Am I the only one who sees the gaping logical holes in the hemp, the miracle plant propaganda spewed in writeups such as DarkZero's?

  • If hemp were indeed so much more productive, the industry (at least parts of it) would lobby for its legalization, not against it, as higher productivity directly translates into a competitive advantage. The processing branch of industry would have only benefits, and only those parts of the producing branch of industry that cannot switch over to hemp would have disadvantages - and how difficult is it to switch a field from one crop to another? Incidentially, the processing branch is much bigger and thus more powerful than the producing branch.
  • Also, hemp would support fewer farmers, not more - higher productivity means that fewer producers will satisfy the same demand, and the overall demand would not rise.
  • If hemp did indeed replace many other useful plants, the resulting huge monocultures would eventually result in a shitload of problems with diseases and vermin - just because it's called weed doesn't mean it's magically resistant against everything.
  • The USA is not the whole world. Growing hemp is perfectly legal in many countries. If hemp were so much more productive or resulted in products with superior quality, it would play a dominant role in such countries and even in imports. Yet, this is not so. Growing low-THC hemp variants has been legal in Europe for a few years. Experiences are positive, but not sensationally so.

To conclude: while the marijuana scare in the USA may be exaggerated, much of the propaganda spread by hemp activists is just as bad. They're not doing their cause a favor by exaggerating the plant's virtues so ridiculously and painting it as a botanical Jesus, the saviour of mankind from all economic troubles.