1984 by George Orwell
1949
p123
from 1984
If leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance.
p124
During the consolidation of power stage [of a state, non-state] sources of public information [are] suppressed, guaranteeing the future uniformity of public opinion on all matters of significance [to the new ruling elite].
p125
from 1984
A ruling group is a ruling group so long as it can nominate its successors. The Party is not concerned with perpetuating its blood but with perpetuating itself. Who wields power is not important, provided that the hierarchical structure remains always the same.
p127
How does continuous war act to keep the Lows "stupefied by poverty" and thereby assure the maintenance of the social structure? The goal of the wars is to enable the economy to be kept going for the benefit of the High, its military, and its bureaucracy and control personnel (the Thought Police, etc.), but at the same time to assure that any excess production capacity is prevented from producing consumer goods for the lower classes. That excess capacity is instead directed to producing excess military goods which will ' ultimately rust away or be destroyed in warfare; that is, the excess capacity is deliberately wasted in order to turn it away from the production of goods which would result in added leisure or well-being for the lower classes. Those classes are instead continually forced into group activities expressing hatred toward the current enemy (any enemy) and dependency upon and love toward their benevolent rulers for protecting them from that enemy. They are thereby led to accept the consumer shortages, the poverty, and the other privations to which they are subjected. Their economic status is kept at the subsistence level, forcing their priorities to be focused on simply acquiring basic food, clothing, and shelter. They are thus denied either the time or the inclination to question the fairness or permanence of their societal condition, or to otherwise evolve into a threat to the established hierarchy.
p128
from 1984
What is our motive? Why should we want power? He then proceeds to answer is own question: "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power .... Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship .... The object of power is power ....
p129
from 1984
The real power, the power we have to fight for night and day, is not power over things, but over men .... [And] how does one man assert his power over another?" He answers his own question: "By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy - everything.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin
The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin
1994
p87
Central banks have utilized and promoted wars for their own profit, starting with the Rothschild involvement with the Napoleonic wars, and continuing up to the present day.
p90
The Fed [Federal Reserve] is merely a cartel with a government facade.
p93
The Fed's [Federal Reserve] real objective [is] not to protect the public, but rather to sacrifice the public to the interests of the banking cartel.
p99
A purpose of the Bretton Woods system is to create a world government ruled by the banking elites, using the United Nations as the core of a political structure and the IMF as the world central bank, issuing and controlling the world's only important currency [the dollar].
p100
The [global banking] elites understand that they will never be able to consolidate and hold their power by means of a gradualist program unless and until they are able to make the IMF the sole issuer of the world's only important currency [the dollar].
p100
Harvard professor Richard Cooper, a CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] member and Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in the Carter administration writing in 1984 in the CFR's house organ Foreign Affairs, 1984
I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of a common currency for all the industrial democracies, with a common monetary policy and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy .... How can independent states accomplish that? They need to turn over the determination of monetary policy to a supranational body.
It is highly doubtful whether the American public, to take just one example, could ever accept that countries with oppressive autocratic regimes should vote on the monetary policy that would affect monetary conditions in the United States .... For such a bold step to work at all, it presupposes a certain convergence of political values.
p101
John Foster Dulles, 1939
Some dilution or leveling off of the sovereignty system as it prevails in the world today must take place to the immediate disadvantage of those nations which now possess the preponderance of power .... The establishment of a common money ... would deprive our government of exclusive control over a national money .... The United States must be prepared to make sacrifices afterward in setting up a world politico-economic order which would level off inequalities of economic opportunity with respect to nations.
p102
[President Jimmy] Carter advisor Richard Gardener, 1974
The house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up .... An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.
p102
Paul Volcker, in 1979
The standard of living of the average American has to decline .... I don't think you can escape that.
p102
The gist of the game of bailout is to simultaneously (1) deliver into the clutches of the New World Order (both) the Third World countries, whose leaders are to be the recipients of riches from the taxpayers of the developed countries, riches that they are expected to squander and never pay back, but thereby remain in thrall to the bankers forever, and (2) drag down the economies and comforts of the strong countries to the point, for example, of economic collapse and a breakdown in civil order, perhaps exacerbated by widespread "terrorist" bombings, following which, the countries' citizens will be grateful to yield their sovereignty and receive in return the support, acceptance, and protection of an economically and militarily strong central organization claiming to be ready and able to provide such support. Such a capitulation might be made easier to accept if it could be previously arranged for Russia to disappear as an external threat, and to appear to be in just as much economic and social difficulty as the United States.
p103
A description of the WTO in a full-page ad in the New York Times
The World Trade Organization - the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.
p103
Monetary Control Act of 1980 gives the Fed [Federal Reserve the power to] create new Federal Reserve Notes and give them away to foreign governments, or, to be formal, "loan" them, receiving as collateral debt instruments (bonds, etc.) held by those foreign governments. With the power to create dollars not only for the American governments, but now for any foreign government as well, the Fed has become very close to becoming a central bank for the entire world.
p104
Griffin makes a case for the view that e sudden demise of "Communism" is a ploy agreed upon between the banking elites and the Soviet leaders to enable bailout funds to flow to those states, further eroding the American economy, while terminating, at least for now, the militarily threatening posture of the USSR. The communist leaders would mostly remain in power, though renamed Social Democrats, or something similar. They and the elites would continue to work together for one socialist world.
p104
A cabal of English aristocrats and bankers [created] the Bank o England in 1694. King William, in need of money to fight a certain war, money which he couldn't raise by taxing or borrowing, granted a charter to a favored group of intriguers to form a bank which would be given a monopoly on issuing English bank notes, i.e., English paper money, which would be created out of nothing and credited to the government in return for a government IOU, the only "backing" that would be required. The government would pay interest on this "loan," making it look legitimate to the public, but the bank's even larger payback was that it was empowered to make additional commercial loans, at interest, using the same government IOU's as "backing," just as though the IOU's were hard, metallic gold. The banks, by receiving interest on money they could create and lend out at will, were thereby going to get rich, the king was going to be able to raise any amount of "money" he wanted, and the public, remaining ignorant of what was going on, was going to pay for it all by having their savings devalued by the expansion of the currency. (Our Federal Reserve does essentially the same thing, with added refinements which greatly increase its leverage over commercial credit.)
p106
The world outlook of the international financiers...Their success depends upon a pattern of character traits including cold objectivity, immunity to patriotism, and indifference to the human condition.
p107
The Rothschild Formula
Propel governments into war for the profits they yield.
p107
[International] bankers arranged the Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917, and then supported the regime thereafter, both for the profit involved and, presumably, to build up a "credible enemy."
p117
The Wall Street biggies came through [the Depression] very well indeed, including John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Joseph P. Kennedy, Bernard Baruch, Henry Morgenthau, Douglas Dillon, etc.
p117
G. Edward Griffin
Virtually all of the inner club was rescued [from The Depression]. There is no record of any member of the interlocking directorate between the Federal Reserve, ' the major New York banks, and their prime customers having been caught by surprise.
p117
On August 9, 1929 the pin was inserted into the bubble. On that date, the Federal Reserve raised its discount rate to six percent and simultaneously began to sell securities on the open market. Both actions acted to shrink bank reserves and therefore the money supply... The market reached its peak on September 19, then started its slide downward. On October 24 the slide became a torrent, and on October 29, the market collapsed.
While the uninformed were in the process of loosing their shirts, the insiders who had sold out before the crash were now to be found, with cash at the ready, on the buying side. Companies whose stock had dropped to a fraction of their value were still basically viable, but their ownership, in large measure, had been shifted from, to use Andrew Mellon's phrase, the "less competent people," who had been sucked into the speculative maelstrom created by the Fed's easy credit, to the financial elites, who had been made privy to the crash that was around the corner. Great fortunes were made or added to by the latter.
1994
p87
Central banks have utilized and promoted wars for their own profit, starting with the Rothschild involvement with the Napoleonic wars, and continuing up to the present day.
p90
The Fed [Federal Reserve] is merely a cartel with a government facade.
p93
The Fed's [Federal Reserve] real objective [is] not to protect the public, but rather to sacrifice the public to the interests of the banking cartel.
p99
A purpose of the Bretton Woods system is to create a world government ruled by the banking elites, using the United Nations as the core of a political structure and the IMF as the world central bank, issuing and controlling the world's only important currency [the dollar].
p100
The [global banking] elites understand that they will never be able to consolidate and hold their power by means of a gradualist program unless and until they are able to make the IMF the sole issuer of the world's only important currency [the dollar].
p100
Harvard professor Richard Cooper, a CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] member and Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in the Carter administration writing in 1984 in the CFR's house organ Foreign Affairs, 1984
I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of a common currency for all the industrial democracies, with a common monetary policy and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy .... How can independent states accomplish that? They need to turn over the determination of monetary policy to a supranational body.
It is highly doubtful whether the American public, to take just one example, could ever accept that countries with oppressive autocratic regimes should vote on the monetary policy that would affect monetary conditions in the United States .... For such a bold step to work at all, it presupposes a certain convergence of political values.
p101
John Foster Dulles, 1939
Some dilution or leveling off of the sovereignty system as it prevails in the world today must take place to the immediate disadvantage of those nations which now possess the preponderance of power .... The establishment of a common money ... would deprive our government of exclusive control over a national money .... The United States must be prepared to make sacrifices afterward in setting up a world politico-economic order which would level off inequalities of economic opportunity with respect to nations.
p102
[President Jimmy] Carter advisor Richard Gardener, 1974
The house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up .... An end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.
p102
Paul Volcker, in 1979
The standard of living of the average American has to decline .... I don't think you can escape that.
p102
The gist of the game of bailout is to simultaneously (1) deliver into the clutches of the New World Order (both) the Third World countries, whose leaders are to be the recipients of riches from the taxpayers of the developed countries, riches that they are expected to squander and never pay back, but thereby remain in thrall to the bankers forever, and (2) drag down the economies and comforts of the strong countries to the point, for example, of economic collapse and a breakdown in civil order, perhaps exacerbated by widespread "terrorist" bombings, following which, the countries' citizens will be grateful to yield their sovereignty and receive in return the support, acceptance, and protection of an economically and militarily strong central organization claiming to be ready and able to provide such support. Such a capitulation might be made easier to accept if it could be previously arranged for Russia to disappear as an external threat, and to appear to be in just as much economic and social difficulty as the United States.
p103
A description of the WTO in a full-page ad in the New York Times
The World Trade Organization - the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.
p103
Monetary Control Act of 1980 gives the Fed [Federal Reserve the power to] create new Federal Reserve Notes and give them away to foreign governments, or, to be formal, "loan" them, receiving as collateral debt instruments (bonds, etc.) held by those foreign governments. With the power to create dollars not only for the American governments, but now for any foreign government as well, the Fed has become very close to becoming a central bank for the entire world.
p104
Griffin makes a case for the view that e sudden demise of "Communism" is a ploy agreed upon between the banking elites and the Soviet leaders to enable bailout funds to flow to those states, further eroding the American economy, while terminating, at least for now, the militarily threatening posture of the USSR. The communist leaders would mostly remain in power, though renamed Social Democrats, or something similar. They and the elites would continue to work together for one socialist world.
p104
A cabal of English aristocrats and bankers [created] the Bank o England in 1694. King William, in need of money to fight a certain war, money which he couldn't raise by taxing or borrowing, granted a charter to a favored group of intriguers to form a bank which would be given a monopoly on issuing English bank notes, i.e., English paper money, which would be created out of nothing and credited to the government in return for a government IOU, the only "backing" that would be required. The government would pay interest on this "loan," making it look legitimate to the public, but the bank's even larger payback was that it was empowered to make additional commercial loans, at interest, using the same government IOU's as "backing," just as though the IOU's were hard, metallic gold. The banks, by receiving interest on money they could create and lend out at will, were thereby going to get rich, the king was going to be able to raise any amount of "money" he wanted, and the public, remaining ignorant of what was going on, was going to pay for it all by having their savings devalued by the expansion of the currency. (Our Federal Reserve does essentially the same thing, with added refinements which greatly increase its leverage over commercial credit.)
p106
The world outlook of the international financiers...Their success depends upon a pattern of character traits including cold objectivity, immunity to patriotism, and indifference to the human condition.
p107
The Rothschild Formula
Propel governments into war for the profits they yield.
p107
[International] bankers arranged the Bolshevik coup in Russia in 1917, and then supported the regime thereafter, both for the profit involved and, presumably, to build up a "credible enemy."
p117
The Wall Street biggies came through [the Depression] very well indeed, including John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Joseph P. Kennedy, Bernard Baruch, Henry Morgenthau, Douglas Dillon, etc.
p117
G. Edward Griffin
Virtually all of the inner club was rescued [from The Depression]. There is no record of any member of the interlocking directorate between the Federal Reserve, ' the major New York banks, and their prime customers having been caught by surprise.
p117
On August 9, 1929 the pin was inserted into the bubble. On that date, the Federal Reserve raised its discount rate to six percent and simultaneously began to sell securities on the open market. Both actions acted to shrink bank reserves and therefore the money supply... The market reached its peak on September 19, then started its slide downward. On October 24 the slide became a torrent, and on October 29, the market collapsed.
While the uninformed were in the process of loosing their shirts, the insiders who had sold out before the crash were now to be found, with cash at the ready, on the buying side. Companies whose stock had dropped to a fraction of their value were still basically viable, but their ownership, in large measure, had been shifted from, to use Andrew Mellon's phrase, the "less competent people," who had been sucked into the speculative maelstrom created by the Fed's easy credit, to the financial elites, who had been made privy to the crash that was around the corner. Great fortunes were made or added to by the latter.
The Naked Capitalist
The Naked Capitalist
by W. Cleon Skousen
1970
p49
Cleon Skousen
There is a growing volume of evidence that the highest centers of political and economic power have been forcing the entire human race toward a global, socialist, dictatorial-oriented society.
And what has been most baffling about it has been the fact that this drift toward dictatorship with its inevitable obliteration of a thousand years of struggle toward human freedom, is being plotted, promoted, and implemented by the leaders of free nations and the super-rich of those nations whose positions of affluence would seem to make them the foremost beneficiaries of the free enterprise, property-oriented, open society in which so much progress has been made.
p49
Cleon Skousen
The world hierarchy of the dynastic superrich is out to take over the entire planet, doing it with Socialistic legislation where possible, but having no reluctance to use Communist revolution where necessary.
p51
Cleon Skousen
Power from any source tends to create an appetite for additional power. Power coming from wealth tends to create an appetite for political power, and vice versa. It was almost inevitable that the superrich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the whole world. To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing governments, and the establishment of a central world-wide dictatorship along socialist lines.
This, of course, was a risky business for the Anglo-American secret society. The super-rich were gambling on the expectation that when the violence and reconstruction had been completed by the political conspirators, the super-rich would then take over ... to guide mankind hopefully and compulsively into a whole new era of universal peace and universal prosperity.
To take such a risk, the cadre of the super-rich had to ignore the most elementary aspects of the ferocity of the left-wing conspiratorial mentality. Mao Tse-tung has articulated the basic Communist conviction that political power comes from the barrel of a gun, and once they seize control it is their expressed intention to use the gun to prevent the super-rich or anyone else from taking that control away from them. [Similarly, Hitler repeatedly told Britain that he intended to realize his goals by going to war, not by diplomatic negotiation.
by W. Cleon Skousen
1970
p49
Cleon Skousen
There is a growing volume of evidence that the highest centers of political and economic power have been forcing the entire human race toward a global, socialist, dictatorial-oriented society.
And what has been most baffling about it has been the fact that this drift toward dictatorship with its inevitable obliteration of a thousand years of struggle toward human freedom, is being plotted, promoted, and implemented by the leaders of free nations and the super-rich of those nations whose positions of affluence would seem to make them the foremost beneficiaries of the free enterprise, property-oriented, open society in which so much progress has been made.
p49
Cleon Skousen
The world hierarchy of the dynastic superrich is out to take over the entire planet, doing it with Socialistic legislation where possible, but having no reluctance to use Communist revolution where necessary.
p51
Cleon Skousen
Power from any source tends to create an appetite for additional power. Power coming from wealth tends to create an appetite for political power, and vice versa. It was almost inevitable that the superrich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the whole world. To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing governments, and the establishment of a central world-wide dictatorship along socialist lines.
This, of course, was a risky business for the Anglo-American secret society. The super-rich were gambling on the expectation that when the violence and reconstruction had been completed by the political conspirators, the super-rich would then take over ... to guide mankind hopefully and compulsively into a whole new era of universal peace and universal prosperity.
To take such a risk, the cadre of the super-rich had to ignore the most elementary aspects of the ferocity of the left-wing conspiratorial mentality. Mao Tse-tung has articulated the basic Communist conviction that political power comes from the barrel of a gun, and once they seize control it is their expressed intention to use the gun to prevent the super-rich or anyone else from taking that control away from them. [Similarly, Hitler repeatedly told Britain that he intended to realize his goals by going to war, not by diplomatic negotiation.
Como La Marihuana y Canamo Industrial Fue Prohibido en Mexico
En México la historia de la marihuana inicia desde la llegada de los españoles a México con miras a conquistar el territorio, ellos transportaron la planta con fines de producción de cáñamo en busca de nuevas tierras de cultivo y lugares donde procesar y fabricar textiles. Nuestros antepasados Mexicanos hallaron el uso medicinal de esta nueva planta, pero fue hasta entrado el siglo XVII cuando el consumo por placer o recreativo empezó incluso en la Revolución Mexicana los batallones preparados a la batalla siempre tenían un pequeño cargamento para el uso de sus soldados ya que les infundía valor, hasta la famosa canción mexicana La Cucaracha menciona a la marihuana en sus coplas.
La Cucaracha La cucaracha
Ya no puede caminar
Porque le falta porque le falta
Marihuana que fumar
Ya pisando los años de la década de 1920 cuando toma el poder el nuevo gobierno revolucionario. Prohíbe el comercio y producción de la marihuana en México, Dando inicio al enorme negocio del narcotráfico, quien no recuerda aquellas declaraciones de uno de los capos más fuerte en su tiempo Rafael Caro Quintero que citaba que si lo dejaban trabajar en paz y sin que lo persiguieran el mismo podía pagar la Deuda externa de México en un solo día.
--------------------
¿Por qué se prohíbe el cultivo de esta planta si esta comprobado que puede aportar múltiples beneficios desde un plano medicinal, hasta la manufactura de productos imprescindibles como el papel, la ropa, o incluso proveer de elementos necesarios para la construcción y la gastronomía?
