New state law will allow farmers to grow hemp
Oregon is about to become the first Western state to permit its farmers to grow industrial hemp.
But there are a couple problems to be confronted before Oregon becomes a Hemptopia by the Pacific: It’s still an illegal crop, according to the federal government.
Local enthusiasm for hemp’s possibilities was also evident at a three-day Emerald Empire Hempfest, featuring music, speakers and other entertainment, that wrapped up Sunday at Eugene’s Washington-Jefferson Park.
Are these the same hippies who don't think we should cut down trees to build houses? Isn't it weird how they realize that you can indeed take a grown product, harvest it for use and then by replanting continue to have a supply.
If only these people would chain themselves to poor marijuana plants about to be harvested because by their logic if you keep cutting down the pot plants eventually you will run out completely.
7 comments:
Would the difference be that trees take decades to mature to a level that can be harvested and hemp only months? While you can't build a house from hemp logs, you can make fabric and pulp products.
Now I would think, as a principled and intelligent Republican, that you would direct at least some of your ire at the federal government telling a state what it can and can't do. State's rights, and all that. Oh, wait ... never mind. I see the problem.
As "Anonymous" says, there is a real problem when the feds violate the constitution by such things as prohibing crops grown for textile use. Sadly, the 9th and 10th amendmends have been pretty much ignored for a long time.
That is also treated in my Independence Day blog at
http://hallillywhite.blogspot.com/2009/07/independence-day.html
I have yet to see Miglavs make a persuasive argument (or any argument, for that matter) why people should not be allowed to grow cannibas, for whatever the hell reason they want to use it. "It's against the law" is not an answer ... the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages also used to be against the law in this country, and we all know how that worked out. Can he, for once, defend his position? Or is this just another case of the ostensibly "anti-government" Miglavs expecting (surprise!) the government to force everyone to conduct their lives the way Miglavs thinks they should be conducted?
Daniel, do you realize that your entire comment was based on the strawman argument of, "Are these the same hippies who don't think we should cut down trees to build houses?"
I have never known any "hippy" who advocated that we don't cut down any trees. Their beef tends to be cutting down specific trees (usually old growth), in specific areas.
But then, this fact isn't very convenient to your argument, is it? So instead, you just invented a straw man to slay.
Figures.
Straw men constitute the largest single minority group in Miglavia. They all are manufactured by Miglavians themselves.
Apparently Daniel favors the government preventing people growing the crop of their choice on their own land at the point of a gun.
Post a Comment