Those hoping to have the opportunity to cultivate hemp in Mississippi are keeping a close eye on the Hemp Cultivation Task Force. 

The task force was created by the legislature earlier this year and will provide their findings on hemp in Mississippi prior to the 2020 legislative session. The group has held two public meetings, with a third scheduled for late November. 

Since the time the legislature passed on legalizing hemp in Mississippi earlier this year, a number of states have chosen to move forward. We’re at the point where virtually every state – 47 total – have ok’d hemp cultivation. That doesn’t mean they are necessarily harvesting hemp right now. Just that they have begun the process.

Today, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Idaho are the holdouts. 

States where hemp is legal

We don’t know what the task force will recommend. But no one should be surprised to see the deliberate process continue.  

While farmers might want the state to legalize hemp, the tone of the task force hasn’t necessarily been positive. And the legislature can still do their own thing, though it might be odd to create a task force and then do something beyond what they recommend. But it’s possible.

Keep in mind that the House is already on record of removing hemp from the controlled substance list in Mississippi thanks to a floor amendment from Rep. Dana Criswell (R-Olive Branch). Attempts to make the change in committee had previously been killed, and obviously the House language was watered down to a task force when it hit the Senate a month later.

Meanwhile, South Dakota and Idaho are both preparing to act next year. 

The South Dakota legislature legalized hemp last year, only to have it vetoed by Gov. Kristi Noem. They also have a Hemp Study Committee and are working on legislation for 2020. Same story in Idaho. Republican leaders have promised farmers they will be able to grow hemp next year. 

So we shall see.

For now, the question is who will be the 48th state to legalize hemp? And will any state still make hemp illegal by the end of 2020?

Neither Republican gubernatorial nominee Lt. Governor Tate Reeves nor his Democratic opponent Attorney General Jim Hood offered their endorsement for the medial marijuana ballot initiative that will be before voters next fall. 

The Medical Marijuana 2020 campaign recently turned in over 100,000 certified signatures in their attempt to make Mississippi the 34th state in the country to legalize medical marijuana. 

Hood didn’t say how he’d vote, rather offering a vague response that he will leave it to the medial professionals to make judgments on medical marijuana. 

“I did two terms as District Attorney, 16 years as Attorney General,” Hood said. “I’ve been a drug warrior for all those years, and it hadn’t worked. Medical marijuana is something that should be left up to the doctors in the medical profession. I’ve seen a few studies that it may help people get off opioids, I just don’t want it to get in the hands of kids. That’s why I’ve been raising cane about vaping…I think it’s up to the medical profession to make those decisions on the value of medical marijuana.”

Reeves made comments similar to the GOP debate this summer, where he said he was opposed to the initiative, but would respect the will of the voters if the initiative passed.  

“As a father of three girls, I’m going to vote against the amendment that’s on the ballot next year,” Reeves said. “If I am elected governor and the people of Mississippi decide to vote a different way than I do then I’m going to uphold the will of the people.”

If Mississippians approve the initiative, it will be part of an ongoing trend, particularly in Republican states. Last year, voters in Missouri, Oklahoma, and Utah approved ballot initiatives to legalize medical marijuana. Two years prior, voters in Arkansas, Florida, and North Dakota did the same thing. 

What would medical marijuana look like in Mississippi?

If the ballot initiative is approved by voters in November, marijuana would be legal for those with a debilitating medical condition and would have to be authorized by a physician and receive it from a licensed treatment center.

Some of these conditions include:

• Cancer
• Epilepsy and other seizure-related ailments
• Huntington’s disease
• Multiple sclerosis
• Post-traumatic stress disorder
• HIV
• AIDS
• Chronic pain
• ALS
• Glaucoma
• Chrohn’s disease
• Sickle cell anemia
• Autism with aggressive or self-harming behavior
• Spinal cord injuries

If a physician concludes that a person suffers from a debilitating medical condition and that the use of medical marijuana may mitigate the symptoms or effects of the condition, the physician may certify the person to use medical marijuana by issuing a form as prescribed by the Mississippi Board of Health. The issuance of this form is defined in the proposal as a “physician certification” and is valid for 12 months, unless the physician specifies a shorter period of time.

