While it will give you the migraine from Hell doing so if someone is capable of thinking down to the average level of intelligence of U.S. politicians they will soon realize that the thought of allowing total freedom in the growth and use of hemp is far to scary to even begin to contemplate. It could easily result in anyone supporting it losing enough large campaign contributions that come campaign season their war chests would be pretty empty because of the loss of money from unions and many large corporations and also a loss of many votes from many unionized workers.
Think about it a moment. In 2013 67% of the electricity produced in the U.S. came from coal, natural gas and petroleum. Major corporations control those businesses and big unions look after the workers who supply those materials.
If power plants were changed over to hemp fired power plants crops could be grown cheaply and quickly. While growing they would absorb/use cO2. When burned they would release the trapped cO2 but then the next crop would use it/absorb it again and there would be a closed loop or closed cycle of cO2 from those power plants rather than them burning fossil fuels with cO2 trapped in them and released and there being an ever increasing amount of cO2 rather than an even, level amount being maintained. But would the coal corporations and the natural gas corporations and the petroleum corporations and their unions and their workers like to see that happen? Nope. And the politicians in the states where the products are produced would not like to lose the support of the corporations, the unions or the union workers come election time. So the politicians protect themselves by protecting those corporations, unions and union employees and vote no to hemp.
Consider the construction business. Anything that is or could be made from concrete could instead be made from hempcrete. Again the main material needed, hemp, could be grown cheaply and quickly. While growing it would absorb cO2. When made into hempcrete it would trap the cO2 and as the hempcrete petrifies it would continue to use even more cO2, drawing it from the atmosphere, and also trapping it. If a house were to be built of hempcrete the hemp fibers in the hempcrete would work as insulation so there would be less need for synthetic materials to be made and used. In areas where earthquakes are more common a hempcrete house would be the way to go since it is three times as resilient as concrete. It is harder and the older it gets the harder it gets. Does anyone think the wood corporations cutting down forests would want to lose a lot of wood sales because someone decided they wanted a better stronger home built from hempcrete rather than one that if well built and if well maintained might last a few hundred years? I guess to someone they might think, what's the difference, I'll be dead long before my wood house has to be replaced. But would they be as apt to think that if they live in an area where earthquakes or hurricanes or tornadoes are common? I doubt that the makers of fiberglass and other synthetic insulating materials would like it if someone could have a house built where the outer wall could be poured and not only be for structural support but also would provide the needed amount of insulation. They would likely be telling politicians to not support hemp or not allow hemcrete use or else the political donations will shrink or maybe dry up totally.
Highways, highway bridges, roads, airport runways, large buildings, virtually anything that is or could be make of concrete could instead be made by hempcrete and in doing so remove while growing and remove even more all through the petrification process cO2 from the atmosphere and being stringer than concrete whatever it is it would last longer and need less repair or upkeep. A lot of major corporations and businesses and unions would again not care much for things like houses built that could last for thousands of years or highway bridges that would not need frequent repairs or replacement. So they tell the members of Congress in their states and districts that they don't want hempcrete to be allowed to be used.
Not allowing the total freedom of use of hemp proves how hypocritical the U.S. government is with it's 'Go Green' position. Hemp crops would not need fertilization or herbicides or pesticides when grown. All are pollutants and the runoff from them is causing all sort of problems to wells, ponds, creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and oceans.
For fields growing other crops or when the same fields are growing other crops sue to a crop rotation cycle hemp could still be used to greatly reduce the amount of pollutants that make it into the various water sources. Fields are shaped/graded to make swales for runoff during heavy rains. Each swale could be planted with hemp. Hemp plants break down or degrade organic pollutants and stabilize metal contaminants by acting as filters or traps. Various toxins would be absorbed and then the hemp could be harvested and used for biofuel or to fuel hemp fired electricity plants. The hemp plants would absorb toxins but also depending on what type of toxin they will break some of them down to safe inert forms by phytotransformation, also referred to as phytodegradation. Hemp plants could be planted in areas of toxic spills or buildups of toxic waste and clean the soil rather than having massive amounts of soil removed and then relocated in a still toxic form or just bury it under a layer of new clean soil, like was done at the decommissioned titan II ICBM sites where the missile silos, according to the treaty with the Soviets of the time said the missile silos had to be destroyed so they were blown up and the hardened concrete that contained PCBs was strewn all over the property so a foot of new clean soil was just spread over the top of the contaminated soil, but still allowing the toxins to leach down into the water table.
In Belarus, site of the Chernobyl disaster, they are not only using the hemp to clean up the soil, they're making money on the processing of that hemp into biofuel. Lead, uranium, cesium-137, and strontium-90 and other highly toxic and deadly pollutants can be removed from soils and also from water using hemp.
There is great concern in the U.S. over what to do with spent rods from nuclear power plants and in some cases the pools they have been kept in have leaked. Hemp could clean the soil where there have been leaks. While most of the contamination is contained inside some did end up outside and to this day the Three Mile Island nuclear mess has not been cleaned up. At least the outside portion could be by growing hemp there.
In nations where the U.S. has used depleted uranium munitions hemp could clean up the dangerous radioactive elements left behind. That would make the citizens of those nations like the U.S. a whole lot more than many years of increases in cases of various types of cancers will.
Hemp is second only to sugar cane when it comes to making biofuels. Not a lot of the U.S. is prime sugar cane growing country but hemp could be grown over much of it. Instead of so much corn going to be used to make biofuels hemp could replace it and make it less expensive. That would mean there would be more corn for different foods that are made or or partially made from corn and more feed corn for beef cattle and other corn fed animals and because there would be more corn available for those uses the cost of foods could drop because there would be a glut of corn and it's cost would drop. But since so many farms are now large corporate owned mega-farms those corporations would not like to see the cost of corn drop so they tell the members of Congress from their states that they don't want hemp grown and if it is they won't be as generous with their campaign contributions and of course the workers they would need to layoff would be less likely to vote for the politicians that voted in favor of allowing hemp to be grown and used without limits or restrictions.
The list of reasons why hemp should be allowed to be grown and used in whatever manner possible goes on and on. The farther it goes the more it showcases the hypocrisy, the stupidity, the sheer ignorance and the thirst and greed to gain and then retain their seats of power above the betterment of the nation of the typical U.S. politician. Yes some industries would suffer, some people would lose their jobs. But new industries would spring up and new jobs would be created so it would result in a shifting of the workforce not the destruction of some portion of it and it would also help to break the unacceptable degree of power and leverage major corporations and unions presently hold over the heads of politicians and use that power to work the strings of the puppets in both state legislatures and in congress and in the White House.
If you are capable of temporarily turning off, of shutting down most of your braincells and then be able to think more like the typical U.S. politician you will only then easily be capable of seeing why the total freedom to grow and use hemp is utterly horrifying to them and why regardless of the vast improvement that would in time come from it they will not support it.
In short, it is not in their own personal best interest and that is all they care about. So it is being kept as illegal as possible in as much of the nation as possible and in what states the politicians have had an epiphany of sorts and support hemp growth and use the feds still battle against it since they hold much more power and they desperately want to keep their seats of power for as long as possible. It is the same as with medical marijuana. There are to many puppeteers working the mouths of the Howdy Doody politicians they own and keep saying no, no, no, no, HELL NO!
There are a lot of reasons why hemp is still illegal at the federal level and in most states and a good number of those reasons are seldom mentioned even though in the end they all or mostly all end up being just one reason. The psychological malady that causes politicians to have such a desperate need to gain and then to retain power and authority. They know that if they would do what would be best for the nation, for them it would be political suicide.
