North Dakota takes bold step forward on commercial hemp industry, tells feds to stay out

Good for North Dakota.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I'm all for state's rights and if N. Dakota wants to go that route so be it.

However, when visiting with a pot/hemp advocate at a bar, recently, I asked where this hemp was going to be grown-not having studied the subject-as any increase in hemp production would have to come at the expense of some other ag. product.

Her response was that the goal was to cut beef/cattle production by 50% and replace that land usage with hemp.
She said that was the direction society was going anyways. A steady increase in vegetarian/vegan diet would drop the demand for Beef.
No one messes with my steaks. That about the same area code as coffee....let's hear it for plastic....

There's a lot of unused land where it can be grown. Market demand will create a shift as well as people use their land for hemp over other products.

When it comes to the vegetarian issue, I think that's going to be forced soon anyways. Meat production takes up a lot of space, and more importantly uses a bunch of water. A pound of beef gets you 4 good burgers (plus other parts of the meal) and uses 1800 gallons of fresh water where a pound of rice gets you a good 16 or so meals and takes 220 gallons of fresh water. With the massive water problems we're having and the predicted water shortages of the future we're all probably going to have to cut back on the meat eating.

Personally I've been doing a test run for a few weeks. I decided I couldn't stand factory farming anymore and gave up meat eating for as long as I can stand it. I've been on a vegetarian diet (not vegan) for a few weeks now and honestly I haven't missed meat one bit. Eating a few less burgers and a few more salads has actually been somewhat enjoyable and it's better for the environment. People shouldn't have to give up meat entirely of course, but it wouldn't really surprise me if one day in the somewhat near future we're eating more along the lines of 4 servings of meat per week rather than 7 due to the water issues and that would result in a lot of land freed up for hemp production instead.

The states that get into this early in the game will be the wealthy ones.

This is a great move for ND.Get rid of the Schedule 1 scare tactics the feds and various other industries have used all these years to keep the Industrial hemp industry at bay.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yeah if there is anything that is in short supply in the government, it's common sense.

I think that's because corruption gets in the way...

Good on them, I hope more area push for the hemp industry. It would save us from having to cut down a lot of trees, the growth rate of hemp is so much faster compared to the clear cutting and replanting process we use today.

It can be used in the same way that cotton and tree fiber. Can I here anyone say hemp toilet paper?

a reply to: darkbake

Probably. Though I kind of think there is more to it than that.

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Considering that there have always been a male/female version of this plant, with tremendously difference properties for either or, this will go a long way. Especially if this is all done in time, before a SCOTUS challenge by the Fed or other invested third party. ( such as the oil/gas lobby or textiles)

One would think that it would go along way, and hell, maybe get passed in some form, but there will always be megacorporations that don't want it. The government will shut out scientists whom aren't tied to a megacorp, this megacorp scientist will try to pick every single miniscule reason and make them seem dire, even create findings with no study. Imagine this, "Hemp will ruin the soil, it will use too much precious water, it will attract bugs that kill (insert crop/animal), kids and grazing animals will have easy access to it, how will it be sold across state lines and transported, it needs to be taxed (did you know corn farmers pay no tax in NE for buying seed and pesticide?), wearing hemp while swety could get you and your children high, etc etc. and noone can refute this info so it won't be open for discussion" Some of the main reasons it was made illegal to begin with wasn't about just the smoking of it, but industrial hemp just like this.

In the years leading up to The marijuana Tax Act in 1937 big business and government had a mission to extinguish the use of marijuana. A few known proponents that had great pull by their political donations and overall wealth were; William Randolph Hearst, whom feared his paper company could lose millions if hemp was used instead, the DuPont Chemical Company, which produced many patented materials that hemp fiber could replace, and Andrew Mellon whom was Herbert Hoover’s Secretary of Treasury and primary investor in DuPont, whom also appointed his nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, to the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

Hemp conceivably could be used as sustainable plastic production. possibly a biofuel like ethanol, clothes, rope, cardboard product, really limitless by own integrity. A little more history on the plant.(Or how the plant helped build America but is not mentioned ever because that was not the America the rich wanted)

The prominence and importance of the marijuana plant precedes that of America itself, allowing for colonists to cultivate the “weed” for the multifaceted utility that hemp provided. Hemp fibers were highly used for sturdy ropes, paper, ship sails, clothing, and medicine. Hemp is still used today and can be found for commerce sporadically, still being used in ways as the colonists relied on for survival for over 300 years. It was such an important plant that during the 1600’s farmers were offered high incentives by the governing body to produce the plant, and even fined those who didn’t (Weisheit, Smith, and Johnson, 1991). Hemp was allowed to be traded as legal tender in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland. It flourished in domestic production, being sold within medicines and open to buy within pharmacies until in 1906, where it was first required to follow with a label among the product in which it was contained

Awesome post I hope everyone takes the time to read it.
S and a Flag if I could flag you:-)
I was aware of the Hearst angle but not the Dupont story. Thanks for taking the time to post a lot of information.
Regards, Iwinder