Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-01-2008, 02:46 PM
 
4,627 posts, read 10,436,264 times
Reputation: 4264

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj View Post
So the question I have is if hemp is the wave of the future then why is it illegal to cultivate in one of the most liberal states in the nation CA? You'd think the greenie left wing wackos would be all over it there planting it on every spec of open space at UC Berkeley!
For the answer all you have to do is research Dupont Chemical. They have opposed very strongly the growing of hemp for decades - and done so on an international basis. So far, they have won.

Because hemp is capable of replacing cotton, and more importantly, chemically produced items (in the areas of clothing, health care, etc.), Dupont will fight tooth-and-nail to prohibit this product.

It doesn't matter where Montana stands on this issue, or where the populace of any state stands on this issue. There is far too much for Dupont and other coporations to lose if hemp took off as a legitimate crop. Dupont pays for 'anti' hemp growing lobbyists, promotes (and own) PR campaigns, subsidizes campaigns of elected officials - in short, they have the money to influence and form peoples' opinions.

Hemp is a viable, tremendously productive and natural crop. Whether any state allows its citizens to produce this crop has nothing to do with liberal or conservative view points.

Who will lose if hemp is approved as an independent crop (that is, anyone would be able to farm it)? It all comes down to money, imho.


I love this: "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
~Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-01-2008, 03:23 PM
 
8 posts, read 26,925 times
Reputation: 20
Thomas Jefferson has some great quotes....SeeBee has done his/her research....




"In the 1920's the Du Pont company developed and patented fuel additives such as tetraethyl lead, as well as the sulfate and sulfite processes for manufacture of pulp paper and numerous new synthetic products such as nylon, cellophane, and other plastics. At the same time other companies were developing synthetic products from renewable biomass resources--especially hemp. The hemp decorticator promised to eliminate much of the need for wood-pulp paper, thus threatening to drastically reduce the value of the vast timberlands still owned by Hearst. Ford and other companies were already promising to make every product from cannabis carbohydrates that was currently currently being made from petroleum hydrocarbons. In response, from 1935 to 1937, Du Pont lobbied the chief counsel of the Treasury Department, Herman Oliphant, for the prohibition of cannabis, assuring him that Du Pont's synthetic petrochemicals (such as urethane) could replace hemp seed oil in the marketplace.


William Randolf Hearst hated minorities, and he used his chain of newspapers to aggravate racial tensions at every opportunity. Hearst especially hated Mexicans. Hearst papers portrayed Mexicans as lazy, degenerate, and violent, and as marijuana smokers and job stealers. The real motive behind this prejudice may well have been that Hearst had lost 800,000 acres of prime timberland to the rebel Pancho Villa, suggesting that Hearst's racism was fueled by Mexican threat to his empire."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2008, 10:47 PM
 
Location: Montana
1,219 posts, read 3,157,294 times
Reputation: 687
This is great.. I love the topic.

When you think about it, on the drug side of cannabis, who would it hurt if it was legal? Hmm.. we could tax it for a bit of relief on the property and income taxes, and maybe people would slow down and think a bit before making decisions.. (I know I know you have heard this a thousand times... and so have I, and even fired a few people for not keeping up with the job because of abuse of the same thing, but there have also been those that really want to learn, and as the new "drug czar" I'd take a motivated stoner well before a lazy alcoholic onto my crew.)

As for rope using hemp for fibers, more power to whoever can get a new American industry started, shoot I'd even support it by buying rope to help get my job done at less expense.

On a separate note, My Great Great worked for the man who's name you used here, so don't be tellin' stories.

-TW-
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2008, 10:58 PM
 
8 posts, read 26,925 times
Reputation: 20
I guess as citizens all we can really do is vote for people who support this cause and write your congressman....you can do it online so there is no excuse not to....you would think environmental groups would be lobbying for this
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2008, 07:30 AM
 
Location: LEAVING CD
22,974 posts, read 26,863,130 times
Reputation: 15643
Quote:
Originally Posted by marley972 View Post
you would think environmental groups would be lobbying for this
Naw, they're too busy keeping everyone out of the forests and putting the brakes on logging and causing us all to go broke via the ethenol program.

I don't see it as a bad idea, hemp makes some of the best rope you can get and has been used on ships for centuries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2008, 08:31 AM
 
Location: In The Outland
6,023 posts, read 13,991,638 times
Reputation: 3535
Yea but it tastes like schwag when smoked ! When I was about 15 my buddies tried smoking hemp rope thinking they would get a buzz. That was after they gave up on banana peels !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2008, 11:36 PM
 
4,627 posts, read 10,436,264 times
Reputation: 4264
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickers View Post
Yea but it tastes like schwag when smoked ! When I was about 15 my buddies tried smoking hemp rope thinking they would get a buzz. That was after they gave up on banana peels !
Well, yes, it's not tobacco!!! Canada (at least Manitoba) permits the cultivation of hemp as a food crop, e.g., milk (which is delicious)! I'm going to get a pair of summer shoes which are made from hemp, and I have a purse that is made from hemp - indestructible!

Hemp could easily be grown in MT or any of the similarly less populated states. Especially since for several years now, smaller 'family farms have been run out of business by the giant, evil coporations.

I'm just kidding - sort of - but it's not so funny to the small rancher or farmer when they lose their livelihood, not to mention land. And that is the only sad part about this whole idea.

I just don't think people care enough to lobby for legalizing hemp's cultivation, since it's taken on this "left-field" environmentalist kind of push. Too bad. (I'm no conspiracist, but I believe that's the plan).

It just ain't gonna happen... HAPPY & SAFE 4th JULY ~
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2008, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
8,083 posts, read 15,079,526 times
Reputation: 3724
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickers View Post
Montana does allow for the growing of the other type of hemp AKA medicinal marijuana.
As for the hemp grown for fiber I have no Idea.
DuPont was one reason hemp became illegal, per another post. Another was the Rockefeller timber interests; at the time they mostly sold wood pulp for making paper. Well, hemp fibre makes better paper than wood pulp, so we can't have THAT competing, noooo!! Anyway, there was a great deal of lobbying against hemp in every form, in an era when big industrialists could pretty much write their own laws, and it had nothing to do with hemp grown for drug production:

If you want to kill off growing dope, all you have to do is plant industrial hemp. When it cross-pollinates with smokin' pot, the result is useless for drug purposes. I don't remember the botanical details but that's the gist of it.

Of course the DEA wouldn't like that, since easy pot busts lead to billions of dollars worth of confiscated property.

(Yes, I think we should legalise it, tax it, regulate it, and I'm not a user. -- Of course the drug lords wouldn't like that either, because the artificially high prices would then collapse. Who do you think is really behind the "war on drugs" anyway??!)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2008, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Montana
1,219 posts, read 3,157,294 times
Reputation: 687
I'm with you on the need to legalize it, tax it etc... I don't use it either, but I don't have a problem with anyone who does. (Just makes me sleepy..)

Seems to me that Alcohol is more damaging, but that goes on and on everyday. I never really understood why the laws are set up the way they are.

Thanks for the insight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2008, 01:20 PM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
8,083 posts, read 15,079,526 times
Reputation: 3724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberwolf232 View Post
I'm with you on the need to legalize it, tax it etc... I don't use it either, but I don't have a problem with anyone who does. (Just makes me sleepy..)

Seems to me that Alcohol is more damaging, but that goes on and on everyday. I never really understood why the laws are set up the way they are.
Usually because of some special interest.

And if people want to make themselves stooopid in the privacy of their own homes, well, go for it, is my feeling. Legal and taxed means the social services they might require (if we're dumb enough to provide 'em to the self-made braindead) gets paid for out of THEIR pockets, not ours, and all that DEA money is now freed up for better uses, like not being taxed away from us in the first place.

We had a long discussion of the economics on Slashdot not too long ago, and someone brought up that if these drugs are legalized, the same people could still keep selling, just not with the near-monopoly they have now. Another side benefit would be pharmeceutical corps could do the research to create a safer salable product, instead of kids experimenting on themselves as they do now, with chemicals of unknown provenance.

Illegal has never meant unavailable, so the notion that legal "encourages" drug use is bogus. What's out in the open, you can learn about without having to do so firsthand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top