Talk:Hemp/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents

Confusing

"Hempseed is an adequate source of calcium and iron. Whole, toasted hempseeds are also a good source of phosphorus, magnesium, zinc, copper and manganese."

"Whole, toasted hempseeds are also a good source of..." <-- This leads the reader to believe that he must toast the hempseeds to aquire zinc and copper. It should say that "Whole hempseeds are a good source of..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.96.197 (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


Two articles or one?

It probably should all be under Cannibus Sativa. If a person puts 'Hemp' in the search box, it could be redirected to the Cannibus Sativa story. But, in this story, reference should be made to Cannibus Sativa as a member of the Mulberry family. A peculiarity of the Mulberry family, although not only for the Mulberry family, is that its species can contain numerous, interbreedable, varieties. So, Cannibus Sativa, as a species, has the two varieties, hemp and marijuana. As marijuana has been bred for high thc production, which is mostly in the leaves, it cannot practically be grown with hemp. Hemp is grown very close together. The leaves are thin; the fiber is what it is bred for. So one cannot hide marijuana in the midst of a 600 acre hemp crop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Silver (talkcontribs) 01:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone has proposed to merge the article with Cannabis. The articles should not be merged; rather, this one should be dedicated to the plant, and the other to the drug. --Smack 22:34, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I split them, so I obviously disagree with merging them. This one should be on the plant as it is grown for non-drug uses. Cannabis should be on the plant, THC levels, range, morphology, etc. A new article Marijuana should cover the drug uses/legal issues, paraphanalia, slang, etc. This is how the words have historicly been used, even if there is some confusion about them in pop-culture/slang. The Cannabis article was too long with this info,also. jericho4.0 22:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
THC is in the plant, but so are many more substances. THC levels have to do with the use as a drug. DirkvdM 12:44, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
We can not avoid listing drug material as one of the herb's end products. Therefore two articles (Hemp and Cannabis) are more confusing than helpful. LaurelBush 16:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC).
Three or four or more articles seem now like a good idea. Laurel Bush 10:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC).

I am thinking now Hemp could be merged with Cannabis sativa, perhaps with the title Cannabis sativa (hemp) or Hemp (Cannabis sativa). The merged article would avoid detailed discussion of legal issues, including instead references/links to Legal issues of cannabis. Also, it would include material on cultivation for drug/medicinal purposes, but would avoid detailed discussion of health/medicinal issues by using references/links to Medicinal marijuana, Cannabis: Health issues and Cannabis (drug). Laurel Bush 16:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Cannabis is the most-recognized word for marijuana internationally, is it not? That is the official scientific word. Rad Racer | Talk 01:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cannabis is the proper word to use. Marijuana is far prefered over marihuana, but I recommend that word be used as little as possible. BTW, according to the "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937", the term "marihuana" refers to the entire plant, not just the flowers. Industrial Hemp is a special strain of Cannabis which is nearly free of THC. You cannot get high from smoking the buds, and it is used only for producing hemp fiber, seeds and oil. It is not "confusing" to have two pages as long as the Cannabis page makes reference to the hemp page, and the Hemp page makes it clear that the botanical name for the plant is Cannabis sativa (linking to the Cannabis page). --Thoric 17:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was written by Harry Anslinger, a son-in-law of Andrew Mellon. It was written on behalf of Pierre DuPont and W.R. Hearst. DuPont wanted to do away with hemp as a paper source, which he could not control, in favor of the chemical process he had to make paper out of wood pulp. So putting the SPECIES name in, which referred both to hemp and marijuana, was deliberate. Hearst, who owned a lot of forest land, got the people riled up (Reefer Madness) about Marijuana, so that hemp could be banned. It worked, hemp is still banned.--Jacob Silver (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis is the Latin and scientific name for the plant (not the drug), and hemp is just the normal English name for it. That's the plant (the biological bit). Then there are the different uses; fibers (rope, clothing), seeds (bird food, oil) and drugs (medicinal or recreational) (it is normal in English to use the word 'drug' in both senses isn't is?). Of which the drug can come in the form of marihuana, hashish or hash oil. And then there is the complication that the word 'hemp' is also used for other fibers. So there should at least be a disambiguation page for that, which there is, under hemp (disambiguation), but there's also another one, Cannabis. I suggest merging these two and using that as the entry point for all articles so that users first learn what's what, which gives a better basis for choosing an article. So the common terms like hemp, cannabis and marihuana should redirect to there, which means that the articles can not have those names (but that wouldn't be logical anyway because hemp covers too much and marihuana is too specific; an article on marihuana should also cover hashish and hash oil).

There may be a tradition of using the term hemp for industrial purposes and cannabis for the plant and the drug and to use the term drug just for recreational uses when it comes to cannabis, but an encyclopedia should clarify things, not reinforce misunderstandings.

I have, sort of, suggested that all be combined in one article entitled Cannibus sativa. But I was thinking as a scientist, and it not chiefly scientists who use Wikipedia. On second thought, given popular conceptions, there should probably be two articles, one on Marijuana, and one on Hemp. These two, different plants, are members of the same species, a peculiarity of the mulberry family, of which they are a part. The object is not to confuse people. --Jacob Silver (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, to get to Sisal from the Cannabis disambiguation page you first need to click Hemp, then Hemp (disambiguation) and then Sisal hemp. That won't do.

So I suggest the following disambiguation page, under Hemp (Cannabis) (or vice versa - is there a rule for precedency of common and scientific name?), to which hemp, cannabis, marihuana, marijuana and hashish (and reefer and misspellings like hasjisj and such) all redirect (this is largely equal to the Cannabis page, but under a different name, merged with the hemp (disambiguation) page and rearranged) (the bits in italics are comments, not to be included in the page):


'Cannabis' or Cannabis sativa is the scientific name for the plant Hemp, which has different uses, for fibers or seeds and as a medicinal or recreational drug (marihuana). The name Hemp is also used for other natural fibers.


I used the spelling marihuana in stead of marijuana (but changed that after the discussion below), because that corresponds better with the pronunciation (both in English and in Spanish). Also, it is claimed that the term comes from Spanish, but just try Googling the two spellings in Spanish language pages and marihuana outnumbers marijuana roughly 10 to 1 (almost 100 to 1 if you limit the search to mexican sites (.mx), so it's nothing to do with American Spanish). Yet another misunderstanding in English about Spanish :).

If you google ALL pages the ratio is 8:1 marijuana to marihuana. It is documented in several places that marihuana is the "Americanized spelling". The word is spanish for "cheap cigarette", and should only be mentioned as a slang term, and should not be used in any article page names (it can be used for redirection purposes of course). --Thoric 17:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I deliberately left out links such as herb and oil, because they muddle the overview; it makes more sense to first go to the seed page and then maybe from there go to the oil page. By the way, is the distinction between hemp oil (from the seeds) and hash oil made clear anywhere?

There's also an article on hashish, which I found almost by chance. This is why, ideally, everything should be on the disambiguation page. Or maybe it could be linked to early on in the Recreational Cannabis article. But it seems to me to make more sense to have the article on Recreational Cannabis deal with the recreational effects of cannabis and two separate articles on Mariuhuana and Hasjisj that deal with the way they're produced and used. But then these terms can't redirect to the disambiguation page. Another idea is to drop the Recreational Cannabis article and deal with the effects (medicinal or recreational) in the Cannabis (drug) article and then link from there to Marihuana, Hasjisj and Medicinal Cannabis (though these links should ideally also be in the diambiguation page).

There already are disambiguation pages for Manilla and hash (which refers to hashish).

I capitalised several terms, which makes the links not work. Are there rules about capitalisation and why don't the links work? For example, in a normal search in a text and on the web, capitalisation is usually ignored. Why not here?

So, the major changes are:

  • Merging the two dismbiguation pages in a way that gives a good overview.
  • Making clearer what's what (eg marihuana is not another name for the plant; it's the dried flowers of the plant).
  • Renaming the articles accordingly. Though I'm flexible when it comes to the actual titles.

