Steve Meyer's contention that hemp is a disease free crop is bogus!!! : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Folks {this on is for Taz again}:

The idea that hemp is disease free is totally bogus. It has many diseases. It just hasn't been grown over large areas in the US as a monoculture. Plant it that way and you will have to spray forever. Chemicals, chemicals, chemicals. It never ceases to amaze me that this kind of disinformation is spread, not only on the Web, but in the general press.

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (, January 30, 2000


Try raising any crop without chemicals and you'll soon learn how important they really are in the long process from seeding to the grocery shelf. Two years without them and I would guarantee you production would be cut by 60%. If the environmental extremist have their way it's a given. We've lost over half of the products that actually do work and the rest are on the EPA hit list. Most people in this country don't realize this is happening.

-- John Thomas (, January 30, 2000.

And just what research have you done to make your opinion qualified. Desease free no. Spray and fertilize like cotton, not even close. Hemp could be a very beneficial crop if allowed to compete.

If you want to talk about disinformation, let's talk about all the garbage the government spews about hemp. Outlawing hemp could arguably be called an ecological disaster, environmental terrorism.

As for "Drug War", it is the least damaging of the recreational drugs (including alcohol and cigarettes) but it is the one we spend the most on enforcing.

-- tflook (, January 30, 2000.

Maybe Monsanto could develop a paraquat based antidisease spray for hemp?

Wouldn't that take care of all the issues?

-- redeye (redeye@special.ahoy), January 30, 2000.

What I do for a living. This has nothing to do with legalization of Cannnabis. It is simple fact. What Meyer has said is bogus. It is this and nothing more. One has to deal with facts and intercede on the Web whenever possible. It doesn't always help, but what the hey.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X47t (, January 30, 2000.


Are you saying that organic gardening is not
an option for mono-culture farming? If that
is so then you should investigate the efforts
of Gallo to grow organic grapes because it is
economically efficient. You are correct that
mono-cultural farming creates its own special

-- spider (, January 30, 2000.

Let us get one thing clear. I am not opposed to the production of hemp. I am oppossed to the the information that this a disease free crop that will not require fert. All of this information is bogus. Yeh, I know about this stuff, I do it for a living. Do you?

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (, January 30, 2000.


Yep. That is the way we grow things. But we aren't farming. We need to be honest. We could become a third world country very fast if we try to make these changes over a short period of time. Of course the yuppies that are pushing these changes, won't be impacted.

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (, January 30, 2000.

Here is what Steve Meyers said:

Hey Taz...!

You know what? might be right there. I don't really know. I would have to go back through my research, some of it including video documentaries. All I can say is, I recall hearing this statement: "Cannibis does not have any natural predators (crop disease)"...something to that effect. Something about how insects (or many other "pests" will stay away...or, they will "take a bite" ...and refuse to return for another! Or, maybe they can't find their way back? Further studies indeed are needed!!!

Now, the IDEA was that compared to most plants, like corn, or cotton...which have VERY serious "pests" and require MUCH pesticides, I think (i do not know with 100% certainty) I think the idea was they had far fewer natural pests, and did not require polluting chemical pesticides...that the plant had it's own "repulsors". That was the idea.

My apology if the statement I made sounded too "absolute" was not meant that way, and I should have been more clear to clarify the above. Thanks for bringing it to my attention Taz...and thanks for the free promo too!!! Much appreciated.

I also said:

Both of these are LONG but a great journey and much can be gleaned from them for the new reader. Have fun.

Please let me know any other errors you may find...this is an endless process of education and learning for me.

Best wishes,

-- stev (WhoCares@nymore.Right?.com), January 30, 2000.

Well, I went and looked at some of your stuff, and I think you hit the nail on the head when you used the word "endless".

-- redeye (redeye@special.ahoy), January 30, 2000.

"Try raising any crop without chemicals and you'll soon learn how important they really are in the long process from seeding to the grocery shelf. Two years without them and I would guarantee you production would be cut by 60%."

Hey John...I was just wondering, how did all the plants ever grow without us, before massive pesticide applications? What was the human population total before we started using pesticides in a large way? How did all the other countries in the world...say, China for example, manage to feed themselves without "man made pesticides", etc.

There is the natural cycle to do these things...and there is the synthetic cycle...both can work; but each has a different long term effect on the environment, the workers, and their children (see: history of grape farming, Cesar Chavez (?).

Also, I will have to find it if I can, but I remember seeing a study which came out (in the last year or two?) which clearly showed that "natural" methods existed which could work nearly as well, in some cases better than the "bomb them with chemicals" approach; that the reputed "benefits" of chemical bombing benefits were greately exaggerated, and that when one looked at the total picture (effects on water pollution, killing other species in the environment, human effects, food contamination, changing soil chemistry, killing other natural checks and balances, etc. on that might *not* be the best long term approach. And this study was done by farmers, and (i might be wrong here), but i seem to recall the study was done or sponsored by U.C. Davis, CA.

If I can find the article, I'll post. The point is, we need to look at the least damaging ways to produce our food...ALL things considered and factored into the equation.

Yes...the question is, given the amount of destruction we are do we transition to something that makes more sense than what we are doing now? And yes, I agree with you it should not be wholesale knee-jerk reaction from environmentalists who can be just as stupid and thoughtless as the corporate agri-business bozos in the fields.

You are right...we need to do this intelligently and with balance of inputs from all knowledge resources; not an "either/or" "all/or nothing" approach. No. The best information from all inputs. Thanks for pointing that out in your own way.

Best wishes,

If you are just looking at price per bushel, over a

-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?com), January 30, 2000.

Why thank you Red Eye....! I agree!@

"Important matters deserve close attention"

No wonder your eyes are red!!

ROFLAMO (smile/wink!)

-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?con), January 30, 2000.

Yes RedEye...the promise of the 'After Life' too is "endless" is it not? So what do we do in the meantime?

I suspect "Existence" itSelf is "endless", but i am not completely sure of this...though, it appears that way...for now.

-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?com), January 30, 2000.

Steve, WITHOUT pesticides we were supporting 12-25 MAX people per farm. NOW because of the INCREDIBLE YEILD INCREASE from chemical care of fields, we are supporting somewhere in the neighborhood of 125 per farm.

China supports its people by EVRYONE (INCLUDING CITY DWELLERS AND the Hoy Poloi) RAISING A GARDEN!!!!

LOOK before you try to refer to stats


-- Chuck, a night driver (, January 30, 2000.

"It is simple fact. What Meyer has said is bogus. It is this and nothing more."

Best wishes,

-- Z1X47t (, January 30, 2000.

Z1X47t -

yes, I agree, as noted above. Now, that's a pretty general statement there. "What Meyers has said is bogus." the "subject/target" of that dangling, incomplete statement is "Meyers has said bogus".

Yes, on that (1) single item (maybe...we have to see the comparison of hemp pests, cotton pests, and corn pests) Yes, i think i made a mistake if i used the word "disease" instead of "pests"...granted, my error.

