The Last Days of Legal Cannabis chptr 4




Chapter 4
The Last Days of Legal Cannabis

As you now know, the industrial revolution of the 19th Century was a setback for hemp in world commerce, due to the lack of mechanized harvesting and breaking technology needed for mass production. But this natural resource was far too valuable to be relegated to the back burner of history for very long.

By 1916, USDA Bulletin 404 predicted that a decorticating and harvesting machine would be developed, and hemp would again be America's largest agricultural industry. In 1938, magazines such as Popular Mechanics, and Mechanical Engineering introduced a new generation of investors to fully operational hemp decorticating devices; bringing us to this next bit of history. Because of this machine, both indicated that hemp would soon be America's number-one crop!

Breakthrough in Papermaking

If hemp were legally cultivated using 20th Century technology, it would be the single largest agricultural crop in the United States and world today!

(Popular Mechanics February 1938; Mechanical Engineering, February, 1938; U.S. Department of Agriculture Reports 1903, 1910, 1913.)

In fact, when the preceding two articles were prepared early in 1937, hemp was still legal to grow. And those who predicted billions of dollars in new cannabis businesses did not consider income from medicines, energy (fuel) and food, which would now add another trillion dollars or more annually to our coming "natural" economy (compared to our synthetic, environmentally troubled economy). Relaxational smoking would add only a relatively minor amount to this figure.

The most important reason that the 1938 magazine articles projected billions in new income was hemp for "pulp paper" (as opposed to fiber or rag paper). Other reasons were for its fiber, seed and many other pulp uses.

This remarkable new hemp pulp technology for papermaking was invented in 1916 by our own U.S. Department of Agriculture Chief of Scientists, botanist Lyster Dewey and chemist Jason Merrill.

This technology, coupled with the breakthrough of G.W.Schlichten's decorticating machine, patented in 1917, made hemp a viable paper source at less than half the cost of tree-pulp paper. The new harvesting machinery, along with Schlichten's machine, brought the processing of hemp down from 200 to 300 man-hours per acre to just a couple of hours.* Twenty years later, advancing technology and the building of new access roads made hemp even more valuable. Unfortunately, by then, opposition forces had gathered steam and acted quickly to suppress hemp cultivation.

*See Appendix I.

A Plan to Save Our Forests

Some cannabis plant strains regularly reach tree-like heights of 20 feet or more in one growing season.

The new paper making process used hemp "hurds" - 77%of the hemp stalk's weight - which was then a wasted by-product of the fiber stripping process.

In 1916, USDA Bulletin No. 404 reported that one acre of cannabis hemp, in annual rotation over a 20-year period, would produce as much pulp for paper as 4.1 acres of trees being cut down over the same 20-year period. This process would use only 1/7 to 1/4 as much polluting sulfur-based acid chemicals to break down the glue-like lignin that binds the fibers of the pulp, or even none at all using soda ash. All this lignin must be broken down to make pulp. Hemp pulp is only 4-10% lignin, while trees are 18-30% lignin. The problem of dioxin contamination of rivers is avoided in the hemp papermaking process, which does not need to use chlorine bleach (as the wood pulp papermaking process requires), but instead substitutes safer hydrogen peroxide in the bleaching process.

Thus, hemp provides four times as much pulp with at lest four to seven times less pollution.

As we have seen, this hemp pulp paper potential depended on the invention and the engineering of new machines for stripping the hemp by modern technology. This would also lower demand for lumber and reduce the cost of housing while at the same time helping re-oxygenate the planet.1

As an example: If the new (1916) hemp pulp paper process were in use legally today, it would soon replace about 70% of all wood pulp paper, including computer, printout paper, corrugated boxes and paper bags.

Pulp paper made from 60-100% hemp hurds is stronger and more flexible than paper made from wood pulp. Making paper from wood pulp damages the environment. Hemp papermaking does not.

(Dewey & Merrill, Bulletin #404, USDA, 1916; New Scientist, 1980; Kimberly Clark production from its giant French hemp-fiber paper subsidiary De Mauduit, 1937 through 1984.)

Conservation & Source Reduction

Reduction of the source of pollution, usually from manufacturing with petrochemicals or their derivatives, is a cost-cutting waste control method often called for by environmentalists.

