[QUOTE][IMG]http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/07/14/marijuana-bud-7a3a39895aa880a2168f74150905780f3dc15061-s40.jpg[/IMG]
[I]One of the many, many forms of cannabis.[/I][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]We've decided to take a weekly look at a word or phrase that's caught our attention, whether for its history, usage, etymology, or just because it has an interesting story. This week, we look into how we came to call cannabis "marijuana," and the role Mexico played in that shift.
Marijuana has been intertwined with race and ethnicity in America since well before the word "marijuana" was coined. The drug, my colleague Gene Demby recently wrote, has a disturbing case of multiple personality disorder: It's a go-to pop culture punch line. It's the foundation of a growing recreational and medicinal industry. Yet according to the ACLU, it's also the reason for more than half of the drug arrests in the U.S. A deeply disproportionate number of marijuana arrests (the vast majority of which are for possession) befall African-Americans, despite similar rates of usage among whites and blacks, the ACLU says.
[B]...[/B][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/07/14/201981025/the-mysterious-history-of-marijuana[/url]
[quote]Cannabis was outlawed because various powerful interests (some of which have economic motives to suppress hemp production)[/quote]
This is actually bollocks. Hemp was already in decline long before it got banned (and whilst continuing to be grown freely in other countries, it still declined in cultivation due to dropping demand as superior alternatives outcompeted it).
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41559126]This is actually bollocks. Hemp was already in decline long before it got banned (and whilst continuing to be grown freely in other countries, it still declined in cultivation due to dropping demand as superior alternatives outcompeted it).[/QUOTE]
You got a [sp]citation?[/sp]
[QUOTE=Nightsure;41559143]You got a [sp]citation?[/sp][/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Historical_cultivation[/url]
[quote]In Western Europe, the cultivation of hemp was not legally banned by the 1930s, but the commercial cultivation stopped by then, due to decreased demand compared to increasingly popular artificial fibres.[/quote]
[quote]Hemp has never been used for commercial high-volume paper production due to its relatively high processing cost.[36] Currently there is a small niche market for hemp pulp, for example as cigarette paper.[37] Hemp fiber is mixed with fiber from other sources than hemp. In 1994 there was no significant production of 100% true hemp paper.[38] World hemp pulp production was believed to be around 120,000 tons per year in 1991 which was about 0.05% of the world's annual pulp production volume.[39] The total world production of hemp fiber had in 2003 declined to about 60 000 from 80 000 tons.[37] This can be compared to a typical pulp mill for wood fiber, which is never smaller than 250,000 tons per annum.[38][40] The cost of hemp pulp is approximately six times that of wood pulp,[39] mostly because of the small size and outdated equipment of the few hemp processing plants in the Western world, and because hemp is harvested once a year (during August)[citation needed] and needs to be stored to feed the mill the whole year through. This storage requires a lot of (mostly manual) handling of the bulky stalk bundles. Another issue is that the entire hemp plant cannot be economically prepared for paper production. While the wood products industry uses nearly 100% of the fiber from harvested trees, only about 25% of the dried hemp stem — the bark, called bast — contains the long, strong fibers desirable for paper production.[41] All this accounts for a high raw material cost. Hemp pulp is bleached with hydrogen peroxide, a process today also commonly used for wood pulp.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41559126]This is actually bollocks. Hemp was already in decline long before it got banned (and whilst continuing to be grown freely in other countries, it still declined in cultivation due to dropping demand as superior alternatives outcompeted it).[/QUOTE]
Regardless of this being true or not, which it is more or less. Harry Anslinger(sp) did take lobbiest money for the very cause of outlawing marijuana and hemp by the paper and pharma companies of the times. As far as I know from research i've done, that's true.
it was still outlawed using yellow journalism and lies for years.
It declined in the Unites States because the lumber industry boomed as America surged in population. More and more homes/buildings were needed and, at the time, the best viable means of construction was Wood. From here it spread quickly into other areas like Paper production. The Lumber industry saw Hemp as a threat and acted accordingly. This is the 'various powerful interests'. But really, no more.
This coupled with the War on drugs enabled an easy lead for the wood/lumber industry over the hemp industry. With an easy relation to the Smokable flower of the marijuana plant, people often had no idea of Hemp's uses aside from the occasional 'hippie clothing' or ropes/wicks. Especially during the 20th century, we saw a great decline in its' use.
But for a while in the U.S.'s past you could even pay your taxes with the stuff. It was used regularly to separate crops and was considered a valued commodity.
Marijuana, as the flower, however has seen use as far back as 2,700 years ago. We've found it in Ancient [url=http://www.thestar.com/business/tech_news/2008/11/27/2700yearold_marijuana_found_in_chinese_tomb.html]Chinese[/url] and Egyptian tombs.
[QUOTE=Keys;41560804]It declined in the Unites States because the lumber industry boomed as America surged in population. More and more homes/buildings were needed and, at the time, the best viable means of construction was Wood. From here it spread quickly into other areas like Paper production. The Lumber industry saw Hemp as a threat and acted accordingly. This is the 'various powerful interests'. But really, no more.[/quote]
But paper is 6 times as cheap to produce with wood pulp than with hemp pulp. There was literally no threat.
[quote]This coupled with the War on drugs enabled an easy lead for the wood/lumber industry over the hemp industry. With an easy relation to the Smokable flower of the marijuana plant, people often had no idea of Hemp's uses aside from the occasional 'hippie clothing' or ropes/wicks. Especially during the 20th century, we saw a great decline in its' use.
But for a while in the U.S.'s past you could even pay your taxes with the stuff. It was used regularly to separate crops and was considered a valued commodity.[/QUOTE]
It isn't anymore. Whilst I think it's ok to be legalized, I think it won't make very much money or be of any use beyond a niche product. Also don't subsidize it. It would be like throwing your money into a black hole.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41560847]But paper is 6 times as cheap to produce with wood pulp than with hemp pulp. There was literally no threat.
It isn't anymore. Whilst I think it's ok to be legalized, I think it won't make very much money or be of any use beyond a niche product. Also don't subsidize it. It would be like throwing your money into a black hole.[/QUOTE]
First, it is incredibly more expensive because we have not been refining the process for generations, as with Wood pulp. On the contrary, the Hemp plant yelds WAY more material in a given year than your standard tree farm would. Hemp/Marijuana grows quite fast for the fibrous plant it is. As compared to decade old trees. The impact on the environment is also WAYYY less than the lumber industry. A 300 Acre plot of Hemp plants could indefinitely produce a supply, EVERY YEAR, of plant pulp for use in crafts and fabrics. Let's see the lumber industry pull that off with the forests they're cutting down.
Wood may be cheaper in the short run today, but it definitely isn't in the long run. Not to mention, the [url=http://www.veria.com/herbs-supplements/hemp-oil-good-for-so-many-things]Oil[/url] as well as the [url=http://www.informationdistillery.com/hemp.htm]fiber[/url] can be used for a wealth of uses.
To say that it is not a wealthy market is foolish and blind.
As for your second point, Marijuana still very much has a negative view in the United States, especially with the going-out generation (IE your Parents), who still control politics in our society. The younger crowds are falling into it, but more on a drug-basis than Medical (especially here in Colorado. The medical thing was just a blatant excuse to legalize.) The profit from it could go either way. Right now, Colorado is trying to tax it for [last i heard] 25%.
So let's say Marijuana can be sold from stores at the same price we buy it from our dealers... we'll even go a little cheaper because of company mass production; We'll say $20.00 for 3.5g. So with a population of about 5.2 Million, let's take a lean estimate that only about 15% of that population will indulge monthly. That alone is roughly 173 million in profit. Chump change in comparison to something such as the Federal Budget. But that's going easy on the percentage, ive heard expected figures as high as 30% which would mean ~350 million. Money that could be well used upgrading schools, parks, roads, and so on. (which it will be. I believe Colorado's Marijuana revenue will go towards Roads and Schools.)
