“Now That Weed is Mostly Legal,” reads the headline to a piece by Aryn Baker at Time, “Hemp Should Be Booming. But It’s Not.”

Why?

Contra Baker’s claim that hemp is “a close cousin of marijuana,” and not as useful as advertised,  it IS marijuana — the same plant — and it’s incredibly useful for making everything from paper to rope to diesel fuel to beauty and nutrition products.

In point of fact, major reasons for making it illegal as a “drug”  included lobbying by Big Oil (Henry Ford designed an engine that ran on hemp-based fuel rather than gasoline) and newspaperman William Randolph Hearst, who just happened to own multiple wood-pulp paper mills (and who used his papers to inveigh in racially charged terms against “devil weed”).

Now that both “marijuana” and “industrial hemp” are legal in many places, why isn’t the latter taking off?

If you have to ask why, the answer is usually “money.”

According to Leaf Nation,  hemp fiber sells for $250-300 per ton, while the seeds sell for 60 to 65 cents per pound.

According to Green Growth, the wholesale price of “cannabis flower” — aka “marijuana” — runs in the range of $1,200 per pound.

And as a farmer, you probably have to choose one or the other.

Both plants are heavily regulated/licensed.

If you’re growing “hemp,” its level of THC (the main “getting high” cannabinoid) content can’t exceed 0.3%.

If you’re growing “marijuana,” you’re probably optimizing for higher levels of THC — as much as 25% or more.

Since they’re the same plant, growing the two within cross-pollination proximity will bring your hemp THC levels up, your “marijuana” THC levels down, and expose you to double the level of intrusive government permitting and inspection inconvenience.

Quick high school business math question:

Would you rather knock down $250-$300 per ton, or $1,200 per pound, for the same product?

Pick one.

The only way to unlock the commercial potential of “industrial hemp” is to COMPLETELY “free the weed.” Government needs to stop regulating the THC content of,  and do away with licensing requirements for the sale of, cannabis.

Does that mean some people will use plain old Mary Jane, instead of expensive  boutique strains, as medicine or to get high?

Yes.

Just like they already are, only at somewhat higher cost/risk.

The war on “marijuana” was always dumb and evil — and it’s still picking your pocket in the form of higher prices for lower-quality products of all kinds.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

As I write this, I’m watching live coverage of former US president Donald Trump’s pending arraignment on charges related to his payment of “hush money” to cover up a sexual encounter with porn star Stormy Daniels.

Coverage of Trump’s legal troubles ranges from a focus on how “unprecedented” it is for a former president to be charged with a crime, to his other legal entanglements — a defamation lawsuit filed by a woman who alleges he sexually assaulted her and a Georgia grand jury investigation into his attempts to swing the 2020 presidential election results — to, among Republicans at least, cries of “witch hunt” and “banana republic.”

I find that last bit somewhat odd. While, technically speaking, “banana republic” mainly refers to dominance of a country’s politics by outside business interests, it also implies the exact opposite of what’s happening here.

In a “banana republic,” the political class generally considers itself immune to the laws binding mere serfs. Absent a coup and firing squad, no matter how criminal or corrupt a major political figure is, he or she need not fear prosecution.

While I’m skeptical of the details — district attorney Alvin Bragg seems to be reaching for a significant criminal offense to prosecute (keeping in mind that the indictment’s details haven’t been unsealed as of this writing) — I’d personally like to see the “unprecedented” become regular, and to be handled at the federal level.

Here’s my proposal:

On the day of each president’s inauguration, a grand jury will be sworn in to look into the year leading up to his or her election and any crimes he or she may have potentially committed during that time frame.

On each anniversary of that president’s inauguration, the existing grand jury will dissolve and a new one will be sworn in, again to examine his or her actions during the prior year.

The final grand jury will be sworn in on the day the president leaves office, and examine the outgoing president’s last year of office (even as a separate new grand jury greets his or her successor).

Each grand jury will be empowered to issue indictments where it believes a crime was committed by the president or anyone in the president’s administration.

In the case of subordinate administration figures, the indictments can be prosecuted immediately. Indictments of the president will remain sealed until he or she leaves office — but will be shown to the  Speaker of the House so that he or she can, if warranted, initiate impeachment proceedings.

EVERY president should live in constant fear of  future prosecution for crimes committed while in, or seeking, the office. Don’t want to do time in the Big House? Don’t do crime at the White House.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Global Internet Access. By Wassim Benki 0690. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

On March 23, Axios reports, Utah governor Spencer Cox signed two bills “aimed at limiting when and where anyone younger than 18 years old can interact online, and to stop companies from luring minors to certain websites.”

The laws require social media companies to “instate a curfew for minors in the state, barring them from using their accounts from 10:30pm to 6:30am” and “to give a parent or guardian access to their child’s accounts.”

Even ignoring the blatant unconstitutionality of both laws — both vis a vis the First Amendment and the reservation of the power to regulate interstate commerce to Congress, not state legislatures — making it likely they’ll be quashed in court, I have to wonder just how Utah’s Division of Consumer Protection intends to enforce these incredibly dumb ideas.

The bills are titled “Social Media Regulation Amendments,” but if Utah has truth in advertising laws they really should be titled “Amendments to Encourage Minors to Lie About Their Age and Learn to Use Virtual Private Networks to Hide Their Locations,” which pretty much describes the effect they’ll have if there’s any real attempt to enforce them.

Unfortunately, Congress also seems to be tip-toeing through the tulips of “social media regulation” in similar ways, from prospective app bans (if you think a successful TikTok ban would be the last such action, think again) to various measures for suppressing “disinformation” (read: Stuff politicians don’t want you to see).

And it’s not just an American thing. Globally, various regimes (including supposed “democracies” like India) increasingly arrogate to themselves the power to just shut down the Internet any time they find public communication inconvenient.

While there are workarounds for all this nonsense, and while each such episode encourages more people to learn about those workarounds, what the Internet really needs is a country of its very own.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be a NEW country. Any existing regime with robust telecommunications capabilities — perhaps a Caribbean or Pacific island nation? — will do, if it’s willing to put enforceable “separation of Internet and state” provisions in its constitution, set a nice low tax rate, and watch the revenues roll in as existing tech giants and ambitious start-ups abandon nosier and costlier jurisdictions (and those jurisdictions’ regulations).

Users would take care of the rest.

Short of shutting down Internet access entirely — and likely finding themselves overthrown — the busybodies couldn’t do much about it.

Get this done, Big Tech.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY