USDA: Yes, You Can Transport Hemp Across State Lines

美国农业部:是的,你可以在州线之间传送大麻

2019-06-11 00:50:55 CANNABIS BUSINESS TIMES

本文共1183个字,阅读需3分钟

Pointing out open questions about what a legal hemp industry means, the USDA issued an executive memorandum that clears up a central point of contention: whether licensed growers may transport their hemp across state lines and access a broader national supply chain. The short answer is yes, the 2018 Farm Bill provisions allow this. The USDA’s May 28 memo outlines a path toward federal implementation of the 2018 Farm Bill. The full slate of rules has not yet been developed; rather, the department has been issuing piecemeal guidance in the early days of the legal U.S. hemp industry. Once the USDA outlines a full, formal set of hemp production regulations, states will be barred from stopping any hemp shipments in the U.S. In the meantime, though: “States and Indian tribes also may not prohibit the interstate transportation or shipment of hemp lawfully produced under the 2014 Farm Bill,” according to the memo, allowing such transport to begin now. As reported earlier, hemp production will be legal under three auspices: USDA licensure, state or tribal licensure or a 2014 Farm Bill-sanctioned hemp research pilot program (many of which continue to function while the USDA finalizes its impending hemp rules). State and tribal laws may be more stringent than whatever regulations the USDA delivers later this year. But as Boise State Public Radio points out, the transition into a newly legal hemp era has not been smooth. Idaho State Police report that the law enforcement office will “continue to make arrests and confiscate hemp while enforcing Idaho law.”  The news comes as three men face felony drug trafficking charges for transporting hemp through Idaho (running a shipment from an Oregon grower to a Colorado manufacturer). One of those men has pleaded not guilty; he faces a minimum of five years in prison if he is convicted. That case is part of what U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell was referring to when he cited “glitches” in the hemp provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill. The USDA memo is a step toward remedying those attendant legal problems.  In its reading of the Idaho case and similar hemp transport cases, the USDA uses its memo to reiterate the federal Supremacy Clause. This idea of federal preemption means that no state may supersede or contradict a federal law; it’s the foundation of the tension between federal and state law in the cannabis industry, but it’s also what will allow the federal government to throw its weight behind individuals and businesses that are prosecuted on hemp-related charges. The memo specifically calls out a lawsuit prompted by the Idaho criminal case (Big Sky Scientific LLC v. Idaho State Police) and states that “this office does not concur with the reasoning of the magistrate regarding the shipment of hemp lawfully produced under the 2014 Farm Bill [in Oregon].” The Idaho State Police and the Ada County Prosecutor’s Office issued a joint statement on the case, as reported in Boise State Public Radio: “The 2018 Farm Bill's intent of allowing the interstate transportation of hemp will only be realized once there is a regulatory system in place. As of this date, that system has not been developed in any state - including Idaho - and is therefore not currently in effect.” And, thus, as the USDA attempts to correct some of the “glitches” that McConnell had been fretting over in April, a new question emerges: Which law will state agencies cite? The 2014 Farm Bill and its hemp research pilot programs or the 2018 Farm Bill and its federal legalization provisions? Until the USDA issues its 2018 Farm Bill hemp legalization regulations later this year, that question remains an open platform for debate.
美国农业部发布了一份行政备忘录,明确了一个核心论点:特许种植者是否可以将大麻运输到各州,进入更广泛的国家供应链。 短期的答案是肯定的,2018年农业法案条款允许这样做。 美国农业部5月28日的备忘录勾勒出了联邦实施2018年农业法案的道路。目前还没有制定完整的规则;相反,司法部在美国大麻合法行业的早期就发布了零敲碎打的指导。一旦美国农业部制定了一整套正式的大麻生产法规,各州将被禁止停止在美国的大麻运输。 但与此同时,备忘录表示:“国家和印度部落也可能不会禁止州际运输或运输根据2014年农业法案合法生产的大麻,”允许此类运输现在开始。 如前所述,大麻生产将在三个赞助下合法: USDA 许可、州或部落许可或2014年农场法案批准的大麻研究试验计划(其中许多在 USDA 最终确定其即将实施的大麻规则时继续运作)。州和部落法律可能比美国农业部今年晚些时候出台的任何法规都更加严格。 但正如博伊西国家公共广播电台指出的那样,过渡到一个新的法律混乱时代并不顺利。爱达荷州警方报告说,执法部门将“继续逮捕并没收大麻,同时执行爱达荷州的法律。”这是一个很好的例子 这一消息传出之际,三名男子因在爱达荷州运送大麻而面临重罪的贩毒指控(从俄勒冈的一位种植者运到科罗拉多州的一家制造商)。其中一人承认无罪;如果他被定罪,他将面临至少五年的监禁。 这个案子是美国参议员的一部分。米奇•麦康奈尔( Mitch McConnell )在谈到2018年《农业法案》( Farm Bill )大麻条款中出现的“小故障”。美国农业部的这份备忘录是纠正随之而来的法律问题的一步。 在阅读爱达荷州的案例和类似的大麻运输案例时,美国农业部使用其备忘录重申了联邦高级条款。联邦抢占权的概念意味着,任何州都不能取代或违背联邦法律;它是大麻行业联邦法律和州法律之间紧张关系的基础,但它也是允许联邦政府将自己的力量抛在那些因大麻相关指控而被起诉的个人和企业后面的原因。备忘录明确提出了爱达荷州刑事案件( Big Sky Scientific LLC 诉爱达荷州警察)引发的诉讼,并称“该办公室不同意地方法官关于(俄勒冈州)2014年农场法案合法生产大麻装运的推理。” 爱达荷州警察和阿达县检察官办公室就此案发表了联合声明,如博伊西国家公共广播电台所报道:“2018年农场法案允许州际运输大麻的意图只有在建立监管制度后才能实现。到目前为止,该系统还没有在包括爱达荷州在内的任何州开发出来,因此目前尚未生效。” 因此,当美国农业部试图纠正麦康奈尔在4月份所犯的一些“错误”时,一个新的问题出现了:州政府机构会引用哪项法律?《2014年农场法案》及其大麻研究试点项目或2018年《农场法案》及其联邦法律条文? 在今年晚些时候美国农业部发布2018年农业法案大麻合法化法规之前,这个问题仍然是一个公开的辩论平台。

以上中文文本为机器翻译,存在不同程度偏差和错误;偶尔因源网页结构局限,内容无法一次完整呈现。请理解并参考原站原文阅读。

阅读原文