The Associated Press reports North Dakota state Rep. Dave Monson of Osnabrock, who wrote legislation to study hemp's potential as a cash crop in the state, says he doesn't expect the federal government to change its mind overnight. ``But I think if it turns out that hemp is a viable crop that our farmers could make some money with, certainly there would be a big push down here to be allowed to grow it as well,'' he says.

Of course, he is right on both counts. The federal government certainly will not "change its mind overnight," but they will lie and stall American farmers as long as they can.

The AP explains that "law enforcement agencies oppose legalizing hemp production because of the difficulty in telling" it from marijuana. Note that the AP accepts the "law enforcement" explanation without question. Why is it that police all around the world can tell the difference, but American police cannot?

However, the AP does give the other side of the picture. That is what makes the story. It quotes Floyd Boutrous of Bismarck, "a hemp advocate" whose sons operate a hemp clothing maker in San Francisco, as saying U.S. laws prohibiting hemp are archaic. His sons must import pre-made fabric from other countries where hemp production is legal. But they live in San Francisco, so they would say that, now wouldn’t they?

Monson’s legislation is in keeping with a long tradition of having state agricultural schools do research on potential new crops and farming techniques for the unique conditions in each state. However, each state that wants to do research on hemp has to overcome federal opposition even to considering doing research. Also the research has to be rather abstract, because they can’t actually grow the crop.

The AP quotes North Dakota State University researcher David Kraenzel as saying, "there is no shame letting Canada enter the hemp market first."

This, of course, is an economic rather than moral judgement. (Economists have no shame.)

``There's advantages and disadvantages to being first,'' said Kraenzel, who is leading the North Dakota State University hemp study provided by Monson's bill.

``There's nothing wrong with being what I call the lead producer, but there's nothing wrong with being the lead follower, either. Let those who can afford to make mistakes lead the way,'' added Kraenzel, associate director of the university's Institute of Natural Resources and Economic Development.

The United States has certainly led the way in making mistakes with hemp. But we are not even close to being the "lead follower" in correcting them. Canada may get that position by being next to the world’s largest market, but US farmers are years away from freedom.

Earlier this year the American Farm Bureau convention voted against even doing research on hemp, so it wouldn’t appear that they were being "used by NORML." The irony of that is overwhelming.
See American Farm Bureau Convention Narrowly Votes Against Researching Hemp Production

Kraenzel's study is an attempt to determine whether hemp would be a viable alternative crop in North Dakota, should the federal government ever make it legal. The probe will include an analysis of possible markets and the availability of production and processing facilities. A final report is due by August.

Monson said he is eager to see the report and plans to watch what happens in Canada very closely. ``Whatever Canada can do with it, we can, too,'' he said. ``If they can find a way to make it work economically, there's nothing to say that we can't do the same.''

Except for the DEA, that is.