They Only Have One Argument Against Hemp…And Its Wrong
The Columbia Tribune reports on the ongoing challenges faced by North Dakota farmers seeking to grow industrial hemp. Though the state of North Dakota has passed legislation authorizing hemp cultivation, farmers must obtain approval from DEA, which isn't exactly fast-tracking this.
So basically the DEA hasn't decided for sure, but in case they do allow hemp cultivation, they've created roadblocks to make it unprofitable.
Here's ONDCP's Tom Riley explaining the logic of this:
After being humiliated in The New York Times, it's impressive that they still have the nerve to raise this backwards argument. Cross-pollination would decimate any commercial marijuana in proximity to a hemp field. You can't mix them, Tom Riley. Stop saying that. Seriously, stop.
For a period of time, I assumed that they were simply ignorant of the cross-pollination issue. Perhaps upon coming to understand it, they would endorse hemp cultivation, which more or less ensures the absence of commercial marijuana growing in its vicinity. But now that this issue has been exposed in The Times, it seems much more likely that they're willfully ignoring it and proceeding with their usual nonsense.
The question, therefore, is why? They have one argument against industrial hemp, and it makes absolutely no sense. It's been proven to be comically wrong, and they have no other anti-hemp talking points to fall back on. When legitimate farmers with no interest in the drug culture ask for permission to grow hemp as an agricultural commodity, why do ONDCP and DEA grasp in desperation for even the most pitiful justifications to oppose them?
The answer is that for decades they've arbitrarily denied American farmers the right to participate in a multi-billion dollar industry. They are drug warriors waging battle against economic activities over which they hold no constitutional authority. As with so many other colossal drug war errors, to stop now would be to acknowledge the childish stubbornness and rank incompetance that have motivated their actions from the beginning.
Just another thing we shouldn't even be arguing about. It's not even a goddamn drug.
Monson plans to raise hemp on only 10 acres at first, a demonstration crop, but under federal regulations, the acreage still must be completely fenced and reported by GPS coordinates. All hemp sales also must be reported.
"That’s a per-acre cost of about $400, and that would be prohibitive," Monson said.
So basically the DEA hasn't decided for sure, but in case they do allow hemp cultivation, they've created roadblocks to make it unprofitable.
Here's ONDCP's Tom Riley explaining the logic of this:
Growers could hide pot plants in hemp fields, complicating agents’ efforts to find them, said Tom Riley, of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy.
"You have legitimate farmers who want to experiment with a new crop," Riley said. "But you have another group, very enthusiastic, who want to allow cultivation of hemp because they believe it will lead to a de facto legalization of marijuana.
…
"The last thing law enforcement people need is for the cultivation of marijuana-looking plants to spread," he said. "Are we going to ask them to go through row by row, field by field, to distinguish between legal hemp and marijuana?"
After being humiliated in The New York Times, it's impressive that they still have the nerve to raise this backwards argument. Cross-pollination would decimate any commercial marijuana in proximity to a hemp field. You can't mix them, Tom Riley. Stop saying that. Seriously, stop.
For a period of time, I assumed that they were simply ignorant of the cross-pollination issue. Perhaps upon coming to understand it, they would endorse hemp cultivation, which more or less ensures the absence of commercial marijuana growing in its vicinity. But now that this issue has been exposed in The Times, it seems much more likely that they're willfully ignoring it and proceeding with their usual nonsense.
The question, therefore, is why? They have one argument against industrial hemp, and it makes absolutely no sense. It's been proven to be comically wrong, and they have no other anti-hemp talking points to fall back on. When legitimate farmers with no interest in the drug culture ask for permission to grow hemp as an agricultural commodity, why do ONDCP and DEA grasp in desperation for even the most pitiful justifications to oppose them?
The answer is that for decades they've arbitrarily denied American farmers the right to participate in a multi-billion dollar industry. They are drug warriors waging battle against economic activities over which they hold no constitutional authority. As with so many other colossal drug war errors, to stop now would be to acknowledge the childish stubbornness and rank incompetance that have motivated their actions from the beginning.
Just another thing we shouldn't even be arguing about. It's not even a goddamn drug.
Location:
United States
See map: Google Maps
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!
