Anth106: Legalize HEMP!
The United States’ legal definition of Cannabis sativa states that the term “marijuana” only encompasses “the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin.” Not including fiber from the stalks, oil or cake from the seeds—parts incapable of germination.
In other words, the cultivation of industrial hemp for fiber product is legal in the United States according to the Federal Government. However, the United States’ current War on Drugs and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) are making it difficult for farmers to explore its production. There is a need for a definition distinguishing industrial hemp from the psychoactive drug. The DEA and victims of the convoluted information from the War on Drugs need to be convinced that industrial hemp is a viable resource that vitally needs to be reintroduced.
Industrial hemp has both environmental and economic benefits. Environmentally, hemp has little to no need for chemical assistance when growing which is reduction in pollution. Deforestation would also slow down because hemp can replace many paper products (8).
Economically, hemp makes 25,000 products. A hemp paper industry could benefit investors with a better product since hemp is stronger and does not age as quickly as tree paper. Hemp products are UV resistant which is an attribute for paper and textile products (8).
The textile industry would benefit from hemp’s longer, stronger, more durable and more absorbent fibers. Outdoor and maritime products could be made out of hemp because it is resistant to salt damage and mildew (8).
Hemp provides healthy food products, therapeutic qualities, and energy savers (8). With such a versatile plant, it is a wonder why America is not using it for its myriad of uses. Import is too expensive and domestic growth is prohibited by decades of misinformation.
In 1937, the hemp fiber industry was devastated by the Marijuana Tax Act passed by U.S. Congress that prohibited the use of marijuana as a recreational drug. With that act came so many rules and red tape that the industry became extinct (1). In addition to that, there was a lack of sufficient labor to tend to hemp production (2). Most importantly, there was lobbying against the fiber when petrochemical and cotton companies saw it as a threat to the potential income of their industries (4).
Currently, the largest opposer to industrial hemp us the DEA. A guest columnist, Wayne J. Roques, spoke out against industrial hemp on behalf of the DEA. Below is a table of the DEA’s lies and counter-points (with proper citation).
-
DEA
There is no desperate shortage of raw materials by textile, paper, and rope-making industries.
The Truth
Evidently, since many paper, composite, and fiberboard industries are currently searching for new sources of celluosic raw materials, there must be some sort of need for materials (3). People often do not realize that tress are not he only existing raw material for paper (4).
DEA
Hemp is not soil-building because of its high yield. In fact, other field crops produce more tonnage than hemp. Production of hemp is just as damaging to soil productivity and loss of soil from erosion as most common field crops.
The Truth
Hemp improves rather than injures the soil by having long tap roots (unlike corn), a dense shade from the canopy that destroys undergrowth such as weeds (for other crops, if rotated with hemp, will eliminate the need for weedocides), and drops their leaves for mulch(nutrition) (2, 3). Hemp can be harvested more than once a year—more than the yearly harvest of other crops. “Hemp is easier on the land than other crops except clover and alfalfa (2)”.
DEA
In other countries, hemp is fertilized and protected by pesticides just like other crops in that country.
The Truth
Hemp naturally resists pests. Pesticides are not used, though fertilizers may be (3). Hemp requires a lot of plant food, but returns it to the soil by maturity. Liberal application of fertilizer is used for hemp grown on century-old farmlands, exhausted of its nutrients. None is used for the hemp grown in Kentucky (2).
DEA
Hemp is clearly inferior to forests as a major source for paper pulp.
The Truth
Though there are programs to regenerate new tree crops (hardly adequate ecosystems), that does not replace over 90% of our old growth lost to paper products (3). One acre of hemp yields more that one acre of trees because it can be harvested every three to four months, not just every few decades (8).
DEA
Hemp can be grown commercially in Europe and other areas if needed. It is too dangerous to risk illegal substances in our country.
The Truth
Why not grow it here? It will build our domestic economy bringing work back to the U.S. (4). Other countries (such as China, England, France, Holland, Russia et al.) have found no problems with recreational drug use while cultivating industrial hemp (because it
lacks substantial amounts of the psychoactive chemicals) (2,3,4).
Mr. Roques blindly criticized industrial hemp without learning the facts (obtained from years of research) about it. In his article, he constantly refered to hemp advocates as the “drug culture.” He blantantly generalized that the only people interested in hemp are interested in drugs. That alone was insulting, while not considering that multi-national companies like International Paper were looking into hemp as an alternative fiber source (3).
Several states in the Union are actively seeking to begin hemp production in their state. Kentucky declares that they support the development of low THC industrial hemp and encourages a change in the DEA’s stubborn limits on it. Colorado strongly supports reintroduction of hemp having less than 1% of THC levels. Wisconsin want to “examine the barriers” keeping hemp off of farms. The American Farm Bureau Federation wants to research cultivating hemp using “modern agricultural techniques” (5).
With such as high interest level, what seems to be the problem? Again, it is the DEA. Even though it is legal to grow hemp in the U.S., only the DEA can issue permits for it. It costs an individual $1000 to apply for a permit; the money is unrefundable if the application is rejected. Then, the state has an application process that usually costs just as much. The DEA will only consider an application with a pre-existing state permit and vice-versa. The DEA also implements security requirements, such as fences and armed guards, that are nearly impossible to meet (4).
Hemp has a strong fiber that requires specialized equipment that needs experienced farmers. These skills have to be relearned because it has been illegal for 60 years (7). Considering hemp means considering machinery. Popular Mechanics magazine published an article describing a new machine that harvests hemp (6) which makes hemp low-maintenance and intriguing to farmers who are losing their market, like tobacco, and their exhausted land.
Overall, the first step us to define industrial hemp as psychoactive free. A marijuana plant has 13-15% THC and industrial hemp has one percent or less of THC, the psychoactive chemical that has made Cannabis sativa illegal (1,7). Apparently, industrial hemp legality is not the issue. It is the DEA’s policy surrounding it that has made this highly desirable crop nearly impossible to obtain.
References
(1) 1994, “Overview: Hemp Industry, Commerce, and Technology,” Hemptech, Industrial Hemp Information Network, ”http://www.hemptech.com/hoverv.html.
(2) Dewey, L., 1913, “Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture—1913, pages 283-346,” North American Industrial Hemp Council, Inc., http://naic.org/happenings/1913.html.
(3) Roques, W. J., 1994, “DEA speaks out on Hemp: marijuana boosters exaggerate, fabricate benefits of legalizing U.S. hemp crop,” October 4, 1994, St. Paul Pioneer Press. Ecolution, Inc. http://ecolution.com/deahemp.html.
(4) Martin, D., “Overview of Industrial Hemp,” Rain Forest Action Network, http://www.ran.org/ran/ran_campaigns/rain_wood/wood_con/hemp_fact.html.
(5) “Resolutions Supporting Industrial Hemp Production,” North American Industrial Hemp Council, http://naihc.org/legisln/resolns.html.
(6) 1994, “Processing,” Hemptech, Industrial Hemp Information Network, http://www.hemptech.com/hproc.html
(7) 1994, “Farming,” Hemptech, Industrial Hemp Information Network, http://www.hemptech.com/hfarm.html
(8) “Hemp- Some frequently asked questions,” Environment Centre of Western Australia, http://www.iinet.net.au/%7Eecwa/info.hemp.html.