Hemp, the Renewable Resource of Our Nation's Future

Hemp has over 50,000 commercial uses. It is the most versatile, sustainable and valuable natural resource on Earth. Hemp can be harvested to make paper, textiles, vegetable oil for cooking, cosmetics, soaps, shampoos, lubrication, plastics, building materials, food, medicine, paint, detergent, varnish, oil, ink, fuel and the list goes on. Hemp is estimated to produce $500 billion or more in profit along with tens of thousands of new jobs (Conrad).

Hemp has been a major crop used throughout history. Until the mid-1800s hemp was the world’s largest single industry (Conrad). Hemp was used to make the earliest known woven fabric and dates between 8000 - 7000 B.C. From 1000 B.C. to 1883 A.D., hemp was the world’s largest cash crop. In James town Colony (1619), Massachusetts (1631), and Connecticut (1632) by law farmers had to grow Indian hemp. “A variety of marijuana and hashish extracts were first, second and third most prescribed medications in the United States” from 1842 to 1896 (Hemp It’s Inevitable). "The crop of hempseed last fall, estimated at about 45,000 bushels, is the largest produced in the United States since 1859. A very large proportion of it was from improved strains developed by this bureau in the hempseed selection plats at Arlington and Yarrow Farms (stated in 1917)” (USDA). The Marijuana tax act passed in 1937 (Hemp It’s Inevitable).

Hemp can not be used as a hallucinatory drug. The way hemp is grown is different from marijuana. Hemp is grown to maximize the stalks with about 300 seeds per square yard. Marijuana is grown to maximize the leaves, branches and flowers with about two to three seeds per square yard (Hemp It’s Inevitable). Hallucinatory tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) lies primarily in flower, leaves and branches of the plant. Such low levels of THC exist in hemp that getting a high from the plant is not practical.

It is true that legalizing the growth of hemp will make marijuana much more accessible. “Marijuana is the most used illegal drug in the United States. Nearly 69 million Americans over the age of 12 have tried marijuana at least once” (Marijuana Statistics). Many people fear that this will lead to excessive use of other drugs and that marijuana is extremely harmful. “There is no evidence that smoking marijuana leads to using other harder drugs” (Hemp It’s Inevitable). But is marijuana anymore harming then legal drugs? No, it is not. Look at the chart below provided by Hemp It’s Inevitable.

Annual Causes of Death in the United States

Tobacco	435,0001
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity	365,0001
Alcohol	85,000 1
Microbial Agents	75,0001
Toxic Agents	55,0001
Motor Vehicle Crashes	26,3471
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs	32,0002
Suicide	30,6223
Incidents Involving Firearms	29,0001
Homicide	20,3084
Sexual Behaviors	20,0001
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect	17,0001,
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin	7,6006
Marijuana	0

“There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana at any time in U.S. history. All illegal drugs combined kill about 4,500 people per year, or about one percent of the
number killed by alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco kills more people each year than all of the people killed by all of the illegal drugs in the last century” (Hemp It’s Inevitable). Is there really any question of marijuana’s safety over alcohol and tobacco?

Hemp is the Earth’s leading renewable natural resource. Hemp has a short growth cycle of only 120 days (HempNation). It can be grown virtually any climate or soil condition on Earth making hemp very versatile. Hemp can be grown anywhere in the United States. Essentially hemp uses the sun more effectively then any other plant on Earth. Hemp could be easily sustained for future generations.

Hemp is considered to be very environmental friendly; helping to preserve both the forests and ozone layer. “Today 93% of the world's paper is made from trees” (Conrad). And “70% of American natural forest have been destroyed since the prohibition of hemp started in 1937” (Hemp It’s Inevitable). Hemp is ideal for making paper, therefore deforestation could be minimal or eliminated completely. “Hemp farming could reduce deforestation by 50% or more worldwide” (Conrad). Hemp is a sulfur free charcoal and when used instead of coal, it will help to diminish the effects of acid rain (Conrad). Also unlike gasoline which pollutes the air hemp just like trees takes in carbon dioxide when it is grown and would release it when it is burned creating a natural balance. Also, hemp plant leaves fall off of the plant throughout the growing season; which retains soil moisture and provides top soil. This property makes hemp self-fertilizing and the plant does not require any extra harmful chemical fertilizers to grow.