In Nature Anything is Possible
Nature can and will find a way. Evolution. Besides, I concur with your position Mr. Morgan. All except the *&%damm part and nature. I do not believe that God would damm some good Indica or Sativa. I believe that God would sit back and say; "Enjoy". And as far as the pollination of species? That would be an interesting experiment. Kind of like crossing a Zebra with a Mule.
And on a more serious note. Your right. The argument is always the same when it comes to dealing with the "People on the Hill". However one and all should remember that elected officials are to be servants of the people. Not the Masters of the people.
How do we Whip their hipocritical asses? We as a people need to Vote.(and I beleive you do, Mr. Morgan) Challenge the politician when he panders for your vote. The chances are that once that same politician obtains your endoresment. The politician gets to the "Hill" and laughs his or hers asses off while sipping on a Scotch on the rocks, and says, "Damm" I'm sure glad we legalized this shit. "Bartender", "Give me another Hit".
Good Point Mr. Morgan. I sure wish we could grow Hemp. I would plant the back 60 acres right now. Hemp cloth is soft and easy to dye and it grows like a weed. Not to mention the jobs that would be created from its cultivation. And the government could get their Dime. You know, I bet the real issue is this? The federal government knows that seeds are available to just about everyone who wants them? The real problem there is; "How would they tax this product". Perhaps they should use the same formula that is used in tabacco production and the sales of its byproducts. We should ask Al Gore. He probably came up with the sollution while pondering world issues and puffing on some sweet leaf.
Why not hemp?
The omega prophet couldn't have said it more succinct. Besides the virtual elimination of herbicide use (as in cotton crops), less irrigation requirements, not to mention the billions of trees that we slaughter, what could be the reason for passive-aggressive attitude of these officials? I guess they're afraid that if they admit one thing they must fess up about the rest of it. Where has common sense gone? As I've stated somewhere before, it's not really rocket science.
Gaynel in Arkansas
Hemp for victory
Hemp is THE solutin man, it can produce on 1 ... akre or something as much paper, and robably some other fiber based products, as 4,6 akres of trees, plus that the hemp plant takes only 120 days to reach its maturity, therefore no more de-foresting for paper, because nobody will be able to buy tree based paper with good concience, in the precence of hemp paper, even though the tree paper would be cheaper (which i do not consider probable), plus that hemp paper does not go yellow with time, i think i read somewhere. And who the fuck would bother smoking a joint the size of a every-day McDonalds customer? The DEA is probably funded by the big companies, that manufacture oil, clothes and textiles from polluting chemicals and chemical processes, that face huge profit losses and possible bankrupts if hemp becomes perfectly legal crop, decendants of the same motherfuckers that had it outlawed in 1937, by using their connections in politics and their ownership in the papers to advertise the horrors of marijuana smoking, extending that to every hemp plant and becoming filthy rich and fat on other peoples and the natures suffering. Ron Paul for president y'all! Peace out.
Hinrik Stefnir Ævarsson, Icelandic hemp lover (-:
against legalization of HemP at all costs!!!
I think Hemp should continue to be highly regulated!!!! Good as a medical issue but should not be any more than that!!!! I disagree!!!! We had a battle in the 49th L.D. in Washington State and I am glad it did not pass. This is not a good thing. Take it from a guy who has been struggling for 30 years to recover from too much Cannabis, combined with a few other drugs like Magic Mushrooms!!! Definitely not!!! Do not Legalize Marijuana or Hemp!!!! This is a bad idea all around. People think they can't get addicted but that is a lie!!! I was addicted to this stuff
Hey buddy, just 'cause you
Hey buddy, just 'cause you can't handle something doesn't mean the rest of us have to give it up. You're the one with the problem. Check yourself in to some rehab facility. People with weight problems don't yell for others to give up sweets. Alcoholics aren't crying out for prohibition to be reinstated. Be a real man, take responsibility for yourself. As it stands now you're just some kind of wuss admitting you have no self control (or self respect).
Don't be a fool
Hemp and marijuana have nothing to do with each other. Hemp is a crop with over 25,000 uses, not counting smoking it. If you tried to smoke a true hemp plant, you'd probably cough your eyes out, feel like an idiot, and not be high. What's really dangerous are the herbicides and pesticides your ingest and breathe everyday, or the carbon monoxide from over use of fossil fuels. The hemp plant could turn this country around into a power house of efficiency instead of a disposable society with no thoughts of the future.
Post new comment