A federal judge has handed two North Dakota farmers a setback in their efforts to be the first in the country to legally grow industrial hemp.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland dismissed the farmers' lawsuit against the U.S. government, saying the matter is best left to Congress.

Wayne Hauge and Dave Monson wanted the federal government barred from prosecuting them for growing industrial hemp under state regulations approved last year.

Industrial hemp still is considered an illegal drug, Hovland wrote, though he said it "may not be the terrible menace the (Drug Enforcement Administration) makes it out to be."

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.

Hovland's decision mirrored comments he made when he heard arguments in the case earlier this month. He told lawyers then that the best remedy might be to change the definition of industrial hemp under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which does not distinguish the plant from marijuana.

"The proper venue to amend the statute is Congress and not the courts," Hovland wrote in dismissing the lawsuit this week.

DEA spokesman Garrison Courtney said the agency was satisfied that the judge agreed with the government position.

Courtney declined comment on details of the ruling, including Hovland's comments that DEA "prejudged the merits" of hemp-growing applications the two farmers submitted to the federal government earlier 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.

The farmers' attorney, Tim Purdon, said he was disappointed in Hovland's ruling. He said no decision had been made on whether to appeal.

"Clearly the judge thinks Congress needs to address (the issue)," Purdon said.

State Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson said he thinks an appeal is the only realistic option. "I don't think Congress will deal with it," he said.

Legislation introduced in Congress last February - the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 - would exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana, but no hearings have been held on the bill. Hemp can be used for a variety of products, from rope to lotion, and farmers view it as a possibly lucrative new crop.

Eric Steenstra, president of Vote Hemp, the nonprofit lobbying group that funded the farmers' lawsuit, called Hovland's ruling disappointing, saying it overlooks the original intent of Congress.

He said that Vote Hemp would "wholeheartedly support" an appeal. Vote Hemp spokesman Adam Eidinger said that would include financing an appeal. He estimated the group has spent about $20,000 so far on the case, including reimbursing Hauge and Monson the $2,293 fee each paid when they applied to the DEA for permission to grow hemp.