DirkvdM 12:00, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

The genus should be capitalized, but the species is in lower case (I corrected those capitalizations). For wikipedia, everything starts with an initial capital letter, but will match either way. For subsequent words, capitalization matters. Usually lower case for later words is better. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Capitalisation for more information.Nereocystis 21:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Marijuana is a (well adopted) slang term for the plant. We should not use it as an encylopedic term referring to the dried flowers. The current world standard is to use the word "Hemp" when talking about the plant fiber material, seeds and oil, and to use the word "Cannabis" when refering to its use as a drug (medical or recreational). --Thoric 17:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, Cannabis is the scientific name for the hemp plant. I assume you don't contest that (like it says in Cannabis sativa: genus Cannabis, species sativa)). But then that term is already in use and you can't reuse it for a specific part or usage of the plant. That would be confusing. Maybe marihuana was originally a slang name, but it is so widely used that one can consider it a proper English word. That's how languages evolve. If we can't use words that were originally slang in an encyclopedia then what should we call jazz? (And there must be many more examples.) My English dictionary marks 'weed' and 'pot' as slang (in this meaning), but not marihuana. Also, you say that the word hemp is used only for strains that are grown strictly for their fibres and seeds. Which deviates from the strict meaning of the word. So now you follow the historical evolution of a word, whereas I want to stick to the original meaning. So, ironically, we switch reasonings.
But there's a difference. If we follow the historical evolution of the word cannabis as you see it (which I find contestable) then we've got an ambiguity on our hands (does one mean the plant or the drug?). And if we stick to the notion that the origin of the word marihuana is slang and we can't use it, then we don't have a proper word for the drug to clarify the ambiguity. But if we stick to the original meaning of the words cannabis and hemp (they're the same) and follow the historical evolution of the word marihuana then we've got a nice (and widely accepted) option for what to call the drug. And what you call hemp can then be called 'industrial cannabis'. Though I must admit I gave way a little in my proposal by using the term 'industrial hemp'. Oh, and in my Dutch dictionary ('Dikke van Dale', which is gospel for the dutch language) it says marihuana (with an 'h') is made from 'hennep' (Dutch for hemp). By the way, it doesn't even list the spelling 'marijuana', which brings me to the next subject (which you effectively win in the end (though for the wrong reasons), but I put up a good fight :) ).
In Talk:Cannabis#Proposal to rearrange the Cannabis articles you say that "Marihuana is the (phonetic) mis-spelling of the Mexican slang term marijuana (or also sometimes mariguana)...". That would suggest the pronunciation would be something like mah-ree-hoo-wanna, which is fairly in keeping with the pronunciation of marijuana in American Spanish tongue (though I suppose most people pronounce it as mah-ree-you-wanna). But when I look up both spellings in Google, limited to spanish, I get 280.000 hits versus 37.000 in favour of marihuana. And if I limit it further to the Mexican top level domain .mx (here comes the acid test) it's even 15.600 to 233! So how can marijuana be the original Mexican spelling if it is outnumbered 70 to 1 on Mexican sites? But, interrestingly, mariguana scores 12.400 hits, almost as many as marihuana. So if you want to stick to one of your claimed original spellings then we would have to go for that. Which doesn't seem like a good idea. Oh and an indication of official usage in Mexico would be the government sites (.gob.mx). Here are those results: mariguana 6500, marihuana 6700 and marijuana only 5 (one of which is in English)! However, when I Google these spellings in English for the tld .uk I get 140.000 to 715 in favour of marijuana. So I suppose you're right, but for the wrong reasons. Though I still want to sneak this one in: if I search for Spanish language pages in the .uk tld I get 187 to 54 in favour of marihuana. So it's a matter of language. In Spanish and Dutch it's marihuana but in English it's marijuana. Oh, and now I notice your comment hereabove. You say marihuana is often documented as an 'americanised spelling'. So is that the spelling still actually used in the US? If not, this is all topsy turvy; the claimed Mexican spelling is used in the US and the claimed US spelling is used in Mexico!
DirkvdM 20:00, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
If (as most literature promotes) marijuana is a Mexican word, then Juana would be more proper than Huana. Juana being the Mexican equivalent to the English name "Jane". "Mari" is a common variation of Mary. Marijuana is essentially the same as saying, "Mary Jane". Interestingly there's a Portuguese word, "marigu-ano" which means intoxicant (mariguano -> mariguana -> marijuana -> marihuana?) It is odd that "marihuana" is far more common on the Mexican sites... are you suggesting that "marijuana" replaced "marihuana" as the assumed correct Mexican spelling of a wrongly assumed Americanized mis-spelling? As I mentioned previously, if you don't limit the search to Mexican pages, the 'j' variation outnumbers the 'h' variation eight to one. There are over 7.2 million Google hits for marijuana as compared to your 280 thousand Mexican marihuana hits. Regardless, the word has a relatively short (100 year?) cloudy history, whereas the plant has been in use for all purposes for several thousand years. (BTW, is is not pointless to argue of the "proper" spelling of a slang term?)
Worldwide, marijuana is by far the more "popular" spelling, so it wins the popularity contest. The marihuana spelling is labeled as antiquated.
Cannabis sativa is the proper botanical name of the plant. Hemp is the common English name for the plant true enough, but neither are considered to be slang terms. It is standard practice in modern medical literature to use the botanical name when referring to the plant for medical use. The word "hemp" is primarily used to refer to the industrial uses of the plant fiber -- rope, canvas, sailcloth, linen, paper, etc -- for hundreds of years. --Thoric 20:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Agree. And I've installed the proper templates to indicate the Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts interest in that point in particular. This article should cover use of the plant as fiber. The broad topic of Cannabis plants deserves a wikiproject of its own, organizing and including all the various articles on related topic matter in one attractive place. --Winchelenator 20:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Medicines are drugs

The following is quoted from further up the page. It reinforces the notion that somehow licensed medicines might not be drugs. Also it assumes that unlicensed (illiegal) drug use can not be medicinal or therapeutic. (Medical necessity has been use successfully in England as a defence against charges of illegal possession.)


Cannabis or Cannabis sativa is the scientific name for the plant Hemp, which has different uses, for fibers or seeds and as a medicinal or recreational drug (marihuana). The name Hemp is also used for other natural fibers.


Also I point out that in the UK, at least, industrial hemp is a non food crop (as well as non drug): at present licensing arrangements do not cater for cultivation and harvesting of seed as a food stuff. Laurel Bush 10:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC).

It is simple, one of the uses of hemp is to produce medicine, tho this should be a small section linking to the main article on this particular use. HighInBC 15:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hemp for both fibre and biodiesel

From laurelbush1952@hotmail.com 2005 January 26th:

Defra seems to have hopes that the same crop can be grown for both fibre and seed, the seed being used as a source of biodiesel. (Defra is the UK’s Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.) This hope rests on a dwarf low-THC variety called Finola, currently under trial. (Seed for food is not on Defra’s agenda: UK cultivation licensing caters for hemp for ‘industrial purposes’ but not for ‘food purposes’.)
Hemp can be grown for many different purposes, but no single crop can serve all these purposes equally well, because different end uses require different crop management regimes
I identify two dimensions to crop management regimes, which are plant density and harvest timing.
I have little to say about plant density, except that high density seems to favour fibre crops while low density seems to benefit drug crops.
With respect to harvest timing, crop maturity has three important transitions, which are (1) between stem growth and flowering, (2) between flowering and seed setting and (3) between seed setting and seed dispersal.
Anticipation of the first transition is important for a fibre crop: fibre quality starts to decline as flowering begins. Anticipation of the second transition is similarly important for a drug crop. For a seed crop the third transition is obviously important.

a medium seeding density favours seed/grain production.24.72.26.37 05:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Arthur Hanks


veeery interesting how Hemp for Victory blames the decline in US hemp production, not on its own laws, but "cheaper imported fibers for cordage, like jute, sisal and Manila hemp"[1] (What made 'em cheaper? the Marihuana Tax of 1937, perhaps?)

No, the alternatives were better. See Tarring. During WWII, access to foreign sources was limited, and substitutes were necessary, but that was a transient problem. --John Nagle 05:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

From laurelbush1952@hotmail.com 2005 January 26th:

I believe most of the Royal Navy's sail-ship hemp was imported, because crop processing was labour intensive and therefore cheaper in Russia. I imagine US hemp imports were similarly exploitation of foreign cheap labour.

IMO, hemp's decline in the US starts with the abolition of slavery (domestic cheap labour) and the adaptation of steampower. By 1937 it was a relatively minor crop. The Tax Act certainly didn't help the situation. 24.72.26.37 05:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Arthur Hanks


the 1880 argonomic guide should be junked and replaced with something a little more current. its not really that useful as it stands.

I agree that the guide doesn't really belong here. Maybe just an overview of cultivation methods?jericho4.0 22:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

some good guides have been published by Canadian provincial governments in the past 10 years. they are not that bad, but could use some updating. for example: http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/crops/facts/00-067.htm . that's from Ontario.


Should we realy have a guide on how to grow hemp plants without even a warning that most countries will punish with long jail sentences, even death? - Anonymous

well, thats not the case in most OECD countries, including Canda and most of EU, where hemp is grown under license. as well, Russia, China and Eastern Europe have never prohibited hemp cultivation. so i would say "*some* countries will punish with long jail sentences, even death." - Anonymous
Who are these anonymous people? Maybe from a country where even talking about the subject can get you fried? :) DirkvdM 18:03, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
Rather than some step-by-step guide to growing hemp, in an encyclopedia it should be a description of growth cycles, fertilization, light/dark, etc. - Centrx 07:14, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed this from the article because it is incorrect, and I didn't have a source to corroborate a more correct version: "Fuel is often a by-product of hemp cultivation. One fuel would be ethanol because of the oils in the seeds and stalk of the hemp." For starters, ethanol is not made from oils, biodiesel is, but I have no source that suggests any biodiesel is actually made from hemp oil. For another, the stalks could be used in a cellulosic ethanol process, but those are currently only in research mode as far as I know. I suppose the stalks could just be burnt directly as biomass, but I also don't have any evidence that that is widely done. - Taxman Talk July 7, 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Ethanol production is in fact a viable aspect of hemp. In fact, Henry Ford had this perfected in the 1930s, but, because Andrew Mellon had interests in using petrol and selling GM products, the more pro-American idea of using American farm wastes for American energy was abandoned. Ethanol is simple to produce by the way, something we don't need studies on; high school students have this one down when they ferment bits of fruit or make their own beer. K Gibson, author of "Hemp for Victory: History & Quailities of the World's Most Usefu Plant".


here is a link proving that hemp oil is indeed used for fuel http://www.hempcar.org/

The link above proves experimental use rather than established use. Laurel Bush 12:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC).

Cultivation -- Bushels of seed needs more information

In the section Hemp cultivation, there is a section which says:

The proportion of seed that is most commonly employed, is from two to three bushels, according to the quality of the land

There needs to be a land area here, perhaps 2-3 bushels/hectare, or acre or square meter, or something. Does anyone know what this paragraph should say? If not, the paragraph should be deleted. Nereocystis 00:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In Canada, where hemp is actually grown for money and profit(not theory), its between 20-30 lbs/acre for oilseed and up to 70 lbs/acre for fibre-only. www.hemptrade.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.138.145 (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As advice about cultivation the quote from the 1881 Household Cyclopedia seems rather antiquated. The value of the encyclopedia entry now is more that of evidence of English-language interest in hemp cultivation in the 19th century than that of useful advice. Quoted at length, as now, it seems somewhat out of place in the article. Laurel Bush 12:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC).

I would also like to see some text devoted to discussing the low-thc hemp and how categorizing the plant based upon it's potential to create a set percentage of thc is a product of humanity's odd current relation with this plant. There are many, many varieties of hemp; indeed some which have the potential to create a high thc percentage also have the ability/potential to create useful raw materials. These are not mutually exclusive traits of the plant, but ones which mondern mankind has applied (and even genetically modified) threw a rather distorted perspective.

Cannabis sativa should be capitalized, it's biology

In the main article, Cannabis sativa is not capitalized. By the standards of biological binomial nomenclature, the genus is always capitalized. This is mentioned in the 1st paragraph of the wikipedia article. Yes, Cannabis sativa is the name of the commonly used drug, but it is also the name of the hemp plant, since it is the same species. Just as beet and chard are the same species. Laurel Bush removed the capitalization. Please recapitalize it. If you refuse to capitalize Cannabis, please explain the standard you are using which requires breaking with biological convention.Nereocystis 18:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the detail about spelling conventions in biological Latin. Laurel Bush 11:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Hemp style guidelines

I reorganized the main article a bit. I think that it is easier to find different topics now. Primarily, I changed the order of the text, but I also change the wording.

I suggest establishing some guidelines for this article. The current article shows evidence of many hands, and is somewhat inconsistent in style. I made some changes to follow the style. Please comment on these suggestions, and modify them.

  • Do not use herb, use plant. At least in the US, herb suggests the drug-related uses of Cannabis, whereas plant does not have that suggestion. The drug use of Cannabis sativa should not be hidden, but it should not be overemphasized in the hemp article.
  • Organize hemp discussion into uses.
  • Use British spellings. The Brits have put a lot of time writing this page. Let's honour their spelling. Use fibre rather than fiber.
  • Cannabis should always be capitalized and italicized. It is the name of the hemp genus, and this is the standard in scientific use.
  • Cannabis sativa should always be italicized, with Cannabis capitalized, and sativa in lower case. This is the standard for scientific usage.
  • References for claims are particularly important for hemp. Hemp has a reputation of being associated with drugs. To be taken seriously, documentation must be provided.

Nereocystis 10:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nereocystis seems to have created a major improvement in the article's structure, while raising some interesting questions about our use of language. Laurel Bush 16:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Herb or plant?

Although the article's focus is on hemp's non drug uses I have myself no desire to downplay or disregard the herb's drug/medicinal potential. And in the UK at least 'herb' should resonate with the word's use in the expression 'herbal medicines', which are generally perfectly-legal over-the-counter preparations. Also, the herb is not just a plant: it can and does grow wild. Laurel Bush 16:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC).

I agree with some of your statements; I don't want to downplay medicinal use. One edit of the hemp article, a few weeks ago, removed explicit mentions that this article is about non-drug use. This is misleading. However, using the word herb suggests to me that industrial hemp can readily be smoked. With the low THC plants, getting THC requires massive consumption of the plant. In fact, using herb suggests that the primary purpose of growing the plant is as a drug, and that the non-drug uses are merely a by-product of the drug production, perhaps a sham. Maybe I'm going too far in my interpretation of the word herb, but hemp really can be useful, even if it isn't smoked. Let the non-drug uses stand by themselves. Many plants grow wild, but I don't call many of them herbs. Do sisal or jute articles refer to the plant as an herb? Occasionally, but not usually. Therefore hemp grown as fiber should rarely be called an herb.Nereocystis 23:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biological nomenclature

On presentation of terms originating in the nomenclature of biologists I feel Nereocystis is trying to swim against the tide of English usage. These terms are more and more evident in common English, as a means of avoiding possible ambiguity (due eg to the same genus having a variety of different names). At the same time however some of the niceties of biological Latin tend to be disregarded, but this seems generally to be without loss of real understanding. And why complicate spellings with initial capitals and italics if, in context, the meaning of a word is otherwise quite clear? Laurel Bush 16:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC).

It isn't that important to me, except in contexts where it is clearly a scientific reference. Life becomes confusing when the genus is used as a common name. Cannabis sativa should probably capitalized and italicized. Cannabis probably doesn't matter. I may be over-reacting to the general public impression that anyone interested in hemp is a drugged-out hippie who is looking for an excuse to legalize pot-smoking. And, hemp-seed oil probably gets people high (yes, I had this discussion last night before writing my suggestions). There's nothing wrong with drugged-out hippies, but my tendency may be to go too far in the other direction--look (and act and be) scientific, find references to everything, admit when evidence is lacking. For example, list the protein breakdown of hemp seed, with a reference. I mentioned the above suggestions on this page before going too far, because I think I may be going too far. I hope that my reorganization of the writing makes sense, plus or minus the Cannabis issue. Please continue cricizing my suggestions. Laurel definitely has more hemp knowledge than I do, but I would like to contribute a bit. I hope to add information about the nutritional value of hemp seed and oil, if I can find a good source.Nereocystis 20:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As food

I drank some hemp beer from Bavaria in a legitimate and legal UK vegetarian restaurant. The article, however, states something along the lines of "Hemp growth as food in the EU is probably prohibited" - surely this is incorrect? --Oldak Quill 18:42, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the same thing. I know of a farm here in Southern Finland that sells hemp seeds, and quite legally too as it seems. I have been under the impression that hemp cultivation is not against the law if the THC levels of the plant don't surpass a certain limit. I am not completely sure about this, though. - Quirk 19:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The UK Home Office will issue licences for cultivation for 'industrial purposes', but these purpose do not include food. Hemp seed is however a perfectly legal food product on the UK market, and I often wonder where it is grown. It is unlikely to be a byproduct of industrial hemp cultivation, because this hemp is harvested as it starts to flower and before it can set seed. Also I am not sure that unlicensed cultivation of the herb is expressly illegal in the UK: unlicensed possession of cannabis drug material (THC content over 0.3%) is illegal, and cultivation of the herb is usually treated as being itself possession of the drug material. Home Office licensing is in accordance with EU regulations. It is possible these regulations do allow for licences for cultivation for food: if so the UK is not at present taking advantage of this aspect of the regulations. Laurel Bush 10:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Nutrition

I read, in the article, 30-35% of the weight of hempseed is oil containing 80% of the unsaturated essential fatty acids (EFAs), linoleic acid (LA, 55%) and linolenic acid (LNA, 21-25%) and I can not make sense of the percentages. 30-35% of the weight I understand. The other percentages seem to be referenced to nothing in particular. Laurel Bush 17:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC).

By the way, the UK does in fact allow hemp cultivation for food, and has done for some time. I live in the UK and there are many hemp food products made from hemp grown here. Paul Dean of Hemp Foods For You, Yorkshire Hemp, Mother Hemp, etc. Lately a couple has gone ahead with cultivation of 1,200 acres in the south of England. Hemp seed is the major use of hemp in the UK, as fibre is not processed here. Some amount is grown for medicinal uses as well, especially for GW Pharmaceuticals, a publicly traded company which has had very positive clinical trials. [ K Gibson, author of "Hemp for Victory: History & Qualities of the World's Most Useful PLant", contributor to the Journal of Industrial Hemp. Posted 5/4/05 ]

Cheers. I have actually consulted Defra spokespeople on this one (some time ago now) and I was given the distinct impression that although special purposes licences under the Misuse of Drugs Act are available for industrial purposes (and experimental purposes such as those of GW - not sure how cultivation for a medical product now on the market [in Canada] might be licensed), they are not available for food purposes. This has left me wondering just were hemp seed for food on the UK market actually comes from. Perhaps Defra has been less than forthcoming about what can and can not be licensed. Or perhaps my information is now out of date. Perhaps Paul Dean or the couple you refer to have better information. Laurel Bush 09:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC).

