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.