Bill Description: House Bill 771 would prohibit sales of certain hemp-derived products, impose licensure on stores selling hemp-derived products, impose fees and penalties, and broadly require compliance with federal law.
Rating: -5
Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
House Bill 771 would create Section 22-1708, Idaho Code, to regulate the retail sale of industrial hemp products.
The bill would broadly prohibit any cannabinoids, naturally or synthetically derived, except naturally derived cannabidiol, from being used or included in consumable or personal use products within the state of Idaho.
(-1)
Does it increase barriers to entry into the market? Examples include occupational licensure, the minimum wage, and restrictions on home businesses. Conversely, does it remove barriers to entry into the market?
House Bill 771 would require any retail store within the state of Idaho that sells hemp products to obtain a license from the Idaho Department of Agriculture. This license would cost $600 per year. Additional licenses for multiple retail store locations owned, operated, or controlled by the same person would be $25 per year.
(-1)
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase any taxes, fees, or other assessments? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce any taxes, fees, or other assessments?
In addition to the $600 annual licensing fee referenced above, the department would be allowed to conduct inspections at any time and “randomly select reasonably sized samples from the retail store for future off-site testing,” and “the licensee shall bear the full cost of laboratory testing and retesting.”
(-1)
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes?
Any violation of this act would subject the offender to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation plus reasonable attorney’s fees. This civil penalty could “be made in conjunction with any other department administrative action.”
(-1)
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the tenth amendment. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
Under this bill, the Idaho Department of Agriculture would be empowered to “conduct inspections to ensure compliance is maintained with applicable state and federal laws and regulations and the state hemp plan.” [Emphasis added.]
Broadly referencing or requiring compliance with federal law subordinates state law to changeable federal statutes, which means that the federal government can effectively change state law without the Legislature’s knowledge or consent.
(-1)
