Drug War's Mission Creep Hurts Farmers
The nation's drug warriors fret that hemp cultivation would make pot prohibition harder.
Every war produces collateral damage, including America's war on drugs – whose manifold victims include any number of farmers in Virginia. Jim Politis has a plan to help them. But first, he will have to get it past Congress.
Politis is a retired businessman who now sits on the Board of Supervisors in Montgomery County, home to Virginia Tech. He wants Washington to let farmers grow industrial hemp. That should be an easy sell. Once upon a time, hemp cultivation was not only permitted, but required: An act of Virginia's General Assembly in 1623 mandated hemp-growing. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both grew hemp. It remained a popular source of fiber for rope, clothing, and many other products until the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which pretty much killed off domestic hemp production.
The industry enjoyed a revival during WWII, when Japanese forces cut off the hemp supply from the Philippines. Washington even produced a "Hemp for Victory" propaganda film. Then the war ended, and the lid slammed shut again.
Politis says industrial hemp would make a great substitute for tobacco, whose production in Virginia has fallen by half. The number of tobacco farmers in the state has plunged from more than 6,000 a decade and a half ago to fewer than 900 today. Developing an agricultural hemp industry here "would take five minutes," Politis recently told The Roanoke Times.
Besides, you already can buy many hemp-based products, from shampoo to fabric, that are made in China and other countries where hemp is legal. Letting American farmers grow hemp and American companies turn it into consumer goods would help bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., Politis told the newspaper.
So why not do it? One word: pot.
Industrial hemp and illegal marijuana are essentially the same plant, though they are grown differently and have different levels of THC, the chemical that gives wacky tabacky its psychoactive kick. Marijuana concentrations of THC are four to 400 times higher than hemp's THC concentrations. Theoretically, you can still get high from smoking hemp. And theoretically, you can make a diamond from a lump of coal. Just squeeze real tight.
Still, the nation's drug warriors fret that hemp cultivation would make pot prohibition harder, because the plants look alike. So Cheech and Chong wannabes everywhere would just tell any curious cops that they're in the rope-making business. Suddenly marijuana would be cheap, potent, and readily available. Granted, marijuana is already cheap, potent, and readily available. But why let facts get in the way?
The irony of the hemp ban is that it criminalizes one product in order to aid the prohibition of a second product that many Americans don't want prohibited in the first place. An October poll by Gallup reported that 51 percent of Americans favor fully legalizing marijuana, which already is legal for medical purposes in California and 15 other states.
That doesn't sway elected officials such as Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte, a 10-term Republican who serves on the Agriculture committee. He doesn't think much of hemp's economic potential and says the "threat to the government's ability to prevent the cultivation of hemp for illegal use far outweighs the economic benefits" of legalizing it for industrial uses. A lot of his colleagues agree. A bill sponsored by libertiarian Republican Ron Paul to permit industrial hemp farming has never gotten so much as a committee hearing.
This latest example of the drug war's mission creep sounds painfully familiar. Just look at methamphetamine. Because it can be made using over-the-counter cold and allergy remedies that contain pseudoephedrine, authorities across the country have taken to controlling the sale of those products as well. Virginia is considering just such a proposal now.
Victims of that crackdown include Sally Harpold, an Indiana grandmother who was busted because she bought a box of Zyrtec for her husband and a box of Mucinex for her daughter. Then there is Bob Wallace, a retired, 88-year-old metallurgist in Sarasota who started a business making iodine crystals for water purification – until the DEA basically shut him down. Apparently, iodine can be used to make meth too. A DEA spokesman said that "If Mr. Wallace is no longer in business he has perhaps become part of [the] collateral damage" from the nation's meth epidemic.
The war on drugs has produced untold other damage as well: property seized from innocent people through civil asset forfeiture, 2 million arrests per year, $15 billion annually in federal expenditures, and God knows how much at the state and local level. The result? A 9-percent jump in drug use from 2008 to 2009 alone. Custer had better results at Little Big Horn.
According to Goodlatte and many of his colleagues, though, keeping farmers from growing hemp will help sustain these spectacular results. With logic that sound, how could they possibly lose?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This attitude is a large part of the problem. It's not from the nation's meth epidemic, it's from the nation's government control epidemic.
I also find it annoying that prohibitionists often include the cost of prohibition of drugs as part of the societal cost of drug use.
and that's the point where libtoidz loose the center. some schedule 1 drugs like meth belong on schedule 1.
Why?
+1
That's the question. First, they need to stop with the assumption that prohibition prevents use. Second, answer why you can tell me what I can and can't ingest. It's my body, not yours.
And no, any secondary occurrences, like car crash from DWI, etc. do not count as reasons to prevent me from ingesting the drug, since my ingestion of the drug does not necessarily lead to me driving.
several reasons;
1) there are classes of drugs, like opiates & meth, which are just too destructive to individuals, families, & society. there's good reason why kamikazi pilots took meth...& it wasnt the long flight time. (alcohol is legal & look at the damage it does. now imagine meth...)
2) Its likely contaminated...or dont do any drug which some dude can mix in his dirty bathtub & pharm purity goes right back to #1 & 3.
3) Teh kiddz (no shitz).
Begging the question. Try again.
Solved by legalization.
Not an argument.
ah, beat me to it.
1) Then why did individuals, family, and society not only exist but grow in pre-prohibition America? How were steam engines, power plants, and all those fun things invented when the evil opiates were legal?
2) Consequence of the illegal War on Drugs
3) OMG T3H CH!LDR|_|NZ
""2) Its likely contaminated...or dont do any drug which some dude can mix in his dirty bathtub & pharm purity goes right back to #1 & 3.""
To avoid that, our government gives combat pilots real speed.
Government has no problem with the use of speed when it fits their ends.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123778&page=1
"there's good reason why kamikazi pilots took meth.."
Do you know that some murders murder people while they're stone cold SOBER!?
Time to end sobriety for the good of society and the CHILDRUNZ!
---some MURDERERS murder---
Hey, we *have* an edit function, see?
Here's a good article from 2003 about speed use approved by the DoD.
Hint. It wasn't just Japan giving miltary folks speed in WWII, and it wasn't for kamikazis.
Perhaps if I was on some now, I would have remembered to include the link.
http://www.wired.com/medtech/h.....3/02/57434
I would think that opiate derivatives would have been more effective than methamphetamines for getting the kamikaze pilots to complete their missions.
They did have to fly a plane from takeoff to target, even if they didn't actually have to land. Hard to make that work while you're flying on opium.
there's good reason why kamikazi pilots took meth
Kamikazes? Who cares? They also took a hit of sake before takeoff.
Meth was (is?) used by good old American fighter pilots, you know. Until quite recently, I believe.
Meth is just a cheap form of adderall and ritalin. Used in small quantities by non-retards it is a powerful jolt to the brain.
Actually, it is a related, but different drug to those in Adderal or Ritalin. And is also available as a pharmaceutical called desoxyn. Methamphetamine is also available over the counter in Vick's inhalers, but it's the L isomer that only clears your nose and doesn't get you high.
DIAF
Dig it! American funk!
why would there be meth if cocaine or growing the coca plant was legal? why would there be fake pot if pot was legal? why would the house of representatives have to pass a synthetic drug ban on things that simulate the effects of cocaine and marijuana if cocaine or marijuana were legal? if you think meth is a bad drug, then don't smoke it.
I'm all for ending the drug war, but meth would exist apart from cocaine. They both have stimulant properties, but they are VERY dirt ferment drugs. Meth is also LEGALLY issued to many people, including military pilots. It was used in WWII (hence the nazi method of manufacture)
Cocaine has very different effects, but it is also schedule II SINCE it is used in surgery, primarily nasal. No, that is not a joke
Ugh... Auto correct. ... DIFFERENT not dirty ferment
dirt ferment
I propose that dirt ferment is now a synonym for different.
Do i have a second?
I'm in.
Think dirt ferment.
can you drink dirt ferment?
understood, but the point being that military pilots don't smoke meth. It is available to them for various purposes. Probably the same, or nearly the same as the cross tops, black beauties(without the cut), you name it, from the seventies. The same with crack, a newer method of transporting, marketing and ingesting due to crackdowns at all levels of prohibition and people setting themselves on fire from freebasing. Very little of which would be prevalent if the base drug or coca leave was available. Yes there would be some but with not all the negative consequences. Kind of like, yea there are some nabobs who mix everclear with fruit juice for parties (at least there used to be), but many more people just enjoy light beer. More people smoke filtered, light or ultra light cigs than roll your own. However if tobacco becomes schedule 1, you could be there would be all kinds of crap smoked.
The POINT is that meth CAN be used responsiby, setting aside the moronic claim that its schedule I.
