The Marijuana Conspiracy

[kookbreaker]

What is the infrastructure? What is the motivation to innovate if America continues the ban?

Seriously, if the market opens things will happen.

Not really. Hemp has had its chance for ages. It is really only illegal in the USA and it hasn't exactly lit fires in the countries where it is legal. You can grow it in Germany, for example, which is the leading country in paper technology

And the Germans just don't care.

Do you have a reference to the hemp glut that I could review to bring myself up to speed on this Canadian travesty?

Are you incapable of googling 'Canadian Hemp Glut'? Mind you, you'll find the primary results are going to be a bunch of hemp advocates trying to rationalize the failure - but even they admit there were some bad moves being made.

What do you think the motivation is to keep it illegal?

Its more a case of there is little impetus to make it legal rather than motivation to keep it illegal. Farmers aren't so excited after the glut. Many environmentalists are ticked off over the hemp-heads near hijacking of the environmental movement in the 90's and making sensible environmentalists look like a mere extension of the 'legalize it' movement. The overpromising of the 'legalize it' crowd has left many folks sour.

So what you are left with is a lack of desire to put any effort into making the stuff legal again. The only argument remaining to put energy into this is essentially "awww c'mon!!!"

Seriously, you guys hedge about it, but come out and say it. And then explain it in a way that doesn't make it sound like an evil plan to keep the plant down. Hyperbole seems necessary to get things moving here.

If it is such an obviously "no big deal" thing to you guys, what could possibly be the motivation to keep it down? It has NO drug value whatsoever, so we can all agree on that. If this is the case, then the Drug Warriors should not worry. So why do they?

"aww c'mon!!!"

 

[elbe]

No, it isn't "no one". "elbe" just parroted the drug line just a few posts ago.

I think the ban on both hemp and marijuana is stupid, but in the public consciousness hemp is associated with marijuana (and, to be honest, the hemp "supporters" aren't really helping to correct that misconception). A politician legalizing hemp is opening the doors to attacks by their opponents for their "pro-drug" stance, even if it's completely unfounded.

If you can change public perception than it could probably pass easily, but until then it's a "drug". It's not a conspiracy, it's just a really simple "moral" platform.

ETA: Why "elbe"? Is that not really my pseudonym on this forum? Or is it that you just don't don't believe I'm a European river?

 

[MolBasser]

I think the ban on both hemp and marijuana is stupid, but in the public consciousness hemp is associated with marijuana (and, to be honest, the hemp "supporters" aren't really helping to correct that misconception). A politician legalizing hemp is opening the doors to attacks by their opponents for their "pro-drug" stance, even if it's completely unfounded.

If you can change public perception than it could probably pass easily, but until then it's a "drug". It's not a conspiracy, it's just a really simple "moral" platform.

ETA: Why "elbe"? Is that not really my pseudonym on this forum? Or is it that you just don't don't believe I'm a European river?

Why, because that is your handle and I don't know what else to call you.

I think that people are smart enough to distinguish industrial hemp from the drug cannabis, but maybe I am too optimistic.

It should be moot in California in november as we have a legalization measure on the ballot, and this state is pretty pro-marijuana for any reason.

The reason I asked for the reference is so I can know exactly where your coming from and make specific rebuttals if deemed necesary. Of course I can google it, but I like to know where, specifically, these types of opinions originate. Could be you read a single article, could be you have studied it in detail for years. It is a simple request at any rate.

Sorry for the hodgepodge reply, but it is easier than individual replies when I am on break at work.

MolBasser

 

[elbe]

Why, because that is your handle and I don't know what else to call you.

Yes, but you put it in quotes and I can neither make heads nor tails of what that's supposed to mean.

I think that people are smart enough to distinguish industrial hemp from the drug cannabis, but maybe I am too optimistic.

People can be easily swayed by political attacks (like 'weak on drug crime'). And, again, the hemp supporters american's are likely supporters of are the legalize it group, who do not make very convincing cases - usually with made up facts and conspiracies such as in the OP.

Should hemp be legal? No reason it shouldn't be.
Will it? If there's enough interest (primarily economic) in it to counteract the hemp=marijuana belief, but industries just don't seem that interested in such a coarse fiber when better materials are available.

I know this isn't directed at me, but I wanted to comment on it:

The reason I asked for the reference is so I can know exactly where your coming from and make specific rebuttals if deemed necesary. Of course I can google it, but I like to know where, specifically, these types of opinions originate. Could be you read a single article, could be you have studied it in detail for years. It is a simple request at any rate.

It's not really surprising. If people promise it as a great cash crop but the market just isn't there then you get things like that.

 

[MolBasser]

Well, the searches I have done have led me to see that it was indeed overplanted. That is not to say that the crop could become successful. Indeed several unfortunate events seems to have led to the 1999 issue when half of the crop was contracted to a single company, which went under (I haven't found out why) and were left holding a ton of seed and straw.

Nothing I have read suggests that this crop could not be financially viable. Not the wonder weed, but certainly profitable.

It is an obvious supply and demand thing with a new (relatively) crop. With proper development it seems reasonable.

I didn't read any ZOMG! I'm never planting hemp again articles, so if you have one in mind, I'd like to read it.

Regulatory issues still hamper the market in hemp, apparently, so the drug war is indeed acting to retard the growth of this industry.

We shall see how it pans out.

MolBasser

 

[kookbreaker]

Well, the searches I have done have led me to see that it was indeed overplanted. That is not to say that the crop could become successful. Indeed several unfortunate events seems to have led to the 1999 issue when half of the crop was contracted to a single company, which went under (I haven't found out why) and were left holding a ton of seed and straw.

Nothing I have read suggests that this crop could not be financially viable. Not the wonder weed, but certainly profitable.

It is an obvious supply and demand thing with a new (relatively) crop. With proper development it seems reasonable.

So who is going to pay for this R&D? How do you plan to market when the previous efforts were such a flop?

I didn't read any ZOMG! I'm never planting hemp again articles, so if you have one in mind, I'd like to read it.

Well, I guess your right. The apparent absence of online farmer-authors is proof. I am certain that they will happily dive back into planting a glutted crop with no apparent future market beyond your 'maybe with proper development!!' ideas. That makes perfect sense! After all, there's only a monetary investment, acreage, time, and even possibly damage to farming equipment as a cost in the face of the opportunity to put more product into an overfilled, go-nowhere market.

Regulatory issues still hamper the market in hemp, apparently, so the drug war is indeed acting to retard the growth of this industry.

If that were the case, why is Hemp such a non-issue in nations where hemp isn't illegal?

We shall see how it pans out.

I think I already know.

 

[MolBasser]

Kentucky's state report says that in their state it would be a very viable crop. So do some other states. The Pacific Northwest says, not so much.

The USDA report says the same thing. Very viable in some regions, and not in others.

Nothing is going to happen in development or growing until it becomes legal. No one is going to pay to develop a crop that is currently illegal to grow, so that is the main hurdle right now, obviously.

If that were the case, why is Hemp such a non-issue in nations where hemp isn't illegal?

Because of regulatory hurdles in both the growth and marketing of the product. Even in Canada, the farmers cannot use their own seeds, they have to buy them from the government. Market regulations in buying countries (such as the US) present many cost intensive hurdles to importation.

The whole ZOMG! ITS DOPE thing really IS holding back the industry if you read about it.

MolBasser

 

[kookbreaker]

Because of regulatory hurdles in both the growth and marketing of the product. Even in Canada, the farmers cannot use their own seeds, they have to buy them from the government. Market regulations in buying countries (such as the US) present many cost intensive hurdles to importation.

Canada is probably the worst case example of what I was referring to. Hemp is legal to grow in many other countries yet it hardly makes an impact. China, in fact many asian countries you can grow it without problems, but it is nothing doing.

The whole ZOMG! ITS DOPE thing really IS holding back the industry if you read about it.

I have read about it and frankly it is a lame excuse for a crop that just isn't up to snuff any more. Hemp was fading away as a cash crop even before it was made illegal and there's just no good reason to force it back to life. Hemp is, on its best day, is a second best to other choices. Blaming legal issues in the face of that fact is burying one's head in the sand.

 

[carlitos]

Nothing is going to happen in development or growing until it becomes legal. No one is going to pay to develop a crop that is currently illegal to grow, so that is the main hurdle right now, obviously.

You have said that industrial hemp is illegal several times in this thread. Nationally, that is true. Although several states passed laws to legalize production of industrial hemp, they have not yet done so, as they are hassled by the DEA.

However, as soon as the feds relax, it could be produced under license in 9 states, so it's not entirely "illegal," but more like in a gray area like "medical marijuana." Oregon has been the most proactive in this regard, as they are with a lot of these hippie-type issues, including micro-distillery laws. Just thought that I'd let you know.

 

[MolBasser]

Canada is probably the worst case example of what I was referring to. Hemp is legal to grow in many other countries yet it hardly makes an impact. China, in fact many asian countries you can grow it without problems, but it is nothing doing.



