What's frustrating is that there aren't really any decent arguments for NOT legalizing hemp (or even marijuana for that matter).

just admit it. you want marijuana to become legal. so do i.

Does anyone know any good mills/paper suppliers that ARE making commercially available hemp paper (no fancy craft paper, we are talking press worthy stuff only). The best that I have found for the planet thus far is the PC 100 from Neenah Environment

I dont believe the taboo "pot" is the primary barrier to Hemp as a paper source anymore. Based on facts, I bet a congressional bill would pass without much outcry from the public.

Its the chemical companies like DOW that manfuacture the chemicals that break down and process tree pulp have a lot to lose if Hemp were to become our primary paper source and are probably the real lobbying power that kills bills like this before they can even gain enough momentum for the public to be aware.

Also I am not exactly convinced that this is the solution to the Greenhouse effect but a worthy step in right direction if we decide we are a community actually concerned about the environment.

The main reason hemp policies haven't been reconsidered is the timber industry.

The main reason marijuana policies haven't been reconsidered is the commercial military and criminal incarceration industries.

;o)

Jah mon.

Greenfield Paper in San Diego manufactures a few types of hemp-based paper to feed your habit.

hemp not only provides us with top quality paper, but it can single-handedly put a stop to the Greenhouse Effect, not to mention the prevention of all kinds of pollution.

Sorry. Can someone explain this to me? What does “greenhouse effect” mean in this sentence? What does putting a stop to it mean in this context? How would hemp do this?

Am I correct in assuming that the phrase “the prevention of all kinds of pollution” is meant to mean “many kinds” rather than literally all?

Does the imprecise-at-best statement I quote above connect with the “Designing for Deception” thread (and especially my challenge (a dozen or so comments down)?

...hemp not only provides us with top quality paper, but it can single-handedly put a stop to the Greenhouse Effect

Wait, I thought you said you weren't stoned?

Darrel's got it nailed. There are many instances of similarly protected interests everywhere you look in the gov.

As a designer I appreciate someone who is considering the impact of their work completely. The argument that paper damages our enviornment is a frequent one - however it's factual truth always seems filled with holes and gaps in evidence.

Does making paper deplete our forests? I was under the understanding that the majority of US soil is covered with trees, that, speaking in percentages, only a small portion of land is even beind used by humans and that tree consumption is a renewable scenario.

Bleaching and other paper making chemicals cause the most damage. Is this true? And if so, would not hemp paper create the same by products.

I think one of the stumbling blocks for hemp legalization is the very people who are campaigning for it. It's hard to take seriously the arguments of bunch of stereotypical longhairs in Grateful Dead t-shirts. I'm sure that many people pushing for a hemp economy are indeed concerned about the environmental impact of logging, but it seems that many of the same folks see it as a stepping stone to a loosening of restrictions on marijuana. If I'm completely wrong, which I may be, that perception is still there and blocks many politicians from getting on board with them.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if a broad base of agricultural/economic interests came out in favor of hemp. From a productivity standpoint, it's hard to understand why the timber companies themselves haven't expressed a real interest.

In any case, kenaf is a very productive legal crop which could go a long way to satisfying pulp demand, and has none of the associated "drug" connotations.

(Just to be clear: I am in favor of legalization of pot and hemp, just cynical enough to be realistic about the current climate to believe that any amount of rallying will have any effect.)

Cassidy,

I sympathize with the spirit of your post, but if you want to be taken seriously you have to cite sources and use more precise language.

Gunnar hits it right on the head in the “Designing for Deception” thread. Playing loose with the facts may win applause from the choir, but will not win you any converts.

Sorry— Gunnar's comments are here.

if you want to be taken seriously you have to cite sources and use more precise language.

That hasn't stopped our politicians from being taken seriously. ;o)

OK... I would LOVE to buy bright white hemp paper that I can print on with my Epson Ink Jet... does anyone know a good source for it in the US?

That hasn't stopped our politicians from being taken seriously.

So if the point is to counter half-truth and deception with more half-truth, then why bother?

If one speaks from a position of power or authority, credibility is implied— correct or not. When speaking as a challenger, and hoping to make a point and win over a few fencesitters, credibilty is your most effective currency.

When speaking as a challenger, and hoping to make a point and win over a few fence-sitters, credibility is your most effective currency.

