Industrial hemp is not marijuana. The people of North Dakota know it. According to an interview with Republican state representative David Monson of Osnabrook, conducted by Mari Kane and published in the 2002/2003 Hemp Report (published by VoteHemp.org), 80% of North Dakotans are in favor of industrial hemp production in North Dakota. Unfortunately, Congress and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) don’t seem to know the difference between the two crops.
North Dakota passed the nation’s first hemp legislation in 1997, commissioning research into the feasibility of hemp production in the state. After receiving the report, which according to a letter from NDSU to the DEA, “found that industrial hemp is a viable alternative rotation crop, and that cultivation of industrial hemp would create significant economic and business opportunities for the state’s farmers,” both houses voted in significant bipartisan majorities to go forward with plans to allow hemp production in North Dakota. Hemp was taken off the noxious weed list and declared a crop. NDSU was granted the right to pursue a license to grow hemp. Pursuant to the legislation NDSU is responsible for the “development and dissemination of technology important to the production and utilization of food, feed, fiber and fuel from crop and livestock enterprises.”
All this has been stalled by the DEA. The DEA is responsible for reviewing applications for growing hemp under the Controlled Substance Act, despite the fact that industrial hemp is non-psychoactive with less than .3% THC (the component of marijuana that makes you high). The DEA has ignored NDSU’s application for eight years. Representative Monson and Wayne Hauge have had applications ignored by the agency as well.
In April the North Dakota legislature passed a bill that eliminated the requirement to obtain a federal permit to grow hemp, but the Justice Department could still prosecute under the Controlled Substances Act. Monson and Hauge are suing the DEA for the right to grow hemp in accordance with North Dakota law.
According to one Associated Press story, the DEA’s legal argument is that “its policies can only be reviewed by an appeals court,” and that “federal law does not distinguish between industrial hemp and its cousin, marijuana.”
DEA spokesman Garrison Courtney says, “The law is the law. To get hemp you have to grow marijuana…that’s something Congress put together, and really, the beef should be with them and not us.”
This is the crux of the problem. We have a crop that was once a mainstay of American agriculture that is bred to be high in fibrous and woody material, seed production, oil and nutrition, with only negligible THC content controlled by the DEA instead of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and state departments of agriculture. The DEA’s objective, in regards to hemp, should be limited to the elimination of the production and consumption of the cousin crop, which is bred to be high in THC with large flowering tops and minimal characteristics of industrial hemp. The two are not the same.
So what could be the internal rationale of the people in Congress, the DEA and others in the Justice Department for obstructing hemp production in accordance with North Dakota law? Could it be that they believe that allowing states to determine hemp production is a back door way of legalizing marijuana, as many believe that medical marijuana legislation is? That may account for support from neo-hippies with flowerpots under their beds. Clearly, it is not the intention of the North Dakota legislature, NDSU or North Dakota’s farmers to legalize marijuana through hemp legislation. It is their intention to reclaim a crop that could bring economic benefits to the state.
Perhaps they think that marijuana growers will surreptitiously grow their cash crop interspersed with industrial hemp in hopes of avoiding detection of their illegal activities. This defies logic. Legal or not, marijuana growers are engaged in an agricultural business enterprise that demands sound production techniques if maximum profit is to be realized. Planting a crop that is bred to be one thing interspersed with a crop that was bred to have the opposite characteristics—and with which it is capable of interbreeding—would seem to spell financial suicide.
Maybe the agencies and Congress are subject to inertia and just don’t want to change policies, a poor argument for obstructing a state’s economic development plans in accordance with its own laws.
Or maybe they are in bed with competitive interest groups like oil companies, synthetics manufacturers, and logging companies. I don’t think the agencies would do something like that, but Congress—no they wouldn’t do that, would they? Maybe they’re just high.
To comment on this article visit www.FMBizJournal.com or contact Michael directly at mmelon15@hotmail.com.
Definition of Industrial Hemp
Hemp has a well-established meaning in the international community, referring to non-psychoactive cannabis varieties. Regulations in the European Union and Canada conservatively mandate less than .2% and .3% THC in the flowers, respectively. In contrast, marijuana varieties generally contain between 3% and 15% THC in their flowers. Because of their minimal THC content, flowers and leaves from hemp have absolutely no value as a psychoactive recreational drug.
Uses of Industrial Hemp
Industrial uses for hemp are varied. The entire plant is usable. The fibrous portion of the stalks is used to produce textiles used in the garment industry and other items like rope, twine, netting, canvas and carpeting. More technological uses include geo-textiles, bio-composites, and compression molding. Most European cars contain bio-composites containing hemp.
The woody portion of the stalks is used to produce building materials like insulation and fiberboard, industrial products like animal bedding, mulch and boiler fuel, and paper products, reducing the reliance on trees. Perhaps most importantly to North Dakota, the stalks can be used to produce ethanol.
The nut portion of the seeds is used to produce food products like bread, granola, cereal and protein powder as well as seed cake and protein rich flour. The oil pressed from the seeds is used for food products like salad oil, food supplements and margarine, as well as body care products like soap, shampoos and cosmetics. The oil can also be used for paints, solvents, lubricants and coatings.
Global Economic Impact
- food
- body care
- paper
- fuel
- paint & plastic
- textile fiber
- concrete & building supplies
- replacing wood for many products
- rotation crop and soil rejuvenator
- eliminates need for pesticides
Source: VoteHemp.org
No comments:
Post a Comment