This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Tonight's Madison Daily Leader runs an AP story about North Dakota issuing its first hemp production licenses. The assistant majority leader of the North Dakota House, Republican farmer Dave Monson, is one of the first licensees wishing to follow in the plow-tracks of famous hemp growers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. North Dakota's ag commissioner, Roger Johnson, is working to get the federal Drug Enforcement Administration to ease the tight federal restrictions on hemp production, which include a $2,293 registration fee, which is nonrefundable even if the DEA comes back and says, "Thanks for registering, but now we're not going to approve your application."
Now you might think I'm about to make wisecracks about the strangely calming effect we South Dakotans will enjoy from the next stiff north wind, but there's no joke here. Our neighbors to the north are onto a really good idea. They're not growing pot; they want to grow industrial hemp, which was an important cash crop in the United States until the early 20th century. You can't smoke it -- well, you can, but you'll probably get no more buzz than you will from lighting up and inhaling a page of the Daily Leader. However, you can use industrial hemp to make all sorts of useful products: furniture, clothing, board sheathing (stronger than wood products, thanks to longer fibers), paper (Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper), carpet, rope (o.k., so maybe you don't have a lot of rope around the house), even paint and biodiesel (something you'll want more of around the house when oil heads back toward $80 a barrel). North Dakota recognizes that industrial hemp could allow farmers to diversify with a crop that, according to Canada's federal ag agency, "thrives without herbicide... reinvigorates the soil... and requires less water than cotton" (quoted by Jean M. Rawson, specialist in agricultural policy, "Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity," Congressional Research Service, updated 7/8/2005). Hemp also can produce four times as much paper per acre as trees, and unlike trees, hemp is an annual crop. Wow -- has North Dakota found a way to save family farms, expand its exports, protect local soil and water quality, and fight deforestation all in one shot?
A quick text search of the bills proposed in the current session of the South Dakota legislature finds no measures to legalize industrial hemp. Sigh. Maybe the next stiff north wind will bring an infectious whiff of North Dakota creativity.
F’ing USD
-
So a friend of mine made this rap a few years back, and I have to tell you
I have friends over the years who went there and tell the same boring
stories, LOL.
15 hours ago
Great post. Too bad the social conservatives in SD will never go for anything like it. Silly rabbits.
ReplyDeleteI’m under the impression that the reason industrial hemp was outlawed or regulated out of existence in the first place was thanks to the lobbying efforts of WR Hearst and DuPont chemical. Hearst wanted to limit its use because he had invested a sizeable portion of his fortune in timber in an effort to vertically and horizontally monopolize print journalism. He would not have been able to control the print media of an affordable, plentiful, and non-controllable (it will grow almost anywhere) raw material for newsprint was made available. DuPont had parallel interests for obvious reasons. Thankfully, these two paragons American capitalism were able to exploit fervent anti-Mexican sentiment which was sweeping the nation at the time (zoot suit riots, etc) and pass unjustifiable legislation with cries of, “End reefer madness!”
ReplyDeleteIndustrial hemp would benefit American society for many reasons, including the most apparent of providing a viable cash crop and decreasing carbon output. I believe the only reason it continues to not be employed to this day is that Hearst was too successful in his campaign to demonize hemp. He forever created a false connection between hemp and marijuana.