Aberdeen American News, Jan. 11
Some good news about industrial hemp
It’s nice to kick off the legislative session with a bit of news that could be a boon to South Dakota’s farmers.
How big? Only time will tell. Maybe boon isn’t even the right word.
Heck, maybe the emphasis should be on the words “could be.”
But we’re encouraged that Gov. Kristi Noem has eased her opposition to raising industrial hemp in South Dakota. In a note sent to state lawmakers this week, she said she would not veto a bill allowing hemp to be grown as long as it addresses a series of concerns, including that:
- Growing or possessing hemp amounts consent to inspection and search of the crop. The state can also seize and destroy unlawful hemp without liability.
- The sale or use of hemp and its derivatives for smoking is prohibited.
- Regulations concerning the licensing, reporting and inspection of hemp must be, at minimum, compliant with U.S. Department of Agriculture standards.
- There will be fees to cover an annual license and inspection, and a permit will be required for the transportation of hemp in South Dakota.
- Legislators come up with a way to pay for the hemp program. Noem’s office estimates it would cost $1.9 million to start it and another $1.6 million to run it. That includes the hiring of seasonal inspectors and two Department of Health lab chemists.
So there are some caveats. But this is a move in the right direction.
State lawmakers will consider a bill that would allow people to grow hemp if they have a minimum plot size of five acres and keep the THC level of the plant below 0.3%. THC is the compound that produces a high in marijuana.
The Legislature approved a similar bill last year, potentially clearing the way for farmers to grow industrial hemp, but Noem vetoed it.
Now, she said, some of her concerns from last year have been addressed. She cited the creation of guidelines by the USDA and suggestions and ideas put forth by a legislative summer study.
It’s hard to know how much of a financial benefit the growing of hemp might be for South Dakota farmers. But at least now they appear to be on their way to level footing with ag producers in 46 other states where it’s already legal to grow industrial hemp.
Agriculture commodity prices have been in the tank for a few years now, hindering the industry that drives our entire state. Anything we can do that reasonably opens up new markets for our farmers and ranchers is helpful. The better they do, the better we all do. It doesn’t matter whether you live in Aberdeen or Sioux Falls, Timber Lake or Britton.
Legalizing the production of industrial hemp is not likely to solve all of our farm and ranch financial problems. But the governor’s announcement has the potential to offer some relief. And that’s a good thing.
“Given all that we need to accomplish this session, if we can get this done in the coming weeks, it would be a good way to kick off this year’s legislative session,” Noem said in a statement.
We certainly agree.
___
Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan, Jan. 13
A change on hemp: Facing reality?
In an apparent shifting of gears on the eve of the start of the 2020 legislative session, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem surprisingly laid out a road map last week for industrial hemp to become a legal crop in the state.
After successfully thwarting what appeared to be an overwhelmingly popular effort (at least among legislators) to embrace industrial hemp last winter - which left South Dakota as just one of three states in the country that had yet to legalize hemp production - Noem seemed determined to put down more roadblocks for the crop for the upcoming session. She announced this past fall that she would oppose any hemp legislation that reached her desk, even as a legislative study group on hemp was in the process of formulating a proposal for lawmakers to consider this winter.
But last Thursday, the governor suddenly relented. She announced that, even though she still doesn’t personally support the legalization of hemp production, she would not veto it as long as four so-called “guardrails” are met with the legislation. The provisions include 1) reliable law enforcement standards; 2) “responsible” regulations in terms of licensing, reporting and inspections; 3) a plan for safe transportation; and 4) an adequate funding plan, meaning the state would have to come up with a plan to fund production, with a cost estimated by the governor to be $1.9 million for startup and another $1.6 million for operation.
One is still compelled to qualify this as an “apparent” change in approach. You never know what other hurdles might be thrown into this process, especially after last winter when the hemp package appeared to have solid majorities backing it in both the House and Senate, and still failed.
Despite her personal opposition, it does appear the governor is acquiescing to the inevitable. As Noem herself admitted, “things have changed.”
There is, for starters, the aforementioned fact that 47 of the 50 states have embraced production, including all of South Dakota’s neighbors. In a state where agriculture is the No. 1 economic driver, that stark fact figured to eventually become a hindrance.
Also, South Dakota has been forced to accept the reality that industrial hemp produced in states that have legalized it can be transported across state lines.
And tribes are also going through the process of getting their hemp production requests approved. Recently, the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe had its federal request approved, and two other South Dakota tribes, including the Yankton Sioux Tribe, have their requests pending.
Meanwhile, South Dakota lawmakers have a new proposal ready to go on industrial hemp. According to House Majority Leader Lee Qualm, R-Platte, the new proposal meets most of the requirements spelled out by the governor.
The best guess at this moment may be that funding could be the most difficult issue in this process, especially given the state’s tight budgeting, but we’ll see what transpires.
___
Madison Daily Leader, Jan. 7
Capitol security is confronting a paradox
New security procedures at the state Capitol in Pierre will start on Jan. 13. The procedures attempt to make the Capitol building safe, but doing so confronts a paradox: The legislature passed last year — and Gov. Kristi Noem signed — a bill allowing people to bring firearms into the Capitol.
South Dakota Department of Public Safety secretary Craig Price stated that the new policies will improve public safety and preserve public access.
A new security-screening room near the Capitol’s north entrance will screen visitors. A magnetometer will detect cell phones, keys and other larger metal items. Visitors with internal or external medical devices, such as a pacemaker, will be searched separately. Staff and regular visitors can obtain a pass that allows them to skip the screening process.
The announcement didn’t say so, but we presume when a gun is detected by the scanner, then personnel would ask to see the concealed carry permit, which is required to bring a gun into the building.
The ongoing debate about guns and mass shootings in America is complicated. One side believes fewer guns will prevent violence, the other side believes more guns will prevent the bad guys from being the only ones with weapons.
We credit the Department of Public Safety for doing the best they can under the law, but banning pepper spray and knives while allowing guns is an odd paradox.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.