A continuación repasemos algunos datos históricos que ponen en evidencia el valor que otorgaban las sociedades a esta planta previo a su prohibición. La mayoría de estos datos, que corresponden a Estados Unidos ya que este país fue el principal promotor de su prohibición a nivel mundial, pueden verificarse a través de fuentes de conocimiento tradicionalmente legitimadas como la Enciclopedia Británica, la cual por cierto durante 150 años fue impresa en papel de cáñamo: 
A continuación repasemos algunos datos históricos que ponen en evidencia el valor que otorgaban las sociedades a esta planta previo a su prohibición. La mayoría de estos datos, que corresponden a Estados Unidos ya que este país fue el principal promotor de su prohibición a nivel mundial, pueden verificarse a través de fuentes de conocimiento tradicionalmente legitimadas como la Enciclopedia Británica, la cual por cierto durante 150 años fue impresa en papel de cáñamo:
La criminalización de la marihuana en Estados Unidos tuvo sus primeros antecedentes en 1906, en el Distrito de Columbia, con la primer regulación en torno al cultivo de esta planta. Posteriormente siguieron Massachusetts (1911), Nueva York (1914) y Maine (1914). Mientras que en 1913 California pasó la primera ley de prohibición de marihuana y Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), y Nebraska (1927) le siguieron. Ya en 1932 se creó el Uniform State Narcotic Act para invitar a los gobiernos estatales a que se unieran, sin excepción, a esta campaña nacional por criminalizar o al menos regular el uso de marihuana.
Cuatro años después, en 1936, durante la Convention for the Suppression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs llevada a cabo en Ginebra, Estados Unidos promovió ante el resto del mundo, a través de su Federal Bureau of Narcotics, un tratado de criminalización de cualquier actividad relacionada a la marihuana, la coca, y el opio (incluidas su cultivo, producción, manufacturación, y distribución) con excepción de contextos médicos y científicos. El Artículo 2 de esta convención invitaba a todos los firmantes a castigar severamente, en particular con penas que implicaran la privación de la libertad, a toda aquella persona que se involucrara con estas actividades neo ilícitas. Sin embargo, muchos países presentes se negaron a suscribir ciertos apartados del tratado y estados Unidos, principal promotor de la convención, se negó a firmar alegando la flaqueza del resto de las naciones sobretodo en asuntos relacionados a la extradición y la confiscación de bienes ligados al tráfico de drogas.
Al analizar la historia se puede percibir como un gesto bastante raro, incluso esquizofrénico, la transformación de posición estadounidense frente a la marihuana. Súbitamente Estados Unidos pasó de vivir un romance idílico con la cannabis, a promover enérgicamente su prohibición, castigo, y cuasi satanización. Sin duda existe un eslabón perdido que no aparece en la historia oficial y que tiene que ver con la presión de las corporaciones (esas abstractas y todopoderosas entidades que hoy controlan buena parte del planeta y que ya a principios del siglo XX comenzaban a consolidarse como una fuerza aún más influyente que el propio gobierno).
Corporaciones VS Cannabis
Como podemos ver la cannabis es una planta flexible, multifacética, y con diversas cualidades. A partir de ella se pueden generar desde combustibles y aceites comestibles, hasta ropa y todo tipo de telas, pasando por cuerdas y, por supuesto, papel. Sin embargo, precisamente estas bondades de la planta eran las que más incomodaban a las corporaciones que estaban monetizando frenéticamente mercados como el del abastecimiento de papel industrial, el algodón, y los hidrocarburos. Al parecer, en un principio fueron principalmente dos corporaciones las que se volcaron por completo para promover la prohibición de esta planta: DuPont y la Hearst Company (propiedad de William Randolph Hearst en quien se inspiró el film de Citizen Kane).
El banquero Andrew Mellon, quien se convirtió en el tesorero del gobierno del presidente Hoover, era uno de los principales inversionistas de DuPont, actualmente una de las mayores corporaciones del mundo y que en la época de 1920 a 1940 estaba consolidándose en el negocio de los petroquímicos y de los polímeros. Para ambas ramas de mercado el cannabis resultaba una seria amenaza pues de esta planta podían derivarse tanto fibras naturales que redujeran el consumo de nylon, uno de los productos clave de DuPont en esos años, como de combustible vegetal que amenazaba su apuesta por los hidrocarburos. En este sentido DuPont tenía claro que una de las premisas de su estrategia de mercado tenía que anular la presencia del cáñamo. Siendo Secretario del Tesoro Mellon influyó para que su sobrino Harry J. Anslinger fuese nombrado en 1930 como el primer comisionado Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Y a pesar de que el cabildeo en contra de la cannabis ya llevaba poco más de dos décadas lo cierto es que no fue hasta que Anslinger llegó al FBN cuando la verdadera guerra comenzó.
Por otro lado, la otra industria que se sentía gravemente amenazada por la presencia del cáñamo era la papelera. La Hearst Company controlaba buena parte de la producción de papel e incluso era el principal proveedor del área de productos de papel de la hoy multinacional Kimberly Clark. Hearst, un despiadado hombre de negocios no tardó en darse cuenta, al igual que DuPont, de la necesidad de eliminar al cáñamo del mercado y junto con otros empresarios presionaron al gobierno, a través del FBN para que se criminalizara por completo el cultivo de esta planta. Incluso Hearst, el legendario magnate de los medios impresos, puso a disposición su ejército de diarios para promover una campaña cultural en contra de la cannabis y como parte de esta iniciativa se adoptó por primera vez el nombre de marihuana, una palabra con fonética recordable, breve, y precisa para designar a esta ahora diabólica planta (por cierto un término que hasta entonces era solamente utilizado en el argot popular de México).
Otro actor que desempeñó un papel fundamental en este proceso fue la ya entonces consolidada industria del tabaco. En esa época la cultura americana ya había adoptado integralmente el consumo cotidiano de cigarrillos. Sin embargo, las grandes tabacaleras habían comprobado que el consumo de tabaco entre la población que fumaba cannabis era menor que en aquellos que solo consumían su producto. Por otro lado los fumadores de esta planta jamás de someterían a un mercado industrial ya que era relativamente fácil cultivarla caseramente y autoabastecer su consumo personal sin recurrir a una marca industrial. Por el contrario, la siembra de tacabo era mucho más compleja y requería de una extensión de tierra suficiente para cultivarse y no solo de un par de macetas. Tomando en cuenta esto, y ante el poco futuro comercial que se percibía en el rubro del cannabis, las grandes tabacaleras no dudaron en apoyar la cruzada en contra de la marihuana.
Finalmente no podemos dejar de mencionar a la siempre oscura industria farmacéutica, conocida como el Big Pharma, y que consciente de las propiedades medicinales que la marihuana ofrecía a la población también la percibió como una amenaza contra sus intereses comerciales. Se tienen confirmados múltiples beneficios médicos que contiene la cannabis, entre ellos el combate al glaucoma, el ayudar a la prevención de Alzheimer, y reducir el dolor del síndrome pre menstrual entre las mujeres, por mencionar solo algunos. Contra todos estos males el Big Pharma ha desarrollado medicamentos sintéticos que en muchos casos han probado ser menos efectivos, o al menos mucho más costosos que tratarlos con marihuana. De hecho esta misma postura de las farmacéuticas alude a un fenómeno actual con la campaña que busca volver ilegal el uso de plantas medicinales en Europa como sustituto de medicamentos.
Aunque no ha sido comprobado, se dice que Anslinger se reunión con algunos de los más poderosos empresarios del momento, entre ellos obviamente representantes de las tabacaleras, DuPont y el propio W.R. Hearst, para pactar una guerra frontal contra la marihuana y diseñar una campaña mediática que imprimiera el imaginario colectivo con una nueva idea: la marihuana es una planta nociva para la salud y para la sociedad, y su consumo, cultivo y distribución debe ser tenazmente descalificado, denunciado, y perseguido.
A continuación se instauró una de las mayores cruzadas de manipulación mediática en la historia. Decenas de diarios se empeñaron en desatacar los “horrores” de la marihuana y la población aprendió que esta planta era responsable directo de todo tipo de sucesos negativos, desde asesinatos y accidentes Automovilísticos, hasta la pérdida de moral. El cine mainstream también se unió a la campaña con Films como ‘Reefer Madness’ (1936), ‘Marihuana: Assassin of Youth’ (1935) and ‘Marihuana: The Devil’s Weed’ (1936), todas ellas promoviendo la satanización de la marihuana y, aunque lo hacían de una manera que hoy nos parece cómica o altamente caricaturesca, lo cierto es que fue una movida bastante eficiente para generar una percepción profundamente negativa entre la población. Básicamente el discurso giraba en torno a conceptos bastante rudimentarios pero que para la sociedad de ese momento fueron más que suficientes: “un narcótico violento”, “efectos multi-destructivos”, “un enemigo público”, etc…
Nuestros días
Poco tiempo tomó que la movilización mediática en Estados Unidos en contra de la cannabis comenzara a impactar a la población de otros países. Y esto, sumado a la dominante influencia política de EUA en el escenario internacional, derivó en que eventualmente la gran mayoría de los países fueron adoptando medidas y discursos similares. Con el tiempo la legislación anti-marihuana fue sofisticándose y endureciéndose, hasta nuestros días. Actualmente, si bien es ya prácticamente imposible convencer a una persona con los primitivos argumentos sobre los que originalmente se fundó la campaña de desprestigio contra la ganja, lo cierto es que el marco legal ha sido afinado para obstaculizar la posibilidad de legalizarla y también la propaganda ha sido “refinada” pero en ningún momento ha cesado (basta recordar las pasadas votaciones en California donde incluso en contra de todos los pronósticos no se logró legalizar).
How Cannabis was Criminalised - The UK, League of Nations, Egypt, Turkey
How Cannabis was Criminalised.
Cannabis first became illegal in the UK, and most of the rest of the world, on 28th September 1928 when the 1925 Dangerous Drugs Act came into force. There were no British domestic reasons, no lobbying for or against prohibition, and no Parliamentary debates.
The Act controlling 'Indian Hemp and all resins and preparations based thereon' had been passed after Britain signed the 1925 Geneva International Convention on Narcotics Control, organised by the League of Nations. Asked what it was all about on a slow day in Parliament, a junior Home Office Minister explained that the Convention could not be ratified without an 'important but small' law being passed. 'What it does is include coca leaves under a former Act. They are the real basis of cocaine - we place them in the same category as raw opium.' Cannabis itself was ever mentioned aloud.
This apathy was nothing new. When the 1920 Act controlling opium and cocaine was passed, there were problems finding enough MPs to vote on the committee stages. In 1893 a huge report by the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission had concluded that 'the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all'. It recommended, for India, 'restraining use and improving the revenue by the imposition of suitable taxation' at 'as high a rate of duty as can be levied without inducing illicit practices' on the grounds that 'the best way to restrict the consumption of drugs is to tax them.' Taxes on cannabis were already normal in India - Bengal state government made about £100,000 per year through the 1860's [£5-10 million in today's money]. This report from the Empire was never publicly discussed in the UK, and the authorities were content to have no laws at all controlling cannabis for another thirty years.
The herb had few supporters in the 1920's. European hemp for ropes and paper was usually believed to be a separate plant, though related. Modern medical uses were rare and both traditional herbal medicines and patent potions had become unfashionable at the turn of the century, after campaigns by the British Medical Association. Apart from a few adventurous poets and musicians, there were hardly any recreational cannabis users in Europe.
There was little or no opposition to cannabis use, either. Prohibitionist campaigns worked against alcohol and cocaine at home, opium abroad. Some people thought opiate users would take up cannabis if their supplies were cut off. 'Drugs' were seen as filthy foreign stuff which should be suppressed for the foreigners' own good. Fear and contempt of 'coloureds', and of sex, was the visible motive in a few 1920's newspaper drug scandals about foreigners with cocaine or opium, and the English girls they allegedly corrupted and destroyed, but cannabis was rarely accused.
Cannabis was added to the agenda of the 1925 Convention on Narcotics Control because Egypt and Turkey proposed it. Both countries had histories of prohibition based on interpretations of Islamic law; newly secular, they were trying to be 'modern'. The Egyptian delegate denounced 'Hashism' which he said caused from 30-60 per cent of the insanity in his country. 'In support of this contention... there are three times as many cases of mental alienation among men as among women, and it is an established fact that men are much more addicted to hashish than women'. Hashish addicts, he said, were regarded as useless derelicts. 'His eye is wild and the expression of his face is stupid. He is silent; has no muscular power; suffers from physical ailments, heart troubles, digestive troubles etc; his intellectual faculties gradually weaken and the whole organism decays. The addict very frequently becomes neurasthenic and eventually insane.'
These claims for the dangers of cannabis made in 1925 were not investigated by the League of Nations until ten years after it was banned. That study was never completed. The only serious investigation made previously was the 1893 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report, which contradicted most of the Egyptian's speech, but was not referred to. India opposed banning cannabis in the Convention, as their delegate said it had been used there since time immemorial, grew wild, and they doubted that a prohibition could be enforced. The British delegate suggested that it should be considered further and abstained from the vote, but signed in the end, along with another 57 nations.
Drugs laws in the United States have a quite different history. The USA never joined the League of Nations, and didn't sign the 1925 Convention because they were more anti-drugs than any other nation. They proposed that opium use be completely banned world wide within ten years, and walked out of the conference when this was rejected, before cannabis was mentioned.
Alcohol was prohibited in the USA from 1920-33, and as early as 1911 hearings on a Federal anti-narcotics law heard debate on controlling cannabis. The USA unsuccessfully proposed that cannabis be discussed at the Hague Conference on opiates in 1912. Their enthusiasm for drug control was a mix of moralism and self-interest, both tending to boost America's developing international influence. Most medical drugs were imported, so controlling them made little difference to US domestic policy, but gave the US a moral and economic lever against their producers, mostly Britain and Germany. Cannabis was an exception, so it had some friends in the pharmaceutical, veterinary, and seed oil industries. It also had enemies among the press and politicians who used it as part of an attack on Mexican immigration and Black cultural independence..
William Randolph Hearst's newspapers introduced the word 'marijuana' into English from Mexican slang, confusing the public into thinking this devil weed was quite different from the familiar agricultural plant hemp. Hearst sold lots of newspapers using stories about coloured men using drugs to corrupt white women. Many of them allegedly carried big knives and would go wild at any provocation. Others were perverts. The specific drug and the race of the villains changed every few years, but the story never did. Versions are still used in some anti-drug campaigns. Marijuana had its turn from the 1920s-60's. Hearst also had massive wood pulp paper making interests which would have been damaged by wider use of hemp fibre.
After missing out on the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act and the 1925 treaty, there was no Federal control of cannabis until 1937, though several Southern states with Mexican immigrants urged the Government to ban it. Research funded by New Orleans' District Attorney associated marijuana with the loss of civilised inhibitions, leading to rape, murder and homosexuality. The press spread these politically motivated 'scientific research' stories enthusiastically.
In 1931 former Prohibition Commissioner Harry J Anslinger was appointed head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. At first he was reluctant to extend his national powers over marijuana, although he thought it was an evil, because it seemed a localised problem, and impossible to enforce prohibition of a plant which had some legitimate uses and grew wild 'like dandelions.' For a Federal law to work, all uses of the plant had to be controlled together. Instead, he encouraged State laws and anti-drug propaganda.
By the 1930's Depression, mechanised hemp production was a potential threat to paper and cellulose producers. The supposed wickedness of job and woman-stealing dope-crazed foreigners was a vote winner. So the herb had new enemies. Malicious, racist press stories, pseudo-scientific reports, and political pressure multiplied. By 1935 Anslinger was promoting a federal law which his FBN could enforce. In Congressional hearings to plan it, all positive evidence was suppressed. The American Medical Association and the Oil Seed Institute opposed the law, but were ignored. Anslinger quoted press cuttings as proof that cannabis was 'the most violence-creating drug on this planet'. From October 1st 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act made it illegal to grow or transfer any form of cannabis without a tax-paid stamp - which were never made available to private citizens. Possession laws varied between States until 1970.
Anslinger used the new law to expand his Bureau. He began an ugly campaign against 'demon dope' using films and posters, associating it with jazz ['voodoo music'], inter-racial sex, madness and death. The FBN suppressed or abused any research showing that marijuana was not an extreme danger, notably the 1944 'LaGuardia Report' commissioned by the Mayor of New York. He led US delegations to every international drug control body until sacked by President Kennedy in 1961. Most countries didn't think they had a problem with cannabis until the 1960's. Anslinger did his best to persuade them otherwise.
In 1945 there were only 4 prosecutions for cannabis offences in the UK, and 206 for opium. In 1950 for the first time ever there were more prosecutions for cannabis than for opium and manufactured drugs put together - 86 against 41 opium and 42 others. That year a series of police raids on jazz clubs produced a fresh crop of British news stories about black men with drugs and white women. Cannabis had finally got into the local shock horror league, but it wasn't to become the world's favourite illegality for a few more years.
Three events abroad had long term effects. In 1961 a new treaty was organised, the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs. It updated all previous drugs treaties, and set up classifications of drugs according to their supposed harmfulness. Cannabis went into the same list as the opiates and cocaine, 'having strong addictive properties' and/or 'a risk to public health.' Only medical or scientific uses were permitted, and the World Health Organisation [advised by Anslinger] considered cannabis to have no modern medical value. Traditional and non-drug uses were to be closely controlled by governments. It was resolved that 'use of cannabis is to be discontinued within 25 years'. The USA actively joined in creating and enforcing the Single Convention, guided by Harry Anslinger. His sacking and the identification of 'active ingredient' tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] in 1964 made serious research possible again, but too late for more realistic laws to be passed.
By the early 60's recreational drug use was increasing in the white, suburban classes, influenced by American beatnik writers and folk singers, jazz and blues musicians. These arts went part way across racial divisions. 'Pot' was becoming fashionable among a bohemian, arty elite because the propaganda was partly believed. It was seen as a jazzy, sexy, Black thing to do, and [in Europe], an American thing. English bourgeois hipsters were scared but proud of being able to score from Cockney hoodlums or ex-colonial Caribbean and Indian immigrants. It was also one of the fun parts of being connected with deep political movements. In the USA Civil Rights and anti-war movements and British CND, millions of sincere, liberal-minded young people met skilled organisers, famous philosophers, anarchist radicals, and pot-smoking hedonists. It was probably inevitable that ideas developed about a politics of personal growth, and the right to any pleasure that does no harm to others. Soon white middle-class youth were smuggling and dealing to their own class. Often they believed they were benefiting a new, happier and calmer society.
1964 was the first year when more white people than black were convicted of cannabis - related offences in the UK. It was also the first year in which less than half of the people convicted were sentenced to prison. The total number of convictions, 544, was a little lower than in the previous two years.