As somebody who deals with burglars, thieves etc. routinely, i would say about 2/3 are either meth or opioid users or addicts. Very disproportionate tothe general population btw
As somebody who deals with burglars, thieves etc. routinely, i would say about 2/3 are either meth or opioid users or addicts.
Thus demonstrating that people with a propensity to break the law, break the law.
How many of them also drink?
They do not drink disporoportionately co pared to the population at large ime
They do meth and opioids disproportionately.
Thats just the facts. Scratch a burglar, auto thief, etc at least round my parts, and you more often than not find a doper. You rarely find an alcoholic
Imo, partially because alcoholics can get cheap booz whereas opioid addicts and meth addicts need to support expensive habits
So prohibition causes crime? Who knew?
yea, i know. SHOCKING! 🙂
i think (conservatively) we could decrease burgs, auto thefts, etc. by about 20-25% if opioid and meth addicts could get their drug of choice at a similar cost structure to alcohol
Legalizing drugs would also eliminate violence from drug deals gone bad.
Greatly reduce gangs by taking away their major source of funding.
End the violence in Mexico (not that the average American cares about that).
Really all you need to do is look at alcohol prohibition. It caused a lot of crime and problems.
i agree. a substantial %age of the violent crime in the 80's especially was drug related (crack trade bullshit)
""As somebody who deals with burglars, thieves etc. routinely, i would say about 2/3 are either meth or opioid users or addicts.""
I have a feeling most would be committing those crimes without meth, and probably have.
Sure, addicts have an expensive habit that they steal to feed. If we go down that route, then to fight crime we should legalized drugs so the price would go down, therefore less need be stolen to feed the habit.
i think a substantial percentage would, but i have zero doubt a fair %age would not
i see this ALL the time. i just wrote up a case on some kid who had been stealing all sorts of shit from his parents ever since he got hooked on oxy.
he had literally been 100% law abiding (or too good to get caught) prior to oxy. once he got hooked, it was thievery ahoy
and this is actually COMMON. i suspect a substantial %age of parents who get ripped off (jewelry) etc. by their meth-head 19 yr old dropout loser son/daughter don't even make reports.
it's too embarassing or they don't want to get the kid in trouble (and of course 95% of the time yo can't prove the kid did it anyway)
the case i just took, where i (easily ... using LeadsOnline) traced the laptop the kid stole to a local pawn store where he pawned it in his name, they had been ripped off by him for about 2 yrs to the tune of about 25k before they finally made a report
some people are scum and would steal either way
but desperate druggie theft is quite often brought upon by powerful drug habits and is usually distinguished by the utter lack of finesse in the commission of the crime.
there will always be thieves, but thievery to get money to sustain a habit style thievery is certainly a substantial part of thievery we could reduce imnsho
""but thievery to get money to sustain a habit style thievery is certainly a substantial part of thievery we could reduce imnsho""
I agree. Too bad it probably won't happen. We are moving in the opposite direction by adding faux drugs to the drug war.
i disagree. we have made substantial inroads.
1) drug penalties are being reduced (for example, recently with crack)
2) many jurisdictions have decrim' mariajuan when it used to be a gross misdemeanor or even felony
3) medical mj
4) in a de facto sense, even those jurisdictions that don't decrim mj often treat it as a de facto civil infraction... a $50 fine
furthermore, many jurisdictions, including my county prosecutors will AUTOMATICALLY dump any felony drug arrest into misdemeanor court if it involves only possession (meth, cocaine, heroin, etc.) of the drug below a threshold amount
iow, leniency
so if you look at actual facts, i don't see how you can come to the conclusion
the reality is that drug laws are less harsh, penalties less harsh, plus the decrim and de facto decrim
Just to be clear, I'm not the nabob who made the claim that meth was schedule I.
Oh btw. Totally agree with your point especially about crap quality beavis and butthead lab bathtub meth because of the black market. Shit is NASTY DIRTY compared to pharm quality
Cocaine has some very interesting effects. Top Gear - Hammond on cocaine
Whatever the fuck you're on should definitely be banned. Evidently, it causes massive and irreversible stupid.
because all ur assumptions, opinions, & guesses about wholesale legalization must be spot-on eh? look who's on drugs now...
"because all ur assumptions, opinions, & guesses about wholesale legalization must be spot-on eh?"
Perhaps they're not, dipshit, but it's obvious that your fave government controls are a total disaster.
no, im not on either extreme unlike H&R libtoidz ideologues. i favor some legalization which can be acheived instead of tilting at windmills.
Yeah, OK, we "loose" [sic] the center with all sorts of stuff. The center is just wrong, and I frankly do not care to lose it. I am willing to talk to it and convince it, but it seems to me that much of the "center" is nothing more than "all my neighbors are stupider than me and need to be controlled."
Blech.
You are responding to a fucking moron. Meth is not schedule I ... It's schedule II
my bad. you know, ive sat on the sidelines when these libtoidz rip ur chosen profession. no longer...moron
WhatEver... If you are going to criticize, it behooves one to get facts straight. Meth has been a precribed drug for YEARS.
""Meth has been a precribed drug for YEARS.""
Under what name?
here's one...
(btw, the google is yer friend)
http://www.rxlist.com/desoxyn-drug.htm
Interesting. Thanks.
Interesting. Thanks.
I tried posting a simple thanks three times and it was caught in the spam filter.
so again.
Interesting, and thanks.
yw (checks to see if "yw" invokes spam filter or squirrel attack)
At least dunphy uses capitol letters sometimes.
At least dunphy uses capitol letters sometimes.
Wait...
holy shit I think you just identified o3 as gaius marius!!!!
That mother fucker has been here the whole time!!!
Why wasn't I informed??!
Oh btw, I am am a moron because i correct a blatantly false easily confirmed falsehood and (granted in a hyperbolic and exaggerated retort) call a person a moron for making the same statement? Ok. WhatEver
no, ur a ill-mannered moron cause ur over the top concerning my simple & unintended mistake.
Hey ill concede to ill mannered. It WAS illmmannered. I apologize. Internet histrionics. I haz them
I accept that & I also apologise. As a vet, I have much respect for uniformed services including police & firefighters. I know the sacrifice of they & their families. The vast majority seek better communities & our nation. Keep-up the good fight.
i am FEELING THE LOVE!
Meth is not a schedule I drug.
Ime, drug legalization andor decrim advocates tend to know more about pharmacology and drug law than drug war proponents. This thread tends to confirm that belief
Has also been my experience.
We're silly enough to believe facts are good to have in argumentation. Drug war proponents just make up shit.
The whole paradigm if flawed. Drug prohibition maximized societal harm from drugs.
How's it working out for ya? We've got that Meth problem pretty well licked, right?
Let me point out the terrible allure of anything illegal to a certain segment of teenagers, who want to prove their individuality by flaunting the rules.
Drug addiction is a disease. It feeds on shame and secrecy. Openness leads to healing.
Legalization is ESPECIALLY important for the more dangerous drugs, so that we can move it out of the shadows, out of the area where people must shamefully hide it and fear punishment.
My Vans are made of hemp.
Mostest awesome shoes on the planet.
But does wearing Vans made of hemp make me a better person than you?
The correct answer is yes.
Well it certainly makes be better than people who use the word cunt. Those people are terrible.
They could never work for me, with their cunt saying...
Could I interest you in some Febreeze?
when your man's in a coma
from your underwear aroma
Your's is the superior intellect
Damn straight!
; )
A ending prohibition of pot would hurt the banking for drug cartel business and the CIA's drug trafficking business.
Why ignoring all teh news coming out of the fast and furious scandal? it is admitted again that the US is involved in the drug cartel business and thus is only tryign to disrupt the small guys as a favor to it's big cartel clients.
Yea the club just found that out.
The fine, fine words of Mr Hinkleheimer wash the lingering stench of Chapman's last column from my soul.
This is how the government create jobs - by not allowing people to grow stuff.
Seems to work for us.
wow. DEA + human resources, is a lower form of life even possible? And exactly which level of hell is their office located in?
Occutards shut down filming of an law and order svu episode that is about OWS
http://www.democraticundergrou.....02x5085013
especially rich because the progressives at. DU almost universally applaud this violation of "corporate speech" because... Well they have no right to "exploit" OWS. The irony is amazing... Btw, last i checked OWS was a corporation too. Eitherway, they fail to see the wrong in OWS exploiting OTHERS speech. Amazing
And yet OWS has the right to exploit 99% of the population for their ends.
and the polling shows majority support for OWS's main goals.
But not 99%. Which is what they claimed to represent.
And what were their main goals again anyway? Something about student loans and corporations, I think.
They may support OWS goals, but OWS has been losing public support INCREDIBLY QUICKLY as the latest polls show, and regardless of them supporting their alleged goals, this is just another example of OWS acting like thugs, and oppressing OTHERS for doing the same thing they CLAIM they are being oppressed for. They are their own worst enemies
hipsters aint thugs sherlock. jeesch
Hipsters who thuggishly oppress others speech are... Thugs and hipsters. Those are not mutually exclusive
Kind of like cops arent criminals, but the ones who break the law are.
