1938 Called (Hemp)

[Failhorse]

This was published in Popular Mechanics in 1938. The editors apparently didn't know that industrial hemp was outlawed in 1937. Keep in mind the original legislation was pushed by a group of cotton farmers in relation to the mary jane scare conservatives were pushing yada yada.

NEW BILLION-DOLLAR CROP

Popular Mechanics

February, 1938

AMERICAN farmers are promised a new cash crop with an annual value of several hundred million dollars, all because a machine has been invented which solves a problem more than 6,000 years old. It is hemp, a crop that will not compete with other American products.

Instead, it will displace imports of raw material and manufactured products produced by underpaid coolie and peasant labor and it will provide thousands of jobs for American workers throughout the land.

The machine which makes this possible is designed for removing the fiber-bearing cortex from the rest of the stalk, making hemp fiber available for use without a prohibitive amount of human labor. Hemp is the standard fiber of the world. It has great tensile strength and durability. It is used to produce more than 5,000 textile products, ranging from rope to fine laces, and the woody "hurds" remaining after the fiber has been removed contain more than seventy-seven per cent cellulose, and can be used to produce more than 25,000 products, ranging from dynamite to Cellophane.''

[Balubish]

Only thing I know of that we have hemp in are in fanbelts and all kinds of belts, cause of the strenght and flexability that hemp have.
And I know we have a couple of hemp farmers in out lower regions of the country cause the grow better and are a bit warmer. And that is grown just for that purpose cause it's an amazing product that nature grow for us.

[Maringue]

Even though my dad is a republican, he likes hemp. Mainly because it makes the best natural fiber rope you can buy.

[Beartato]

I always hate the claims of how many products hemp can be used in. A list could be put together of 25,000 products that platinum could be used in, but only a handful of them would be technically and economically viable.

I'm not saying this because I'm against industrial hemp, just that I think that that one argument is no good.

[Ron Swansons Stache]

Even though my dad is a republican, he likes hemp. Mainly because it makes the best natural fiber rope you can buy.

Wouldn't a republican/conservative be pro-help naturally? They're more for smaller government/less regulations etc.

Either way, there's no reason at all that hemp should still be illegal honestly, but I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[Failhorse]

Either way, there's no reason at all that hemp should still be illegal honestly, but I don't see it changing anytime soon.

3 states have legalized industrial hemp production. 2 have said to wait for DOJ approval. California is harvesting this year.

[Ron Swansons Stache]

Either way, there's no reason at all that hemp should still be illegal honestly, but I don't see it changing anytime soon.

3 states have legalized industrial hemp production. 2 have said to wait for DOJ approval. California is harvesting this year.

It's a long road to have it fully legalized. Much like gambling is on its way and marijuana in general.

[Balubish]

Either way, there's no reason at all that hemp should still be illegal honestly, but I don't see it changing anytime soon.

3 states have legalized industrial hemp production. 2 have said to wait for DOJ approval. California is harvesting this year.

It's a long road to have it fully legalized. Much like gambling is on its way and marijuana in general.

Why aint it legalized already? You can't get high on it anyway. Hemp plants don't produce THC, not here for that matter. But puff puff pass hemp is illegal.

[Beartato]

Even though my dad is a republican, he likes hemp. Mainly because it makes the best natural fiber rope you can buy.

Wouldn't a republican/conservative be pro-help naturally? They're more for smaller government/less regulations etc.

Either way, there's no reason at all that hemp should still be illegal honestly, but I don't see it changing anytime soon.

They're a complicated bunch made up of different factions. Keep in mind that it's the party that is typically all about limited government and individual freedom . . . unless you're a gay hoping to get married or you want to abort or you want to use "controlled substances."

The party has definitely evolved a lot over the last few decades with a lot of it due to the surge of neo-conservatism. Pollution control is a good issue to look at this all:

The Clean Air Amendment of 1990 was signed into law by George Bush, Sr. with overwhelming support from the Senate (89% yeas, nays were split 5 Dems / 5 Reps) and the House (93% yeas, nays were 5 Dems / 16 Reps). The nays more frequently came from major polluting states than they did from Republicans, in my opinion. Anyways, that bill established emissions trading markets for a couple of acid rain producing pollutants. It less than a decade for the markets to be a highly successful way to drop pollution rates without harming economic progress. The market sorted things out leading to almost immediate and drastic drops in emission prices and rates.

Since the beginning of Bush, Jr.'s time in office, emission trading schemes have been hated by the neo-conservative riddled Republican party simply for the fact that they are regulations. A mercury emission trading market was attempted during GWB's second term, but it was pretty quickly shot down by the Legislature, despite being a popular method for reducing mercury levels with major utilities, who would be incurring the brunt of the costs.

