The Touch, the Feel of Pesticides in Our Lives
Mar 21st, 2006 by Brian A. Thomas
Did you know that despite the fact that while cotton represents only 1% of the total US crop, it represents 50% of all the pesticides used in the US? This is the “fabric of our lives,” more like “the touch, the feel of” pesticides, to somewhat quote their ad campaigns.
Using that much pesticides, I have to guess that the pesticide industry also lobbies hard to keep hemp from being legal to grow. Clothes made from hemp last longer, are more resistant to water, and are softer then the same item made from cotton. This is why the textile industry lobbies against the legalization of hemp farming. The pesticide industry undoubtedly lobbies against it as well since it needs zero to very little pesticides, which would mean they would loose 50% of their US market.
Let’s take a look at hemp… it makes four times softer, four times warmer, three times stronger, and longer lasting clothes that need far less pesticides than cotton (upsetting the textile and pesticide lobby)… it makes better paper then wood (upsetting the logging lobby)… it is one of the best biomass fuels and lubricants (upsetting the corn and soy lobby)… it is supposedly a healthier and better tasting food alternative than soy (upsetting the soy lobby)… while part of the cannabis family, it can’t make anyone high (upsetting nobody that I can think of)… If we spread our talk to medical cannabis/marijuana you clearly upset the very powerful drug lobby since it is far more effective, less addictive and safer than most of the mid to high end drugs they pump into society on a daily basis… medical marijuana is not the same as the recreational version of the drug… Speaking of the recreational version, clearly the ever powerful tobacco lobby has their hand in keeping it illegal… The government quotes only studies they funded, which must toss out or ignore the overwhelming evidence that marijuana is non-addictive and safe…
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t do the stuff. However, find it hypocritical of our government to ban marijuana when they allow alcohol and tobacco to be out there. In recorded history there hasn’t been one marijuana death that wasn’t related to other factors compared to the 435,000 people who die each year from tobacco, or the 85,000 alcohol related deaths each year (which to be fair, includes drunk driving, but for some odd reason, drunk driving deaths are not included in the 26,347 motor vehicle deaths each year making it hard to pull the drunk driving deaths from the alcohol poisoning deaths which is still a high number). I find it maddening that our federal government spends $20 billion a year to fight the war on drugs, including sending 800 soldiers to Columbia with 600 civilian support personal, when we could use that money more effectively on more important issues, and use those soldiers defending us from real threats. Marijuana represented 44.2% of the 1,745,712 drug related arrests in 2004, for a total of 771,605 marijuana arrests, of which 684,319 were for simple possession. Our jails are overcrowded and we release dangerous rapists and murders just so we can jail somebody for having a joint; where is the logic in that? Why waste precious police resources chasing down people who are not hurting anyone when they could and should be chasing the people who intend us and our families harm? It takes a company $20,000 to $77,000 or so for each positive result (I would guess after they tossed out the many false positives) on a drug tests, despite far cheaper and more effective ways of finding those impaired on the job, and in many cases, the government mandates those tests; this, despite the fact that the chronic habitual user who represents a safety and/or productivity threat generally pass anyhow since they know how to pass them (they do not however pass impairment tests). In an effort to fight the war, we are about to violate our agreements on biological warfare.
There are more effective, cheaper ways to fight this war then our current policy, why are we so stubborn? I believe the answer to that was answered above, many powerful lobbies from groups who would loose lots of money if one to all three forms of cannabis was legalized or at the least decriminalized. It all comes down to money and which lobby group has more.
Edit to add: When I said the three types of cannabis above I was referring to, hemp, medical marijuana and recreational marijuana, not the strains of cannabis such as sativa, indica and redereralis.
