In the World of Outlawed Hemp the Trees Must Die

Was hemp, not marijuana, the real target? As a member of the cannabis sativa family, it is the botanical cousin of marijuana. Harmless, yet extremely valuable as a ready source of natural, biomass fiber, it paid a dear price for being competitive in the fiber products market of the 1930’s, and it brought its cousin marijuana down with it.

When corporate DuPont sought to diversify out of explosive munitions in 1910 it turned its attention to the textile fibers market. By the early Thirties, DuPont had significant investment in synthetic fiber research and development. Nylon was introduced in 1938 as the “first true synthetic fiber created wholly out of chemicals.”

Round the same time, Randolph Hearst, America’s most powerful newspaperman, had also invested in huge tracts of forest land. Those trees supplied the fiber to produce paper and newsprint, vital components of his empire.

There are no cited corporate or state documents available, that I’m aware of, to show that there was a collusion to remove hemp from the competitive horserace of corporate product development. The fact that more than one corporation had a vested interest in making hemp illegal does not mean they are guilty of complicity.

Nevertheless, neither is the corporate proclivity to be in cahoots with other boardrooms unknown. If anything, we take it for granted that vested interests of any kind can unify a common cause; at the least, a desired common competitive advantage.

What would collusion against hemp look like when placed in the context of those times?

The impact of DuPont, oil companies and the paper industry exerting pressure on the media and Feds to outlaw hemp would be too good to pass up. Their patented products, like all patents, are meant to exclude competing products and their derivatives.

Andrew Mellon, a chief financial backer of DuPont, was President Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury. He appointed his niece’s husband, Harry J. Anslinger, as the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1930. It was Anslinger who “referred to hemp as marijuana so that people would begin to associate the whole plant with drug use only.” His relentless campaign employed unfounded scare tactics through film and other media that “hemp” as he called it, was a dangerous and evil drug.

Most people are reactive to hysteria, real or imagined. If you include any alleged concerns about the evil effects on our youth or children, you create a captive audience. Between the people who are fooled into believing almost anything, and well-placed political pressure, you can achieve your goals, even if it is to outlaw an innocuous and very useful competitive plant. Hemp trees in fact can be used for just about everything that forest trees are used for, and, much more.

Apart from who did what to whom in making hemp and marijuana illegal, the greatest tragedy is that in the world of outlawed hemp, the trees must die. Following the criminalization of hemp, U.S. forest logging around the world continued unabated and remains unchallenged for the past 75 years.

It isn’t that hemp tree logging would stop all forest logging. It’s that, thanks to the United States federal government, farmers were deprived of hemp tree harvesting as a significant alternative to deforestation.

Nine states, including Vermont, have legalized hemp farming. According to VoteHemp, a longtime hemp activist organization, “what makes Vermont unique is that the new law does not hold a stipulation or amendment requiring the federal government to first lift the ban on hemp cultivation. Much like Colorado, Vermont will proceed regardless of the federal law banning hemp cultivation.” Vermont, in effect, nullified the federal ban on hemp cultivation. Governor Peter Shumlin signed the bill into law in June 2013.

Is it too little too late? Probably.

Unchecked deforestation has already negatively impacted global environmental and climate change, and, is “one of the great drivers of biodiversity loss.”

The legacy the United States federal government has left for future generations is the irreparable harm to what should have been their sustainable health and well being, replaced by a world of diminished prospects and hope.

~Vidda Crochetta