Cannabis really started its lurch into mass consciousness, mythology says, sometime in 1964 when the Beatles met Bob Dylan at an airport in America. He offered them a joint in the VIP lounge. Only Ringo tried it then, but soon they were all very enthusiastic. Other popsters and their fans learned about drugs from old jazz and blues men, and beatniks like the poet Allen Ginsberg. He was one vital link between literary circles, artists, aristos, politicians, pop stars and fellow pot-smokers all over the world. On demonstrations for free speech, he gave Buddhist chants to cops with tear gas. In the UK his then-illegal homosexuality found him introductions to a persecuted underground with friends in high places and hopes of changing an unjust law. He contributed to The Marijuana Papers [1966], the first mass market book about cannabis, suggesting advertising for public support for legal changes, and got an MP to find a copy of the Indian Hemp report in the House of Commons Library.
The 1965 Dangerous Drugs Act began to bring UK law in line with parts of the UN Single Convention. An Advisory Committee on Drug Dependency was set up, and a sub-committee chaired by Baroness Wootton started to look into the legal position of cannabis, still the same as for opiates,with no distinction between possession and supply. A new crime was invented, allowing premises to be used for drug taking. Convictions for cannabis offences rose by 79% in a year - in 1967 they rose another 113%. Up to 90% of those convictions were for personal possession. According to the Wootton Report, 15% of people convicted for possessing under 30 grams were sentenced to prison, including 13% who had no previous convictions.
Some police used their power to stop and search anyone they suspected of carrying drugs, to harass black people and longhairs. Specialist Drugs Squads were set up. Guided by the gossip columns of the News of the World, they raided Black meeting places and pop stars' mansions. The Rolling Stones and Beatles were favourites. Other newspapers and politicians spread sensationalist stories, apparently intended to influence the Wootton Committee into suggesting harsh penalties.
In early 1967 the National Council for Civil Liberties published a pamphlet about the discriminatory ways the law worked, the increase in unjustifiable searches, accusations of evidence planting, and the harshness of sentencing.
After a demonstration in Fleet Street against the rising tide of harassment guided by press malice, two close-linked organisations were set up. Release aimed to give advice to young people in trouble with drugs or drugs laws; within months they had hundreds of referrals. SOMA campaigned to improve the cannabis law. Their first action was a full page advertisement in the Times on July 24th 1967, headed 'The law against marijuana is immoral in principle and unworkable in practice'. Below that, a quote from the philosopher Spinoza: 'All laws which can be violated without doing anyone any injury are laughed at... He who tries to determine everything by law will foment crime rather than lessen it.' The rest of the advert was an explanation of how damaging the law was, compared with the harmlessness of cannabis. There were quotes from modern medical opinions such as 'does not lead to degeneration, does not affect the brain cells, is not habit forming, and does not lead to heroin addiction'. It was signed by 72 prominent people including some of Britain's best-known artists and writers, two Nobel Prize winners, two MP's, journalists, doctors and the Beatles [who paid for it].
SOMA were not arguing for cannabis laws to be abolished or for full legalisation. Their proposals were; to permit and encourage research and medical uses; abolish the 'allowing premises to be used' offence; remove cannabis from the dangerous drugs list; either permit possession or set a low maximum fine; abolish imprisonment for possession and release the prisoners. They'd talked with some of the Wootton committee about cautious wording which might be acceptable, and one member of the commit signed the advert. The campaign was ultimately aimed at liberal opinion-formers, especially Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, who was then liberalising the laws against male homosexuality.
In an inconclusive debate four days after the advert, the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission got its first mention in Parliament after publication, seventy-three years late. Anecdotes were exchanged about police misbehaviour and heroin addicts who'd once smoked pot. The government suggested that more information was needed before laws could be relaxed, and international treaties would make it difficult - which is still the Home Office line thirty years later.
The Wootton Report was ready early in 1968, but not published until January 1969. Meanwhile it was leaked to the press, who were almost all hostile, producing headlines like 'The deadly path to addiction.' New Home Secretary Jim Callaghan announced that he disagreed with the report, weeks before it was officially released. It recommended making a clear legal distinction between cannabis and other drugs, and reducing penalties for cannabis offences. The committee were, cautiously, 'in agreement... that the long-term consumption of cannabis in moderate doses has no harmful effects.' Although no encouragement should be given to the wider use of cannabis, the dangers of its use were overstated and the existing penalties unjustifiably severe. They wanted a situation where nobody would be sent to prison for cannabis possession.
The eventual parliamentary debate was extremely feeble. The committee's research and conclusions were pushed aside as if they did not exist. Callaghan suggested they'd been excessively influenced by the 'notorious' Times advert and the 'pro-cannabis lobby'. He told the 'leads-to-heroin' story and said that he was glad to help 'halt the advancing tide of so-called permissiveness'. Few speakers appeared to have read the report, preferring old anecdotes or the newspapers' selective interpretations.
Still, the drugs laws were acknowledged to be a mess. Callaghan blocked it for a while, partly influenced by more leaks to a hostile press, but what was to be the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act had passed through Labour Cabinet committees before the Conservatives won the 1970 election.
Campaigning for cannabis faded over the three years before parts of the Wootton Report were acted on. There were too many other struggles in the underground, and too much disillusion with conventional politics. SOMA closed down in 1970; the Wootton Committee had made proposals similar to those in the Times advert. The founder, Steve Abrams, felt that the new law would be much more liberal in practice than the old, and effectively end the threat of prison for personal possession. Another campaign, CARO, was established by Release and the NCCL, but it faded before the Act came into force on 4th April 1973.
The new Act partly followed the more convenient parts of Wootton's advice. Cannabis was now classified as a class B drug, like amphetamines, with less severe penalties than those for heroin or LSD. Maximum penalties were increased, not reduced - up to fourteen years jail for cultivation, allowing premises to be used for supply, and the new offences of supplying or possession with intent to supply. Up to five years prison was still possible for possession. However, most cases would be dealt with in magistrates courts where 'only' six months jail could be imposed and a fine is far more common.
The 1971 Act did not prohibit fibre from stalks, or seeds, and allowed medical and research uses, but all of them needed licences from the Home Office which for many years were issued to only a few official researchers. In 1993 an EEC directive made it possible for a few hemp farms to grow cannabis with very low THC contents under licence. No patient has yet managed to get raw cannabis for medical uses on prescription, though some doctors have licences to use synthetic cannabinoids in research. There have been several attempts to cut sentences for possession back to what Wootton recommended, but the 1971 Act is still in force, and some penalties have actually been increased.
A permanent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs [ACMD] was established by the 1971 Act to help formulate Government policy. Several governments have since ignored the ACMD's advice about cannabis, which has generally been that it has 'no significant harmful effects on man' [but more research is needed, just in case]; and that penalties are too severe, and should be reduced.
In 1977 amendments to a Criminal Law Bill would have ended the power of Magistrates to imprison first time offenders for possession. The ACMD agreed with this in principle and said it should be done urgently, but set up a wider enquiry which took 18 months to report. This was probably the smallest change in the MDA it was possible to suggest. and would have saved no more than six people in 1976. Less modest amendments, such as actually reducing maximum penalties to roughly what the Wootton report had proposed, were side tracked.
Meanwhile the usual suspects launched the Legalise Cannabis Campaign a few months before the fiftieth birthday of cannabis prohibition. They argued that merely lowering penalties would not make the law moral or workable. The provable harm caused by prohibition is far greater than the unproved damage which might in theory be caused by legal cannabis. All penalties for possession and cultivation should be abolished. Despite a lot of public support and a high profile in the first few years, LCC has not succeeded in improving the law, and now barely struggles on with minimal resources.
A series of reports for Governments across the world through the 1970's found the potential dangers of cannabis to be minor or insignificant. Even the USA's enthusiasm for prohibition wavered under President Carter, when 'decriminalisation' was seriously considered federally and several states made their laws more liberal. An international campaign was started to lobby for changes in the UN Single Convention. Then right-wing populists were elected in America and the UK, willing to ignore both common sense and their own expert advisers in pursuit of 'law and order' votes.
In mid 1979 the Advisory Council proposed moving cannabis to class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and changing penalties for possession. In principle, they said, imprisonment should no longer be available for a person with no previous convictions, summarily convicted for possessing cannabis; but in practice up to two years jail should still be available. There are no other commonly used illegal drugs in class C, so this was effectively a rule for cannabis alone. Nothing was done about this proposal.
The ACMD established an Expert Group on the health effects of cannabis use, which reported eighteen months later, in November 1981. These official experts said there was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions, but research had 'not demonstrated significant harmful effects in man', however, 'deleterious effects may result in certain circumstances' So, they still agreed with what they'd said five years earlier about sentencing, but despite tens of thousands of existing scientific studies, felt that more research was needed.
As well as huge fines or prison, since 1986 anyone convicted for almost anything except possession can have money or property confiscated under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act. This American idea of taking away growers' and dealers' estimated illegal income which now makes banking privacy a myth in most of the world was supported by a 1988 UN Convention on illicit trafficking. Financial institutions are encouraged, sometimes required by law, to inform on customers who they suspect might be dealing. If the amount the court estimates can't be found, they give extra prison time.
The new Conservative Government said in 1981 that they had no intention of ever reducing penalties for drugs offences, still less of legalising or decriminalising cannabis. We still have the same government, and they still have the same attitude. Although many first-time possession cases are now dealt with by cautions, maximum sentences were raised in 1994. Possible fines also went up, by 250%. The same year, over seventy-two thousand people were convicted or cautioned for cannabis offences.
The cannabis prohibition laws were passed and are still in force because of official apathy, racism, and the manic waffle of a few professional anti-drug campaigners. Scientific and sociological ignorance has often been deliberately maintained in the face of all evidence. Official policy is to reduce both the supply of and demand for all illegal drugs. It has failed miserably, and done great damage to hundreds of thousands of people.
Over 650,00 people have been convicted or cautioned to date for all cannabis -related offences. Over 80% of those have been for simple possession.
All Cannabis offences 1945 - 94
The 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act came into force in April 1973. An apparent short term drop in convictions, partly caused by changes in what was being measured, was followed by enormous increases, which still continue.
Written by Sean Blanchard.
La legalización del cáñamo en México ayudará a resolver los problemas de la emigración y la pobreza rural
Después de ver a Roy Germano "El otro lado de la inmigración" y de haber vivido en Michoacán, México, durante 2 años, que reconocen los beneficios que la legalización de la marihuana y el cáñamo, llevaría a los EE.UU. y México. (Ver http://youtu.be/F8t78ClZFpY una revisión documental de Germano.)
En la actualidad Estados Unidos sufre de una montaña de deudas generadas en parte por malas políticas agrícolas y de impuestos, una fallida guerra contra las drogas, la política de inmigración no, y un desempleo significativo, y la destrucción de la industria de la agricultura en pequeña facilitado por el TLCAN y la agricultura corporativa. Ya es hora de una nueva dirección.
Mientras tanto, México ha sufrido una disminución significativa en la producción de petróleo y por lo tanto redujo los ingresos por exportación de petróleo. Como ciudadanos mexicanos son incapaces de encontrar empleo en los EE.UU., las remesas se reducirá drásticamente y muchos de ellos regresan a casa a un menor costo de vida. Desafortunadamente, también volver a menos oportunidades económicas en el campo, con la excepción del comercio de drogas ilegales.
20 años de TLCAN ha beneficiado principalmente a los agricultores de EE.UU. corporativo con la ayuda de subsidios federales y conducido a los agricultores mexicanos fuera del negocio a través de dumping por parte de los agricultores empresariales.
México debe aprobar una legislación similar a la HR1831, la agricultura del cáñamo industrial Ley de 2011, presentado por EE.UU. El congresista Ron Paul, que permitirá a sus agricultores para hacer crecer un cultivo comercial como ningún otro.
México, como todas las demás naciones, debe tener acceso a todos los recursos disponibles de energía limpia disponibles en la tierra verde de Dios y esto debe incluir el cáñamo. Legalizar y gravar el cáñamo en toda la República Mexicana, se generan nuevas industrias que podrían ser una parte vital de la solución a muchos de sus problemas económicos, que a su vez ayudaría a resolver el problema de la emigración.
El cáñamo es la cosecha de alto rendimiento, que producen más biomasa por hectárea que la mayoría de otros cultivos y pueden ser utilizados para los biocombustibles, la biomasa, textiles, papel, plásticos, etc. A diferencia del petróleo, carbón, gas natural o combustibles nucleares, el cáñamo es un recurso biodegradable y renovable, que nos podría abastecerse de materias primas durante miles de años, sin cambiar nuestro clima y sin producir residuos que sigue siendo radiactivo durante millones de años.
Gravar todas las etapas de la producción y distribución de este nuevo cultivo y fuente de energía generaría ingresos para los gobiernos municipales y estatales la lucha contra los déficits de ingresos. Licencias de confinar a los ciudadanos y las pequeñas empresas charter que promover negocios sostenibles para los productores rurales de todo el país y empresarios creativos de energía limpia podría contribuir al PIB con las exportaciones de sus nuevos recursos de energía natural y limpia y productos.
Los estadounidenses preocupados por la energía, la contaminación, la guerra, la inmigración ilegal, y la prosperidad económica, debe ser compatible con HR1831 que se encuentra actualmente en manos de la Comisión de Energía y Comercio.
Los mexicanos preocupados por puestos de trabajo suficientes para los agricultores deben presionar a sus propios gobiernos para un proyecto de ley similar y generar una nueva industria en pleno auge y que podría impulsar a México y sus ciudadanos en la prosperidad.
# # Hempforvictory hemp4Mexico
Monday, January 16, 2012
HEMP BIOMASS FOR ENERGY with New Farm Bill
Federal Farm Bill Includes Provision Allowing Research on Hemp http://t.co/O7YodrHzyv
— Cannabis Culture (@CannabisCulture) January 29, 2014
HEMP BIOMASS FOR ENERGY
RV3
Tim Castleman
© Fuel and Fiber Company, 2001, 2006
Table of Contents
Table of Contents_____________________________________________________________ 2
Introduction_________________________________________________________________ 3
Ways biomass can be used for energy production____________________________________ 3
Burning:_________________________________________________________________________________ 3
Oils:____________________________________________________________________________________ 3
Conversion of cellulose to alcohol:____________________________________________________________ 4
About Hemp_________________________________________________________________ 5
Hemp seed oil for Bio Diesel____________________________________________________ 5
Production of oil__________________________________________________________________________ 5
Production of Bio-Diesel____________________________________________________________________ 5
Forest Thinning and Slash, Mill Wastes________________________________________________________ 6
Agricultural Waste_________________________________________________________________________ 7
MSW (Municipal Solid Waste)______________________________________________________________ 7
Barriers__________________________________________________________________________________ 8
Benefits_________________________________________________________________________________ 8
The Fuel and Fiber Company Method_____________________________________________ 9
Hemp Biomass Production Model Using the Fuel and Fiber Company Method_______________________ 10
Economic Impact____________________________________________________________ 11
Employment_____________________________________________________________________________ 11
Construction_____________________________________________________________________________ 11
Related agricultural activities________________________________________________________________ 11
Environmental Impact________________________________________________________ 11
Endnotes & References_______________________________________________________ 12
Hemp as Biomass for Energy
Introduction
Hemp advocates claim industrial hemp would be a good source of biomass to help address our energy needs. Since the oil crisis in the early seventies much work has been accomplished in the area of energy production using biomass. Biomass is any plant or tree matter in large quantity. These decades of research have lead to the discovery of several ways to convert biomass into energy and other useful products.
Questions of biomass suitability as compared to other "green" sources of energy are the subject of numerous studies and are not addressed here. Other questions concerning detailed economic and environmental impact, use of GMO's, and agronomy are also outside the scope of this analysis.
This paper does attempt to explore the options available, and outlines some of the barriers and opportunities regarding them.
Ways biomass can be used for energy production
Burning:
· Co-fired with coal to reduce emissions and offset a fraction of coal use
· Burned to produce electricity
· Pelletized to heat structures
· Made or cut into logs for heating
Biomass to be burned is typically valued at $30-50 per ton, which makes whole stalk hemp as biomass to be burned impractical due to the high value of its bast fiber. One exception may be found in consideration of the latest gasification technologies used on local small scale and in remote rural applications.
· Gasification (Pyrrolysis)
Gasification uses high heat to convert biomass into "SynGas" (synthetic gas) and low grade fuel oil which has an energy content of about 40% that of petroleum diesel. By products are mostly "Char" and ash. This technology is readily available commercially in several forms and could be a viable option according to local environmental and economic conditions. Beginning in 1999, Community Power Corporation[i] joined with the US National Renewable Laboratory (NREL) and Shell Renewables, Ltd. to design and develop a new generation of small modular biopower systems. The first prototype SMB system rated at 15 kWe was deployed in the village of Alaminos in the Philippines in early 2001. The fully automated system can use a variety of biomass fuels to generate electricity, shaft power and heat.
Oils:
· Vegetable, seed and plant oil used "as-is" in diesel engines
· Biodiesel - vegetable oil converted by chemical reaction
· Converted into high-quality non-toxic lubricants
There are a number of plants high in oils, and many processes that produce vegetable oil as a waste product. These include soy, corn, coconut, palm, canola, rapeseed, and a number of other promising species. Any of these oils can be converted to biodiesel as described later, with a feedstock cost of $0 + per gallon.
Conversion of cellulose to alcohol:
· Hydrolysis (Enzymatic & Acid)
Conversion of cellulose to fermentable glucose holds the greatest promise from both a production and feedstock supply standpoint. DOE (NREL) and a number of Universities and private enterprise have been developing this technology and achieved a number of milestones. Production estimates of 80 to 130 gallons per ton of biomass make this technology very attractive.
· Anaerobic digester (Methane)
Anaerobic digestion is used to capture methane from any waste material. It is confirmed technology under commercialization utilizing landfill gases, wastewater treatment system gases, agricultural wastes from several other sources, particularly hog and cattle manure. It is well suited for distributed power generation when co-located with electrical generation equipment. For example, Corporation for Future Resources, [ii] and Minusa Coffee Company, Ltd., located near Itaipé, Minas Gerais, Brazil, have teamed to construct an anaerobic fermentation digestion facility at Minusa's coffee operation. The 600 cubic meter digester is designed to continuously produce methane rich gas, to be used for coffee drying and electric power production, as well as nitrogen-rich anaerobic organic fertilizer.
|
This technology may be attractive in some cases when co-located with a hemp fiber processing facility or in remote locations to provide local power generation.
About Hemp
Industrial hemp can be grown in most climates and on marginal soils. It requires little or no herbicide and no pesticide, and uses less water than cotton. Measurements at Ridgetown College indicate the crop needs 300-400 mm (10-13 in.) of rainfall equivalent. Yields will vary according to local conditions and will range from 1.5 to 6 dry tons of biomass per acre[iii]. California's rich croplands and growing environment are expected to increase yields by 20% over Canadian results, which will average at least 3.9 bone dry tons per acre.
Hemp seed oil for Bio Diesel
Production of oil
Grown for oilseed, Canadian grower's yields average 1 tonne/hectare, or about 400 lbs. per acre. Cannabis seed contains about 28% oil (112 lbs.), or about 15 gallons per acre. Production costs using these figures would be about $35 per gallon. Some varieties are reported[iv] to yield as much as 38% oil, and a record 2,000 lbs. per acre was recorded in 1999. At this rate, 760 lbs.of oil per acre would result in about 100 gallons of oil, with production costs totaling about $5.20 gallon. This oil could be used as-is in modified diesel engines, or be converted to biodiesel using a relatively simple, automated process. Several systems are under development worldwide designed to produce biodiesel on a small scale, such as on farms using "homegrown" oil crops.
Production of Bio-Diesel
Basically methyl esters, or biodiesel, as it is commonly called, can be made from any oil or fat, including hemp seed oil. The reaction requires only oil, an alcohol (usually methanol) and a catalyst (usually sodium hydroxide [NaOH, or drain cleaner]). The reaction produces only biodiesel and a smaller amount of glycerol or glycerin.
The costs of materials needed for the reaction are the costs associated with production of hemp seed oil, the cost of methanol and the NaOH. In the instances where waste vegetable oil, or WVO, is used, the cost for oil is of course, free. Typically methanol costs about $2 per gallon and NaOH costs about $5 per 500g or about $0.01 per gram. For a typical 17 gallon batch of biodiesel, you'd start with 14 gallons of hemp seed oil; add to that 15% by volume of alcohol (or 2.1 gallons) and about 500g of NaOH. The process takes about 2 hours to complete and requires about 2000 watts of energy. That works out to about 2kw/hr or about $0.10 of energy (assuming $0.05 per kw/hr). So the total cost per gallon of biodiesel is $? (oil) + 2.1 x $2 (methanol) + $5 (NaOH) + $0.10 (energy) / 14 gallons = $0.66 per gallon, plus the cost of the oil.[v] Other costs may include sales, transportation, maintenance, depreciation, insurance and labor.
The costs of materials needed for the reaction are the costs associated with production of hemp seed oil, the cost of methanol and the NaOH. In the instances where waste vegetable oil, or WVO, is used, the cost for oil is of course, free. Typically methanol costs about $2 per gallon and NaOH costs about $5 per 500g or about $0.01 per gram. For a typical 17 gallon batch of biodiesel, you'd start with 14 gallons of hemp seed oil; add to that 15% by volume of alcohol (or 2.1 gallons) and about 500g of NaOH. The process takes about 2 hours to complete and requires about 2000 watts of energy. That works out to about 2kw/hr or about $0.10 of energy (assuming $0.05 per kw/hr). So the total cost per gallon of biodiesel is $? (oil) + 2.1 x $2 (methanol) + $5 (NaOH) + $0.10 (energy) / 14 gallons = $0.66 per gallon, plus the cost of the oil.[v] Other costs may include sales, transportation, maintenance, depreciation, insurance and labor.
Hemp Cellulose for Ethanol
Another approach will involve conversion of cellulose to ethanol, which can be done in several ways including gasification, acid hydrolysis and a technology utilizing engineered enzymes to convert cellulose to glucose, which is then fermented to make alcohol. Still another approach using enzymes will convert cellulose directly to alcohol, which leads to substantial process cost savings.
Current costs associated with these conversion processes are about $1.37[vi] per gallon of fuel produced, plus the cost of the feedstock. Of this $1.37, enzyme costs are about $0.50 per gallon; current research efforts are directed toward reduction of this amount to $0.05 per gallon. There is a Federal tax credit of $0.54 per gallon and a number of other various incentives available. Conversion rates range from a low of 25-30 gallons per ton of biomass to 100 gallons per ton using the latest technology.
In 1998 the total California gasoline demand was 14 billion gallons. When ethanol is used to replace MTBE as an oxygenate, this will create California demand in excess of 700 million gallons per year. MTBE is to be phased out of use by 2003 according to State law.
In this case we can consider biomass production from a much broader perspective. Sources of feedstock under consideration for these processes are:
We will address these in turn and show why a dedicated energy crop holds important potential for ethanol production in California, why hemp is a good candidate as a dedicated energy crop, and how it may represent the fastest track to meeting 34% of California's upcoming ethanol market demand of at least 580-750 million gallons per year.[vii]
Forest Thinning and Slash, Mill Wastes
A 1999 California Energy Commission biomass resource assessment estimated 13.8 million bone dry tons (5.5 Mill, 4.5 Slash & 3.8 thinnings) are available in California.
If practiced within State & Federal regulations, use of this source can have significant beneficial effects. Removal of excess biomass from forests reduces the frequency & intensity of fires, helping control the spread of diseases, and contributes to overall forest health. At 59 - 66 gallons per ton, this could supply as much as 900 million gallons per year.
One proposed California project, Collins Pine's Chester Mill, which will contribute 20 MGY and be co-located with an existing biomass-powered 12 MW electric generator; yet, there is significant resistance to such uses by several prominent environmental groups, and for good reason - this could eventually lead to widespread destruction of forest habitat by overzealous energy companies willing to disregard the environment in the name of national energy security. Barriers also include harvest cost and capabilities as some slash & thinnings are extremely difficult to access, and the high lignin content of these materials.
If 25% of the available material were used, about 200 million gallons per year could be produced.
Agricultural Waste
In California over 500,000 acres of rice are grown each year. Each acre produces 1-2.5 tons of rice straw which have been until now burned. Alternative methods of disposal are needed, and conversion to ethanol has been under development for several years. There are currently two projects underway proposing to use rice straw: one in California (Gridley) and one in Jennings, LA. If the Gridley project is fully implemented, it will add 25 million gallons of production to California's already-thin 9 million gallons per year. Barriers include collection costs and the high silica content (13%) of rice straw.
Other agricultural wastes include orchard trimmings, walnut and almond shells, and food processing wastes, for a total of about 700 MGY potential if ALL agricultural wastes were used. This is, of course, impractical, as some must be returned to the soil somehow, plus collection and transport costs will have an effect on viability of a particular waste product. Agricultural waste has the potential to satisfy a significant share of demand, with many factors to be considered when proposing a bio-refinery based on any feedstock, which are determined by full life-cycle analysis.
If 25% of the available material were used, about 175 million gallons per year could be produced.
MSW (Municipal Solid Waste)
Though about 60% of the waste stream is cellulosic material such as yard trimmings, urban waste and paper, this source is not considered a viable option for a number of reasons; these include existing industries that recycle materials and the landfill's use of green waste as "Alternative Daily Cover" (ADC). Co-location of ethanol production is possible, but only up to about 10 MGY of production. When capital investment is considered, it is generally considered most economical to build larger capacity facilities.
The future of MSW being used for ethanol conversion does not look good. At best, 100 MGY of capacity may eventually come online, but it will be an uphill struggle to compete with higher value uses already in place.
Dedicated Energy Crops
There are 28 million acres of agricultural land in California, of which 10 million acres are established cropland. If 10% of this cropland (1 million acres) were dedicated to production of hemp as an energy and fiber crop, we could produce 150-500 million gallons of ethanol per year.
Greater estimates would result from expanding the analysis to include use of agricultural lands not currently applied to crop production as well as additional land not currently devoted to agriculture. A California Department of Food and Agriculture estimate suggests that each 1 million acres of crop production, occupying roughly 1% of the state's total land area, would supply the ethanol equivalent of about 3% of California's current gasoline demand.[viii]
Barriers
A barrier to the development of a cellulose-to-ethanol industry is availability, consistency and make-up, and location of feedstock. Dedicated crops, such as switchgrass[ix], resolve these problems. Cannabis hemp will enhance business opportunities because we can "tailor" the cannabis plant fractions to satisfy multiple end uses such as high value composites, fine paper, nitrogen rich fertilizer, CO2 , medicines, plastics, fabrics and polymers - just a portion of the many possible end uses.
Benefits
Benefits of a dedicated energy crop include consistency of feedstock supply, enhanced co-product opportunities, and increased carbon sequestration. It is commonly held that agricultural industries must focus on multiple value-added products from the various fractions of plants. This value-adding enhances rural development by providing jobs and facilities for value-adding operations. Hemp[x] lends itself to this in a unique way due to the high value of its bast fiber. Market prices for well-cleaned, composite-grade natural fiber are about 55¢ per pound ($1,100 ton); lower value uses, such as in some paper-making, bring $400-$700 per ton, while other value-adding options, such as pulping for fine papers[xi], could increase the value of the fiber to $2,500 per ton.
The Fuel and Fiber Company Method
The Fuel and Fiber Company Method[xii] employs a mechanical separation step to extract the high-value bast fiber[xiii] as a first step in processing. The remaining core material is to undergo conversion to alcohol and other co-products. There is no waste stream and the system will provide a net carbon reduction due to increased biomass production. Conversion efficiency of hemp core is relative to the lignin, cellulose and hemicellulose content and method used. The following table lists some materials often cited as potential sources of biomass and their chemical make-up. A challenge is conversion of hemicellulose to glucose; yet this challenge has been met recently by Genencor, Arkenol, Iogen, and others. These technologies provide conversion of hemicellulose and cellulose fractions to glucose using cellulase enzymes or acid.
