INDUSTRIAL HEMP POSES NO THREAT

RAY, N.D. I am proud and honored by the negative comments of Jeanette
McDougal and John Coleman, as well as mystified by their statements
that provide little in the way of statistical evidence to support
their negative stance on industrial hemp ("The plan: First hemp, then
pot" and "'Legalize pot' groups use hemp arguments as front," Page
4A, Jan. 16).

I am honored that McDougal would recognize North Dakota farmers as
solid citizens: "What group is perceived as more 'solid' than
America's farmers, especially North Dakota farmers?" Even in
Arkansas, people who disagree with us recognize farmers in the entire
Midwest are hard-working folks who supply the food needs of not only
this great country but also major portions of the world.

But to state that marijuana has any correlation to the efforts by
myself and everyone I have to date come in contact with, is sorely mistaken.

In the 18 years that I was an emergency medical technician
volunteering with our local ambulance squad, I responded to too many
calls that involved drugs. For me, it does not matter that marijuana
could lead to other drugs; I will have nothing to do with its legalization.

I will have nothing to do with any tobacco products, either. Tobacco
should be grown in the U.S. only as biological factories, or
pharmaceutical plants that could use their large leaves for protein
and other chemicals.

Further, to suppose that marijuana can be planted inside a field of
industrial hemp and achieve any degree of so-called recreational high
is again misleading. From what I have read, industrial hemp is a
dominant pollinator, which reduces THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol)
content in marijuana to a point where the "good stuff" would end up
practically worthless.

Industrial hemp pollen also would with winds pollinate marijuana
plants for miles and, therefore, would serve as a compelling reason
why it would be a desirable rotational crop.

Far more likely would be growing pot inside a corn field. But with
sophisticated satellite imagery and high-speed computers, a lab could
survey a suspected area 24 hours a day in multiple wavelengths.

So, no marijuana for me.

As to Coleman, his assertion that our nation's legislators have been
swindled by past drug proponents is intriguing, to say the least. In
order to make this assertion, you have to assume that the governor of
North Dakota, along with the state attorney general, agriculture
commissioner and House and Senate majorities, also have been duped.

North Dakota is known as a state with hard-working people who are
respected for their ingenuity and integrity. Coleman's assertions are
akin to the idiocy put forth in the old story about the Buffalo
Commons: As written by Frank and Deborah Popper in 1987, our drier
Upper Midwest plains supposedly were not suitable for sustainable
agriculture. But North Dakota recently has been listed among the top
in the nation in production of many grains, peas, beans, lentils and
honey. The state also produces a great deal of beef, pork, turkey,
buffalo and other meats.

If industrial hemp is not a profitable rotational crop well suited to
North Dakota, then why have our leaders supported legalization of it
for 10 years?

Further, if industrial hemp is as readily available from other
sources across the world as you presume, then freight must be free to
get it to domestic markets.

It will be interesting to see how comments stack up by supporters of
industrial hemp and those who have a different agenda.

I look forward to farming in a new era of alternative opportunity.
When the stigma of marijuana has been separated from industrial hemp,
then the creative talents of bright minds across our great nation
truly will shine with new and innovative ideas.

In June, Hauge and another farmer with a state hemp-farming license,
State Rep. David Monson of Osnabrock, sued in U.S. District Court in
an effort to end the federal government's obstruction of commercial
hemp farming in the U.S. They're appealing a judge decision in
November to dismiss their suit.