Also, you could have not come out AT ME....rather, just asked, "Ummm...Steve...I saw you said this, and I think that might be in error. Now, what did you mean when you said that?" Something along those lines.

The "drift" of your communication is to discredit ME...not the "fact" you pointed out.

As RedEye pointed is a rather "endless" essay (Death Match 2000 it is!)

So - That being the case, and the error you managed to catch out of all the other items "i said" there...what did you think about the other stuff, seeings as how "perceptive" you are... In other words, you don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water; and you don't have to lift (1) sentence out of a book, OUT OF CONTEXT...and then, throw everything else that was "said" AND the Author out ALL AT ONCE.

What did you think about all the rest of what was said? Any comments or insights you'd like to share with everyone here?


Mono Causal Thinking

-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?.con), January 30, 2000.

Hi Chuck, this such a good idea, to keep increasing our population, more and more and more? This is a very complex subject. The idea is, from a Whole Systems approach, short, mid and long term impacts and costs included...what would make more sense than what we are doing today, since we are such a bright and intelligent species...our present activity is killing the bio-sphere.

That idea...

Ref: (click on blue "Warning" nav button)

read what comes up after you click the blue nav button...those problems.

Best wishes,

-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?.com), January 30, 2000.

Chuck -

I'm not here to fight...ok? Still bleeding from the "Mortal Kombat - Death Match 2000" thread.

I dont know everything about all this, nor am i trying to come off that way. I would have to do alot of study to come up to speed on the pro's and con's of "farming techniques".

I am ALWAYS for a synthesis of what works best, NOT "either/or" is "ALL GOOD" or "ALL BAD!!". Both are extremes to me; i doubt either extreme will work very well by itself, without listening to the wisdom and insight from both sides of "the teeter-totter".

I am out of my league here on farming. I know pesticides do much damage (read the Rachel's Files links posted on my website...not that boy (peter montague) is "bad ass!"

Im just saying, we should look at these things, and try to do our best...because the total picture of what is happening in our environment...well, lets just say we are in DEEP Guano..and we don't quite realize it yet:

- See: Ice Core Samples and implications - See: National Geographic article on "The Great Extinctions" 1999 - See: "Freak weather" reports over last 10 years - See: Rate of species extinction in last 75 years

see: article at GSP website. That is all i can bring to the table on these issues, and what was shared on the 'Mortal Kombat - Champion of the Universe Duel of Dunces" thread referenced above.

Don't forget to check out the music...and have some fun too!


-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?.com), January 30, 2000.

Taz said: "It just hasn't been grown over large areas in the US as a monoculture."

I understand what you are saying Taz...good point AND 'yes it has' is also true. See the history of Hemp farming in Kentucky PRIOR to when it was made illegal. We have forgotten all this. George Washington was a hemp farmer...ask him if he had pesticides back then.

The plant has been grown all over the world in all cultures over the past 10,000 years. Why don't we know this? And why is this knowledge being ACTIVELY distorted and erased?

Got a "pesticide" for that disease?

-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?.com), January 30, 2000.

I will say this: if you dare to invest the time to read the entire "Mortal Kombat" will come away with "10 times" the energy, focus and time it takes to wade through the whole damn thread. Promise. Guaranteed 100%.

It's there, it's free, and you have a right to "know".

"Pick up the key (i.e. read it), put it in the door, turn it...and it's yours.

promise! you won't be let down. Take your time; it's a 'short book' but LONG on content, and, the promise may find every MORE mistakes i made!!! Yessss!!!!! (smile/wink!)

Lemme know.....ok?


-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?.com), January 30, 2000.

who me?

-- never inhaled (pot@smallfarm.smoke), January 30, 2000.

I've got 30 years in should never say never, but composting and fertile soil and mixed farming makes pesticides and fertilizers unnecessary. They are exposed to be the fraud by the industrial complex that they are...a way to bring fortune to the already ruin the farmers...and drive people into the cities. I cannot grow a landscape without any pest damage, but I can always grow a beautiful and productive landscape without chemicals.

-- Sand (, January 30, 2000.

Raised a lot of it. big money crop in North Carolina! a little well rotted cow sh!t is all it takes. ain't nothin' likes it or bothers it but deer and rabbits. they love it. just sittin' here on my bag of seed..........

-- never inhaled (pot@smallfarm.smoke), January 30, 2000.

I am a farmer. Organic. With yields comparable to the conventional guys.

How does one do that? By working with Mother Nature, not against her. Mother Nature craves diversity. So you do just that. You grow a lot of different types of plants over several years. Crops, and cover crops.

You are actually trying to trick her by doing this. She is always asking for diversity. So give it to her, then she grows less "weeds"

As for disease, when was the last time you saw a woodlot that required spraying? Many species, few problems.

It is astounding what Mother Nature can do, once we take our thumb off her.

As for yield increases per farmer, it is all because of better plant genetics, and in spite of the way the mainstream farms.

I am done.

-- gary elliott (, January 30, 2000.

That was a good question Steve and -Chuck a night driver- answered it as good as I would be able to. I have farmed in the Northwest since 1962 raising wheat, peas, lentils, barley, oats, and bluegrass. When I was a kid growing up in the fifties our wheat yield average was 50 bushel and that was without the use of herbicides. At that time we only rotated with summerfallow which allowed us to keep the weed population down without spraying but we also couldn't raise to many legumes like peas and lentils because the insects would devastate them in short order. We didn't have the chemical tools to eradicate them like we do today. The past years because of the herbicide spectrum that is available, we are able to raise 65 bushel av. on wheat year after year along with the other rotations without taking land out of production for summerfallow. There are too many acres permanently taken out of production by development as it is. I also have an air application business and I know what the yield reduction is when I have a skip. We are losing more of these chemicals every year so we might find out what it's like to organically farm on a large scale in the near future.

-- John Thomas (, January 30, 2000.

Hemp has adapted to harsh growing conditions (including protection from UV exposure) by evolving a resinous coating. This coating is a carrier for THC, although there is actually no direct correlation between the stickiness of bud and its potency (contrary to popular belief in the stoner community).

This resin will also prove unpalatable to insects and may act as a preservative to retard spoilage.

Hemp originaly had very little THC. However, every human community has discovered its own entheogens and intoxicants (it's one of the basic human drives to get high), and has either attempted to cultivate these properties, or in some cases, the plant evolves greater concentrations if it has coeexisted with human beings for thousands of years. It's a form of natural selection. The better the weed, the more likely it will be allowed to grow and reproduce, and once agriculture was discovered. (Lookit all the plants growing out of the rubbish heap. See the sprouts coming out of those seeds? Hmmm. What if we planted those seeds on purpose. Hey! Let's save some of the seeds for next year! Why did it take 10,000 years for humans to "get it" regarding agriculture?)

-- Ceemeister (, January 30, 2000.

John, insects are Mother Nature's way of telling you that something is out of sync. Either the soil is wrong, or she has seen that crop too recently, or you just shouldn't be growing it in your area.

Again, go out in the woods, and look for insect infestations.

What we are talking about is balance. Get it, you succeed, don't get it, then get out your sprayer. But understand, the need to use the sprayer means you have failed.

-- gary elliott (, January 30, 2000.

Chuck -

You said: "Steve, WITHOUT pesticides we were supporting 12-25 MAX people per farm. NOW because of the INCREDIBLE YEILD INCREASE from chemical care of fields, we are supporting somewhere in the neighborhood of 125 per farm. China supports its people by EVRYONE (INCLUDING CITY DWELLERS AND the Hoy Poloi) RAISING A GARDEN!!!!"

Chuck - I'm not saying that some pesticides have not been useful. But just like what we are seeing with antibotics...we are CREATING even MORE dangerous strains...its a complex thing that is happening here.

We do not just "tamper" with an eco system for a short term quick profit..."Oh look!!! more potatoes!!!!" yeah, maybe for a while...but what about the mid-long term picture...could be a disaster in the making like CFCs. Its not that simple.

The increase in yeild per acre is not ONLY due to "using pesticides" that is a blanket statement which is not true, or, not to leave the impression that that is THE primary reason.

Yes...maybe a very large portion of China's population is devoted to crop farming and food production. Several items; there would be that many needed if they had the same level of technology we did. And if they did, WITHOUT clean would be a disaster, i.e. repeating what we are already doing.

They have a different culture too, remember...still family oriented, community oriented, everyone is included, together...we have lost all that...including MANY more homeless, you see?

For all our food production per acre - who says we are "better off" in that sense. Who says what we are doing is sustainable? Maybe what they are doing, like the Quick Rabbit and the 'S l o w T u r t l e'...maybe we will find out they win in the end, and we die of toxification.

I need my research here. I have heard of reports that "natural means" or a "mixed-strategy" can yeild nearly as much...WITHOUT the mid and long term environment damage. It is VERY important to look at Whole Systems behaviors OVER see? Not just one quick win and the slot machine, bells going, Oh Gooodie!!! Lets do MORE!!!

We might come to discover in the larger picture that was not necessarily the "best" of all possible strategies. As we learn more about all this, we need to integrate it into what we are doing, change our ways...and not just look at "quick profits for the few" as the sole criteria of our decisions. Takes much more foresight than just that...and "profits" distorts sound clear thinking...just look at crooks...or, politicians!!!! see?

-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?.com), January 30, 2000.

Also, the above comments go for weeds, too. Weeds are Mother Nature's way of healing the soil. Thet are an indicator of what the soil requires. Pay attention to them.

-- gary elliott (, January 30, 2000.

Gary, Ceemeister, John...others, impressed! good call. I was born and raised in Iowa, and not back here after many years in CA. I guess Im a wanna be farmer too. Good stuff guys; great reading your stuff, and i have much to learn.

If you farmers will check the history of Hemp in Kentucky...and cash profits per, u gonna be PISSSED when you see what they did in restricting Hemp. Farmer understands that almost better than anyone.

I say this, (this will mean something to a real Farmer):

Most beneficial plant know to man, throughout all history...and that's a fact gentlemen. Check it out. Learn about it. I tried to put up some of the best info I have on that at:

If you read the articles, as a whole, posted on that thread (all from the GSP website - easy!) the Farmers will "get" what it means faster than anyone. Check out those $/acre gentlemen!!!! Yesssss!!!!!!


best and thanks for keeping all us dunder heads alive, for without food, there is nothing. Thankx guyz...truely.


-- steve (Farmers@Care.See?, January 30, 2000.

correction: "and >NOW< back here in Iowa...."

-- steve (Farmers@Care.See?.com), January 30, 2000.

Steve, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, here goes... Hemp grown year after year will have disease problems. Mother Nature will make sure of it. She hates monocultures. But, grown in a rotation with say, corn, soybeans, wheat, would do just fine.

I have always thought that hemp would serve two purposes for farmers, one, it would add another crop to the rotation, and two, if enough farmers grew it, it would lower the amounts of mainstream crops being grown and bump up the prices of them.

Pity the poor consumer who would have to pay 8 cents for the corn in a box of corn flakes versus 4 cents.

-- gary elliott (, January 30, 2000.

Here is an interesting thread (listed above, but again here in case you missed it) which, if you wade through it, has *some* 'different' information on Industrail Hemp as well...though not as complete as the "Mortal Kombat" thread listed above:

"Oil Crisis In The Making?"

Again, it's a good read.

-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?.com), January 30, 2000.

Sand & Never Inhaled...

you guys too...sorry I missed your names on the thanks above...great stuff; good call.

-- steve (Sand&Never@InhaledCare.See?.com), January 30, 2000.

Gary Elliott If you want to talk about balance I would be glad to give you an example of it. If we quit using pesticides tomorrow or if we scaled that useage down within the next five years the outcome will still be the same. Aphid populations are a good example to start out with. They come in all shapes and colors but they are made up of 90% water. They need to suck green plants to sustain their life cycle. Fields of peas,a food that we all eat from time to time, turn brown during the pod-filling stage if infested with aphids. They don't even make it to harvest. Many years ago the only peas that were raised were those in gardens and most people had one back then. They had their own remedies. Some worked and most were marginal. Some years a good population of Lady Bugs could hold them marginally in check but they never showed up every year. The reality of this whole discussion boils down to one fact. If we're going to scale down production of food then we will be feeding less people worldwide. You can't keep our level of production where it is now or even increase if you are taking away a most important tool in Agriculture. Organic farming has its limits and with most crops it ends at the garden fence!

-- John Thomas (, January 30, 2000.

Is agriculture in the US doomed? Think about MTBE.

Better yet, read:

-- Ceemeister (, January 31, 2000.

Could MTBE End Life As We Know It In The US? From: MTBE -The End of Food Production In America! By Ru Mills and Brother Mills 1-21-2000

If MTBE contaminates all water supplies in the United States... How will we grow our food? If MTBE is not removed from gasoline in the United States within the next six months, it may be too late to save our water and our way of life. In the opinion of RMNews, MTBE is part of the NWO's plan to turn the United States into a Third World country. If our water is contaminated with a chemical that causes cancer, then we will not be able to drink it, bathe in it or USE IT TO GROW THE FOOD WE EAT. On January 13th, an RMNews Agent posted a story on the Rumor Mill News Forum titled, "The End of Agriculture in America" bin/ According to Steven Blank, Ph.D., in his book, "The End of Agriculture in the American Portfolio," America is going out of the business of agriculture and he has the numbers and projections to prove it. Blank, a professor with the Agriculture and Resource Economics Department at UC Davis, maintains that America simply cannot afford to participate in high-risk, low-return industries like agriculture, and for that reason, agricultural production in America is destined to end. "America doing agriculture is a bit like a Ph.D. doing child's work-- it,Dts a waste!" In my opinion, "The End of Agriculture in America" is a strategic plan by the New World Order to reduce America to a dependent nation. No country that depends on others for food has ever survived!!! The attack on the America food system is just beginning. Not only do we face the possibility of complete contamination of our water supplies with MTBE from gasoline, but we also have strange weather patterns that destroy our crops, E-Coli contamination, bacteria and viruses that are growing in our soils, terminator seeds, genetically engineered Frankenfoods and a public that is COMPLETELY oblivious to all of it!!! It will be too late when the food riots start. The time to stop this is now. We don't have a year. In a year MTBE will have seeped into more than half of our water wells. If we wait, we lose... we lose everything! The CBS News Magazine 60 Minutes ran a segment on MTBE last Sunday. My brother has written a synopsis of it, for those who missed it. Ru Mills *************************************** Review of the 60 Minutes' Report on MTBE and The Contamination of Water in the United States By Brother Mills, The Elder If you missed 60 minutes Sunday night, here is what I can remember... Plus.... I have already done my letter writing, calling for shutdown of the EPA. Plus locally, The shutdown of CARB. (California Air Resources Board) The main thrust of the 60 Minutes program concerning MTBE was the fact that the EPA has known since 1980 that MTBE is a carcinogen and has polluted ground water wells across the nation to the extent that the water is unsafe for human consumption. The fact that MTBE is an insidious chemical should have prompted complete testing before it was forced on the American people. The contamination first started showing up on the east coast. I believe it was Long Island that had to have all of their water wells closed. All of Santa Monica's water wells are contaminated. Drinking water has to be trucked in. The list of water well contamination is too long for me to remember. 49 states are affected by the contamination. Closer to home (Sacramento), it is the Tahoe basin that has reported contaminated water wells and some have had to be shut down. The MTBE, as I understand, was found to be leaking from underground fuel tanks in 1980. This prompted a massive undergroud fuel tank testing and replacement scam directed by the EPA. The dollar cost of the replacement tanks has forced most of the Independent gas station owners out of business nationwide, leaving the major oil companies with little competition for gas pricing. Was this planned? I learned from a commentary by one of the late Sunday night talk show hosts that prior to the introduction of MTBE in our gasoline, that underground fuel tank leakage was not a problem. Nature takes care of petroleum product gound spills in the form of bacteria and micro- organisms that feed on petroleum. The tanks only had to be replaced when gasoline was found in water wells, which was rare. It was the MTBE that ate up the seals etc. in the fuel tanks causing them to leak! Knowing all this, the EPA still forced this billion dollar fuel tank replacement scam on the American people. Why didn't the EPA stop the use of MTBE instead? The new, half-million-dollar-EPA-approved fuel tanks, are leaking because of the MTBE. Why haven't our politicians and so called saviours of the environment like the Sierra Club etc. protected us from the EPA? One reason that was discussed on the talk show was the massive profits being reaped by the oil companies by selling us gasoline diluted with 5 parts of MTBE per gallon here in California. The Federal requirement is 2 parts per gallon of MTBE. MTBE is a by product of refining and was previously discarded as waste. (Like Flouride until THEY decided to add it to our water to slowly poison us. Ru Mills wrote an article stating that flouride enhances whatever chemical is it used with. What does water contaminated with flouride do to a body when the water is also contaminated with MTBE?) ARCO invented the so called reformulated gas and patented it. If MTBE is so cheap to produce, Why are our gas prices so high here in California? MTBE has been a problem for 20 years. Why hasn't the media reported this until now? Several months ago a group went to the Capitol in protest of MTBE. The next day the Sacrament Bee headlined an article written by the infamous Air Resources Board telling us the benefits of MTBE and praising the oil companies. Why were we lied to by our state government? Gov. Wilson and the state legislature were briefed on the MTBE problem several years ago, but nothing was done. Gov. Davis is thoroughly briefed on the problem and is doing nothing. Mrs Wilson now has a high paying job on the ARCO board of governors. Do the oil companies own the Governor and state legislature? Perhaps all the way to the Whitehouse. One can only speculate. Brother Mills, The Elder


This Site Served by TheHostPros

-- Ceemeister (, January 31, 2000.

I HATE it when I'm misunderstood. The question was what did we do before we got the yields we get now thru heavy chemical intervention. the POINT is that we supported WAY fewer people than we do now per farmer. I would LOVE to see organic growing on a 2000 acre per farm scale. UNFORTUNATELY, this is NOT gonna be as easy as it sounds.

"Make it so, Number One" does NOT work in this case. THe EDUCATION effort ALONE will be superhuman.

The typical small (75-150 head) dairyman in all probability won't have the time to be able to do what y'all want in order to raise the grain and corn he needs, the hay he needs, and the one (maybe) cash crop he uses to tide himself over, in an organic manner.

If things come apart later this year, ag is going to become REAL labor intensive, and we may see how well we can adapt.


-- Chuck, a night driver (, January 31, 2000.

Steve, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, here goes...

[no prob...sometimes i don't fully "get it" on first reading]

Hemp grown year after year will have disease problems. Mother Nature will make sure of it. She hates monocultures.

{yes, I think i get the principle you are trying to emphasize here. I am assuming this is true for all crops as well? And not just specific to Hemp?

My impression (i may be wrong) was that Hemp, as a plant (moreso, as a VERY hearty weed) could grow in a wider variety of temperatures, climes, soil conditions, latitudes, etc. compared to almost any other plant. If this is mis-information I stand corrected...but I would like to see the reasons or studies which show this is so. i.e. "I'm open to the idea...but show me." Now, of course I do and have to rely upon the research of others; I heard these statments made in a multi-series documentary called "Time 4 Hemp". The individuals were some of the top researchers in the field, including farmers who had hands on experience and botanists, etc. So, I weigh very heavily when an individual like that makes a statement like small thing at all. And, in many ways, given all the other inforamation I have studied, it was more like, "Yeah...that makes sense". So, I can't make any "claim" beyond that.

But, when i hear such things, it does make me want to "find out" because if so, or even partically so, i realize it's global implications for fuel, food, fibre, clothing, etc.

I would also say that all one has to do is take a flight in an airplane and you will find that there are VAST areas of unused land which would be suitable for Hemp production. Because it is a can grow in many places where many 'specialty crops' could not EVER be thought of being grown. Now that's a difference that makes a HUGE difference when we are considering Industrail Hemp production for bio-mass fuels, oils, protein, fibers. THAT is one of the things which makes this plant so remarkable as compared to any other plant you can think of.

Some have said, that if you look at all of the characteristics of this cannot find any plant that even comes close...not even a close second IN ALL match at all. That is why we need to pay attention, this is not just "another crop".

If rotation helps...wonderful! do it! make it work...not, "here's why it will fail" thinking. Or, only thinking of it in the context of "flat fields".

For example, Hemp is IDEAL for (what do they call it? when you have drip irrigation directly on the plant roots, and the water has the nutrients?) suitable in a "sand" environment where "no plant will grow". Wrong. Because of the long tap root structure and that hemp can adapt itself to so many soil types, pH ranges...then that changes the whole picture if you think of the WIDE open spaces in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, see? Changes the whole equation.

Again, I am not a farmer, i know very little next to a "real farmer"...but I do know this plant deserves to be looked at VERY closely because it has so many amazing properties, compared to almost any other plant. As far as i know, it stands 'alone' with nothing that could match its bio-mass growth rate (1 acre in one year can out performs 4 acrea of Timber in 20 years) some "show stopper" amout like that; though that too might be missing "the exact" figure...the IDEA is, what is worth knowing is, it has THAT KIND OF RELATIVE POTENTIAL. I hope that makes sense...and, we need (i need) to know the specifics. My god; what if that IS what the correct figures are, you see how important that would be to KNOW?]

Then you say: "But, grown in a rotation with say, corn, soybeans, wheat, would do just fine."

[Well, then thats good news......(i think?) smile]

Then you say: "I have always thought that hemp would serve two purposes for farmers, one, it would add another crop to the rotation, and two, if enough farmers grew it, it would lower the amounts of mainstream crops being grown and bump up the prices of them."

I see your logic, but factor in what was just shared above, and it changes the entire equation. We might even find that because there are so many under utilized areas Hemp could be grown in, it would not impact current farmland all? A good thing to look into is all I'm saying here; i do not "know". I do know, it has TREMENDOUS potential if we use our imagination wisely.]

Pity the poor consumer who would have to pay 8 cents for the corn in a box of corn flakes versus 4 cents.

-- gary elliott (, January 30, 2000.

[Same considerations as above; and I like it that you are thinking it trough, for I didn't consider what you were saying as a possibility, and very important to consider all that you said as well.

That's how i learn and thank you Gary...

PS. ahhh....if i could only transcribe the video I put together on all this. SO much information from so many intelligent people. I need a rich farmer to back this project (Global Strategies Project) so everyone can have the information, not just a favored few. It's powerful stuff, and much more than just "Hemp". Not "Hawking" or promoting...its just a fact; I can only do so much on my own before one hits the "financial Peter Principal" matter how good ones ideas or strategies might be. Teamwork. Plant can't grow alone either, huh?

Thanks again Gary.....

-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?.com), January 31, 2000.

Earlier, Never Inhaled said:

"Raised a lot of it. big money crop in North Carolina! a little well rotted cow sh!t is all it takes. ain't nothin' likes it or bothers it but deer and rabbits. they love it. just sittin' here on my bag of seed..........

-- never inhaled (pot@smallfarm.smoke), January 30, 2000.

Hey Never (not never ever??) lol. (no need to ans...)

Ummm, this might help you: The guyz interviewed in Jamacia said that "the top secret" was the BAT GUANO...! yes!!! Said, (literally)..."the best shit in the world".

Kinda of a double meaning there huh? But he was meaning "Farm Fert" and he SWORE by it; said they tried everyting..."it juz make de BES Mon!!!

then he finished saying, "'tis a sacred Plant Mon....a SACRED PLANT." and he meant it. Maybe he know something us Honky's don't know yet? (smile)

(Mega Guano in 'dem Bat Caves....Arizona is it? Texas? that place where they have to shut down the airport/military base at dawn and that's a LOT of Bats!!! Somebody is already in there baggin the stuff for fertilizer.

"And 'dats all i knows about de bat sheet Mon!!!"


-- steve (, January 31, 2000.

Ahhhh... those wonderful chemicals!

Soil problems prompt farming ban call (BBC)
US dustbowl fears return (BBC)
US farmers in crisis (BBC)
Organic food 'proven' healthier (BBC)

-- Y2KGardener (, January 31, 2000.

Hi, an absolute interesting debate. Remember one thing: the chem.industry doesn't want you happy or rich, they only want your money. And they developing all the time new sprays, but nature is faster by developing resistance. Otherwise we wouldn't need to have new sprays. The distinction between useful and useless plants has been made by man, not by nature!!! We will, in long term, never succed against nature, we will only survive with her. We will certainly not be able to feed the world the chemical way, they promised to achieve this as long as I can think, and we have more hungry people out there than ever. We have to find ways to lessen the negative impact of modern society on our environment, organic farming is one of them.

-- Richard K.Auler (, January 31, 2000. one will understand this....Gubmint should not have got into pot any more than they should have got into abortion. No matter what laws are passed women are still gonna kill their babies....for that gorgeous man or whatever. Suck the brains out, whatever. They gonna smoke pot that worse? What was I gonna say? Wish I had some pot now so I could forget about them little baby's brains being sucked out right before they want to be born.

-- Kyle (, January 31, 2000.

I have been a lurker here for almost a year (just like watching the neighbors for me!). Can't stand it - I finally have to post on this one! We are organic farmers. 2400 acres on North Dakota-South Dakota state line. It is TOTALLY possible to raise high yields without expensive/harmful chemicals. It's just harder work. We rotate crops feed the ground with natural with natural nutrients such as alfalfa or field peas, cultivate row crops (up to eight times each field) for weed control, etc. etc. Our sunflower crop for the last five years has yielded the same or BETTER than the neighbors who spray, up to 2,000-2200 lbs per acre. Last summer ALL of our neighbors got a disease in their sunflowers (can't remember what it's called, but when harvested the sunflowers sort of just dissolved into dust!). The neighbors sprayed heavily - of course we didn't. The disease in our sunflowers measured at less than .001%. This says to me that chemical applied crops develop their own diseases! As far as hemp, it grows wild in the hills near hear, but it's not the kind you smoke, it's the kind you use in crafting. All hemp is not equal. I honestly believe that without organic farming, raising food as we know it will not survive. Genetic seed may just cause extinction in some seeds in the near future (especially since the seed is controlled by only a few companies). The chemical sprayed on the ground may eventually turn a healthy field into "desert sand". Marketing the farm product is now controlled by a few "merged" corporations. Some day it will be prudent for every household to plant their own garden, or they may not be fed. One other point, the chemicals will eventually kill us. Thanks for letting me vent. Nancy K (organic farm @

-- NancyK (organic farm @, January 31, 2000.

Chuck the evening meanderer said: "The typical small (75-150 head) dairyman in all probability won't have the time to be able to do what y'all want in order to raise the grain and corn he needs, the hay he needs, and the one (maybe) cash crop he uses to tide himself over, in an organic manner."

No offense there, Chuck, but nearly 10 percent of the dairy farms in Maine are now organic, with one or two more added every month, and that's anywhere from 30 to 200 cows and up each. They're getting better prices, their animals are healthier, and their profit margins are thicker because they're not spending big bucks for chemicals. And their production is not going down. Organic farming -- and I speak from a certain experience here -- means the farmer has to know as much about the soil, insects, diseases, weather, and plant genetics -- about *farming* -- as a surgeon needs to know about anatomy or a stock broker about economics. It doesn't mean reaching for the first chemical the Monsanto salesman recommends when you find an aphid on a leaf. Would organic farming on a large scale mean reduced wheat harvests? Possibly, but only because other crops would be raised in the lost acreage's place as part of a rotation. I doubt sincerely that overall nutrition production would suffer.

-- Cash (, January 31, 2000.

Now let's jest see here Capitan what I gots in this here "magik box" fer yall's, allright?! Push a damn button and presto-bingo-jest-like- magic something appears outta NOTHIN' right here front o' ma face. (key squished down with pinky) Ah Ha!! Thar it be:

Seed Terminator and Mega-Merger Threaten Food and Freedom

Copyright ) 1999, by Geri Guidetti

There have been times in human history when the line between genius and insanity was so fine that it was barely perceptible. In the world of biotechnology and food, that line has just been obliterated. Announcements made over the past 90 days suggest that an ingenius scientific achievement and subsequent, related business developments threaten to terminate the natural, God-given right and ability of people everywhere to freely grow food to feed themselves and others. Never before has man created such an insidiously dangerous, far- reaching and potentially "perfect" plan to control the livelihoods, food supply and even survival of all humans on the planet. Overstatement? Judge for yourself.

On March 3, 1998, the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Delta and Pine Land Company, a Mississippi firm and the largest cotton seed company in the world, announced that they had jointly developed and received a patent (US patent number 5,723,765) on a new, agricultural biotechnology. Benignly titled, "Control of Plant Gene Expression", the new patent will permit its owners and licensees to create sterile seed by cleverly and selectively programming a plant's DNA to kill its own embryos. The patent applies to plants and seeds of all species. The result? If saved at harvest for future crops, the seed produced by these plants will not grow. Pea pods, tomatoes, peppers, heads of wheat and ears of corn will essentially become seed morgues. In one broad, brazen stroke of his hand, man will have irretrievably broken the plant - to - seed - to - plant - to - seed - cycle, THE cycle that supports most life on the planet. No seed, no food unless unless you buy more seed. This is obviously good for seed companies. As it turns out, it is also good for the US Department of Agriculture.

In a recent interview with RAFI, the Canada-based Rural Advancement Foundation International, US Department of Agriculture (USDA) spokesman, Willard Phelps, explained that the USDA wants this technology to be "widely licensed and made expeditiously available to many seed companies." The goal, he said, is "to increase the value of proprietary seed owned by US seed companies and to open up new markets in Second and Third World countries." The USDA and Delta & Pine Land Co. have applied for patents on the terminator technology in at least 78 countries!

Once the technology is commercialized, the USDA will earn royalties of about 5% of net sales. "I think it will be profitable for USDA," Phelps said. (Royalties? Profits? For a Department of the US Federal Government? What's wrong with this picture?)

The Terminator Technology was created to prevent farmers from saving non-hybrid, open-pollinated or genetically altered seed sold by seed companies. Open-pollinated varieties of crops like wheat and rice staples for most of the world's population are typical examples. The stated logic for Terminator Technology is simple, really. A seed company invests money to develop and produce new varieties of seed. It hopes to sell a lot of that seed to recoup monies spent on crop research and seed development, and then to realize a profit on their investment. Fair enough, it would seem, but there are BIG concerns around the world about how much profit, how much control many of these multinational seed companies actually seek. Many of their proprietary seeds are no more than genetically altered versions of older, reliable, conventionally bred strains that have been in the public domain for many, many years. Change a gene to give a seed resistance to some new strain of disease, the logic goes, and the seed no longer belongs to the people to grow and save as they like, but to the seed company. In the past several years the world community has been outraged as some multinational seed companies have brazenly tried to claim ownership of whole species of food plants based on the logic that they had altered a gene in a member of that species and, hence, now owned its whole genome!

In a world of burgeoning population growth and, hence, demand for food, giant, multi-national seed companies hope to sell a lot of proprietary, genetically engineered seed. Food is a BIG business that will only get bigger, and they want farmers around the world to need to come back to them, year after year, to buy the seed and, in some cases, even the chemicals, to grow it. Plant patents, gene licensing agreements, intellectual property laws, investigations and lawsuits brought against farm families for infringing on a seed company's monopoly on seed varieties are some of the means now used to protect their interests.

The new Terminator Technology could render even these modern, legal measures of control obsolete, as it is potentially so powerful, so effective and so flawless in its applicability that its corporate owners and licensees will literally have complete biological control over the food crops in which it is applied. Seed companies have been working hard to prevent farmers around the world from saving their own seed from plants originally grown with seed purchased from these companies. They are also trying to find ways to encourage farmers around the world in the U.S., Europe and especially the huge market represented by farmers in South America, Mexico and Asia, to switch to genetically engineered, proprietary seed instead of relying on the eons-old practice of saving their own locally produced and conventionally bred seed. If they can produce and offer their "improved" seed cheaply enough to convince even poorer, Second and Third World farmers to switch, they will have captured much of the global market. The Terminator will ensure that this market these farmers and the communities and countries they feed will be completely dependent on the company in order to continue to eat.

There is another potential dark side to the Terminator. Molecular biologists reviewing the technology are divided on whether or not there is a risk of the Terminator function escaping the genome of the crops into which it has been intentionally incorporated and moving into surrounding open-pollinated crops or wild, related plants in fields nearby. The means of this "infection" would be via pollen from Terminator-altered plants. Given Nature's incredible adaptability, and the fact that the technology has never been tested on a large scale, the possibility that the Terminator may spread to surrounding food crops or to the natural environment MUST be taken seriously. The gradual spread of sterility in seeding plants would result in a global catastrophe that could eventually wipe out higher life forms, including humans, from the planet.

According to USDA researchers, they have spent about $190,000 over four years working on the joint project. (Yes, you and I supported this research.) For its share, the Delta & Pine Land Company has reportedly devoted $275,000 of in-house expenses, plus an additional $255,000. Combined, these dollars are a mere drop in the bucket compared to the potential profitability of the technology to its owners. According to USDA's Willard Phelps, the Delta & Pine Land Co. retains the option to exclusively license the jointly-developed technology. In its March 3rd press release, the company claimed that the new technology has "the prospect of opening significant worldwide seed markets to the sale of transgenic technology for crops in which seed currently is saved and used in subsequent plantings." In a recent communique, RAFI states: "If the Terminator Technology is widely utilized, it will give the multinational seed and agrochemical industry an unprecedented and extremely dangerous capacity to control the world's food supply." That fear may be realized much sooner than anyone could have imagined.

At the time of the March 3 announcement of the US government- supported technology, it was common knowledge that multinational seed and pesticides giant, Monsanto, was a minor (8%) shareholder in the Delta & Pine Land Co. The two jointly have a cotton seed venture in China. On May 11th, a mere nine weeks after the announcement of the Terminator Technology, Monsanto bought the Delta & Pine Land Co. and, with it, the complete control of the Terminator Technology. For an even bigger picture of the implications of this acquisition, here's a summary of some published information on Monsanto's current agricultural holdings and activities:

The purchase of Delta & Pine now gives Monsanto an overwhelming 85% share of the US cotton seed market and a dominant global position in this crop. On May 11th, Monsanto also announced the take-over of Dekalb, the second largest maize (corn) company in the US. In January of 1997, Monsanto acquired Holden's Foundation Seeds. A company spokesman said at the time that its goal was to get its bioengineered seed on at least half of the then 40 million acres that Monsanto had access to via its acquisitions. It is estimated that 25- 35% of US corn acreage is planted with Holden's products. The Holden and Dekalb acquisitions make Monsanto the dominant player in the corn market. In November, Monsanto acquired Brazilian seed company, Sementes Agroceres. This acquisition gave Monsanto 30% of the Brazilian corn seed business. Brazilian farmers who have been breeding and saving their own seed for centuries are considered primary targets for terminator and apomictic (below) corn seed products. On January 20th, the USDA won another patent no. 5,710,367 covering "apomictic maize". This corn trait speeds hybrid seed production by allowing the plant to produce hybrid clones, lowering the price of hybrid seed. Third World farmers unable to afford more expensive hybrid seed could potentially buy these less expensive clones. Unlike other hybrids, apomictic corn can be regrown but its genetic uniformity (remember, clones) would make it more likely to lose its disease resistance more frequently, forcing farmers to buy seed more often. There are fears that Monsanto will obtain these license rights from the USDA. Monsanto's recent corn company acquisitions and, now, near monopoly in corn, make this a critical concern. A Washington connection, according to RAFI: "In the past two years, a number of high-ranking White House and USDA officials have left Washngton for the allure of Monsanto's headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri." "In October 1997, Monsanto and Millenium Pharmaceuticals (another US- based genomics company) announced a 5 year collaborative agreement worth over US $118 million, including the creation of a new Monsanto subsidiary with about 100 scientists to work exclusively with Millenium to use genomic technologies. The exclusive agreement is not limited to a single crop or geographic location, it covers all crop plants in all countries. Monsanto considers the new subsidiary 'an integral part of its life sciences strategy' and hopes to gain a competitive edge in the search for patentable and likely 'Terminator- able' crop genes." Monsanto has pioneered enforcement strategies for protection of its plant patents. Much of this pioneering has been centered on its genetically altered soybeans which have the ability to withstand spraying with the company's leading herbicide, Roundup. (Weeds and other native plants die, beans live.) In 1996 the company set a new precedent requiring farmers buying its genetically engineered "Roundup Ready Soybeans" to sign and adhere to the terms of its "1996 Roundup Ready Gene Agreement." Terms: The farmer must pay a $5 per bag "technology fee"; the farmer must give Monsanto the right to inspect, monitor and test his/her fields for up to 3 years; the farmer must use only Monsanto's brand of the glyphosate herbicide it calls Roundup; the farmer must give up his/her right to save and replant the patented seed; the farmer must agree not to sell or otherwise supply the seed to "any other person or entity." The farmer must also agree, in writing, to pay Monsanto "...100 times the then applicable fee for the Roundup Ready gene, times the number of units of transferred seed, plus reasonable attorney's fees and expenses..." should he violate any portion of the agreement. The farmers' outcry against the stringent inspection and monitoring of their private property caused Monsanto to modify that part of the agreement in 1997. The company has used a similar licensing agreement for its genetically engineered cotton and, according to a spokeswoman, plans to introduce licensing agreements with all genetically engineered seeds Monsanto brings to market. These will include Roundup Ready canola (canola oil), corn, sugarbeets, etc. (Keep in mind that now Monsanto has Terminator Technology to license, as well. It is applicable to all food crops according to its primary inventor.)

Four days ago, the scope of the potential impact of the Terminator Technology on global agriculture broadened explosively with the announcement that American Home Products Corporation (AHP) had agreed to buy Monsanto Co. for $33.9 billion in stock. "AHP," according to its press release, "is one of the world's largest research-based pharmaceutical and health care products companies....It is also a global leader in vaccines, biotechnology, agricultural products and animal health care." Reuters reports that the acquisition will create "a powerful pharmaceutical company with a massive presence in the growing market for genetically engieered agricultural products."

Actually, AHP is a family of companies including American Cyanamid, Cyamid Agricultural Products Group, Wyeth Ayerst, and others. It is the third largest in the US in herbicides, insecticides and fungicides but, with its acquisition of Monsanto, it is now estimated that the combined companies will become the largest agrochemical/life industries company in the world, beating Swiss global giant, Novartis. It does not take a giant mental leap to see the massive potential for the application and marketing of Monsanto's Roundup Ready seed and licensing agreements and the Terminator Technology to an increasing number of companies and food crops. If the Terminator technology is not globally banned, its eventual incorporation into all genetically engineered and open-pollinated, non-hybrid food crops is predictable.

As most of you are aware, I have often fretted in these pages about the vulnerabilities of our increasingly centralized, computer-based, bottom-line driven, large corporation-dominated food production, processing and distribution system. Extreme weather patterns, toxic waste-contaminated fertilizers, epidemic bacterial contamination of food and the year-2000 crash of computers responsible for keeping the whole, complex system running have been big concerns. I have warned you of the planned disappearance of non-hybrid, open-pollinated seeds. Seeds that let you retain the means of growing your own food if you want or need to. Seeds that ensure protective biodiversity. Seeds that may provide personal food security in insecure times. Now the Terminator threatens even these.

Make no mistake about it's widespread global adoption of the newly patented Terminator Technology will ensure absolute dependence of farmers, and the people they feed, on multinational corporations for their seed and food. Dependence does not foster freedom. On the contrary, dependence fosters a loss of freedom. Dependence does not increase personal power, it diminishes it. When you are dependent, you relinquish control. History is full of examples of peoples and cultures who lost fundamental freedoms, who were controlled by their need for food. This shouldn't happen to Second and Third World farmers. It shouldn't happen in any of the 78 countries in which the patent has been applied for. It shouldn't happen here.

The Terminator Technology is brilliant science and arguably "good business", but it has crossed the line, the tenuous line between genius and insanity. It is a dangerous, bad idea that should be banned. Period..........Geri Guidetti, The Ark Institute

Visit The Ark Institute's web site @ for archived Food and Grain Supply Updates. To be placed on Geri Guidetti's free Food Supply Update email list, send an email with "list" in the subject box to:

To receive a free email catalog, write "catalog" in the subject box.

Mailing address: The Ark Institute, PO Box 142, Oxford, Ohio 45064

Best wishes,

-- steve (BuwWhoCares@nymore.Right?.com), January 31, 2000.

According to McCallas figures, global grain production more than doubled, per capita food production went up 37% and real food prices fell by nearly 50%. Yet, in absolute terms, under-nutrition diminished very little. Despite increasing supply, over 1 billion people suffered key nutrient deficiencies in the 1960s, and 1.6 billion suffer iodine and 2.0 billion iron deficiencies in the 1990s.

Hmmmm....and Hemp seed is, lets see here now uhhh....(pinky squishes key down 'tick!') Ah HA!! der's dat little bugger...!

The hemp plant also contains one of the highest percentages of plant protein, and has enormous implications for solving the world's hunger problems.

