Holy war on ditch weed may not completely be ticket to power Franson challenger imagines

Buried in Wednesday's Mike Mosedale article in Politics in Minnesota, Tea Party acolyte Franson faces a GOP challenger — from the Tea Party right, readers find this gem:

As the wife of a retired narcotics investigator, Nelson said she was personally offended by Franson’s advocacy for industrial hemp. “Why was Mary pushing for legalization of hemp? That was a big issue to people here. She won [the last election] by one vote and then she started voting a lot more liberally,” said Nelson. . . .

While the Tea Party brand of conservatism is a powerful force in the district, Franson’s support for industrial hemp might not be the liability Nelson hopes. “I talk to a lot of people, farmers and rural people, and they support that bill,” said Thom Petersen, director of government relations for the Minnesota Farmers Union. . . .

The genial Petersen is spot on with that observation. Farmers Union develops policy in a grassroots fashion, with resolutions coming at the local or county chapter level. Support for industrial hemp (currently doing business as a ditch weed in rural Minnesota) has been a part of MFU policy for many years, as farmers see the non-recreational plant as potentially another income-generating crop that might be included in their rotations. Hemp provides food, oil, and fiber, and has potential for use as a biomass feedstock. Many hemp products are for sale in Minnesota, but farmers are unable to capture any of the dollars in the industry.

MFU is not alone in support for industrial hemp. In January 2014, delegates at the American Farm Bureau Federation's annual convention approved a resolution supporting industrial hemp legalization. The Lane Report reports in Farm Bureau passes policy urging removal of industrial hemp classification as controlled substance:

The policy resolution urges the repeal of the classification of industrial hemp as a controlled substance. The effort was lead by the Indiana Farm Bureau. The resolution, which falls under the “we oppose” category, reads:

“The classification of industrial hemp as a controlled substance.”

The Farm Bureau previously had passed a policy resolution supporting industrial hemp research in 1995, which read:

“We recommend that [the] American Farm Bureau Federation encourage research into the viability and economic potential of industrial hemp production in the United States. We further recommend that such research includes planting test plots in the United States using modern agricultural techniques.” . . .

.. . .“We support the declassification of industrial hemp as a controlled substance because of the opportunity that it provides some farmers to diversify their operations and share in a new market opportunity. At a time when small farms are innovating and diversifying to remain competitive, we should provide every opportunity to increase farm incomes and allow the next generation the ability to continue living off the land as their families have for generations,” said Kyle P. Cline, Policy Advisor with the Indiana Farm Bureau. “Industrial hemp is one such opportunity that may work for some farmers in certain regions. Furthermore, industrial hemp will allow the U.S. farmer to share in income that is currently going overseas. Right now, it is legal to import hemp but illegal to produce it. Therefore, there is no opportunity currently to share in the profit.

And other ag organizations support allowing farmers to share to share in those profits:

The Farm Bureau’s position on industrial hemp demonstrates the widespread support among national farming organizations for a change in the federal government’s position on hemp. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) previously passed a resolution that “supports revisions to the federal rules and regulations authorizing commercial production of industrial hemp.” The National Grange voted to support hemp in 2009, stating that it “supports research, production, processing and marketing of industrial hemp as a viable agricultural activity.” . . .

Nelson claims to be "pro agri-business." Bluestem can only wonder why she disagrees with farmers. We disagree with Franson on many issues, but the industrial hemp question isn't one of them.

Disclosure: Bluestem's editor and proprietor serves on the Minnesota Farmers Union's 2013-2014 Policy Committee. This is an unpaid volunteer position.

Photo: As the sign says, while industrial hemp is good for many uses, it isn't fit for recreational use.

If you enjoyed reading this post, consider giving a donation via mail (P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or paypal: