The Marijuana Conspiracy

[fullflavormenthol]

(I don't know the specific legal issues involved with this, it could be either a legalization bill or repealing part of the original ban).

That one. The original ban(s) (state and federal) used the genus as the basis for the ban. That means that politicians working to legalize industrial hemp would have to repeal part of a drug bill, which would easily be spun by opponents as being soft on drugs. It isn't true, but it is something any politician is going to have to consider when asking if they should.

 

[MolBasser]

No.

They could legalize hemp growing without altering any drug bill at all. All it would take is the proper text in the new bill.

Once again, it comes back to "its dope ZOMG!".

When it really isn't.

It is actually pretty sad, the state of intellectual affairs.

MolBasser

 

[MolBasser]

That's an odd interpretation. If I don't care about something I'm unlikely to do anything about it. If the politicians don't care about this non-issue why should they go through the trouble of passing a bill to legalize hemp? (I don't know the specific legal issues involved with this, it could be either a legalization bill or repealing part of the original ban).

Again, the politicians don't want to risk any popular support (from all the people who associate hemp with marijuana) by drafting and passing a bill to legalize it. They aren't trying to keep it down, I doubt they are even thinking about hemp aside from when they are hassled by the "legalize it" crowd.

Because several states have asked them to. It isn't just the fringe. State boards of agriculture have put together reports that say it is an economically positive thing to grow hemp and that the only thing stopping it is federal legislation.

To constantly whine that "its because we will look weak on drugs" is an easy cop out on a far more complex issue.

MolBasser

 

[fullflavormenthol]

I mean seriously the state of intelligence among the "legalize it" crowd is pretty pathetic at this point. No matter how high their degree is they have the most difficult time understanding what a repeal is. Perhaps we need to increase the civics requirements or something, I don't know.

I guess it goes to show that degrees are not universal, and that having some knowledge of the law is a good thing when arguing about how changing part of the law isn't same as repealing part of the law.

 

[elbe]

Because several states have asked them to. It isn't just the fringe. State boards of agriculture have put together reports that say it is an economically positive thing to grow hemp and that the only thing stopping it is federal legislation.

To constantly whine that "its because we will look weak on drugs" is an easy cop out on a far more complex issue.

MolBasser

Just because state's want the federal government to do it doesn't mean they have to (see same sex marriage). What it will take is, most likely, industrial pressure. Get some big companies interested in it as a cash crop in this country and the gears can start moving, but there just isn't that much interest in it right now.

Whining that there is some government conspiracy to keep the plant down suggests you aren't really familiar with how the US government works.

 

[MolBasser]

I mean seriously the state of intelligence among the "legalize it" crowd is pretty pathetic at this point. No matter how high their degree is they have the most difficult time understanding what a repeal is. Perhaps we need to increase the civics requirements or something, I don't know.

Quit being so condescending or I will ignore you... :rollseyes:

Again, you assume that I am attempting to legalize marijuana, when I am championing hemp. Jeebus man, seriously look at what you are writing.

There would be no need for repeal of drug laws. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure that even I could come up with draft legislation that would allow the growth of hemp without impinging upon your precious drug war.

I guess it goes to show that degrees are not universal, and that having some knowledge of the law is a good thing when arguing about how changing part of the law isn't same as repealing part of the law.

Sigh. I love how you bitch out members for being condescending, and then just treat them like dirt.

Like I said, just go sit in the corner while the grown ups discuss the real issues.

MolBasser

 

[MolBasser]

Just because state's want the federal government to do it doesn't mean they have to (see same sex marriage).

Of course. That is not the issue. The issue is should the feds do it. Why they aren't doing it, and which people in government are behind the backlash.

What it will take is, most likely, industrial pressure. Get some big companies interested in it as a cash crop in this country and the gears can start moving, but there just isn't that much interest in it right now.

That has happened. The Drug Warriors say no.

Whining that there is some government conspiracy to keep the plant down suggests you aren't really familiar with how the US government works.

I'm quite familiar with how it works. So are you, so this statement surprises me.

