Pubdate: Fri, 30 Nov 2007
Source: Minot Daily News (ND)
Copyright: 2007 Minot Daily News
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/17rJeGrw
Website: http://www.minotdailynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2888
Author: Marvin Baker
Referenced: the court ruling http://drugsense.org/url/22uxnbag
Cited: Vote Hemp http://www.votehemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/industrial+hemp

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." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake