> Hemp is a fantastic plant with many unique and important uses. One has to wonder why the US has, since the 1930s I believe, been so against it. One might suspect the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in seeing hemp (and its naughty cousin, marijuana) banned

Many countries around the world do not have the same restrictions on hemp industrial production that the USA does, and yet, hemp isn't all that widely used and other sources for materials are often preferred instead. I suspect a lot of the praise of hemp as some kind of miracle material comes from those who just want legal marijuana and they’ll say anything to get it, not people who particularly care about industrial manufacturing.

I think that's a reasonable point to make.

At the same time, I wouldn't underestimate the worldwide effects a ban in the US had, given its importance as a consumer of world goods especially in the second half of the 20th century. And while industrial hemp wasn't banned worldwide, it was banned or curtailed in other countries for prolonged periods (e.g. Germany from 82 to 95).

Hemp production seems to be around 0.25% of cotton production. No matter the intrinsic properties of the material, that seems like a very difficult lead to catch up to. And I'm sure both are getting squeezed by synthetic fibers (cotton consumption seems to be fairly stable for years).

Hemp: 65kt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Producers

Cotton: 25mt https://www.icac.org/Press-Release/2018-(1)/PR-5-2018-Global...

Synthetic fibers: 65mt https://www.statista.com/statistics/741368/world-synthetic-f...

Wool: around 1mt

Name a dominant manufacturing countries that has legal hemp?

Exporting hemp is also an issue. The USA foreign policy forced most of the world to make cannabis illegal since the 70s.

Since hemp was illegal, capital was invested in cotton and wood industrial tools.

As hemp production increases so will the technology to produce goods.

Er, China for one. Also France, Canada, UK, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Thailand, ...

Over 30 according to a quick look at wikipedia.

Its funny to watch someone get slapped down with the ole' "name one," Rush Limbaugh tactic. He uses it because people can't reply, since radio is one way. Of course, if you use it on a two way communication, better look it up first.

Yeah, an acquaintance runs a farm that also has fields of hemp, and it's no miracle - it's used in quite a few industries in preference to other materials, but it's not that dominant. As far as I recall, their harvest was shipped for making cigarette paper and hemp textiles; both of which are interesting but ultimately just niche use cases.

For both of those ‘niche’ use cases, paper and cloth, hemp was the dominant material used for many centuries prior to the last century.

Hemp can grow places trees can't, like high altitudes. And hemp is such a fast growing weed that few other weeds can catch up during the growth cycle, making it less work for the farmer. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-067.htm

I'm more interested in a greater availability of locally sourced hemp-based nutrition. Hemp seeds are great for you: http://www.purehealingfoods.com/hempHeartsInfo.php

Or maybe the United States and many countries they influence are off the list of potential customers for hemp products so if their economy is reliant on exporting it may not make sense to overhaul everything to a system that is pretty much designed not to make money.

It also works great as fuel for pellet stoves. It produces roughly the same amount of ash as wood pellets. I would love to use it as a renewable energy source.

> Jeff Sessions

Do we know Scott Pruitt's [1] position on cannabis?

[1] http://thehill.com/news/administration/367628-politico-pruit...

My stoner brother has some conspiracy that the timber and cotton industries are behind the demonisation of hemp.

Apparently because hemp can be made into paper and fabric it would put the timber and cotton industries under threat.

I never cared enough to look into it, but it wouldn't surprise me if industry lobbying is part of the reason for the suppression of hemp.

I don't put too much credence in it though, because hemp is legal to grow in other countries, and it hasn't decimated the timber and cotton industries.

Not saying your brother's theory is right, but just because something isn't a real treat doesn't mean it can't be perceived as a threat (and consequently be lobbied against)

Pulpwood is usually the worst market for wood. It takes lower quality wood than other end users, so it is an important market. But pulpwood might sell for $15 a ton while a single high grade log weighing less than a ton might sell for hundreds of dollars.

Losing the pulpwood market would mean that the cost mix would shift for other timber products but it wouldn't threaten the industry.

I'm not sure that a good, cheap process for turning hemp into paper would be that much of a threat to the pulpwood paper makers. Hemp prices can only go so low before farmers won't plant it. An awful lot of pulp wood isn't competing with corn (and any other agricultural commodity) for space to grow.

edit: Here's some global production statistics that back up paper being an important market for wood but not critical:

http://www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/80938/en/

My old man worked for DuPont for years and his theory was that they lobbied against hemp because of the competition to the then newly devolved nylon.

Here's [1] a good rundown of the conspiracy. To wit, it's a conspiracy of two: DuPont wanting to outlaw hemp which could have provided an alternative to Nylon, and Hearst which was heavily invested in wood-pulping machinery for paper production, again for which hemp was a good alternative.

1. https://www.alternet.org/story/77339/debunking_the_hemp_cons...

I have trouble with that article due to the tone. There’s no reason to refer to people as ‘potheads’ or mention Jerry Garcia with bitterness and disdain, or at all. It seems the author has an axe to grind with the remnants of 60s culture.

He isn't wrong about the Cotton folks as they see hemp as a threat. There is a slight scale difference when great plains farmers (see North Dakota in WWII) can raise a lot of crop. I think its more a unfounded fear then real, but it will probably have a year of lower profits due to novelty when legalized.

I thought it was because MJ could be grown hidden in a hemp field, making identification harder.

If you grow hemp anywhere near marijuana, it will greatly reduce the quality of the output of the marijauna. So hiding mj in a hemp field is pointless.

https://www.marijuanaventure.com/will-hemp-farms-ruin-cannab...

Jeff Sessions is irrelevant when it comes to passing laws.

Your second conjecture is wrong (the private prison industry barely existed when those drug policies were instituted; they are an effect rather than a cause of the drug war). That doesn’t give me much faith in your first conjecture.

Yet you cite a correlation as proof of causation?

No, I’m citing chronology as evidence of non-causation. (A happened before the thing OP asserted caused A to happen.)

There are many in the Trump tea leave reading community that believe this is actually a first step towards legalization and they’re testing the waters.

I don’t have an opinion on this just thought I’d share. I doubt most of HN lurks on said boards.

The first step in legalizing marijuana federally is removing hemp from the controlled substance list? That makes no sense, given that smoking hemp isn't going to get you high and how many states have already legalized marijuana, either medicinally or medically to great public approval (the waters have already been tested, and they're fine).

It also makes no sense given that less than 3 months ago, Sessions rescinded the policy of non-interference with state laws.

I mean, I'm sure people believe that, but I'm just saying, it doesn't really follow...

> Trump tea leave reading community

Typo or clever pun?

> Of course hemp is not marijuana

I think I know what you mean, but cannabis sativa is both hemp and marijuana. The US gov't just defines the distinction via THC content.

I would expect that if Congress changes the law that the Sessions has no choice in the matter. That is after all the point of Congress, to change the law.

> current administration

Source? Trump hasn't said a thing against hemp and sessions has no say, he's "only" the "head of law enforcement."

For years the DEA (which is part of the Executive Branch) has intentionally conflated hemp with marijuana, despite the clear scientific evidence of hemp being very low in THC content compared to marijuana.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/4/16849866/ma...

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-other-cannabi...

Informative but "current administration" != "for years"