R¡rncHrNc 'r'Frlil HNn o¡ Oun Rclpui? AN Apt'ttAIsAt, otr ll-tË, Mclvr¿r¿lrNT To Lnc*rt'zn Innus'rRlAl. HEvp
Michael D. Mober:ìy+ Charitie I"", Hattsig'l"r'
L BRct il. THÉ Hrs'r'oRy oF Hpvp Pnc;nuclloN . 10 A, Inclu.stri,aL Hernlt's Genesi.s 10 B. T'he Dr¡wnfa.ll o.f l)omestic Commercial Hemp 14 m, THu Upnoo'rINC clr INousTRIAL Hrri¿p I7 A, The Impact of Fecie.ra.l Drug Laws on Industrial Hem.p Prodwctiott , , 11 B. The Fe¿Ieral Cou.rts' Application oJ'th.e CSA to In,du,:;tria.l ' Hert¡; 1B IV. THr DEA's Rt.slsrANCË'r'o INnusrIuAL l-Irirr¿p Pnonucltox 22 V. Sr¡rlns' Lanc;nr.v-FnunLnss Et rottt's n'r Lnc;r\t-tzlNG INnusr-nrnr. Hnvrp PnonucltoN . 25 A, Stute LegisLa.tíon Ha,mstru.ng by the CSA 25 B. The Commerce CLause: A Roculbloclc trt State EJforts 28 VI. CoNcnus,s's HlstolttcAr-. Rnrus¿rl- r:o Lecat.,rzn lNnusl'tìtAL Hnvp Pnopuc't'roN . VII, Pnacrrcat- Onst:ncln.s 'ro RrivtrrtuzlNc l't-{H Arr¿nnlcaN Hnvp INpusl'Rv 34 A. Sr:ientific Aclvances Stymied hy th.e Fecleral llatt 34 B. An Uncertai,n Market 37 Vm. Concr-usroN . 39 ii: B.'ll,A,, J.l),, Llnivelsity ol iowa; Shareholder', Ryley, Callock & Applewhite, Phoettix, Arizona. *lr 13.4,, J,D., Alizona State Llnivcrsity; Associate, Ilyley, CaLlock & Applewhitc, Phocnix, Alizona. 2 ACCORD, A LECAI' JOURNAI' FOR PRACTITIONERS ["Vol. 3:1 L Bncrcc;ncluN¡> Hernp, known scien[il'ic¿tlly as cannabis sativa,l ìs an herbaceous plant2 related tn the rnulberr:y trcc,3 It is the natural souroo not only lbr the rccrea- tional (ancl sometìmes mediciri¿il)a psychoactive strcet clrugs popularly known | ,f¿¿ Unitccl Statcs v. Mool'e, 44(tF,Zd 448,450 (3cl CiiL. l97l)l Statc r,. Navato. 26P,zd 955,95() (Ulah 1933), The "L," oùc¿ìsionally a¡rpearing at thc end 01'the tet'm "cânftabìs ,Ìativa" Íelèl'.s to "the classification systeur througlr which plants have been idenfilied ancl distinguisbed," Unitcd States v. King,485 F.zd 353,361 (lOth C\r. 1913). Inclusio:r ol the leitcr "does not c¡Lralily the iclenlifìcation ol"cannabis sativa' in any way." Id,; see also N,H. Hemp Council, lnc, v. Malshall,203 F,3d 1,6 (lst Cir. 2000) (citations omitted) ("lSltLictly s¡reaking, 'cannatlis'is tlre genus and 'sal.iva' is thc species, and t.he "L," in the statutc simply lefers to fSwiss botanist Carll Línnaeus' sysfern ol' botanical classification."), 2 ,fe¿ Urritccl States v. Kayser, 322F,.Supp,52,53 n.l (S,D. Ca. 1970);Sirnpson v, State, 176 So.515,516 (Fla. 1937), I-lemp is also a diclecious plant, meaniug incliviclual plants ate usually (aìthoLrgh not invari¿tbly) either: male or f'emale. Sec Si.nrltson, 176 So, at 516; Susan Davicl Dwyer, Note, ?ï¿ Hemp Crtntt'ever,ty: Can.lnrlt.*tíul l{emlt Save Kentucky?,86 Kv, L.l, 1143, l146-41 (1998). Female hemp plants ale plellellcd fol thcir production ollmalijuana. See United States v. Iì.obinson, 35 F.3d 442, 44'7 (9th Cir. 1994); Unrteci States v, Proycct, 989 F,2cl 84, B'1 (2cf Cir, 1993), Convelsely, male lrlants have "the most commelcial utility fr¡'the pr'oduction of [industrial] hernp." l)ickerson v. State,4l4 So.2c1998,1004 (Ala. Crirn, App. 19B2), :l Se¿ Lucien J, l)hooge, Th.e North Am.erica¡t FreeTrctclc Agreemen.î and lle.mp; Anterica's War r¡n Drug,r Gets Nipped in tlte Rud,2t Wrs, IN'r"1. I-,,J. 65, 8.1 (2003); Tata Christine Brady, Cornrnont, "l'he Argument.lor the Leguli4ttion rl' Inclu:;trktl Ílemp, 13 S¡.N Joneull.¡ Ac;luc, L. llriv. 85,86 (2003);Iìobin L,ash, Comrnent,Ind.ul;titrl I:'lernp: The Crop,frtr ihe,SeventltGenera- tì (1999) ("Throughout histot'y, helnp was grcwn primarily f'or inclustrial uscs, although the narcotic stl'¿Ìins wr:fe âpp¿ìrently usecl as a ¡ropular ingreclient in urany meclical proclucts,"), 12 The lenn "indu.strial bemp" is used to distinguish hemp growll 'fìor non-dlug related com- lnercial uses lrom hcmp grown fol nso as a hallucinogen. Bracly, 3, at 86 ("It is ^See l'uprnnote important to uso the full ter:r 'inchrsttial henrp' . . , he cause of tlte confusìon with the term 'hornp', whichoommonlyrel'elslomarijuanaancltheissueofthelegalizatìonofmarijuana."). Inpruticu- lar, "ìndustt'ial hetnp" rel'el's to cannabis s¿liva plants "pfimarily gr:olvn as an agricultural crop (such as seecls ancl lìber, and b¡tproclucfs such as oil, scecl cake, hurds) and , , , lclw in THC (delta- 9 tetrahych:ocannabinol, marìjuana's prímary psychoactive cheniical)," IÙ,ixríin Jonnso¡r, Coruc, lìi,isrinrrcn Srltìv., RL32725, HII'¿r As AN Ac]nlcul,L't"¡r¡rr. Co¡¿n¿onrrv I QAß):,ree also Shep- lterd, s'upru note 9, a|24,0 (footnote omittecl) ("Inclustrial hemp' commonly rcfers to low-THC producing plants , , , that are fiiole clesirable fol their manufacturing potential and legitinrate busiucss uses than fbr thcir intoxicatirrg e1I'ects."), 13 Although the Sìngle Convention on Nnrcotic Drugs prohibíts the cultivation of hemp for' usc as a drug,.ç¿e JolrNsov,,ïLtprct note 12, a:14, lhe treaty does nclt prohibit the plarrf.'s cultiva- tion "exclusively fbrindustrial pul'poses (fìbLeand seecl) olliolticultural puqroses." Nat'1Olg. flor Itclbrrn of Marijuana Laws v. lnger:soll,497 F,2d 654,658 n.9 (D.C, Cir. 1974); see ol,ço M¿ìrty llergof fèn & lìogel Lee Clatk, Hern¡t a,s' an Allernati.ve to Wot¡cl F'iber i.n Oregon, I I J, Env'l.,, L, &l-.rrrc;. lt9, 130 (1996) (noting that "the Singlc Convsntion, . . explicitly exempfs inclustrial lrcrnp plocluclion ['rom legulation"); Dwyer, supru note 2, at 1164 ("[T.]hc treaty explicitly exempts inclustrÌal henr¡: from covsr'âge, saving the global hemp industry lì'om clemise."). t4 See J{)rrN,:-c)N, ,rr,tpr'ü. nclte 12, at 1 ("[M.lore than 30 nations [cumently.] grow inclustrialhcmp as irn agrir:ultural cromntodity which is sold c¡n thc wollcl rnalket."); cf. Bergclffen &. C)ark, su¡tru note 13, at 123 (f'ootnore omìtted) ("I)es¡rite tlrc plethora o1' antagonistic attention gnrnelecl by malijuana, hemp has survivod as a valuable cash crop ìn rnany re¿¿ions of the wollcl. , , . fF.lormer communist st¿rtcs such as l-lungaly, Polaud, ancl Uklaine have grown hcurp fol fibcr' ltrl yc¿ìrs, cicspitc climinalization for other usos,"), t5 See Herup Inclus. Ass'n v, DllA,333 F.3d 1082, l0B5 n.2 (9th Cir,2003) ("The inclustrial hernp plant. , . ru¿ìy rlot be grown in the Unitecf Stzrtes,"); State v, Wright,588 N,W,2cl 166, 169 n,2 (Minn. Ct, App, 198[ì) ("Incl¡stt'ial henrp ancl intclxicating mariiuana âre two rlistinct varietics ol the cannabis siltiva plant, Bolh nre cu¡'renily illegal to gl'ow in the United States ,"); lSergol'f'en & Clark, ,tupril note 13, at 120 ("['llhe oun'erìt legal regime jn the Unìtecl States pr:ohib- its plcrdr.rcLiou ol henp lbr any purp 17 As cliseussecl in more cletail in Part V, some st¿Lles have enâctcd legislafion purpolling to authorize thecul.tivation ol'inclustrial hcmp within thejr borderr$, ,ïee, e.g,, Monsotr v, DEA,522 F, Supp. 2cl 1 I 88, I l9l (D,N,l).200"1) ("ln 1999, the State ol'Nolth Dakota enactBd a law author- izing tlre cultivation ot'industtial hcmp , ,"), a;ff"d' 5tì9 F,'\d 952 (Btlt Cir, 2009). I{owever, othel statos niay have been detcrred 1Ìom doing so by a perception that any "pLo*herttp" state legislation woukl be ¡ueempted by contlaly f'ederal law. Shopherd, su¡sra note 9, a|247. l8 2l U,S.C. $$ S01-9M (2000, Thc CSA has been described äs "a nationaì el'lolt by Con- gless to aicl jn cor:r'ecting ancl conú:olling use of narcotics and other similar dcleterious sub- stances." United States v. Thom¿s, 294 A,zd 164, 165 n.] (D,C. 1972); see also Oregon v, Ashcrcrft, 192F. Supp, 2d 1077, 1080 (D, Or', 2002) ("The CSA ¡lr:ovìdes a comprehensivc fe cnltivation)24 without express authorization li:onr the l.eclelal DrLrg Enforcement Adminisfi:ati on ("I)E A"¡,zs Alth 24 See United ,St¿rtes v. Bemil-t, 392 F,3d B?3,879 (?th Cir. 2004) ("11'he clelinìtion ol'manulirc- tuting includes lhe 'plodLrction' ol'a suhstancc. 2l U,S,C, $ 802(1-5). Ploduction is in turn definecl as 'planting, cultivation, growing, ot'halvesting of a controlled substance.' 2l Ll.S.C. $ 802(22)."); United States v, Woocl,57 F.3d 913,919 (lOth Cil. 1995) ("[T.llre tem manuf¿rcture includcs the teun prodrrction, ,r¿e 2l U.S.C. $ 802(15), and the term prr:ducl.iolr, irr turn, includes cultivation aucl harvestilng, see id, \ 802(22)."). 25 See White PLume, 447 F,3d a| 1074 ("['l']hc CSA plohibits thc cultivation of matijuana withoutaDEAregistration ...i'); Monsonv, DEA,522F. Supp,2d tl88, 1192(D,N.D.2007) (f'LJndcl tho CSA, any per$on who seeks to manufactulc . a Schedulc .l controllecl substance must apply for ancl obtain a celtillicate of legistlatior fi'om Lhe Drug Enlorccmenl Agcncy [sic] , ,"), (í1"d,589 F,3cl 952 (Bth Cir. 2009). 26 See United Sfates v.'W¿rlton, 514F,2d201,202 (D,C, Cir'. 1975) ("[Tlhe'hallucinogcnic' ol euphot'ic efllects pt'oducetl by ftetlahydrocannibinol] lcd to tlie Congressional ban on , . . mali- iuana,"), See. generally Ringo v, Lornbardi,706 F, Sirpp.2d 952,961(W.D, Mo.20J0) (citation onlitted) ("The general pulpose of the CSA is to deal with drug abuse in a comprehensive fash- ion."); C)regon v, Ashclclft, 192F, Snpp,2d 1077, l0B0 (D. Or.2002) ("Congr?ss'oveLalching cortctln in enacting the CSA was thc problcm of drug abuse and illegal tlafl'icking in rlLugs."), clf d,368 F.3d 1l1B (9tli Cir',2004), a.l'f'd sub nonu Rai v, Oregon,546 U,S. 243 (2006); Unitecl States v. Cannabis Cùltivators Club,5 F, Supp, 2d l0Bó, 1097 (N,D, Cal, 1998) ("lWlherr Con- gress pirssecl the Controllecl Substanccs Act it wns primarily concclnecl with traditional I'or-prolìi drug u'alïicking, . .,"). ü fiee Monson r,, l)E¡\,589 F.3d 952.963 (Bth Ci1,2009); ,see qls'r¡ N,ll, LIcrnp Council, Inc. v, Marshall,203 F,3d al1,7 (lstCiL.2000) (notingthrìttheCSA's prohibition on thccultivatioll of rnali.juana "eutbraces ¡rlocluction ol cannabìs satìva plints legardlcss of use"); John Dwight lngranr, Medir:al U,re o.l'Marijvtctna, 33 Orr..,\. Cn'v U. L, llriv, 589, 593 (2009) (Íootnote onrittecl) ("1\4at'ijuana was placecl in Schedule I, As a result, it ìs illegal fìx anyonc to trrloclucc , , . m¿r.r'i' juatta lÌlr eury reâson."); ChListine A, Kolclsov, Cornrnent, Ëvctl,uctti.ttg the Public Inlere,yt: l?egula- rì.ort tf Intlu,rtrial Hernp Under the Ccsntrollccl Substance ,s Act, 57 UCLA I",. lluv, 23'l ,246 (2009) (l'oofnote ornittecl) ("flllernp, as a spccics of Cannat:is sativa L,, is a Schechrle I conlrollcci substancc,"). 28 ,Se.e Uniterl,States v, llobcrts,9l8F,?cl l7, lB n,l (lstCir'. 1992) ("['heCsAlcrirninalizes, inter ulin, the'manufacttrt:e'ol a'contlolled subslance,' , , . lC]r'owiug marijuana fzrlls sclualcly within tlris proscliption,"); Unitccl States v. Nolthrop,9'12|t, Surpp, 183, l84 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) ("The statute spccifically plohibits ths manul'actule ol'rrrûr:ihr.r¿ìna , , , ."); Llnitcd Statcs v. Plom- ises & Iìeal Plop, at 250I(r'eag Iìc1,, 139 t:. SLrp¡r, 120, 124 (W,D.N.Y. 1990) ("lt is , , , well cstablishecl that the plo.scli¡rtion of the 'nrant¡l¿tctutc' ol controllccl substanccs contailtcd in $ tÌ4I lof the CSAI crinrinalizcs the glowing of'tuat'ijuaua."); cll Llnitccl St¿ìtes v, Patlon,451 Iî,3c1 61.5, 621 (l1tlt CiL. 2006) Q'ef'crling to [he "colllprehottsivc b;ìrt on rnarijuana unciel thc Controllecl Substances Act"). 20r41 I,ECALTZE IN ÐU ST'RIAL H EM P 1 silìed as a Scheclule I controllcd substance sutiect to the CSA's most severe res[rictions on cultivation and production.?e As one commentatol explained: Thc C,SA classilies miuiju¿rna irr the first calegoly ol'sched- ules, placing it among (he most harrnful and clangcrous tlrugs, Another key classifìc¡rtion macle b5, the CSA regartling marijuana is its broad definition ol the ch'ug. , This el'l'ectivoly placed the entir:c r.rsc of' l"he hernp plant, whether fol drr-rg use or as industlial herntrl, squarely uncler the control of'the CSA.30 The Dh,A has consistently refusecl to authorize the cr-rltivation ol hemp:ll (or marijuarra),32 which it cleally has thc authority to clo ncrtwithstancling the plant's clrissjfication as a Schedule I controlled snbstance.33 As a result, ncl 2'9 See Whit:c Plume. 447 F,3d at 1 072 ("['Illie CSA . , , cliuiittaliz,ed the growing of' ntali juana whether it was intendcd fol inclustrial-use or clrug-use."); Flernp Indus, Àss'n v. DEA, 333 F.3d 1082, 1085 n,2 (9th Cir:. 2003) ("Thc industrial hem¡r plant itself, which Jàlls undel the ICSA's.ì defìnition of rnatijuan¿i may not be grown in the United States,"); Monson, 522 F, Supp, 2d at 1199 ("[Tlhe Control[ec'l Substances Act designates the Cannab.is sativa 1.,. plant, including rhat grown exclusively fol' industrial pur'poses, as a S'chedule I contlcllleci substance,"); Lash, søprn note 3, a:322 ("Under' [the CSA], tloth hernp, and its cousin marijuana, wcrc incluclecl as S<;hedule I substances, illcgal lo ploduce."), 30 Dnppong, supru note 8, a|411-lB (fbomotcs omitte 34 See Jor-rr.rsor.r, suprct note I2, at 13 ("No active feclelal licenses allow U,S, commel'cial cultivation at this time."); Sheplrer:d, sttprd noto 9, at 240 (f'ootrrote ornittecl) ("fl]ndustlitt honrp cânnot be legally gìrowll in the lJnitecl States trecause the D.E.A, refuses to grant fartrers ancl entrepiletieut's the r:equired permit, , . . which wor¡ld allow the licensse to 'rnanul'acture' a 'con- t*ollecl substance.' The D.E,A. has nevel' glanted these permits,"), :15 S'ec Kolosov, ,rupre tole 27, at 261 ("llecausc clomestic hemp farmers plantecl theil last crop in 1958, there was no one leÍr to lolrby Congr'ess or to clraw its attentiou 1o tlie industrial hemp issue whcn the CSA was enacted in 1970,"). [n l'act, Congress excluded flotn the CSA's. definition of madjuana the "stalk, 1ìtrer, stel'ilized seocl, ancl oil oll the industrial hemp plant, attd their clerivatives." Monson v. DEA, 522F. Supp,2d 1188, ll9l (D,N,D,2007) (discussirg 2l tl.S,C, $ 802(16)), d:Í''d.,589[t.3c1952 (Bth Cir, 2009). These exclusions "suggest th¿t it wâs not the intent of Congress nor the ob.iect of the lalv to prohibit commercial uscs of rtarijuana which are not ol a drug-related lrature," BelgotTen & Clalk, .tuprü note 1lJ, at 134. 36 SeeDhooge,su,pra.note3,at34:JJl'ady,.tupranotc3,at85; Duppon¡,supranoteS,at409, 432; Kolosov, supril note 27, at 256, 11 See Shephetcl, ,tq)ra notc 9, at 245 (lootnotc onittecl) ("411 o.l' this . . . i,s much to the chagrin of nrany American llarmers in search of a viable ¿rl.ternative crop wliìch bencfits the soil, provides a l:av/ mateliai in denlancl by various indusl"ries, and irnploves overall potenti.al iirconre."); c'f llelgoffen & Clark, su.prú notc 13, at 14Q ("FarmeL.s , , . in the Unitecl Statos atc e¿ìger to grow hem¡r,"). 38 See Lâwlence, suprur note 4, at 155 ("Fol clclse to 400 yezrrs-f'rou thc tiure ol' the f irst American hcnrp clop in l(:ll near Jarrest{rwn, Virginia thlttugh l"he luln ol'the twontioth-cen- tury-lnarijuana (then knou,n as hemp) lvas grown in ¡\rneric¿r fÌrr its fibel conteut."); CatLrryn L, IJlaine, Note, ó'ryremc Ct¡u.r( ".lus[ S'ay,t No" to Metlicr¡l Ìulctrijuatm: A l.,ook al Ulútecl States v, Oakland Cannabis lluyets' Coopelative, 39 Ikrus. [-, IÙ;v. 1195, I196 (2002) ("ln thc United Stntes, tire cultivntion . , , o1'lreurp fol' various rcsources can be tl'acecl back a¡rproxìmately lbttt: lrurrclt'ecl years."); Brady, sltpro. nole 3, at 8-5 ("lndLrsh'ial lremp as a cash crop in the Utrited States has a hi.stoly as old as 1he tJnited States itself."); I( the rnatler.5o Part VII highlights technological and economic challenges that industrial hernp supporters 1'ace,51 The authors ultirnately conclucle fhat thc debate over legalized domestie production of inclustrial hernp should not be detemecl by the application of the CSA-a law that was never intendecl to pro- hibit the conrmercial crop ín the first place, Rather, rnarket tbrces should rosolve the controversy.s2 il. Turi HrsroRy op Hsvp Pnouucrro¡r A. Inclustrial. Hentp',s' Genes'is' The homp plant is native to Central Asia,-ss where its first recordod cultiva- tion as a commercial crop appears to have occumed in China scveral millenuia ago,-54 From there, tlre plant n:igrated to the Midclle H,ast and oilrer parts of 'Western Asia, and ultìmately f'ound its way to Europe,ss where it w¿rs grown pr:imarily as a fbod product and fbr making rope, pãpor, ancl other fiber proclucts,s6 50 See infra notes 192-204 and accompanying tcxt. 51 Se.e inrt'n noles 205-228 and acconrpanying text. 52 Sce infra. notes 229-24:2 and acconipanying tcxt, 53 ,S'e(. Llnited States v, Honneus, -508 Iì,2d 566,515 n.8 (lst CLr. 1914) (noting that the bota- nist who gave hemp its scientific cl¿tssification identified India as the plant's "countLy of'origìn"), cli,s'ttpprovecl on othet' gr 56 See Sûn¡t,yott, 176 So, at 5l(r ("Ttt the niicldle ages hemp (C sativa) was cultivatccl in some Wüstcl'n Eulopt:au countt'ics fbl the scecl wlrich wet'e used fbl fbocl."); Dhooge, .rupru rrote 3, at 83 ("As an agricultulal sta¡ile in llulope by the sixLeentlt ccntury, hemp was cultivatcci lbr liber ancl its soecl rvas cookecl r.vitlr barley anci ofhel'grains I'ot'hurnan consum¡:tion,"); 'Iheding;et,,tltpr(r LEGAI ;IZE IND USTRIAL HEMP ll Alth-ough infroduced in North Arnerica not long after the Columtrus expe- ditionssz (ant1 perhaps mnch eeulier),58 henrp did not becoure a pal^ticulaLly sig- 'Worlcl nificant colrìnlercitrl crop in the New until lelatively lato in thc American colonial periocl,se when it was glown primar:ìly fbr Lrse in maúing rope,60 can- vas ship sails;6r ancl other lïbel products.62 'While its initial rols ín the Ameri- can colonies may havc becn nrodest,63 the hemp plant ultirnately playecl an auspicions part in American colclnial and revolutionary history,64 Among other note30, a:424 ("MoolishSpaincre.atccl the{'ilstWesternpÂperulìl1 in ll.50A.D.nsinghemp,"). During thc Midclle Ages, hcmp also w¿ts gÍorvn in Eulope "loL valious meclical purposes, inolucl- ing tleatment ol'bulns, eíìraches, ancl ulccrs." Michael Vitiello, Prr¡pr¡sit:ion 215: D¿ Ii'aclo Legalir,athn of Pot a.n.d, the Sh.ortcomi.n.g,r qf Di.re.ct l)emoc:rucy, 3l U, Mtcu, J,L. l{r'ir<.lrv 707, 749 n.241 (1998), 57 See Lisa Sco:t, The PLeasure Principle: A Criticctl, Examination of Ìîederal, Schedul.in,g of Conlru¡|.[,erl Sub,ttance,t,29 Sw. U. L. I(riv, 447,478 (2000) ("It was plantccl as early as 1611, in Jamestown, Virginia, and American colonists pliuralily wot'e clothjng lhat contained hemp liber by 1630,")l Duppong, sryranote 8, a|404 ("Industrialhcrnp weis intloclucccl to America sometinte aloun things, hernp provided the paper on which the Declaratiou of Inclependence ancl two early dr¿rlts of the American Constitution were wril"l"en,6s Sevelal pr:otni- nent Founding Fathel:s glew and promoted the plant,66 including Gcolgc Wash- ington,67 Thomas Jelferson,68 and Benjamin Franklin.6e Indeecl, Washiugton's exporis,"); Thedinger, ,tupro. notc 30, at 425-26 ("During the lìevcllutioniu'y War, heutp lincns kept solcliels fi'om free.zing to cleatli at Valley Folge, and Amcrica's sl.Longest battleship-the U,S.S, Constitution-can'ied sixly tons of hcmpen lope ancl sail."). See gen.eralþ Mattheu, I1. Tìhcin- gans, Note, Impa.ct r¿f the T'obacco Sett:l,entent on Ketúuclty: Is Induslrial. Hentp n ViabLe ALternu- tit,e JI¡r th.e Cunmr¡nv,ealth?,14 J, N¡,l, Ilnsourr¡-:ris & Eruv'r'r., L, 115, 133 (1998-99) ("l"Ierrip cultivation has a stolìed histoly in Amedca , ."), 65 $¿¿ Seeley v. State, 940 P.zd 604,627 n.l0 (Wash, 1991) (Sanclers, J., ciissenting) ("Tihe oliginal Declaration of lndependence (Ju1y 4,1776) was wtil.ten on hemp as was Tliom¿ts Paine's Cotnntl¡n. Sente." (cil"ing ,l¡cr ll::l well-known instruc[ion to his Mount Verncln garclener to "[m]ake the most ol' hetnir seecl and sow it everywhere" is often citecl try those lavoring the legaliza- tion of inclustrial hemp today,7o In acltlition, the first American flag, which according to tracJitir-¡n was designed arrcl sewu by Philaclelphia seatnstl-ess Betsy Iloss at Washirtgton's behest,Tr nray have been made ol labric clerivecl iì.o¡r the henrp planÍ.,]2 Hemp o llí.g Brother Is Watthin.g: Tlte lleal.it¡, ,lhoy, Yt¡u. Didn't Auclitktn l;'or, 63 Orcl.¿. L. lìnv. 46 , 4g4 n'202 (201 l) ("Hemp wûs an agricultulal cl'op n[ Mount Vemon, the honre ol'Geolgc Washington, and on the fal'urs of Thomas Jel'l'elson and Benjamin Flanklin."); I3r,acly. ¡uptct ¡otc 3, at [ì8 (,,In 1791, Benjanrin Franklin publjshecl what is thought to be the lirst eye¡ atricle on inclust¡ial lrerrip to appear in an Atnelican rnagazine,"); Lash, supra. note 3, at 315 ("lSenjarnin Þi.anklin, l"clun B. The Downlal,l ot'Domestic Commercicil Hem,p Hemp production in the Urrjted States gradually began to decline in the latter part of the nineteenth century,T8 largely as the result of technological advances that made the produclion of ccltton ancl other competing crops lnore profitable^?e Nevertheless, the clonestic production 8i 5'e¿ Ky. lìiver Mills v,.lâckson,206F.2d lll, 113 (6th Cir, l9-53) (discussing "put'chases fof he.mp] by the govel'nrnent duling the war' pet'iod"); Coe v, Commonwealth, 340 S,E,2d 820, 822 (Ya. I9iì6) (quoting testimon¡, 1u ,t," ollect th¿rt "in Wodcl Wat II, ntarìjuana was gt'own for ¡rroduction of hemp" in thc "atc¿ì sul'r'ounding South Bend Indiana"); Balditrg,,euprfl" note 11, af 1465 ("Thrnughoutt the early twentieth century, the United States Depa(merrt 8.5 Se¿ Duppclng, ,yq)ra note 8, at 406 (footnote ouritted) ("Another reÍìson f'or the decline of thc American hcmp inclustly was clue to the increased anti-ch'ug sentinrents . . . . The publi<: pelception linkecl the inclustlial uses of hemp with the intoxicating uses of urariiuatia , ."); Kcrlosov, .vtprranate27,ar.239 ("[T]he oarnpaign againstmârijuana. , , rcsultccl in brcacl rcstric- tiorrs crn all varietjes of the plaut."); lìlreingans, suprtt nole 64, :¿t 717-18 (noting that the ânti-clrúg movement "began in the 1930's and markecl the l-teginning of hemp's deslínc attd eventual disap- pcarance in th:is oountry"), Sce generally Dwyer, su¡tranote2, al-716-5 (roting that "hern¡r is as much a target of thc war on drugs as madjuana"), t|6 $¿¿, a,g., I)wyer,,tLq)r(L note 2, at l[57-58: ("Some protaganists of inclustlial hemp have portrayed . . . [the] battle against marijuana as inclucling a conspiracy to undcl'mìne hemp ploduc- tion as well."); lìuth C. Ster'n & J, Helbic DiFonzo, The Dnd o..f tlrc llecl Queen',s ]lnce: MediccLl Morijuana, in the New Ce nutry,27 QurirNtu¡c L, Rr,tv. 673, 762 (2009) ("[P]resenting [hentp] as a rernalkably uselul procluct invitcs speculation about thc wis il. Tr¡n UpnoorING op lrunusrRlAl, HEvp A, The Impact ctf FederaL Drug I'a.ws on In.dttstrirtl Hemp Prod.ucl'ktn, In retrospcct, fhe cleath knell l'or American hernp procluction nìay have souncled with the enactmerrt of the Malihu¿rna Tax Act ol' 1937,e5 which recluirec'l all henrp prclducers to register with the Trcasury l)epartment and pay App, l9S7) (Van l-Ioomissen, J., dissenting) (noling that "illegal tnari.juattzt i;s lepolteclly OLegon's learling cash orop"), rev'd, on other g,roLut¿\s,766 P.2d 1015 (Or. 1988). See g,etv:rctlly lìobet't L, Ailington h,, Note, Big Broth.er Meel,s Pnndora: [Iow U.S. v, Kylla MaS, Undttrrnine the I]ct,¡ic Consti¡u¡i¿;nctt. Conceltt,r qf PrivacSt Wit:hin tlæ l-lome,45 How. L.J. 117,179 (2001) (footnote ornitted) ("The national rralket f'or illegal mari.juana is extremcly lucrativô. The Drug Enlix'cc- nrenr Agency lsicl estimates that 5,200 Dretric. tons of dorlestically cultivated marijuana, with a valuc estimatecl betwsen four ancl twenty-four billion clollars, enterri the matket annually,"), ez See l-ímbaclr v, I-Iooven & Allison C<¡., 466 LI.S, 353, 3-5,5 (1984) (noting that hernp is "rlt)t grown in the Unitecl States ancl nrust be irnpoltecl"); Dwyer, sLq)ra rotc2, al1151 ("Sittce hemp is not gl'own domestically, the one mill in the [Jnited States that produces lcolnpositc] boards [frorn henrpl rnust irnpolt its raw uratelials tiom overseas,"); Kolosov, supra n B, Tlte Federal Courts' AppLication of the CSA to Indu'striaL llemp The Fir-st Circuit examined the CSA's impact on hemp ploduction in N¿N/ Hampshir-e Hemp Cout"tcil, Ittc. v. Mørshall,ro3 Tlìe plaintilf, in this c¿ìse, was a farner ancl state legislator who co-sponsored a b,ill to legalize indusu'ial hemp e6 See Ca$t¿u1o r,, Unitecl states, 425F,2c1t331, 1335 (5th Cir, 1970); Iìodliguez r'' State,49-5 S,V/,2c1 952,955 (Tex, Crim.. App. 1973); Jot"rN.soN, sr,qtra note 12' al" I2. e'7 See Ulritecl States v, Walclen,411 F,2d 1109, l1l3 (4flì Cir. 1969); U:ritecl States v. Kuclt, 288 I'ì, Supp, 439, 447 (D.D.C. 1968). 98 See Uniterl States v, Sanchez,340 LJ,S, 42,44 (19-50) (cliscussing "the congt'essional pur- in marihuanÍì to acceptecl indr¡stlial ancl medìcitral channels"); Kolosov, pose'supre of restricting t¡atfic t\ofe Z7 , ttt 259 ("It is clenr fi'om the congressional recolcl that the legislature never intenclccl Rheingans, srrT-irzt the lMar.ihuana Tax Actl to prohibit legitinratc procluction of industlial hemp,"); note 64, at I l9 ("|'Tlhe l93l Act wâs nevcr intended to lran the plocluctìon of industrial hemp , ,t'), 99 See, e,g., Dup¡ro,¡,fl,st,tpt'ct note 8, ttt412 (notìng that "hemp was grown successfully in the soutlreaster¡ po¡tion oJ Nol'[h Dakota in thc 1940s , , ."); see:. also Lash,, suyrd Itote 3, ttt 32l ("Although piocluction of hcrnp was sparso ìn thc late thirtics an lQ4 (ee i.d. at 3, TIte state. l¿rw the plaintilT sought to modily wils "closignec1, in specilying which drugs ale controllecl, to mirtol the lècleral listings," Ic[. at 4. 105 ó'ei id. at.3 ("Althor.rgh [tlieplaintifï's] bill was. . ,l'ecommcuclecl fcrlpassagoby l.a.l house coilrnrittee, it was defb,ated on a lelatively olosc vote (175 ra 164) in the ttll hcluse ,"), 106 See itl, at 4 (noting that "the DEA urgecl its own reacling o1'thc fcderal st¿rttrtg on the New I:Iampshir:e legislature to defbat, as fnriflcss, fthc plaintilT'sl eflbrt to legalize 'inclustrial hemp' procf rrr:ticln undcr sfate law"), ,See g,enernlly Theclingerl su,pt'ü note 30, at 431-38 ("'fhe DEA's supprcssion of hcmp includes incidences ol'the ngency's involvement in state-level campai.gns f'ol the legalization o1'hernp, The DEA has stcpped in ancl effectively uscd 'scär'e tactics' 1o cliscour- age .statc legislatures l'ronr passing rcasonable legislation."), 107 Se e N,H. Hentp Courrcì|,,203 l't.3d at 3, The plaintiff was .ioinecl in tho suit by rlre Ncw Hanrpshile llernp Council, "an oLgrìrriz.ation suppolting the legalization ol'hemp cultivation," ,S¿¿¿ r¿l,so Kol t12 See Cockrell v. Shelby Cnty. Sch, Dist., 270 lr.3d 1036, 1042 (6th Cir. 2001) ("Unlike marijuana, the industl'ial hemp plant is only comprised o1' betweett 0,I and 0,4 pelcent 'IIHC, an insull'icienf amount to have any narcotic effect,"); N.17. Ilemp Coum:i|,203 Ir.3d at 6 ("[P]lants produced l'or ìnclustlial procÌuots contain vely little of'the psyohoactive substance fHC,?); Monson