Letter to the Editor: War and free market
BY Matthew Marshall, Claremore
Saturday, January 05, 2013
1/05/13 at 8:24 AM
Is there a reason why the Drug Enforcement Administration won't let American farmers grow industrial hemp for our War on Terror efforts, akin to the "Greatest Generation" being begged to grow hemp for World War II?
In the 1940s, those who attempted to hinder the production of war materials were labeled as saboteurs or Imperial Japanese or Nazi sympathizers. American-grown hemp very well could reduce the American cost of war, while providing better and cleaner materials for our troops (diesel fuel, heart healthy foods, plastics, wood like materials, clothing, rope etc) and many needed jobs back home. Based on historical precedents allowing farmers to grow hemp during World War II, hemp is required by federal law to be legal (based on precedents set in World War II ). I'm under the impression based on cause and effect and end results: The DEA is a saboteur, maybe even a "closet Muslim terrorist sympathizer" (just look at what happened in 2008 at Mumbai, India). The above can be proven via historical and legal precedents.
The DEA doesn't think a single American soldier's life is worth growing hemp, though the Department of Agriculture obviously thought very highly of our soldiers' lives in World War II.
Another complaint: Why is the DEA in clear violation of the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act by forcing every American to buy foreign-grown hemp in American stores (at a greater cost) and not American-grown hemp? It is in the business of retail and industry, not drug enforcement, according to provable evidence.
Can we say treason?
Letters to the editor are encouraged. Send letters to email@example.com.