We all know why hemp is being kept down. It is because everyone is afraid that it is DRUGS (cue scary music). However, it is not. It will never be, and no one wants it to be. It is a fiber/seed crop.

Its fault is being associated with Skunk #1

Which is quite honestly, sad.

MolBasser

 

[fullflavormenthol]

@elbe

Exactly. If we went by everything that the states demanded America would be a far different country than it is today; slavery, segregation, and no national parks.

But if business really saw a value in industrial hemp, believe me Congress would be repealing parts of that law left and right; especially given that corporations can now give loads of money for the cause. It just isn't cheap enough to fill the void, which sort of debunks the OP.

 

[elbe]

We all know why hemp is being kept down. It is because everyone is afraid that it is DRUGS (cue scary music). However, it is not. It will never be, and no one wants it to be. It is a fiber/seed crop.

I don't believe the lawmakers are particularly worried about drugs (other than being able to make laws against new ones for public approval). The DEA cares, yes, but they aren't lawmakers. It's not being "kept down" because congress doesn't care enough to make it legal - I think you're living in the past.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the most contact legislators get with the hemp issue are the tokers who spout the crap in the OP. That wouldn't make me want to legalize it.

That has happened. The Drug Warriors say no.

It must not have been very significant - like, say, more than a company just wanting to make pro-weed, hemp t-shirts.

And do you have any evidence that the "Drug Warriors" have any legislative power in the current government? Or is it just fevered dreams of conspiracies?

The US government is far more in the pocket of big business than the anti-drugs lobby (is there even an organized one?). Which of those do you think offers the more money?

 

[MolBasser]

@elbe

Exactly. If we went by everything that the states demanded America would be a far different country than it is today; slavery, segregation, and no national parks.

But if business really saw a value in industrial hemp, believe me Congress would be repealing parts of that law left and right; especially given that corporations can now give loads of money for the cause. It just isn't cheap enough to fill the void, which sort of debunks the OP.

LOL!

You actually think that they look at the economics of it.

That is pretty cute in a naive way....

If it was such a non-issue, the states would have been given permission to grow it.

MolBasser

 

[MolBasser]

And do you have any evidence that the "Drug Warriors" have any legislative power in the current government? Or is it just fevered dreams of conspiracies?

The US government is far more in the pocket of big business than the anti-drugs lobby (is there even an organized one?). Which of those do you think offers the more money?

Are you serious typing this? Are you that unaware of the anti-drug mentality of the government? How much of law enforcement money is spent on drug issues?

This IS NOT A DRUG ISSUE, or shouldn't be. It is an industrial crop.

However, the anti-drug forces in the government make it so.

I'm getting quite frustrated with the lack of comprehension of this part of the issue.

MolBasser

 

[fullflavormenthol]

The US government is far more in the pocket of big business than the anti-drugs lobby (is there even an organized one?). Which of those do you think offers the more money?

I don't think you are going to get much out of this. We see the real issue as nothing more than pure politics. Everyone else here except one sees it as politics, but for someone who wants to see it as a CT is isn't going to change.

I think everyone here wants hemp to be legal, but some just aren't happy with the realistic explanation of why it isn't in this climate.

 

[elbe]

Are you serious typing this? Are you that unaware of the anti-drug mentality of the government? How much of law enforcement money is spent on drug issues?

This IS NOT A DRUG ISSUE, or shouldn't be. It is an industrial crop.

However, the anti-drug forces in the government make it so.

I'm getting quite frustrated with the lack of comprehension of this part of the issue.

MolBasser

Can you offer any, any evidence to support this "anti-drug mentality" in the US congress (and not, say, the drug enforcement agency)? Is it a top issue for the legislative branch? You have some weird conceptions about the US government's operations.

It is used in industrial purposes, but it's just not all that people make it out to be. If the industries aren't pushing hard enough for it nothing's going to change.

It's not about some anti-drug mentality, it's about money. That's the way the US works.

 

[elbe]

I don't think you are going to get much out of this. We see the real issue as nothing more than pure politics. Everyone else here except one sees it as politics, but for someone who wants to see it as a CT is isn't going to change.

I think everyone here wants hemp to be legal, but some just aren't happy with the realistic explanation of why it isn't in this climate.

True, true. If I posted more in the CT section I'd probably have a much better idea of when I should just give up. Que sera sera.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

If hemp really was the shiznit, then every corporation with a need would be giving money left and right (literarily) to legalize its production in the United States.

True, true. If I posted more in the CT section I'd probably have a much better idea of when I should just give up. Que sera sera.

Nothing wrong with posting here or having debates. Many times you get frustrated, but that is okay. Although if you go through two or more pages with the same argument being made over and over again, and a poster being mean there is no reason to go on. I mean honestly if the debate really was about why hemp is illegal and why it hasn't picked up as a cash crop; well the debate has been answered by now and we all would be at the opinion that it was merely stupid. But, if a poster wants to make it a conspiracy that is different. I can't make it a shadowy conspiracy no matter how much I believe in the end of cannabis prohibition, and to some people that just isn't good enough and at that point I say goodbye.

But feel free to debate it as long as you want, because there are more than enough people here that will discuss it without treating anyone badly. I just get tired of being treated like crap and people getting mad when I challenge their argument from authority, and even when I drop it they are not happy; despite being from a non-related field of study.

 

[MolBasser]

Can you offer any, any evidence to support this "anti-drug mentality" in the US congress (and not, say, the drug enforcement agency)? Is it a top issue for the legislative branch? You have some weird conceptions about the US government's operations.

What? Are you serious? You don't think that the drug issue is not at the forefront of the government? Do you read newspapers? Do you follow international politics? To think that drug issues are not at the forefront is to be blind.

It is used in industrial purposes, but it's just not all that people make it out to be. If the industries aren't pushing hard enough for it nothing's going to change.

It's not about some anti-drug mentality, it's about money. That's the way the US works.

Wrong. If it was about money, we would be growing it in the states that wrote that they would make a profit growing it. Tell me I'm wrong here...States say they would make money, Feds say no. Am I missing something?

MolBasser

 

[kookbreaker]

Because several states have asked them to. It isn't just the fringe. State boards of agriculture have put together reports that say it is an economically positive thing to grow hemp and that the only thing stopping it is federal legislation.

Those state board reports are almost all at least 10 years old or older. All of them were made before the Canadian fiasco. You can find very similar wording in the advocacy papers in Canada as well. They were wrong too. The Kentucky paper is particularly laughable in that it promises quite a fair number of jobs. That, in the face of the evidence, is untrue.

I can't say I'm impressed with state papers from 1995. It is like reading strategic war plans for World War in from 1935, y'know?

 

[MolBasser]

Those state board reports are almost all at least 10 years old or older. All of them were made before the Canadian fiasco. You can find very similar wording in the advocacy papers in Canada as well. They were wrong too. The Kentucky paper is particularly laughable in that it promises quite a fair number of jobs. That, in the face of the evidence, is untrue.

I can't say I'm impressed with state papers from 1995. It is like reading strategic war plans for World War in from 1935, y'know?

The "fiasco" was because one company, which the farmers foolishly contracted to grow half their crop for, went under.

And guess what? They are still growing hemp. Guess they figured out other processors after that one went under.

You guys like to say there is no market and the crop is a dud, yet people still grow it, and make money on it.

MolBasser

 

[elbe]

You guys like to say there is no market and the crop is a dud, yet people still grow it, and make money on it.

Who said there was no market? There just isn't a very strong one.

I don't know why I'm even wasting my time with this...

 

[kookbreaker]

The "fiasco" was because one company, which the farmers foolishly contracted to grow half their crop for, went under.

And why did it go under? Lack of a market. Anything claiming beyond that is pure apologetics.

And guess what? They are still growing hemp. Guess they figured out other processors after that one went under.

I'm sure a few are, but as many as before? I doubt it.

You guys like to say there is no market and the crop is a dud, yet people still grow it, and make money on it.

There is a market, just a very small one with little to no hope of expansion , and one that can be glutted very, very easily.