[QUOTE=Keys;41560963]First, it is incredibly more expensive because we have not been refining the process for generations, as with Wood pulp. On the contrary, the Hemp plant yelds WAY more material in a given year than your standard tree farm would. Hemp/Marijuana grows quite fast for the fibrous plant it is. As compared to decade old trees. The impact on the environment is also WAYYY less than the lumber industry. A 300 Acre plot of Hemp plants could indefinitely produce a supply, EVERY YEAR, of plant pulp for use in crafts and fabrics. Let's see the lumber industry pull that off with the forests they're cutting down.[/quote]
If this is the case, then why in the Soviet Union (which had been constantly cultivating new breeds and trying to improve existing yields all the time) that cultivation still declined, and after the collapse, practically vanished?
Why are European hemp farms growing less and less hemp? Why is demand so low?
[quote]It may be cheaper in the short run, but it definitely isn't in the long run. Not to mention, the [url=http://www.veria.com/herbs-supplements/hemp-oil-good-for-so-many-things]Oil[/url] as well as the [url=http://www.informationdistillery.com/hemp.htm]fiber[/url] can be used for a wealth of uses.
To say that it is not a wealthy market is foolish and blind.[/quote]
Just because it has 1 billion and 1 uses doesn't mean it's a wealthy market. The point is that it has to be economical for use.
I really don't see how you can cut the cost of hemp paper by a factor of 6. Unless you pull magic out of your arse.
[quote]As for your second point, Marijuana still very much has a negative view in the United States, especially with the going-out generation (IE your Parents), who still control politics in our society. The younger crowds are falling into it, but more on a drug-basis than Medical (especially here in Colorado. The medical thing was just a blatant excuse to legalize.) The profit from it could go either way. Right now, Colorado is trying to tax it for [last i heard] 25%.[/quote]
Except many other countries in the world don't have it as illegal, yet cultivation continues to decline.
You do realize that despite all efforts made to improve hemp cultivation, that worldwide output halved from 1991 to 2003?
[quote]So let's say Marijuana can be sold from stores at the same price we buy it from our dealers... we'll even go a little cheaper because of company mass production; We'll say $20.00 for 3.5g. So with a population of about 5.2 Million, let's take a lean estimate that only about 15% of that population will indulge monthly. That alone is roughly 173 million in profit. Chump change in comparison to something such as the Federal Budget. But that's going easy on the percentage, ive heard expected figures as high as 30% which would mean ~350 million. Money that could be well used upgrading schools, parks, roads, and so on.[/QUOTE]
The amount of money made would made the most trivial dent to the debt.
That isn't profit by the way. That's revenue. If you sold 3.5 grams for 20 dollars, how much of that goes into paying the people who grow it, process it, transport it, market it, store it, produce packaging, complying with federal and state regulations, etc?
Also remember that some of it will be a VAT, other consumption taxes, and business taxes that will make up some of it. Saying that you make 20 dollars in profit is fucking laughable.
Also remember all the companies would be competing heavily and driving down prices. The profit would be marginal for them.
[quote] the reason for more than half of the drug arrests in the U.S.[/quote]
This is falling pretty fast. Hell, around me, you'll at-most get ticketed if you come clean when asked.
It was banned in America because Ronald Reagan declared it Schedule I.
Apparently despite the discovery of possible medical benefits he still did because he hated hippies. Lol
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;41561080]It was banned in America because Ronald Reagan declared it Schedule I.
Apparently despite the discovery of possible medical benefits he still did because he hated hippies. Lol[/QUOTE]
No it was made illegal because people wanted a quick way to get racial minorities, especially black and hispanic people, into prison
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41561320]No it was made illegal because people wanted a quick way to get racial minorities, especially black and hispanic people, into prison[/QUOTE]
I somewhat doubt it was deliberately made illegal with the intention to put black people into prison. That's on par with conspiracy theories.
If it was the case, then why in the 1990s did a lot of white meth users go to prison?
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;41561080]It was banned in America because Ronald Reagan declared it Schedule I.
Apparently despite the discovery of possible medical benefits he still did because he hated hippies. Lol[/QUOTE]
Harry J. Anslinger.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41561058]If this is the case, then why in the Soviet Union (which had been constantly cultivating new breeds and trying to improve existing yields all the time) that cultivation still declined, and after the collapse, practically vanished?[/quote]
Russia in a state of Economic down-turn, it's not exactly prospering right now. ALL industries are taking an impact, so i would surmise that Russia is not a good example. But that's just me.
[quote]Why are European hemp farms growing less and less hemp? Why is demand so low?[/quote]
Because they operate on a much similar fashion than the Unites States, and last I knew, Marijuana was still largely ILLEGAL in Europe (especially Eastern). Same image problem as the US. Besides, do you think the Lumber and Wood industries have any less of a foothold in the European Markets than the US? Think again.
[quote]Just because it has 1 billion and 1 uses doesn't mean it's a wealthy market. The point is that it has to be economical for use. [/quote]
Are you kidding me? Oils for body washes, oils for health benefits (like Fish oil pills), Oils for frabric treatment and cleaners. The list is literally endless. That's a largely farse statement. It is a wealthy market for sure, it is just untapped and largely abandoned. Why Start up a whole new industry of uncharted territory, when you can just jump on the bandwagon for wood, which is already set up and well-established. And as a lumber company, why would you abandon an already outrageously profitable market for one that would set you back to square one?
[quote]I really don't see how you can cut the cost of hemp paper by a factor of 6. Unless you pull magic out of your arse. [/quote]
So its safe to assume you have done trial testing, tried to produce hemp products, and have established this theory that it is impossible to ease the process of refining Hemp into an industry product? No?
[quote]Except many other countries in the world don't have it as illegal, yet cultivation continues to decline.[/quote]
Oh please, [url=http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://libertysnippet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/World-cannabis-laws.png&imgrefurl=http://libertysnippet.com/&h=628&w=1357&sz=21&tbnid=TK1HnmlGY_EAhM:&tbnh=56&tbnw=121&zoom=1&usg=__AD1AMRDnMfjsb8c9MQTDmECJ6iE=&docid=W_3-V3nmCo7XwM&sa=X&ei=mPrtUa6ZDabgyQHFqYDgCw&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAA&dur=242]here's a map.[/url]
Many of the countries with it decriminalized or legal just aren't in a right state to produce it. Russia isn't prime growing territory, it is too cold. South America is RICH in forests, which is mostly their prime export. Wood. Not Hemp. This goes back to my previous point. I feel however, that with the large variation in climate, the US can stand to benefit the most. But all of this this is a hard point to argue from either side without going in-depth into each Country, which i'm not going to do.
[quote]You do realize that despite all efforts made to improve hemp cultivation, that worldwide output halved from 1991 to 2003?[/quote]
You keep pushing this "Hemp Cultivation is in decline" but with no basis aside from a Wikipedia quote, i'm not trying to antagonize you, but I just don't feel like this is a wholly valid argument. It's a matter of profit to be made, and much like America's Media Industry, there is a large fear of spreading into new Markets, especially when current markets are already raking in profits by the truck load. (eg why make a new movie when we can just Make Movie 2.)
[quote]The amount of money made would made the most trivial dent to the debt.[/quote]
I NEVER said it would solve the debt issue, and anyone who says so is fooling only themselves. The US is in TRILLIONS of dollars worth of debt. A few hundred million is, like i said earlier, chump change. It will however improve roads, schools, parks, and more if it is used correctly. And that is money which doesn't have to be prorated by Federal funds, leaving them for something else. (Not that they really fund said aspects well enough anyways..)
[quote]That isn't profit by the way. That's revenue. If you sold 3.5 grams for 20 dollars, how much of that goes into paying the people who grow it, process it, transport it, market it, store it, produce packaging, complying with federal and state regulations, etc? [/quote]
~$15 (or whatever the grower sells it to the Shop for, minus taxes/msc. and all that of course.)
[quote]Also remember that some of it will be a VAT, other consumption taxes, and business taxes that will make up some of it. Saying that you make 20 dollars in profit is fucking laughable.[/quote]
No offense, but it was a [u][i]fucking example[/i][/u]. There is no way i'm going to waste my time calculating business taxes. It was meant to give a general idea. FFS.
[quote]Also remember all the companies would be competing heavily and driving down prices. The profit would be marginal for them.[/QUOTE]
Driving DOWN prices? Or keeping prices competitive? People will still be buying from their current dealers, stores will have to compete with this, they cannot go more expensive, but they also cannot go too cheap. This is why I suggested a range of around ~20. Since here in Colorado you can snag an 8th (3.5g) of quality for about $20-25.). This is a baseless arguement without actually putting it to the test, in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41561320]No it was made illegal because people wanted a quick way to get racial minorities, especially black and hispanic people, into prison[/QUOTE]
Like how Planned Parenthood is actually a conspiracy to abort black babies to keep the black population down?
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41562338]Like how Planned Parenthood is actually a conspiracy to abort black babies to keep the black population down?[/QUOTE]
They're very militant about it, too. Drive-by abortions are unfortunately common here in the Saint Louis area. One minute you're black, pregnant, and poor, and before you know it, a small team of professional, courteous doctors with great bedside manner are gently urging you to relax while a nurse holds your hand.
[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41561352]I somewhat doubt it was deliberately made illegal with the intention to put black people into prison. That's on par with conspiracy theories.
If it was the case, then why in the 1990s did a lot of white meth users go to prison?[/QUOTE]
Look up Anslinger, like archangel mentioned.
[i]"Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, jazz musicians, and entertainers. Their satanic music is driven by marijuana, and marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and others. It is a drug that causes insanity, criminality, and death — the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."[/i]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41562873]Look up Anslinger, like archangel mentioned.
[i]"Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, jazz musicians, and entertainers. Their satanic music is driven by marijuana, and marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and others. It is a drug that causes insanity, criminality, and death — the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."[/i][/QUOTE]
I think it's more likely that they thought the drug caused it. Especially given that quote, in which they blame the drug itself. I really don't think that anybody was maliciously making a plan to put as many black men behind bars as possible.
[editline]23rd July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Keys;41561512]Russia in a state of Economic down-turn, it's not exactly prospering right now. ALL industries are taking an impact, so i would surmise that Russia is not a good example. But that's just me.[/quote]
Russia stopped declining in the 1990s after their industries consolidated. Now it's booming again and even agriculture is recovering in leaps and bounds. For some reason, small crops grown in peoples back gardens (like carrots and potatoes) are doing extremely well, yet hemp hasn't recovered at all.
It's almost as though no demand exists.
[quote]Because they operate on a much similar fashion than the Unites States, and last I knew, Marijuana was still largely ILLEGAL in Europe (especially Eastern). Same image problem as the US. Besides, do you think the Lumber and Wood industries have any less of a foothold in the European Markets than the US? Think again.[/quote]
Stop bullshitting. HEMP is perfectly legal in European countries. It has never been made illegal here. Demand for them declined with the advent of artificial fibres.
Face it mate, hemp is a woefully uneconomic plant. You can't bullshit reality away by saying "but but muh conspiracy from the lumber industry to keep down hemp". Oh shut up and explain to me why cultivation is so tiny despite it being legal in many countries.
[quote]Are you kidding me? Oils for body washes, oils for health benefits (like Fish oil pills), Oils for frabric treatment and cleaners. The list is literally endless. That's a largely farse statement. It is a wealthy market for sure, it is just untapped and largely abandoned. Why Start up a whole new industry of uncharted territory, when you can just jump on the bandwagon for wood, which is already set up and well-established. And as a lumber company, why would you abandon an already outrageously profitable market for one that would set you back to square one?[/quote]
You need to understand how economics works.
I could have an amazing plant which can treat every disease, can be manufactured into every possible item, and be easy to grow.
However, hemp is NOT the best in all those catergories. Manilla Hemp is SUPERIOR to regular hemp when making ropes. Cotton is SUPERIOR to hemp for cloth.
If its an untapped market full of potential, ask yourself the following question:
How long has it been full of potential?
Chances are, since it's hemp, you will say "since the dawn of agriculture".
Then why has nobody focused on it? Why has nobody realized the vast potential? Why, despite research into it, has nobody jumped on it?
I am reminded of the economists joke. Two economists are walking down the street, and they see a $50 note on the ground. One reaches down to pick it up as the other says "that possibly can't be $50". "Why not?" says the other. To which the reply is "because it would have already have been picked up by now".
[quote]So its safe to assume you have done trial testing, tried to produce hemp products, and have established this theory that it is impossible to ease the process of refining Hemp into an industry product? No?[/quote]
Well for one thing, whilst hemp grows a lot faster, you also are unable to use less of it:
[quote]While the wood products industry uses nearly 100% of the fiber from harvested trees, only about 25% of the dried hemp stem — the bark, called bast — contains the long, strong fibers desirable for paper production.[/quote]
So firstly, unless you can create more stem (good luck with that), you need to make it grow faster, in denser concentrations, using less materials.
Not only that, but you have to use more efficient machinery, cut down transport costs, etc.
And the real kicker, is that the same technologies used to improve hemp cultivation could equally be applied to timber.
[quote]Oh please here's a map.[/quote]
That's a map for the drug, not for the legal to grow hemp.
[quote]Many of the countries with it decriminalized or legal just aren't in a right state to produce it. Russia isn't prime growing territory, it is too cold.[/quote]
Fuck, are you trolling or just stupid? Russia has been known for centuries (minus a stint under the USSR) as a vast agricultural producer. Russian agriculture has been recovering well in the past 2 decades and by the 2020s it's predicted to be a breadbasket.
[quote]South America is RICH in forests, which is mostly their prime export. Wood. Not Hemp.[/quote]
Do you know a single fucking thing about geography? Argentina was (and I think to a large degree still is) a massive agricultural exporter. Argentina was once one of the main agricultural exporters during the 19th century.
And what about the Andean countries?
[quote]You keep pushing this "Hemp Cultivation is in decline" but with no basis aside from a Wikipedia quote, i'm not trying to antagonize you, but I just don't feel like this is a wholly valid argument.[/quote]
"People don't want to grow hemp as much as they used to"
"This trivial fact doesn't concern me, we should grow more"
[quote]It's a matter of profit to be made, and much like America's Media Industry, there is a large fear of spreading into new Markets, especially when current markets are already raking in profits by the truck load. (eg why make a new movie when we can just Make Movie 2.)[/quote]
People move into new markets all the time lol. You are literally bending reality by saying "hemp cultivation in decline? pfffft, such a trivial fact doesn't concern me".
[quote]Driving DOWN prices? Or keeping prices competitive? People will still be buying from their current dealers, stores will have to compete with this, they cannot go more expensive, but they also cannot go too cheap. This is why I suggested a range of around ~20. Since here in Colorado you can snag an 8th (3.5g) of quality for about $20-25.). This is a baseless arguement without actually putting it to the test, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Remember economies of scale. A large scale business can grow masses of marijuana easily and then transport and market it. A local dealer is going to be ruined by the competition.
Also because it's legal, you don't need to spend money on police bribes or guns or on petty gang wars over turf.
Given enough time, I wouldn't be surprised if I could get a gram of dank for a buck fifty.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.