I have changed the protein content for hemp seed. You will forgive me if I trust the 20% figure provided by a USDA publication over that provided unrefrenced by a pro-hemp website.211.29.68.140
The protein content given by Callaway (2004) is approx 25%, not 20%, and is for the entire seed (with shell), which is not the form that is typically consumed (e.g. forget about finding it in stores, and it's not even permitted in the states unless sterilized). The shelled hempseed products that I'm aware of (Nutiva, Manitoba Harvest & Ruth's) all claim about 35% protein, but I can't find any peer-reviewed papers that say anything about this. I'm going to update the text to read 'Whole hempseed also contains about 25% of a highly-digestible [...]'. 67.223.237.167 (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Speculation

From the article:

The name marijuana is Mexican (or Latin American)) in origin and associated almost exclusively with the herb's drug potential. That marijuana is now well known in English as a name for drug material is due largely to the efforts of US drug prohibitionists during the 1920s and 1930s. We can surmise that this name was highlighted because it helped to characterise the herbal drug as quite alien to English-speaking culture.

The last sentence seems too random and speculative without sources as proof. I could just as easily surmise, for example, that drug prohibitionists simply needed a word to distinguish cannabis the drug (marijuana) from cannabis the fiber (hemp).

Should we remove the last sentence and merge the remainder with the preceding paragraph? --Qofcourse 01:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Major hemp producing countries

In "From the 1950s to the 1980s the Soviet Union (now Russia) was the world's largest producer", user:Boffy b removed "(now Russia)" because the Sovjet Union is not the same as Russia. Which is true, but it seems likely that Russia is now the major producer, and maybe that was meant. So maybe that should be added. Strangely, the section starts with saying which were the major hemp producing countries, but does anyone know which ones are? DirkvdM 07:25, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Yes. China, Canada, various EU nations (largely Spain, France, Germany), Russia. also UK, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Australia. some of this latter group is very minor. You can see stats for most of these countries up to 2005 via a searchable database offered by the FAO...long URL ( http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/form?collection=Production.Crops.Primary&Domain=Production&servlet=1&hasbulk=0&version=ext&language=EN) Note that Canada is not covered by this survey. I think it has to do with the fact that FAO collects numbers from Ag departments, while hemp in Canada is administered by Health Canada not AAFC. So it goes... in 2006 there was 45000 acres planted here. 24.72.26.37 05:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Arthur Hanks

Hemp is a euphemism

In modern usage hemp is mostly a euphemism. The article title should refer to cannabis. Laurel Bush 15:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC).


Botanically, you are correct, but commercially, the distinction is very important. 24.72.26.37 06:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Arthur Hanks

Hemp for housing

Re 70% of the Cannabis plant's total weight is made up of the 'hurd' or woody inner core. This part of the plant is THC free and can be used in housing construction. The silica leached from soil by the plant combined with unslaked lime (calcium oxide) forms a chemical bond similar to cement which is both fire and waterproof.
I guess this actually means that, when mixed or blended with lime, hurd material can be used to make a form of concrete. Laurel Bush 17:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC).


See http://www.lhoist.co.uk/tradical/index.html. Somebody may want to add this to the article - a mixture of lime and hemp 'shiv'. 78.151.245.185 (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nutritional value of hemp seed

The information you provide about nutritional value of hemp seeds(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp) states that 100g of hemp seeds contain 2277.5 IU of vitamin D. This seems extremely hight. I have tried to verify this information and cannot find any data to support it. Can you provide your source of this information? Thank you, Kathy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.190.226 (talkcontribs)

(copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science by Thryduulf 15:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

Origin of the name "marijuana"

I read, under 'Cultivation', The name "marijuana" is Spanish in origin ... I believe, however, the name may have origins in the Portugese of Latin America. Laurel Bush 09:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

Did you read all the sources? Do you find them to be most probably stating facts?

News about North Dakota & hemp

i posted a link about this news, if its not important I will remove the link. Chq 05:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Cost of hemp paper

"There is a niche market for hemp paper, but the cost of hemp pulp is approximately six times that of wood pulp[2], due to a slow digester/beater processing step."

This statement is dubious because it implies that the only cost of paper production that makes a difference is the effort required to extract the fibres from the raw material. Many other costs must also be factored in to the total cost of production, including the cost of all plant and equipment, the cost of raw materials, the amount and cost of the land required to grow the plant fibre, etc. By some measures, hemp fibre is cheaper to produce than wood fibre, particularly the amount of land required to grow the crop. Hemp matures in six months or less, while trees grown for paper take about twenty years to mature. I would like to see a more balanced comparison of the costs in the article. --B.d.mills 00:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Also, I would like to hear more about the cost comparison of hemp harvest to logging, and how this factors into the total. --Taobeth 12:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll fix it; professional writer without a job.  :O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.126.51.37 (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Re proposal to merge with "Marijuana": why? Laurel Bush 09:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

This was discussed here: Talk:Cannabis#Proposed_merger, the consensus was to keep as is. HighInBC 14:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The real problem with hemp

The real problem with hemp is that most of the enthusiasm from it comes from druggies. The hemp enthusiasts somehow aren't very interested in jute, or sisal, or manila, or bagasse, or kenaf, or straw, the other major coarse-fibre crops. Hemp today is a niche product, with 0.3% of the world coarse-fibre market. The leading hemp processor in Canada, Kenex, has a tiny plant. [2]. All the other coarse-fibre crops are huge industries. The article needs to reflect this. The "Hemp, the miracle plant" thing needs to be toned down a bit. --John Nagle 19:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

With a post like the one above it is hard to know where to start. The author does have a good point that hemp is not a "miracle plant" that is going to save the planet. Though, as we move to a carboyhyrate economy hemp will be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

As for "druggies" well, that's an opinion, not a fact. Just because people in the cannabis culture latched onto the issue early on people seem to think that this is a drug policy issue. It's not.

A large number of people and organizations working on hemp in North America are not druggies. Some of the organizations include the North America Industrial Hemp Council, Hemp Industries Association, Vote Hemp, Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance, Saskatchewan Hemp Association and Ontario Hemp Alliance.

As for Kenex being the leading hemp processor in Canada, they are not. They sold their seed processing equipment quite a while ago and they are selling their decortication equipment, too. Hempline is the leading hemp fibre processor in Canada. As for hemp seed products, Hemp Oil Canada is the leading processor.

If one is going to write negative attacks and opinion pieces like this in a place as authoritative as Wikipedia one would hope that the facts would support it - they don't. Cannabis 21:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well spoken. HighInBC 21:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The facts are even worse. "Ontario had over 800 hectares of commercial hemp fibre production in 1998 & 1999. During this time there were the only two hemp fibre processing plants in operation in Canada and they were in Ontario: Kenex Ltd in Chatham, and Hempline in Delaware. Kenex Ltd had a full decortication/scotching line plus a matting line. Both Kenex Ltd and Hempline were producing hemp chips for bedding. From 2000 to 2001 the Ontario commercial hemp fibre acerage dropped to about 200 hectares and to zero to present. ... At present Kenex Ltd. has shut down and the processing and matting lines are dissembled and for sale. Hempline is still operating and very active as the only Canadian hemp fibre pilot Commercial processing plant in Canada." Ontario Hemp Alliance, 2006. This is not a successful industry. --John Nagle 04:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

45000 acres planted in Canada in 2006, largely on the prairies, mostly for hempseed. www.avantipolymers.com started processing hemp fibre this year. more fibre composite research is under way, for example see http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?4038

Current usage does not accuratly reflect potential. HighInBC 13:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To say "This is not a successful industry" seems a bit over reaching to me. Of course you are entitled to your opinions and I'm sure someone out there even likes reading it, however please refrain from colloquialisms when addressing groups of people. Name calling is not to be tolerated and definitely not appreciated when you follow it with an ill referenced personal rant. Aside from you assuming industrial hemp in Canada is a good measure when that particular region has only seen industrialized hemp since 1998, how patient of you to give them than 9 years before judgment. Not to mention their large neighbor to the south has a little thing called the DEA that wants to investigate and test for trace amounts of THC in my new Sport Coat, Wallet, or Belt. Without having a major export market[1], the industry has seen slow growth, but to pronounce it flat out unsuccessful is rather bold and unrealistic. FWIW- Using Canada and not global production and consumption isn't a fair way to judge industrial hemp entirely. Testerer 05:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Paper

this section on paper really needs rewritten, lots of junk and irrelevant info.66.57.100.53 (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Dougmwpsu

I'm curious. I was discussing with someone and he said that there were surely other plants that were capable of producing paper of equal quality as hemp. "Why would hemp be the only plant with such properties?". Can someone inform me as to whether or not this possibility has been researched? --67.68.129.85 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many substitutes for paper production that produce as good or even better quality paper compared to hemp, however the appeal of the hemp plant which dates back to George Washington, is that it can be economically grown outdoors in all 50 US states. You don't see many cotton farms in Alaska. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.18.27 (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Making paper from kenaf also works, and is commercially available. But it's a niche item; like hemp, production volume is tiny. Nether kenaf nor hemp based paper is commercially competitive with paper from wood pulp. Paper from bagasse, the fibre left over after cane sugar extraction, is commercially successful, especially in India. It tends to be used for products like paper towels and paper plates. Bagasse, being a by-product, beats most other materials on costs. --John Nagle 05:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The quotation from Jack Herer abut paper production is rubbish. For example. "...use chlorine bleach (as the wood pulp paper making process requires...". A lot of paper is today produced without chlorine. All office paper in my nearest book shop is produced without chlorine. Jack Herer knew very little about paper production. Pollution from sulfur was a problem 30-40 years ago in the wood pulp industry but in in a modern pulp industry's is the pollution of sulfor reduced to less than 5 % of the quantity 1970. Compare [3] (Svavelutsläpp = pollution from sulfor per year). So why is he quoted as an expert on paper production and why quote him when the facts in the quotation is not true ? 13:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Dala11a
More errors in Hemp: "About 50% of the world's production of hydrogen peroxide in 1994 was used for pulp- and paper-bleaching, Wikpedia about hydrogen peroxide, compare that with the text about paper from hemp. 18:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Dala11a

and bagasse is a funny word besides —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

fuel

i see fuel is discussed in the sense of using its oil, i suppose by transesterification. I though the better idea was pyrolysis, given its high cellulose %. Im interested how efficient is it as source used like that?--83.131.128.57 15:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted back to 19 April 2007 due to formatting botch

An edit on 19 April caused much of the text to disappear into an unclosed "ref" tag, and later edits made things worse. So I reverted the article back to the last version with clean formatting. Please go forward from there, and watch those tags. Thanks. --John Nagle 00:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

references

there are references so I removed the tag. Specific sections should be tagged. 71.77.6.45 00:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Details of US Import/Testing

It'd be nice to see some more details about the testing of hemp food products in the U.S. and the legal THC limits. But my real question is whether raw, unprocessed hemp plants can be imported into the U.S. or if it has to be processed to some degree before importation. Furthermore, if a fan leaf from a drug strain of cannabis contained a low enough level of THC, would it be legal to possess? Bodhi.peace 18:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that under international convention it is the plant (and presumably any part thereof) which is prohibited (no matter what the THC content) except under licence for specific purposes. Different states have different licensing arrangements, but I imagine no state would allow unlicensed import of the raw plant, and the US may have no scheme allowing the issue of licences to import. Laurel Bush (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC).

Campaign piece

Arguments for or against aside, this article--at least at the beginning as well as here and there throughout--reads like a sale pitch or campaign piece for changing U.S. policy to catch up with the rest of the world. 140.147.160.34 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Wicking properties for base layer clothing

Does hemp have wicking properties as good as wool? If so, has anyone ever seen hemp underwear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagingmrherman (talkcontribs) 04:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself

It says no hemp is grown in the US, in the opening, but later says it's legal in North Dakota etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.239.211 (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically it is legal in North Dakota at the state level because they passed a bill legalizing the cultivation of Hemp. However, it is illegal on a federal level so North Dakota cannot legally grow hemp. For example, in California medical marijuana is legal but since it is illegal nationally the drug enforcement administration routinely raids establishments that sell the medical marijuana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.253.101 (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needed

At the end of the first paragraph it says : "...and plastics (which are petroleum based and cannot decompose)." taking about the uses of marihuana. There is no citation there which makes that verifiable, and moreover, there are plastics which are not made with petroleum and are biodegradable and not necessarily made from hemp. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a738151536~db=all~order=title http://www.materiales-sam.org.ar/sitio/revista/intema.pdf the information provided on the second link is in spanish, from INTEMA, a materials science institute (www.intema.gov.ar) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.148.90 (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

the chinese meaning?

the picture that show the Chinese character representing "hemp" is not accurate, the two "hemp plants" in the character actually means wood or tree in Chinese , not hemp. and the "roof" doesn't have any meaning in chinese, it's used with no association with shelter or housing of any kind. deleting that part. Grue.z (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

nutritional content of hemp seeds.

i checked the website cited and found out it's producer/seller's. the information maybe biased, could somebody get a nutural cite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grue.z (talkcontribs) 01:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Warning

This page really needs the neutrality warning tag on it. I have failed to find even one reason why Hemp is not used all the time. I know there are reasons for it, but for it to be a balanced article there needs to be the reasons it is not used. One would be that it's support comes from the counter culture, others would probably be that it is not as suited for things as people claim it to be. So anyways for a start add the "Neutrality has been disputed" tag, because this article really needs it, though I don't know how to add that, and probably can't anyways. 68.36.50.233 (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Added neutrality tag. There are some real problems. For example, the lead paragraph says "Canadian hemp seed exports surged 300% last year." Checking the reference, total Canadian hemp exports were something like $1.5 million, which is tiny. (By comparison, Canada exports about $1 billion in paper pulp and somewhere upwards of $10 billion in wheat.) In fact, Canadian hemp production fluctuates widely from year to year. (Huge drop from 1999 to 2001.) The article gives the false impression this is a growth industry. --John Nagle (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for this. It is damn near impossible to find a website that does not support hemp. Google comes up only with hemp supporters no matter what I do. I can't even find a website saying hemp is having problems being instated because its major supporters are marijuana activists. This is incredibly frustrating. Chitchin13 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a neutral analysis from the European Union's farm policy unit: Report From the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the flax and hemp sector. The EU was subsidizing hemp and flax production from 1996 to 2007, and this paper discusses the decision to drop the subsidy on short-fibre crops, which included hemp. "The joint working document shows the decline of the hemp area to less than 15 000 ha, while straw production remains relatively stable. The main scutching capacity for hemp straw is situated in around 10 sites in France, UK, Germany, Poland (wood and flax fibres for insulation materials) and the Czech Republic (fibres for paper industry). In 2006, these plants processed 86 685 tonnes of hemp straw into 22 865 tonnes of fibre, of which around 75% is used in the paper industry. This traditional market is mature and looks relatively stable in the long run. Composite materials (20%) and insulation material (5%) represent a growing outlet. Hemp fibre has qualitative advantages over fibreglass, but production is not high or stable enough to make it a major player in the sector. While other new applications have been developed for hemp shives (cosmetics, omega-rich oil) and for the whole plant (concrete, biomass), these projects remain small, often lack competitiveness and currently remain dependent on public support." So that's the EU view; no legality problems, some subsidies, and it's still a niche product. --John Nagle (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I've seen some information around (forget where atm) that had some reasons. First of all, specialized (rare, expensive) machinery is needed to separate the hemp fiber from the stem, keeping hemp fiber expensive even though the plant can be produced cheaply. Also, the USA does not like to import any hemp products. It is quite easy to find reports and complaints of hemp producers having difficulty exporting their products to the USA. --Thoric (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is good to have you guys on this topic. With some effort, you may eventually find those putative problems with hemp, which for now seem to be mostly connected with anti-cannabis politics that began as an aggressive propaganda campaign from North America about 85 years ago, and continues to this day. This has left us all with a very poor understanding of this useful crop, which is only now beginning to be understood by some in the West. Yes, certainly some productive changes in Canada in the last decade, but the USA can still apparently afford to drag its collective feet on this issues for a while longer. Admittedly, the "industry", such as it is, has not emerged out of cool, calculated rationality. Actually, it must be hard to rationalize when one does not know if growing permits will be granted in time for the sowing season from one year to the next, for example, and similar problems in the early days with Health Canada. Even today, it is Health Canada and not Ag Canada that administers the process. I hope you can see how this has not been the typical process of production and development enjoyed by most other crops. Just a few practical comments, especially on the EU report mentioned above; the EU still does subsidize some hemp varieties, especially from France for fiber production, but the subsidy now comes under the so-called Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and is paid to all eligible crops, not just hemp. Without this subsidy, the unprofitable production of hemp fiber in the EU would come to a grinding halt, as hemp fiber (pulp) is much cheaper from China. And yet, the EU has never been too keen on giving a subsidy for hemp grain production, and has used illogical excuses to removed oilseed hemp from the official list of subsidized hemp varieties, which may at least partly explain why the hempseed food scene in the EU has been so slow to emerge when compared to Canada (which pays no subsidies for either fiber or grain). Of course, these potential feed and food markets will remain underdeveloped for hempseed in the EU under these conditions. The grain is the source of those omega-rich oils, not the shives (as indicated above, perhaps inadvertantly), and the seed also contains a high quality protein. It should also be noted that food, unlike fiber from hemp, requires no retooling. In other words, this nutritious seed can be harvested and processed like any other grain. The USA is the largest market for Canadian hemp foods today; no problem there! It seems that the initial teething problems for some US authorities a few years back, and subsequent court actions that spanked some sense into them, have helped to encourage this trade. Yes, there are some problems with hemp, but they are mostly of human derivation and not botanical. And I do agree that some of this article could be revised a bit and become more factual (neutral, if you like) by separating the hemp from the hype. Misinformation really helps no one here, and we've already had several generations of it.(Jace1 (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

Image:Hemp-rope.jpg

This appears to me to be manila hemp rather than hemp. Manila hemp rope is exceedingly common in the US, but hemp rope is rare.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hemp as Mop Crop

We need to add another section to uses - as a mop crop. It can be used to purify water as an alternative to chemical processing. Cf: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s985585.htm or google "hemp mop crop" for more information. PhilLiberty (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

US POV

While the US has been one of the most anti-hemp countries, this article is still overly US POV.

eg: "Hemp has been written about in newspapers and magazines across the country, though few people know about hemp and its various benefits and uses."

I'm not suggesting that the US hasn't been overly involved in the history of the plant, but, that was the past. Little has actually changed in the US in decades, while progress has been made in many countries regarding this plant. Therefore this article should include more "Hemp industry in Germany (et al)", and less "Still banned in the US".68.148.123.76 (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Harmfulness Citation

I have a link that could be used as a citation for this:

"Strong opposition to trace amounts of THC, a chemical shown by scientific research to be less harmful"

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext?_eventId=login Requires free registration, but it links to a study done by surveying experts to determine the harmfulness of several drugs. Sorry, I don't know how to add it myself so I'll leave it here. 97.104.50.255 (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Directional message atop the page

"This article is about the cultivation and uses of industrial hemp, not its psychoactive variant, Cannabis (drug). For the biology of the plant, see Cannabis. For other uses of the word hemp, see Hemp (disambiguation). "

These 2 sentences suggest hemp is different from cannabis.

When the plant is not psychoactive, it is still the same plant. Although the word hemp may be used often for industrial strains, it is a Cannabis sativa sativa strain cultivated for non-psychoactive industrial use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spazed (talkcontribs) 12:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just Cannabis sativa will do (no need for the extra "sativa", which means cultivated). A variety is (or is not) psychoactive, depending on its content of psychoactive components, which is typically THC in this case. The production of THC, in relation to other cannabinoids such as CBD, is genetically controlled. The total amount of THC for a particular chemovar is further influenced by the age and sex of a maturing plant, and also the growing environment. Simply growing a drug variety for the intent of industrial purposes is not enough to alter its genetic predisposition, nor can an industrial hemp variety be used to produce appreciable amounts of THC.Jace1 (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence made of Hemp...Not

I deleted this reference. The Declaration of Independence is not on hemp paper. There is no historical evidence that any drafts of the Declaration of Independence were ever on hemp paper. The only evidence of this are hundreds of pro-hemp websites that essentially have the same quote and quote each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.150.202 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope the unsigned editor, above, will reconsider and repost this deletion, before I or someone else does. The reasoning for this claim is deductive, in other words, hemp was the common paper in that place and at that time, and was especially used for important documents. It may have also contained some fiber from recycled cotton rags, but hemp would have been the main plant fiber to produce paper or bind recycled rags. It is not vermilion, which is another material that is and has been reserved for special documents. If a source cannot be found to say this is not hemp, then it is certainly most likely to be hemp, or at lease mostly hemp. Some readers might also be surprised to know that until recently hemp was an important component of all US paper money, until Ronald Reagan had it removed, and introduced cotton paper money. Have a look at any bill from the mid to late 1980s and see how the ink runs and how quickly the printing quality degraded when compared with paper bills from the late 1970s (if you can find some). Now, of course, we have these paper/plastic notes in the US that were required to replace the cotton notes, which were so easy to reproduce illegally.Jace1 (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

US Government issued paper money is 75% cotton, 25% linen, and has been cotton/linen at least back to 1862.[4] The big change in the 1970s was the conversion from flat-plate presses to rotary presses. --John Nagle (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for this, John? Also keep in mind that historically "linen" is often used as a term to describe both flax and hemp fibers. The latter (hemp) is much more durable and therefore desirable for paper money.Jace1 (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course. Notice the link above. That's a link to a Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco article "A History of Our Nation's Money". --John Nagle (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

Shelled Hemp Seeds

Shelled Hemp Seeds is a new article. Some of the content there reads like ad copy. Some of it is supported by unreliable sources (WP:RS). Some of it repeats what is here. That article cites [5] to claim that

Unlike flaxseed oil, hempseed oil can be used continuously without developing a 
deficiency or other imbalance of EFAs. 

I only have access to the abstract, and I cannot see how the abstract supports this assertion. Can someone with more knowledge merge any gems from Shelled Hemp Seeds into this article? Right now, I think Hemp#Food is a good fit -- I don't think adding every good passage from Shelled Hemp Seeds will make the section too big.

That's just my uninformed opinion, though. I just happened to run across the article, and thought regulars here would be the experts on hemp products. --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, good idea. MuffledThud (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The original text was correct, and it would not be apparent from the abstract. In other words, one would need to read through the article to get to this point. It is probably relevant, as the oil content in shelled hempseed is quite high. However, do note that this reference number is 15 in the article, yet the above #4 does link to the correct article by Schwab et al. Jace1 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hemp Oil

The hemp oil article mostly seems to contain information that is already here. I think any additional good passages would fit here. --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Hemp(seed) oil is a food, and offers a substantially different discussion. Moreover, it would be useful to break up this article into various topics to help dissipate the discussion on drug-Cannabis. Keeping it all together is, obviously, messy. Please reconsider your position.Jace1 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello good work guys I just think the hemp oil page is alright if it has a link atleast to the food nutritional aspects of the rest of the sered it came from as it is apropos and wikidian no? ha ha thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.255.113 (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hemp milk

How about merging that here too? Nerfari (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hemp milk is also a food, again, like hempseed oil, it comes from the seed. Why not have both "hemp food" and "hemp fiber" articles, in addition to a more general hemp article, where people can continue to discuss the history of hemp and its political/botanical relationships to drug-Cannabis? Jace1 (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hemp milk article formerly said: Hemp milk is a beverage made from hemp. It is a stable emulsion of oil, water and protein. Hemp milk is nutritionally similar to cow's milk, and contains about the same proportion of protein, fats and carbohydrates. While it naturally has about the same amount of protein as cow's milk and is a source of complete protein, it does not have the same amino acid profile. Unlike cow's milk it has little saturated fat and no cholesterol. Natural hemp milk contains little digestible calcium as it is bound to the hemp's pulp, which is insoluble in humans. To counter this, many manufacturers enrich their products with calcium carbonate available to human digestion. Since hemp doesn't contain galactose, a product of lactose breakdown, it can safely replace breast milk in children with galactosemia. Due to the high content of unsaturated oils, hemp milk may turn rancid if stored improperly.

Now, it is a redirect to Hemp#Food --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hemp Oil

Hello, it has been a while since I did any work on Wiki - I have forgot my log in info and all the etiquette. Sorry. However, I have reviewed the full length article by Schwab et al and I don't think it supports the statement "Unlike flaxseed oil, hempseed oil can be used continuously without developing a deficiency or other imbalance of EFAs." Both oils change the serum fatty acid profile, but "imbalance" is not the right word. It is an inappropriately loaded word. However Hemp seed oil absolutely deserves it's own entry, there is an increasing interest both in the scientific and lay community about the possible health benefits of hemp seed oil, as a seperate topic from all other hemp topics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.43.165 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have the Schwab et al. article in front of me now. Be sure to note the change in values for GLA after HSO vs FO in Tables 3&4, relative to baseline values; significantly increased GLA after HSO (not great surprise there, as GLA is present in HSO) and significantly decreased GLA after FO. So, yes, the high levels of dietary ALA in FO compete with LA for access to delta-6-desaturase, the net effect being a decreased production of GLA after over feeding with FO. If "imbalance" is not the best word, then what would you suggest? The biochemistry is clear enough. Yes?Jace1 (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Household Cyclopedia

I removed the following from the article. Just because it is in the public domain does not mean that it should be copied and pasted into the article. If anything is worth referencing it should be merged into the rest. Note also WP:NOT#HOWTO - a lot of this is concerned with how to grow hemp. Herbal Hi (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

From the 1881 Household Cyclopedia:

Extended content
The soils most suited to the culture of this plant are those of the deep, black, putrid vegetable kind, that are low, and rather inclined to moisture, and those of the deep mellow, loamy, or sandy descriptions. The quantity of produce is generally much greater on the former than on the latter; but it is said to be greatly inferior in quality. It may, however, be grown with success on lands of a less rich and fertile kind by proper care and attention in their culture and preparation.
In order to render the grounds proper for the reception of the crop, they should be reduced into a fine mellow state of mold, and be perfectly cleared from weeds, by repeated ploughings. When it succeeds grain crops, the work is mostly accomplished by three ploughings, and as many harrowings: the first being given immediately after the preceding crop is removed, the second early in the spring, and the last, or seed earth, just before the seed is to be put in. In the last ploughing, well rotted manure, in the proportion of fifteen or twenty, or good compost, in the quantity of twenty-five or thirty-three horse-cart loads, should be turned into the land; as without this it is seldom that good crops can be produced. The surface of the ground being left perfectly flat, and as free from furrows as possible; as by these means the moisture is more effectually retained, and the growth of the plants more fully promoted.
It is of much importance in the cultivation of hemp crops that the seed be new, and of a good quality, which may in some measure be known by its feeling heavy in the hand, and being of a bright shining color.
The proportion of seed that is most commonly employed, is from two to three bushels [per acre], according to the quality of the land; but, as the crops are greatly injured by the plants standing too closely together, two bushels, or two bushels and a half may be a more advantageous quantity.
As the hemp plant is extremely tender in its early growth, care should be taken not to put the seed into the ground at so early a period, as that it may be liable to be injured by the effects of frost; nor to protract the sowing to so late a season as that the quality of the produce may be effected. The best season, on the drier sorts of land in the southern districts, is as soon as possible after the frosts are over in April; and, on the same descriptions of soil, in the more northern ones, towards the close of the same month or early in the ensuing one.
The most general method of putting crops of this sort into the soil is the broadcast, the seed being dispersed over the surface of the land in as even a manner as possible, and after covered by means of a very light harrowing. In many cases, however, especially when the crops are to stand for seed, the drill method in rows, at small distances, might be had recourse to with advantage; as, in this way, the early growth of the plants would be more effectually promoted, and the land be kept in a more clean and perfect state of mould, which are circumstances of importance in such crops. In whatever method the seed is put in, care must constantly be taken to keep the birds from it for some time after.
This sort of crop is frequently cultivated on the same piece of ground for a great number of years, without any other kind intervening; but, in such cases, manure must be applied with almost every crop, in pretty large proportions, to prevent the exhaustion that must otherwise take place. It may be sown after most sorts of grain crops, especially where the land possesses sufficient fertility, and is in a proper state of tillage.
As hemp, from its tall growth and thick foliage, soon covers the surface of the land, and prevents the rising of weeds, little attention is necessary after the seed has been put into the ground, especially where the broadcast method of sowing is practiced; but, when put in by the drill machine, a hoeing or two may be had recourse to with advantage in the early growth of the crop.
In the culture of this plant, it is particularly necessary that the same piece of land grows both male and female, or what is sometimes denominated simple hemp. The latter kind contains the seed.
When the grain is ripe (which is known by its becoming of a whitish-yellow color, and a few of the leaves beginning to drop from the stems); this happens commonly about thirteen or fourteen weeks from the period of its being sown, according as the season may be dry or wet (the first sort being mostly ripe some weeks before the latter), the next operation is that of taking it from the ground; which is effected by pulling it up by the roots, in small parcels at a time, by the hand, taking care to shake off the mold well from them before the handful are laid down. In some districts, the whole crop is pulled together, without any distinction being made between the different kinds of hemp; while, in others, it is the practice to separate and pull them at different times, according to their ripeness. The latter is obviously the better practice; as by pulling a large proportion of the crop before it is in a proper state of maturity, the quantity of produce must not only be considerably lessened, but its quality greatly injured by being rendered less durable.
After being thus pulled, it is tied up in small parcels, or what are sometimes termed baits.
Where crops of this kind are intended for seeding, they should be suffered to stand till the seed becomes in a perfect state of maturity, which is easily known by the appearance of it on inspection. The stems are then pulled and bound up, as in the other case, the bundles being set up in the same manner as grain, until the seed becomes so dry and firm as to shed freely. It is then either immediately threshed out upon large cloths for the purpose in the field, or taken home to have the operation performed after.
The hemp, as soon as pulled, is tied up in small bundles, frequently at both ends.
It is then conveyed to pits, or ponds of stagnant water, about six or eight feet in depth, such as have soil with lots of clay is in general preferred, and deposited in beds, according to their size, and depth, the small bundles being laid both in a straight direction and crosswise of each other, so as to bind perfectly together; the whole, being loaded with timber, or other materials, so as to keep the beds of hemp just below the surface of the water.
It is not usual to water more than four or five times in the same pit, until it has been filled with water. Where the ponds are not sufficiently large to contain the whole of the produce at once, it is the practice to pull the hemp only as it can be admitted into them, it being thought disadvantageous to leave the hemp upon the ground after being pulled. It is left in these pits four, five, or six days, or even more, according to the warmth of the season and the judgment of the operator, on his examining whether the hemp like material readily separates from the reed or stem; and then taken up and conveyed to a pasture field which is clean and even, the bundles being loosened and spread out thinly, stem by stem, turning it every second or third day, especially in damp weather, to prevent its being injured by worms or other insects. It should remain in this situation for two, three, four, or more weeks, according to circumstances, and be then collected together when in a perfectly dry state, tied up into large bundles, and placed in some secure building until an opportunity is afforded for breaking it, in order to separate the hemp. By this means the process of grassing is not only shortened, but the more expensive ones of breaking, scutching, and bleaching the yarn, rendered less violent and troublesome.
After the hemp has been removed from the field it is in a state to be broken and swingled, operations that are mostly performed by common laborers, by means of machinery for the purpose, the produce being tied up in stones. The refuse collected in the latter process is denominated sheaves, and is in some districts employed for the purposes of fuel. After having undergone these different operations, it is ready for the purposes of the manufacturer.

Jack Herer - self published source

I removed Jack Herer as a source. LC lists his book as being published by "Hemp Publications"[6], which appears to sell only through the author's web site.[7]. --John Nagle (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And this somehow negates the content? Not! Seems a bit like paternalistic censorship to me. Let's agree that everything presented as fact in that work may not be so, but let's also recognize the context and importance of this seminal work. Please repost the reference.Jace1 (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
See WP:SPS: "Self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." --John Nagle (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Original Levi Strauss jeans were not made from hemp.

Removed the claim that the original Levi Strauss jeans were made from hemp. That story is on many hemp sites, but in fact, there are reliable sources that document how the original Levi Strauss jeans were made.[8]. The fabric came from the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company, a textile manufacturer in Manchester, New Hampshire. There's a 1911 history of Amoskeag available [9], and while it mentions cotton many times, it never mentions any hemp products. The company was originally called the Amoskeag Cotton and Woolen Manufacturing Company. At various times they made locomotives (!), steam powered fire engines, weapons (for the American Civil War), and sewing machines, but no hemp products. --John Nagle (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Fiber length

In the article, under Hemp#Fiber it states "Hemp fibers can be 0.91 m (3 ft) to 4.6 m (15 ft) long". Exactly 91cm? Obviously this started with "3ft to 15ft" and consequently got converted to metric, but this is pretty silly. What is the normal procedure to deal with approximate values like this? -Shai-kun (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Consistent spelling

Shouldn't a decision be made about whether to use "fibre" or "fiber" consistently within the article?

From the Wikipedia:Manual of Style:

Consistency within articles

See also Internal consistency

Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. For example, these should not be used in the same article: center and centre; color and colour; em dash and spaced en dash (see above). The exceptions are:

  • quotations (the original variety is retained; though the precise styling of punctuation marks such as dashes, ellipses, apostrophes, and quotation marks should be made consistent with the surrounding article);
  • proper names (the original spelling is used, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force);
  • book titles (again, use the original spelling—if there are multiple editions which spell a given title differently, use the one consulted); and
  • explicit comparisons of varieties of English.

My vote would be for use of British/UK spellings, as hemp is not grown commercially in the United States, while it is in both Australia and Great Britain. I hesitate to be bold on this point, as it means changing the spelling of a large number of words and I don't want to get into an edit war.

So, to be clear, I think "fiber" should be changed to "fibre" throughout the article and other spellings adjusted as needed.

Thoughts? Do we need to take a poll to reach consensus? -- 68.20.20.63 (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia redirects Fibre to Fiber, so we should probably go with that as the general term. I just did a big revert back to 2 Feb, but not because of this; there had been some vandalism and untangling the anon edits was a problem. If you're experienced enough with Wikipedia to be arguing over Manual of Style issues, it's time to register for an account of your own. Then we can tell who's doing what. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hemp in Dioscorides (De Materia Medica)

I was in the middle of trying to go through the definitive classic De Materia Medica by Dioscorides for something else. Unfortunately, this basic medical work of the world seems to be secret, or something near - it's nearly 2000 years out of copyright, nominated for the UNESCO Memory Hole[10] and on a bajillion Web sites, but as far as I can tell, there's not one full intact original book scan to be publicly accessed anywhere on the planet. The best I can come up with is a no-pictures German translation of unknown (to me) provenance which when autotranslated into English gives me this weirdness,[11] which seems awfully short by comparison to what the occasional photo of a page looks like. Which is:

"The hemp - Some call it Kannabion, Other Schoinostrophon, Asterion - is a plant which used a lot in life is to weave the strongest ropes. He has those of the ash similar überlriechende leaves, long, single stem and a round Fruit, which, richly enjoyed, destroyed procreation. Green Green instilled processed into juice, and it is a good antidote Ear disease."

