HEMP- Part of the Solution.

[Baculus]

What exactly is the argument against industrial hemp? For instance, why has McCain taken a stance against it?

Like most anti-marijuana people, he believes it gets you stoned, even after experts tell him that it doesn't. He just does not understand the differences, nor do those who fear it also understand the differences.

It is similar to his medical marijuana position. Sen. McCain was campaigning in New England, and several times he was asked about his medical marijuana position by an audience member during a A/Q session. The senator stated that he supports the position of the AMA, which, according to him, finds no viability in medical marijuana.

At the next speech stop, a person from the audience said, "I have the AMA report in my hand, and their position is that marijuana DOES have medical benefits." In spite of that, McCain would not budge and replied that he still supports the AMA position that marijuana is not medically beneficial...even though he was just told that AMA has the opposite stance.

In his words:

"Every medical expert I know of, including the AMA [American Medical Association], says that there are much more effective and much better treatments for pain than medical marijuana," McCain said in a September 2007 town-hall meeting in New Hampshire. "I still would not support medical marijuana because I don't think that the preponderance of medical opinion in America agrees with [the] assertion that it's the most effective way of treating pain."

In short, he is unwilling to budge in spite of opinions by experts that he supposedly supports.

Now, I know medical marijuana is OT and a different subject vs. industrial hemp, but they are tied together by those who oppose both subjects.

Even if every major medical and manufacturing expert said that this plant was viable, I highly suspect he would not change his stance.

[Baculus]

I, for one, would love to see hemp grocery bags that people could reuse and a complete ban on plastic bags. More crop growing for our farmers, less pollution and less oil use. (Yes, oil is used to make those plastic bags)

When I lived in Oregon, the health food stores had reusable hemp bags that you can use.

[Hersh]

McCain is against it cause of Bible Belt Republicans. Plain and simple. No thinking required.

[DCsportsfan53]

For the life of me, I cannot understand how people are still so ignorant in regards to this plant. Fear is a dangerous thing.

[Ivy94f]

Great Post! Hemp being illegal is highly illogical and completely ignorant on the part of those making it illegal.

Absolutely. Great post. I would say I believe that its due to its negative social association (oooh drugs), but in a world where they didn't care about botulism used as a cosmetic product, ppl really shouldn't care so much about this either. The case is too good as an environmental issue. Anyway, research does not support any reason why NOT to use hemp.

[Ivy94f]

"Every medical expert I know of, including the AMA [American Medical Association], says that there are much more effective and much better treatments for pain than medical marijuana," McCain said in a September 2007 town-hall meeting in New Hampshire. "I still would not support medical marijuana because I don't think that the preponderance of medical opinion in America agrees with [the] assertion that it's the most effective way of treating pain."

And there's your proof that he doesn't understand the issue and he's taking a position based on populace. The research hasn't supported those ideas or those previously thought negative effects of this, but politics makes it difficult to tell the public its 'okay.' Its all politics and money and politicians try to manipulate the position of the AMA and its research in order to support their ideas.

In other words, MJ needs a better publicist.

[PeterMP]

CHINA - is the largest exporter of hemp paper and textiles. The fabrics are of excellent quality. (ma)

You didn't really answer my question. So let's take China. According to your other post, hemp was suppossed to completely eliminate the need for trees to be harvested for paper because it is such a great crop.

China appearantly grows hemp and even does some exporting.

China is having timber issues:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HD20Cb06.html

and uses trees for paper:

http://www.forestnet.com/archives/Feb_Mar_96/china.htm

and they still do a lot with importing and exporting cotton so they are growing and using cotton

http://www.itmaasia.com/cms/showDoc_ff80808117d440a10117e21efdc6004d.html

Why haven't they just gone completely to hemp for all of these things?

