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.