Pubdate: Wed, 23 May 2001 Source: Watertown (SD) Public Opinion Copyright: 2001 Watertown (SD) Public Opinion Contact: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?brd=1166 Address: PO Box 10, Watertown SD 57201 Phone: 800-658-5401 Fax: 605-886-4280 Author: Bob Newland Note: Newland, 52, is a publisher living near Hermosa, in the Black Hills. He is a spokesman for the South Dakota Cannabis Coalition, which is seeking ballot certification for an issue to allow farmers to grow hemp DECISIONS ON GROWING HEMP SHOULD BE LEFT TO FARMERS The Public Opinion's editorial opposing industrial hemp ("Right to petition good; petition for hemp bad", May 11) was correct in its assertion that the right of the people to petition for change should be inviolate. Anyone has the right, also, to campaign against any ballot issue. We're sure the Public Opinion wants to provide useful information when either supporting or opposing an issue. It's part of our task to provide useful and accurate information about hemp during the course of this petition drive. During hearings on the industrial hemp bills discussed during the past two legislative sessions, legislators said they didn't believe there was enough market potential to allow farmers to grow hemp. "This looks like another Jerusalem artichoke," they said. The Public Opinion seemed to echo that opinion. It's a farmer's responsibility, not the government's, to determine whether he can grow and sell a crop. The blame for the Jerusalem artichoke fiasco of a few years ago falls squarely on the shoulders of farmers who planted before checking the market. We can direct farmers to information as to whether their soil can grow hemp well, where to get seed, and who to call to sell the crop before planting it. Fact is, 33 nations allow their farmers to produce hemp. The U.S. imported $125 million in hemp products in 1999, $200 million in 2000. Canadian hemp is being trucked past barely-surviving South Dakota farms, for crying out loud! That alone demonstrates the absurdity of current policy. Legislators and the Public Opinion unquestioningly accepted the 1999 Dept. of Agriculture's report on hemp's potential. This report was custom-designed to fit the agendas of other governmental agencies, largely agencies who arrest and imprison people. It was based on an assumption that the demand for hemp would never rise. Demand has already doubled since the report was penned. After 65 years of governmental misinformation about and prohibition of the most useful plant God ever created, it's not surprising there is currently a relatively small market for hemp in the United States. Since we can't grow it, there are no manufacturing facilities for hemp paper, textiles, or any of the other 60000-plus uses for hemp. Is it surprising that a government agency -- based on its relationship with corporate giants like the fertilizer/pesticide/herbicide companies, the paper companies, and the oil companies -- would produce a report which supports the positions of these companies and the prison/industrial complex? Hemp can be used for anything trees, cotton or flax, or petroleum can be used for. Of course hemp is not always the best raw material for a given product. However, it is the best for a wide variety of consumer and industrial uses. Various estimates hover around a $500 billion world-wide potential market. In January, we commissioned a poll which showed that 85 per cent of South Dakota voters think farmers should be allowed to grow hemp. The poll, including script and technique, is available at (http://www.sodaknorml.org/poll.htm) on the Internet. Contact us for referrals to more information about hemp at www.sodakhemp.org. If the Public Opinion doubts the veracity of our poll, perhaps it should conduct its own poll. Meanwhile, we'll continue obtaining signatures on the hemp petition from the four-out-of-five South Dakotans who agree that it is insane to deny South Dakota farmers the opportunities farmers have in China, Russia, England, Germany, France, Canada, and 27 other countries. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth