Pubdate: Fri, 14 Dec 2001
Source: Watertown Public Opinion (SD)
Copyright: 2001 Watertown Public Opinion
Contact:  http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?brd=1166
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1416
Author: Gordon Garnos
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/hemp.htm (Hemp)

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....
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh