US Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning congressman from East Texas, last week introduced the Industrial Hemp Farming Act (HR 3037), which would remove federal restrictions on the cultivation of industrial hemp, the low-THC, high-fiber cannabis cultivar popular in products from candy bars to auto body parts to sneakers. The introduction of Rep. Paul’s bill marks the first time a hemp bill has been introduced at the federal level since the federal government outlawed hemp farming in the 1930s. (That ban was temporarily lifted during World War II as part of the “Hemp for Victory” program.)
“It is unfortunate that the federal government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market,” said Rep. Paul. “Indeed the founders of our nation, some of whom grew hemp, surely would find that federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained federal government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.”
North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson undoubtedly spoke for many farmers who see dollar signs around hemp. “Industrial hemp is used in a tremendous variety of products, including food products, soap, cosmetics, fertilizer, textiles, paper, paints and plastics,” Johnson said. “Once the crop is legalized in this country, I believe science will find even more uses for industrial hemp, uses that will make industrial hemp a popular and profitable crop.“
Yet another issue I call “collateral damage” in the War on Drugs. You can argue with me pro or con as to whether adults should have the freedom to smoke flowers in private, but there is no rational defense for refusing effective medicine to sick people (medical marijuana) or refusing a lucrative safe cash crop to our nation’s farmers (industrial hemp).
On both issues I’m often confronted with drug warriors who’ll say, “aha, you’re just using farmers and sick people to advance your agenda to legalize marijuana!” It’s the kind of backward logic you get from people who say marijuana is a gateway drug because so many heroin junkies have smoked pot.
Flip it around. As a person who supports the right of healthy adults to use marijuana, how could I not support the right of sick people to use it? What, no spliffs for granny unless I get some too? Of course not!
As a person who support the right of adults to use cannabis to get high, how could I not support the right of farmers to use cannabis to make consumer goods? What, no hempseed-power bars for hempshirt-wearin’ Harry unless I get to smoke some? Of course not!
In both cases, these people are fighting for rights that are a smaller subset of the rights I fight for. We are allies, but I don’t advance their causes solely to support my own. I advance their causes because their causes are right and honorable, regardless of how one feels about recreational marijuana.
These three drug policy issues — medical marijuana, industrial hemp, and decriminalization — are separate and distinct, and you need not be against all of them as a set. But if you’re for decriminalization, as I am, then you must support the other two.
Learn more about Industrial Hemp from the Hemp Industries Association, VoteHemp, and of course, Hemp.com. I’ll say it: yes, the anti-prohibition cause is benefitted by the pro-hemp and the pro-medical marijuana causes, not as a “stalking horse”, but simply because it fosters more honest dialogue and educated understanding about what cannabis is and how we are regulating it incorrectly.
