Kerry and Cannibis

[littlejoe]

Assuming that John Kerry becomes the next president of the United States, one of the major problems he will face is to undo the previous administration’s dangerous and short-sighted energy policy. It will be a daunting task, but one that must be met head on with vigor and courage.

As a senator who has been a consistent defender of our environment, Kerry realizes the need to wean ourselves from the teats of foreign oil producers. This is why he has called for renewed investment in a sustainable energy infrastructure. There are a number of ways to tackle this problem, with the expansion of gasohol being the frontrunner.

But if we really want to solve our long term energy problem, President Kerry will have to step up to the plate and lift the sixty-five year old ban on the production of industrial grade hemp.


Homegrown Oil (Hemp Farming in America)

Why, might you ask do we need to lift the ban on hemp farming, when we have corn based energy programs in place? Well, the reasons are numerous.

Hemp is much cheaper to grow. It requires no pesticides or herbicides. The byproduct of this alone, is a much cleaner and safer environment, due to no chemical runoff.

Hemp pulp is a better biomass than corn or any other plant for the production of fuel.

The charcoal byproduct from hemp fuel production can be burned in place of coal, thus reducing dangerous emissions into our atmosphere.

By burning hemp fuel, we would dramatically reduce acid rain, as well as begin reversing the greenhouse effect.

Estimates by scientists indicate that, if only six percent of our land is used to grow hemp for fuel production, we could replace entirely the amount of oil that we import.

Unlike corn or other potential biomass fuels, hemp can be grown virtually anywhere on the populated planet. It can be grown in the southwest, or any other part of the U.S. which currently is unfeasable for large scale production of any plant.

The yield from the production of hemp makes it financially attractive to all farmers.

Energy products made from hemp can be made for a fraction of the current cost of oil, coal or nuclear energy, allowing for longterm, sustainable cheap oil and gas.

When hemp is grown, it takes in CO2 from the air. When it is burned in the form of fuel, it releases CO2 back into the air, helping to create a balanced system.

Hemp fuel is safer, eliminating dangerous spills into our environment, since it is biodegradable. It also has a flashpoint of 300 degrees, as opposed to 125 degrees for normal diesel fuel.

Now, hemp fuel by itself will never be able to completely replace the amount of fossil energy we consume. But hemp fuel, used in conjunction with wind, solar, tidal and hydroelectric power could save our planet by providing ALL of our energy needs.

Think about it; no more wars would be fought for oil. No more reliance for fossil fuel. No more ecologic devastation, due to oil spills or pollution. No more high fuel costs. And, we can save American single family farms!

So, when Senator Kerry becomes President Kerry, I, and I hope all Americans would strongly urge that the ludicrous ban on industrial hemp be lifted. The peak oil problem is real. It’s time to show some political courage and do the thing that just makes plain sense.

A Few Fun Hemp Facts

In the mid 1920’s, Henry Ford, understanding the need for sustainable fuel sources, constructed an automobile made from resin-stiffened hemp fiber, and ran the car on ethanol made from hemp.

How Hemp Saved George Bush (the elder)

When George Bush’s plane was shot down in WWII, the engine parts in his plane were lubricated by hemp oil. The webbing from his parachute was made from hemp fiber. The ropes that hauled him out of the water were made from hemp. The firehoses on board the ship that hauled him out were made from hem, as well as the stitching in his boots.

Links:

http://www.hemp4fuel.com/nontesters/hemp4fuel/challenge.html
http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/ddc/Fuel.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. Go cannabis!

This type of issue is the reason winning the Presidency is not enough, we HAVE to win the Senate and some House seats in order to be able to tackle controversial issues.

[plurality]

2. would be nice, but it's not going to happen

If Kerry even mentions hemp he'll instantly become Cheech as far as the mainstream media goes, and Kerry's too smart to let himself fall into that trap.

Oh don't worry, he'll be sure and toss out a few bones to the pro-hemp or legalization crowd during the primary or when asked at a house party by an activist, but rest assured it's all lip service.

[littlejoe]

5. How about he doesn't mention it, until he is president!

[plurality]

12. would be nice, but don't think it'll happen even then

Remember, once he takes office he's gotta worry about getting reelected, and looking like some crazy moonchild hippy by talking about hemp isn't going to help him on that front. Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I remember old Bill on Arsenio playing the sax and talking about how he smoked but didn't inhale yet giving that little, "You that did know I really did, and I'll take care of you." wink. Just like Kerry gave his little toke sign during "Puff the Magic Dragon" at his Peter Yarrow fundraiser. Yet after Clinton took office, pot arrests exploded. And yes I know, hemp is different from pot, but in the minds of most voters it's the same thing, and the thing that Kerry cares about (at least he better if he wants to be elected) is the perception most voters have of him.

[littlejoe]

15. I think it all depends on how carefully and responsibly he

approaches the subject, once in office.

If he can make the distinction between black market cannibis and industrial hemp fiber, he may have a chance.

If he can frame the history of the importance of hemp to this country, prior to the 1939 "reefer madness" hysteria, including the government's reliance on it during WWII, (the government suspended prohibition of industrial hemp manufacture for the war effort) then he may be successful.

If he can get endorsements from leading scientists around the world, then he may have a chance.

As I said in my original post, it would take political courage, but the time to act is in his first administration.

[plurality]

17. It would require an enormous amount of political courage

The problem of this issue, and you touch on it, is that it would require an enormous amount of voter EDUCATION. And the problem is politics isn't about education, I should know, I work on campaigns. And the first thing you learn when you start in the business is that you don't educate voters you find the ones that will agree with your message already and you target them.

Can you imagine the effort it would take to erase the decades of brainwashing that have been instilled in the population that that little seven leafed plant is Satan's representative in the world of botany? It would be enormous. I would love to see a politician take office who would have the courage to take on an issue like this, and many others that need to be addressed, but with the current crop of safe 'electable' candidates it will never happen.

[littlejoe]

27. Indeed, the last several administrations have done everything

in their power to distort facts and suppress information.

[Monte Carlo]

6. Maybe not, but maybe so.

If there is one silver lining to the dark cloud of Bush's War on Terror, is that the national priority has been taken away from the War on Drugs. I honestly believe that the whole nation is less hysterical about the drug problem than it was 3 years ago. With Rush Limbaugh, the once Tough-on-Drugs King, admitting he was an addict and going into rehab, I think the opposition on the Right to the liberalization of our drug laws has been short-circuited; it just isn't as hard as it once was.

Kerry has always been for more liberalized drug policy. He's come out recently and said that he does not support legalization of marijuana, but he does support a whole new policy to enforcement. I think he even mentioned Vancouver as an example. That would be a very big step in the right direction.

[plurality]

14. The War on Drugs is a bipartisan issue

How many veterans of the late 60's and 70's remember sitting around with their friends getting high talking about how it's only a little longer before weed is legalized? And how many of them now say, "We can't legalize pot because it's a gateway drug and it's much more powerful now than when I used to smoke it." Tons. Hell, my generation (born late 70's) has done the same thing, but as we get older and get careers and stop smoking we care less about it. It becomes a fringe issue, people start saying things like, "Yeah the War on Drugs is bad, but there are more important issues to talk about like Social Security, etc, etc, etc." Never mind that it's a damn big issue to the millions of people in prison and their families, but they're mostly poor so they don't count.

Sure politicians will offer us some lip service when we confront them about it, but in the meantime they'll continue passing bills like the RAVE Act or the recently passed bill that denies federal funds to public transportation companies that sell ads to anti-drug war groups.

Face it, the Drug War is profitable, and as long as Congressional hearings use the word consumers when refering to citizens it'll remain the law of the land.

[littlejoe]

16. Industrial hemp is different. It has no black market value.

It could be framed in a completely separate light.

[plurality]

19. I know this, but in the minds of the 'soccer moms' and 'NASCAR dads'

they're one and the same, and that's the only people the parties or candidates care about. They don't care about reeducating the populace on issues and starting a movement based on the newly enlightened electorate. Politics is a business and it's sold to the people like any other. Most businesses don't sell their products to the masses by educating them, they find existing wants and desires and target them, politics is the same. Granted we (DU) are different, we are more knowledgable, but we're a different class. I'd say the best way to think of it is to say we're like the stockholders, more educated about the products and the process. Voters are the consumers, they don't care about the process or what goes into it, they just buy the product. That's the way the game is played, and hemp has a tiny market share.

