McConnell bill would legalize hemp as agricultural product | Hacker News Reader

McConnell bill would legalize hemp as agricultural product

thehill.com

131 pointsgscott52 comments

I do not believe with the current administration and Jeff Sessions as Attorney General - who seems particularly anti-marijuana - that this has any chance of success.

Of course hemp is not marijuana, but that has not stopped the DEA from making every effort to make them synonymous. The DEA has gone so far as to create rules that are not based on US laws, and in fact are counter to US federal laws in an effort to restrict hemp. This is gotten them a slap on the wrist at least once by federal court.

Hemp is a fantastic plant with many unique and important uses. One has to wonder why the US has, since the 1930s I believe, been so against it. One might suspect the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in seeing hemp (and its naughty cousin, marijuana) banned since there are health products with documented human benefits that compare more favorably to some drugs made by companies.

One might also suspect the private prison industry whose growth has swelled under drug policies instituted in the 1980 which dramatically increased the populations of people locked up for minor drug offenses.

In short, this is nice to hear about, but it is more likely to be a show piece for McConnell to please his Kentucky constituents with.

> Hemp is a fantastic plant with many unique and important uses. One has to wonder why the US has, since the 1930s I believe, been so against it. One might suspect the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in seeing hemp (and its naughty cousin, marijuana) banned

Many countries around the world do not have the same restrictions on hemp industrial production that the USA does, and yet, hemp isn't all that widely used and other sources for materials are often preferred instead. I suspect a lot of the praise of hemp as some kind of miracle material comes from those who just want legal marijuana and they’ll say anything to get it, not people who particularly care about industrial manufacturing.

I think that's a reasonable point to make.

At the same time, I wouldn't underestimate the worldwide effects a ban in the US had, given its importance as a consumer of world goods especially in the second half of the 20th century. And while industrial hemp wasn't banned worldwide, it was banned or curtailed in other countries for prolonged periods (e.g. Germany from 82 to 95).

Hemp production seems to be around 0.25% of cotton production. No matter the intrinsic properties of the material, that seems like a very difficult lead to catch up to. And I'm sure both are getting squeezed by synthetic fibers (cotton consumption seems to be fairly stable for years).

Hemp: 65kt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Producers

Cotton: 25mt https://www.icac.org/Press-Release/2018-(1)/PR-5-2018-Global...

Synthetic fibers: 65mt https://www.statista.com/statistics/741368/world-synthetic-f...

Wool: around 1mt

Name a dominant manufacturing countries that has legal hemp?

Exporting hemp is also an issue. The USA foreign policy forced most of the world to make cannabis illegal since the 70s.

Since hemp was illegal, capital was invested in cotton and wood industrial tools.

As hemp production increases so will the technology to produce goods.

Er, China for one. Also France, Canada, UK, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Thailand, ...

Over 30 according to a quick look at wikipedia.

Its funny to watch someone get slapped down with the ole' "name one," Rush Limbaugh tactic. He uses it because people can't reply, since radio is one way. Of course, if you use it on a two way communication, better look it up first.

Yeah, an acquaintance runs a farm that also has fields of hemp, and it's no miracle - it's used in quite a few industries in preference to other materials, but it's not that dominant. As far as I recall, their harvest was shipped for making cigarette paper and hemp textiles; both of which are interesting but ultimately just niche use cases.

For both of those ‘niche’ use cases, paper and cloth, hemp was the dominant material used for many centuries prior to the last century.

Hemp can grow places trees can't, like high altitudes. And hemp is such a fast growing weed that few other weeds can catch up during the growth cycle, making it less work for the farmer. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-067.htm

I'm more interested in a greater availability of locally sourced hemp-based nutrition. Hemp seeds are great for you: http://www.purehealingfoods.com/hempHeartsInfo.php

Or maybe the United States and many countries they influence are off the list of potential customers for hemp products so if their economy is reliant on exporting it may not make sense to overhaul everything to a system that is pretty much designed not to make money.

It also works great as fuel for pellet stoves. It produces roughly the same amount of ash as wood pellets. I would love to use it as a renewable energy source.

> Jeff Sessions

Do we know Scott Pruitt's [1] position on cannabis?

[1] http://thehill.com/news/administration/367628-politico-pruit...

My stoner brother has some conspiracy that the timber and cotton industries are behind the demonisation of hemp.

Apparently because hemp can be made into paper and fabric it would put the timber and cotton industries under threat.

I never cared enough to look into it, but it wouldn't surprise me if industry lobbying is part of the reason for the suppression of hemp.

I don't put too much credence in it though, because hemp is legal to grow in other countries, and it hasn't decimated the timber and cotton industries.

Not saying your brother's theory is right, but just because something isn't a real treat doesn't mean it can't be perceived as a threat (and consequently be lobbied against)

Pulpwood is usually the worst market for wood. It takes lower quality wood than other end users, so it is an important market. But pulpwood might sell for $15 a ton while a single high grade log weighing less than a ton might sell for hundreds of dollars.

Losing the pulpwood market would mean that the cost mix would shift for other timber products but it wouldn't threaten the industry.

I'm not sure that a good, cheap process for turning hemp into paper would be that much of a threat to the pulpwood paper makers. Hemp prices can only go so low before farmers won't plant it. An awful lot of pulp wood isn't competing with corn (and any other agricultural commodity) for space to grow.

edit: Here's some global production statistics that back up paper being an important market for wood but not critical:

http://www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/80938/en/

My old man worked for DuPont for years and his theory was that they lobbied against hemp because of the competition to the then newly devolved nylon.