And, as I (rudely, I’m told) said to a lunch mate who was defending Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine,” if your ideology requires that you lie, you should look for another ideology.

Here’s just one of many links that can be used to make this paper more informative because it has arguments for and against the issue.

Don’t forget to use the MLA style : )

Citing the opposite view and proceeding to answer the opposition with solid reasoning is an effective way to persuade the reader.

credibilty is your most effective currency.

Note my smilie ;o)

But, yea, good point. To clarify, the perception of credibility is all that matters.

if your ideology requires that you lie, you should look for another ideology.

On what basis? In terms of pushing through your ideology, lieing is hardly a roadblock in today's political sphere.

Michael Moore is no more a 'lier' than anyone playing the game. Again, perception is all that matters.

solid reasoning

I miss the days when that was all it took. ;o)

(maybe they never existed? I dunno...)

Michael Moore is no more a 'lier' than anyone playing the game. Again, perception is all that matters.

Sad, whether meant seriously or not.

The reason marijuana, and thus hemp, is illegal, is due to a hemp's utility for ropemaking. When DuPont created nylon fiber in the early 20th century, most ropes were made from hemp. DuPont, wanting to replace hemp with nylon in the ropemaking market, led a campaign to illegalize hemp, and marijuana, by demonizing the plant as a harmful drug.

This does not bode well for any type of hemp paper production. The problem with American business is that it is much too tied to keeping things the way they are, no matter how harmful or inefficient, rather than change or innovate. I wouldn't look for the big paper companies to lead the charge for hemp paper anytime soon. Doing so would mean they would have to make huge outlays for machinery and processes to make paper from another source. This is not unlike the reluctance of Detroit to build alternative fuel vehicles. Any time an industry has to make a substantial sea-change, other industries which rely on the first industry for their own revenues (oil in the case of cars) will resist and stifle meaningful change. Chevron hardly wants GM to start aggresively marketing hybrid cars.

It seems to me that the reasons why hemp paper was ousted are many, but they all have one thing in common: companies with other products decided it was a threat to their business and so many every possible thing to have it axed. Same reason why many believe alternative fuels have taken so long to come about…

On the other hand, I would be interested in seeing some samples of how the paper can be created, the different kinds, weights, textures, etc. and having the opportunity to actually play with them and see if I like the finished product. I would love to say, yes I all for it and how it would help the environment (to what extent is to be debated), but at the same time I know how picky I am with things and most of all how a finished piece looks and feels and at this point I don’t know if hemp paper would be up to par. Remember soy based inks?

So we seem to believe that

the reasons why hemp paper was ousted are many, but they all have one thing in common: companies with other products decided it was a threat to their business

but the following were stated as most singular facts:

Its the chemical companies like DOW that manfuacture the chemicals that break down and process tree pulp have a lot to lose if Hemp were to become our primary paper source and are probably the real lobbying power that kills bills like this before they can even gain enough momentum for the public to be aware. [my emphasis]

The main reason hemp policies haven't been reconsidered is the timber industry.

DuPont, wanting to replace hemp with nylon in the ropemaking market, led a campaign to illegalize hemp, and marijuana, by demonizing the plant as a harmful drug.

Does anyone want to give actual factual background based on credible research? It is, of course, quite possible that several interests conspired (actively or just through having similar intentions) but I'm made nervous by a series of bad guys listed without any indication of the source of the information.

Is this like the oil companies buying the water-fueled perpetual motion machines that so many inventors claim to have made or is there some basis for any of this?

It seems to me that hemp wasn't the big source of paper and even if it were, chemicals are needed for pulping and bleaching it. The big anti-marijuana campaigns (fed by real problems of late 19C/early 20C rampant drug use, the temperance movement, anti-Mexican racism, and cyclical moralism) started before DuPont ramped up nylon production. Is it possible that bad policy can come about for a whole range of relatively benign reasons? (Not that I assume it is even the case here, just that the need to believe on Speak Up seems too much like a X Files rerun at times.)

Gunnar, I am going to do some research this weekend. Let's see what I manage to find...

UNRAVELING AN AMERICAN DILEMMA:

THE DEMONIZATION OF MARIHUANA

This is a master’s thesis. I have not had time to comb throught the details, much less check the sources, but this appears to be very thorough.

There is a lot more here concerning the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

I did a small research project on agricultural hemp production. I was required to argue in favor (team project), and able to make a good case— lots of nice charts, etc. But at the end of the day I could never get past the fact that the U.S. is still the world’s largest importer of raw hemp material.

We can market and consume its products, but we have priced ourselves out of the agricultutal production, which is labor-intensive.

UNRAVELING AN AMERICAN DILEMMA:

THE DEMONIZATION OF MARIHUANA

This is a master’s thesis. I have not had time to comb throught the details, much less check the sources, but this appears to be very thorough.

There is a lot more here concerning the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

I did a small research project on agricultural hemp production. I was required to argue in favor (team project), and able to make a good case— lots of nice charts, etc. But at the end of the day I could never get past the fact that the U.S. is still the world’s largest importer of raw hemp material.

We can market and consume its products, but we have priced ourselves out of the agricultutal production, which is labor-intensive.

I promised some research on the subject, and althought somewhat scattered I offere it up for further reading and discussion.

For the full history of hemp (since Adam and Eve) visit The Hemp Museun

In http://www.cannabis.com" target="_blank">Cannabis.com author Thomas J. Bouril says: During the 1930s, the American media propagated numerous false stories depicting marijuana as an extremely dangerous drug. Because these lies went unchallenged, marijuana and hemp were effectively banned in 1938. Recently, hemp has been rediscovered as a natural resource that has great economic and environmental potential. Marijuana for medicinal use is also gaining renewed recognition. Ironically, as will be explained shortly, it is possible that the real reason marijuana was banned was to prevent hemp from ever becoming a major natural resource.

Also:

Fibers needed to make rope, textiles and other materials were in such short supply during World War II, the U.S. government temporarily re-legalized hemp cultivation so American farmers could grow it for the war effort. Although the government allowed more than 350,000 acres (550 square miles) of hemp to be cultivated during World War II, the U.S. experienced no increase in marijuana use during that period.

http://www.thehia.org" target="_blank">HIA, whose purpose is to represent the interests of the Hemp Industry and to encourage the research and development of new hemp products offers the following information: In 1937 Congress passed the Marihuana Tax Act which effectively began the era of hemp prohibition. The tax and licensing regulations of the act made hemp cultivation unfeasable for American farmers. The chief promoter of the Tax Act, Harry Anslinger, began promoting anti-marijuana legislation around the world. Then came World War II. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor shut off foreign supplies of "manilla hemp" fiber from the Phillipines. The USDA produced a film called Hemp For Victory to encourage US farmers to grow hemp for the war effort. The US government formed War Hemp Industries and subsidized hemp cultivation. During the War and US farmers grew about a million acres of hemp across the midwest as part of that program. After the war ended, the government quietly shut down all the hemp processing plants and the industry faded away again.

Some interesting facts are foundhttp://www.thehia.org/hempfacts.htm" target="_blank"> here.

Some unknownhttp://www.cannabis.com/untoldstory/hemp_2.shtml " target="_blank"> facts regarding hemp.

Why was it banned? The full story can be found http://www.cannabis.com/untoldstory/hemp_5.shtml " target="_blank">here. A few snippets:

- During the 1930s, the U.S. government and the media began spreading outrageous lies about marijuana, which led to its prohibition.

- Shortly before marijuana was banned by The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, new technologies were developed that made hemp a potential competitor with the newly-founded synthetic fiber and plastics industries.

- Its potential for producing paper also posed a threat to the timber industry.

- Hemp's potential for producing paper also posed a threat to the timber industry.

- In 1937 Anslinger testified before Congress in favor of Marijuana Prohibition by saying: "Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind." "Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes."

- The words marijuana and reefer were substituted for the word hemp in order to frighten the public into supporting Hemp Prohibition.

On another note:

After a successful two-year trial period of permitting experimental hemp cultivation, Canada repealed Hemp Prohibition in 1997. Canada's hemp industry is now poised for rapid expansion. The United States of America remains one of the last industrialized nations on Earth where growing industrial hemp can result in a prison sentence.

Hemp products can be found at:

Ecolution

Hempys

Hemp Beer

Hempfest

Hemp Sisters

Hempola

EcoMall

Hemp Traders

There is also a magazine.

If you seek more information and want it all together, The Great Book of Hemp by Rowan Robinson might be a good option.