Comments on: Hemp for Victory!

Hemp for Victory!

digaman — Sun, 04 May 2003 09:16:18 -0800

"Hemp for Victory!" A USDA educational film from 1942 extolling the patriotic virtues of growing the crop that, a half-century later, over 600,000 people would be arrested for possessing. (Gotta love the official "Producer of Marihuana" license.) How times have changed.

By: krunk

krunk — Sun, 04 May 2003 09:27:45 -0800

Apparently GlobalHemp and Apple have the same web designers. That would explain a lot.

By: the fire you left me

the fire you left me — Sun, 04 May 2003 09:42:56 -0800

I wish Steve Jobs would run for President.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Sun, 04 May 2003 09:48:35 -0800

Umm... just being Devil's Advocate here, but the transcript of the film even says that you're required to have a license by the government to grow hemp, like many farmers today have. In that sense, no, the times haven't changed... you could still be arrested in 1942 for growing marijuana.

By: ginz

ginz — Sun, 04 May 2003 10:07:45 -0800

XQUZYPHYR is right. Hemp is grown where I live too. HempFlax. This kind of hemp has a very low THC %.

By: angry modem

angry modem — Sun, 04 May 2003 10:58:01 -0800

the two above posters are correct. Industrial hemp has negligable amounts of THC, and is in many ways not the same plant as smokable marijuana. The most common analogy that I've herad is that it's like comparing sweet corn to field corn.

By: skallas

skallas — Sun, 04 May 2003 13:53:31 -0800

Well, the times are a changin'

Hempseed and hemp oil, also used in the making of food products, contain trace amounts of THC -- the "psychoactive" element that makes cousin marijuana an illegal drug. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has been trying for more than a year to prohibit the use of hempseed and hemp oil in food products, and the agency recently published "final rules" addressing the legal status of products derived from the cannabis plant. But a federal appeals court has temporarily stayed the order.

[source]

By: angry modem

angry modem — Mon, 05 May 2003 05:13:46 -0800

They call them trace amounts for a reason. Should they ban water because it contains trace amounts of arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver and zinc?