v, DEA, 522F, Supp. 2d I l88, l19l (ì).N,D.7001) ("The inclustdal henrp planL, . . hâs been bred to a low concentLatiot.r ol' . , , tetlahydr:ocannabjnol or THC."), l1ff'd, 589 F,3cI 952 (8th Cirr 2009), tt'J See N.IJ. flem¡t Cctuncì|., 203 F.3d at 3 (noting thât "TI-IC (a shorthancl reference to tetlahydrocannabirrol) lisl the irigledient that gives marijuana its psyclroactive or cuphoric proper- tíes"); Mutson,522F. Supp. 2c1 at 1191 ("TI-IC is the compound that causes the 'high' associated with the recleational use of the stleet dlug rnari.juana,"); ì3allanco, .rupranote 4l, at 1166 ("TIìC is , , . .f'ouncl in the resiu secletecl by the plant, and it is this ingreclient that gives tnar:ijuana its psychoactìve plopeltieo^."); I3r'ady, supra 3, at 86 ("TI-IC is the conrpound that procluces a nalcotic effect which makes rnat'ijuana illegal,"). l4 See N,fL Hemp Cor,utc:il,203 F,3d a[ 6 ("lt rnay be th¿ìt íìt sot]le stagc the plant clcstined loL inclustrial products is uscless 1o supply enough THC Jbl'¡.rsychoactive efÌ'ects,"); cf United States v. Whire Plume, 447 11.3d 1061,1072 (8th Cir, 2006) (discussing tlle contention th¿rt "hemp ìs distìnguìshed frorn malijuana because it contains virtually no TI-IC, making iu ìncapable of havitig a high potential lbt abnse"), trs See N,IL l-lem¡t Cowtt:il.,203 F.3d at 6 ("[O]n a literal rcacling of the sL¿ttuto, the fbempì plant. , , is within [he statute's ban, . , , lN]othing in lthe plaintil'l"s] cornplaint or ¿ìrguments warLants a uan'ower reacling, nol'have sonrcwh¿rt similar argLllïonts persuaclucl tlte sevelal other' cìrcLlits in which thoy haver been advanced, in ätLcrìlpts to cafve out vitt'i<¡us exceptions f'ol' callna- bis sativa plants with low THC levels."). tt6 Id.; see tils'o Monson v, DEA, -589 tr.3d 952,961 (8th Cir,2009) ("'lhe CSA. . . makes tro clistinctlon betweon cannabi.s grown lor clrug use ancl that grown lbt ìncluslt'ial uso,"), tt't g¿¿ Unitecl States v. Sanapaw, 366 Ir,3d 492, 495 (7th Cir, 2þ04) ("l.l]n the Contîolle(l Sullstance Act oll 1970 , . , C)ongress clefincd rrarijuana to include 'all pat'ts of the plant Cannabis satìva 1,.,'Lathel'than'al1 species ol urat'ijuana containing teü'¿ìhydfocantrabincll,"'(citing 21 tl.S,C. $ S02( l6))); I-loward v, Statc, 431 S.li.2d 420, 423 n, I (Va. Ct. App. I 993) (notitìg th¿tt tlìe CSA's "clefinition ol'marijuatrn , , . tuakes no refil'etrce to 'I'l"lC ctttttcrtt"). ttB ,See N,ll, I"lernp Comu:i|.,203 F.3cl at 6 ("1''l'he plaintill-l's olvu complainIconcecles that the inclustlial ploclucts at issue are pt'clcluced f'rom plants ol'the 's¡)ecries' c¿innabis sativa . , , , [Hisl own oxpert achritted at the pleliminary-l'eIie1' hearin¡r that the plant froru which lhe inclusü'ial proclucts arc clet'ivecl is cannabis sativa"'). ll9 ,\'¿,¿ irL. at7 (citations ornittctl) ("ln 1970 Cbngless aclo¡rtccl thc Conl"r¡llecl SLrbstances Act, ¡e¡tealing the 1937 tâx sl¿ìtlìte, but câtlying lbrwald its del'inition oT rnilrijr;ana into tltc prcsenl" cr.inrinal ban on procluction. . .")l White Plurn.e,441 F.3cl at 1071 ("[Tlhe rlefinition o['m¿ìt'i- 20t41 LI]GALIT-U, I N DU STRIAL H EM P z1 rvhich ¡rulposely did not plohibit the cultivation clf inclusu'ial hemp.tttt Although several commentators have aclvancecl this argutlent,l2r Congress's did not attempt to protect industrial hem¡r ploduction using the 1937 Act's cleli- ((sçvs1ed nition of marijuanà,\22 which (like its counterparl in the CSA)r23 aìl cannabis sativa plants whethcr intcnded fbr industrìal use or drug procluc- tion,"l2a Inst.ead industlial hemlr was pro(ected hy a cornplex rcgistlation anc'l taxat.ion schenre that "treat[edl inclustrial-use ancl ch:ug-use marijuana dil'fcr'- ently by la,ring them at clilTererlt r¿rte.s, 1 970 Act."); Shcphelcl, ,\'u.prct. trotè 9, ut256 ("The clelinition of rnarijuana is identical in both Acts and there was no cliscussjon duriug the pa.ssage of the CSA about modifying ol expanding the clefinition to adch'ess incÌustrial hem¡1. . . , 1'hese actions inrply that indristrial hemp is not coverecl by tlre Clontrolìed Substances Act ol' 1970,"). t22 Sac Ballanco, s'uprcL trote 41, at 1167 (footnote omittecl) ("Tl:lC was onìy identifiecl as thc ac[ivc ingledient ìn mal'i.jr:ana irt 19'74, so classification based on psychoactive contcnt wâs l]ot ¡:ossiblewl'tenCaruta/:I,çwasfil'sLlcgulatedinthel930s,"), ßutsee Dwycr,su.pranote2,atl165 ("['l'hel failuile to clisl"inguish betwecn the two clo¡rs is inconsistent with congressional intent. as seen in the legislative Ìristoly to tJrc Mal'i.huana Tax Act, where the cuú'ontdelinition. . , was fìr'st nsecl."). 123 Sûe,srlP,'./. lotes l16-ll'1 and accompanying text. t2;t ¡¡,¡7.HernpCouttcil.,203F.3tlat7;seeulsoUniterlStatesv.Moore,330F,Supp.684,686 (E.D, Pa, 1970) ("An examin¿rtion ol thc legislative history of fhe Fecleral mal'ihuana statutes rcvcals thi.rt Congress intendecl to inclucle all valietjes ol mal'ihuana or Cannabis within the statu- tory defirriti<>t't;'),nff'cl,446F,Zcl448 (3d CiL, 1971)r Cassady v. Wheeler,224N.W.Zcl649,653 (Iora,a 1974) ("I{caring lecorcls, comrnittee repol'ts, ancl debate show Cougless tleatod cannabis sativ¿r ¿'rs a synonym fol marijuana or henrp and any othcr name try which the cann¿bis ¡:lant nright be callecl in cnacLing the 1937 mari.iuana tax statute."); Ilracly, ,ru¡tralHete 3, at 88 ("The l.l937l Actdidnotciil'l'elentiatethediflclcnttypcsofC,sativa,noldiclilevenlel'eltolevelsof THC, It wâs this act that leci to the current law today that also does not diflerentiate the different types of C, sativa or levels of THC."), r25 [J¡i1sçl States v. White Plume, 441F.3d 106],l071 (8th Ci1.2006), In palticular', tlie 1937 act required that all pr:rsons prorlucing, sclìing or using tlic heni¡r plant legisiel with the TleasLtt'y Depaltltrent, and subjccted theln to a modest annu¿rl occupational tax, S'ee. Gouzalos r,, Raich, -545 LJ.S. l, l1 (2005); N.l-1, Hemp Cttun.r:i|.,20311,3d at 7; Castano v, United States, 425F.2d 1331, 13'34-35 (8ttl CiL, 11970). T'ho act im¡rosed a rnuch higher tax on transfbls of any potentially hirllucìnogenic pcl'tions o1'the plant to ¿u-ryonc whci had nof rcgislclecl with thc Tt'easury Depatt- 22 ACCORD, A LEGAL JOURNAL FOR PRACTIT'IONERS [Vol, 3:1 the 1 931 Act was abandoncd in 1910 in f avol of the CSA's broad criminal ban on the production ol hemp regar:dless of its intended use,l2{t ¡hs coùr[ upheld the trial couL['s determination that the CSA prohibits hemp cultivation "even il growr solely f'or the prorJuction of industrial p.roclLlcts."tez Q¡þe¡ l'edt:ral courts havc reached the same eonclusion.l28 IV. TnB D,EAls RusrslANCH ro .IN.pusrRIAL HF,Mp PnonucrloN Under a delegation li'om the United States Attolney Genoral, the f)EA h¿ts thc statutory authority to rescheduls any controlled substance,l2e Any inter- ested palty can initiate tllis process by submitting a rescheduling petition to the DEA.r30 Ç6ur1s generally hold that, short clf persuading Congress to amencl oL merit (pr:esumabìy fhose intending to nse the plant fol illicit drrrg-related pulposes). See N,l{. Ilentp CounciL,203 F,3d at1;Lynn v'. lVest, 134 F,3d 582,59|1 (4th Cir, 1gq8), Conversely, "no tax was applied io transfers of the mature stalk ol' the ¡llant¡ which is useful only lbl industli¿rl uso,"' N.H, Ile.mp Council,2A3 fiSd at 7 (emphasis omittecl); see al,ro Ca,r,rady,224 N,W.2d ar 653 ("|'Llegislative histoly l'eveals tlrat the major definitional enrphasis w¿ls on exchicling lì:om the tax those portions of the cannabis plant which werc harmless and had industlial use."), 126 See N.11. Hem¡t Couttcil,203 F.3d atl; cf, White Plunte,447 F.3d at 1071 ("lwlhile the clel.ilition of 'nrari.juan¿r' in the modern CSA was canied forward frou'i the M¿rrihuana Tax Act ol' 1937 (Tax Act), which the CSA replacecl, the Tax Act's practical e1l1'ect of exclucling inclustlial- uso portions of the plant liom regulation by not taxing thetn, was not carriecl lbrwztrcl."), 127 N.lL llerryt Cr¡unciL,203 F,3ð at 4, 8; cf. f)wyer, sE)ra nate 2, at 11ó4 (lbotnotc omittecl) ("The 1970 Acf retained the defìnitiori of nrarijuana used in the Madhuana Tax Act, , , , but clism¿rntled lh<: taxatiou and rcgistlation schemc of the Mat'ihuana Tax Act [hnt provided henrp f¿urners the means to oxempl themselves 1'rom maliiuana's hxation, The 1970 Act cx¡llicitl.y made all cultivation and sale oll malijuana illegal, effbctively outlarving itidustrial hemp along thc rvny by rcmoving rcgistration proceclules."), 128 $¡'p,e,¡i,,WhitePLunrc,447 l:.3c1at1072("WhtlnConglesspassedtheCSA,itadoptedthe I'ax Act's clefinition of natijuana veltratim, IJut since the CSA abancloned th t'31 S('e. Wltit:e Plunte,447 F,3cl at [072 ("The language of thc CSA unarnbiguously bans the glowing of n-rarijuana, r'egarclless of its usc, ancl , , , we find no evirJencc that Congress intended othclwise, , , , lT.lhe pt'oper venue lbr amendirlg ¿Ì statute is, of coulse, the cluly electecJ lcgislatule, equipped as it is to make those policy clecisìons,"); United States v, Monroe, 408 F, Supp, 270, 274 (N,Ð, Cal, 1976) ("[T]he substances initially listecl by Congress on thc sobeclules that it pro- vided are to rernain oontrolled sutrstartces until they are expl'essly t'ernovecl florn the schedules ...,"),aff"d,552f;.Zd860 (9thCil. 