It's time to grow hemp support

 
LOADING
Jan 04, 2008 - 04:02:06 CST
Supporters of industrial hemp have suffered a double setback.

First, U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland dismissed a lawsuit against the federal government by two North Dakota farmers. The farmers argued the government considered industrial hemp the same as marijuana, which is an illegal drug.

Farmers want to raise hemp as a crop. It can be used for products ranging from rope to lotion.

While ruling against the farmers, Hovland suggested they ask Congress to change the definition of industrial hemp.

The chances of that happening don't look good. North Dakota's congressional delegation says it won't introduce or push legislation to change the definition.

Sens. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan along with Rep. Earl Pomeroy, all Democrats, say they are being practical.

They argue that as long as the Drug Enforcement Administration is taking a hard line, any legislation can't get through Congress. The delegation says Congress doesn't want to be seen as weak on drugs.

In interviews and statements to the Associated Press, the delegation's support of industrial hemp could be described as lukewarm at best.

There is pro-hemp legislation in Congress. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, introduced the measure, but it shows no signs of going anywhere.

Dave Monson, one of the plaintiffs in the hemp case, wants the delegation to fight for the legislation even if it appears doomed.

Monson, a Republican state legislator, argues that a congressional fight would show courts there is an interest by lawmakers in a change.

Going unsaid by the state's delegation is the apparent lack of support in the state for a change.

Despite Monson's arguments that North Dakotans favor a change and the North Dakota Agriculture Department establishing hemp regulations, there likely isn't widespread support for industrial hemp.

Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy haven't been reluctant to fight for "lost causes" that have solid North Dakota support.

Hemp supporters need to launch a public relations campaign to prove the merits of hemp to the state populace. Then they need to prove to the delegation that they have broad-based support in the state.

If they can do that, the delegation might fight for them.

However, it will take a long fight to turn a "lost cause" into victory.
   Printer friendly version
It's time to grow hemp support
Comments

precious wrote on Jun 9, 2008 2:53 AM:

" thank you very much on "

David Dunn wrote on Jan 23, 2008 12:44 AM:

" According to hemp-advocate Alexander Hamilton, state legislatures are to guard the peoples right from federal encroachments. Federalist Paper 26.

According to cannabis-smoking James Madison, the federal government only has jurisdiction over certain enumerated powers. States have residuary and inviolable authority over all other matters. Federalist Paper 39

States are perfectly within their rights to legalize all things hemp. Why aren't your state legislators doing their job right? "

lame wrote on Jan 4, 2008 11:33 PM:

" What a lame excuse by our representatives in Congress. It doesn't matter if the DEA takes a hard line or not. Congress writes the laws, the DEA follows them. If these three are that clueless about how this country is supposed to work then it's time for them to leave. But alas, they are only worried about their pensions instead. "

Will the U.S. Congress Accept the Responsibility? wrote on Jan 4, 2008 5:55 PM:

" The very first step to bring the D.E.A. under compliance with the Hemp situation is to contact your U.S. Congressmen. They decide what the D.E.A. can and cannot do. The buck stops with the U.S. Congress. They need to establish new guidelines that the D.E.A. is forced to act upon. Without the backing of our illustrious(?) Congress, there is nothing anyone, anywhere, can do to change these old archaic laws. That whole situation may take years to change the Congress minds. They are financially so much "in Bed" with Dupont, Dow Chemical and other chemical/synthetic goods companies that it probably will never happen. Just follow the money! "

Moot wrote on Jan 4, 2008 12:47 PM:

" I could see the points that NoDakr made if this issue were to even get that far, meaning GW's desk. Fact is, just as the article stated, the definition of hemp needs to be changed within the DEA first and foremost. Until this happens, this issue will go nowhere and so making statements about GW holding his ground on drugs I think is a bit premature at this time. "

NDr wrote on Jan 4, 2008 11:33 AM:

" GW Backers... You're probably somewhat right. I shouldn't just blame GW. It's more of a far right conservative thing than just him. Guess I just see him as the leader of the far rights. But..... I still would not like to see our congressmen wasting their time on this issue under GW. There is no doubt that he would never sign such a thing. We have problems that are WAY bigger than needing to grow hemp. I'd kind of prefer they work on our budget and trade deficits while we're still a viable country. "

AgreeWithChavez wrote on Jan 4, 2008 10:47 AM:

" Chavez, I could not have stated it better myself. Hemp legislation needs to be introduced by our representatives or they should support Ron Paul's proposed legislation. Until that happens they will no longer get my vote. They MUST represent North Dakota and North Dakota clearly showed that it supports Industrial Hemp. Win, lose or draw, hemp legislation must get to the house floor in order for this issue to be made public so it can be open for debate. Our representatives are not representing their constituents in this matter and unless they do they will have lost at least this one loyal democrat voter. "

to Hugo wrote on Jan 4, 2008 10:30 AM:

" you were doing fine, until your last sentence. Way to lose credibility. "

jetcity wrote on Jan 4, 2008 10:26 AM:

" To Nodakr, more blame for GW? That's ignorant. "

Chavez wrote on Jan 4, 2008 9:38 AM:

" Dorgan, Conrad, and Pomeroy would just as easily supported a measure like this when Clinton was President but failed to do so, apparently concerned about the political blowback on what some still foolishly think is a drug issue. As far as Judge Hovland's ruling is concerned, it was nothing less than judicial cowardice. His statement that it is best left to the legislative process belies a basic premise of what the courts are for: redress of grievences. The DEA, an out-of-control federal juggernaut with its own agenda, needs to be reigned in and the public needs to refuse to listen to DEA nonsense about it being a "war on drugs" issue. Here is another thing to consider: industrial hemp can be used for bio-fuels, too. At a time when corn prices are rising and food is getting more expensive as a result, why not use hemp for this purpose, as well? A previous poser rightly stated that George Bush would not sign this into law anyway--then again, can any of you think of a time when Bush didn't act foolishly? "

Nodakr wrote on Jan 4, 2008 8:53 AM:

" To push anything through at the Federal level right now is a waste of time. GW would NEVER sign such a thing. I'm sure Mr. Conrad & Mr. Dorgan are just waiting for new leadership in the presidency. Once that's done, then it's worth a try. But with how stubborn GW is I'm sure they are focusing their attention on more important matters than one that stands no chance at this time. I wish the hemp growers the best of luck. Our country's current policy in this area makes no sense. But I suppose it lets GW feel like he's holding his ground against drugs. "

Or You Can.... wrote on Jan 4, 2008 7:49 AM:

" Pull stakes and move your whole farm, family, bank deposits to a state that accepts the profits from this product. If you can get every farmer across the state to take interest, even half, you'll notice how uncle sam rears back and takes interest. Post info and contact number here, I'll help the fight! "

Post Your Own Comment
(optional)
   
All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
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.

Copyright © 2009 Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises.  -PRIVACY POLICY