Communism is a system in which all property is held in common and administered by the state. When people think of communism they think of egalitarian redistribution of wealth and a centrally planned economy where resources are managed not by free individuals acting in their own interests, but by a state supposedly operating in the interest of all. However, it should be realized that any situation in which the state is dictating how to use resources implies logically that they are also dictating how not to use resources. We’ve grown accustomed to fighting the communist infiltration in America when it has manifested itself in the form of redistribution schemes. We should be equally vigilant in our efforts to fight communism when it presents itself in the form of state mandated limits in the use of private resources.

There is no just reason for government to deny people the right to harvest hemp.

In particular, we’ve allowed a once strong American industry to be entirely banished for no other reason than that it relies on a substance similar to that of a drug. I’m speaking of course of hemp. CNN reports that a group of farmers is suing the DEA over this very issue:

The feds call industrial hemp a controlled substance — the same as pot, heroin, LSD — but advocates say a sober analysis reveals a harmless, renewable cash crop with thousands of applications that are good for the environment.

Two North Dakota farmers are taking that argument to federal court, where a November 14 hearing is scheduled in a lawsuit to determine if the Drug Enforcement Administration is stifling the farmers’ efforts to grow industrial hemp. The DEA says it’s merely enforcing the law.

Marijuana and industrial hemp are members of the Cannabis sativa L. species and have similar characteristics. One major difference: Hemp won’t get you high. Hemp contains only traces of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the compound that gets pot smokers stoned. However, the Controlled Substances Act makes little distinction, banning the species almost outright.

The DEA has responded by claiming they are just following the law and that they have no say in the matter. This position seems correct, and thus I do not believe this lawsuit is the proper strategy. It is, however, based on sound free market principles. There is no just reason for government to deny people the right to harvest hemp. The legislature should act and remove these ill-thought out restrictions. I need not even address some of the questionable assumptions and practices behind the government drug war, for this is not a drug and the two issues should be entirely separate.

I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to point out some sloppy journalism on the part of CNN. In a blurb designed to promote the benefits of hemp (Which aren’t relevant, as it shouldn’t be incumbent upon citizens to convince government of the usefulness of their product in order to get permission to produce it. They shouldn’t have to ask for permission in the first place.), the article repeats the oft stated canard that the Constitution uses hemp paper. This is not so, as the Constitution is printed on animal skin parchment which was used for all important documents at the time. I’m digressing, but I wanted to draw attention to the media’s tendency to accept as fact information presented from agenda organizations while this example was right in front of me.

To me, this issue boils down simply to this: there is no sound conservative principle justifying government regulation of hemp. In fact, such regulation is a relatively recent development, as hemp growth was encouraged to help the war effort during WWII. Let’s set aside any connections to the war on drugs - regardless of ones position on the issue - and look simply at the merits of this issue, which should lead to only one conclusion: that this is yet another area in which government has overextended its authority.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS