How Hemp Threatens the Corporatocracy

i think MisterE is missing the point that if what he's saying is true that 75% of the material used to make paper turns into waste, hemp has so many other uses, such as making cooking oil or biodiesel fuel. That I'd be willing to wager that there is just as much 'waste' as there is with an actual tree, but probably less overall if you take into consideration all the products that could be made with a hemp plant as opposed to a pine tree.

and yeah stoners and weed advocates are easy targets to have a knee jerk reaction to and disregard the actual fact that the paper companies lobbied very hard and spent millions to demonize blacks and marijuana so that it would become illegal. Things have changed obviously but the stigma attached to marijuana and hemp still hasn't gone away. In places like California, Colorado, etc it has, but for the most part it hasn't. MisterE you have a lot of energy in you, and i appreciate that you want to engage in discussions about this but i think you are mistaking the messenger with the actual message, that plenty of educated non-stoners feel the exact same way about Hemp as reported in this video. Just because you shot down a stoner relatives hemp diatribe doesn't change the irrefutable facts

edit: and just so you don't think i'm coming down hard on you specifically, i didn't mean that you personally are sad in my previous post, i just meant i find it sad how blatant and out in the open deforestation is. Although i will say that calling hemp advocacy a 'conspiracy theory' is just really disingenuous and utilizing the modern usage of the phrase as a pejorative which i find personally abhorrent.

  On 3/11/2013 at 5:15 AM, apeterlives said:

Just today New Hampshire was voting on pro hemp farming laws. Last time they voted for hemp farming the senate said they wanted to study it further and delayed it. They'll probably be the first, hah "live free or die".

 

Information about trees in US is misleading -- US has more trees today than 100 years ago.

well that's great if true, and not surprising either since mass deforesting operations have been happening even before the industrial revolution. The main reason why there might be more trees today is because of a push back from conservationist groups. Most of the trees that out number the trees 100 years ago are very young though, many of them mere saplings. 100 years ago the trees that were cut down were likely hundreds of years old. So i also don't think it's accurate to say that the state of our forests right now is superior to the way it was 100 years ago.

not to mention that I suspect we are only able to preserve our trees by logging overseas, lol. Though I no longer live in the US, I remember going to Costco and seeing all their pretty park benches were made from (rapidly disappearing) Indonesian hardwoods (sheds Indian tear).

  On 3/11/2013 at 6:26 AM, Awepittance said:

 

  On 3/11/2013 at 5:15 AM, apeterlives said:

Just today New Hampshire was voting on pro hemp farming laws. Last time they voted for hemp farming the senate said they wanted to study it further and delayed it. They'll probably be the first, hah "live free or die".

 

Information about trees in US is misleading -- US has more trees today than 100 years ago.

well that's great if true, and not surprising either since mass deforesting operations have been happening even before the industrial revolution. The main reason why there might be more trees today is because of a push back from conservationist groups. Most of the trees that out number the trees 100 years ago are very young though, many of them mere saplings. 100 years ago the trees that were cut down were likely hundreds of years old. So i also don't think it's accurate to say that the state of our forests right now is superior to the way it was 100 years ago.

yeah, we are just cleaning up our mess, but it's awesome that our efforts truly are effective. forestry operations are much less invasive than ever before.

not advocating for vandalism but i think 'eco terrorism' helped scare away a lot of logging operations as well. After 9/11 though the patriot act lumped them in with Al Qaeda, so a sentence that would have previously been 1 year for destroying a logging trucks engine or putting tire spikes in the road now carries a sentence more like 7-10 years because it is classified under post 9/11 'terrorism'. Tree sitting is still in fashion but carries a much harsher penalty than before. So yes i believe that the paper industry or whatever corporations have the most stake in it still dictate to some extent the laws in the US.

Hemp is much more efficient at creating the biomass (one of the best crops for this) and the materials we could use it for than trees or petrolium. The paper and textiles derived from hemp actually ARE more durable than cotton or trees. Look it up. So it beats our current methods in efficiency, the amount of space used for manufacturing, and durability. Troon is correct by bringing up the fact that the shift from our current way of doing things would not only be a challenge, but not in the best interests of the companies that create many of the products we use everyday. It's a major barrier to change, even if it is the best idea for us in the long run. Meanwhile, it costs 60 U.S. dollars to fill my car with gas, and the electric car was swept under the rug faster than anyone knew about it. America, fuck...yeah...

Interesting topic, I guess. But I'm still wondering why worldwide production isn't bigger. The anti-americanism is a bit tiresome when trying to find out about the actual why, btw. If anything doesnt work the way people think it should, it's because of either the us government or that goddarn capitalism. Yeah yeah, we know. And the US rules the entire world, right? Sure it does.

Other than hemp only being harvested in august (northern hemisphere) instead of being available the entire year, I can't find much else. Well, except for modern ships not needing the amount of ropes they used to. The rather obvious explanation must be somewhere in the economic value range. So it 's either about the hemp products themselves or the seasonal production process which makes it a less viable option compaired to alternatives. Dunno. But I'm a bit sceptic about hemp being the easy out for all our worldwide problems.

The one argument against hemp I can see is that it's cost prohibitive for farmers (because the DEA haha):
"...under federal regulations, the acreage still must be completely fenced and reported by GPS coordinates. All hemp sales also must be reported. That’s a per-acre cost of about $400."

  On 3/11/2013 at 7:26 AM, goDel said:

Interesting topic, I guess. But I'm still wondering why worldwide production isn't bigger. The anti-americanism is a bit tiresome when trying to find out about the actual why, btw. If anything doesnt work the way people think it should, it's because of either the us government or that goddarn capitalism. Yeah yeah, we know. And the US rules the entire world, right? Sure it does.

Other than hemp only being harvested in august (northern hemisphere) instead of being available the entire year, I can't find much else. Well, except for modern ships not needing the amount of ropes they used to. The rather obvious explanation must be somewhere in the economic value range. So it 's either about the hemp products themselves or the seasonal production process which makes it a less viable option compaired to alternatives. Dunno. But I'm a bit sceptic about hemp being the easy out for all our worldwide problems.

And how about the world outside the US borders? The absurdity of the War On Drugs legislation within the US almost says it all, really. But that's just the US.

well it's obvious why hemp production isn't more wide spread in the US, but i think it's not accurate to say the US rules the world. Corporations rule the world, especially the ones with the most money. If you go back to the corporate push to make marijuana illegal you can find ample information as to why there is a cartel who is resistant to transferring over to hemp production globally, it's not just exclusive to the DEA not liking pot here in the US.

I hate giving tips, btw.

;-)

i approve of an avatar of a man with a public foot fetish over one of a man who makes his harem of women wear pink pajamas while watching 2 plasma tvs of gay porn, please don't go back to the Hef

Corporations, whatever they are, are about economic value. If hemp isn't widely used, than that basically says something about its economic value. There is no monolithic corporation ruling the world. It's free for competition.

Lol

I still like the hef though. :D

  On 3/11/2013 at 7:36 AM, goDel said:

Corporations, whatever they are, are about economic value. If hemp isn't widely used, than that basically says something about its economic value. There is no monolithic corporation ruling the world. It's free for competition.

you missed the post about the resistent nature of corporations to change things. At this point it would cost a lot of money and require a major overhaul of the whole philosophy to implement hemp into it. It would take many years for the people resistent to hemp to make it profitable, too many of them to maintain stockholder confidence. This idea of 'change' runs counter to what we are used to as quarterly economic growth.

Interesting point, so theoretically if marijuana were to be legalized, hemp still wouldn't be used much because of the short term risks?

i think at this point the current taboo against the cannabis plant is not the reason why there is a lack of global mass hemp production. but the past efforts to make it a taboo have shifted the focus away from it is a viable option for a very long time. Maybe it will change?

  On 3/11/2013 at 7:44 AM, Awepittance said:

i think at this point the current taboo against the cannabis plant is not the reason why there is a lack of global mass hemp production. but the past efforts to make it a taboo have shifted the focus away from it is a viable option for a very long time. Maybe it will change?

Yeah, "green energy" wasn't really trendy before as it is now too.

Guess we will have to wait and see. I will be surprised if cannabis is still largely illegal in a decade in the US. Public opinion seems to be snowballing in favor.

I missed that post. And I can accept that as an important part of an explanation. But I don't think it's the whole story. If the economic value is big enough, even the most conservative corporation would change its ways. So the economic value does not "overturn" (??? Cant think of the right word) the investments needed to change the industry.

I wonder if substances used to manufacture sodas, store-bought cold and flu medicines, and processed junk food are more harmful to the human body than cannabis.

  On 3/11/2013 at 7:44 AM, Awepittance said:

 

i think at this point the current taboo against the cannabis plant is not the reason why there is a lack of global mass hemp production. but the past efforts to make it a taboo have shifted the focus away from it is a viable option for a very long time. Maybe it will change?

I can fully support this post and add that this thread went way too fast to take part in on a mobile device... :s

  On 3/11/2013 at 5:02 AM, Awepittance said:

<p>regardless of hemp makes good paper or not, its a historical fact that paper producing companies were behind the illegalization of marijuana in the 1930s, they had no vested interest in doing this besides eliminating a competing method of doing what they already do.  I remember reading sourced information years ago about how some of them even helped spread racism to fuel the anti marijuana fever that they lobbied to create. I can try to dig some up if you like.<br />

<br />

I can't really promote deforestation in general, all one has to do is drive to certain areas of northern california to find that they do demolish what one would characterize as a 'whole forrest'. Im not sure where you live MisterE but honestly maybe you just havent seen it for yourself? I find it pretty sad personally.<br />

<br />

 just in terms of keeping natural habitats intact hemp seems like a better option. It's extremely easy to grow a marijuana plant for hemp production, far easier and faster than growing a tree for paper production. </p>

this is complete bullshit and if flies squarely in the face of logic. here's some logic-

why would they fight to have it outlawed/banned for industrial use, if they could use it themselves and make more profit? further if you want to talk about how that other 75% could have other uses, lets. maybe it could have other uses. but lets not completely overlook the fact that this means that there are now processes required to separate the 25% that's useful for paper from the 75% that isn't. processes that would require energy and possibly chemicals. great for the environment, huh? oh and they cost money, time and whatever other resources. which means the company loses money. what if the 25% useful for paper is the most useful part in general? how does it prove that companies are in on some evil conspiracy just by the fact that they haven't partnered up like this-

plastic or whatever company to paper company- hey guys, how about if you start using hemp, and give us the parts of the plants you cant use, then we'll use that in what we do.

the fact that these various companies have not organized such a system does not in any way shape or form prove that there is a conspiracy here. it just proves that it would be super fucking complicated, and that's IF and it is a big huge IF, IF it could actually be done. if the parts of the plant that are useless to company A just so happen to be the exact parts that are needed by company B. and how perfect and beautiful of a coincidence that would be if it just perfectly worked out that way for everybody. burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists to show that this would be feasible and profitable for companies. otherwise there is no conspiracy.

also when you talk about an entire forest being 'demolished', was that for paper production? the paper company around here puts trees back for the trees they use. so if there is some fucked up paper company out in california going around cutting down all the forests, maybe that speaks to the intelligence of californians? not just for not knowing how to do it in a sustainable way, but for allowing a company to go around cutting down all of your forests.

and when you grow massive amounts of hemp in big open fields... you realize there used to be trees where those fields are right?

  On 3/11/2013 at 7:36 AM, goDel said:

Corporations, whatever they are, are about economic value. If hemp isn't widely used, than that basically says something about its economic value. There is no monolithic corporation ruling the world. It's free for competition.

Hemp is widely used--right now the US is the world's biggest hemp importer. China is the world's biggest hemp producer/exporter, they make over 40%. China can control the hemp prices, in the early 90s they dumped a ton of hemp product on the market and halfed the world price of hemp. Then a year later they withheld selling hemp seeds and the price of hemp doubled. With the market value being subject to change like that it's hard to guarantee a profit, and that's on top of issues with land. Also, nothing is stopping US multinational corporations from perusing hemp opportunities abroad, for example CGP.

I don't know though, it's a toss up. Look at Canada, where hemp has been legal, and you find that marijuana produced there is way more profitable than hemp (5-7 billion annually). I think ultimately that the whole push for legalizing US hemp has less to do with hemp itself and more to do with legalizing weed. As the biggest hemp importer the US is getting the benefit of hemp products right now.

I feel like enough people are already aware enough (or should be aware enough at this point) to spark a change and find the fact that we have yet to see any major upheavals take place, highly disappointing :(

Will it take a new generation or wave of thought, is that simply not enough? What exactly will it take?

Sigh...