Whether the source of pollution is CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) from refrigeration, spray cans, computers, tritium and plutonium produced for military uses, or the sulfuric acids used by papermakers, the goal is reducing the source of pollution.

In the supermarket, when you are asked to choose paper or plastic for your bags, you are faced with an environmental dilemma; paper from trees that were cut, or plastic bags made from fossil fuel and chemicals. We should be able to choose a biodegradable, durable paper from an annually renewable source - the cannabis hemp plant.

The environmental advantages of harvesting hemp annually - leaving the trees in the ground! - for papermaking, and for replacing fossil fuels as an energy source, have become crucial for the source reduction of pollution.

A Conspiracy to Wipe Out the Natural Competition

In the mid-1930s, when the new mechanical hemp fiber stripping machines and machines to conserve hemp's high-cellulose pulp finally became state-of-the-art, available and affordable, the enormous timber acreage and businesses of the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division, Kimberly Clark (USA), St. Regis - and virtually all other timber, paper and large newspaper holding companies - stood to lose billions of dollars and perhaps go bankrupt.

Coincidentally, in 1937, DuPont had just patented processes for making plastics from oil and coal, as well as a new sulfate/sulfite process for making paper from wood pulp. According to DuPont's own corporate records and historians,* these processes accounted for over 80% of all the company's railroad carloadings over the next 60 years into the 1990s.

*Author's research and communications with DuPont, 1985-1996.

If hemp had not been made illegal, 80% of DuPont's business would never have materialized and the great majority of the pollution which has poisoned our Northwestern and Southeastern rivers would not have occurred.

In an open marketplace, hemp would have saved the majority of America's vital family farms and would probably have boosted their numbers, despite the Great Depression of the 1930s.

But competing against environmentally-sane hemp paper and natural plastic technology would have jeopardized the lucrative financial schemes of Hearst, DuPont and DuPont's chief financial backer, Andrew Mellon of the Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh.
Since your not interested in the history or the hemp lets move forward to here
Since your not interested in the history or the hemp lets move forward to here

You are engaging in nothing more than mental masturbation here roker. I proved the point I had to make with regard to pot. You lost. I have no problem with hemp. We don't need to grow it here though because it would be putting 3rd worlders who have nothing else out of business.
I see

you are conceeding you cannot prove any of this wrong...thats what your saying isnt it?

And posted below is what you speak of your first exchange where you supposedly mopped the floor with me
Gentlemen, aren't you tired of this pointless back-and-forth pissing contest? It's been like this in every thread you two butt heads in for months now. It just seems as though neither of you is really debating anymore so much as throwing your posts at each other. You want to keep doing it, fine, go ahead, but it seems as though you've hit a roadblock.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." - Winston Churchill
No problem. From the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

In the study, researchers examined samples of respiratory tract tissue from participants who ranged in age from 21 to 50. To be eligible, the participants had to be in one or more of the following categories: Marijuana smokers who smoked an average of 10 or more marijuana cigarettes a week for the last five years or longer; crack cocaine smokers who smoked one gram or more of crack cocaine a week for nine months or longer within the past year; or tobacco smokers who smoked 20 cigarettes or more a day for the last five years.

The researchers looked at genetic markers known to be associated with increased risk of lung cancer. Changes or overproduction of some markers were found in a majority (NOT ALL MIND YOU)......of the study participants.

The findings suggested that tobacco was not the only smoked substance that set the changes preceding lung cancer development in motion.

The study also showed that habitual smoking of tobacco, marijuana or crack cocaine (waht ????) in combination could potentially lead to more cancerous alterations in the molecular makeup of cellular structure than single-smoking alone.

In other words.... if any, or all three, of these substances were used together.................there is a POSSIBILITY, that this MAY lead to more cancerous alterations.........Not if you smoke pot, If you smoke it, with the other substances too. IT MAY be more harmful....harldy conclusive anti marijuana evidence here

Dr. Sanford Barsky, co-author of the study and a member of the University of California, Los Angeles' Jonnson Comprehensive Cancer Center, said he was not surprised by the findings. He said any substance that is inhaled, regardless of chemical makeup, releases carcinogens into the lungs and throat.

See also:

Fligiel SEG, Roth MD, Kleerup EC, et al. Tracheobronchial histopathology in habitual smokers of cocaine, marijuana and/or tobacco. Chest 1997; 112: 319–26.

Robison LI, Buckley JD, Daigle AE, et al. Maternal drug use and the risk of childhood nonlympholastic leukemia among offspring: an epidemiologic investigation implicating marijuana. Cancer 1989; 63: 1904–11

Im not suggesting anyone should smoke marijuana while they are carrying a unborn child so this is just some common sense here dosent prove anything..... btw again- may, could, possibly, all words that dont PROVE anything

Fried PA. Behavioural outcomes in preschool-aged children exposed prenatally to marijuana: a review and speculative interpretation. In: Wetherington CL, Smeriglio CL, Finnegan L, eds. Behavioural studies of drug exposed offspring: methodological issues in human and animal research. NIDA Research Monograph 164. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1996.

Sridar KS, Raub WA, Weatherby NL, et al. Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at an early age. J Psychoactive Drugs 1994; 26: 285–88.

Caplan GA, Brigham BA. Marijuana smoking and carcinoma of the tongue. Is there an association? Cancer 1989; 66: 1005–06.

Please note that these are medical and scientific studies as opposed to the claims of "Jack Herer" (a man with no scientific credintials at all)

I didn't see where to contact him about collecting the 10K, but it is my bet that he will reneg on his offer.

No No go to jack herer tell him hes wrong about whatever it is you seem to think you have him on, and collect your money.....its quite simple The money is yours you have to PROVE, beyond the shadow of a doubt 100%....

That He is wrong and he will pay you ........why debate it with me? when all this money is on the line? I say your pretty much flat out WRONG!! Sorry buddy the stats above say it all PERIOD.... You take your lil blurb, and go collect the dough now.....................ohhhhh you cant because your wrong !!!

sorry Jack Herer is THE FOREMOST Authority on this subject!!
you are just some guy on the internet

all of his information comes from the federal government
Btw its a 100,000.00 challenge and here it is
And here is what was said right before you began your spin

I think that although Roker is stubborn and slightly provocative in this issue, Palerider just talks absoloute arse that he has just looked up on some government website in the last five minutes.

Palerider just attacks the way people debate this issue, and doesn't address the fact that Roker is actually defeating him in it at every turn of this discussion.
geee chumly.......................

looks like i posted the same thing you think you busted me on!!!!!!!!!!

and i posted it last night
chapter 4 outlawing of cannabis

why is this important to my case? Well because it will demonstrate how a conspiracy amongst captains of industry turned into a realit. it shows how lies were perpetuated upon the American people in order to prohibit the HEMP INDUSTRY from continuing

this all was done for PROFITS Marijuana was USED as the scapegoat,a host of lies began and perpetuated and STILL DO TO THIS DAY.....the reasons cited for the illegal status of marijuana today..................are all fabricated upon the lies from 1937 and this succesful coup of industrial magnets

its all built on lies the whole damn thing
You are engaging in nothing more than mental masturbation here roker. I proved the point I had to make with regard to pot. You lost. I have no problem with hemp. We don't need to grow it here though because it would be putting 3rd worlders who have nothing else out of business.

This guy probably should smoke pot. He really needs it.
Hemp is not marijuana

FYI if you did not already know:

Though part of the same scientific genus, Cannibus sativa, industrial hemp and marijuana are two very different plant variations. The most notable distinction is in the amount of THC each plant contains. THC is a psychoactive cannabinoid unique to the Cannibus species. This is the chemical that causes a physical and psychological reaction to the drug marijuana when smoked. Marijuana can contain anywhere from 5-20% THC, while the industrial hemp variety legalized for growth in Europe and Canada have a THC content of less than 0.3%. Industrial hemp also contains a chemical called CBD, which actually blocks the psychoactive effects of THC, making it impossible to get high from smoking industrial hemp.
Roker, have you ever thought that this is just a boring topic and that's why no one wants to debate you? Frankly, I just don't think this topic interests many people.
"The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) released a report on May 1 with data regarding cannabis tax revenue generated by states with legalization. Between 2014 and the end of 2022, the report shows that states had collected over $15.1 Billion in tax revenue."