{Editor’s Note: This is the 3rd installment of a series of articles attempting to address the 32 questions posed by Ron Paul in his recent farewell speech given in front of Congress. Check out the last post, "Why Does The Government Restrict Raw Milk?"}In August I wrote an article touting Senator Rand Paul’s attempt to pass legislation that would clearly distinguish between industrialized hemp and marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act.  Senator Paul, who hails from Kentucky, is hoping the legalization of hemp, once an important cash crop in this country, will aid with revitalizing the agricultural industry.  Paul did have support from fellow Senators Ron Wyden, Bernie Sanders, and Jeff Merkley when Senate Bill 3501 was introduced.  These Senators will be challenged as they try to advance this legislation forward and are sure to be attacked by energy, construction, and agriculture special interests that have their client’s best interest in mind.One of the most difficult hurdles proponents of industrialized hemp have to clear is the lack of education the majority of people possess regarding hemp.  Most individuals do not understand the wide variety of products that the cannabis plant is able to supply.  In fact, probably a significant majority believe that hemp, marijuana, and cannabis all share the same definition.  It is an unfortunate mistake, but it is a common occurrence to relate all types of cannabis to the recreational or medical marijuana that causes psychoactive effects when smoked or ingested.  Hemp only contains traces of the psychoactive compounds, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), found in plants grown for recreation or medical use, because such plants produce minimal levels.  Simply put, some researchers claim that you would need to smoke an acre of hemp in order to get high.  That’s assuming you have a week of free time to kill and access to an acre of hemp.What’s that, you want to get high with a friend?  You better find another acre of hemp!The opposition to the legalization of hemp has two main arguments against the legalization of the plant.  Unsurprisingly, each argument requires the populace to remain uninformed.    The first argument is held by many that make their living in the field of law enforcement.  These folks claim that legalization of hemp would allow growers of the plants to use hemp production as a front, thus allowing them to disguise marijuana within fields of hemp.  This simply is not possible as explained by the good people at helium.com.

Growing hemp and marijuana isn't an option. By doing that you get cross pollination which leaves both plants infertile. When they cross pollinate you loose the buds of the flowers and the seeds. With hemp these parts are very useful for a wide variety of uses (oil, food, seed for the following year). With marijuana the bud is the part of the plant that has the most THC, if this doesn't fully develop due to cross pollination then you loose a lot of the material that can be smoked.

If hemp cannot get you high and is unable to be grown with marijuana plants that contain psychoactive compounds, then what other problems could there be with this plant?The second reason there is opposition to hemp is because some believe that the products it supplies are not any better than the ones currently on the market.  This argument is ridiculous.  If hemp products are inferior to what is already available on the market, then what is the fear of allowing hemp products to compete?Hemp has been competing and winning market share on the open market since man first cultivated hemp back in 6000 BC.  In fact, hemp has a rich tradition in the United States.  For example, the Declaration of Independence was drafted on hemp paper, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson farmed hemp, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp, Benjamin Franklin started America’s first paper mill with hemp, and Henry Ford built a car in 1941 that was constructed from plastic made from hemp and burned fuel that was also made from hemp.So Why Can't Americans Manufacture Rope and Other Products From Hemp?You have to love how innocently Dr. Paul phrases this question.  He doesn't ask why Americans can't manufacture or produce food, oil, fuel, paper, bricks, plastic, insulation, clothing, rope, and paint from hemp.  Instead he leaves it exclusively to rope.  As Dr. Paul knows, the hemp plant can produce an incredibly diverse array of products.  Ron Paul keeps it simple and as always presents subjects in a way that encourages individuals unfamiliar with a subject, in this case hemp, to want to learn the reason why.Money doesn’t talk, it screams.  Hemp plants are a victim of the crony capitalistic society that we have resided in for the past 100 years.  In 1917, George Schlichten invented the decorticator machine.  The following passage is from The Emperor Wears No Clothes - The Authoritative Historical Record of the Cannabis Plant, Marajuana Prohibition & How Hemp can still Save the World!

Under old methods, hemp was cut and allowed to lie in the fields for weeks until it "retted" enough so the fibers could be pulled off by hand. Retting is simply rotting as a result of dew, rain and bacterial action. Machines were developed to separate the fibers mechanically after retting was complete, but the cost was high, the loss of fiber great, and the quality of fiber comparatively low. With the new machine, known as a decorticator, hemp is cut with a slightly modified grain binder. It is delivered to the machine where an automatic chain conveyer feeds it to the breaking arms at the rate of two or three tons per hour. The hurds are broken into fine pieces which drop into the hopper, from where they are delivered by blower to a baler or to truck or freight car for loose shipment. The fiber comes from the other end of the machine, ready for baling... Schlichten spent 18 years and £400,000 on the decorticator, a machine that could strip the fibre from nearly any plant, leaving the pulp behind. His desire was to stop the felling of forests for paper, which he believed to be a crime!

Unfortunately, Schlichten’s vision never came true.  Those with a vested interest in competing products, cotton clothing, paper from trees, and oil for plastic and fuel used political connections to restrict the growth of hemp and finally made the plant illegal.Until this point, my argument for allowing the growth of hemp has been mostly from that of a practical standpoint.  When viewing this question from a libertarian perspective the ideal is simple.  No government or legislative body should be empowered to determine what plants you are allowed to grow on your property, or decide what you are allowed to ingest into your body, as long as you are not harming another individual or damaging another individual's property.For more information regarding hemp please watch this Informative video which unveils the power contained within the hemp plant.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZvFE53JzDk&feature=relatedReceive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!