Noem, Administration Officials Urge Lawmakers to Consider Extensive Questions Surrounding Industrial Hemp

Pat Powers

Noem, Administration Officials Urge Lawmakers to Consider Extensive Questions Surrounding Industrial Hemp

PIERRE, S.D. – Earlier this summer, Governor Kristi Noem submitted a list of 315 questions to House and Senate leadership involved in a summer hemp study. During a session in Pierre today, Noem’s administration will urge legislators to carefully consider the unknowns surrounding industrial hemp.

“When it comes to industrial hemp, we still have more questions than we have answers,” said Governor Kristi Noem. “Other states are struggling to implement their industrial hemp laws. As leaders, we must have answers to how any new law will be implemented effectively and how it will impact our state.”

“As a lifelong farmer and rancher, I would be thrilled to lead the charge in introducing a new crop that might bolster markets and support producers during this difficult season,” Noem continued. “Industrial hemp, however, is surrounded by many question marks. It could be reckless to introduce a product that has serious implications on the health and safety of the next generation. I strongly urge the legislature to consider the questions around hemp. Let’s work together to find the answers to these questions and the solutions to these problems.”

Governor Noem’s submitted questions urge the lawmakers to consider issues surrounding agriculture and processing, laboratory testing, pharmacy and pharmacology, controlled substance laws, and law enforcement.

“By its very nature, hemp will never be a simple agriculture commodity. In all the conversations I’ve had with farmers and ranchers, industry experts, legislators, and state staff, I always walk away with more questions than I have answers,” said Kim Vanneman, South Dakota Secretary of Agriculture. “Across the country, states are grappling with real questions about how to ensure producers are in compliance with state and federal laws; how to deal with processing of hemp and the byproducts that result from that processing, including THC; consumer protection when it comes to hemp derived products; and much more. We cannot overlook the uncertainty surrounding hemp. We just don’t have good answers yet. We have more work to do.”

“The more we study this issue, the more concerns I have for the impact on public safety,” said Craig Price, South Dakota Secretary of Public Safety. “Law enforcement is already stretched thin in our state, and legalizing hemp would extend our resources even further. It would have a negative impact on our drug fighting efforts in South Dakota.”

Earlier this year, South Dakota Highway Patrol officers conducted a test in the Capitol where a drug dog alerted the same way to both hemp and marijuana. Watch the video here.

“In the end, our concerns come down to the safety of our citizens and the future of my kids and your kids,” Price continued. “There are too many questions surrounding this issue that should make us pause, wait for further guidance, work together to find solutions, and learn from the experiences of other states. We must not do anything that could threaten the next generation.”

Price’s comments reflect challenges other states have seen since legalizing industrial hemp. On July 31, 2019, industrial hemp was legalized in Ohio. According to WBNS, a Columbus news organization, top law enforcement officers said that legalizing industrial hemp accidentally legalized marijuana.

“Now we have to be able to distinguish the difference between hemp and marijuana,” said Jason Pappas, Vice President of the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police. “That is not possible for a human being to do, that has to be done through crime analysis.” 

The problem is, most, if not all, crime labs in Ohio can only detect the presence of THC, not the quantity of it. 

That includes the Columbus police lab and BCI state crime lab.

“Until these testing requirements are fixed and until we get some additional training and resources available to us, it’s going to be very difficult to go after any marijuana cases in Ohio,” he said.

Glenn McEntyre: “What’s the end result of that, effectively?”

Jason Pappas: “You legalized marijuana in Ohio for a time being.” (WBNS, August 8, 2019)

Texas also legalized and regulated hemp and its derivatives earlier this year. The Texas Department of Public Safety’s crime lab director told legislators that that their crime labs were unable to distinguish between industrial hemp and marijuana. The Texas Tribune reports that those “warnings fell flat.”

“Largely absent from legislative discussions were concerns over the hemp law affecting the practicability of prosecuting marijuana cases unrelated to hemp farming… Yet it wasn’t just Mills who outlined the problem prosecutors would have distinguishing hemp from marijuana. Other states and the federal government have already run into similar issues. DPS repeatedly told state budget officials the hemp bill would come with a hefty price tag for additional drug testing in marijuana cases. And a Houston crime lab employee told King’s office that without funds to allow for new lab testing, the legislation would “essentially legalize marijuana.” (Texas Tribune, July 30, 2019)

“If Governor Noem and the legislature wouldn’t have taken the position they did with the hemp bill earlier this year, we would certainly be facing these issues right here in South Dakota,” concluded Price.

“South Dakota must lead by example. Let’s learn from the mistakes of other states and find these answers together before we commit to something we don’t know everything about. The safety and health of the next generation is worth finding these answers,”Noem concluded.

The United States Food and Drug Administration has expressed its concern about the health and safety of non-prescription industrial hemp, specifically CBD, and is only in the early stages of developing regulations to protect the public. The United Stated Department of Agriculture is expected to release federal guidelines for industrial hemp production this fall.

###

28 thoughts on “Noem, Administration Officials Urge Lawmakers to Consider Extensive Questions Surrounding Industrial Hemp”

  1. So Kristi, as a United States Representative, voted yes on the 2018 Federal Farm Bill, which included industrial hemp. This is a question I have never heard answered – why support (and vote yes) that legislation at a Federal Level, but deny a state’s right to implement the federal law when Governor of the state. If she gives a logical response to that question, I may support her. For now, she is just providing unnecessary bureaucratic red tape that would extend another cash crop to South Dakota farmers.

    1. I actually have heard her explain this. The Farm Bill was a long bill that included many different aspects, including some that she had authored or worked on herself. As with much federal legislation, a congressman is asked to give one “yes” or “no” vote to a long bill with many different parts.

      In addition, the Farm Bill also didn’t endorse the use of hemp; it just removed some of the federal barriers so that each state could decide for itself.

      Implicit in a state having the ability to opt for hemp is the ability to opt against it, and that is what she thinks should be done.

      1. That explanation means nothing. You would think when voting on a FARM bill, our representative would see the implications of such measures. I think it was reasonably foreseeable that in removing such barriers, her home state, which relies heavily on agricultural commodities, would seek to diversify it’s economy with expanding into this new area. Simply saying I voted for it because it was part of a larger bill – does not cut it. The FARM bill is integral to South Dakota and its economy. Did she ask all these hard questions before voting for it?

        1. Actually, that explanation means a lot. The FARM bill allows for states to consider it. Each state is able to make its own decision.

          1. I see the point being made. My main concern is that she voted for something that the state she represented (heavily agricultural) would reasonably look into. Why weren’t these questions asked when the farm bill came around? Why only now is she engaging these stakeholders? I don’t think she will ever be truly satisfied with whatever the legislature comes up with. Even if all these questions were answered in detail, I truly believe she would veto (again).

            1. There are many “Why” questions being asked by parents of children with autism as well. Seems Noem doesn’t have many answers for her supporters, I wonder why?!

  2. We do not need to legalize this garbage in South Dakota. It’s only being put out there to eventually legalize pot.

    Can we at least be one state that values human life. Do we need to allow our children be exposed to one more intoxicant. If you want to get high move to Colorado.

    1. Even though it was passed through Congress and signed into law by President Trump (i.e. making it legal nationwide?)

    2. Legal hemp devalues human life?

      Holy crap your post is the dumbest thing anyone will read today, maybe even this week or month.

    3. Do you know there are thousands of children that are taking prescription mind altering drugs? Nobody wants to discuss prescription drugs.

  3. Just legalize it. Teach kids about its’ negatives. Be honest and create a dialogue with them. Don’t tell other grown adults what to do. Republican or Democrat, this isn’t rocket science people. Ugh, everyone has to be so uninformed and overly opinionated these days… I’m willing to be I have more knowledge of CBD, THC, and Hemp than our entire elected legislature combined.

  4. Don’t let South Dakota be a museum to the stubborn old ways. Be progressive and legalize everything!

    Harris – Sanders 2020

  5. I would encourage everyone to click through the link to read the Governor’s 315 questions. These all seem like legitimate questions and, so far as I know, no one in the Legislature has thought through many of these details.

    Reading this list makes me think that the Governor was right that we shouldn’t rush into this. We have no idea what we are getting into. And we are starting to see news stories from all over the country about how legal hemp is undermining marijuana prosecutions.

    If you think marijuana should be legal, then of course supporting hemp makes sense. If you don’t think marijuana should be legal (which is the Governor’s view), then legalizing hemp isn’t a great idea.

    1. The recreational pot heads & their unwitting allies who are being conned that this is in anyway anything but a vehicle to recreational can’t be blinded with the facts!

  6. Legalizing hemp is a must in SD. The Government needs to stay the hell out and it let farmers and marijuana entrepreneurs make their own decisions. You should be able to grow what ever you want on your land without government overreach. They are very good at screwing things up

    1. Did you want the government to get the hell out of the way when you threw that substance into Lake Mitchell? Believing you should be able to throw anything you want into the lake?

      1. Absolutely and go test it. It is so pure you can drink it……..the city government poisoned the Lake polluting it with aluminium sulfide and chloride. Just do your research. You fall for anything the Mayor tells you, lol. Total sheople. Start thinking for yourself instead of idolizing politicians. They know I am right. Just ask them.

  10. A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a logical fallacy[1] in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.[2] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering, in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience. The fallacious sense of “slippery slope” is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In a non-fallacious sense, including use as a legal principle, a middle-ground possibility is acknowledged, and reasoning is provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

    1. This is not a slippery slope argument. The argument is that legalizing hemp makes it dramatically more difficult to enforce marijuana laws. It’s direct-cause-and-effect.

      A further argument, which could be called slippery slope but seems fairly realistic, is that making marijuana laws unenforceable would strengthen the argument to eventually legalize it.

  13. Did Noem ask 300 questions before allowing everyone to walk around with guns in their pants? No concern for future generations there, eh?

Comments are closed.