1977); llergolfen &.Clark, supre uote 13, at 140 ("Cougless always has rhe authorÌry to arrcncl ol repcal thc ICSA'I or any palt of it,"), t32 Se(, r:.5'., Pearson v. McC¿fû:ey, 139 F, Supp.2d ll3, 1-25 O,D,C, 2001) (rbserving that challcnge.s to CSA scheduling classifications nlust be taken "to the appropriate lbrum--:to thc DEA, the ag<:ncy responsible fbr schccluling controllecl substances, oL Congress"); cf, I(r:umm v. Holclor, No, CIV 08-1056 JB/WDS,2009 WL 1563381, at s9 (D.N,M, May 27,2009) ("Courts would be in ¿r posìtion to greatly undermine the CSA il they couìd , , , m¿ke or second-gusss the schecluling decisions that Conglcss has ohalged to the Attclrney Genelal, ancl that the Attolncy Genelal has plopclly dclegatecl to thc DEA,"); Unitecl ,St¿rtcs v. Gael'tner,519 F, Supp,585,594 (13.D, Wis, 1981) ("[Tlhe proper methcld to argue l'or reclassification of [a controllecl substance] is through a petition to the Attorney General fsic]."), t33 See Nat'l Org, :lbr llel'orm of Malijuana Laws v, DEA, 559 F,2d735,737 (D.C, Cit', 1917) ("The contlol urechanisms intposed on manufacture , . , of substances listetl uncler the Act vary accorcling to the schedule in which the dlLrg ìs contained,")i Mnnson v, Dß4, 522F, Supp. 2d 1188, ll92 (D,N,D.2007) ("The resfr'íctions thc CSA places on the manufactule , . , of a con- tlolled substance clepcnd upon the 'schcdulc' in which the drug has been placed,"), r¡T'd,589 F.3d 952 (Bth Cir,2009); United States v, llovey, 6'74F. Supp. 161,163 (D. Del. 1987) ("The CSA establjshecl live schedules of oo¡ttlolled substilnces, witlr pr:ohibitions , . , varying accolding to the schedule in which a parLiculal substance was placecl,"). 134 See Alliance for Cannabis'fher:apeutics v, DEA, 1.5 F,3d 11131, 1.133 (D,Cl, CiL, J994) ("Malijuana is assigned by statutc to Schedule I, the rnost testr:ictive of lthe schedules]."); Nat'L Org fltr Reft¡nn of Marijuan¿ ktuts, .5.59 F.2d ¡t 731 (l'ootnote ornítted) ("ln dralting Lhe CSA Congress placecl marjliuana in Schedule l, the classifioation that plovides lbr fhe mosl severc controls ancl ¡lenalties,"). ll5 5'¿¿ Shepher:cl, sullt¿ì rlote 9, at 256 ("fT]he govelning lroclies in chalge o1'scheduling c|'ugs l this possibility,t3T prcsumably due partly to a wiclesprcad perception that any such eff'ort wor"rlcl be futile,138 ln this regard, the DË,4 also h¿rs authority (again, clelegated to it by thc Attorney Gcneral)r3e tcl ¿rirthor'ìztl inclivicluals "to grow a conllolled substance in certain oircumstallce.s, particularly when the prohibited sulrst¿urce has a legit- imate use."l4O However, the DEA has repeatedly refused to autholize hemp procluction,lar In large pa.rt, this is duc to [he prol'essecl concern that permitting hemp cultivation, even lbr: legitimate indr"rstrial purposes,l42 wcluld underlnitre the CSA's objective of'eradicating illegal clrug f.ral'ficking.l't: Giveri its persis- t37 Sea Rhcingans, suprct n V. Srntr,s' LRncnl.v-Fnunlnss Er.rlron'rs A'r' Lsc;,,Ll.rzrNc lxnusrn tRr. Htiul, Pnonurc'r'lll A, State Legislation Hamstrung by t:he CSA Thtl f'tlw sllccesses lhe hemp legalizati<)n moveÍlent has experienced have all ccrme at the state legislative level.t4'7 In this regard, a handlul of state legis- latures have enacterJ laws purporting to authorize industrìal henp cultiva- tion,l48 and several others have considerecl, but nctt en¿rctecl .similar atfelnpt to enhance the TI-IC levcls in hemp to produce nrari.iuana,"); cf, Clonrrnonwealth v. Hancl. son, l4 S,W.3d 541,54'/ (I(y. 2000) (discLrssing cxpert tcstimony to the cflect that "there woulcl be serious difficultjes tbr law enl'crcenrent in controlling marijunn¿r tlalfìcking if hernp rveÍe le.galized"), t44 See Duppong, swra nole B, at 403 (rroting that "the Unitecl Statcs govemmenl has retused to allow the procluction of inclustrial hemp, due to the classificatic¡n of industrial hcnrp as mari- juana rrnder the I'eclelal Controllecl Substances Act (CSA)."); id. at 430 (rliscussing "the l)EA's rcfusal to grflnl- industrial hemp licenses"); ¿f Shepheld, ,tu¡sra note 9, at 245 ("[Tlhe cul[ivation of hemp in Amelica is technically illegal, since úre D.E,A. would an'est iìnyonc wlro tliccl to plant hem¡r seecls havirtg even a negligible amount of THC,"). i4.5 Jt is not entiloJy cleal'tha{ lescheduling hemp would leacl to its widcsllread cultivation, because "[a.]nyone who rnanul'actures ánJ, colltirollt:d substance ulust, to avoid cclnvictior-r f'ol jlle- gal manufacturc, obtain an ånnual registration." United States v. McWillianls, l3B F, Ap¡t'x 1,2 (9th CiL,2005) (citing 2l U,S.C. $ 822(aXl)), Tho Nirtl.r Cilcuit, lbr cxanrple, rejected an incli- vidual's contention that rnirrijuana is not pr:operly classified as a SchecJule I sulrstancc, in palt because it was not clear th¿rt "the diffelertt requiLements f''ol rnauulhcturing Schedule I dlugs , , , and Sclredule lll,IV and V clrugs , . , woulci have alÍectecl his regi,stration application," ld. at2-3. 146 Sc¿, Duppong, suprct note 8, at 43I ("Given the repcatecl rcfisals to gl'ant pernrits , . , it seorrs highly unlikeìy thäl thc DEA woulcl change its position."); I Snritll,,tupre note 23, at I l613 ("Morc lesearch nrust be c Perhaps thc easiest way to legalize industrial hemp is to sub- mjt'a bill to a state's legislalure that would amend the defini- tion ol mariiuana, as used in the criniinal statutes oL that sta[e, to exclnde indr.rstrial hemp ancl provide lbr monitoring of its glowth, This would aìlow thc cultivaLion of industrial hemp whilo still permitting [he state to have ample control over its procluctiott.l sl The fallacy of this ¿issulnption is illustrated by Nolth l)akota's experi- encers2 as the first state to enact legislation purporting to authorize industrial hemp cultivation within its bolders.rs3 The Court of'Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in Monson v, Drug Enforcement Adm,i.nìs'tratiotl.tsa addressed the t4e g¿¿,e.g.,N.H. I{empCounoil, Inc,v,Marshall,203F.3ct t,3(lstClir'.2000)(discussínga bìll introctuced in the New l-lam¡rshirc k:gislatLrt'e "to legalize and I'egulate the cillúivatlon of 'inclustrial lrenr¡rf]"' ttrat "was clcfeatecl t-¡n a relatively clclse vote"); Bracly, ,tLryr(l n}tc 3, ttt 90 (footnote omittecl) ("llr 1995 one politician in Colot'aclo intl'oclucecllegislation allowing for ìndtts- trial hemp cultivation but it was clef'eatecl, The Jolìowitìg ytlôl', Colot'ado along rvithf.] Missout:i, Hawaii, ancl Vermont, ploposerl similar legislation which, although clefealed, garnerecl significa:rt suppor.t."); sm al,tp I(olosov, .tu[)t'ct note2l, ¿tl-247 ("lT]wcnty-eiglit states have considet'ecl some type 9l ìegislation libemlìzing theil laws regzrt'cling industrial hemp; liftce¡ have enacted such legislation, ancl eight ol. thosc 'have remr¡vecl bat't'iels to its ploduction ol t'ese¿ttch."' (quoting Vote Hemp, lrttp://www,r'otehemp,com/state.httnl (last vìsited June 7, 2009))), 150 g¿¿, e,g,, lllacly, sLq)ril note 3, at 8-5-86 ("Calilbrnia should pass legíslation legalizing the growing 9ll ìnclustrial hemp allowing ic to becomc an econonrically viable orop in Calil'br:rrìa,"); see rtl,yr¡ Dwyel, sLtprct note 2, at I 164-65 ("Wilh the fècleral stl'Ltcture of lioensing plocedules author:ity l.establishecl by the lt¡Iatjhuana'fax Acl.J itow lsrrovocl, the states would seem to have the t9 rcgulale the cuttivatiOn ancl plocessing clf inclustrial hcmp attcl eticcluragc Íhc tenaìssance ol'fhe industry il they so clesit'e."). l51 Rhciltgírns,supr(L ntite 64, at 126; c/. Ilallancol.!