Hemp
|
Cellulose
|
Hemicellulose
|
Lignin
|
Bast
|
64.8 %
|
7.7%
|
4.3 %
|
Core
|
34.5 %
|
17.8%
|
20.8 %
|
Soft Pine
|
44%
|
26%
|
27.8%
|
Spruce
|
42%
|
27%
|
28.6%
|
Wheat Straw
|
34%
|
27.6%
|
18%
|
Rice Straw
|
32.1%
|
24.0%
|
12.5%
|
Corn Stover
|
28%
|
28%
|
11%
|
Switchgrass
|
32.5%
|
26.4%
|
17.8%
|
Chemical composition of Industrial Hemp as compared to other plant matter
Lignin has long been viewed as a problem in the processing of fiber, and detailed studies have revealed numerous methods of removal and degradation; commonly it is burned for process heat and power generation. Advances in gasification and turbine technologies enable on-site power and heat generation, and should be seriously considered in any full-scale proposal. Additionally, by full chemical assay and careful market evaluation numerous co-product and value-adding opportunities exist. Such assay should include a NIRS (Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy) analysis, with as many varieties and conditions of material as can be gathered.
Reductions in lignin achieved by cultivation and harvest techniques, germplasm development and custom enzyme development will optimize processing output and efficiency. Incremental advances in system efficiencies related to these production improvements create a significant financial incentive for investors.
The Fuel and Fiber Company Renewable Resource System will process 300,000 to 600,000 tons of biomass per year, per facility; 25% to 35% of this will be high-value grades of core-free bast fiber. The remaining 65% to 75% of biomass will be used for the conversion process. Each facility will process input from 60,000 to 170,000 acres. Outputs are: Ethanol: 10-25 MGY (Million Gallons per Year), Fiber: 67,000 to 167,000 tons per year, and other co-products; fertilizer, animal feed, etc. to be determined. Hemp production will average 3.9 tons per acre with average costs of $520 per acre.
Hemp Biomass Production Model Using the Fuel and Fiber Company Method[xiv] | |||||||||
Min
|
Max
|
Average
|
Improve 20%
|
Totals
|
Sell 1
|
Sell 2
|
Total 1
|
Total 2
| |
Tons per Acre
|
1.5
|
5
|
3.25
|
0.65
|
3.9
| ||||
Lbs. Bast
(Separated 90-94%)
|
750
|
2500
|
1625
|
325
|
1950
|
0.35
|
0.55
|
$682.50
|
$1,072.50
|
Lbs. Hurd
|
2250
|
7500
|
4875
|
975
|
5850
| ||||
Gallons Per Ton
|
20
|
80
|
50
|
$2.00
|
$3.00
| ||||
Gallons Per Acre
|
146
|
292.5
|
438.8
| ||||||
Ethanol costs
Per Gallon
|
0.92
|
1.37
|
1.145
|
167.46
|
167.46
| ||||
Ethanol profit
|
$125.04
|
$271.29
| |||||||
Gross
|
$807.54
|
$1,343.79
| |||||||
Production Costs
Per Acre
|
424
|
617
|
520.5
|
$520.50
|
$520.50
| ||||
Separation costs
Per Ton
|
41.54
|
75.68
|
58.61
|
$228.58
|
$228.58
| ||||
Costs
|
$749.08
|
$749.08
| |||||||
Profit
|
$58.46
|
$594.71
| |||||||
Administrative & License %
|
2
|
$16.15
|
$26.88
| ||||||
NET
|
$42.31
|
$567.84
| |||||||
Capacity
|
Acres
|
Tons Fiber
| |||||||
10 MGY Facility
|
68,376
|
66,667
|
Annual
|
$2,893,256
|
$38,826,590
| ||||
25 MGY Facility
|
170,940
|
166,667
|
Profits
|
$7,233,141
|
$97,066,474
| ||||
Total Admin & License
|
$1,104,333
|
$4,594,167
| |||||||
Capital costs not included. Estimated capital costs are $135 to $150 million per facility, plus crop payments. To add a pulping operation will require an additional $100 million and adds $117 per ton of fiber processed for pulp, which has a market value of up to $2,500 per ton. The most conservative estimates possible were used for this study. A full-scale feasibility study is needed to validate assumptions and projections. An additional $35 per ton environmental impact benefit should also be factored into future projections[xv].
Economic Impact
Employment
Employment for hemp production, calculated at one worker per 40 acres farmed[xvi], results in a total of 1,700 to 4,275 new jobs, if 10% of California’s cropland is put into production of cannabis hemp. These jobs are created across all traditional agricultural employment sectors, upon full development of the system.
The processing plants will also create new jobs in these areas[xvii]:
· Administrative & Sales – 15 to 25 per facility
· Research & Development – 25 to 50 statewide
· Engineering & Technical – 75 to 100 statewide
· Construction & Maintenance – 150 to 300 statewide
· Transportation & Material Handling – 10 to 20 per facility
· General Labor – 25 to 50 per facility
Construction
Each facility will incur $100-300 million in construction costs. Much of the equipment and labor will be procured locally, creating new jobs and opportunities for entrepreneurs to provide equipment and services to this new industry.
Related agricultural activities
At an average cost of $520 per acre, returns to farmers will range from $50-$500 profit per acre. Used in rotation with other crops, hemp can help reduce herbicide use resulting in savings to the farmer on production of crops other than hemp.
Environmental Impact
There are a great number of environmental impacts to be considered, including;
· Water use. Agricultural operations & processing will consume hundreds of millions of gallons.
· Large mono-crop systems have been problematic. Though hemp lends itself well to mono-cropping, effective & feasible rotation schemes must be devised.
· Genetically Modified Organisms - Are key to efficient conversions but may pose a great threat to life. This is an issue that must be handled with complete transparency & integrity.
· Waste streams generated - Though expected to be low, a detailed accounting must be made and addressed.
· Creation of "Carbon Sink" to absorb carbon
· Improved land and water management
· In-State fuel production - reducing transport costs and associated effects
· Reduction in emissions (Continued use of RFG)
· $35 per acre total environmental benefit
[i] Community Power Corporation, 8420 S. Continental Divide Road, Littleton, CO 80127
[ii] Corporation For Future Resources, !909 Chowkeebin Court, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
[iii] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs FactSheet "Growing Industrial Hemp in Ontario" 08/00
[iv] A Brief Analysis of the Characteristics of Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Seed Grown in Northern Ontario in 1998. May 19, 1999 Herb A. Hinz, Undergraduate Thesis, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario
[v] IAN S. WATSON, AIA BioDiesel Expert
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
[vi] CIFAR Conference XIV, "Cracking the Nut: Bioprocessing Lignocellulose to Renewable Products and Energy", June 4, 2001
[vii] California Energy Commission report "COSTS AND BENEFITS OF A BIOMASS-TO-ETHANOL PRODUCTION INDUSTRY IN CALIFORNIA", March, 2001
[viii] California Energy Commission report "EVALUATION OF BIOMASS-TO-ETHANOL FUEL POTENTIAL IN CALIFORNIA", December, 1999 pg iv 4-5
[ix] Switchgrass is the leading candidate under consideration by DOE. Numerous studies are available upon request.
[x] Cannabis Sativa, commonly know as "hemp" is included in a list of potential field crops considered as Candidate Energy Crops in the December 1999 California Energy Commission report "EVALUATION OF BIOMASS-TO-ETHANOL FUEL POTENTIAL IN CALIFORNIA" pg. iv-3
[xi] Hemp Pulp and Paper Production Gertjan van Roekel jr.
ATO-DLO Agrotechnology, P.O.box 17, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
Van Roekel, G J, 1994. Hemp pulp and paper production. Journal of the International Hemp Association 1: 12-14.
[xii] Fuel and Fiber Company was formed to promote a renewable resource system using fibrous crops such as hemp and kenaf to produce high-value natural fiber, ethanol and other co-products. www.FuelandFiber.com
[xiii] All of the hemp fibre produced and sold by Hempline (www.hempline.com) is made from hemp grown without pesticides and processed without chemicals. The fibre is a uniform natural golden colour typical of field retted stalks. The fibre has a moisture regain of 12% and excellent fibre tenacity. The fibre is pressed into high compression bales to minimize transportation costs.
The fibre is available in 40ft. and 20 ft. containers, truckloads or by the bale and shipped internationally. Samples of the fibre are available for trials upon request. The pricing varies based on the fibre grade, and is comparable or more cost effective than many natural and synthetic fibres.
Hempline primary hemp fibre comes in the following grades:
Ultra clean Grade Fibre
· 99.9% clean of core fibre Value: .55 + lb.
· Dust extracted
· Available in staples lengths between 1/2" to 6" and sliver.
· Well opened with a typical staple denier of between 15 to 65
· Applications include: nonwovens, composites, textiles, any where that a very clean well opened fibre with uniform staple length is needed.
Composite Grade Fibre
· 96 - 99% clean of core fibre Value: .35 - .55 lb.
· Dust extracted
· Available in staples lengths between 1" to 6".
· Fairly well opened with a typical staple denier of between 50 to 125
· Applications include: a range of composites such as automotive, furniture and construction; nonwovens; insulation.
General Purpose Grade Fibre Value: .20 lb.
· 50 - 75% clean of core fibre
· Staple lengths vary between 1" to 6". Can be modified according to your requirements
· Applications include: fibre for hydro mulch; cement and plaster filler; insulation; geo-matting.
Core fibre
For animal bedding and garden mulch, under the HempChips(tm) brand, is available in 3.2 cu. ft. (90 L) compressed bags through retail outlets and direct-to-stable in truckload quantities.
[xiv] Based on 20% improvement over Canadian production per Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Factsheet "Growing Industrial Hemp in Ontario", 08/00
[xv] DOE calculation - See Chariton Valley project reports.
[xvi] California Agricultural Employment Report
[xvii] Estimate only. Actual numbers need to be discovered and confirmed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)