I have read about it and frankly it is a lame excuse for a crop that just isn't up to snuff any more. Hemp was fading away as a cash crop even before it was made illegal and there's just no good reason to force it back to life. Hemp is, on its best day, is a second best to other choices. Blaming legal issues in the face of that fact is burying one's head in the sand.

So, why does anyone grow it if it sucks so bad?

MolBasser

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Because it is profitable in a limited production. There are many crops that are very profitable because they fill a small market, but can not be profitable in a massive way like a grain such as corn is.

There is a market for hemp, and no one denies that. It just isn't primed to overtake wood pulp in the paper industry, or cotton in the clothing industry or even be able to compete in the biodiesel industry (especially given that many other plants would be better suited).

 

[MolBasser]

Well, then let them grow it I say.

I thought the point of this thread was not that it was a miracle plant, but that it was being held down by the man. Which it is.

MolBasser

 

[kookbreaker]

Well, then let them grow it I say.

I thought the point of this thread was not that it was a miracle plant, but that it was being held down by the man. Which it is.

Part of the problem is that attitude. The whole 'held down by the man' conjures the 90's hempheads trying to sneak pot legalization by overpromoting hemp and forever linking hemp with the 'legalize it' crowd. That means any attempt to legalize it has to face soft-on-drugs attacks. Unfair? Probably. But it was the legalize it crowd that did in the first place.

"let it grow" you say? Fine. I don't disagree, but I am not about put any energy into something that isn't going very far, and I certainly wouldn't want a decent politician to expend massive amounts of political capitol over the stuff.

 

[MolBasser]

The reason it won't go far right now is because of lack of development. Particularly in the tech to separate the good long fibers of the bark, from the short bad ones in the pith.

No one is going to work on that until it is legal.

The long fibers of hemp have very favorable properties and would be a valuable commodity.

It shouldn't cost political capitol. The only reason it does is because of the lying politicians that want to keep it illegal. And they are lying, no one can dispute that.

It is more a matter of principle to me than thinking that it is going to become the next King Corn.

MolBasser

 

[fullflavormenthol]

But, no. You can't claim it is because of a lack of technology because it is not legal to grow. Is Canada a third world nation? Are they living in straw huts up there?

You see there are too many first world nations growing the stuff to claim that the technology isn't there because it is illegal here in the United States. Last time I checked the Canadians had access to 100% of the non-military technology we have. I mean take paper...go find 10 books published in the last year and look where they were published. One of the largest printing presses in North America is in Canada (Quebecor).

So no, it isn't being kept down by "the man." There are more than enough first world nations able to grow the stuff to develop the technology, in tandem with multinational corporations mind you, and it just can't compete with the existing products.

And yes, legalize it under licenses and be done with it; and it will fill its small markets.

 

[MolBasser]

But, no. You can't claim it is because of a lack of technology because it is not legal to grow. Is Canada a third world nation? Are they living in straw huts up there?

You see there are too many first world nations growing the stuff to claim that the technology isn't there because it is illegal here in the United States. Last time I checked the Canadians had access to 100% of the non-military technology we have. I mean take paper...go find 10 books published in the last year and look where they were published. One of the largest printing presses in North America is in Canada (Quebecor).

Sigh. The market has to look promising for large scale investment in technology. Right now, as everyone agrees, it is a niche market. It is such, because the tech isn't there. But no one will invest in the tech if markets won't, or will make financially difficult, the marketing of the product.

Can we at least agree here that the regulations regarding hemp (and remember in canada even, it is a highly regulated crop) are harming the development of the market?

So no, it isn't being kept down by "the man." There are more than enough first world nations able to grow the stuff to develop the technology, in tandem with multinational corporations mind you, and it just can't compete with the existing products.

Yes it is, due to the oppressive nature of the regulations in both the US and Canada. And yes it can compete, IN SPECIFIC MARKETS. Sure some oils taste better and will do better. But hemp has its long fibers going for it. That represents a strong market possibility if the government would get out of the way. Let the FREE market decide the worth of hemp.

And yes, legalize it under licenses and be done with it; and it will fill its small markets.

What damn license should be needed? That is the whole damn problem. Do you need license to grow cotton?


Who knows? Maybe the market would grow if it were allowed to be free.

MolBasser

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Look there is always going to be regulation of the hemp market as long as marijuana is illegal. It has to happen, because while hemp =/= marijuana, it can be eventually grown to allow higher THC yields...this is biology 101. So don't blame hemp not being viable for lack of innovation in growing, because the goal post was specific to technology. You're entire rant up there is nothing but a circular argument you know? So it is a failed argument and I recommend you abandon that one.

