Hemp

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:31 pm

/rant on

The US policy towards hemp is fucking ridiculous. I'm not talking about hemp grown for THC content, I'm talking about industrial hemp. (There's a difference). Industrial hemp is one of the most eco-friendly plants known to man. It requires very little soil modification, can grow in really shitty places, doesn't need pesticides, requires very little water, and it produces a nutritionally complete seed that contains all the protein and amino acids humans need. The fiber is remarkable for its uses in clothing, rope, etc. It can be pressed for oil. It grows fast and can suck CO2 out of the atmo faster than most other crops (other than duckweed and kelp, another topic for another day).

If the Obama admin reversed the regulations on the production of industrial hemp (you need a DEA license to grow it, and they are almost impossible to get), he could set off a new revolution in sustainable farming. All the land in California, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, etc that need heavy reliance on water imports for agriculture could be put to work growing hemp. Water intensive crops like cotton and rice can be replaced. (Yes, in California, we still grow cotton and rice in the middle of near-deserts).

You really want to go green? This could get us there in large strides. Think of all the energy we could save by not pushing water around to places that shouldn't be growing anything other than scrub and hemp. Think about the ability to produce complete foods from one plant with very little processing. Think about the ability to remove subsidies from farmers, because hemp can be grown by just about anyone. We could feed our nation better and more cheaply with hemp products. We could reduce our carbon footprint. Hell, we can even make biodegradable plastics from hemp. Biodiesel from the oil.

The US policy on this stuff is assinine. Hopefully, Obama can reverse it.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:53 pm

Get behind this bill. Write your Congressperson. The passage of this bill will 1) reduce our carbon footprint, 2) create jobs, 3) reduce our dependence on corn, 4) save water, 5) improve water quality, 6) reduce energy consumption, 7) provide alternative fuels,

allow Indian reservations to actually produce something on their land other than dust and gambling, 9) promote sustainable farming, and 10) help eliminate agri-subsidies.

Please.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1866

Partha · Post by **Partha** » Mon May 25, 2009 4:01 pm

Post by **Ddrak** » Mon May 25, 2009 10:59 pm

What's the downside?

(Just curious)

Dd

Minute · Post by **Minute** » Tue May 26, 2009 1:54 am

Me too, I hear what Embar is preaching, and it all sounds good, but obviously someone somewhere has a reason it's a no no.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Tue May 26, 2009 7:19 am

Ddrak wrote:What's the downside?

(Just curious)

Dd

There really isn't a downside. The resistance is based on the perception that industrial hemp has THC in it (it does) at levels that can get people high (it doesn't). That's what you need a permit from the DEA to grow it, because its a controlled substance.

It's an assinine and ignorant policy. To me, it's a no-brainer to open up agriculture to a plant that can feed more aniimals and people, use less water, use less pesticides and use less energy than any other crop we grow.

And what is it with Minute agreeing with me all the time now???

Garrdor · Post by **Garrdor** » Tue May 26, 2009 10:25 am

I've backed the industrialization of hemp for a long time. It first started out as a rebellious "OMG LEGALIZE" scheme, but my belief has matured into logic. As you said, it's easy to grow - and the benefits are AMAZING for what it is. Though, when people hear the word "hemp" they think of the ropy-necklaces the college kids and surfer dudes wear around their necks (and the KRAZAY liberal antics associated with them). "Hemp" is also synonymous with "DRUGS" for many people as well.

It's pretty sad that we haven't jumped on this. But then again, there are tons of ideas/technology that could make life easier that get shot down by the oldworld-tards (guess who?) every day. I'm not surprised at all. I've accepted that I'll probably die before I can even see the tracks being laid down for a truely progressive and productive society in this world.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Tue May 26, 2009 12:37 pm

I've accepted that I'll probably die before I can even see the tracks being laid down for a truely progressive and productive society in this world.

All you need to do is create a faster than light warp drive so the Vulcans will notice us and we can join the United federation of Planets........

Garrdor · Post by **Garrdor** » Tue May 26, 2009 2:59 pm

Star Trek is a good blueprint for the future, I agree

Minute · Post by **Minute** » Tue May 26, 2009 6:44 pm

And what is it with Minute agreeing with me all the time now???

Obviously your thoughts & ideas have gotten better

Fobbon Lazyfoot · Post by **Fobbon Lazyfoot** » Wed May 27, 2009 6:57 pm

What's the downside?

It would annihilate a large chunk of the forestry industry. I think this is an upside, since at least here in Oregon our forestry practices are still unsustainable even over the medium-term, but since forestry is such a cornerstone to the local economy I don't think a lot of people would agree with me. Hemp is an extremely useful plant fiber, and any materials industry that is going to be hurt by its competition is going to be working hard to keep it illegal. The problem isn't the THC content, thats just an excuse a lot of people use. I'm just waiting for a THC-free mutant strain to pop up somewhere and throw the whole situation around.

I've been wondering about that for a while... have we identified the gene(s) responsible for THC yet? I wonder if we couldn't just insert a retrotransposon into there somewhere...

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Wed May 27, 2009 8:37 pm

I just popped wood when I read "retrotransposon". Think I'll go get my latest edition of Nature and go have some "me" time...

Seriously though, its not that easy. Building any molecule in a cell is usually a multi-step process, involving numerous biochemical process controlled by a multitude of genes, and those genes may be important in other physiological processes as well.

To the best of my knowledge, a few genes in the metabolic sequence for final THC production have been identified, but they are also necessary for other physiological processes the plant needs to survive, so we can't cut those genes out without killing (or weakening) the plant. Its much easier to insert a genetic sequence that will make an organism do something extra (like glow in the dark), or correct a genetic deficiency, than it is to eliminate a genetic sequence that controls a natural physiological process. (Don't get me wrong, it can be done, but it's much more difficult to do it).

I think the best way is to not fuck with the plant. It evolved perfectly, no need to change it. The US government used to encourage its cultivation, especially during WW2. I think we can change minds faster than we can can change the genetics.

All it takes is some letter writing and education, and we'll get there. Why Partha is against this, I have no idea.

Sinaiel · Post by **Sinaiel** » Wed May 27, 2009 9:34 pm

How are other countries utilizing hemp and what kinds of results have they had? Is the UK getting healthy on hemp proteins? I'll be honest when I say that I haven't even so much as googled hemp use abroad, but when people talk about hemp it always seems like fanboy talk.

Post by **Ddrak** » Wed May 27, 2009 11:49 pm

I don't think it's actively cultivated in many nations, at least not "western" nations.

Dd

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Thu May 28, 2009 7:52 am

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department ... l/econ9631

Canadian hemp production. The tables tell the story.

Fobbon Lazyfoot · Post by **Fobbon Lazyfoot** » Thu May 28, 2009 3:44 pm

I think the best way is to not fuck with the plant. It evolved perfectly, no need to change it. The US government used to encourage its cultivation, especially during WW2. I think we can change minds faster than we can can change the genetics.

I think its exactly the opposite, but I hope you're right and I'm wrong in this situation.

(like glow in the dark)

I just got out of a seminar that covered transgenic flourescent protein tagging and its uses in making bunnies and kitties glow in the dark. Bad things happen when geneticists have too much free time, it seems.

edit: lol:

I understand where you're coming from, but there has got to be some part of the THC synthesis that is independent of the rest of the organism's metabolism. How do we metabolize THC? How about putting our THC break-down proteins into it, so any THC produced is removed by the plant itself? I know a lot of chemicals like THC evolve as pest and herbivory deterrents... are there any flies immune to its effects? What proteins do they use?

Making a THC-free pot plant, at least IMO, is nobel prize worthy, thats how much it would effect things.

I'll be honest when I say that I haven't even so much as googled hemp use abroad, but when people talk about hemp it always seems like fanboy talk.

Fanboy talk describes a huge subset of the enthusiasm for hemp. All those stupid lotions and cremes and cannabis shampoo and shit? We could go without those. Complete protein set? Whatever, our fat asses aren't going to have a problem. Its useful enough, however, that its reputation as a recreational drug is very unfortunate. The trick is looking for genuine science behind the issue - try to take most of the stuff on the internet with a grain of salt, because its hard to pick out fact from fanboi fiction sometimes.

Post by **Ddrak** » Fri May 29, 2009 1:53 am

Bad things happen when geneticists have too much free time, it seems.

Actually, the glow-in-the-dark stuff has a bunch of really cool applications in genetics which allow scientists to directly see what genes affect which body parts (among a bunch of other stuff).

Dd

Fobbon Lazyfoot · Post by **Fobbon Lazyfoot** » Sat May 30, 2009 2:30 pm

Actually, the glow-in-the-dark stuff has a bunch of really cool applications in genetics which allow scientists to directly see what genes affect which body parts (among a bunch of other stuff).

Oh i'm aware of the flourescent tagging research, but I suppose I'm failing to see the point in tagging every cell in the entire animal - other than to have a glow in the dark cat.

Viyre · Post by **Viyre** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:32 am

http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html

I have been lurking for awhile now and just had to post in this tread. Interesting info about why the growing of hemp in the US is against the law. Ive had this book since the first copy was released and its about just enough to piss me off everytime I read it. It is so stupid that we dont grow hemp as a cash crop in this country anymore. I remember as a kid going up to Kosciusko county in Indiana where hemp still grows in mass amounts and stuffing some in a garbage bag to smoke. LOL it doesnt get you high just gives you a headache. I think I still have some pictures of me and my friend standing in front of these 15 foot tall hemp plants. Will have to see if I can dig them up. Well anyway read it if you want to.

Brell Rants

Hemp

Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp

Re: Hemp