ìupra note 41, at l113-74 ("[N.lo f'ecleral law ol.autliolity shoukl prevent lirmers , , , lì'ortt taising lcgitirnate inclustrial hemp ct'ops,"). l5? Fot.a prior examinal.ion of the Nolth Dakclta cxpet'iettce, scc ì)ttp¡tong,,\vPt'Q note 8 passint. How$\,sl,, Mr. Duppong's alticle was publishecl beible the Eighth Cit'cttit's important decisi impact cll Ïrlorth Dakota's industrial hemp statute that distinguishes lretween varieties ol'the hemp plant based on THC concentration levels,1-55 The Nofth Dakota slatr"lte lequircd any person seeking a sfate license to grow inclustrial hem¡r to also obtain the 1'ederal rogistraûion necessary to gltow nrarijr:ana under t'hô CSA.r-s6 However, the North l)akota Commissir:ner ol Agriculturc petitioned the DEA to waive the Í'ecleral registration requirerneuf fbl lar"mers seeking to glow industr:ial henp as cfelinecl ancl regulatecl by tlre stale statule,1s7 in elJ'ect asking the lederal agency "to lbrego all rcgulation of' marijuana that nreets North l)akofa's del'inition of industrial hernp."'r58 The DEA denied the Commissioner's reqnest.l5e The agency explained that waiving the I'edelal registr:ation requir:emeut lbl those ar¡thorizecl to gr.ow industr:ial hemp unclet'state law would constitute an abclication ol its obligation [o ¿rdminister and enlbrce tlìe CSA.160 The DEA ¿ilso cantionecl the Commis- sioner that cultivating inclustrial hemp without the registration required by the l'55 1¡" statuie delänes inclustl'ial hemp as canna[ris containi.ng "no lïrol'e than threc-tenths of onc percent" THc, Monl;on,5B9 F,3d at95i (quoting N.D, cnn.r, conr; ss 4-41-01). This is a cornmon standatd, See, e.g,., V'l'. S't'n't'. Anr.r, tit.6, $ 562(3) (2013) ("'Inclustrial hemp'nìeûns vatieties of the plattt cannabis sativa having no mo1'e than 0.3 pclcent teLr.ahydrocannabinol , . . ,"); see also Ilallanco, supru uote 4 1 , at 1 166 ("ln ordcl l'ol Ccunahi,r plants to be classil'ie d as [ildus- triall hernp under Eut'opr:an Econornic Courrnunity standarcls, which have been pro¡:osecl in l(en- tucky and Colorado, tlte plants rnust contain no lnot'e than0.3o/o THC,"); Murphy, srryra note,58, aLll0 n,32 ("Althouglt the United States has not. , . authorizecl tlie cultivatìon ol'inclustli¿l helrp, jts lal bill to allow its productioir , set THC content at'0.3 percett' or less, 'on a ch'y weight Lrasis."'(quoling Inclustr:ial Hem¡r Fìalming Act o1; 2009, Il.R. 1866, 11l.th Cong. $ 2(ll) iZOOq)1, ts6 Sce Mon,ron,589 F.3rl at 95'1. This r:equilement uncloubtedly rcfJeoted the legislature,s o'cloes t'ecognition fhat thc legalization ol' industrial honrp as a nâttel' of state law nol change its .status as a Schedule I contr:ollecl substance uncler f'ederal law," Monsoll v. DF,A, S22 F, Supp. 2cl 1188, 1200(D'N'D,2007),nff't|,589 F.3d952(BthCiL.2009). 'llheNorthDakot¿rsrarurcwasnot unic¡ue in this regat'cl. Çl V'r. S'r¡'t', AN¡r. lit. 6, $ 561 (2013) ("The jntcnt CSA would tre a violation of f'ecleral law,]6l r"cgardless ol whether or not the growcr was authorized to engage in that activity as a matte.r of stal.e l¿rw.162 Upon being appr:isecl ol the DEA's position, the North Dakota legislature amencled the state stalute t B. The Com.nxerce Clcu,t,s'e: A Roadblctck to State Efforts The plaintilß in Monson arguecl th¿rt becau.se the North Dakota statute allows onl¡z those portions o1' the hemp plant Congress excludecl lrorn the CSA's dcfinition of mariiuana to "leavo a l'armer's property ancl enter intorstate commt:rce,"t6e industrial hemp cultivation done in accordance with the state statnte wourld constitute "purely intrasfate activity"t.70 that is not subject to f.'ec1- l6l The cdtivation of marijuana witliout a foderal l'egisÍration is punishable as a felony uncler' the CSA. S'ae United States v, Ange1, 576 F.3d 318,321 n,2 (6th Cir'. 2009); Masters v, Schiltgen, 28 F. App'x 712,714 (9fh Cir,2002). 'lhus; "anyone cultivating marijuana or hemp without [a DEA registt'ation is.l subject to criminal plosecutiolr.¡' Lluitecl States v. White Plunre, 447 F,3cl 1061, 1069 (8th Cir. 2006). 1(12 See Monson,589 F',3d at 958, t63 S,ee id, ,"tI 95j , 959, )(t4 5¿s Monson v, DEA, 522F. srrpp, 2d 1 188, I194 (D.N.D .2007), ctffcl, 589 F,3cl 952 (8th Cit, 2009). Tlhe Dl:iA refuscd a reqLre.sl to cxpcctite consideration of the plairrtitß' t'eclelal registla- tion applications, citing its statr"rtory and legulatory obligation to investigate their backgrouncls ancl inspect their ploclr"rction fhcilities, See Mon.sort.,589 F,3d tt957. I6s Se e Mon,sott,589 F.3d ¿rL 95l. t6{i Sce Ìl4on.son'522F. Supp.2tl at ll91 ("Theplaintiffs, . . have an economic neecl to [regin cultivation oJlindustrial hemp, and apparently stanclready to clo sc¡ buf. ar:e unwilling to lisk foclclal plosecution . . . fbr: lnanufacture or sale ol'¿r contlollcd substance,"). t67 $ç¿ Mot'ts'on.,589 F.3d at 955-57. t68 Sie¿ ùl at 960 (noting that the plaintill's wcle seeking "a decjalation that the CSA [c'licl'ì nclt apply to thcit' ¡rlanned cultivation ol'inclustdal hernp unclcr North L)akota st¿rte law ancl that, ¿ls ¿r lesull., they [cou1d n oral regulatiolt,lTl However', the court rejected this argument, fincling thal" the o'to plaintif'lis' inlent, grow caunabis ou ä lar'ge scalc fbr the undeniably commcr- cial purpose o1' generating products fbr sale il interstate cotîmercs"l7? try¿c sullicierrt to enable Congress to r:egulate that activity. rT:ì This conclusion is consisteutwith the analysis in other cases,114 ãrd w¿is all but compellecl by the Supremc Court's decision in Gonz,aLes v. Raiclt,l75 on which tltc Mr¡nson court relied.lT6 ï.n Gctn.zal"es, the Supreme Cour:t held that as long ¿rs there is a rational basis lor concluding that marijuana proclr.rctinn could subsfantially alfect interstate cornltlerce-specilìcally, Congress's "interost in climinating collìmercial trans* actions in the jnterstate market in their entirety"lTT-Cclrrgress h¿ts the constitn- tir:nal authority to regulaLe lhat production under the Commerce fl¿uca.l78 Tho Monsoru court in turn held that in the case of inclustdal hemp cultivation, t7t See Ít1., at 964 (internal quotation marks omitfcd) ("lPlaintil.lsl contencl that because Con- gless chose to e.xclude certain components of the Cannabjs safiva L. plant lionl tlre CSA's dofini- tion of marijuana, Congt'ess cannot constitntionalty legu!at-e irltrflstate state-regulated and Iicensed activity that results ouly in putting those unregulatecl oornponents into ¡ntet'stâte comnlsl'ce."), 172 Id, at963-64, Thp coult noted that otre oÍ fhe plaintifïs intenclsd to grow "utr) to 100 acres of industt'ial henrp from which he planned to supply other North l)akota 1'atnlers wìth socds," and [lie othel plaintifÏ "obtained a stflte license to plant up lo ten acles witli 300 pounds of inclusl¡:ial seeds irr orcler fo procluce c¡vet 2.4 million indust"rial hemp pJants," lcl, at964 n,5, 173 $¿¿ id, at 965 ("[.AJny âttempf by [ilre plaintil'l'sl to clraw clistinctions between Cann¿bis sativa L, varieties for purposes of Conrmelce Clause analysis ìgnores the indisputabJe fact thaf. they scek to engage ìn a comrlrercial entelprjse tbat will rcsLrlt in tbe intl:oduction of goods into jntet'state conlmerce, . . . ltslecause cultivation of Cannabis sativa I-, sLlbstarrtially alll'ects the interstate tnarket fbr commodities such as the fiber, sced ancl oil of the plant, Congress may rcgulate that cultivation."), t74 S(e, e,.q,, Unitecl States v. Visman, 919 Ir,2d i390, 1393 (9th Cir, 1990) ("Congress nra¡, colistitutionally regulate intlastate . . . cultivatíon of marijuana plnnts fìlund rootecl in tho soil"); cf Duppong, ,\iupt'd note 8, at 414 (footnote ornitted) ("Congless has the autliority to regulate any econonric activities that substantially affect interstatB colTrniercs. , . , The prcduction and distrÌbu- tion of inclusfrial lienrp is cluintessentially fsuch] an econornic activity, as the purpose of its growth is to sell its bigoclucts thloughout the cor.uìtr:y ancl thc world, placing it squar:oly uncler thc control of Congrcss thlough the Cornmerce Clause,"), 17.5 Ç6¡7¿les v. Iìaich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). t76 $¿e Mon,lon.,589 F,3d at963-64 (t'irrcling thc plilintil'lis' "atterîpts tr-r clistinguislt ll.aich . , . trnpersuasive"). For â thoughtfìrl ¿rcaclemic. cliscus.sion of Gottz,ule,r, see Steven K. Balmaû, Con,s'ti.- ties Llndcr lhe Contmerce Clnu,s'e,41 Tul.sn L, Rr.v, 12-5 (2005), 171 Ççn7611,es, 545 U.S, at 19, t78 $'¿¿id,¿tt22, Thsclistrictcourtin Monv¡n asselteclthattheanalysis inGon.zctle.ç "disposes o1'lhe . , . algullrcnt that the Contlcllled Substanccs Act carìlìof tre interprcted, consistent with the Columerce Clause, to reach the, , . intl'¿tstíÌtc cultivation ancl processing of marijuarrzì." Monson v, DF.A, 522 F. Supp, 2cl 1lBB, 1200-01 (D.N.D, 2001), eJI'd, 5Bg F.3d 952 (8rh Cir, 2009); cl'. GorL7,al.es,545 U,S, at 22 ("[W]e have no dilficulty conchtding tha[ Colgl'ess hacl a latiolal basis lbr believing that failuLe to legulatc the intrast.lte nranul'actute . , . of nrarijuana woulcl leave a gaping hole in the CSA."). 30 ACCORD, A LEGAL" JOURNAI' FOR PRACTITIONERS fVol. 3:1 the standarcl articulated in Gonzales is satisl'ied by the DË,4's need to irrevent the "unlawlul diversion of controllecl substance""lTe-¡ft¿¡t is, to guard against the o'relnclval o1'the material clut ol'the industrial hemp procluction stt'eam and jnto the llow o1'drug tralficking."rBo Rccause the I'ecleral government uoe:cl no[ def'er to tlre states' eflbrts tc¡ adclress this concern,lst the Monsr¡n çourt held that Congress properly vestecl the DEA, rathelthan the North Dakota legislature or an administrative agency of that state, with the authority to r"egulate industrial hemp cultivation within the state,IB2 119 Monson,589 F.3cl at964 c'f United States v. Lepp, No. Cll 04-00317 MHP,2008 WL 3843283, at * I I (N,D, Cal, Aug, 14, 2008) C'This inteÍest-clisallowirtg the clivelsion of Scheclule I contlolled substancss away fi'om ¡:et'nrissiblc , . . uses-is a oornpelling governmental intetest,"), cr[f'r|,446Ii. App'x 44 (9th Cir. 2011), cert tlen,i.e¿L, 132 S. Ct.790 (2011). 