Doug Grow: URBAN FARMER USES STATE CONSTITUTION IN COURT

The Urban Farmer had his day in court Tuesday and it did not appear to go
well.

The Urban Farmer is Thomas Wright. In the summer of 1996 he was growing his
crop of choice, marijuana, in his Minneapolis home. It was an excellent crop.

"Some of the best grown in Minnesota," he said proudly.

But following an anonymous tip to police, Wright was busted, his crop was
destroyed and the Urban Farmer was found guilty in Hennepin County district
court of possession of marijuana with intent to sell. He was fined and
reprimanded but received no jail time.

Many people in such circumstances would have breathed a sigh of relief and
found new crops to plant. But Wright is different from many people. He
seemed to view being busted as an opportunity to prove a constitutional
point.

Wright, 40, spends a lot of time doing such things as reading
constitutions. And it is his belief -- and the belief of his attorney,
Randall Tigue -- that under the Minnesota Constitution it's perfectly legal
for farmers to grow and sell marijuana.

Article 13, Section 7 of the state constitution says: Any person may sell
or peddle the products of a farm or garden occupied and cultivated by him
without obtaining a license therefor . . . .

"I've been preaching for years that Article 13 was there for anyone who
wanted to use it," said Tigue, a frequent defender of unpopular causes.
"It's unrefutable, either legally or logically -- if our judges have the
courage . . . ."

Even Paul Scoggin, the Hennepin County assistant district attorney who
opposed Wright and Tigue in Tuesday's appeal, was intrigued by their
constitutional points.

On the surface, the case has appeal, Scoggin said. "He's not being
frivolous in any shape, manner or form."

Article 13, Section 7 came into existence in 1906, apparently because
Minnesota farmers were outraged by large license fees the city of
Minneapolis was charging them to sell their products on city streets. (At
the time, it should be noted, it was legal to grow marijuana and hemp in
the state. Laws banning marijuana didn't come onto the state scene until
1935.)

Farmers, who had great political clout in the state in 1906, won the
adoption of Article 13. Ninety-two years later, it is the view of Tigue and
Wright that the only way the state legally can ban growth and distribution
of marijuana is to amend Article 13.

"We would welcome nothing more than a proposed constitutional amendment,"
Tigue said. "That would give us a public debate on marijuana in general."

But if Tigue and Wright had any confidence that the Appeals Court would be
moved by their position, the confidence quickly was dashed. From the outset
of the hearing Tuesday morning, the questions of the three appeals judges,
Gary Crippen, Gordon Schumacher and Roger Klaphake, ranged from skeptical
to incredulous to hostile.

Tigue had barely cleared his throat in preparation when one of the judges
fired off a question about whether people can have farms in the basements
or upper floors of their houses in the city.

"Location is irrelevant," Tigue answered, adding that it would be perfectly
permissible for somebody to grow blueberries in his basement and sell them
on the corner.

Tigue started his argument again and another judge fired off a question
about whether farmers could sell "adulterated" beef?" Tigue, growing
slightly exasperated, suggested that Minnesota farmers growing marijuana
"can't sell adulterated marijuana, either."

The judges who were so quick to interrupt Tigue listened closely to the
points put forward by Scoggin, who argued that Article 13 never was meant
to exclude issues such as the health and safety of the people. He also
talked of how constitutions are balancing documents. In Article 1, Section
1, Scoggin noted, the constitution declares that one of the prime reasons
the state exists is to protect the health and safety of the people.

Scoggin concluded that if Tigue and the Urban Farmer want the growth and
sale of marijuana to be legalized they should take their case to the
Legislature, not the courts.

The judges all but applauded Scoggin, though they somberly told Tigue and
Wright that they'd think about the case and come to a decision at a later
date.

"I'd say that was a fairly skeptical court," Tigue admitted at the end of
the hearing. "We were here to see if there was the political will in the
court to do something that it ought to do."

Wright seemed frustrated, though mellow.

"I believe in the constitution of Minnesota," Wright said. "They hold me to
observance of the law, but if I try to hold them to observance of the law,
nothing happens."

© Copyright 1998 Star Tribune.

Checked-by: Richard Lake