That individual then becomes a qualified patient. After they do this, they present the physician certification to the Mississippi Department of Health and are issued a medical marijuana identification card. The ID card allows the patient to obtain medical marijuana from a licensed and regulated treatment center and protects the patient from civil and/or criminal sanctions in the event the patient is confronted by law enforcement officers. “Shopping” among multiple treatment centers is prevented through the use of a real-time database and online access system maintained by the Mississippi Department of Health.

The Mississippi Department of Health would regulate the cultivation of marijuana, processing, and being made available to patients. There would also be limits on how much marijuana a patient could obtain.

A new report by a legislative watchdog group recommends that the legislature and the Mississippi Department of Revenue should examine the possibility of privatizing the state-run distribution of liquor and wine.

The Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review or PEER Committee released the report, which also criticized the DOR for worker safety, equipment maintenance, customer service, and inventory issues at the state-owned warehouse which handles distribution for liquor and wine in the state.

The PEER study said that divesting the wholesaling of wine and liquor would likely reduce the revenue collected for the state from alcoholic beverage sales. The study also said that contracting out management of the state-owned liquor warehouse to a private firm would likely not save taxpayers much money, likely 10 percent or less.

Divesting the distribution of wine to private firms, according to the study, would also result in lower revenue collections, but could benefit operations at the warehouse.

The Alcoholic Beverage Control warehouse employs 106 state workers, held 427,709 cases of booze (the capacity is 450,000 cases) and can ship 20,000 cases per day. 

In fiscal 2018, the ABC generated $114.2 million in revenue. Subtracting the cost for warehouse operations ($5.03 million) and ABC enforcement ($2.07 million), the wholesale operation generated revenue of $107.1 million for the state treasury.

In the 2019 session, the legislature appropriated up to $4 million for additional warehouse space, but PEER said in its report that the DOR doesn’t have a formal plan for incorporating new space into its operations.

According to PEER, one of the problems with the state-run warehouse is that any special order items cost the state because the DOR must purchase them in advance to have them shipped to the warehouse. 

The warehouse receives payment only when the retailer receives the special order. Also, since the items in the warehouse belong to vendors and are not purchased by the state, taxpayers are responsible  for broken or damaged goods in the warehouse.

Mississippi is one of 17 states that is what is known as a control state. The DOR regulates the sale of alcohol in Mississippi through the licensing of retailers, taxation at both the wholesale and retail levels, and wholesaling of both liquor and wine. The Magnolia State is one of five states that wholesale both wine and distilled spirits. 

The DOR, unlike some other control states, doesn’t manage retail locations like Alabama does, for example.

The Mississippi Center for Public Policy has joined other organizations in opposing legislation related to the so-called Green New Deal.

Virtually every provision of the Green New Deal, ranging from trillions of dollars in new spending to onerous rules on automobiles and airplanes, would be disastrous to households and businesses across America. The U.S. economy needs abundant, low-cost sources of energy, not bank-breaking regulations that make it more difficult for Americans to live their lives.

Earlier this year, members of the U.S. Senate introduced a resolution, S.J. Res. 8, calling for the creation of a radical, ill-thought-out “Green New Deal.” This complete and unrealistic overhaul of the U.S. economy would have devastated hardworking American families. According to the American Action Forum, the plan would cost Americans anywhere from $51.1 trillion to $92.9 trillion, or $316,010 to $419,010 per household, over ten years.

Not surprisingly, the Senators who proposed this preposterous resolution refused to support the measure when it was brought to the floor. A motion to invoke cloture and proceed to consideration of the Green New Deal failed by a vote of 0-57. None of the resolution’s sponsors supported it.

Normally when such imprudent policy ideas meet such a resounding defeat in the U.S. Senate, it means that these ideas will be relegated to the dustbin of political debate. Unfortunately, many members of Congress who refused to support this plan on the Senate floor are currently devising strategies to implement provisions of the Green New Deal by attaching them to important pending legislation.

Important measures to support American troops, fund the government or maintain economic growth must not be imperiled by ill-considered policies from a fringe resolution. Energy policy deserves dedicated legislation that offers policies that would lower costs for Americans. Removing senseless restrictions on drilling and fracking and repealing existing “renewable” mandates are just two possible paths toward greater energy affordability and increased choices for consumers. Congress should also pursue dedicated legislation that repeals wasteful government “clean energy” programs that subsidize boondoggles at significant expense to taxpayers.