180 Bo1'gofl:en & Clark, supra nofe 13, at 138 t't,13'/, One commentatol has obset'r,ecl that the neecl to prevent unlawful cliversion is the "DEA's primary Íìrglìment against hernp cultivâtion." Kolosirv, ,s'r,tprtt. note 27 , at 249. The agency clairns that such cultivation "woulcl intensify covelt ploduction of m,ari.iuana nnd complicate the I)EA's enft)t'cement activities." Id. at 24t1-5Q; rJ. N,lì, Hemp Ccluncil, Inc, v. Malsliall, 203 F.3tl I , 6 (1.,¡t Cir, 2000) ("p'lrobleuis of detection ancl enforcenrent easily ìustity a ban bloader than the psychoactive variety of the plant."); L)uppottg, ,ruprqnote 8, at 430 ("[C]oults have justified the DEA's l'efusal to grantindustrial hemp licenses largely because of the detection and enfbrccment problems of gr:owing industlial hemp,"). 18t Sec Mon,son,,589 F,3d at 964 ("lSltate restlictions on malijuana possession ancl cultivation 'cannet selve Lo place fthosel activities beyoncl congrcssional rcach,"' (quoting Ganz,ales, 545 IJ,S. at 29)); Kolosov, st,tprü nolo 2J, at 268 (acknowledging "the DEA's argumelìt that it, rather than the St¿rt"e <¡f North Dakota, has the exclusive duty to pl'otect against cliversion of contrclllecl substances into illcgal channcls"); cf Krumm v. Flolcler. Ntl, CIV 08-1056 ,IB/WDS, 2009 WL 1563381, at *9 (D.N.M . May 21,2009) ("The CSA does not conternpJate 1ft41" stafe legislatut'es' clefclrninations abcluI the trse of a oonlr'<¡lle Ln reaching this result, rhe Mon,ro¡r. couLl fÌllJowecl the Filst Circuit's rea- soning in N¿w Ha,nlpsh,ire Hern¡t Council tt. Mctrsh,aLl,lt:t as well as tlte Íeason* ing of' Unitecl States v, White PLum.e,l8a anothel'c¿rsc involving indusl"rial hemp crrlriv¿rtion in which the Eighth Circuit hacl lollowecl ^V¿w Hatnpshi,re Hem¡t Cgu,nci[,.r8s The courts in all three oT these cases hcld that hernp grown solely lbr industrial purposes is ncveilthcless "rrrarijuerna" rvíthin thc meaning ol'the CSA,r86 ¿ttd thus subjr;ct to regulation by tlìc DEA.r87 Because no court has disagreecl witlr the analysis in these cases?rBti and Congress has shown little inclination to amcnd the CSA in respcinse [o thern,l8e courts consideling the issue in future cases ale unlikely to depart liom the view that it is unlawfirl to cultivate jndustlial hcmp without thc DEA's authoriza- tion.leo As the leclcral appellate oourt that deoiclecl New Hantpshire Hetn¡t r83 N,fl, I{ernp Council v, Marshall,203 F,3d I (1st Cir, 2000); :;eesupra. notes 103-128 and acconrpanying tcxt. New Hcunpsh.ire Henl¡t Council difl'etecl frc¡tn Mon,son, lrowever, becanse in rthe Ilentp Council case, unlike in Mon,son, "no state law autliorizing the cultivation ol industrial henrp was in effect." Mon.,son, 5ZZ F, Supp, 2d at 1195, 184 [J¡i1sfl States v, Whitc Plume, 447 F:3t] 1061,107l-12 (ïth Cir,2006). 18s See id, White Pl.ume involved the ìmpact ol'a tr:ibal ordinance authoriz.ing the cultivalion of .industria[ hemp on the Pine Ridge Inclian lìeservatior"t,,see i,d, at 1069, which prornpted the district court,in Mr¡nsott to conclude that the two cases were "identical in all lelevant Lespeots." Monson, 522 F. Supp. 2d at 1199, Fcil a critical exaurination of the Eighth Circuit's analysis in lUhite Pl.mrrc, see Murphy ) sapra. note 58 ¡stt,s'l;i.nt., r86 S¿¿ Mon,son,589 F.3d at962 ("[T]hc Di.strict Court, , , propelly conclucleci thaL inclustrial lremp , , . is rnarijuana llor purposes ol'the CSA."); White PLu.me, 441 F.3d at 1013 (noting that "the CSA does not clisringuish lre[ween nralijuana ancl heinp in its legulation"); N.H, Ijlenrp Cclun- cil, Inc. v, M¿ilshall,203 F,3d 1,4 (lst Cir'. 2000) (citation ornittecl) (affilning clistrict cour't's detelrnination that "the f'ederal statutot'y definition of mali.juana, inclucles cannnbis sâtiva plants even if grown solely for fhc ptocluction ol'industlial products"), 18'Ì Sec Mon,.tot't, 589 F.3d at 961-62 (cliscussing White Plume ancl N¿ry Ham¡t,s'ltire llerup Council). l88 S'ee Monsott,522F. Supp, 2d at 1199 ("The lederal coults that have consideled this issue agree that Cannabis plânts gl'owl1 f'or jndustrial ¡rulposes , . , ärc 'rnarijuûna' wìtliin the meaning of the Contlolled Sullstanccs 4c1."); JouNSON, suprú note 12, at 17 ("[E]vely f'ederal court tliathas addlessecl the issue has lulecl that any persorì who seeks to grow any form ol'marijuana (rro matter' the THC contenl ol the purpose for which it is grown) nrust clbtain a DtrA rcgistration." (cproting D.E,A., DEA IJr.s'r<)ììy rN f)nr.,rn: 2003-20()8, at lJ6, a.vctil.abl.e at http.llwww,justice,govldea/ ¿tbout/lristory12003-2008,pdl)); Kolosov, ,tkpru nofe27, at24B ("Parties in North Dakota and otlrer' states have , . , algu[edl that lhomp] is not nrarijuana ancl thus not subject to legulation tuder the CSA; at pLesent, they l1¿u. been unif'olmly unsuccessful."). 189 See Bracly, ,vlprû note 3, at 108 ("Thcte has uot ltcen any challonge to change the CSA itsell."), One commenlÍrtol otrsel'vecl that federal courts "havù hintcd that congressional Iegisla- ticrn would help r:esolve the inclustrial henip issuc," I)uppong, ,\'upra note B, 431 (citittg lt4on- ,ron, 522lt, Supp. 2cJ at 1202), ^t t90 See Unitecl States v, Sanapaw, 366 F.3d 492, 495 (7th Cir. 2004) ("C)ongress's thilty-year' acquiescenco to a clef inition of mali.juana that ìnclucles all Cannabis , . . indicates that the courLs have prcpeily inl"erpleted the Act,")l llr,ay,,;u¡tra note 107, ttL1294 ("Oncc the legal plctccss has culnrinated in a jur:iclically bivalent resull. about r,vhethel industlial herrp is 'rrarijuana,' lhe srrne 32 ACCORD, A LEGAL JOURNAL FOR PRACT-ITIO¡IfRS l.vol. 3:1 Coulci] explainetl in ¿in earlier case: "Ono of the principles ol statrltory inter- pretation is that a 'settlecl construction of an important federal statute should not be clisturbed unless ¿rncl until Congress so decicles.' "le1 VI, CoNcnrss's HlsroRicAl Rt*'usan ro Lncx'tz¡'' In¡pusrntel. HBvlp Pnotr ucl'rloN As the lbregoing cliscussicln illustrates, the d.e facto 1'ederal plohibiticln ol' clomestio inrfustrial hemp cultivation effectively preempts nìore permissive state l¿ryotoz anrJ pr:events larmers lÌ:om growing indu,strial hemp, even in those srates that have altemptecl to legalize that activity.re3 This situation is Lrnlikely to change unless anrt until Congress arnencls the CSA to permit industrial hernp cultivation as a mattel of f'eclera) law,lea result will likely be reachecl ti¡r' the other: cases that are r:elevantly ìdentical, rogarclless of the parties involved, . , . We woulcl rìot expect v¿rrianse fi'otn cass to case as to whethel industrial ñemp is 'marìjuana' uncler a tbclelal crirninal statute,"); l)wyer, .sLtprfl noto2, at I lé6 n.158 ("[A.l couri might find that Congress's itraction since 1970, while the DRA has pursucc1 its cufl'snt appt'oach to ìnclustrjal hemp, inrplies authorization tht'ough zrcquiesccnce."), l9l fi¿ft lron Wolks Corp, v. Dir',, Offìce of Vy'orkels' Comp, Progtatns, 136 F,3d 34,42 (l:st CiL. 1998) (quoting Reves v, Emst. & Yor.rng,494 U.S. 56,74 (1990) (Stevens, J,, concurring)); 5ee al,:;o United States v, Kelly, 1.05 F. Supp. 2d 1107 , I I I 5 (S.D. Cal. 2000) ("The only rational intefpt:etation of congressional iclleness ln the f¿rce of voluminous preccclont that it has the powel' t The 195 See Duppong, '\'tq)r(t note 8, ¡t 425 ("'fhe collective. ef'f'olts by tlie statcs have resultecl in tlie intlocluctjolr ctf congressional legislation aimecJ at petmitting the cultivation ol inclusf¡ial hetnp in c;f Atnet'icat,"); Cockrel v, Shelby Cnty. Sch, Dist,,270 F.3d 1036, l05l (6th Cir.2001) lnoiing thaI orstwhìle plcsiclential candidalc llalph Nncler "spoke out ìn fhvo¡of the lcgalization of inclLrs- tlial hcrnp ancl ol'thc benefits it would have for smail 1ànrìly fhrmcr.s"). 196 Sc( Kolosclv, supre note 27 , at 256 (noting that the DEA "claims that thc true goal of' those endeavorittg to legalize inclustrial hemp is to clecliniinalize high-THC rnadjuana,'); Shephclcl, ,tuPrnnole9, ú241 ("The D,L,.A. claims that all eflbrts to legalize inclustr.ìal henlp al:e no tnol.s tlran a rLrse by rnalijuana advocates . ,"); cf poole, ,)lq)ra noLc 15, at 209-09 (,,[s_lome woulcl at'gue that legalizing iriclt¡strial l-rertip is ju,st one step in the over:¿rll cam¡raign to legalize the clrug variety of mal'i.iuana,"). But,sr:c llheingilns,tupra note 64, at 133 ("[T]he cle-climinalizatio.r of, hemp is r¡orc thau ¿r nìere l:use to plornote illicit mar.ijuana use,"). 