Is prohibition really about hemp?

I have been considering lately that the government has a lot more stake in keeping hemp illegal that anything to do with marijuana. The federal government has ties to big oil and America's #1 taxed import is textiles. Anything that can be done with fossil fuels can be done more cleanly and cheaply with hemp and without hurting the environment. As long as pot is illegal they have an excuse to keep hemp from being grown. As a result of the ongoing raids in California, governor Brown has vetoed the hemp bill which would have started large scale production of hemp in the Sacramento valley for the first time since World War 2. The reason is that farmers would have faced federal prosecution for growing it. Why is an incredibly useful plant still federally illegal after decades and decades of research?

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...

SisterMaryElephant said:

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.

Click to expand...

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/crops/hemp/bko05s03.html

[video=youtube;wspw-SdyGDE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wspw-SdyGDE[/video]

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."

SisterMaryElephant said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

HobbyGrower72 said:

a world where purple haze cigarettes are sold next to marlboro, in fact marlboro green (not menthol) is a possibility.

Click to expand...

i already seen the "green pack" of marlboro in the early 90's. i remember mom sayin hey boy look at this , an there it was on the news...... marlboro was already producing the green pack for weed ....... i dont remember what when or why but they did...................... then a few days later i went to jail for a roach!








soil

all of this is outlawed cause nobody can own a plant or strain. no pharma co or other can lay a patent on it so no money in it. money makes the work go round.

i dont weant it legal either...just get rid of prhabition...why does someone or anyone feel they need to own this or regulate a natural plant. lots of other plant meds but nobodies after those ones to make illegal.
if they legalized it then they tax the hell out of it and we continue the underground growing to beat the tax man so it wont change a dam thing. look at smokes...way over taxed, especialy here in canada. look at dispensing fees on a pill. what do you think they will do to a fee for something that cost alot more than a pill and cost 40 bux to put in a small bottle. whos going to afford this..sure isnt me on dissability so ill continue to buy underground cheeper or grow my own.
they say the tax will fix everyones economy?...relay. but were broke now. so who is going to be the ones buying it if its legalized. with no jobs or money as it is...so nobody buyin means there is no tx revenue. but there will be more need for police to regulate the new laws and cost us once again more taxes. this legalizing hasnt been well thought out in my eyes

because dupont gave money to the gov in forms of lobbying.

lobbying and campaign contributions from corps. needs to be illegal. thats what Occupy wall street needs to focus on.
separation of corporations and State!!!

IT was originally about hemp, now its about funding for DEA and other law enforcement. With violent crime on the fall along with other crimes, the police only have drugs to focus on now with their huge amounts of cash to fight terrorism and drugs

sorry guys...lol..

I would concur Hearst and DuPont likely had some influence in it's illegalization and I think Fords Hemp Car sealed the deal.

One of my entries has some hemp related material. If I get off my butt I eventually want to add more instructions on how to make hemp products.
https://www.rollitup.org/blogs/blog12821-marijuana-plant-hemp.html

interesting responses!

i am convinced now that the original prohibition of cannabis was mainly due to hemp - the articles i read point to the public at large being unaware of the issue before and after the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Only the AMA was aware that they were targeting a drug that doctors regularly prescribed, calling them on the fact that they had drafted the document in secret without any scientific input and using false claims of "addiction, violence, and overdosage" - later we find that the basis of the prohibition "included incorrect, excessive or unfounded arguments."

So, legalization in this case seems like a proper financial move entirely. I think that the basic fundamentals of business regulation in the United States is avoiding monopolies and allowing one business to profit on that monopolized commodity. Cannabis should have it's place in the world market.

Opium is a plant too

WeedKillsBrainCells said:

Opium is a plant too

Click to expand...

yes it is , but there is no comparison. i dont care where the shit came from , have you ever seen how them folks live ? its worse then reefer madness , only for real.





soil

Cannabisworks said:

they say the tax will fix everyones economy?...relay. but were broke now. so who is going to be the ones buying it if its legalized. with no jobs or money as it is...so nobody buyin means there is no tx revenue. but there will be more need for police to regulate the new laws and cost us once again more taxes. this legalizing hasnt been well thought out in my eyes

Click to expand...

that, by no means will fix the economy ! it will just make one or two corps rich. more bonuses for the 1%

every older person an anybody that dont wanna deal with the local "drug dealer" will buy from pharma. there is no recession in "drugs". that dont happen. .... PLENTY of tax revenue.

i sure dont see how it would be possible to "add police because of new laws". i think there gonna need less police , a LOT less , so that means even more bonuses for the government.

i think everybody but the mafia's and the CIA will benefit from it being legal.

Government - plenty of extra money to burn and will earn them some extra votes.
Average smoker- NO MORE JAIL ! option of choosing species. price drops slightly.
Average pot dealer- the government cant compete with the mafia and the growers price, so income drops slightly and a lot less KIDS selling.


Cons ..... possible big outbreak in real drugs.





soil