Pubdate: Wed, 12 Dec 2001
Source: Argus Leader (SD)
Copyright: 2001 Argus Leader
Contact:  http://www.argusleader.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/842

IT'S UNLIKELY THAT HEMP WILL BENEFIT S.D. FARMERS

There's nothing wrong with an initiative to legalize production of 
industrial hemp.

But even if such a measure is approved in South Dakota - and it encourages 
Congress to change federal law - we don't see this as the savior of 
agriculture. The evidence just isn't there.

The battle is heating up again. After the state Legislature killed such a 
measure last session, there's now a petition drive - 13,010 signatures are 
needed by May - to place the issue on the ballot.

It would allow the planting, harvesting, possession and sale of industrial 
hemp, if it contained no more than 1 percent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), 
the stuff in marijuana that makes people high.

Hemp and marijuana, of course, are cousins. They even look alike.

Instead of being used as a drug, hemp is used for its fibers, seeds and 
oil. Its products are imported from other countries, including Canada.

So why shouldn't South Dakota farmers be allowed to grow it and diversify 
their crops?

Our only concern is that the two plants look alike, and that could cause 
grief for law enforcement officers. You don't know if it's hemp or 
marijuana until you test it in a lab.

If we can change federal law to allow hemp production, though, we can 
probably work out the law-enforcement questions.

And remember: Even if the initiative passes, hemp production still will be 
illegal in South Dakota, because it's banned by federal law.

The greater question is whether hemp production will benefit South Dakota 
farmers. There's doubt that it will.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service calls hemp a 
small market. A study earlier this year concluded that the 35,000 acres 
planted in hemp in Canada in 1999 oversupplied the whole North American market.

Supporters say the market will develop, if hemp is legalized. We aren't so 
sure.

But we also aren't sure there are valid reasons for continuing the ban.

Let's at least see where this leads.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom