Hemp is a multipurpose, non-intoxicating organic material made from the cannabis plant. For thousands of years, it has been used to produce food, oil, rope, paper, textiles, and, as of recent, composite and fuel. Until the 19th century, the US produced large quantities of industrial hemp for use in rope and paper manufacturing; it is even rumored that the Declaration of Independence is written on paper made from hemp.
The use of hemp declined in the 20th century as substitutes from other plants became more widely available and synthetic materials derived from oil became cheaper. Many hemp advocates claim that the decline of hemp between the late 19th and early 20th centuries was the result of a corporate conspiracy involving media mogul William Randolph Hearst. There is little evidence to support this theory, which fails to explain the decline of hemp in other countries over the same time period. Today, hemp manufacturing in the US is a fraction of what it used to be. Imported from China, Canada, and the EU, relatively small quantities of hemp are turned into foodstuffs, clothing, and cosmetics, yet cultivating hemp remains illegal under federal law.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) states officially that legalizing the industrial production of hemp would complicate efforts to enforce the current prohibition of marijuana. However, those who advocate lifting the ban point to the wide range of uses for hemp, as well as its virtually negligible amount of THC (marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient).
Despite its impressive range of uses, hemp is neither the only nor the best candidate for any of those functions.
It is perhaps unsurprising that the strongest advocates of hemp come from the pro-marijuana community. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), for instance, has been enthusiastically supportive of industrial hemp, claiming that its benefits are in fact a reason to end the prohibition of marijuana altogether.
Ironically, both pro- and anti-marijuana forces have built their respective arguments around the idea that hemp and marijuana are the same. This assumption is unfounded; despite being derived from the same plant species, hemp and marijuana are hardly interchangeable. Firstly, the parts of the plant used to make hemp contain very low levels of THC — between 0.3 and 1% for industrial hemp, compared to 4-18% for marijuana (you’d have a tough time getting high on industrial hemp). Moreover, because industrial hemp requires long fibers, plants are grown close together to encourage height and are harvested before the flowers rich in THC can bloom. Hash plants, on the other hand, are grown far enough apart to encourage the production of multiple flowers at the expense of height. Both visually and functionally, the two plant types have almost opposite characteristics, each allowing the cultivator to capitalize on their respective specialties.
The DEA’s fear is that farmers could cultivate hemp and hash interchangeably in the same field, lining fields of hemp with plants high in THC and flooding the US with home grown marijuana. However, the likelihood of this happening is small; indeed, it is not happening in countries that produce hemp legally while prohibiting marijuana. One explanation is that cross-pollination, which would occur naturally in such fields, would reduce the quality (and, therefore, value) of both crops. You couldn’t grow high-THC “sinsemilla” in a field surrounded by hemp plants without cross-pollination and dilution of the marijuana’s strength and value. Producers of hemp therefore have a reduced incentive to produce marijuana, and vice versa.
Similarly, medical marijuana growers in California opposed a pilot hemp project on the basis that the air might carry hemp seeds into contact with their crop. Indeed, marijuana seeds can travel 12 miles by wind.
What about those without a vested interest in cannabis legalization or prohibition? Would legalizing hemp enable drug cultivators to mask illicit marijuana production? The DEA says yes, but the fact that other nations have successfully regulated hemp crops seems to suggest that it is possible.
In the 30 or so nations currently producing hemp, marijuana is prohibited. The authorities in these countries use strict protocols to license hemp production, select seeds, inspect operations, and monitor production. There are government-approved strains as well as hemp-growing associations requiring background checks and other policies. Farms are inspected frequently and subject to aerial surveillance. Moreover, annual hemp harvests occur before the THC-rich flowers even bloom, so it would be fairly obvious if someone were using hemp to cultivate marijuana—much like spotting a European wrestler in an NBA team!
Lastly, the value of land is so high across the US that few farmers would risk their homes and livelihoods, let alone their freedom, to grow the wrong strain of cannabis. The seizure of farms makes for a powerful incentive not to break the law.
While it is technically possible that industrial hemp would open a back door for domestic marijuana cultivation, the regulatory machinery necessary to prevent this already exists, and it seems clear that legalizing hemp production would have a net advantage for the many industries in which it could serve as a renewable and natural product. Whether the cultivation of hemp makes economic sense is quite another story.