N.D. DELEGATION WON'T TAKE UP HEMP ISSUE

The three members of North Dakota's congressional delegation see
little hope in Congress for state farmers who want to grow industrial
hemp.

Members of the state's all-Democratic delegation -- Sens. Byron Dorgan
and Kent Conrad and Rep. Earl Pomeroy -- say they have no plans to
introduce or push legislation that would make it easier for farmers
around the country to grow the crop.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland last month dismissed a lawsuit
filed against the U.S government by two North Dakota farmers, saying
federal law considers industrial hemp to be the same as marijuana,
which is an illegal drug. In his ruling, Hovland suggested asking
Congress to change the definition of industrial hemp to explicitly
distinguish it from marijuana.

That idea has no traction in Congress, the state's delegation
says.

``When the (federal) drug enforcement agency takes this hard line
position, there is not the political will in Congress to challenge
them,'' Pomeroy said. ``No one wants to be involved in something that
some might perceive as loosening our drug laws.''

Hemp can be used for a variety of products, from rope to lotion, and
farmers view it as a possibly lucrative new crop. North Dakota's
Agriculture Department has rules that regulate industrial hemp
production, but farmers need a permit from the federal Drug
Enforcement Administration, which the DEA has declined to grant. This
year, the agency did not act on the applications in time for the
farmers to get a crop in the ground -- inaction the farmers said
amounted to a denial.

In interviews, members of the state's congressional delegation were
hesitant when asked if they believe that growing industrial hemp
should be legalized. Conrad said he would like Congress to take it up
but said it doesn't matter what he thinks, since it's not going to
happen.

``Frankly, we've got our hands full getting things done that can be
done,'' Conrad said.

Pomeroy said in an interview that he believes industrial hemp deserves
a fair evaluation by the Drug Enforcement Administration, but said he
has no evidence that it has not been given a fair evaluation.

In a statement, Dorgan said he believes the production of industrial
hemp could be an economic benefit to American farmers, but he noted
that the DEA opposes it.

``Because of that, the reality is that legislation allowing the growth
of hemp would not be successful in the Congress at this time,'' Dorgan
said.

Congress has tentatively waded into the debate, with pro-hemp
legislation introduced by Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul. Pomeroy is
not signing on, and the bill shows no signs of going anywhere.

Dave Monson, a Republican state legislator who is one of the
plaintiffs in the hemp case, said he is disappointed that the
delegation will not help a cause he says is popular with many North
Dakota farmers. He said he would rather North Dakota's representatives
take up the fight and lose, proving to the courts that there is no
will in Congress to make the change.

``They are doing the thing that politicians do, and that's run for
cover or find the highest ground,'' he said. ``It's kind of
frustrating because they are supposed to represent the people of North
Dakota and the people of North Dakota want this.''

Monson, of Osnabrock, and Wayne Hauge, of Ray, filed a notice earlier
this month in U.S. District Court in Bismarck, saying they would
appeal their case to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St.
Louis. Monson and Hauge have argued the federal government should not
be allowed to interfere in a state-regulated hemp production initiative.

The two men's state licenses to grow hemp expire at year's end, and
they said they intend to apply for new licenses to grow the crop next
year. A state license requires the applicant to be fingerprinted and
undergo a criminal background check.

``Right now, it's just little North Dakota fighting the federal
government,'' Monson said.

North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson supports growing
industrial hemp and said it is disappointing that Washington doesn't
have an appetite for the issue.

``It is unfortunate, because the production of industrial hemp
presents virtually no potential for illegitimate purposes and because
the crop has considerable potential in North Dakota and other
states,'' he said.

Hemp falls under federal anti-drug rules because it has trace amounts
of the mind-altering chemical THC that is found in marijuana. Hemp
supporters say research has concluded that people cannot get a
``high'' from hemp, and that the North Dakota regulations ensure that
only legal parts of the plant such as fiber and seed would be
cultivated. The government argued that state regulations do not trump
federal law, which considers hemp a controlled substance.