Here's [1] a good rundown of the conspiracy. To wit, it's a conspiracy of two: DuPont wanting to outlaw hemp which could have provided an alternative to Nylon, and Hearst which was heavily invested in wood-pulping machinery for paper production, again for which hemp was a good alternative.

1. https://www.alternet.org/story/77339/debunking_the_hemp_cons...

I have trouble with that article due to the tone. There’s no reason to refer to people as ‘potheads’ or mention Jerry Garcia with bitterness and disdain, or at all. It seems the author has an axe to grind with the remnants of 60s culture.

He isn't wrong about the Cotton folks as they see hemp as a threat. There is a slight scale difference when great plains farmers (see North Dakota in WWII) can raise a lot of crop. I think its more a unfounded fear then real, but it will probably have a year of lower profits due to novelty when legalized.

I thought it was because MJ could be grown hidden in a hemp field, making identification harder.

If you grow hemp anywhere near marijuana, it will greatly reduce the quality of the output of the marijauna. So hiding mj in a hemp field is pointless.

https://www.marijuanaventure.com/will-hemp-farms-ruin-cannab...

Jeff Sessions is irrelevant when it comes to passing laws.

Your second conjecture is wrong (the private prison industry barely existed when those drug policies were instituted; they are an effect rather than a cause of the drug war). That doesn’t give me much faith in your first conjecture.

Yet you cite a correlation as proof of causation?

No, I’m citing chronology as evidence of non-causation. (A happened before the thing OP asserted caused A to happen.)

There are many in the Trump tea leave reading community that believe this is actually a first step towards legalization and they’re testing the waters.

I don’t have an opinion on this just thought I’d share. I doubt most of HN lurks on said boards.

The first step in legalizing marijuana federally is removing hemp from the controlled substance list? That makes no sense, given that smoking hemp isn't going to get you high and how many states have already legalized marijuana, either medicinally or medically to great public approval (the waters have already been tested, and they're fine).

It also makes no sense given that less than 3 months ago, Sessions rescinded the policy of non-interference with state laws.

I mean, I'm sure people believe that, but I'm just saying, it doesn't really follow...

> Trump tea leave reading community

Typo or clever pun?

> Of course hemp is not marijuana

I think I know what you mean, but cannabis sativa is both hemp and marijuana. The US gov't just defines the distinction via THC content.

I would expect that if Congress changes the law that the Sessions has no choice in the matter. That is after all the point of Congress, to change the law.

If approved, the act would allow states to control their own hemp regulations by removing federal restrictions.

> current administration

Source? Trump hasn't said a thing against hemp and sessions has no say, he's "only" the "head of law enforcement."

For years the DEA (which is part of the Executive Branch) has intentionally conflated hemp with marijuana, despite the clear scientific evidence of hemp being very low in THC content compared to marijuana.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/4/16849866/ma...

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-other-cannabi...

Informative but "current administration" != "for years"

My wife has a history of seizures, depression and anxiety which we've treated with a cocktail of medicines (Cymbalta, Lyrica, Ativan, Klonopin etc, etc). She recently started using a full spectrum CBD oil and it has made a MASSIVE difference and it has allowed her to taper off all of her drugs and she is now happier and less anxious than she has been for a long time. The THC component of the oil is less than 0.4% so it has no psychoactive effect at all, and while it may not be a wonder cure-all I think a lot of people could benefit from at least trying it so I'm all in favor of any legalization efforts.

Hemp and Marijuana (where THC comes from) is not the same thing.

https://ministryofhemp.com/hemp/not-marijuana/

The oil she uses is made from hemp, hence the low THC and why (as I understand it) we can legally buy it across state lines.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but most CBD oils on the market are not derived from hemp plants...they just don't contain enough THC to legally prohibit interstate shipping.

There is cannabis very high in THC, but low in CBD (those are generally the sativa, makes one high) and there's cannabis high in CBD but low in THC (those are generally the indica, makes one stoned). Example source with info at Sensiseeds FAQ (English version) [1]. Quoting (just the effect difference):

"The effect of indica is generally classified as a ‘stone’, meaning that it is more centred on the body. Indicas may enhance physical sensations such as taste, touch and sound.

The indica effect is noted for being physically and mentally relaxing and it may be soporific in larger doses.

Despite their lower weight and potentially longer flowering time, sativas are valued by many growers for their ‘high’ effect.

This high may be characterised as cerebral, energetic, creative, giggly or even psychedelic. It is less overpowering than the indica ‘stone’, and less likely to send the user to sleep."

[1] https://sensiseeds.com/en/info/faq/difference-between-indica...

A WWII newsreel encouraging farmers to grow hemp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8tG_0AJvnw

It was a big war crop in North Dakota. I do believe the rope on the USS Constitution is help.

The Constitution is written on hemp. Truly, legal hemp is what The Framers intended.

It's written on parchment[1], I've found mentions that the _drafts_ were on hemp paper but not a firm source on how we know this or where these drafts are now.

[1] https://www.archives.gov/preservation/formats/paper-vellum.h...

Source for this? A little searching is telling me this is a myth.

How about a source that disproves it entirely instead? https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q145.html

> How about a source that disproves it entirely instead?

As pointed out in your link, the copy in the National Archives isn't written on hemp, but the first drafts of the Constitution - ie, as it was literally being written - likely were.

OP misstated it slightly, or in a way that's a bit misleading, but it's not incorrect.

Maybe the grand-parent meant the people who wrote the constitution were stoned.

Legalize it.

Wow, so are the hemp products available (like hemp string) not actual hemp? I had no idea it was illegal since it's not weed.

Most are imported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#United_States

Hemp is a great rotation crop that adds nitrogen back into the soil. And unlike alfalfa, hemp can get some money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com