If anyone had been reading my annoyed rants on the subject for the last several years they would know that.
@dacree Sorry man, no. The pharma and alcohol companies do have strong lobbyists and they contribute money to any group that will oppose legalisation or decriminalisation, but it’s got nothing to do with keeping “natural drugs” off the market - as evidenced by the fact that medical use is permitted in far more places than recreational use. Also since hemp is a superior product, what benefit would the government have in stopping an industry that would provide them with better tax revenues? The prison point is just silly. Yes, privatised prisons have an interest in getting more prisoners but why would the government want that? The government is paying the bill.
@Bozeman_Bill That book needs updating. May I suggest this: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=auatLlqO_AIC&printsec=frontcover&vq=driving&redir_esc=y
The Marijuana Tax Act was implemented in 1937 meaning that all marijuana was banned (even Ruderalis - the type used for hemp production). This was changed during WWII, as you stated, but the reintroduction of the ban had nothing to do with the cotton industry and everything to do with the government simply stopping issuing marijuana tax stamps at the end of WWII. This wiki page talks about a war propaganda documentary encouraging US farmers to grow hemp, and a picture of the tax stamps issued. In answer to your second question, my understanding is that hemp has less impact on the environment to produce in every way. Also: Ruderalis (fibre hemp) doesn’t get you high.
@bid re: sperm count, I know that was a joke, but I’m just gonna pour some water on that myth: http://norml.org/library/health-reports/item/norml-s-marijuana-health-mythology#13
Check out how well the declaration of independence survived the years. It is written on hemp paper.
Nope… parchment (i.e. animal skin)
@wi_ngo Competitors to hemp products obviously had a financial interest in killing it, but my understanding is that it was primarily racially driven because Mexicans had traditionally smoked it after work and brought the practice to North America when they emigrated legally. The southern states wanted to get rid of the Mexicans who were “stealing all the jobs” (sound familiar?). Anslinger was tasked with making marijuana illegal which he did a great job of, despite his own personal belief that marijuana wasn’t really a problem.
@felixtannenbaum I don’t believe that to be true, considering there was a 4 year gap between the end of prohibition and the introduction of the Marijuana Tax Act.
@anon15383236 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#History_of_the_documents 