American consumers deserve an abundance of options to heat their homes and fuel their vehicles. Sneaking Green New Deal provisions into unrelated legislation would only lead to higher costs and undermine transparency in government. We urge the Senate to oppose any attempt to hold meaningful bills hostage in order to enact the misguided Green New Deal.

You can read the full letter here.

Despite the potential risks, Mississippi farmers want the chance to grow hemp as a cash crop.

Freddie Rowell is a farmer from Pelahatchie and grows soybean, wheat, and corn. He’s been talking with people in some of the 47 states that have legalized hemp and is interested in the possibilities.

“It’s being done in other states and it can be done here,” Rowell said. “You’ll see cultivation almost immediately, just on a small scale. Farmers are resilient. They’re going to try. They’re risk takers anyway. They’ll make a go of it.”

Neal Smith, who owns Serene Fox Farm in the small Delta community of Shaw, says he’s very interested in trying his hand growing hemp. Smith primarily grows soybeans and corn.

“This is of interest because we need another crop we can rotate as we try to maintain and enhance the quality of the soil,” Smith said. 

There are some roadblocks that will likely keep them on the sidelines for at least the next growing season and possibly longer. 

The Hemp Cultivation Task Force will issue its recommendations to the legislature in December. The legislature will then have to pass a law exempting industrial hemp and hemp-derived products from the list of controlled substances in state law.

Then the state would have to submit a plan to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and receive approval.

“My crystal ball doesn’t work on politicians at all,” Smith said. “If the legislature was to pass anything, it’d be three years before anything of a substantial nature happens.”

As for large-scale hemp farming, it could be years before the crop becomes part of the state’s economy even if the legislature legalizes its cultivation and the USDA signs off on a cultivation plan by the state Department of Agriculture and Commerce.

“A farmer is going to grow what’s most profitable and right now there are so many things that are unknown,” Rowell said. “You’re seeing hemp grown in Colorado, Kentucky and Tennessee. These are areas with climates totally different than Mississippi. 

“There are too many unknowns for a farmer to farm it for the fiber, for bedding material, for the seed. There’s too much risk for a farmer to jump into this now.”

Some of those unknowns include whether Mississippi’s climate and soil types are suitable for large-scale hemp cultivation. The varieties being grow in test programs nationwide hail from Canada and Europe and there haven’t been any trials in Mississippi’s climate.

There also isn’t a supply chain to allow farmers to get the crop to market and there are no pesticides or herbicides that are approved by the USDA for hemp.

Hemp cultivation would be along four lines: industrial, grain, fiber, and oil production.

Estimates by Randy Little at the Department of Agriculture Economics at Mississippi State University would put hemp fiber or hemp grain cultivation nearly on par with corn grown in the northeast part of the state and higher than soybeans grown in the Delta. 

Growing a crop for both purposes would be nearly on par on with revenue on Delta corn. Hemp wouldn’t approach the massive revenue generated by cotton grown in either the northeast part of the state or the Delta. 

It is generally considered a good thing if there is high demand for short-term vacation rentals in your city. And the reasons for this demand in Starkville are obvious. 

From football, baseball, and basketball games at Mississippi State to events in the community throughout the year, tourism play a key role in the city’s economy. And thanks to technology, websites like Airbnb make it easier than ever for visitors to search for new options during their stay.  

While short-term rentals in the past may have consisted of advertisements in newspapers that tell you very little, consumers now have pictures, location, and feedback from previous guests. And the ability to pay via an intermediary. 

Why are people looking for this option? Short-term rentals provide the visitors with a different experience. It is usually more personal and accommodating. If you are visiting with a family, it is often the only, or at least most cost-effective, option. 

How do you know the room or house you are renting will be acceptable? The host has an incentive to provide a positive experience. As is the case with most services in our sharing economy, your reputation – and ability to stay in business – is built on customer feedback. Reputation is everything. Airbnb and other homesharing platforms are incentivized to ensure consumers and providers are not harmed. In fact, it’s in their best interest to ensure the experience is valuable and enjoyable. This is the free market.

Such technology has benefited the state, too. Last year, Airbnb remitted $1 million in taxes to the state that hosts collected. Over 69,000 guests utilized the service during that time period. Every sign indicates that these numbers will only continue to grow. Unless government gets in the way.

Which, unfortunately, is the direction many cities have gone. Some have even been sued over it. 

The city of Starkville is currently debating a short-term rental ordinance. The original proposal was draconian in nature and would have likely ended much of the short-term industry in the city. It would have limited the number of weekends and nights per year a house could be rented, imposed a $300 licensing fee, and required a homeowner to be a permanent resident to receive a permit from the city. 

Essentially, you would have to live in your house to rent out your house. Many homeowners have invested in real estate. This increases property values, which is a benefit for the city. And homeowners have an obvious incentive not just in receiving positive feedback online, but in maintaining the value of their investment. That is to say, a house being trashed is not good for anyone. 

Alternatives to the original proposal are much more user-friendly, placing no limits on rentals, lowering the licensing fee, and easing off the residency requirements. 

When it comes to the need for these ordinances, there are a couple common complaints. Noise is a popular topic. Yet, a city can pass and enforce a noise ordinance for everyone. It doesn’t require banning short-term rentals. If trash is being left behind, again, you can have ordinances concerning trash in yards. 

The truth is that the biggest opponent to Airbnb and other homesharing sites is the hotel industry. The industry naturally wants to petition government to help create a moat around their industry.

It is understandable why people working in the hotel industry are upset by this disruption and by the fact that these platforms and their users are not governed by the same regulatory burdens of the hotel industry. The same can be said of the taxi industry when Uber was launched or of virtually any business that suffers from creative disruption. The cycle is as old as capitalism.

The incumbents in these industries have paid a regulatory cost. Rather than trying to impose old regulations on new, innovative, customer-focused players, we should consider deregulating the existing industries so that competition is enhanced and innovation is incentivized. The way to achieve this is through the free market. Writing new regulations and trying to enforce old ones encourages cronyism, and only hurts local economies. Starkville should think very hard about doing anything that would limit homesharing.

At the end of the day, we have individuals who are able to earn an extra income from something they own, and tourists are able to get what they are looking for. It’s called voluntary exchange. It’s a good thing. We should encourage more of it, not try to interfere with it. 

This column appeared in the Starkville Daily News on October 6, 2019.

Black-market vaping products that have foreign substances added to them can be very dangerous. That’s obvious. But the calls for bans on vaping devices and why people are becoming sick are two different things. Unfortunately, they are being lumped together.

We know there has been an outbreak of sorts related to vaping. According to a Center for Disease Control and Prevention report, 530 people have been hospitalized with what is now known as Vaping Associated Pulmonary Illness, or VAPI. Three cases have been reported in Mississippi. Nine deaths have been reported nationally.  

This has led to the initial reaction that we have seen among some officials who have called for a ban on vaping devices, or at least the flavored products that most users prefer. Unilaterally, governors in New York and Michigan have done just that. 

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jim Hood has also called for a ban on vaping devices. His Republican opponent, Tate Reeves, has taken a more nuanced approach.

But the illnesses and deaths do not appear to be from products sold legally at vape shops. 

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found 84 percent of those hospitalized in Illinois and Wisconsin reported using vaping or e-cigarette devices to consume substances purchased illegally on the black market.

Typical black-market substances include THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, cannabis wax and oil, and Vitamin E.

In a release earlier this month, the FDA noted a similar finding, stating, “Many of the samples tested by the states or by the FDA as part of this ongoing investigation have been identified as vaping products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC, a psychoactive component of the marijuana plant) and further, most of those samples with THC tested also contained significant amounts of Vitamin E acetate.”

They, rightfully, warned consumers to avoid black-market vaping products and to not add any substances to the products purchased in stores. 

As the early reports show, black-market products are already the problem. If we proceed to outlaw vaping or e-cigarettes, it will only create a larger black market. And likely more illnesses and deaths. 

The Hemp Cultivation Task Force held their second meeting this week as they heard from agriculture experts and law enforcement about potential ramifications of hemp legalization in Mississippi. 

Next year, the legislature will be able to act upon any recommendations or findings, or perhaps draw their own conclusions. But whatever they decide, we won’t be blazing any trails with hemp.

In fact, since the last task force meeting in July, the tiny number of states where hemp remains illegal became smaller. In July, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed legislation legalizing the production of hemp in the Buckeye State. This follows the states of Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas legalizing industrial hemp earlier this year.

The states where hemp production remains illegal: Idaho, Mississippi, and South Dakota. And it remains illegal in South Dakota only because Gov. Kristi Noem vetoed a bill that would have made production legal. 

States where the cultivation of hemp is legal

We have seen a massive move toward hemp legalization at the state level after the 2018 Farm Bill expanded the cultivation of hemp. Previously, federal law did not differentiate hemp from other cannabis plants, even though you can’t get high from hemp. Because of this, it was essentially made illegal. But we did have pilot programs or limited purpose small-scale program for hemp, largely for research. 

Now, hemp cultivation is much broader, with the Farm Bill allowing the transfer of hemp across state lines, with no restrictions on the sale, transport, or possession of hemp-derived products. There are still limitations, but most states have taken the opportunity to find new markets for those who would like to cultivate hemp. Just not Mississippi. 

So as a task force brings in experts to debate the merits of hemp in Mississippi and listens to opponents in law enforcement make claims about how they would be unable to differentiate between hemp and marijuana, the rest of the state can look on as hemp is now legal for 99 percent of the country. And we can wonder why something so easy can be so difficult for Mississippi.

Mississippi lost 3,500 private sector jobs last month, while government added 1,100, reversing recent trends in both directions. 

According to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, preliminary numbers show Mississippi’s nonfarm payrolls declined from 1,171,100 in July to 1,168,700 last month. That still represents an increase of 15,000 jobs over the previous 12 months.

But the most glaring numbers from the report were the gains and losses by industry sector. Government, which accounts for nearly 21 percent of all jobs in Mississippi, added 1,100 jobs in August. Total government employment in the state now sits at 242,800. It was 240,900 a year ago. 

Industry sector changes in Mississippi over past month, July to August 2019

Not everyone had a bad August. Each of our neighboring states added jobs last month. Alabama added 2,900 jobs, Arkansas added 2,300, Louisiana added 4,800, and Tennessee added 900. 

For Louisiana, August was a turnaround in the state. They had previously lost nearly 4,000 jobs over the past year. They are now slightly on the positive side in terms of jobs created. 

Payroll changes over the past 12 months among neighboring states

Mississippi’s numbers over the past year aren’t terrible, but they certainly need to be better for long-term economic growth. To do this, we can look at other states and what the path to sustained economic prosperity looks like.

Many will claim this will come from the government. But all government can do is redistribute wealth from one person to another as it chooses, whether that’s a social welfare program or a corporate welfare one. Government only moves money around. It doesn’t create new wealth or build a bigger pie. 

Only the private sector can do that. Individual initiative is the most powerful economic engine we have. Wealth is generated when individuals risk their own resources in hopes of meeting a need in the lives of other people or businesses, and do so in a manner that earns them a profit. That need might take the form of a new product, a more efficient service, or fresh, capital needed by a business to start or expand its operations.

It’s very easy, and very tempting, for any government official to give out tax dollars, get their picture taken, and talk about how much they are doing for you and me because of that new government initiative. 

You don’t get a shovel for reducing regulations, freeing up the healthcare industry, or reforming occupational licensing. But the most helpful thing an elected official can do is be serious about pursuing policies that will make it easier for free enterprise. We’ve seen the results of our elected officials trying to manipulate, organize, and orchestrate the economy.

At the end of the day, to generate sustainable, long-term growth, the only option is to grow the private sector through lower taxes and a lighter regulatory burden. It doesn’t make for a sexy campaign slogan and many people who work in government or depend on government for jobs and contracts won’t like to hear it.

What does that look like?

There are numerous policy ideas lawmakers can and should consider to positively change the economic trajectory of the state.

1. Reform scope-of-practice and certificate of need laws to provide more access and competition in healthcare.

2. Eliminate overburdensome occupational licensing regimes that often only serve to keep entrepreneurs out of a specific industry or field of work. 

3. Reduce our state’s regulatory burden that makes it more difficult and more expensive to operate a business in the state.