As most of us are aware Cannabis is a controlled substance under International Law and most nation-states’ domestic legislation that deals with narcotics. While everyone has their own opinion on this situation it has far wider ramifications for those trying to reintroduce Cannabis into mainstream agriculture and industry. This is not to say that the cultivation of Cannabis is a new undertaking, quite the contrary, it is among the oldest of crops to be domesticated by human beings and was the main agricultural crop in China as long ago as 4500 B.C. In fact, it is the case that we may have known little about ancient Chinese culture had they not printed their texts on hemp paper – some of those items date back 2000 years or more! With today’s technological advances there are somewhere in the region of 25,000 different uses for Cannabis ranging from nutritious food source to sophisticated building composites, plastics and industrial feedstock for energy applications.

The explanation as to why we are in a situation of reintroduction with Cannabis rather than having an established and technologically sophisticated global industry is complex and to an extent reflects the unequal distribution of political power at the international level in so far as US policy has explicitly suppressed the industry from the 1930’s onwards - the only exception being that the US had a ‘Hemp for Victory’ campaign to ensure a supply of domestic fibre during the Second World War. To fully understand this situation we need to examine the historical context of the (now non-existent) Cannabis industry and associated policy in the US.

With the onset of the First World War, the USA had to substantially increase it’s acreage of hemp which at the time was a key fibre crop imported mainly from Europe and Russia. At it’s peak in 1917 hemp occupied at least forty-two thousand acres of arable farmland in the US. Due to the economic importance of hemp methods were devised to make the processing of hemp more efficient. In particular was the advent of a decorticating (fibre separating) machine announced in the 1916 Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The significance of this for the industry was considerable as up until this time only a fraction of the hemp crop (around 15 percent) consisting of the longest fibres was used (via selective breeding long fibre content has increased to 30 percent) while the shorter fibres or hurds were burnt in the fields.

Instead USDA Bulletin No.404: Hemp Hurds as Paper Making Material was printed on hemp-hurd paper demonstrating not only the new technology but the potential for hemp pulp to fulfil an expansive demand for paper at low cost while preserving natural forests. In addition it stated that,

‘Every tract of ten thousand acres devoted to hemp raising year by year is equivalent to a sustained pulp-producing capacity of forty thousand acres of average pulp-wood [timber] lands. In other words, in order to secure additional raw materials for the production of twenty-five tons of fibre per day, there exists the possibility of utilising the agricultural waste [core fibre previously burned in the fields] already produced on ten thousand acres of hemp lands’. (cited by Roulac, 1997)

Combined with the new technology this fact would seem to make a strong case for expansion of the industry rather than it’s demise. However, despite this the history of Cannabis cultivation in the US becomes one that is shrouded in mystery. For instance, Roulac (1997) points out that the ‘paper trail’ pertaining to the invention of a decorticating machine - patented by George W. Schlichten - simply vanishes in the 1920’s at a time when the demand for fibre in the US was rapidly expanding and 95 percent of the hemp stalk was of economic value. In the late 1920’s the US government came down firmly on the side of those advocating the use of tree derived wood rather than farm products such as hemp in the manufacture of paper and in 1932 the USDA released a paper encouraging the use of Southern Pine for paper and actually stated – in contrast with the 1916 USDA Bulletin No.404 - that hemp was unsuitable!

One suggestion as to why this happened rests with the influence and control that the chemical companies (in particular, Du Pont) had over the process of wood-pulp paper manufacture for which their products were essential. It could also be suggested that the growing size of such corporations meant that they held considerable influence over US industrial policy. By the 1930’s the hemp industry in the US was reduced to a few thousand acres. However, with the economic uncertainty of the Depression many farmers and industrialists sought new opportunities for profit, especially in rural locations. Many of those involved with this search were proponents of hemp and were also associated with a group of visionary industrialists – including Henry Ford – who considered it feasible for agricultural products to replace timber and imported oil in the manufacture of fibre. Known as ‘chemurgists’ (a term used by Dow Chemical biochemist William Hale) they worked on the principle that "anything that can be made from a hydrocarbon can be made from a carbohydrate".

Slowly new companies began to develop, many of which chose hemp as there primary feedstock for their manufactures ranging from paper to plastics and so the acreage of hemp increased considerably. In 1938 an article titled ‘New Billion Dollar Crop’ in Popular Mechanics stated that:

So what happened? Government and industry were clearly aware of the potential that Cannabis held for environmentally sound development yet they chose to ignore it. Rather there were similarities to the situation in the early 1900’s when production of cannabis was prevented by the apparent institutional bias in favour of Southern Pine. In actual fact there is a real possibility that the bigger picture was being painted by oil companies – such as, for example, the prohibition of alcohol in the early 1900’s which stopped farmers using waste derived ethanol to run farm machinery and made them completely dependent on fossil fuel derived diesel. In addition, many of the product lines that could be manufactured from Cannabis would be in direct competition with those derivable from petrochemicals. Rather than compete fairly in the market, could it be possible that oil companies and petrochemical firms once again used their political influence and media connections to undermine any chance of a successful hemp industry in the US and indeed the rest of the World?

It is certainly a possibility that is worth exploring and will lead to an explanation as to why the term ‘industrial hemp’ came about. Throughout this article I have consistently referred to Cannabis rather than hemp, that is simply because Cannabis is the correct taxonomic name for that particular species. To be sure, hemp (or industrial hemp as it is now called) is a sub-species whose scientifically correct name is Cannabis Sativa L., other sub-species include Cannabis Indica and ruderalis. And here lies the ‘problem’. Cannabis plants of all varieties produce in varying degrees Cannabinoids (a group of chemicals unique to the species of which there are over sixty) including the chemical Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannibinol (THC) which contributes to the plants use for over 3000 years in the treatment of a diverse range of human medical conditions. THC can also be used recreationally and was viewed as a good (wife friendly) alternative to alcohol according to the women of the Temperance Movement in the US!

THC is produced most in the indica varieties which are often referred to as Marijuana or Marihuana and was outlawed in the US by the passing of the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act. However, it is not possible surely to tax something which is outlawed and indeed while this Act recognised the genetic differences within the genera it (despite it’s name) also covered the genetically distinct Sativa L. variety known as hemp. This variety was selectively bred for it’s fiber’s strength and quality mainly from European varieties and contains negligible amounts of the Cannabinoid THC. On the other hand Indica varieties (i.e.marijuana), mainly from Southern Asia and Africa, were domesticated for their drug source. Suffice to say that the passing of this act created so much regulation for farmers that most of them gave up cultivating hemp altogether despite recognition from scientists and industrialists that a hemp industry held considerable potential.

It is extremely unlikely that the 1937 Marihuana Act could be put down to complete ignorance as Roulac (1997) also points out that the formation of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) – forerunner to the DEA – had it’s commissioner appointed by Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury and the principle banker to the largest petrochemical firms (including DuPont) and other corporations controlling considerable US timber acreage. Mellon appointed his son-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger, as commissioner of the bureau. Despite protests from those involved in the industry – the National Seed Institute was among he group to lobby against the bill on the grounds that hemp oil was essential in the manufacture of paints and other industrial processes - and recognition from those within the bureau that hemp and Marijuana are distinct sub-species of Cannabis, during the time of hearings prior to the vote on the 1937 Act the debate shifted into public life with even more confusion. Commissioner Anslinger, for example, cited instances of crime where marijuana had been blamed for the defendants actions. In such instances representatives of the American Medical Council testified against the Act due to the importance of marijuana for pharmaceutical purposes.

Needless to say there was also considerable media involvement in the ‘public debate’ most of which was negative for the hemp industry as it was deliberately associated with marijuana, the ‘Killer Weed’ as appeared in some news papers. Then owner of the New York Times, William Randolf Hearst was also the owner of vast areas of timberland and some believe him to have conspired with DuPont to remove the hemp industry as a competitor to the synthetic fibers being developed from petrochemicals. The new Federal Bureau of Narcotics procedure for issuing the licences was also fundamentally flawed and served only one purpose – making legitimate hemp cultivation nigh impossible. For instance, there was a transfer (from farmer to processor) tax which only permitted transfer if the stalk was free from leaf and flower. Hemp Farmers were well aware that some foliage remained attached to the stalk following retting which combined with zealous enforcement meant that farmers could risk crop lose or even criminal prosecution!

There were also more blatant discrepancies in the bureau’s procedure which included with holding licences which has been applied for by farmers. Moreover, those companies that supplied hemp for the US Navy were exempt from much of the red tape of the 1937 Act and remained viable into the 1950’s. During the Second World War was the first time that the government or it’s departments had made the distinction between the varieties of cannabis as US government launched their ‘Hemp (not marijuana - as Cannabis had consistently been referred to over the last 30 years) for Victory’ campaign - only five years after the passing of the 1937 Act. However, after the War the US government cancelled virtually all the hemp-farming licences while hemp cultivation was also eradicated in post-war Japan.

The 1960’s brought with it the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which was ratified and implemented by the US in 1961 in an attempt to co-ordinate drug policy at the international level. However, there is a possibility that the US maybe in clear violation of the Single Convention as it states that, ‘this convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the Cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre and seed)’ (Roulac, 1997, p62). In 1970 the US Congress enacted the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act (CDAPCA) and the old Federal Bureau of Narcotics was replaced with the new Justice Departments DEA which stated that drugs, ‘will be controlled in conformity with the treaty or other international agreement obligations’ (Roulac, 1997). While the new Act repealed the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 it stated that the new law would apply to those drugs "which by law or regulation have [already] been placed under control under existing law". The problem with this was that the definition of "marijuana" did not change from the 1937 definition and no attempt was made to distinguish this from hemp, a move that would be necessary under the UN Single Convention on Narcotics to permit hemp cultivation. Instead the House committee report on the CDAPCA states that,
"marihuana would be prohibited except . . . . . for the emergency production of hemp [!]".

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to which responsibility and power is delegated to for law enforcement makes absolutely no distinction between Cannabis sub-species Indica and Sativa L.. In effect this makes the cultivation of hemp in the US impossible but at the same time it goes against aspects of the US Constitution and indeed the United Nations Single Convention which has allowed the continuing cultivation of industrial hemp at the international level. What is worse – and perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this history – is the influence that the USA has over other nations and in terms of it’s ability to disregard international treaties/conventions. For example, the DEA is responsible for making reports to US Congress regarding other ‘drug producing countries’ which the US Federal government then subjects to economic sanctions. Obviously the DEA’s (deliberately?) non-discriminatory approach i.e. between hemp (Cannabis Sativa L.) and marijuana (Cannabis Indica) means that it can also report countries for growing industrial hemp. While the USA’s southern (and poorer) neighbours have been discouraged from growing this valuable crop, the industry has never stopped in some countries (i.e. France, China and India and the ex-Soviet Union) and has been reintroduced in others (i.e. Canada, Germany, the UK and several other EU States) without any US sanctions being levied in what remains something of a paradox.

However, because of this policy several countries that are considered ‘less developed’ are being prevented from benefiting economically from industrial hemp cultivation. On top of this the world has seen the destruction of natural ecosystems and atmospheric pollution by the timber and petrochemical industries which may have been prevented had these methods not been given president over industrial hemp – a truly sustainable industry. The irony today is that we are faced with environmental problems on a massive scale in the form of global climate change. One of the only methods to try and reverse this trend is to change the industrial feedstocks of our major industries such as timber and petrochemicals. Industrial hemp cultivation has the potential to do this but there need to be enough political weight behind it. We should therefore take advantage of the fact that most of us (still) live in democracies and make this one of the key political issues of the 21^st Century.

Home