digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Opinion: California Governor Nixes Industrial Hemp While North Dakota Move

greenoptions.com — Unlike his more forward-thinking and courageous counterpart in North Dakota, Schwarzenegger bowed to the Drug Enforcement Administration's fear that industrial hemp will get you high, and vetoed Assembly Bill 684 which would have allowed a four-county, five-year pilot program of industrial hemp production in California.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • davidconnell, on 10/17/2007, -1/+53This is the best analysis of the industrial hemp debate I've seen yet. It clearly explains why Gov. Ahnuld vetoed hemp, and why North Dakota is standing up for it. The bottom line is this crop helps farmers, helps the environment, and helps the economy. We need to change our antiquated federal laws.
    • SpectralSounds, on 10/16/2007, -0/+22Our antiquated federal laws make too much money for the people who are, "upholding" aforementioned laws.
      • Godlike, on 10/16/2007, -3/+6This is why even if you have some issue with him, John Edwards should be listened to. Half of his platform is based on removing this type of interaction, i.e. lobbying, from the government.

        LOL what, you think this is based solely on what the DEA thinks? It runs FAR deeper than that.
        • oldhick, on 10/18/2007, -9/+4"even if you have some issue with him"... Shouldn't everyone have an issue with that little ***** (sorry, i had to use the Coulter line)? Back to serious, the guy is a scam artist that cost our already failing health care industry billions in frivolous law suits. Then he turns around and mocks the same industry for outrageous cost. He talks about the "2 Americas" while living in a disgustingly glutenous compound. He is the very definition of hypocrite. I think its literally impossible to be a bigger hypocrite than that guy. I'll take Kucinich, Obama, or Ron Paul over that guy any day.
          So no, I won't listen to John Edwards, ever.
        • crweaks23, on 10/16/2007, -0/+5I don't care what your points are, you get no attention (or respect) from me by quoting Ann Coulter.
    • Gir53457, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4So... Once again we blame the cotton farmers?
      • omgdspmpg, on 10/16/2007, -0/+12no, we blame companies like DuPont who helped marijuana/hemp prohibition along because they were involved with paper companies and making chemical treatments to wood pulp for creating new paper.
    • gropo, on 10/17/2007, -1/+26Not to mention the primary arguments against industrial hemp are completely ridiculous.
      First and foremost: Growing pot in your hemp field would simply produce really weak dirtweed hybrid not worth a dime on the black market given how everyone and their mother is cultivating supreme, regulated strains indoors these days.
      "People who advocate industrial hemp just want weed legalized" Actually, there's quite a difference between the two sets of activists. Just because there's overlap in membership doesn't mean the legitimate arguments are any less valid.
    • DiggzDE, on 10/16/2007, -0/+13I agree, Hemp is one of the widest ranged agricultural crops to date. It can be used for so many purposes, yet remains under utilized because of our federal laws.
      • knomevol, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3i think people will discover what an amazing fuel hemp oil is, and the oil industry will come undone - the sweater song.
        • WiseWeasel, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2If you want to destroy my sweater, outlaw hemp so it's really weak...
          c'mon, sing it with me!
    • Gir53457, on 10/16/2007, -0/+8And since we're on the subject of overbearing government regulations, We need to get rid of the sugar taxes as well.
  • Shorties, on 10/17/2007, -2/+29As much as I wanted to hate Arnold when he was originally elected he hasn't done anything to really piss me off, until now!
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/16/2007, -3/+2I don't quite understand why this is Arnold's fault. From what I've seen, he's right. The people growing industrial hemp would still be subject to having their stuff seized and being thrown in jail by federal authorities, right? Isn't he just saying that this needs to be fixed federally, not on the state level where the federal law would still allow them to be prosecuted? Basically, shouldn't Congress be responsible for this?
      • Phrag, on 10/16/2007, -0/+9Congress is responsible for federal laws. Arnold is not in Federal Congress. He is in the California state government and therefore should concentrate on state laws that benefit the state, regardless of what the feds are doing. Blaming federal laws for this veto is a poor excuse.
      • MacEnvy, on 10/16/2007, -0/+6In this case, change is going to have to be instituted at the state levels. It's reached the point where a showdown with the federal government is necessary to challenge unjust and injurious laws. California could have taken a big first step here, but Arnold chose to take the coward's way out.
        • WilliamDavis, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2And even worse, he did so by acting as if the farmers in California are too stupid to understand what they would be getting into. They know. They aren't stupid.
  • evilcaptain, on 10/17/2007, -1/+25why do people who don't know the facts or don't want to know, get to make these important decisions!
    I thought Cuban cigars were illegal yet he still smokes them. Hypocrite!
    • Godlike, on 10/16/2007, -1/+8Cubans are illegal because we don't/didn't/weren't going to trade with Cuba. Sortof.
      • Devotia, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1I thought Cubans were legal as long as they made it to shore.
    • jmkiii, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Democracy really just means government by the loud, instead of the knowledgeable.
  • baalzebub, on 10/17/2007, -3/+22i dont care if industrial hemp is legalized, i just want recreational hemp legalized...
    • Shorties, on 10/16/2007, -0/+7Baby steps...
    • Gir53457, on 10/16/2007, -0/+10... With the same restrictions placed on it as tobacco for minors.
    • ncc74656m, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3hah, at least you're honest!
    • omgdspmpg, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1yeah! let's get high and not think about the implications of industrial hemp!

      no wonder the "older generations" think young people are retarded. because with attitudes like this we look reatrded which doesn't help us get us what we want very easily.
      • WilliamDavis, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2"yeah! let's get high and not think about the implications of industrial hemp!"

        I'm sure most people are capable of both at the same time. The justification for making either illegal is wrong in the same way, so you don't even really have to think that hard.
    • NinjaBoy, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2To bad hemp doesn't have enough thc to get you high. :(
  • snakle, on 10/17/2007, -8/+7Arnold is the Terminator: OF HEMP!!
    • Gir53457, on 10/17/2007, -2/+6As a resident of California; Please die.
  • MerryMortician, on 10/16/2007, -0/+17Good article. Although.. I can't believe Arnold isn't better educated on these plants. I'm sure he has smoked his share.
  • BigManOnCampus, on 10/17/2007, -1/+12I used to like Arnold as governor. Now it's clear that the governor has no say in this state, the special interests are in charge.
    • Randinn, on 10/16/2007, -0/+6Nothing new, look at the country....
    • bjornski, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Now?

      I'd been saying this at the first mention of his putting his name on the ballot.
  • slackerjack, on 10/17/2007, -0/+19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp
    "While THC is present in all Cannabis plant varieties to some extent, industrial Hemp does not contain an amount to produce any intoxicating effect, even in significant quantities."
    It's all about MONEY and who controls it.
    • Light11, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1you would have to smoke about a football field worth of industrial hemp to get high.
  • Error601, on 10/17/2007, -16/+3As if any of the pot heads here give a crap about industrial uses.
    • ncc74656m, on 10/16/2007, -2/+2So true. Look up Foamy's rant, Drugs in Your Head.
    • Godlike, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4It's a stretch to come up with anything else where we act so close minded and stupid as this. Think of it this way, Error601, every single "pot head" here thinks that you are a moron. From your perspective, what does that say about you?

      I am also pretty sure that you don't understand why.

      Oh by the way... blocked.
    • RedViper1999, on 10/17/2007, -5/+1Not only that but who the hell cares about hemp in general. Nobody but pot users. Its not like anyone really cares that hemp makes strong rope or clothes. And if you do, you're obviously living in the past. Today we use synthetics that are much stronger, durable, and cheaper than hemp would be. If hemp were as valuable as people say it was for all these uses, you'd at least see other poorer countries make use of it to help their economy. But you don't see that, you know why, because they primarily use the other form for pot because that's the only thing of value it apparently has. Hemp itself without this THC is valueless apparently.
    • Phrag, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2Since hemp has no uses other than industrial, I would assume the people reading this article care. Assuming that people in California only want hemp so they can legalize marijuana in complete backwards. California already has more high-quality pot than it knows what to do with so legalizing hemp would do nothing to increase the pot supply. A better (although still incorrect) argument would be that California farmers want marijuana legalized so they can grow hemp.
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3"As if any of the pot heads here give a crap about industrial uses."

      That's so true! Anytime anyone starts bringing up potential uses for ethanol, I kill the conversation by investigating their alcohol consumption. I'm a lot of fun at parties.
  • spamly, on 10/17/2007, -0/+11I don't completely understand this. "Technically" this product is covered under a federal law, but due to its nature it is really outside of the scope of the law. Couldn't/Shouldn't this be changed at the federal level quickly?
    Yes I'm oversimplifying this. It's what I do.
    • Phrag, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3Technically no product is covered by federal law. Federal law is only supposed to cover trade between the states and the states are supposed to have the right to decide what is legal within their borders. This broke down when the feds started to claim that the Federal Commerce Clause allowed them to enforce federal laws on business that was completely within a single state if that business significantly affected interstate trade. The problem with this is that their measure for a "significant effect" is extremely low. This was shown in the Supreme Court case of Gonzales v. Raich in which the court decided that the feds were not doing anything illegal when they destroyed six plants that were shared by two women, Monson and Raich, and grown completely within the California state borders and laws. If six plants shared between two sick women can 'significantly affect' the multi-billion dollar marijuana trade, then anything can have a significant effect on interstate trade.
      • WilliamDavis, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3The feds have derived much of their illegitimate power through perversion of the Commerce Clause.
  • slackerjack, on 10/16/2007, -7/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp
    "While THC is present in all Cannabis plant varieties to some extent, industrial Hemp does not contain an amount to produce any intoxicating effect, even in significant quantities."

    It's about MONEY and who controls it!
    • cheesehead, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4It's also about power. Most people I know smoke, therefore most of them, can't buck the police state, because they can be prosecuted by the authorities at any time.
      Then of course there is the legal system and the American privatized prison system which profit enormously. This is similar to the Cancer and medical/ pharmaceutical industries.
      All of these are parasitic paradigms which western democracies could do without.
  • FearAndLoathing, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4Fear what you don't understand, ya that seems like a good plan, I'm suuure that won't back fire on them...
    • Phrag, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3They understand this plant very well since it has been used for centuries. What they fear is having to get a real job.
  • scabbers, on 10/16/2007, -0/+5Hahah. The Austrian invasion is moving into its final phase.
  • j1ggy, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4You can't smoke hemp Mr. Governator, believe me I've tried.
  • Godlike, on 10/17/2007, -0/+20Hemp is illegal for two reasons, 1) The DEA is trying mightily to hold on to power after losing the drug war entirely; 2) it would vastly reconfigure the textile industry and put importers out of business.

    The lobbyists have already ruined America. Listen to what people say, and when someone wants to stand up to them, VOTE.
  • Leadhyena, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4Ahnold has been quite active with that veto pen in the last two weeks...
  • mewithoutRicky, on 10/17/2007, -4/+2Legalize it or not, won't stop nothing.
  • Brianguy2000, on 10/17/2007, -1/+3Even if he didnt veto the bill, the DEA would have just raided the farms and shut down the whole thing. The Feds dont care if states want it legal unless every state does it then they cant deny looking into changing the laws. While it would be nice to have Arnold stand up to the feds, it would have been shut down eventually unless the matter gets taken to court but i'm sure Bush wont allow anyone to undermine his authority.
    • cheesehead, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1The Fed derives it's power from the people. When enough of them get off their knees, the Fed will go back to looking under peoples beds for Islamo fascists
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3"Even if he didnt veto the bill, the DEA would have just raided the farms and shut down the whole thing."

      Make them do it, then. There are people willing to sacrifice to get the issue more notice. They know what will happen. They're looking longer term. It's like a civil rights movement in some ways. People know when they are in violation of laws, and that's what it takes sometimes to bring more attention to unjust laws.
  • morgino, on 10/16/2007, -5/+0I think Arnold has been doing a great job as gov but this is really disappointing. After not caving on stem cell research this sure seems like a minor issue tobe a pussy over
  • MrM1yagi, on 10/16/2007, -0/+5Oh come on Arnold, what happened to "Pumping Iron" when you smoked a blunt after Mr. Olympia... Remember your roots.
  • red8316, on 10/17/2007, -0/+7Since when did California start bowing to demands of the federal government? What about California Medical Marijuana, clearly the feds don't like that, but its allowed in California, meanwhile Hemp is the big no no when big brother doesn't want it legalized. But oh wait, what was that old World War 2 slogan ... Hemp for Victory? Oh yeah, one last thing, DEA ... go ***** yourself for trying to demonize Hemp, get your priorities right and go after man made drugs, leave natures medicine alone!
  • ncc74656m, on 10/17/2007, -8/+1I feel that both sides of this argument are so single-minded right now that I would never be able to form an opinion that I trust. Yes, that goes for both you pot heads who demand legalization as if your most fundamental freedoms were being stripped from you (you sound like the freakin' gun nuts), and the current government's approach to combating it. Ultra-liberal rants about your rights and "years of (pot head) scientific evidence" will never sway people who feel that any and all forms of pot/hemp are bad, just as Draconian laws and their enforcement will not help to curb use.
    • Phrag, on 10/17/2007, -0/+7You consider a person who thinks that they should have the right to decide what they put into their body an "ultra-liberal"?
  • Racerx52, on 10/16/2007, -4/+2Well those 5 people in north Dakota need something...
  • LogicBomB, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5Arnold was a cannabis smoker back in the day... or at least he's tried it (videos are abound somewhere). Why would he nix this?

    Dumbass...
  • oldhick, on 10/17/2007, -1/+4I just don't understand your frustration being directed at Arnold... So California legalizes medical marijuana and the feds swoop in and arrest everyone. There are people on trial for their lives right now and they aren't even allowed to mention in Federal Court that they thought it was legal because of California law. Thanks to the control we've given the Federal Government over the States, I think he made the only reasonable decision to try to protect people in California. Until we fix our ***** up Federal government, what are you gonna do?
    • Phrag, on 10/17/2007, -0/+7Fight it and run your state the way it should be run according to the constitution. Sitting back and accepting the abuses of federal law isn't going to change anything. The states have the right to grow hemp. Of course this right has been stolen since the leaders of the states will not assert and exercise them. I highly doubt that anyone in California has any illusions about medical marijuana being legal under federal law after the Rosenthal case. What we need is more Rosenthal cases to bleed the feds of both resources and of legitimacy in the court of public opinion.
  • Ferre1, on 10/17/2007, -0/+7Ahnold knows the benefits of hemp, he's just as corrupted as many other politicians.
  • splatt89, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1ya. ya God forbid those hippies bring their hemp and their weed to California. oh wait...
  • rmmcclay, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1***** idiot.
  • theelectricafro, on 10/17/2007, -0/+7But he does have a shiny Nazi death's head belt buckle that he wore on the cover of TIME appearing with Bloomberg.
  • EasyEve, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5Listen Arnold- leave the politicking to politicians- growing HEMP is the best investment California could ever make. All the pieces fit- we have the best soil, the best climate and the best green thinkers!

    Get with it!
  • Kragnerac, on 10/16/2007, -0/+3Come on, Ahnold. You know you want some more...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y2C2bbuBGY
  • DukeLeto2, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2First thing that came to mind about this is that this is a hot topic for Ron Paul. He has introduced legislation to declassify it as a controlled substance. Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110 ...
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Ya know... not only does the guy talk the talk, but he's been walking the walk for years.
  • socokoolaid, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1It really sounds like this is an issue with federal marijuana law. Can Arnold really approve something that technically breaks the out-dated questionable federal law?
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Yes. The feds could still prosecute, but the state couldn't. He'd like to keep it so the state can prosecute too, or at least that's what he did by not signing.
  • zombiedepot, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Someone should have vetoed Terminator 3.
  • tehbored, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3It seems that, for all his toughguy attitude, the Gorvernator is kind of a pussy.
  • jagg, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2Seriously - everyone says what a wonder-plant hemp is, but if that's true why aren't hemp legal countries rich like oil-rich nations?
    Cut out the industrial hemp nonsense and just work on making weed legal.
  • syroncoda, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Arnie lost his cred when he did this. terminator indeed.
  • silicongat, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1http://eeuauaughhhuauaahh.ytmnd.com/
  • detales, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3The moral dilemma here isn't whether or not hemp gets you high, but rather, what's so wrong with getting high in the first place?
  • LeakyFaucet, on 10/17/2007, -0/+0Legalizing industrial hemp would completely f over all the other fabric companies (cotton, polyester, etc.) because it's so much better!
    Assholes... it doesn't matter though- I'll still blaze
  • bonhome, on 10/20/2007, -0/+0I grow doob outdoors. Industrial hemp is very weak hemp. keep hemp strong and powerfull by not allowing industrial hemp strains to weaken the strain. no pain no gain.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.