IS IT A PANACEA OR PARIAH?

In South Dakota, the debate over the production of industrial hemp is
heating up and which of the above definitions you choose depends on which
side of the debate you stand.

For farmers hungry for a new, profitable crop for their land, the idea of
being able to grow industrial hemp holds some promise that has been lost
over years of declining market prices for traditional crops such as corn,
wheat and soybeans.

The possibility of growing 50 or 60 acres of the weed-like crop and being
able get $600 an acre in return has many questioning why there remains such
strong opposition to legalizing the industrial cousin of marijuana. Still,
South Dakota supporters of legalizing the production of hemp are joining
more than 20 other states in pushing for larger public support and have
begun circulating a petition around the state calling for a referendum vote
on the issue.

They need to gather more than 13,000 signatures in order to bring the issue
to a vote, something they are confident they can achieve. The initiated
measure, if brought to a vote and passed in the 2002 November election,
would allow the planting, harvest, possession and sale of industrial hemp
in South Dakota if it contained no more than one percent
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the drug that gives marijuana its kick.

Opponents of the drive, including state and federal ag and law enforcement
officials, say the picture being painted of a market for industrial hemp
ranging into hundreds of billions of dollars each year is inaccurate and
producers could be led down a path to financial ruin without first
gathering all the facts.

Besides disagreement over potential market value of the crop, there is also
the legal debate with far-ranging input from law enforcement and drug agencies.

Bob Newland, the Hermosa man behind the South Dakota petition drive and a
long-time supporter of legalizing both industrial hemp and medical use of
marijuana, has said failed efforts to introduce legislation legalizing
industrial hemp during the last two state legislative sessions reflects the
lack of knowledge legislators have and the continuing stigma attached to a
crop so closely related to marijuana.

His group, the South Dakota Cannabis Coalition, claims that, while the
state's farmers struggle to make ends meet with traditional crops, imported
hemp products are driven right past their driveways, taking money that
could be generated here.

Long-time state legislator Bob Weber of Strandburg has also been a
supporter of legalizing the growing and manufacture of hemp.

"I remember the call during World War II, 'Hemp for Victory' and the
government gave farmers the seed to grow it because they couldn't import
any during the war," Weber told the Public Opinion. "And they did grow
quite a bit of it and somebody said there were some (farmers) that grew it
in South Dakota."

Weber says the main gist of adding hemp to a farmer's options is just that,
expanding options for producers.

"It's another opportunity," he said.

"We would have to have a (processing) plant around here, like the flax
plant that used to be at Watertown. We would have to have guaranteed
markets and contracts for both (grower and processor) and the plants would
have to have a market for it."

Newland has said the U.S. imported $125 million worth of hemp in 1999 and
$200 million worth last year, including some trucked in from Canada where
it has been legal for three years. Weber said a contact in the Canadian
market told him growers could get as much as $600 return per acre with a
hemp crop.

But while proponents of the measure say the opportunity exists for
considerable market uses for hemp and its byproducts, S.D. Secretary of
Agriculture Larry Gabriel says his information contrasts with that image.

"Normally, I support niche markets, but the research indicates the future
(market) of hemp is very, very limited," Gabriel said. "I question his
(Newland's) numbers. I'm not going to say they are wrong, but I'm certainly
not going to say they are right."

As far as the success of the Canadian growers and the markets they have,
Gabriel said there are concerns.

"Proponents say the plants in Canada are doing well, but I believe one is
going through bankruptcy," he said. "We could wind up holding all this
industrial hemp and have no market. I think it's our job to make our
growers aware of that."

Supporters of legalizing the crop say it has the potential to replace
products such as cotton, flax and petroleum for manufacturing purposes and
is much longer lasting and durable. But Gabriel said large manufacturers of
those products have looked at hemp and seem to feel switch grass is a more
viable alternative.

"They say they like the switch grass because it's very, very productive,"
Gabriel said.

While proponents talk of the relatively large potential demand for hemp
products, Gabriel said research indicates the entire U.S. demand for hemp
could be satisfied on just 5,000 acres.

"The potential (for a local plant) exists, but I'm sure they would want to
do a feasibility study first," he said. "If it is going to be legalized,
they (producers) had better do their homework and make sure they can make a
profit."

There is other opposition as well, including law enforcement agencies which
Gabriel says have indicated the difficulty in easily telling industrial
hemp from a marijuana plant could increase illegal drug production. Newland
and others, including Weber, who support legalizing hemp say that is not
the case and, in fact, hemp would actually smother out any nearby marijuana
plants.

Obviously an issue generating diverse opinions, the hemp debate, so far,
has produced no clear-cut answers. Weber and Gabriel do agree on one point:
If there are opportunities for developing viable markets, they should be
considered.

"I think it could be grown in eastern South Dakota as a cash crop," Weber
said. "I do think we should look at it down the road."

While Gabriel said he is unsure of the motives of some of the people behind
the current petition drive saying "I think there are some people supporting
it because of the commercial potential, but I also think there are some
people out there supporting it for less than admirable reasons," he also
agrees if markets develop, it is worth a look.

"They (producers) should not be precluded from looking at it," the ag
secretary said. "It just doesn't appear there are benefits for producers."