What i find most telling about the occutards shutting down L AND O is how many libs and progs at DU support them doing so. If the tea party protesters had shur down the filming of a michael moore movie, they would be outraged and calling for congressional action
Hipsters who thuggishly oppress others speech are... Thugs and hipsters. Those are not mutually exclusive
Kind of like cops arent criminals, but the ones who break the law are.
What i find most telling about the occutards shutting down L AND O is how many libs and progs at DU support them doing so. If the tea party protesters had shur down the filming of a michael moore movie, they would be outraged and calling for congressional action
and the polling shows majority support for OWS's main goals.
Bullshit
Link poll or it didn't happen.
Find a link to OWS's main goals and i will be impressed...hell name one and I will be amazed.
try the OWS site.
i lol'd
and even assuming arguendo the public mostly supports their GOALS , or more correctly - the media's interpretation of their professed goals (if they saw the peter schiff video, i would think 80%+ of the public would find these people's goals to be abhorrent... at least the anti-capitalist, etc occutards), it's not their goals that are gettign the ire and causing OWS to lose support
it's their means
they are outing themselves as pure thugs, hypocrites, rape enabling, property damaging, drama queen having (I AM PREGNANT AND THEY CAUSED A MISCARRIAGE), lying, attention seeking fucktards
and the polling shows majority support for OWS's main goals.
If it is even remotely physiologically possible, you might try thinking with your own brain for a change.
Polls and surveys are designed to prove whatever it is the person conducting the survey wants to prove. It's really not terribly difficult. From the design and wording of the question, to who you ask, to how many you ask, to how you interpret and then ultimately report the "data" or conclusions drawn therefrom. And then the fucking vapid, bobblehead MSM, who have absolutely ZERO understanding of science or statistical analysis of data, report as if the latest "survey" or "poll" conclusively proves a damn thing.
The fact that "the polling" - whatever the fuck that might be - purportedly "shows" something means precisely jack shit to anyone who has even a fraction of a percent of an ability to think critically and analytically.
An argument that "the polling shows", with nothing beyond that to support the proposition means even less than precisely jack shit.
no, it means polling should be looked at with some critical analysis, NOT that it's useless
fwiw, the polling for OWS has done a nosedive
it used to have broad support
it now does not
if the polls were designed to cook, they wouldn't have revealed the downslide in OWS popularity
here's DAILY KOS acknowledging the OWS' loss of popularity via polls
http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....-innewpoll
There are three types of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
^^THIS^^
Though they would say they represent me too, they sure as fuck don't and can lick my taint right after I shit.
""And yet OWS has the right to exploit 99% of the population for their ends.""
98%, they are there own 1%.
I'm usually for protests but something about them has bugged me from the start. Then I realized it was the fact that are trying to claim they represent me, or really horrible at math. Perhaps both.
Same here - I don't like them presuming to represent me (and the Tea Party too!), and yes, they're really bad at math.
In fact, as a general rule I think of liberals as being very similar to libertarians, but without math skills or any reasoning ability.
i side with thomas sowell. i think liberals are liberals because ultimately they have a different vision
they believe that
1) mankind/society is perfectable
2) govt can achieve 1
The people who want to keep hemp banned because of something to do with marijuana are extra specially stupid. Not only is it not much of a drug, but any outdoor grows hidden in help fields or within several miles of one would be destroyed by all of the pollen from the hemp. This is even dumber than their heroic efforts to eradicate ditch weed beside the highway.
infact, the pollination would PREVENT cultivation of drug strains in the area....so, um, yeah the logic there is completely backwards.
One of these days, someone biologist is going to splice THC genes from pot into other plants. On that day, the drug becomes nearly impossible to fight.
The thing I want to know is how the tree huggers will feel about genetically modified organisms when someone creates a banana peel that really will get you stoned.
there has been work on crossbreeding hops (a close relative of hemp) with thc.
I grow, and I have a degree in horticulture with a minor in genetics. It's too bad that kind of splicing and seed manufacture takes a lot of money because it isn't that hard in principle.
My employer would probably frown on using their labs for it. But I have managed to do some pretty wild things with tomatoes and peppers in my garden with their equipment. Agribusiness ftw.
I grow, and I have a degree in horticulture with a minor in genetics. It's too bad that kind of splicing and seed manufacture takes a lot of money because it isn't that hard in principle.
Subsidizing hemp would be just as much bullshit as banning hemp is.
I can sort-of see your point, but subsidizing hemp would be probably much cheaper in $$$ alone than the current status quo. To lock up 100 000s of people and to keep the whole DEA machinery in business is very expensive as well.
Not to mention the human cost.
Wondering whether or not it's wise to maintain your affiliation to any one of the estimated sixteen currently-active Mexican Drug Cartels? Then maybe you should consider the following information very carefully:
As a gesture of good will vis-?-vis cross-border relations, key members of the American Federal Government have recently pledged a solemn oath, declaring their commitment to encouraging people like yourself to increase performance and productivity. In particular, the United States Department of Justice will guarantee that you achieve a respectable level of technology in both military grade weapons and equipment while actively facilitating the laundering of that swirling cascade of cash that a business like yours invariably and continually generates.
Still not convinced that during prohibition the phenomenal benefits of remaining an international drug criminal far outweigh the remotely possible, negative consequences? Here's another recent DOJ announcement, and this time written personally by their principal corporate attorney whose main priority is keeping himself out of jail:
"For nearly three years, I have been privileged to work closely with many of the most ruthless organizations to the south of our border. I am extremely proud of our record of abuse, fraud, waste and misconduct, and I pledge a continuation of all such policies that will further weaken our national security and compromise all honest efforts of law enforcement."
- Attorney General Holder.
Some people, it appears, have absolutely no problem being simultaneously absurd and very evil.
Must we wait for a complete economic collapse to regain our "unalienable?" rights?
Or is it high time we all stood up and told our government that we're pooped at being beaten and jailed in order that unconscionable Transnational Corporations can continue to addict & poison us for obscene profits?
"I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Tall, with silky chocolate skin and very smart, this girl has it all. And now she shows it to us...
This was Valerie's first time posing nude, and we can thank her boyfriend for encouraging her. In school they call her the gazelle, and with those long legs it's not hard to see why. Beautiful features and big, wild hair make her look like an untamed animal!
Originally from Mauritius, she now lives in Germany, where her dark beauty has to inspire second glances on the street. She speaks English, French and German fluently. Strict about her diet and work-out regime, she runs like the wind? helpful for a spirited gazelle like her!
Strikingly attractive in so many ways, this woman of colour now shares herself with you, only here on Hegre-Art.
Growing hemp near marijuana will cause you to get bad pot. It will crossbreed and ruin the strain. Hemp cultivation would severely mess with the quality. Drug warriors should plant hemp every where if they want to get rid of the cultivation of high grade pot in the USA.
thanks
The comparison between pseudoephedrine/meth and hemp/pot is a total bullshit analogy.
Meth not only can be made from pseudoephedrine, but in fact lots of meth has been made from pseudoephedrine.
So will legal hemp serve as cover for growing pot? The author of this post says no, so what is the comparison worth? Nothing.
[The 'true' analogy is "will hemp be acquired legally and cultivated/engineered into pot?" But who would bother when you could just grow pot to begin with? Thus the question as using it for cover is the only relevant one.]
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for legalizing both pot and OTC sale of pseudoephedrine. I just think the argument made in the post isn't a good one, even with the gloss of "mission creep".
Konata has come to us from what could be almost another world. We know of the Japanese tradition. The girl-woman seems so quiet and almost timid. Very eager to please and very submissive.
Get ready for a big surprise. Konata is all this but much more. This giggling girl with a fondness for fizzy sodas has her big secret and it's just come out.
Konata thinks about nothing but sex. Whatever way, whenever is her style. Most of all being in front of the camera - to show off her perfect breasts and milky skin - is what turns her on.
Right now she has a glorious black bush. Catch it now before she tries something new with that as well.
Why are so many comments about meth? The cultivation of hemp has nothing to do with harmful drugs. There is no, I repeat NO reasonable argument for the current prohibition on hemp. The ridiculous claim it would make marijuana more difficult to detect is completely spurious and belied by the fact that the current efforts to curtail marijuana cultivation are complete and utter failures. Hemp has been used for thousands of years and is a proven beneficial cash crop. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or badly misinformed.
We are top suppliers Marijuana, pain pills, sex pills and anxiety meds available (we have meds like xanax, tramadol, percs, oxy, roxy, valium, actavis syrup, etc... +1 (724) 470-0553. Call: +1 (419) 299-6124
Email Us Via : discreetsales2015(@)gmail.com