Look, I honestly don't know much about this. I just find it a little odd that hemp is suppossedly the perfect plant for the solution to multiple different pretty much unrelated problems (e.g. paper, fibers for clothing and other things, and cellulosic ethanol) and no country on Earth has an economy centered around growing and selling hemp products (e.g. clothing and paper), which I believe would be completely legal in the US.

That leads me to wonder if people aren't over-exaggerating the utility of hemp w/ respect to these different uses (maybe there are some reasons/conditions under which cotton is better), and if that's the case, why?

[PeterMP]

Like most anti-marijuana people, he believes it gets you stoned, even after experts tell him that it doesn't. He just does not understand the differences, nor do those who fear it also understand the differences.

It is similar to his medical marijuana position. Sen. McCain was campaigning in New England, and several times he was asked about his medical marijuana position by an audience member during a A/Q session. The senator stated that he supports the position of the AMA, which, according to him, finds no viability in medical marijuana.

At the next speech stop, a person from the audience said, "I have the AMA report in my hand, and their position is that marijuana DOES have medical benefits." In spite of that, McCain would not budge and replied that he still supports the AMA position that marijuana is not medically beneficial...even though he was just told that AMA has the opposite stance.

In his words:

"Every medical expert I know of, including the AMA [American Medical Association], says that there are much more effective and much better treatments for pain than medical marijuana," McCain said in a September 2007 town-hall meeting in New Hampshire. "I still would not support medical marijuana because I don't think that the preponderance of medical opinion in America agrees with [the] assertion that it's the most effective way of treating pain."

In short, he is unwilling to budge in spite of opinions by experts that he supposedly supports.

Now, I know medical marijuana is OT and a different subject vs. industrial hemp, but they are tied together by those who oppose both subjects.

Even if every major medical and manufacturing expert said that this plant was viable, I highly suspect he would not change his stance.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13625.html#recomendation

"In summary, substantial progress has been made in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Based on clinical trials results, practice guidelines advocate the combined use of dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to prevent acute vomiting in patients exposed to moderately and highly emetogenic agents.95,108-110 Oral THC and smoked marijuana retain antiemetic efficacy but are clearly less effective than current standard therapies. In acute chemotherapy-induced emesis, especially in the high-risk setting, there is no group of patients for whom agents of lower therapeutic index (metoclopramide, phenothiazines, butyrophenones, and cannabinoids) are appropriate as first choice antiemetic drugs. These agents should be reserved for patients intolerant of or refractory to serotonin receptor antagonists and corticosteroids."

"Controlled evidence does not support the view that THC or smoked marijuana offers clinically effective analgesia without causing significant adverse events when used alone. There is a small margin between clinical benefit and unacceptable adverse events. However, smoked marijuana may benefit individual patients suffering from intermittent or chronic pain."

"The AMA calls for further adequate and well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease; (2) The AMA recommends that marijuana be retained in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act pending the outcome of such studies."

He should have asked to see the report.

[skinsfan44]

I have been saying this for years.

Hemp is the answer to a ton of problems in this country.

We can make clothing, fuel, building products, paper and things we make out of plastic from oil with it.

The reason we will not see this happen is because of the special interest lobbying groups on Capital Hill that spend millions of dollars to keep Hemp illegal to help there company's bottom line, not in the interest of the country as a whole.

If George Washington had no problem with Hemp, then no one should have a problem with Hemp.

Everyone today wants to "Go Green."

What better way to "Go Green" then to go Hemp?

[Koolblue13]

Why haven't they just gone completely to hemp for all of these things?

Look, I honestly don't know much about this. I just find it a little odd that hemp is suppossedly the perfect plant for the solution to multiple different pretty much unrelated problems (e.g. paper, fibers for clothing and other things, and cellulosic ethanol) and no country on Earth has an economy centered around growing and selling hemp products (e.g. clothing and paper), which I believe would be completely legal in the US.

That leads me to wonder if people aren't over-exaggerating the utility of hemp w/ respect to these different uses (maybe there are some reasons/conditions under which cotton is better), and if that's the case, why?

I've been poking around about Hemp and only find biased sites and fear monger sites, not much about backing up the statistics I find on sites run by Willie Nelson.

I would really like to know if all of these claims are true myself and why we are not looking into producing industrial hemp.

In WWII the President came out and temporarily lifted the ban and asked Americans to grow all the hemp they could to help the war effort, so I would imagine there are known benefits to the uses.

I hoped by starting this thread we may be able to find some more info and so far, it has done well staying out of the "legalize it dude" category.

[PeterMP]

I've been poking around about Hemp and only find biased sites and fear monger sites, not much about backing up the statistics I find on sites run by Willie Nelson.

I would really like to know if all of these claims are true myself and why we are not looking into producing industrial hemp.

In WWII the President came out and temporarily lifted the ban and asked Americans to grow all the hemp they could to help the war effort, so I would imagine there are known benefits to the uses.

I hoped by starting this thread we may be able to find some more info and so far, it has done well staying out of the "legalize it dude" category.

You are right about WWII, but that was well before many synthetic molecules. Even w/ respect to older polymers, lik nylon, our methods have improved greatly. Just because it made sense for WWII, doesn't mean it makes sense now.

[Koolblue13]

You are right about WWII, but that was well before many synthetic molecules. Even w/ respect to older polymers, lik nylon, our methods have improved greatly. Just because it made sense for WWII, doesn't mean it makes sense now.

I understand that. Just pointing out that it obviously does have known uses. I have not been able to find anything that dismisses it as a useful product though.

At least as far as replacing our habit of deforestation and petroleum dependence.

Perhaps you can find some info to dismiss the claims, I can't.

Seems like exactly the thing we need to get ourselves back in the right direction, while going green at the same time.

I would like, at the very least, to lift the ban so you don't need Federal approval to grow it and start testing it out as a viable option.

[PeterMP]

I understand that. Just pointing out that it obviously does have known uses. I have not been able to find anything that dismisses it as a useful product though.

At least as far as replacing our habit of deforestation and petroleum dependence.

Perhaps you can find some info to dismiss the claims, I can't.

Seems like exactly the thing we need to get ourselves back in the right direction, while going green at the same time.

I would like, at the very least, to lift the ban so you don't need Federal approval to grow it and start testing it out as a viable option.

I think the fact that China grows it and is still petroleum dependent and has deforestation issues supports the idea that it isn't necessarily the solution to those problems. Essentially, every country in the world is petroleum dependent. Yet none of them have ever gone to using hemp as a replacement. Many countries are limited by wood based products, but none of them have ever gone to using hemp as a solution.

If it were the magic pill solution to all of these issues (and there weren't many practical negative issues), I think some country would have embraced its use. It does though seem it has some potentials and different countries are running tests (including the US). I'd guess the most practical might actually be in fuel (cellulose to ethanol technology being newer than paper and fiber technology from plants). I don't think that will ever catch on though because where we are going is to the use of the non-food part of food plants (e.g. corn stalks) to produce ethanol.

But back to WWII, the encouragement of growth then was not for paper or fuel, but to use as fibers for things like rope. It is possible (and I'd even argue likely) that it was superior to synthetic fibers/method then, but is not today.

[Koolblue13]

I think the fact that China grows it and is still petroleum dependent and has deforestation issues supports the idea that it isn't necessarily the solution to those problems. Essentially, every country in the world is petroleum dependent. Yet none of them have ever gone to using hemp as a replacement. Many countries are limited by wood based products, but none of them have ever gone to using hemp as a solution.

If it were the magic pill solution to all of these issues (and there weren't many practical negative issues), I think some country would have embraced its use. It does though seem it has some potentials and different countries are running tests (including the US). I'd guess the most practical might actually be in fuel (cellulose to ethanol technology being newer than paper and fiber technology from plants). I don't think that will ever catch on though because where we are going is to the use of the non-food part of food plants (e.g. corn stalks) to produce ethanol.

But back to WWII, the encouragement of growth then was not for paper or fuel, but to use as fibers for things like rope. It is possible (and I'd even argue likely) that it was superior to synthetic fibers/method then, but is not today.

As far as the WWII part, I would certainly tend to agree with you there.

As far as the magic pill, it would be silly to think it was that effective and that the world is just ignoring it. It does grow about 4 times faster than corn, trust me on that one.

In food, it has a lot to offer and could be produced very cheap.

As a replacement for petroleum, I doubt it's efficiency compared to oil, but would be worth looking into I think and I can't see any reason that for paper and textiles it shouldn't be able to replace deforestation other than the technology already being in place for it.

[zoony]

You didn't really answer my question. So let's take China. According to your other post, hemp was suppossed to completely eliminate the need for trees to be harvested for paper because it is such a great crop.

China appearantly grows hemp and even does some exporting.

China is having timber issues:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HD20Cb06.html

and uses trees for paper:

http://www.forestnet.com/archives/Feb_Mar_96/china.htm

and they still do a lot with importing and exporting cotton so they are growing and using cotton

http://www.itmaasia.com/cms/showDoc_ff80808117d440a10117e21efdc6004d.html

Why haven't they just gone completely to hemp for all of these things?

I'd be interested to know this as well. I truly don't have a dog in the fight either way- I really could give a **** - but I do think that hemp has taken on a sort of chuck norris status among many.

If it truly is the miracle plant, I'd love to know the answers to the above.

And I'd also be interested to know why hemp didn't stand a chance against cotton. In 1619, the Virginia Assembly passed legislation REQUIRING farmers to grow hemp. However, cotton soon dominated. This was in a time when there was no stigma attached to hemp- for some reason, cotton just proved the dominant crop. I'd like to know why. And please, if you want to answer "it's a government conspiracy", don't bother. It would be nice to have an intelligent discussion on this.

My dad was telling me that when he first joined the Navy (early 1960s) for a long time hemp ropes were the only ropes that met strength specifications to tie up ships. I think nowadays they use synthetic materials. But I've also heard that George Bush Sr's parachute that saved his life in WWII was made from hemp.

So it's clear that the government has never really had a problem with using hemp products when it has served their purpose.

[Koolblue13]

I'd like to know why. And please, if you want to answer "it's a government conspiracy", don't bother. It would be nice to have an intelligent discussion on this.

This is hard to do. Between the smoke pot talk and the conspiracy stuff, it clouds the issue of the uses and just how much it would actually benefit.

One of the only reasons I have heard is the slippery slope to just growing pot argument and that holds no water with me.

[zoony]

This is hard to do. Between the smoke pot talk and the conspiracy stuff, it clouds the issue of the uses and just how much it would actually benefit.

One of the only reasons I have heard is the slippery slope to just growing pot argument and that holds no water with me.

There are most definitely well documented uses for hemp. But I agree with you, I think that it's very hard to have good discussions on this just for that reason.

I did a research paper on this in college- and this was before the internet - I remember some of the things I read were just ridiculous (that's where I remember the 1619 ref, don't know why I remember that). "Hemp oil is better for you than olive oil, hemp seeds are better for birds than regular seeds, hemp is stronger than steel, hemp is softer than silk, hemp can shoot fireballs at the enemy, the government doesn't grow hemp because of the political lobby for birdseed and olive oil companies, chuck norris prefers hemp, hemp can cure cancer, etc."

While on the other side (against), it was the government talking points- which were equally absurd.

My gut tells me- and I reserve the right to be wrong- that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. (like it does with most things) I think it has real uses and real applications, but were it to be completely legalized, what we'd see is something like what we see in China today.

[Koolblue13]

Well put zoony. Even with the help of the mighty internets, I still haven't found anything seemingly "unbiased".

It's either a useless tool of the debil or (as you perfectly compared) the Chuck Norris of Green.

[roger waters]

This has nothing to do with smoking pot. Not one thing.

I disagree, why is it illegal then? Im not your legalize it dude, I have been a member of NORML for 9 years and have paid my lobbying money on behalf of legalization of hemp and cannabis ,and also cannot understand the regulations on hemp production and how government tells us what plants we can grow. Im on your side if you smoke or not.

And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land.-- Ezekiel 34/29

[Koolblue13]

I disagree, why is it illegal then? Im not your legalize it dude, I have been a member of NORML for 9 years and have paid my lobbying money on behalf of legalization of hemp and cannabis ,and also cannot understand the regulations on hemp production and how government tells us what plants we can grow. Im on your side if you smoke or not.

And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land.-- Ezekiel 34/29

Sorry to have misjudged you.

Can you find some information on exactly what Hemp is possible of doing that is backed up with actual research?

[rincewind]

I'd be interested to know this as well. I truly don't have a dog in the fight either way- I really could give a **** - but I do think that hemp has taken on a sort of chuck norris status among many.

If it truly is the miracle plant, I'd love to know the answers to the above.

And I'd also be interested to know why hemp didn't stand a chance against cotton. In 1619, the Virginia Assembly passed legislation REQUIRING farmers to grow hemp. However, cotton soon dominated. This was in a time when there was no stigma attached to hemp- for some reason, cotton just proved the dominant crop. I'd like to know why. And please, if you want to answer "it's a government conspiracy", don't bother. It would be nice to have an intelligent discussion on this.

My dad was telling me that when he first joined the Navy (early 1960s) for a long time hemp ropes were the only ropes that met strength specifications to tie up ships. I think nowadays they use synthetic materials. But I've also heard that George Bush Sr's parachute that saved his life in WWII was made from hemp.

So it's clear that the government has never really had a problem with using hemp products when it has served their purpose.

I don't know the whole story, but my understanding is that William Randolph Hearst had a lot to do with the downfall of hemp. He was the one that made the connection between hemp and marijuana too strong to ignore - I believe it had to do with his involvement in the paper mill business.

Again, this is what I've heard. I am no expert on the field.

[rincewind]

Here's the story about Hearst:

http://www.theagitator.com/2002/09/29/william-randolph-hearst-and-the-criminalization-of-marijuana/

[Baculus]

You didn't really answer my question. So let's take China. According to your other post, hemp was suppossed to completely eliminate the need for trees to be harvested for paper because it is such a great crop.

China appearantly grows hemp and even does some exporting.

China is having timber issues:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HD20Cb06.html

and uses trees for paper:

http://www.forestnet.com/archives/Feb_Mar_96/china.htm

and they still do a lot with importing and exporting cotton so they are growing and using cotton

http://www.itmaasia.com/cms/showDoc_ff80808117d440a10117e21efdc6004d.html

Why haven't they just gone completely to hemp for all of these things?

Look, I honestly don't know much about this. I just find it a little odd that hemp is suppossedly the perfect plant for the solution to multiple different pretty much unrelated problems (e.g. paper, fibers for clothing and other things, and cellulosic ethanol) and no country on Earth has an economy centered around growing and selling hemp products (e.g. clothing and paper), which I believe would be completely legal in the US.

That leads me to wonder if people aren't over-exaggerating the utility of hemp w/ respect to these different uses (maybe there are some reasons/conditions under which cotton is better), and if that's the case, why?

That's like saying, "Well, I heard alternative-energy vehicles are supposed to save the world, but how come no one has all their vehicles based upon that?"

It ain't that easy.

No economy has completely retooled itself to completely used hemp, and for a few reasons, including anti-drug efforts which still considered hemp to be a "drug," competition from other resources such as timber or cotton, or the lack of processing for the plant, for whatever the purpose.

If you actually researched the history of hemp, you will find that it has a very, very old history of usage for much of the products that have been discussed in this thread. This isn't something new fangled idea to use hemp in the fashion that we have discussed.

[PeterMP]

That's like saying, "Well, I heard alternative-energy vehicles are supposed to save the world, but how come no one has all their vehicles based upon that?"

Brazil.

[Baculus]

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13625.html#recomendation

"In summary, substantial progress has been made in controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Based on clinical trials results, practice guidelines advocate the combined use of dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist to prevent acute vomiting in patients exposed to moderately and highly emetogenic agents.95,108-110 Oral THC and smoked marijuana retain antiemetic efficacy but are clearly less effective than current standard therapies. In acute chemotherapy-induced emesis, especially in the high-risk setting, there is no group of patients for whom agents of lower therapeutic index (metoclopramide, phenothiazines, butyrophenones, and cannabinoids) are appropriate as first choice antiemetic drugs. These agents should be reserved for patients intolerant of or refractory to serotonin receptor antagonists and corticosteroids."

"Controlled evidence does not support the view that THC or smoked marijuana offers clinically effective analgesia without causing significant adverse events when used alone. There is a small margin between clinical benefit and unacceptable adverse events. However, smoked marijuana may benefit individual patients suffering from intermittent or chronic pain."

"The AMA calls for further adequate and well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease; (2) The AMA recommends that marijuana be retained in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act pending the outcome of such studies."

He should have asked to see the report.

You highlighted the wrong areas: you should have emphasized "The AMA calls for further adequate and well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease."

According to McCain, there IS no benefits for medical marijuana, and it is not even worthy of research.

Now, there has been differences within the AMA on medical marijuana, which led to a Chicago-based meeting on the subject. Part of the result was the following report:

"Conclusions: Further study is merited on the potential use of marijuana for HIV-infected patients with cachexia, neuropathy, or chronic pain, or who are suffering adverse effects from medication, such as nausea, vomiting, and peripheral neuropathy, that impede compliance with antiretroviral therapy; patients undergoing chemotherapy, especially those being treated for mucositis, nausea, and anorexia, and those patients who do not obtain adequate relief from either acute or delayed emetic episodes from standard therapy; patients suffering from spasticity or pain due to spinal cord injury, or neuropathic or central pain syndromes; and patients with chronic pain and insomnia or to potentiate the analgesic effects of opioids and to reduce their emetic effects in the treatment of postoperative, traumatic, or cancer pain."

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/upload/mm/hod_d6_doc.doc

Again, we are working with a few issues:

1. Republican administrations have always pressured the AMA and medical-related researchers to keep marijuana a schedule I drug. This was true of the Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Bush II administrations, where the entire issue of medical marijuana has been politicized.

2. It is difficult to even surmise the potential effectiveness of the substance if researchers are unable to study the substance.

3. Even the AMA studies do not go as far as the many doctors in various states who not only support the medical usage of marijuana, but prescribe it to patients. And there is tons of anecdotal evidence, from patients, that support the effectiveness of marijuana, especially as an anti-emetic and for improving the ability to eat of the patient.

Also, take into consideration that other nations, such as Canada, have already shifted their position on medical marijuana, and have allowed doctors to subscribe the substance to patients. As the 2001 AMA report mentions:

"In another government-funded initiative, Canada announced that it would make marijuana available on a compassionate-use basis for individual patients. Under the plan, which would go into effect July 31, 2001, terminally ill patients and people suffering from chronic illnesses could buy, cultivate, and use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Patients would require a physician’s recommendation, to be submitted by application to the government. Third parties would be able to grow marijuana for patients who cannot grow the plants themselves."

Furthmore, while the AMA in the 2001 suggested to retain marijuana, during research, as a Schedule 1 drug (which is ironic, since Schedule I drugs normally are not used for medical research), the report goes on to discuss the various purposes of marijuana (and more specifically, THC) and the "basic scientific rationale" behind studies on the substance.