1e7 g¿¿ FLì{, 1.931, t l2th Cong. (2011), 1e8 ,5'e¿ Monson v, DEA, 522 F, Supp. 2cl 1 188, 1202 (D,N.D. 2007) ("Thc unclersignecl is ¿lwâre of recent effolts in Congress to exclucle inclustlial hernp florn the ¿efinitjon clf ,mar:ijuana, as clelìnecl ulrcleL the Corltl'ollecl Subst¿urces Act,.") (cliscussing Iilclustr:inl Hemp Farming Act ol 2007, H.lì, 1009, l lOtli cong, (.2007)), a,[j'd,5Bc) F,3d gsz (grh Cir, 2009); Dup¡rong, su¡trcr. note B, at 43I ("f'l'lJre Industrial I {ernp Farming Aot , . , woulcl clearly exempt inciustri¿rl liemp from the csA,"), 199 Jc:nru,sclN,,supra notc l2, al1;lve crlso Duppong, supra 1rcte 8, at 427 (fbotnotes onrit¡ecl) ("The lndLtstrial l-lemp Farrning Act would . , , allow inclividual states to cletelïrine whethel,plants growll 1br indust.rial henp lreef the oclncentlRt"ioll linlitation set folth jli the Act, This woukj presuntably shift the responsibility fbl classilying inclustrial homp fi'om the DEA to thc sfate[sl , . , ancl allorv . , . fàrmers to grow inclustlial hcmp."); K Vn Pn¿.c'ncal Ossr,q.cl-Es ro lìevnALIZING THE Avtnntc¿¡l Hnvp lNI>usrlrv A, Sc.::ientifi.r: Adt ances Stynúecl by the Federal ßnn. Those hoping to revitaliz,e Lhe American hemp inclustry face signilicant economic and logistical challenges even if domestic inclusffial hemp producticln is legalizeal,2o5 Although hemp is relatively easy to gÍow,2o6 it is not casy to to pelrnit the cultivation of inclustlial hernp "will not occLlr until . , . politically f'easiblc, whìch requires thal a nrajority of lhe electorate be]jcve in industrial hemp's possibilities"), 202 See Duppong, sq)rfl note 8, at426 (footnotes ornitted) ("The Ínclustlial I-lernp Farrriing Àct of 2005 was flre first bill introclr,lced in Congress designed to sepat:ate inclustrial hemp ft'om mad- .juana, DLle to a lack of congre$,lionol support, the Act t'aìled to becotne law. , , . lT]he [ndustt'ial Hernp Falming Act of 2007 ,, . renewed the issue in Congress,"); Kolosov 1 sllpra nole 27 , at246- 47 n,8-5 ("On April 2,2009; I{cprcscntative Ron Paul introcluced the Industlial l{emp Farrtting Act of 2009, . . . Paul had pleviorsly intlocluceti sirnilal legislation irt 200-5."). 203 g,¿¿, e.g., Monson v, DEA, 589 F,3d 952,960 (8th Cir', 2009) ("[T]he DEA has , , , incli- oated in no unceLt¿iin temrs ìts intent to treat industrial hemp as a Schedulc I controllod substance under fhe CSA and to require registration pursuarìt to the Act bel'ole industrial hemp can bc grown uncler [statc] law,"); llrady, supra note 3, at 9[ ("The DEA is , , . opposed to revising existing fccleral law which woulcl nllow industrtal.hemp to be cultivatecl,"); Dwyer, ,ruprilnQïe2,x 1165 ("The DEA , , , has been hostile to ¿ìttempts to levive industrial hemp cultivalion."). 204 S'ee N.LI, Llcrnp Council, Inc. v, Marshall,203F,3dI,1 (1sLCìr,2000) ("Nor, givett Con- gless' enlargcment of ch'ug climes and penalties in lecent years, would one lrank on its adoption of an exception strolgly opposed by the DEA as constituting a tlrtcatened loophole in the ban on illegal clrugs,"); Rergolfen v, Clark, suprnnole 13, at 140 ("[Tlhe cut'I'elìt fixation on prohilrition exhibited by thc consotva(ive majority in both l-louses likely dooms any ef'fort trl allowing hemp procluction by amending the [CSA],"); Dwyel, suprt!. note 2, at ll69 ("lAl polilical issue stytnies conglessional action in fhvor ol'industrilrl hemp. No UnÍted Íitates rept'esentativo or senâtot' woulct find it e¿ìsy to be the one who openeci the cloor Lo hernp, as long as the spectre of tnali.iuana is prcsent,"). 205 g¿¿ Dupporrg, ,st.t¡.tro neTe 8, at 411 ("T'he pcltential success and plofitability of inclusu:ial hemp in Anierica ìs not an absolute cellaiuty."); Dwycr, sLtpra note 2, lL ll52 ("Atiy elfiorl.s to leinstitute the cultivation of inclustrial liern¡l will bc worthwhile only if hctttp can bc ¡lrown pr:olit- ably. Looking ¿ìt hetnp prodnctìon worldwide, the figrrres ârE not encouraging,"); 'fhcclin¡¡et', slt¡n'tt note 30, at 441 ("[T']he hcmp industly, liko all other new industr'ies, is tttlt iurmLrne fÌonr pr' halvest or process,2O7 artd tlrc lengl"hy f'ecleral ban on dornestic production lras impedcd the development of technology and ¡rrocessing methocls that would enable Arnerican färmers to plocluce the cr'op more elïiciently.zoa As a lesult, Anericall farnrers authorized to begin gr . , , ,"), See generally Kolosov,srçra note 27, ¿tt 254 ("'fcchnical ¿lclvances cannot be pt'otuotecl clomestically unless thc DEA grants lèderal licenses . , ."), 213 f(¡l6s6v,.rupr¬e27, at253 n,129;see aL,ro Monson v, DEA,, 522Lt, Supp, 2c1 1188, I t97 Q),N.D. 2001) (intemal cluotal-ion mark cxnitted) (discussing state legislatìon enactecl in North Dakota that dilected one 215 $¿¿ Dwycr, sLrprü note 2, af 71-53 ("lnfiastnrcture to support the hemp inclustry is , . , lackir:g,.,,[T]hcLlniteclStates[.has]adealthofhcmpplocessingca¡:abilities...."); Litslt,,s'tt¡trct rrote 3, (observing lhaL "hemp rnills shut clowll" altel World WaL II). ^t1)22 2t6 $s¿, e,g.,HeurpIndr¡s,Ass'nv. l)EA,357F,3cl 1012,1,013tt.2(9thCiL,2004)(discussing clornestic prodrìcts nranufactulecl "lì'orn industlial hemp plants gro\iln in Canada ancl in Eut'ope"); see also State v. Wriglrt, -588 N.W.2d 166, 169 rt.2 (Minn, Ct. App. 1998) ("lJlnclustlial hemp proclucts can tre legally impoltecl into this coutttry,"); Poole, supro note 15, at t9tl ("C)un'ently inclustlial hcnrp is , , , lcgal to impot't,"). But s'ee l)wyer', sltpre note 2, at ll-53 ("[W]hile thc LInitecl St¿rtcs imports hernp, it is plimaril), in the lbt'm of value-aclded goods lather tltart t'aw libel', 0il, ot' seecl,"). 2.1'l g,¿s, ri,g,, I)wyer', :;ltprt nole 2, at I l5.l ("Plocessing plants ale f'erv, ancl I'cll thosc tlt¿tt clo cxisl, eosts involved in transpolting t'aw hernp to the plant al'ù vcly high,"); Kcllosov, ,\'t,(pt'o noLe 21, at25B ("Becäuse ol hemp's bulk, it is ntost pl'olìtable tcl ¡rrocess lhe crrop close to its source,"); c,/. lìnw.son,,\tLï)ra notc 192, ttt 8 ("lTlhr: infì'astL'uol"ure foL el'l-iciently tlansË)orting artcl hancllirrg I"E{;ALIZE INDUSTRIAL H IiM P 3',7 1t,ed Lç grow hemp are likely to lincl it diflicLrlt, at least initially, to find markets for [heir ctops,zr8 This wtiuld again plitcc Allelican helnp procluccrs nt a corn- lretitive disadvantitge in relation tcl their pesrs in other coullh'io,s.2rf) B. An Un.certctin" Marlcet In ftrct, a stttdy published by the Ulrìtecl States l)epartment oJ Agr:icultrue in January 2000 cautioned that thc rnarket lirr henrp in this country ". . . will likcly rernain small [andl [hin . . .)''32o As one pair ol commenta[ors observed: Evcn if industrial hemp plocluction Lrecornes legal vely sooll, technological barriers ancl inarkt:t conditions will prolong the time b,sfiore hemp is widely usecl by such inclustries as papel and textiles. To be cost-el1'ective, investnrent in procluction llacilities requires a strong, steady supply of raw materi¿rls, which will take tinle to c;rea;Le,z2l However, others paint a morc optinristic picture,z2? Proponcnts ol' legaliz- ing industrial hemp poiut to evidencc that the global hernp market is fhe heavy, buJky prodttct is lagging."). See general,ly Bergolfen & Clalk, l;uprrt n<>to 13, at 129 ("[B.luilcljng the ploduction plant at or ncal the site ol cultivation makes goocl economic sense fol any ilrdusllial unclertaking,"), 218 See I)wyet', ,ttryrünoÍe2, at 1153 ("il1twoukl seem Lhat there is no guarânteed malket, even ¿r dotnestic one, fbr law hetnp glown by Amelican liarmers,"); ¿l ll¡,ws<¡N,¡u.!)ra note 192, at9 ("'l'he wodd lnarket lbl hemp pt'oducts is relatively small, ¡n It is question¿rble whcther: hentp will be able [o compete with otl-rel fibers in the fextile inclustry, such as cotton, and whether jt is an econonically plucleut alteruative f'or tr)aper prodnctiorr. Rcgardless o1 these c¡uestiolrs, it would be a clisservice if the United Stales , did not explore thess possibilities ther:eby lbr:f'eiting potential etlployment opportuurities in thc pr:oduction ol end produots that coulcl supplement lthcl economy.?28 VIII. CoNcl.trsION Publjc sentiment in this country appg¿u's to be evolving in f.'avclr of legaliz- ing ccrtain c"ontrcllled sutrstances that tlie f'êdeÍal government curt€ntly regu- lates to thc trroint ol prohibil.ion.22e This trcnd is evident in thc reccnt lcgaliz,ation ol medical marijuana use in several states,23o ancl thc "clecrimin¿rl- iztttion"z3l ol cven recreation¿rl m¿rlijuana use and. possession in some of the 228 Sheirtrns, supt'ct note 64, at 133; ,çee also Theclinger, suprnn samo ancl other states.23z The current hemp lcgzrlizaLi penaltìes 1175,1179 (I&n, l9tì6) C'[T]here is a Yast clilfelence betwecn clecr:iminalizing drug use and legalizing tlre use arrost ancl fèderal crirnin¿rl prosecut,ion.238 Givcn the DEA's continuecl opposi- tioll to legalizing inclustlial hemp,231r and the many othet: practical and political otrstacles to .successlirl hernp cultivation in this countly,?40 those seeking to revitalizc the American hemp industry face a dar-rnting challenge.2/i Neverthe* less, the challenge ultirnatcly ll1ay pr'ove Lo be one well worth unclertakil)g,}42 238 ,Sea Olsen v. I':lolder', 610 F. Supp, 2d 985,91)4 (S,D. Iowa 2009) (ciLing Monson v, DEA, 522 F, Supp. 2cl. I 1BB, I 200 (D,N.D , 2007)) ("fFlarmers could be prosccntcd for growirtg indus- t¡ial hemp, despite state authoriz,alion to cl