BISMARCK, N.D. – Two farmers granted the first licenses in the nation to grow industrial hemp filed a federal lawsuit Monday to get final permission from the Drug Enforcement Administration. The lawsuit asks a federal judge to recognize that hemp is allowed to be grown in North Dakota, said the farmers’ attorney, Tim Purdon.

Industrial hemp, a cousin of marijuana, is used to make everything from paper to lotion. But without permission from the DEA, the farmers could be arrested for growing the crop in the U.S. Hemp contains trace amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, a banned substance, and it falls under federal anti-drug rules, the DEA says.

Hemp proponents say it is safe because it contains only trace amounts of THC, a mind-altering chemical — not enough to produce a high. “What they say is hemp, we say is marijuana,” said Garrison Courtney, a spokesman for the DEA in Washington. “As long as the active ingredient is THC — that’s what makes it illegal, and it’s still marijuana under the law.”

Here we go again with idiotic government. Hemp is a really excellent crop and has multiple uses.Here’s some interesting information about hemp.

  1. jbellies says:

    What happens when you have fanatics in charge? You get Iran, you get the DEA. If you’re really really lucky, you get Saudi Arabia, but that’s bad enough. Compared to the DEA, the Spanish Inquisition was moderate. I’m not kidding.

    This is typical DEA behaviour. And how exactly can we ever get the fanatic nutjobs to lose their well-paid not jobs? Nohow, because nobody is as extreme in their positions.

    So THC is the active ingredient in industrial hemp. I think the active ingredient in industrial hemp is vegetable fiber, and I think that DEA officials should go on a really high bran diet.

  2. RBG says:

    29. However, I suppose 17,941 alcohol-related US auto deaths in 2006 alone – an average of one every half-hour, constituting 41% of all crash fatalities, is still enough for one abused drug.


  3. bobbo says:

    24—well, it is impossible to have anything other than a living constitution==that bunch being the Supreme Court. The CONSTITUTION means what the Supreme Court says it means. Now, you can disagree with it, but that doesn’t change it. So, you can deal with what the constitution means, or you can have your own opinion. In your favor, the SC has not extended our right of privacy to private drug use==there I am on the losing end of reality, but I post consistent with this reality.

    26–thats right. Like bible reading, you have to read ALL THE WORDS not just the ones you like to. Too many legal articles go over this to no avail. Eventually, the SC will stop bowing to public pressure and support a well regulated militia and gun crazy America can join the rest of the civilized world. Until then, keep your powder dry.

    28–any and all substances and behavior can lead to criminal conduct. Banning supposed precedents is only an excuse to cover the real motives. Some posers do it for an off-kilter sense of morality, some because they hate freedom, others to make money.

    29–better yet, no one is suggesting drivers exams that actually test if you can drive. If you can find your car in the parking lot, you pass.

  4. John Paradox says:

    There is no right to privacy, implied or otherwise in the constitution.

    Oh, really?. I wonder why NO one has ever read this amendment.


  5. bobbo says:

    34—Listing the entire BOR is not helpful==do you have anything more specific in mind?

  6. John Paradox says:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment IV

    Gawd, I hate illiterates


  7. bobbo says:

    37—Thanks. Course all pot seizures take place as an incident of arrest or via warrants so drug enforcement is done pursuant to the Amendment 4 which is entirely procedural and does not go the penumbra of privacy.

    I would have thought the 9th was very much closer to the notion you advocate, but in fact the SC instructs us that the right to privacy is not found expressly in the Constitution, but rather in its penumbra.

    Now, stop looking in the mirror and look those cases up.

  8. John Paradox says:

    Correction: I hate DELIBERATE illiterates.. those who refuse to read because it would interfere with their ‘beliefs’.


  9. bobbo says:

    39—oooh! I “hate” those types too. Lets identify those types on this blog and post vaguely to them. I hear it drives them nuts. Course “hate” would be reserved for only a special few that are particularly well known which could not describe anyone one this blog—-and hopefully, a small percentage of those deliberate illiterates would have a change of mind.

    How could an illiterate who doesn’t read be on this blog in the first place? Theres a puzzler. I’ll go look to see if the Bill of Rights addresses that issue too. Yep, THERE it is in the 4th Amendment.

  10. Buck Wheat says:

    Fuck the DEA.

  11. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #28 – So we’re all in agreement that you can smoke enough marijuana to be impaired as a driver? (Much like too much alcohol.)

    All? No. Me? Yes.

    And we’re all in agreement that that level of impairment does kill people on the road? (Much like too much alcohol.)


    We’re all in agreement that decriminalizing marijuana would result in some increase in its use? (At least among those who are guided by laws.)

    No. We have no data to support that and it doesn’t necessarily follow.

    Now all we have to do is quantify how many additional kids will die on the road from the increase in usage.

    So now it’s about the children? It is against the law to drive while intoxicated. So what is the problem?

    Or are you advocating the prohibition of alcohol? Because if you are, I’ll join you. I don’t drink so I don’t care, and if you are right and prohibition of alcohol works just like marijuana prohibition works and that will lead to far far fewer automobile fatalities, then sign me up.

    I am with RGB. Join us and let us make beer, wine, and spirits illegal once and for all! DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN


    You are in favor of prohibition or you are not.

    If you are not, you need to advocate legalizing marijuana now.

  12. RBG says:

    Dang. Sorry for the inconvenience. My fancy italics didn’t always work as expected. Generally, the items in quotes come from the references that follow.


  13. bobbo says:

    43—That took some effort, thanks. You have a logical argument and consistent facts on your side. So does the opposition.

    Guess it comes down to values. If you had Society A with legalized drugs and fewer highway deaths compared to Society B with illegal drugs and more highway deaths, which Society would you rather live in on those variables alone?

    Now, figure out how to get there.

  14. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    RGB – I have no idea why you are arguing with me that driving under the influence of marijuana is bad, especially because I’ve agreed every time. I just don’t think it matters. Its illegal to drive under the influence and it will still be illegal to drive under the influence even if the influencing substance is legal to use when you are not driving.

    We should not be in the business outlawing things without reason, and there never was, and never will be a reason to outlaw marijuana aside from the original reason and the current reason.

    Original reason – because blacks and Hispanics used marijuana in disproportionate numbers to whites so marijuana was used as a convenient tool to institutionalize racism.

    Current reason – 1) because it is. 2) because we said so. 3) because we always have. 4) to perpetuate the so called War on Drugs… because you and I both know that someone is profiting off the illegality of marijuana and profit is more important that making the right decision in the United States of America.


    Why not do it for the children?

    Because most legislation done for the children isn’t really for the children at all?

    Because your kids aren’t my fault? You take responsibility for their actions and values. I’ll worry about mine.

    Because I grew up and became an adult for one reason and one reason only… So that I didn’t have to adhere to the arbitrary rules laid out for me by authority for the sake of authority. Now, I’d like enjoy the benefits of being a free thinking individual responsible for my own actions and able to make my own decisions.

    Because the path to Hell is always paved with shit we did for the children.

    Because I watch C-Span and I need something to take the edge off.

    Because marijuana is good and because it will spawn a new economy and because you tax the unholy shit, think 20,000% or so, out of it and raise enormous revenues in a time when we could really use the money and the jobs.

    Ban importation too… That makes it an American economy (just to tie in to some other threads going on)

    Jesus… Just do the right thing… Just once America, make a right choice.

  15. RBG says:

    Oh, I see what happened to my italics. Somehow I chopped off the end of the first quote:

    “…and one in four crash-related deaths among child passengers aged

  16. RBG says:

    Well, isn’t that interesting. What a pain. Again the end of the quote and this time everything after it was deleted. Stand by.

  17. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #48 – Posting can be an issue when you are cutting and pasting. I feel your pain…

    …and I can help you with that pain if you’d care to toke up?

  18. RBG says:

    “…and one in four crash-related deaths among child passengers aged more than (…ahhh… the “more than” symbol is an HTML symbol…) 14 years involves alcohol use. (’97 to ’02, 2,355 US children.)

    Now what brilliant thing did I write after that….?

    It’s not about children. It’s about permanently changing the lives of good people – for what? But a general crash fatality statistic reads about as good as a video game shooting. Big yawn. That’s not possible when referring to the death of a child. I’m using children as a more realistic surrogate.

    Something like that, but I recall it being completely logically unassailable. ;^)


  19. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    RBG, you sure love that DEA-sponsored, Republican-approved propaganda. But it’s nothing but horseshit.

    Incidentally, I strongly doubt that I’m the only one who’s noticed how you blithely avoided addressing the points I made in my #20.

    If pot-smoking drivers were actually a problem, how come it’s taken nearly 40 years to notice? Government coverup? MADD is actually made up of secret potheads?

    Those who care enough about the subject have already done their homework, and that doesn’t mean listening to ‘War-On-Drugs’-justifying propaganda.

    As a typical example, NHTSA stats are bullshit on this matter, and for a simple reason; after-crash ER reports that claim “drug involvement” are deliberately deceptive. If a person who is over the legal BAC limit – that is, if someone who is already legally drunk – has THC show up in blood testing, the crash is automatically classified as “drug-related.” But that person could’ve smoked their last joint two weeks before the crash – there’s no way to know. But that’s academic anyway – because, he’s legally drunk anyway. Drunk and nothing else in the bloodstream = drunk. Drunk and with THC in the bloodstream = drunk. Drunk and wearing white socks = drunk. But propagandists want to shift the blame to the drug, when the drivers’ incapacity is directly caused by alcohol intoxication. You think that’s honest?

    Anyway, that’s irrelevant. If the drug were the problem, then there would be a significant number of accidents where no BAC is present, but THC is. And there is no such epidemic of drug-induced traffic accidents. The nature of alcohol intoxication and marijuana intoxication are tremendously different. Pot smokers do not drive faster, or more recklessly, or with significantly lower awareness of traffic hazards. Pot smokers who get drunk and drive, drive like drunks. Because they’re drunk is probably the reason. Pretty obvious.

    You wanna worry about dangers to children? Then what do you suggest doing about all the kids who’ve smoked crack, solely because they stopped believing anything the gov’t said after being lied to about pot?

    In fact, G.H.W. Bush’s pot-smuggling crackdown of the early 80s directly caused the crack epidemic. Be sure to thank your drug-warrior pals, RBG old buddy. 40-some billion dollars later, thousands of corrupted cops, judges, etc, millions of Americans who harmed no one imprisoned – and drugs are more easily available than ever before. The longer it goes on, the more billions spent, the worse the problem becomes. So the solution is obviously to keep doing the same thing, right? Think another 40 billion’ll help?

    Sometimes I wonder which is actually worse; living under Sharia law or under idiot law.

  20. Yeah Right says:

    All US paper money contains traces of cocain due to the huge circulation of drug money. We could all be arrested by bonehead DEA agents. I suggest they begin with those who have most of it. If one dollar has a trace, a million must have some distributable ammount.

  21. ECA says:

    FDA has not approved marijuana for medical use in the United States. Despite its status as an unapproved new drug, there has been considerable interest in its use for the treatment of a number of conditions, including glaucoma, AIDS wasting, neuropathic pain, treatment of spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis, and chemotherapy-induced nausea. Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) Congress listed marijuana in Schedule I. Schedule I substances have a very high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use in the United States, and lack accepted safety data for use under medical supervision. Schedule I substances can still be the subject of an IND; however, the conditions for its use are more restrictive.


    NOW consider the abuse of alcohol…
    MJ has been on this list sence the 30’s, WITH NO REASON, and NO REAL studies that the GOV will acknowledge, BECAUSE they didnt ASK for the study.

    AND IF you had the REAL bud, you wouldnt be driveing ANYWAY.
    And most of the medical belief, is that its the Leaf, of 4 particular plants, that give pain relief and medical relief to many conditions.

  22. Glenn Edward says:

    If they can genetically modify corn for whatever reason, why can’t they GM hemp to completely eliminate the THC factor? Of course, if anyone would to this, it would be Monsanto. And they’d charge thru the nose for the GM hemp seed. It should be a government sponsored deal, with no private corporation owning the resulting seed patent. Yeah, good luck with that one ever happening.

  23. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    #53 – RBG

    As I mentioned, you are definitely a member of the target audience for gov’t propaganda, lacking as you do the semantic and logic skills necessary to detect the fatal flaws in such an invented “statistic”.

    “…about one of every five drivers killed is under the influence of illegal drugs, according to NHTSA.”

    Here is flaw #1, which I already expounded on; what they define as being “under the influence of illegal drugs” is a distortion. A driver who exhibited a .20 BAC and trace quantities of cannabinoids is rip-roaring DRUNK – but because of the pharacologically insignificant presence of THC, is not recorded, as logic would dictate, as a driver UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL, which he most definitely WAS, but as being under the influence of marijuana, which he equally definitely WAS NOT.

    The presence of THC is simply that. There are no facts asserted to support the implication that the THC was the causative factor. I said it before, and of course, as usual, you sidestepped it; a drunk driver, whether with THC in his bloodstream or a watch on his wrist, is still A DRUNK DRIVER. THE PRESENCE OF ANYTHING ELSE IS IRRELEVANT.

    The same wonderful, objective NHTSA does not provide, nor can they provide, any stats showing the number of drivers killed who had ONLY illegal drugs in their systems, and NO ALCOHOL. Without those numbers, it is impossible to come to ANY conclusion regarding the contribution of illegal substances to traffic fatalities. And that means that they count, objectively, ONLY AS BEING DRUNK.

    But that would be bad enough, since the statisticians at NHTSA, we may safely presume, are degreed, qualified statisticians – who, by definition, know that conclusions cannot be drawn from the incomplete, uncontrolled numbers provided. To publish such deliberately deceptive distortions is all the indication needed to assume that any statistics from that source are tainted. They have been caught in a lie which cannot be accidental, unless their own statisticians are incompetent. Therefore, presuming they are not incompetent, then the statistics are offered in bad faith, in order to deceive their audience. One, and only one, of those two scenarios is the truth, dishonesty or incompetence. Take your pick.

    But all that is completely academic, since the statistic itself, by its very definition is useless.

    We want a number to indicate to what degree impaired drivers CAUSE traffic fatalities. But this worthless stat is nothing more than how many drivers INVOLVED in traffic fatalities are impaired. That is meaningless, because the number includes those impaired drivers who are AT FAULT as well as those who ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCIDENT.

    A driver with a, say, 0.12 BAC is sitting stopped at a red light. He is in his proper lane, he is behind the stop bar, and he is stationary. A sober driver entering the intersection from the first driver’s left side fails to make the turn and skids into driver #1’s car, killing him.

    The NHTSA counts this as an “alcohol-RELATED” traffic fatality. Fortunately for the propagandists but UNfortunately for sound, beneficial public policy, laymen like RBG fail to make the subtle but all-important semantic distinction between alcohol-RELATED and alchohol-CAUSED fatalities. Whether the 100% innocent victim of someone else’s bad driving is drunk, stoned, sober or asleep is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. THAT STATE MADE NO CONTRIBUTION TO CAUSING THE FATALITY.

    Likewise, the only stat which matters in this context, is what percentage of drivers who CAUSED – NOT ARE MERELY “INVOLVED IN” – FATAL ACCIDENTS are impaired.

    AND when the driver’s BAC is overlimit, it is to be counted as ALCOHOL-related, since drunk + anything else is STILL DRUNK. To label anything “drug-related” because of the presence of intoxicants other than alcohol is a deliberate falsehood, for purposes of supporting anti-drug ideological propaganda, to the interest of the State, not the public.

    And I can personally vouch for the irrelevance of pot smoking as an issue in traffic accidents and fatalities, as a long-time smoker and a driver with 1.2 million accident-free miles, in 19 of the 50 states with years of civilian experience working for law enforcement agencies.

    Ask yourself this: if pot smokers behind the wheel are such a menace to society, how come it’s taken 35 or 40 years to notice? How come you have never been hit by anyone whose pot smoking caused the accident, and how come you also don’t know anyone else this has ever happened to? And in light of the government’s innumerable false statements about marijuana, its effects, its medicinal value and its alleged “dangers” – what reason do you have to believe that what they are saying is true?

    The AMA says marijuana is safe and has medicinal value. The DEA, whose continued existence depends on drugs remaining illegal, says, with no credible, peer-reviewed scientific or medical research to back them up – and with tons that contradicts them – says that marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal value.

    You have to be a truly stupid, highly gullible sheeple to believe the anti-drug crusaders, with their history of lies, deception, self-interest and corruption.

  24. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    Funny thing – as I have repeatedly said, if there’s such a problem, how come neither you nor I nor anyone we know, nor anyone they know have actually been involved with one of these menaces? Where are all the accidents? Where are the bodies? You mean they slaughter people wholesale on the public roads, but nobody’s noticed?

    I can cite page after page of peer-reviewed marijuana research, and if I had the time, would be glad to do so. The fact remains that not only the vast majority of that research, but the personal experience of tens of millions of pot smokers over decades as well says that it’s not a problem.

    You have a computer and a connection to the Web – the info is there, all of it. And the consensus is that marijuana is not a problem; the laws against it are.

  25. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    Yes, enjoy your scare propaganda.

    Straight, sober, incompetent drivers kill many, many times more people than dope smokers – always have, always will. Drugs are not the problem, bad driving is. And it’s a lot easier to correct, but no one is interested, since we all know for an incontestible fact that we’re wonderful drivers – it’s the other guy who causes all the wrecks… So pot smokers are the next appointed scapegoats, to be vilified and bled. And many more lives will be ruined, but no one will be any safer on the road.

    There’s sheeple, and then there’s militant sheeple. You, sir, are a sterling example of that breed.

  26. Lone Gunmen says:

    The only reason anything becomes illegal (or “bad”) in this country, is for mainly two reasons. Making it so, makes for great political circus. An invented election issue. Like Prohibition was back in the 1920s. And like Stem Cell research is now.

    The other reason is to protect something established from the threat of competition or obsolescense. Usually that’s a product that the public might take to buying, and put the corporate giants who make the alternative, out of business. Like cheap music downloads vs. Music CDs.

    In this case it’s Hemp vs Cotton. And Marijuana vs Tobacco. The Cotton industry and the Tobacco industry lives in fear of an alternative to their product, that could cost them billions. So they lobby Congress, and just plain bribe the feds, to keep their competition “illegal”. If there was an alternative to alcohol that was no more intoxicating and rarely addictive, it would be declared an illegal substance too. Because alcohol is “grandfathered” under the law. That means the Brewers and Distillers are so damn wealthy that they can do what they want.

    You can get stinking drunk, and pickle your liver, and never go to jail for it. Just don’t get behind the wheel of a car, or of an aircraft. That’s the only thing that’s illegal about drinking alcoholic beverages. So why not apply the same logic to pot smoking? No penalty for smoking or growing it (but the government will want to tax it). Just don’t operate any dangerous machinery or pilot a vehicle will intoxicated. Simple. But as I said before. There are just two reasons why not.


Bad Behavior has blocked 5251 access attempts in the last 7 days.