That's what I thought when I was younger...come to find out, they use entirely different fiber from a different part of the plant..but that would be worse than wearing wool!
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Why no Hemp?
- Thread starter louieeadg
- Start date
That's what I thought when I was younger...come to find out, they use entirely different fiber from a different part of the plant..but that would be worse than wearing wool!
The plant really does have a million uses. And if I remember correctly, in the documentary Biodome, Pauly Shore explained the rapid rate in which the plant does that whole photosynthesis thing. Envirofriendly much?
Exactly, which highly perplexes me. We grew it for a couple hundred years and quit in favor of more complex, expensive, and ineffecient alternatives.
Irrelevant. Both the recreational and industrial crops of hemp are derived from C. sativa, just different "cultivars".
Hemp is opposed by the paper industry because they have so much money tied up in forestry and wood products. Hemp was opposed by the textile industry because they had so much money tied up in cotton and wool, even though the US has shipped clothes maufacturing overseas. And hemp is opposed by the alcohol manufacturers for obvious reasons. Another reason manufacturerers don't want ppl growing weed is because they don't own the patents -- yet. I'm sure Monsanto has this a figured out if legalization happens.
And all that puritan ethic regmoral that was pointed out in earlier posts.
The moralists figgered if ppl were allowed to grow hemp it would start off a bunch of dope growers, which did NOT happen when ppl were encouraged to grow hemp during the two world wars = Hemp for victory!
By the by, the tabacco industry has no prob with growing dope. Back in the 60s when it looked like dope would be legalized, the tabacco companies already had started planting crops in the midwest. They even retooled there factories to roll smaller cigs. When tghe legalization failed to happen they used the smaller machines to roll tobacco which is why you have skinny cigarettes like More, Virginia Slims, Eves, et al.
FMI: I wonder how good hemp wood be for the manufacture of ethonol. I hear it's a particularly oily substance which is what an oil based substance needs. Why corn for ethanol? Could it be the farming and food lobbies? Corn is used in all kinds of foods as sugars and other fillers. I know there's corn oil, but isn't hemp even oilier?
And all that puritan ethic regmoral that was pointed out in earlier posts.
The moralists figgered if ppl were allowed to grow hemp it would start off a bunch of dope growers, which did NOT happen when ppl were encouraged to grow hemp during the two world wars = Hemp for victory!By the by, the tabacco industry has no prob with growing dope. Back in the 60s when it looked like dope would be legalized, the tabacco companies already had started planting crops in the midwest. They even retooled there factories to roll smaller cigs. When tghe legalization failed to happen they used the smaller machines to roll tobacco which is why you have skinny cigarettes like More, Virginia Slims, Eves, et al.
FMI: I wonder how good hemp wood be for the manufacture of ethonol. I hear it's a particularly oily substance which is what an oil based substance needs. Why corn for ethanol? Could it be the farming and food lobbies? Corn is used in all kinds of foods as sugars and other fillers. I know there's corn oil, but isn't hemp even oilier?
It's been said that Henry Ford originally designed his Model T to run on hemp ethonol.
For many of the folks arguing for legalization (regardless of intent or form), simply voting would be a freaking breakthrough. So I propose everyone stop griping about it and actually take a little time out of your day and try to do something about it. If everyone put half as much effort into the actual process of legalization as they did talking or typing about it, this would no longer be the most annoying argument ever.
I saw an interesting program about Native Americans trying to grow industrial hemp on their land, since it wasn't usable for growing much else, and unemployment is around 75% on the reservation. Despite being a "sovereign" nation, the DEA forced them to destroy the crop. Apparently "sovereign" doesn't mean what it used to. Meanwhile, Canadian hemp growers are raking it in. They would love to see the ban continue. I'm not a farmer or a hemp advocate, so I could care less, but it does seem a little unfair to the Native Americans. Then again, "fair" and "Native American" haven't gone together much in history.
FWIW, the last thing a pothead wants is an industrial hemp farm anywhere near his "crop." It's so prolific that it pollinates the illegal variety, and the resulting plants have half as much THC. A couple seasons of that and his "crop" becomes worthless.
FWIW, the last thing a pothead wants is an industrial hemp farm anywhere near his "crop." It's so prolific that it pollinates the illegal variety, and the resulting plants have half as much THC. A couple seasons of that and his "crop" becomes worthless.
Rudolf Diesel designed his internal combustion engine to run on vegetable oils. Standard Oil took care of that idea. If Diesel wanted to sell his product in the US he had to market the version that ran on petroleum based product.
cough why cough?
Is this some lame attempt to give me **** for shopping at a multinational corporation and buying a hippyish product? If so, that was my point. Wal*Mart isn't selling lotion that gets you high, just lotion that smells/feels good.
FWIW, the last thing a pothead wants is an industrial hemp farm anywhere near his "crop." It's so prolific that it pollinates the illegal variety, and the resulting plants have half as much THC. A couple seasons of that and his "crop" becomes worthless.
Exactly. Yet most potheads are proponents of industrial hemp. This proves marijuana is bad for your brains.
I agree completely with your second point, but your first point is way off the mark. Don't blame the general public for the stupid policies the government has enacted. Blame big business and big government.
"It's own" products being nylon and other synthetic materials that they were pushing for making rope, among other things. Nylon makes great rope, but rope made from hemp had been serving mankind well for thousands of years.
It all comes down to greed. As an American President once said: "The problem with Capitalism is Capitalists, they're too damn greedy."
Because William Randolf Hearst felt that hemp was a threat to the paper/lumber industry as well as the cotton industry and the industrial chemicals that these industries are dependent upon for production. So he protected his investments by investing in lobbying groups representing these industries while simultaneously publishing negative and false stereo types about "marijuana" (a term adopted by his publishing companies) users that portrayed people that smoked marijuana were evil lecherous villians. Thus the prohibition began and we still have marijuana classified as a highly dangerous drug (right next to pcp). Good times. Welcome to america.