What will we do when our fossil fuels run out? Hemp can be manufactured as a fuel. When we use fossil fuels, we are depending on other countries for our source of energy. “It would only take 6% of our U.S. land to produce enough hemp, for hemp fuel, to make us energy independent from the rest of the world” (Hemp It’s Inevitable).

The only drawback to growing hemp is it will cost a substantial amount of money to infiltrate the hemp industry. There no replacements for hemp products. There are no hemp fuel stations. There are no manufacturers or factories. This will all need to be built before the hemp industry can start which will take time and money. But will it really cost much more then it does to stop the circulation of marijuana? It cost $480.24 per marijuana arrest in 1984 (A Fiscal Analysis of Marijuana Decriminalization). About seven million dollars goes towards the prohibiting marijuana annually (Time to Tell the Truth about Marijuana).

Hemp is best investment this country could make. It is sustainable. Not only can hemp be easily grown, it is also easily renewed. Hemp fuel would make our air cleaner and reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Hemp paper would significantly reduce deforestation. With over 50,000 commercial uses hemp has unlimited possible benefits. Hemp has no hallucinatory effects. And marijuana really isn’t any worse than other legal drugs. The benefits of hemp by far exceed the drawbacks of marijuana. What is holding the United States back from taking advantage of this natural resource? Personally, I don’t know one good reason.

Ron Paul for President!

***FACTS***

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.

Ron has never voted to raise taxes.
Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Ron has never voted for the Iraq War.
Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.
Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.

Ron voted against the Patriot Act.
Ron votes against regulating the Internet.
Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
Ron votes against the United Nations.
Ron votes against the welfare state.
Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.

Ron votes to preserve the constitution.
Ron votes to cut government spending.
Ron votes to lower healthcare costs.
Ron votes to end the war on drugs.
Ron votes to protect civil liberties.
Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.
Ron votes to eliminate tax funded abortions and to overturn Roe v Wade.
Ron votes to protect religious freedom.

Panhandling --begging

Cities around the United States are passing new and stricter laws to ban or limit panhandling. Begging in the streets is making people uncomfortable and threatens tourism in some areas. However, begging is protected under the first amendment as freedom of speech.

Banning panhandling does not solve the problem. It simply eliminates one of the symptoms. A symptom which I’d prefer to alleviate; I support the ban against panhandling. I don’t disagree with giving to charity. However, charity alone is not a solution. I would much rather support charities that I know my donations will be used towards providing basic needs for the homeless. When you give money to someone begging on the streets how do you know that your donation is not being used to buy drugs or alcohol?

Charity only goes so far. Government programs need to be set in place to help the homeless. I think a facility should be set up for the homeless to go to where they could be processed for welfare, given identification if needed, and basic food, clothing and shelter while their welfare is being processed. I also believe the welfare system needs to undergo great changes, but that’s another subject entirely. The main point is to make the welfare system more accessible so cities can get these people off of the streets and into programs that can help them.

Many of the homeless are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. How is someone supposed to go to a homeless welfare program when they’re an addict? Many addicts can not control their own behavior, which in all honesty is very dangerous. Free clinics need to be organized where individuals can go who have an addiction and can receive the proper care before being instituted into the welfare program. If a homeless addict is consistently cause problems for the police, I’ve no problem with the police emitting that individual into a rehabilitation center for the homeless. Sometimes people need to be given help against their will before they can realize that they need the help they’re being given.