[littlejoe]

21. The problem with our country is that it has always handled long

term problems with short term solutions. We don't really tackle enormous problems with responsible solutions until they reach crisis magnitude.

The energy crisis in the early 70's is a prime example.

While Japan was introducing economy cars to the American market in the 1960's, we continued to ignore the world, and continued to build gas guzzlers.

But when confronted with gas shortages and skyrocketing prices in the 70's, American automakers were caught flatfooted and had to scramble to shore up a dwindling market share, by hastily introducing our own crappy economy cars.

And it has always been this way in America.

But for once, I would like to see a politician meet a growing problem head on with the courage it will take to buck conventional perceptions.

It won't be easy, but I believe it can be done. However, having said all of this, I'm not holding my breath.

[plurality]

24. I share your desire for politicans with courage

Unfortunately I think nothing short of a revolution will allow that to happen. We see what happens to candidate with the courage to talk about issues in an in depth and nuanced manner get, they get ignored and deemed 'unelectable'. There's too much money to be had keeping things the way they are now.

[tinanator]

23. not because of the "media"

because of pharmaceuticals, alcohol and tobacco. But hey, he has to represent somebody, right?
-huh, I forgot another of the biggies, the prison industrial complex.
Maybe if growers had a PAC?

[plurality]

25. they have them, but look there's no way they can compete

Granted this goes to pot and not hemp, but for all purposes in the world of politics they might as well be the same.

In Nevada you had a legalization measure coming up, the pro-legalization folks played by the rules, they donated money and campaigned like normal. For the anti side you had government officials coming out for campaign stops (illegal but how's going to do something about it), you have networks that give free airtime for pro-drug war bullshit but that sell air time (of course you can't even count on that anymore, re- Moveon). It's playing a fixed game, it's a hopeless endevor. And of course now you have laws like this one:

http://www.theaxcess.net/money_021804.html

The lawsuit is in response to an amendment to the 2004 omnibus spending bill sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla. It instructs Congress to deny local transit authorities federal funding if they display advertisements promoting legalization or use of any substances listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.

So now anti-drug war groups can't even get their message out.

[littlejoe]

26. There are a number of ways that Kerry could frame the issue.

1. It is an energy issue, not a drug issue.

2.It is also a foreign policy issue.

3. It is an issue that addresses the concerns and needs of a dwindling family farm base.

4. It is an economy issue. (Which also dovetails into the farmer issue.) We would have a healthier economy with low energy prices. The cost of goods and services would go down with lower fuel costs.

5. It is an ecology issue.

[sangh0]

3. Now there's an issue that will put Kerry over the top

and garauntee his election! :-)

[Monte Carlo]

4. The differerence between industrial hemp and marijuana...

... is like the difference between the poppy seeds on bagels and morphine. They are derived from the same species, to be sure, but they are two radically different applications of them. If Kerry were to latch on to industrial hemp as an alternative fuel source, he might do well to mention the analogy - if we can live with one such balance, surely we can at least contemplate another.

[Rainbowreflect]

7. Hemp is the future.

Paper without logging. Clothes with out the chemicals needed for cotton. And fuel.

[littlejoe]

9. Absolutely! Currently there are over 50,000 uses for hemp fiber.

[Monte Carlo]

10. You don't have to tell me.

Hemp is one of the most useful crops known to man, but we can't have it because some business asshole needs to protect their investments, or because some citizens refuse to see past their superstitions.

I'm certain Kerry knows all of this. The trick will be not so much what he says, but how he says it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Therein lies the problem

Do you honestly believe that if we shoved enough money into alternative fuel research that we couldn't have come up with a better alternative to gasoline by now? Of course we could've!!

