Is it hemp, or marijuana?

There is none so blind as he who will not see. Anonymous

Recent stories about the drug problem in our area make it only too obvious that its most troublesome aspects involve prescription drugs. Funny, isn’t it, that the most harmful drugs are the addictive pain pills produced by the big pharmaceutical companies?

Cigarette manufacturers do the same thing; produce a highly addictive product, I mean. They are so good that two or three cigarettes are enough to hook you. Like the big pharmaceuticals, they, too, make a lot of money from their product.

These two have one other thing in common; the use of one can lead to misuse of the other. Cigarettes are the epitome of the so-called gateway drug. Once children learn to smoke, it is usually only a matter of time till they move on to illegal drugs.

Those responsible for helping the country overcome the difficulties presented by illegal drug use sometimes misunderstand the situation. Take our own Member of Congress, Hal Rogers. Like the federal government, Mr. Rogers seems to think that hemp is a “derivative of marijuana”.

In answer to a letter I sent, wherein I ask Mr. Rogers to consider co-sponsoring H R 1866, a proposed amendment to The Controlled Substances Act that would exclude hemp from the definition of marijuana, Mr. Rogers not only declined, he wrote “…I disagree with (attempts to) legitimize growing or using marijuana or its derivatives.”

He then went on in some detail about how “legalizing any aspect of marijuana” would “lead to more…trafficking…harming…(our) communities.” He concluded by saying that we are better off by “fighting the scourge of drugs” than “asserting the…benefits of…product derivatives.”

I tried to allay the Congressman’s concerns by pointing out hemp’s low levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) , which simply means “not a buzz in a carload”, or that its production would stymie a pot farmers aims, as it easily pollinates a pot plant, thus rendering the pot worth less, if not worthless, but to what avail, I don’t know, as he has not answered that e-mail.

Funny thing, the Congressman’s concerns didn’t stop him from supporting tobacco. You know, that highly addictive product that I spoke of earlier? It kills some 440,000 Americans each year, in ways that cost the medical system lots of money. You know, emphysema or lung cancer or throat cancer or oral cancers or heart disease can be expensive.

Makes you wonder why Congressman Rogers voted against healthcare reform. Of course, he also opposed the federal government’s lawsuit against tobacco, and was listed as an ally by Philip Morris in 1999. Perhaps that is why he felt comfortable taking $42,700 from tobacco Political Action Committees over several years.

It’s sad that the Congressman has so many misguided ideas about hemp when they are so easily disproved. A visit to http://current.com/green/92348771_americas-hemp-warrior-alex-white-plume.htm would do the Congressman a world of good. This site has a portion of the documentary "Standing Silent Nation" , which clearly explains why hemp is not pot, and details the many uses hemp has, also.

More importantly, Congressman Rogers might find out how profitable this crop could be for Kentucky farmers: Hemp would be ideal as a replacement for tobacco. Perhaps then, the Congressman could admit that he is mistaken about hemp.