Why was hemp a 'threat'? Because industrial hemp thrives without herbicides, it reinvigorates the soil, requires less water than cotton, matures in three to four months, and can potentially yield four times as much paper per acre than trees. It can be used to make building materials that are twice as strong as wood and concrete, textile fiber that is up to eight times as strong as cotton, better oil and paint than petroleum, clean-burning diesel fuel, biodegradable plastics, and hemp provides more digestible protein per acre than any other

Hemp Seed is far more nutritious than even soybean, contains more essential fatty acids than any other source, is second only to soybeans in complete protein (but is more digestible by humans), is high in B-vitamins, and is 35% dietary fiber. Hemp Seed does not contain THC."

"It really is the most versatile plant in the world," Clauder says, adding that hemp can be used in oil and paint products, plastics, clothing and food."

"HEMPSEED FOR NUTRITION; Hempseeds are the greatest source of digestible protein. Including food made from hempseeds, as a regular part of our everyday diets will provide the essential amino acids and essential fatty acids to build strong bodies, a strong immune systems, and maintain health and vitality."

"The 64-page book covers the nutritional benifits of EFA & protein rich hemp.Learn why hemp is as versitile as the soybean,yet tates better and is even more nutritious."

"Hemp seed is higher in protein than soy. "The possibilities are endless."


"The bark of the hemp stalk contains bast fibers which are among the Earth's longest natural soft fibers and are also rich in cellulose; the cellulose and hemicellulose in its inner woody core are called hurds. Hemp stalk contains no THC. Hemp fiber is longer, stronger, more absorbent and more insulative than cotton fiber."

"According to the Department of Energy and Dr. Brooks Kelly, Hemp as a biomass fuel producer requires the least specialized growing and processing procedures of all hemp products. The hydrocarbons in hemp can be processed into a wide range of biomass energy sources, from fuel pellets to liquid fuels and gas. Development of biofuels could significantly reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and nuclear power."

"Presidents Washington and Jefferson both grew hemp. Americans were legally bound to grow hemp during the Colonial Era and Early Republic. The federal government subsidized hemp during the Second World War and US farmers grew about a million acres of hemp as part of that program."

AND...(yes, there is more)

California State Legislature - Hemp Initiative: (quote)

"WHEREAS, Industrial hemp thrives without herbicides, reinvigorates the soil, requires less water than cotton, matures in three to four months, and can potentially yield four times as much paper per acre as trees, building materials that are twice as strong as wood and concrete, textile fiber that is up to eight times as strong as cotton, better oil and paint than petroleum, clean-burning diesel fuel, biodegradable plastics, and more digestible protein per acre than any other food source; and"

[Quoted from the "Mortal Kombat" thread - URL above]


Now, Ladies & gentlemen: **Why is this most beneficial plant 'illegal'?** Who is controlling this? Who is spewing out all the mis-information we have heard about 'hemp'...and deliberately scaring us, telling us to "be afraid for our children". Why is this information being obscured? Why doesn't the FDA, EPA, AMA, UC Davis, and other Universities "jump on this?" Isn't that a bit "odd"?

Why has this knowledge been *erased* from our memory and why is it being replaced with an endless barrage of twisted lies - equating it with "heroine and crack". What bulls_it.

Now somebody has something to hide here folks; someone has a hidden agenda here and for one reason only: to make THEIR profits - at the lethal expense of the many, including the Farmers.

How much longer are Farmers and The People going to put up with this kind of crap - while farmers all across the country are losing their farms and being put out on the streets?? After a lifetime of helping to feed people and this country?

Now that's just flat out immoral and wrong...isn't it.

Get educated. Get the facts...and teach balance and responsibility in all things. We are running out of time; out bio-sphere is dying, too many Children are dying and too many Mother's are cyring Gentlemen, and we really ought to think about getting our 'ACT' together, and that's saying it the 'nice' way.

"Now put that in your pipe gentlemen...and smoke it!!"

best wishes for a better world

-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?.com), January 31, 2000.

"Hell...i ain't ALL bogus Mo Fo!!" and don't never try to mislead other peope jest cause i ain't purfect in everythang..."

"alright den..." (Sling Blade - the movie) rent'll like it.

-- steve (WhoCares@nymore.Right?.con), January 31, 2000.

It appears that most people are not aware that there is difference between "recreational" hemp and industrial hemp. Industrial hemp is the plant that used to be raised in the 30's and 40's for its fiber and other commercial products. The level of THC in the industrial hemp is so low that anyone trying to use it for recreational purposes would probably die of old age before they get a buzz from it. The

-- Wayne (, January 31, 2000.

Fwd: (sent to me yesterday from a close friend)

"Hi again dear friend Steven,

I wasn't sure how to jump in to that interesting conversation, so, once again I have gotten long winded and sent it alllll to you. I hope you don't mind.

It is my desire to see this wonderful plant put back into production. The uses are numerous, the cost is minimal and the quality overides any objection.

My beloved tree people would still be standing and our earth would have one more recovery effort on the way.

I live very near to the Minnesota Reniassance Festival grounds which, years ago during the war, was a hemp farm. Yards of rope and pulp were produced to aid the "effort" and I have always wondered why production was ceased.

Funny that it would take an act of war to get our government off it's proverbial but (intentional misspelling) and use a product that was inexpensive to grow and could survive even the harsh climates that exist in beautiful Minnesota There are still many plants growing there and even though the county routinely sprays chemicals to kill these plants (we had some on the farm where I grew up and when " they "discovered some growing on our property the came in and spayed chemicals that made our horses and chickens ill) they are allowed to grow in this spot.

They are as tall as trees and provide shade on the road to the Festival grounds so perhaps that is why they are allowed to stay. Hmmmmmmmm I wonder.

My nephew was instrumental in lobbying in California to get the hemp bill passed (which it did) and he has done alot of research on the subject. The information available out there is incredible. Someday I hope to have my own organic farm and would like to include hemp as a crop.

My artistic side likes all the things that can be made with this wonderful plant. Jewelry, cloth, paper, all of wonderful quality. Just think of all the people out there with no money to buy clothes that could benefit from this natural fabric. The alternative to cotton which grows more expensive each day.

Do you suppose it's the "Money" issue again? Heaven forbid that the people of our world might get something that they actually did not have to pay "Designer Prices" for.

Yes, of course it is. It has nothing to do with what the people need. It has nothing to do with control. It has nothing to do with allowing people to make there own choices. It is in the immortal words of Jerry McGuire - "SHOW ME THE MONEY"

It is very difficult to try and live a simple life, with simple things when everything is "money " driven. I would be so happy on a little acreage, growing safe, healthy food for family and friends and excersizing my artistic self with gifts made from the earth to give away or trade for something I might need. I strive for this always.

It is very easy to be caught up in materialistic thinking and very seductive.

I say "Lets grow some hemp and get out from under the thumb".

Warm breezes to you dearest one,


-- steve (Kathryn@Cares.See?.com), February 02, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