The Marijuana Conspiracy

[elbe]

It isn't a shadowy conspiracy, it is a conspiracy right in the open. Not all conspiracies are super secret, black helicopter and thermite.

MolBasser

Not everything one disagrees with is a conspiracy.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Bad policy? Yes. A lot of junk science involved? Yes. Conspiracy? No.

It is simply a matter of government policy. There is no deception, because there is nothing hidden. All the assumptions the government works under are right there for anyone to see. All the opposing viewpoints are right there for anyone to see.

If this policy is a conspiracy, well then government itself is just one big ol' conspiracy.

 

[ihaunter]

It isn't a shadowy conspiracy, it is a conspiracy right in the open. Not all conspiracies are super secret, black helicopter and thermite.

MolBasser

Wow. You ignored the bulk of my post and chose to argue against an off-hand comment instead. Way to defend your position there.

 

[MolBasser]

The question as to why hemp is illegal today is actually two questions. Why was it made illegal? Why is it still illegal? No single reason will answer both of these questions. When posters are saying that it is a non-issue, they are addressing the latter. It's similarities to marijuana address the former.
Was the law in question overzealous and based on incorrect information? I suspect many on this forum would say yes. But it's not completely illogical, either. Was this a nefarious plot by your so-called drug warriors? Well, let's just say I'm a fan of Hanlon's Razor, especially when talking about the government.

Of course it was. It was based on open and now acknowledged lies. And Racism. It is not in dispute (I would hope) how the legislature was manipulated to outlaw hemp/marijuana.

Speaking of Hanlon's Razor, changing stupidity to apathy is equally accurate when discussing government and laws. That returns us to the why is it still illegal question. Have you ever read one of the many books/articles/websites that talk about strange laws that are out there? Many exist in the law books over a century after the original need no longer existed because nobody cared enough to fix them. If you were to say that it is wrong that people are so apathetic to the laws that govern their lives, I wouldn't necessarily disagree. That doesn't change the fact, that's the way it is.

That might be relevant if people didn't care that it was illegal. As it is, in reality, there are a lot of people that care. Thus the "well, it is just a weird law that no one cares about" argument goes out the window.

You want people to believe that hemp being illegal is some shadowy conspiracy? Prove, not assert, that the people that wrote the law knew the difference between hemp and marijuana and cared about hemp enough that this wasn't simply a case of hemp being caught in the crossfire.

It isn't a shadowy conspiracy.

It is out in the open.

Right under everyone's nose the drug warriors dictate how you should lead your life. Even, as in this case, if it has nothing to do with drugs.

That is the big point. Hemp has nothing to do with drugs, no matter how people try to tie the two together.

MolBasser

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Hemp was banned in a bad law that judged all forms of Cannabis as being equal. To change it part of the original law must be repealed. Any politician doing so risks political capital because an opponent can spin it into "soft on drugs" even though it would not be true by a long shot. So the question for a politician is, do they risk political capital for a non-issue?

No shadowy conspiracy needed. No desire for control. Just the incompetence of government at work. (Hanlon's Razor)

The problem with demanding that Hemp and Marijuana be separate for the sake of this discussion is found in the title of this thread, "The Marijuana Conspiracy". I would recommend a new thread be created in Politics or in Social Issues to cover the issue sans conspiracy theories and being tied to marijuana from the start.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That might be relevant if people didn't care that it was illegal. As it is, in reality, there are a lot of people that care. Thus the "well, it is just a weird law that no one cares about" argument goes out the window.

Read it as Industry doesn't care. If they did they'd be importing more than 40-70 tonnes of the stuff from Canada each year rather than using the millions of tonnes of Cotton, Wood, and Plastics they currently are. That leaves the sole lobbists as a handful of farmers that think it'll make them rich (it won't) and those that are trying to get Canabis legalised and think it's an end run about the law if they can get Hemp legalised, not much of a way to get the Government to move on it.

Funny thing, even those lobbying for it seem willing to admit that the market just isn't there, but they seem to all follow the same line of "If you build it they will come." Only problem with that is that China, Germany, and Canada have already built it and they haven't come. Why should it be any different in the US?

 

[Toke]

I wonder if those 40-70 tonnes of hemp would provide enough paper to change the legislation?
Changing the law and distributing the change does require a lot of paper.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I wonder if those 40-70 tonnes of hemp would provide enough paper to change the legislation?
Changing the law and distributing the change does require a lot of paper.

To be fair, there could be more being imported from other sources, but trying to track down the numbers is hard. I did find that about $100,000 of fibre was imported in 1997 and that the price was about $1.91 per pound in 1996, which would represent about 26 tonnes. At the same time there were just over a million dollars of Hemp Fabric imported as well, so it seems that given the choice of importing fibre or importing the finished product, US importer are going for the finished product.

What I also found was that those using the product say they'd switch to a local producer over importing it, what I didn't find was anyone saying that currently they weren't using it, but would if it was grown locally.

As a result I suspect that there would be a market in the US for locally grown, but all it would do is reduce the US imports and harm Hemp growers outside the US, not actually expand the over all market because major industry isn't interested in it. I'm not the only one that concludes this.

Despite the merits of hemp fiber and oil, the global market has been on a downward trend and remains negligible in magnitude. Total world trade in hemp fiber and seed amounted to only $10.4 million in 1996! Processing costs are one of the largest obstacles the hemp industry faces. For example, bleached softwood pulp currently sells for about $800 (U.S.) per ton compared to hemp pulp at about $2,100 (U.S.) per ton. New processing technology must be found for hemp to be cost competitive.

Hemp profits also suffer from price volatility. Projected hemp demand, coupled with a low volume market, makes profit estimations adventurous. At current world prices it does not appear that hemp can compete on a large scale and may be confined to a specialty market until processing technology improves.

None of the large multinationals has openly supported hemp legalization in the United States. Why? Corporate America has the capacity to invest in hemp production and processing facilities all around the world. They have access to plenty of raw material and low labor costs (China and Eastern Europe) and a stable economic and political environment where hemp production is legal (the European Union). But investment in hemp processing remains negligible. For example, there are only about 20 paper mills worldwide that use hemp as a fiber source, which produce about 0.05 percent of the world’s annual paper production volume.

Again, it must be emphasized that hemp production is not the problem. It is the challenge of improving hemp processing that will open the doors of cost competitiveness. If the large multinationals can’t make hemp work in the marketplace, what type of costs and return differentials might small farmers and businesses work towards? That is the crux of the great hemp debate.

And this was written in 1998, before Canada added more production to the marketplace. The issue has only gotten worse since then.

 

[Cuddles]

It isn't a shadowy conspiracy, it is a conspiracy right in the open. Not all conspiracies are super secret, black helicopter and thermite.

MolBasser

Are you sure about that?

Conspiracy kuhn-spir-uh-see
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

If it's right out in the open, it's not a conspiracy.

As elbe says, just because you disagree with something does not make it a conspiracy. As would be obvious if you were actually interested in reading what people are saying instead of just arguing with what you imagine them to say, most people actually seem to agree with your points that the laws about hemp, and marijuana for that matter, were not made for good reasons and are not kept for particularly good reasons. That sort of thing happens all the time, with no need for any conspiracies to be involved. Lobbying, stupidity, lies, power grabbing, mistakes, honest differences of opinion; all these things are par for the course in politics.

The point is that there are perfectly valid arguments to be made here, both in favour of hemp and cannabis itself being legal. There's absolutely no need to instead start crying about conspiracies, when even according to your own arguments no such conspiracy exists. That doesn't help your case in the slightest, and merely gets you lumped in with all the other kooks who love to fantasize about non-existent conspiracies. If you want to be taken seriously, just be honest. Phantomwolf appears to be entirely correct that there are only two groups of people who particularly care about hemp at all. That's farmers who think they can make money off it and people who actually want marijuana to be legal and think this will help them somehow. If you fall into one of these groups, and it certainly appears that you are in the latter, why not just come right out and say it instead of dancing around as you currently are? Being a farmer and/or wanting to legally smoke weed aren't things to be embarrassed about.

 

[jaydeehess]

What really annoys me, is when a pro hemp person attempts to talk about hemp, all the doubters come in and say that it is about legalizing pot.

It isn't.

It is about legalizing hemp. Can we please get past this?

MolBasser

Of course it was. It was based on open and now acknowledged lies. And Racism. It is not in dispute (I would hope) how the legislature was manipulated to outlaw hemp/marijuana.

That might be relevant if people didn't care that it was illegal. As it is, in reality, there are a lot of people that care. Thus the "well, it is just a weird law that no one cares about" argument goes out the window.


It isn't a shadowy conspiracy.

It is out in the open.

Right under everyone's nose the drug warriors dictate how you should lead your life. Even, as in this case, if it has nothing to do with drugs.

That is the big point. Hemp has nothing to do with drugs, no matter how people try to tie the two together.

MolBasser

Yet you are record as advocating for the legalization of all drugs and now ish to separate industrial hemp as just another issue which you are interested in.

I asked before why it is that widespread usage (Legalization of) industrial hemp seems to be primarily of interest only to those who also want marijuana legalized?

Its a side effect of fighting the drug warrior's conspiracy to keep everyone from getting high I suppose.

Phantomwolf has also been quite detailed at showing that world demand for industrial hemp products is extremely low even though it can be grown without constraint in many parts of the world. Once its manufactured into fabric its not illegal even in the USA.

 

[jaydeehess]

Hmmm, how about this;
We legalize hemp for industrial purposes and while we are at it allow everyone over the age of 18 to partake of anything they wish to drink, smoke, snort or rub on their bellies,
BUT
at the same time eliminate all social safety nets for those whose predillection (addiction) to said substances causes them to be unemployable and at the same time increase penalties for all crimes committed while intoxicated in any form.

Smoke weed and drive through a stop sign, fine doubled, or tripled on top of a fine for driving while intoxicated.
Meth addict needs money and robs a gas station, 10 years first offence, on second offence life in prison.
Drink and drive and kill a kid, 15 years no parole chance for 10 on first offence, second offence is the death penalty.

You either prove through daily life that you can handle whatever it is you choose to alter yourself with and not pose a threat to the rest of us by such action, or you are removed from society.

Either the prison roles will go waaaayyy down as people glom onto the idea, or they will go waaayyy up as people ignore the consequences until they are actually having to face them.
I guess I am a pessimist