denial.
In interviews, members of the state's congressional delegation were hesitant when asked if they believe that growing industrial hemp should be legalized. Conrad said he would like Congress to take it up but said it doesn't matter what he thinks, since it's not going to happen.
"Frankly, we've got our hands full getting things done that can be done," Conrad said.
Pomeroy said in an interview that he believes industrial hemp deserves a fair evaluation by the Drug Enforcement Administration, but said he has no evidence that it has not been given a fair evaluation.
In a statement, Dorgan said he believes the production of industrial hemp could be an economic benefit to American farmers, but he noted that the DEA opposes it.
"Because of that, the reality is that legislation allowing the growth of hemp would not be successful in the Congress at this time," Dorgan said.
Congress has tentatively waded into the debate, with pro-hemp legislation introduced by Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul. Pomeroy is not signing on, and the bill shows no signs of going anywhere.
Dave Monson, a Republican state legislator who is one of the plaintiffs in the hemp case, said he is disappointed that the delegation will not help a cause he says is popular with many North Dakota farmers. He said he would rather North Dakota's representatives take up the fight and lose, proving to the courts that there is no will in Congress to make the change.
"They are doing the thing that politicians do, and that's run for cover or find the highest ground," he said. "It's kind of frustrating because they are supposed to represent the people of North Dakota and the people of North Dakota want this."
Monson, of Osnabrock, and Wayne Hauge, of Ray, filed a notice earlier this month in U.S. District Court in Bismarck, saying they would appeal their case to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. Monson and Hauge have argued the federal government should not be allowed to interfere in a state-regulated hemp production initiative.
The two men's state licenses to grow hemp expire at year's end, and they said they intend to apply for new licenses to grow the crop next year. A state license requires the applicant to be fingerprinted and undergo a criminal background check.
"Right now, it's just little North Dakota fighting the federal government," Monson said.
North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson supports growing industrial hemp and said it is disappointing that Washington doesn't have an appetite for the issue.
"It is unfortunate, because the production of industrial hemp presents virtually no potential for illegitimate purposes and because the crop has considerable potential in North Dakota and other states," he said.
Hemp falls under federal anti-drug rules because it has trace amounts of the mind-altering chemical THC that is found in marijuana. Hemp supporters say research has concluded that people cannot get a "high" from hemp, and that the North Dakota regulations ensure that only legal parts of the plant such as fiber and seed would be cultivated. The government argued that state regulations do not trump federal law, which considers hemp a controlled substance.
constitutionalist wrote on Jan 3, 2008 1:56 PM:
" It is the job of Congress to ensure that Administrative Branch agencies fulfill the duties that they are assigned and to punish them when they do not, but I guess our delegation doesn't want/care enough to do that... "
Although I appluade your attitude, it is actually the President's job to "insure the laws are faithfully executed" . (Hint - Vote for Ron Paul)
and Allen wrote on Dec 31, 2007 1:23 PM:
"... Like it or not, the feds have always had the right to dictate what is covered under federal drug laws. "
Well, not exactly, Allen, the feds had to admend the constitution in order to outlaw alchol. The entire war on drugs is unconstitutional. (Hint - Vote for Ron Paul)
and Impressed wrote on Dec 31, 2007 1:10 PM:
" Nobody is getting rich from hemp. The truth is talk of Hemp legislation is just providing another backdoor way for marijuana to gain in acceptance. "
The guys trying to grow hemp don't even get high, and there are SUCCESSFUL hemp farming operations in other Countries! In China, the MAJORITY of the Paper Mills operate on HEMP! Maybe you cound educate yourself a little bit by reading High Times! (Hint - Vote for Ron Paul)
Thanks for reading
"
Brian Simpson wrote on Jan 2, 2008 6:56 PM:
Good luck with the appeal! "
LoyalNoMore wrote on Dec 31, 2007 1:33 PM:
Allen wrote on Dec 31, 2007 1:23 PM:
The idea of ND having a permitting process for raising something that is illegal under federal law just smacks of stupidity and is a waste of our taxpayer dollars at the state level.
Like it or not, the feds have always had the right to dictate what is covered under federal drug laws. "
Impressed wrote on Dec 31, 2007 1:10 PM:
Typical wrote on Dec 31, 2007 10:17 AM:
Disappointed wrote on Dec 31, 2007 10:16 AM:
farmer wrote on Dec 31, 2007 9:34 AM:
Delegation is not Supporting the People wrote on Dec 31, 2007 9:29 AM:
Drug Laws & Law Makers wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:06 AM:
No Worries wrote on Dec 31, 2007 4:41 AM:
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.