Now this leaves me with some questions, like whether the "rich enjoyment of the fruit" is recreational consumption, and if so, how far back this can be documented; also does the "destroys procreation" statement truly indicate that Dioscorides knew of the much debated sperm-confusing capability; and then there's the medicinal use on ear disease? Which seems especially scanty, given the herb's potential usefulness in surgeries as Susruta knew.

It would be good if someone can get a better angle on this; the information seems worth including. Wnt (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hemp" rope at Dallas Aquarium?

We have a picture of Hemp rope at the Dallas, Texas, U.S.A. World Aquarium linked in the article. The actual source is Flickr.[12]. Those are someone's travel pictures; there's no reliable source behind this. That rope may not be hemp; it's shiny, which is characteristic of manila rope.[13] (Manila is a species of banana, unrelated to hemp, but it's often called "manila hemp"). There's a lot of confusion about this; if you search for "hemp rope", you get some real hemp (usually "small stuff", not heavy rope), lots of "manila hemp", and some "synthetic hemp", which is polypropylene dyed brown.[14]. I've even seen "sisal hemp rope" advertised, which is just wrong. It's unlikely that an aquarium would use real hemp rope as a public handrail in a wet area; if it's not tarred it eventually rots from the inside and breaks, and if it is tarred (which the pictured rope is not), it's messy. --John Nagle (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Am I reading this incorrectly, or do these two consecutive sentences, one right after the other, seem to directly contradict, each other:

Within the UK, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has treated hemp as purely a non-food crop. Seed appears on the UK market as a legal food product, and cultivation licenses are available for this purpose.

--Criticalthinker (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This is because only the seeds are a legal food product in the UK, not the whole plant its self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.204.57 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Species/varieties/forma and fibre/THC

From what I have understood, the genus Cannabis can be devided into one species and its three varieties (Cannabis sativa var. sativa, Cannabis sativa var. ruderalis, and Cannabis sativa var. indica). Or it can be devided to three species (Cannabis sativa, Cannabis ruderalis, and Cannabis indica). What might be the current taxonomic status of the division?

From this stems the next problem: In the article it is said that different varieies are cultivated for fibre and THC. If the genus only has one species this cannot be true, as THC (afaik) is found in sativa, indica, and ruderalis. And so the fibre/THC plants might be of different forma. But is that the case? On the other hand, if the genus has three species it might be true that different varieties are cultivated for fibre/THC. But are those really different varieties in the taxonomic sense of the word variety?

Plenty of question, no answers :) --EnSamulili 14:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Although the "Sativa" variety (thin leaves, tall plant) tends to be higher in THC, lower in CBD, while the "Indica" variety (fat leaves, short plant) tends to be higher in CDB, lower in THC, by biological standards, all strains of Cannabis should be in the same family (i.e. Cannabis sativa) as long as they can crossbreed and produce fertile strains much the same way that all breeds of dog are Canis lupus regardless of the huge variation between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua. BTW, the Cannabaceae family also includes hops and hackberries. --Thoric 17:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
There is a difference between varities/subspecies, species and families. Cannabis sativa is the species. Cannabaceae is the family. There is no current clear consensus whether indica, ruderalis and sativa should be considered different species or different varities/subspecies. Note that the concept of interbreeding as the definition for species doesn't actually work particularly well for plants as quite a number plants which the vast majority of taxonomists (or bioligists in general) consider different species can in fact interbreed. Note to mention the problem of how we classify sterile plants. Regardless however, whether the 'varieties' are just different varieties/subspecies of the same species or different species, most agree that the are at least 3 recognisable varieties. Nil Einne 05:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thats the kind of stuff that should be in the article. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hemp fuel

Hemp is used for both biomass and biodiesel. Here are some hemp fuel links:

The energy per m3 of harvested hemp is low compared with many other products from farming = > big logistic problem and a low value as energy source. Just look on a the picture of it! A lot of air and water. Other traditional corps produce more energy on the same field !

In the main article, under "Fuel", the author states: "It does, however, produce more energy per acre per year than corn, sugar..." (1) Doesn't this need a citation? (2) Are you saying that even in Brazil, hemp has a higher energy yield than sugar? Edetic (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

since ethanal is made from fermented sugars, I doubt hemp has higher energy content than sugar. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Where are the arguments against hemp?

I've often been regaled by the arguments for hemp. But there are two sides to every issue, and it's disingenuous to claim that those preventing the legalization of hemp are merely stupid, corrupt or stubborn. For example, searching around I find the claim that hemp crops would make it easier to conceal marijuana plants. Such claims should be represented here. Maybe hemp really should be legalized, but I won't be convinced until I see an honest assessment of the downsides. Lunkwill 22:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

See the last paragraph of "THC in Hemp" to see why you cannot hide marijuana in hemp fields. I would love to see someone put forth some real arguments for keeping hemp cultivation illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhi.peace (talkcontribs) 18:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason you can't find good arguments against hemp cultivation is that there simply are none that do not entail corruption, stubbornness, or stupidity, as you say. The amount of money that stands to be lost by the companies for whom hemp would be a major competitor is more or less a guarantee that the laws will be very, very slow in coming (think of the logging industry alone), not to mention the knee-jerk reaction of the "War on Drugs" people. It isn't true that there are always two sides to an argument - what is the good argument in favor of, say, lowering the age of consent to 8 or 9 in the U.S. for example? Sometimes some arguments are just wrong. The argument against hemp falls into this category. Morgaledh 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)- I have a good arguement against the growing of hemp. Many police officers would lose their jobs because budgets for enforcement would be reduced drastically and since the police do no understand something as simple as growing marijuana in a hemp field would be bad for the grower of the medicinal drug, they would see any form of the plant as a threat to their jobs. The Drug dealers also do not want wide acceptance of hemp because any form of the plant that is legal makes it harder for them to impose such a high profit margin for their illegal crop.- Michael J. Kaer

The major argument used against it seems to me to be that it is not an economically viable crop. I don't particularly buy this argument, as it seems to be based on the current market status of hemp products as opposed to the potential market for hemp fiber products. It is a niche market at the moment, which means the profit margins are low; But it has not been shown that hemp production can't scale well into mass production. My understanding is that you can produce more paper per acre of hemp per year than you can from trees, and it will grow just about anywhere. That seems like a good enough reason to me; unless of course the paper is of drastically reduced quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC) I would like to put my 2 cents worth in about the quality of paper comment.Hemp fibre has been used in the making of many paper currencies because of it's superior qualities and durability. The Mints that print the money want the best paper to start with.-Michael J. Kaer

You forget that hemp is no commercial success in EU; it is legal to cultivate in EU if you follow the restriction that secure a low percent for THC. --Dala11a (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The main argument against hemp cultivation is that the other coarse-fiber crops are more useful. That's in the article, but it's surrounded by hype from hemp enthusiasts, who don't seem to be interested in sisal, Abacá, kenaf, jute, bagasse, or switchgrass. --John Nagle (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Economic viability, or lack thereof, is something that the market itself can settle. The notion that any sort of crop might not be "as" successful as its competitors doesn't work very well as an argument to maintain its illegality. The burden of proof, rather, lies with those who wish to provide a rational reason to prohibit the cultivation of the crop, given that the varieties of the plant being discussed here are very different from their psychoactive cousin. There's simply not much of an argument to keep it illegal, even if it could be demonstrated that its usefulness is greatly exaggerated within this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.76.113 (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the alternatives given above have very small geographic areas within the United States that would be available for propigation. Hemp is sometimes called a "weed" because the very nature of the plant enables it to be grown in ALL 50 states. George Washington the first president of the United States encouraged the production of Hemp. From the Writings of Washington, Vol. 31: *To THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

"How far, in addition to the several matters mentioned in that letter, would there be propriety do you conceive in suggesting the policy of encouraging the growth of Cotton, and Hemp in such parts of the United States as are adapted to the culture of these articles ? The advantages which would result to this Country from the produce of articles, which ought to be manufactured at home is apparent but how far bounties on them come within the Powers of the Genl. Government or it might comport with the temper of the times to expend money for such purposes is necessary to be considered and without a bounty is given I know of no means by which the growth of them can be effectually encouraged."

I find it ironic that the man on the one dollar bill in todays society would be serving a life sentence in prison.

Hemp as invasive species

One argument against hemp which is not mentioned, but should be, is that it is a weed. As noted in the article it tends to crowd other plants out - great if you want to grow hemp, but not so great if you want to allow other crops or native species to grow. It can be difficult to get rid of, take over from other plants, etc. Hemp - Kudzu for the rest of us? Zodon (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Being a weed does not necessarily mean it would be an invasive species. And I doubt it has been cultivated enough to show this potential, so you would have to source that information. Bodhi.peace (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"weed" is a cultural term, encompassing any undesired plant. you can see how subjective that can get. ...heck, wheat is a weed in some scenarios.

basically, cultivation is about picking "winners" and "losers". we are not natureboy gatherers anymore. no, we grow our food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.138.145 (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)