Re-Legalize Hemp!
This piece appeared in the Rapid City Journal's "Forum" page on Saturday, October 11, 1997.
================================
Bob Newland, 49, of rural Hermosa, is the editor of the BUFFALO CHIP GAZETTE, and the only announced Libertarian candidate for governor of South Dakota. He has promised to pardon all current and past non-violent drug convictions as his first official act after taking the oath of office.
================================
 
I attended the mayor's community marijuana forum on September 25 at the Civic Center. A panel composed of representatives of several tax-funded organizations spoke for an hour and a half on the effects and consequences of marijuana ingestion. The forum was then opened to questions and comments.

The audience consisted of about 120 people -- a cross-section of the community with an obvious absence: There were only about five adults of the age likely to have juvenile children.

Did these organizations simply have some money to spend? Did this event fulfill some charter for "community education" which the panel perfunctorily enacted? The room reserved would have comfortably held only a few more people. Thus I assume the panel expected poor attendance.

If the community perceives a "problem" with marijuana use, then where was the community?

Since the format of the "forum" did not lend itself to a proper refutation of the misinformation and misimplications presented, here are some observations from another self-appointed "expert"--me.

Mayor Shaw expressed concern that South Dakota might follow California and Arizona and allow compassionate medical use of the herb. Two panelists suggested that the voters there were "hoodwinked" by pro-legalization groups. One said, "There is no medical use for marijuana."

In fact, South Dakota might-and should-allow doctors to explore any avenue of treatment for patients. To suggest there is no medical use for the hemp plant is, simply, ludicrous.

In fact, governments spent more money to defeat the initiatives in California and Arizona than proponents spent on the issues. Voters there were simply tired of seeing wheelchair-bound people being handcuffed and jailed for attempting to alleviate their conditions.

The South Dakota Department of Agriculture is studying hemp as an alternative to the soil-depleting cash crops (corn, soybeans, sunflowers, grains) now prevalent. These studies concentrate on hemp as a competitor to flax (linen and fine oil), cotton, and trees (paper and fuel). Commercial hemp (the same ditchweed growing in vast quantities along irrigation ditches, rivers and highways) does not exhibit the consciousness-altering properties of hemp cultivated for the "trip" alone.

Deputy Sheriff Terry McLane said at the forum, "One way we have of measuring our success is how high we can drive the price of drugs. Currently, an ounce of marijuana costs half what it did a few years ago ($125 vs. $250)."

Hemp is probably already South Dakota's largest cash crop. Its only current market is those who ingest it to get high or to neutralize the nauseating effects of chemo- and radiation-therapy. It's suspicious that a well-organized, government-financed, coalition of agencies continues to support that market while denying hemp's valuable commercial uses.

One way of looking at the so-called (and phony) "war on drugs" is that it is a government price-support program for drug dealers. After over thirty years (and over $500 Billion in enforcement effort) drug use is higher than it was. If McLane is right, then a successful law enforcement effort means a dealer only has to carry half as much inventory and risk contact with half as many customers as when interdiction is meeting its current success. "Success" also means that customers have to steal twice as much to maintain level consumption.

In fact, after re-legalization, the profits (for hemp as a street drug) will drop through the floor. Availability will drop concurrently. The "outlaw mystique" of consumption will disappear. At that point -- with legality out of the equation -- the counselors on the mayor's panel will be better situated to deal with the real reasons people seek mind-altering substances.

After re-legalization-for those who still obtain hemp to ingest-the prices will be subject to the same market forces as govern aspirin (overdoses of which account for about 500 deaths per year in the U.S. Currently; marijuana accounts for zero overdose deaths). Users won't have to steal as much to supply their desires; our possessions will be safer.

Only after a question concerning the industrial uses of hemp did any panelist address that issue. Among her objections: all industrial uses are currently supplied by other products (petroleum, trees, flax, etc.), new machinery would have to be developed, new facilities built, armies engaged to keep the unruly hordes from stripping the fields to smoke the herb.

Aside from chuckling at the silliness of the final fantasy, I say, "Good!"

U.S. Gov't. studies confirm that hemp produces over four times as much paper per acre as trees, with much less soil depletion. Its conversion to paper utilizes, at worst (for the finest, bright-white paper available), one-tenth as much harmful chemicals.

Hemp fiber can be used to make fabric ranging from canvas-like ("Canvas" is a corruption of the word "cannabis". The U.S.S. Constitution -- Old Ironsides -- carried about 60 tons of hemp product as part of its gear-sails, rope, etc.) heavy cloth to soft cotton-like fabric to beautiful fine linen-like products. Hemp fabric is hardier than its natural-fiber replacements, and more comfortable to wear than its petroleum-based (polyester) competitors.

Hempseed is a source of a very fine light oil. Its amino-acid, essential fatty acid, and protein content rival that of any food. Like rice and beans, hempseed is a complete food. It would be a boring diet, but you could live on it for a very long time.

The hemp plant can be used for any product now produced from petroleum, trees, or fiber plants. More than 60,000 commercial industrial uses are documented.

Reasonable people can no longer disagree over the potential benefits of releasing us from dependence on foreign oil or from the environmental-concern litigation over forest-harvesting. No reasonable person can argue that "there is no medical use for hemp." Anyone who wants marijuana now can get it -- if they can come up with the money. So why is it still illegal?

Weyerhaeuser and Hearst don't want it legal. There'd go the value of their forest interests. Standard Oil doesn't want it legal. Monsanto doesn't. Eli Lilly and Upjohn don't. The dealers don't, and neither do most law-enforcement and other tax-funded agencies. And the politicians don't. In every case -- whether from ignorance, malice, self-interest, or misguided good intentions -- the status quo serves those who oppose re-legalization.

Hemp was legal, profitable, and beneficial to our society, until 1938. That was the year "Popular Mechanics" and "Mechanical Engineering" published articles entitled "Billion Dollar Crop" and "Flax and Hemp: From the Seed to the Loom", respectively. They heralded hemp harvesting machines with the potential of dramatically increasing availability of field-processed hemp. The forest interests (notably William Randolph Hearst) moved quickly to have Congress criminalize the plant.

Which brings us to the cost of enforcement. A hemp arrest occurs every 54 seconds. There are 1,400,000 people in prison in this country--more than half for non-violent drug "offenses". Do the math (it costs about $25,000 per year to incarcerate a person).

Concurrently -- and maybe more importantly -- there's the cost to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Virtually nothing remains of the Fourth Amendment. In court, there is no such thing as "unreasonable" search and seizure in alleged drug crimes. A law enforcement officer may "reasonably" claim he suspected a bulge in someone's pocket "looked like a bag of pot" (the cases in which he was wrong don't get noticed).

I agree wholeheartedly with the panelists that juveniles should not smoke pot. The ingestion of this marvelous plant should be reserved for situations indicating medicinal use. I also see that what we're doing to prevent abuse of the herb has failed and will continue to fail. Stupidity -- by one definition -- is continuing to do something which demonstrably doesn't work, and expecting it to work.
The spread of ignorance, lies and faulty logic is hardly a recipe to gain the faith and trust of those from whom we want it, and to whom the truth is easily available. I'll continue to work for the same goals (in respect to inappropriate use) as the panelists. But I choose to do it sensibly, and within the framework of the Constitution.