Hemp

Court Rules Industrial Hemp is Still Marijuana

Opinion by NORML
(December 30, 2009) in Society / Drug Law

By Russ Belville

(
Courthouse News Service) – Two North Dakota farmers failed to convince the 8th Circuit that cannabis grown for industrial hemp is not technically marijuana and should not be regulated under federal law.

The court in St. Louis upheld dismissal of the farmers’ lawsuit seeking a declaration that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not apply to industrial-use cannabis.

The appeals court pointed out that the Act defines marijuana to include all cannabis plants, regardless of the THC concentration.

“The CSA likewise makes no distinction between cannabis grown for drug use and that grown for industrial use,” Judge Pasco Bowman wrote.

The three-judge panel rejected the notion that industrial hemp is not marijuana under the Act, or that Congress has no authority to regulate their state-sanctioned cultivation of cannabis.

Judge Bowman said Congress had a “rational basis” for regulating the cultivation of all cannabis plants in order to effectively regulate marijuana.

The “rational basis” here is that North Dakota farmers can’t grow tall, reedy hemp plants that could never ever get anyone high, because that will confuse the law enforcement officials who are working to eradicate short bushy cannabis plants that are grown to get people high. Somehow, in Australia, Canada, and China to name a few countries, police who are tasked with eradicating illegal cannabis in those countries that have legal hemp have no difficulty whatsoever distinguishing the two crops, but American police are just baffled by basic agriculture.

Silly as it sounds, that’s the court’s argument. We’d never be able to “effectively regulate marijuana” if farmers were growing hemp. Not that we’re actually “effectively regulating marijuana” now. Prohibition of marijuana is the absence of regulation — no regulations on who can buy it, who can sell it, where it can be sold, what age you must be to purchase it, where it can be used, what THC potency is allowed, whether the crop can be grown with certain pesticides and fertilizers, and what penalties should be leveled for failure to follow the regulations. Yes, there are laws against marijuana that makes all of those actions a crime, but by definition you can only regulate something that is legal.

Prohibition doesn’t make those actions go away, it just makes them crimes. Therefore, those actions are occurring in an unregulated manner. So how is it, again, that growing an industrial hemp plant is preventing the government from regulating something that prohibition made unregulated?

Thank You for your Comment

We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • lightning
    The Court should read the single treaty

    The overruling international law that applies to "Drugs" is the Single Convention on Narcotics 1961 (UN) The United States is a Signatory to this treaty and therefore must uphold it.

    It states VERY clearly in Article 1
    DEFINITIONS
    1. Except where otherwise expressly indicated or where the context otherwise requires, the following definitions shall apply throughout the Convention:
    b) “Cannabis” means the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops) from which the resin has not been extracted, by whatever name they may be designated.
    c) “Cannabis plant” means any plant of the genus Cannabis,
    d) “Cannabis resin” means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant.

    Article 28
    CONTROL OF CANNABIS
    1. If a Party permits the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of cannabis or cannabis resin, it shall apply thereto the system of controls as provided in article 23 respecting the control of the opium poppy.
    2. This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre and seed) or horticultural purposes.
    3. The Parties shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to prevent the misuse of, and illicit traffic in, the leaves of the cannabis plant. (ED Not the total prohibition)

    So Cannabis grown for Fibre and seed is not illegal at any time which is why many nations can grow it with out breaching the treaty. If you do not harvest the medically effective resin of the plant (in whatever form it takes) you breach no international law. As the Preamble to the same treaty states that

    The Parties,
    Concerned with the health and welfare of mankind,
    Recognising that the medical use of narcotic drugs continues to be indispensable for the relief of pain and suffering and that adequate provision MUST (emphasis added) be made to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs for such purposes,

    What part of that are the Governments and the Courts having a problem with? The word "must" maybe? Most 3 year olds know the meaning of that one or is it the word "Essential" that has them confused.
    If the Government fails to fulfil it's obligations under the treaty why is a citizen charged when doing so for themselves or others.
    Why does America (amongst many other countries) continue to BREAK international law?

    - lightningAU December 30, 2009 6:40PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • lightning
    Oops

    I meant to type "indispensable" rather than "essential" in that last paragraph.

    - lightningAU December 30, 2009 6:45PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Clay
    Effectivly regulate?

    I don't know how they can even use those words in connection with what our government is doing. The only thing they have accomplished in their war against their own citizens is spend their budgets,and if they were not a government bureaucracy,but in the private sector,they would be job hunting with their efficiency and ability to "regulate" marijuana . Because they can't even stop marijuana in their prison systems,much less on the streets.

    - ClayUS December 31, 2009 5:42AM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review some comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

See Related...