The Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports of 1991 were used as a basis for defining a rural county. Telephone interviews were conducted with nine county sheriff departments in areas classified as rural. Interviews were used to supplement government and private research documents. Analysis focused on how Federal funding and initiatives are used by rural law enforcement officials, the methods officials employ to combat marijuana production and trafficking, and the constraints rural law enforcement agencies face. It was found that rural law enforcement agencies encounter dilemmas because most are located in areas where there is no industry, an insufficient tax base, and an inadequate number of people from which to procure funds. These problems are compounded by the fact that many rural counties have large and geographically challenging terrain that strain manpower in covering the areas. Drug producers and traffickers recognize the problems faced by rural counties and therefore establish their production facilities and trafficking lanes in rural areas. The author believes that an effective, long-term solution would be to provide funding for computerized data bases that can be networked across jurisdictions. The Rural Crime and Drug Control Act of 1991, the 1992 National Drug Control Strategy Budget, and the questionnaire given to rural sheriff departments are appended. References, tables, and figures