Is prohibition really about hemp?

yes it is . . . . .

No, it wasn't about hemp. The prohibition of marijuana was based on racist policies of big government democrats in the 30's. Anti-Mexican and anti-black politicians targeted marijuana because migrant workers from Mexico and Jazz (mostly black) musicians smoked it. Anlsinger even lied to congress, testifiying that he tried marijuana and after a couple of hits he turned into a bat and flew around the room.

Later, in 1970, a democrat controlled congress passed the Controlled Substances Act which made marijuana a schedule 1 drug because hippies were smoking it and listening to rock and roll.

that was the face of it yes, but behind Anslinger was William Randolph Hearst who had a controlling interest in the timber industry for his multiple publications. he knew that hemp was poised to provide a cheap alternative to conventional tree paper and was already willing to print lies in his newspapers about anything that crossed his path. he also hated mexicans because he had been looted by them personally, but more than wanting to punish them, he wanted his vast fortune to stay intact. before that hemp was not suitable to make into paper, but all of this happened as soon as the decorticator machine was invented to process hemp on an industrial scale. did you know that near the same time Henry Ford built his first cars out of hemp? and that he also intended to run them on hemp methanol until the oil and steel companies stepped in?

they couldn't very well say "we want to make cannabis illegal because it interferes with our corporate interest" but they could lie and say that mexicans were going berserk on it. why lie if there is nothing to cover up?

since back then they knew that hemp could upset their apple cart big time. in the 60's and 70's they thought that hemp was just about gone for good, but indeed it was still there in the hands of a few thinking people. their old enemy right there under the noses of environment conscious individuals. so they created a 'war on drugs' scenario which pushed harmless old pot back to the top of the world's enemy number one list along with its cousin hemp. forever vilified once more the oil companies then raised their prices. here is a quote "In the 1920s, the early oil barons such as Rockefeller of Standard Oil, Rothschild of Shell, etc., became paranoically aware of the possibilities of Henry Ford’s vision of cheap methanol fuel, * and they kept oil prices incredibly low – between $1 and $4 per barrel (there are 42 gallons in an oil barrel) until 1970 – almost 50 years! Then, once they were finally sure of the lack of competition, the price of oil jumped to almost $60+ per barrel over the next 30 years."

Hemp was never going to replace timber for paper, the amount of land required to replace the pulp from just one tree would make it impracticle and logistically impossible. It would mean replacing the land required to grow food with hemp for paper. BIO-Diesel made from peanut oil was going to be bigger than hemp-methanol and it was only about a decade after the MTA when synthetic rope made hemp rope obsolete. Don't get me wrong, there is still a use for hemp but it's not the panacea that some people claim. Should hemp, which contains virtually no THC be illegal? Of course not.

Regardless, the anti-corporation conspiracy theories just don't hold water. I've heard similar stories where it was "big-pharma" that did it to protect their new medicines but that fact is, it was just simple racism and ignorance that fueled it.

Today marijuana use is still attached to the "hippy" stereotype which is slowly being replaced with the "stoner/pothead" stereotype image on the negative side and to some extent the "patient" image on the positive side. Unfortuantely, even the "patient" image is being eroded, slowly, by those that abuse the "medical" exemptions in many states. Everyone knows that getting a rec in California, for example, is a joke. Got a hangnail? Get a rec, headache? Get a rec. Pretend you hurt your leg, neck or back? get a rec, no real proof needed in most cases.

I just hope that we can get the Federal government to give control back to the States before those without true medical needs ruin it for those with real needs. Once the States have control, some will decriminalize, for adults, like booze. The biggest hurdle, right now, is the Federal government and some in our own community that turn-off those that we need to change their minds.

YMMV...

Originally Posted by SisterMaryElephant

Hemp was never going to replace timber for paper, the amount of land required to replace the pulp from just one tree would make it impracticle and logistically impossible. It would mean replacing the land required to grow food with hemp for paper.

but how long does it take to grow that one tree ? how many hemp plants could be grown in that amount of time ?

just a question ..... this aint really my subject...






soil

hemp grows extremely fast and in very tight groups, if your really interested look up manitobe hemp fields in canada
http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/cro.../bko05s03.html

http://www.thc-ministry.net/untoldstory/pmpage1.html - An article from Popular Mechanics Magazine 1938

From Altahemp.com - "Ben Franklin owned a mill that made hemp paper. Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper. Until 1883, more than 75% of the world's paper was made with hemp fiber. In 1937 Popular Science magazine called hemp "The New Billion Dollar Crop." Then the big money people struck out to protect their interests. Newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst led the crusade to ban hemp. Hearst owned millions of acres of prime timber land and a machine that simplified the process of making paper from hemp had just been invented. Hearst used his power as a publisher to create public panic about the evils of hemp and marijuana. Another big money player Pierre DuPont held patent rights to the sulfuric acid wood pulp paper process. In 1937 DuPont patented nylon rope made from synthetic petrochemicals. The big money people prevailed and near the end of 1937 Congress passed the marijuana Tax Act. By placing a prohibitively high tax on hemp production it destroyed the industry. This was done to protect these big money interests of the timber, petrochemical, and cotton industries. Hemp was briefly re-legalized during W.W.II. The U.S. government produced the movie Hemp for Victory to encourage farmers to grow hemp. Even 4H clubs were asked to grow hemp to help their country in wartime. The parachute that saved George Bush's life in World War II was made of hemp fiber."

Originally Posted by SisterMaryElephant

Today marijuana use is still attached to the "hippy" stereotype which is slowly being replaced with the "stoner/pothead" stereotype image on the negative side and to some extent the "patient" image on the positive side. Unfortuantely, even the "patient" image is being eroded, slowly, by those that abuse the "medical" exemptions in many states. Everyone knows that getting a rec in California, for example, is a joke. Got a hangnail? Get a rec, headache? Get a rec. Pretend you hurt your leg, neck or back? get a rec, no real proof needed in most cases.

I used to think that medicinal use was the wrong approach. But then I realized, soon after alcohol's prohibition, its medical use was sanctioned. Doctors prescribed alcohol for all sorts of things just as marijuana is today. We all know what happened to the 18th amendment.

So, if they wanna play this way, so be it. Let them have prescriptions for hang nails. I hope soon it will be legal for medicinal and recreational use. I imagine a world where purple haze cigarettes are sold next to marlboro, in fact marlboro green (not menthol) is a possibility.