So no, I don't believe it is viable in paper, cloth, and biodiesel because it has had more than enough time to have been used in the existing market. So it isn't the man keeping it down, and I think that claim has been debunked here, because again too many countries grow it and it hasn't revolutionized their economies.

Of course I would not be about letting it be "free market" as long as marijuana is illegal because of the aforementioned ability for growers to work with the plant to increase the THC yield in it.

Now I know you are going to say..."Not a damn drug"...but people can grow peppers with the idea to increase the Capsicum yield, and so hemp growers could grow it specifically to increase the THC with each harvest, and so you have to understand why the "drug warriors" (Government) have to regulate it.

But hey let them grow it, but regulate the THC content of anything that is produced; and let the "free market" decide in the sense that it is highly regulated as the THC value of the finished product. I mean because you are just concerned with the use of cannabis as a fiber and would have no problem with the regulation of the THC content so long as this wonder fiber made it to market.

 

[MolBasser]

Look there is always going to be regulation of the hemp market as long as marijuana is illegal. It has to happen, because while hemp =/= marijuana, it can be eventually grown to allow higher THC yields...this is biology 101. So don't blame hemp not being viable for lack of innovation in growing, because the goal post was specific to technology. You're entire rant up there is nothing but a circular argument you know? So it is a failed argument and I recommend you abandon that one.

This is the whole point of the thread. It should be legal. Certain elements of the government more than others and certain individuals more than others are making sure this doesn't happen. Regarding breeding back THC, do you have any idea how many generations it would take to do this? Do you know anything about drug marijuana and how it is farmed vs. hemp? My gosh.....

It would be time consuming and stupid to "breed back" THC levels. Just grow drug strains. The method of cultivation, harvest, and market are totally different. It is a red herring to throw the "but they could make it into drugs somehow" argument. It just doesn't fly biologically, or agriculturally.

It is rather obvious what type of product you are attempting to get from a hemp plant and drug producing marijuana plant.

So no, I don't believe it is viable in paper, cloth, and biodiesel because it has had more than enough time to have been used in the existing market. So it isn't the man keeping it down, and I think that claim has been debunked here, because again too many countries grow it and it hasn't revolutionized their economies.

No, it hasn't.

1. because you have not refuted the (just for one) DEAs interest in keeping hemp illegal due to the amount of funds it receives for the drug war.
2. There are no free hemp markets. They are all regulated to the point that it financially interferes with the advancement of the product.
3. No one said it was going to revolutionize an economy (at least not me). All I have stated is that it is a quality product that is underutilized and that given the proper free market conditions a farmer, so inclined, could (and should be able to) make money growing hemp.

Of course I would not be about letting it be "free market" as long as marijuana is illegal because of the aforementioned ability for growers to work with the plant to increase the THC yield in it.

See above. This is a red herring argument given the agricultural differences.

Now I know you are going to say..."Not a damn drug"...but people can grow peppers with the idea to increase the Capsicum yield, and so hemp growers could grow it specifically to increase the THC with each harvest, and so you have to understand why the "drug warriors" (Government) have to regulate it.

Well, that part is regulated in canada with the fact that farmers can't use their own seed and so they cannot breed the thc back into it, but you clearly show a lack of knowledge of how long this would take. How completely different and OBVIOUSLY (you know, to the man) the difference is and how stupid it would be considering that there are literally thousands of strains available now. But they don't look anything like hemp. And hemp on steroids has no chance to compete with real drug marijuana.

But hey let them grow it, but regulate the THC content of anything that is produced; and let the "free market" decide in the sense that it is highly regulated as the THC value of the finished product. I mean because you are just concerned with the use of cannabis as a fiber and would have no problem with the regulation of the THC content so long as this wonder fiber made it to market.

That would be fine, but there should be no need to license the farmer, nor deny him the right to use his own seeds. I'm fine with testing the final fiber for THC, although....it would sort of be pointless. No one smoke hemp fiber. No one smokes marijuana fiber. That just isn't how it works.

MolBasser

 

[MolBasser]

Maybe this belongs in politics.....meh.

MolBasser

 

[kookbreaker]

The reason it won't go far right now is because of lack of development. Particularly in the tech to separate the good long fibers of the bark, from the short bad ones in the pith.

Why should they bother when there are other plant materials out there that do a better job?

No one is going to work on that until it is legal.

As we have pointed out: there are plenty of countries where hemp is legal.

The long fibers of hemp have very favorable properties and would be a valuable commodity.

So what is wrong with flax and cotton? Their fibers are longer.