Skip to main content

Hemp: North Dakota Becomes First State to Legalize Industrial Production

Submitted by Phillip Smith on (Issue #464)
Consequences of Prohibition
Drug War Issues
Politics & Advocacy

Industrial hemp production becomes legal under North Dakota state law as of January 1, making it the first US state to do so. But while the state Agriculture Department is ready to start handing out licenses next month, it cautions potential farmers that they can't actually begin growing hemp until they are licensed by the state and are approved by the federal government.

Given that the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) remains opposed to legalizing the production of the marijuana relative -- the two plants are different cultivars of the cannabis plant, one grown for its oils, seeds, and fibers and the other to get you high -- North Dakota wheat, beet, and soybean farmers probably shouldn't be thinking about switching over anytime soon. That despite the fact that their cousins on the other side of that line in the trackless prairie that marks the US-Canada border in the area are growing it like crazy, sending it across the border, where it can be processed and sold as hemp products, and taking their US dollar profits back home.

In several bills passed since 1999, the North Dakota legislature has approved industrial hemp cultivation. Last month, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem gave his approval to implementing rules crafted by the Agriculture Department, whose head, Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson, has been a leading proponent of the potential new cash crop. On Monday, the rules won final approval in the legislature.

"The administrative rules committee of the Legislative Council has reviewed the rules and has not recommended any changes," Commissioner Johnson said in a press release Monday. "After Jan. 1, 2007, North Dakotans will be able to apply for licenses to grow industrial hemp."

But he also warned that the feds remain an obstacle. "Our rules clearly state that persons who hold licenses to grow industrial hemp must also obtain permission from the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). It will be up to the DEA to allow producers to compete with other countries for the profits from this potentially valuable crop."

Under the North Dakota rules, producers must consent to a criminal background check and document the amount of harvested hemp sold. Their fields must be provided with geopositioning instruments to track their location, and planted hemp seed must contain less than 0.03% THC, the primary psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.

Johnson told the Associated Press he had no illusions of hempen hills in North Dakota anytime soon, but that he hoped to pressure the DEA to act. "We'll see where it goes," he said. "Hopefully, North Dakota will be the first state where producers can grow hemp for legitimate uses. Nobody has ever put something like this in front of the DEA," he said. "We want to make industrial hemp happen. We have put these rules together in such an airtight fashion that we know we are not going to have illicit drugs being grown in North Dakota," Johnson said.

The DEA doesn't care. Hemp contains traces of THC and thus falls under the purview of the Controlled Substances Act, DEA Washington spokesman Steve Robertson told the AP. "There is no differentiation between hemp and marijuana," Robertson said. "The regulations for hemp are the same as they are for marijuana." [Ed: Robertson of course is lying -- yes, lying -- the CSA clearly gives DEA the authority to grant hemp growing licenses.]

But perhaps some frustrated North Dakota farmer with a hemp license will take the agency to court. And then perhaps the US can join the list of civilized countries that allow hemp production, with North Dakota in the vanguard.

Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.


Anonymous (not verified)

Yeah... too bad the DEA will totally block this. Whatever happened to state's rights? Shouldn't states have the authority to regulate what can and cannot be grown within their border, despite federal approval or lack there-of?

Sat, 12/09/2006 - 12:33am Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

I applaud North Dakota's initiative, and encourage all to pay close attention to this issue as the court battles commence. As more of the individual states pass laws in defiance of federal restrictions, the courts will eventually be forced to deal with the issue of states rights. In this country, our "dictator" is not an individual, but a body of individuals who have long since lost touch with the citizens they serve. It is time to bring their attention back to reality, one state at a time.

Sat, 12/09/2006 - 11:45am Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

this is a valid reason to break the law, hemp helps the econamy. It's not like they are growing weed they are doing it for the good of the econamy.

Sun, 12/14/2008 - 5:59pm Permalink
Anonymous (not verified)

Apparently it not well known that states must comply with federal laws, statutes, etc, etc to ad infinity, if the state wishes to recieve Federal funding. Most if not all states rely on a huge portion of their budget from the Fed. Examples: Highway and Transportation, Schools, State Departments of Agriculture, Disaster Relief Funds to name a few. States have no real choice but to comply or have fed funding cut off.
Reality sucks doesn't it ?

Sat, 02/14/2009 - 6:22pm Permalink
Keith (not verified)

North Dakota reach down and pull up your big boy pants and tell the DEA you (North Dakota) have plenty of law enforcement to insure no drugs are produced as part of the hemp program. Take a look at your state constitution and the US Constitution as well, there is a 10th amendment there, use it for once would you please.

Sat, 09/19/2009 - 1:57pm Permalink
leader (not verified)

It's great that this kick off finally happened. however If nobody ever stands up and says, "It's a miricle plant not a drug" the dea will still have the power to stop this. their power of regulation lies over drugs, not plants like cannabis.

Fri, 04/09/2010 - 2:10pm Permalink

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.