So you're probably asking, "why the fuck haven't we done that!?" The answer is simple: automobile manufacturers and oil companies don't like the idea of someone cutting in on their profits. Should a new company emerge with this cutting edge technology, it'd start a revolution and guess who would be on the outside looking in? Oil companies! Sure, they could get off their asses and look for the technology themselves, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to keep the status quo. And why would auto manufacturers want to have to change their entire assembly lines just to accomodate this new technology when the old one works just fine? That costs a lot of money! So they both lobby against sinking money into research for hydrogen fuel cells, amongst other things.

Now, apply what I just told you about that to cotton growers. You think they want to see hemp legalized?? Hell no! The country is dependant on them and they'll be damned if they're going to let anything change that! Ditto for paper and logging companies. So in order to keep constituents happy and add a little cash to the campaign war chest, the politicians turn a blind eye to these alternatives. This is why we will never see hemp or alternative fuel sources go mainstream until we have a genuine crisis causing shortage on our hands.

[littlejoe]

18. Allow the oil companies to become industrial farmers. Let the

cotton growers grow hemp. What's the problem?

It's a whole lot easier, not to mention much less expensive to grow hemp for fuel, than to send geologists all over the world, looking for small pockets of crude oil. Then there is the great expense of extraction.

With hemp, it is just grow and harvest, then off to the processing plant.

Of course, the initial set up of the infrastructure would be enormous, but the costs could be defrayed through federal subsidies.

There is no economic problem that couldn't be answered.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. There IS one problem

The oil producers and cotton farmers don't WANT to become industrial farmers! That would cost them a LOT of money in changing their entire infrastructure. They have no need or desire to do that. Maybe it's illogical because they'll make a killing in this new industry, but they have no real incentive to take the risk. And since they're shelling out money lobbying congress, congress isn't going to force them to do it. See the problem there?

[littlejoe]

31. Yep. It's a problem. It will remain so, until we begin to have shortages

and 5.00 a gallon gas. Until the public screams loud and long enough.

But it is going to require pressure and leadership from the top as well. Both of which we have absolutely no chance of, until someone with the intelligence, understanding and resolve of a man like John Kerry brings it to the forefront of policy debate.

[mobuto]

8. Kerry already supports medicinal marijuana,

which was opposed by the Clinton Administration. He has promised to end DEA raids on medicinal marijuana users. He has succesfully led the fight in Congress to allow the government to grow marijuana for researchers (as opposed to experimenters, who get their marijuana elsewhere). His position on hemp hasn't been articulated - with all due respect its hardly the biggest issue facing America - but its likely to be in line with his liberal philosophy.

[littlejoe]

11. It's going to be one of the biggest issues we have ever faced,

if we don't embrace alternative, sustainable fuel resources, and right now! Count on it.

[DrFunkenstein]

20. Kerry Would Have A Holland-Style Enforcement Policy

You have talked in the past of smoking pot when you returned from Vietnam. What do you think of the way the pot laws are prosecuted today?

We have never had a legitimate War on Drugs in the United States, ever, and we won't until we have treatment on demand for addiction and until you have full drug education in our schools. The mandatory-minimum-sentencing structure of our country is funneling people into jail who have no business being there.
[]b
And every year, the number of people arrested for marijuana offenses goes up.

I've met plenty of people in my lifetime who've used marijuana and who I would not qualify as serious addicts -- who use about the same amount as some people drink beer or wine or have a cocktail. I don't get too excited by any of that.

Would you favor decriminalization?

No, not quite. What we did in the prosecutor's office was have a sort of unspoken approach to marijuana that was almost effectively decriminalization. We just didn't bother with small-time use. It doesn't rise to the level of nuisance, even. And what we were after was people dealing with heroin and destroying lives, and people who were killing people. That's where you need to focus.

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/nationalaffairs/featuregen.asp?pi...

In Holland, smoking pot is still illegal, but there is an official blind eye turned to it. This would seem a perfect solution for defusing conservatives that would freak out (with middle America) over immediate de-criminalization.

----------------------------------------------------

Here is something I found from a quick Google search:

MacCoun warns against using the experience of the drug-decriminalization states to make arguments for outright marijuana legalization or for decriminalizing harder drugs.

His research shows that marijuana use didn't increase much in the 1970s in the Netherlands when the Dutch police stopped enforcing laws against marijuana possession. But the government began allowing pot to be sold openly at coffee shops in the 1980s, and marijuana use almost tripled among 18- t0 20-year-olds by 1996, his studies found.