Will this work for every homeless person? Of course, not; some people are going to slip through the cracks. Hopefully charities will be in place to catch them. I believe government rehabilitation centers for homeless addicts, and programs making welfare more accessible to the homeless will greatly decrease the number of homeless citizens sleeping on the streets. No program is perfect. But those imperfections do not mean that programs which greatly improve situations should not be utilized. At some point I think you need to draw a line at free hand outs and start doing something to change the future of the problem.

Same-sex Marriages

Where do I lie on this debate? I believe same-sex marriages should be legal; a decision I did not make lightly. For me, mostly it comes down to the question what is marriage? I believe that as far as the government is concerned it is solely a contract of legal partnership. Personally I believe in marriage as a promise to God to love honor and protect the other person for the rest of your life. I am not so arrogant to think that I know what God approves of beyond that agreement.

Keeping in mind that marriage is a social contract of partnership as far as the government is concern, should same-sex marriages be legal? Before I answer, let me tell you a story. My mom is a nurse. When a patient is emitted into a hospital and about to die, usually that patient is not coherent enough to speak; generally they’re unconscious. Immediate family is the only ones allowed to visit that patient. It is up to the family’s discrepancies to allow other visitors into the room. As you can imagine, families do not always approve of their loved one’s homosexual life style. Over and over again, my mom has seen a patient’s homosexual partner be denied the simple request of saying good-bye to that patient. Maybe it is just me but something about that just does not feel right to me.

Now I want to touch on the controversial subject of children. Legalizing same-sex marriages would also be allowing same-sex partners to adopt. I believe men and women have fundamental differences which compliment each other when joined together in partnership. I realize this is a complete stereotype of genders, but I believe that the gender differences make each other stronger as a whole. I believe that men and women are supposed to be partners and children learn best from having both genders as parents. However I am certain that having a loving family, no matter what gender the parents are, is better than no family at all. I am much more concerned with the implications of having a morally sound parent than having a child learn from both genders. As an individual parent, I believe that a homosexual can be just as good of a parent as any heterosexual parent.

On the religious side of the matter, how would same sex marriages affect churches? Personally I see marriage as a government institution different than marriage as a religious institution. I think it is up to each church and each religion individually to determine whether same-sex marriage ceremonies should or should not be performed in their church. It is no different than marriages with multiple wives. Some religions and their churches allow for the union of a man to many wives and some do not. I don’t see the problem in applying that same concept to same-sex marriages. That way we are protecting the legal rights of homosexuals without in fringing on anyone’s religious views within their church community. Everybody wins.

Stem Cell Research

Let me first clarify a major misconceived notion about stem cell research. Stem cell research must always kill a embryo (fertilized egg) in order to have a stem cell. Wrong! The truth is there are many different kinds of stem cell: embryonic stem cells, embryonic germ stem cells (from the fetus attained by abortion), fat stem cells (liposuction), bone marrow stem cells, umbilical cord stem cells, amniotic fluid stem cells (fluid around the baby, taken when a mother gives birth), cadaver stem cells (dead people), and other adult stem cells. The research has show to be very successful in using adult stem cells, particularly bone marrow stem cells taken from the hip. In fact, not one disease has been cured through using embryonic stem cells.

I support stem cell research. However I do not agree with any kind of embryonic stem cell research. I think it's too hard to determine the intent in an abortion to allow the use germ cells for stem cell research. Also, it is uncertain to me how valuable the cells from a spontaneous abortion would be, considering that the reason for a spontaneous abortion is usually due to a defect in the embryo. I believe that life begins at conception. Personally I think it sounds a little counter productive to kill life in order to possibly cure other lives. To have life from a fertilized egg is much more certain than the possibility of curing diseases by destroying that life. And when it is completely unnecessary to use embryos in order to do stem cell research; I just don't see the point in flirting with that moral line. At some point the moral line needs to be drawn. Why not draw it where both sides win! Scientists can still do stem cell research using various types of adult stems cells without the moral complications of destroying embryos.