Similarly, the Republicans have fought tooth and nail against carbon cap and trade (i.e., emission trading) during the Obama administration. The mercury and carbon cap and trade systems would be incredibly similar to the mechanism of the Acid Rain Program of the 90's, which was frequently lauded by Republicans of that era because it was environmental regulation that was not top-down command.

And Republicans in only the last five years have flip flopped on the climate change issue. Both McCain and Lindsay Graham had been co-authors of carbon cap and trade bills since 2006 and both now claim that carbon emissions are not a problem. The range of excuses from Republicans is widespread from "nothing is happening" to "humans aren't to blame" to "the science is uncertain" to "it'll kill our economy" to "the market will take of this on its own". The fact that the reasons for why Republicans nowadays are so opposed to carbon regulations is proof itself that the group is quite diverse in their ideology.

[Maringue]

Remember, conservatives don't have principles beyond "What will get me elected again?" But I don't really blame them, I blame the stupid people who vote for them. So pretty much this is a map of people who are to blame:

[Ron Swansons Stache]

Even though my dad is a republican, he likes hemp. Mainly because it makes the best natural fiber rope you can buy.

Wouldn't a republican/conservative be pro-help naturally? They're more for smaller government/less regulations etc.

Either way, there's no reason at all that hemp should still be illegal honestly, but I don't see it changing anytime soon.

They're a complicated bunch made up of different factions. Keep in mind that it's the party that is typically all about limited government and individual freedom . . . unless you're a gay hoping to get married or you want to abort or you want to use "controlled substances."

The party has definitely evolved a lot over the last few decades with a lot of it due to the surge of neo-conservatism. Pollution control is a good issue to look at this all:

The Clean Air Amendment of 1990 was signed into law by George Bush, Sr. with overwhelming support from the Senate (89% yeas, nays were split 5 Dems / 5 Reps) and the House (93% yeas, nays were 5 Dems / 16 Reps). The nays more frequently came from major polluting states than they did from Republicans, in my opinion. Anyways, that bill established emissions trading markets for a couple of acid rain producing pollutants. It less than a decade for the markets to be a highly successful way to drop pollution rates without harming economic progress. The market sorted things out leading to almost immediate and drastic drops in emission prices and rates.

Since the beginning of Bush, Jr.'s time in office, emission trading schemes have been hated by the neo-conservative riddled Republican party simply for the fact that they are regulations. A mercury emission trading market was attempted during GWB's second term, but it was pretty quickly shot down by the Legislature, despite being a popular method for reducing mercury levels with major utilities, who would be incurring the brunt of the costs.

Similarly, the Republicans have fought tooth and nail against carbon cap and trade (i.e., emission trading) during the Obama administration. The mercury and carbon cap and trade systems would be incredibly similar to the mechanism of the Acid Rain Program of the 90's, which was frequently lauded by Republicans of that era because it was environmental regulation that was not top-down command.

And Republicans in only the last five years have flip flopped on the climate change issue. Both McCain and Lindsay Graham had been co-authors of carbon cap and trade bills since 2006 and both now claim that carbon emissions are not a problem. The range of excuses from Republicans is widespread from "nothing is happening" to "humans aren't to blame" to "the science is uncertain" to "it'll kill our economy" to "the market will take of this on its own". The fact that the reasons for why Republicans nowadays are so opposed to carbon regulations is proof itself that the group is quite diverse in their ideology.

Lest we forget that what Obamacare has been pared down to was basically initially pushed by Republicans in the 90s.

[Maringue]

Republicans loved the idea when it was phrased like this:

"This individual mandate will lower costs by removing all the 'free riders' from the system" "Free Riders" are anyone without insurance that goes to a hospital. So a lot of people.

Republicans HATED the idea when it was phrased like this:

"The government is forcing you to buy health insurance."

Say one thing and you were considered a fiscally conservative republican; say the other and you are crucifying Jesus on your front lawn daily at 2 and 7 pm and charging people $10 a bucket to throw stones at him. Yet they are describing the exact same policy. Boggles the mind I tell you...

[Ron Swansons Stache]

Republicans loved the idea when it was phrased like this:

"This individual mandate will lower costs by removing all the 'free riders' from the system" "Free Riders" are anyone without insurance that goes to a hospital. So a lot of people.

Republicans HATED the idea when it was phrased like this:

"The government is forcing you to buy health insurance."

Say one thing and you were considered a fiscally conservative republican; say the other and you are crucifying Jesus on your front lawn daily at 2 and 7 pm and charging people $10 a bucket to throw stones at him. Yet they are describing the exact same policy. Boggles the mind I tell you...

Welcome to American politics!

I'm particularly a fan of the videos that have politicans argue against themselves. Like

for example.