The Dutch experience suggests that not throwing drug users in jail is different - and has much less impact - than actually allowing commercial access to marijuana, MacCoun said.

"The Dutch have made a choice," MacCoun said in his congressional testimony. "Less black market activity at the retail level and less police intrusiveness in ordinary life in exchange for higher levels of marijuana use."

Advocates of marijuana legalization also cite studies from Holland showing that overall, marijuana use in Holland remains below that in the United States and that adolescent marijuana use is nearly twice as high in America compared to the Netherlands - with Dutch per-capita spending on drug-related law enforcement well below that in the United States.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n975/a09.html

[plurality]

22. the problem with this is that it leaves it up to individuals as to who...

posecuted/imprisioned. Now if I'm a smoker and get busted, it'd be mighty nice to have a DA like Kerry who wouldn't mess with me, but what about if I live in fundy land where the DA is some nutcase who believes that smoking pot is right up there with murder? I guess it's a few years of prison. These are people's lives, and we can't leave it up to whether a person's DA is cool or a fascist as to whether you are free to smoke or free to go to prison for smoking.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. As President, Kerry won't be in the position of a local DA.

He'll be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, the guy who tells the DEA, FBI, Justice Dept. and so on, where to place their priorities.

[plurality]

29. most drug prisoners are guilty of state crimes and held in state prisons

The federal threshold for marijuana is not crossed until you are caught with over 50 lbs. Anyone who has a possession conviction was convicted and is incarcerated by the state judicial system. Kerry has no control over that, unless he leads a charge for full legalization.

[Tactical Progressive]

32. Are you TRYING to get Bush elected?

Maybe we could have John Kerry do a few lines during a campaign speech. Or maybe shoot up during a press conference.

JFC.

[littlejoe]

33. If you had carefully read my post, you would understand I was

discussing what he should do, AFTER he became president!

[Tactical Progressive]

36. Little Joe, I'll be right with you after the election

But the last thing Kerry needs are special interests putting front and center each of their individual demands that Kerry recognize the validity of their particularly divisive issues.

If this got up to Kerry I would hope for him to repudiate it in the strongest terms and say hemp farmers should be imprisoned for life in Guantanamo. So why even ask? What good will it do now - anybody who has disdain for the drug war and all the bad that it represents should already know what Republican judges in office means.

[littlejoe]

37. It is definitely an untouchable subject until after the election.

[DrFunkenstein]

38. Are You Suggesting Bush Has Used Cocaine?

Kerry was asked by reporters to explain why he thought that questions surrounding George Bush regarding whether or not he had used cocaine were more substantively relevant than Gore's use of marijuana. Kerry, noting that Al Gore had already admitted his use of marijuana, said:

"(H)e (Gore) said 'I used it.' So that's not an issue... And I don't think Al Gore intends, you know, to make prior use an issue of other people, except to the degree that it affects public policy."

Pressed later on the question of the Bush cocaine rumors, Kerry laid out his thinking on why Bush's drug use, if substantiated, is indeed an important issue for voters to consider:

"The issue about George Bush is not the fact that he may have used it, said Kerry. "The issue about George Bush is, how can you, if you have (used cocaine), have a position that is so at odds in terms of being a governor where you send a lot of other people who may have done the same thing you do to jail. That's the issue. It's not a question of whether he used it or when he used it, it's a question of what his policy is today and whether that's hypocritical and dangerous."

The Week Online spoke with Kerry Spokesman David Wade, who reiterated the Senator's position.

"The Vice President has long admitted that he has used marijuana," said Wade. "Governor Bush, on the other hand, will say only that when he was young and irresponsible, he was young and irresponsible. But when Bush has had the opportunity to score political points in Texas by promulgating tough, extremely punitive new laws against drug users, he has been happy to do so."

http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/123/gorequestions.shtml

[cryofan]

34. weed makes you lazy and introspective; and then you work less...

...and when you work less, CorpGovMedia profits go down! BAD WEED! BAD!!

[littlejoe]

35. I think we're talking about hemp fiber for energy use.