INDUSTRIAL HEMP HASN'T PROVEN ITS NEED

At issue: Should South Dakota Farmers Be Allowed To Produce Industrial Hemp?

In a surprise move, the delegates of the South Dakota Farmers Union
unanimously endorsed the proposal to legalize industrial hemp growing
in the state. The Public Opinion supports the idea of taking issues
to the voting public, but we cannot endorse the proposition of
growing industrial hemp.

We are not sure how it came about, but the 70-plus delegates to the
annual convention of the South Dakota Farmers Union last weekend in
Sioux Falls unanimously endorsed a petition drive to legalize
industrial hemp production. The proposal has been beaten down couple
of times in past legislative sessions for various reasons.

Some legislators thought that allowing industrial hemp to be grown in
the state would be just a step away from the legalization of
marijuana. Many South Dakotans don't like to admit it, but this
strong resentment generally goes back to how smoking marijuana led to
tragedies or at least near tragedies within their families.

Supporters of growing industrial hemp argue this is different than
its cousin, marijuana, because it contains no more than one percent
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This is the substance in marijuana that
gets smokers high. However, distinguishing the difference between the
two plants out in the field is nearly impossible. Allowing this
product to be grown in the state would just make it that much more
difficult for law enforcement officers in trying to keep this drug
out of the hands of our young people.

Bob Newland, president of SoDak NORML, and affiliate of the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said in response to
the endorsement, "I'm walking on air. I couldn't be happier."

He and another supporter, Rep. Frank Kloucek, D-Scotland, don't see
any problems. In fact, they present some interesting arguments why
South Dakota voters should endorse the growing of industrial hemp in
the state. For instance, "We are already importing it from all over
the world. The twine we buy comes from Brazil." Hemp is brought to
the United States from more than 30 nations. "We truck Canadian hemp
right past barely surviving South Dakota farms."

And that is exactly our point. While most hemp used in the United
States is from foreign nations, the market value, or even its
potential market value has not yet been proven as was the
two-barreled need for such farm products as ethanol and soybeans.
Their value was proven long before any processing plants were
constructed in the state.

The idea of industrial hemp finding a viable market now, or even a
future market, is doubtful at best. We have heard the same
predictions as others have about the number of ways industrial hemp
can be used. However, we have been told many of the suggested hemp
products are now being made with other materials that are generally
as good or better in quality and less expensive to produce and
process.

While we strongly endorse the right of the people to take issues to a
public vote, we do not think this proposal should get the voters'
stamp of approval. Simply put, we feel the growing of industrial hemp
in South Dakota will bring on more problems to the people of the
state than solutions to the farmers' financial plight.

We also endorse the effort of our farmers producing valuable crops.
But we are not convinced industrial hemp is one of those. We are also
concerned that after all this effort, industrial hemp will go down
the same trail as Jerusalem artichokes and the mushroom industry did
several years ago in the state.

Newland started his petition drive last May and must get 13,010 valid
signatures by May 2002 to get the initiated measure on next
November's General Election ballot.

And if Newland and the other supporters of industrial hemp production
in South Dakota get the valid signatures they need in the time they
need them, we would certainly encourage our readers to know a lot
more on this before they cast their ballots next November....