Hemp: Problem or solution?
By Grant Voyles
What do you call farmers who grow a plant that can help America’s deforestation
and economic problems? Criminals. The plant that these particular farmers are
prohibited from growing is hemp. Because hemp is a member of the cannabis family,
the Federal Government classifies it as a drug under the Controlled Substances
Act and prohibits American farmers from growing it, ignoring hemp’s potential
economic and environmental benefits.
There is certainly no “quick fix” solution to the dilemma of protecting
the environment and boosting America’s current economic downturn. Investigation
reveals, however, that cultivation of the hemp plant (cannabis sativa I) can
help to remedy both these issues. According to Cannabis News, the potential
world hemp market is valued at about five hundred billion dollars. In addition
to its economic potential, hemp is environmentally friendly: an acre of hemp,
for example, produces more than four times as much pulp for paper as does an
acre of trees, when figured on an annual basis. Not only that, but, according
to Cannabis News, hemp cultivation improves soil quality and the hemp
plant itself is extremely resistant to pests. Reason dictates, then, that hemp
cultivation could make progress toward remedying both economic and environmental
issues in the United States. The problem, of course, is that federal law makes
it illegal to grow hemp in the United States.
The Federal Government banned hemp cultivation in 1937 as part of its prohibition of marijuana. The hemp plant is related to, but not identical to, the marijuana plant. Hemp is currently grown as a cash crop in over thirty nations, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan and Canada, reports Rachel Collins of the Boston Globe. More than 60,000 commercially useful products are made from hemp. The most well-known of these are clothing, rope and paper, but hemp is also used to produce diapers, beer, lip balm, hair care products and food products such as cereal and chips.
According to the Boston Globe, hemp grosses between $308 and $410
an acre, which is almost three times as much as wheat. The American government
ignores the hypocrisy of the fact that federal law does not prohibit the importation
or sale of hemp products, but only the growing of the hemp plant itself. Hemp
is not a drug, cannot be used to produce drugs, and its only relationship to
drugs is the minute trace of THC it contains. Eric Steenstra of Vote Hemp, in
fact, states that, “We did a calculation on chips and figured out that
it would take 441 eight-ounce bags of chips [similar to potato chips, but made
from hemp] to get high.”
Although the economic benefits of growing hemp are real and significant, the
environmental benefits are also substantial. Making paper from hemp rather than
from trees would help alleviate America’s deforestation problems. In addition,
the Multinational Observer reports that about thirty percent of all
pesticides used in the United States are sprayed on cotton; in contrast, a study
by the University of Kentucky revealed that hemp can be grown with little or
no used of pesticides, due to its natural resistance. Certainly hemp could not
replace cotton in every product, but even some limited replacement would help
the environment.
Opponents of legalization of hemp production rely on the drug escalation argument, which essentially states that use of mild drugs leads inexorably to use of more potent drugs. Law enforcement organizations argue that industrial hemp farms could provide camouflage for illicit marijuana crops. In fact, however, the two plants are easily distinguishable – marijuana plants are short and bushy, while hemp plants are tall and straight. Furthermore, hemp cross-pollinates with marijuana when both are present, diluting the potency and purity of marijuana and thus diminishing its value as a psychoactive drug. Opponents also argue that hemp contains tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the illegal substance in marijuana that causes its users to get “high.” The fact is that hemp contains only about 0.3 percent THC, in contrast to the THC content of marijuana, which ranges from three percent to fourteen percent.
According to NORML (National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws), a group working to reform marijuana laws, countries where hemp cultivation is legal but marijuana use is not have not seen noticeable increases in marijuana use since legalization of hemp production. NORML reports that none of the countries that currently grow hemp have reported any increase in marijuana use since their legalization of hemp cultivation. They also note that anyone who smoked hemp would obtain the same result as if he or she smoked rope or corn stalks, that result usually consisting of a severe headache and nothing more.
When the Boston Globe asked Detective Sergeant Paul Henry of the Ontario (Canada) Provincial Police Drug Enforcement Unit about the correlation between hemp and drug use, Henry stated, “In my opinion, I don’t believe that growing hemp in itself has made any significant increase [in drug use].” Canada has been legally growing commercial hemp for five years, and, according to Fred Foldvary, senior editor of The Progress Report, the country has seen no major increase in drug use or drug-related crimes.
Several states in the United States, including Hawaii, Kentucky and Maryland, have enacted legislation that permits either state agriculture officials or state research universities to grow hemp for study and to explore its economic benefits.
So far, however, hemp is still not a legal cash crop in America. The Federal Government’s zero tolerance policy towards drugs is crippling both economic and environmental benefits that America could realize by legalizing the cultivation of hemp.
The evidence suggests that it would make more sense and benefit the American people more if the Federal Government would objectively weigh both the evidence regarding the cultivation of hemp and any correlation with marijuana or other drug use along with the evidence of the economic and environmental benefits of hemp cultivation and then make a sound decision on the issue. Such an objective approach, rather than a hysterical reaction to drug propaganda (shades of "Reefer Madness?") is the only path to a balanced resolution of this issue.
###
Copyright © 2002 by Grant Voyles. All rights reserved.
The Magazine’s writers welcome your feedback. Please be sure to reference the specific article in your response.
Return to top Return to Issue Four contents Return to Main Page