World War II Poster (Photo Credit: Hemphasis.net)The United States is the only industrialized nation that bans farmers from growing industrial, non-psychoactive hemp, but a group of lawmakers in Washington are trying to change that.

Last week, House Representative Ron Paul, a Republican from Texas who is also running for president in 2008, was joined by 9 Democratic co-sponsors in introducing House Resolution 1009, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007. The bill would "remove restrictions on the cultivation of non-psychoactive industrial hemp." Paul gave his reasons for sponsoring the bill:

It is indefensible that the United States government prevents American farmers from growing this crop. The prohibition subsidizes farmers in countries from Canada to Romania by eliminating American competition and encourages jobs in industries such as food, auto parts and clothing that utilize industrial hemp to be located overseas instead of in the United States. [...] By passing the Industrial Hemp Farming Act the House of Representatives can help American farmers and reduce the trade deficit — all without spending a single taxpayer dollar.

Currently, industrial hemp is illegal because the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) doesn't distinguish between different varieties of Cannabis sativa. The variety used for recreation and medicine contains large amounts of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, THC, while industrial hemp contains almost none. The requirement in Canada, where industrial hemp farming is legal, is that the leaves and flowering parts of the plant contain 0.3% or less THC.

Long story short: Smoking industrial hemp is about as psychoactive as smoking organic arugula. (To my knowledge, no research has been done on the effects of smoking non-organic, chemical-laden and pesticide-laced arugula. It's probably not a very good idea.)

The major concern from the DEA's perspective seems to be that farmers can or will grow other, more lucrative varieties of Cannabis hidden among the industrial plants. If your answer to that is, "So what?", well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. VoteHemp.com's more articulate answer is threefold: Industrial hemp is grown differently, needs to be harvested at a different time, and cross-pollination between the different varieties would reduce the THC potency of the marijuana plants, making it a poor business decision to try it in the first place.

Why is hemp an environmentally friendly crop? There are three main areas where hemp is an attractive alternative to the current status quo: clothing, paper, and energy. Hemp is often discussed as a replacement for cotton in clothing and other products. In the United States, more than 25% of all pesticides are sprayed on cotton fields. Hemp grows well without pesticides and herbicides. Hemp also yields three times more fiber per acre than cotton.

For paper production, an acre of hemp yields more pulp per acre than forests. Unlike trees, hemp can also be harvested each year, leaving what's left of the earth's forests to work their carbon sequestration magic.

Finally, hemp seeds contain about 30% oil. That hemp oil, aside from being edible, can be used for biofuel production.

More industrial hemp resources:

North American Industrial Hemp Council
Vote Hemp
Andy Kerr on Industrial Hemp

Members, you and I will work together in the months ahead on… a cleaner environment (applause)… - G.W. Bush, State of the Union, 2002

Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment. (Applause.) I have sent you a comprehensive energy plan to promote energy efficiency and conservation, to develop cleaner technology, and to produce more energy at home. (Applause.) I have sent you Clear Skies legislation… - G.W. Bush, State of the Union, 2003

America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources — and we are on the threshold of incredible advances. [...]

So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative — a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research — at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. (Applause.) - G.W. Bush, State of the Union, 2006

And then there was 2007:

It is in our vital interest to diversify America’s energy supply — and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power — by even greater use of clean coal technology … solar and wind energy … and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol — using everything from wood chips, to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

The old "nucular" "nuclear" and "clean coal" workhorses are still in the mix, but once again Bush mentioned, on national television, "solar" and "wind" power and even bioethanol (though not by that name). He also had something wholly new in store for his audience:

These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment — and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.

This was Bush's seventh State of the Union Address, and the very first time he's spoken specifically of global warming or climate change. The speech was, from an environmental perspective, the most forward-thinking of Bush's political career by a wide margin. He even offered specific policy proposals such as:

Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years [...]

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory Fuels Standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 — this is nearly 5 times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks — and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

An increase in CAFE standards, too? Fellow ecophiles, I cannot say for sure, but it's possible that we have entered the Matrix. And yet, much of Bush's energy rhetoric seems vaguely familiar, which freshman Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va) pointed out in the official Democratic response:

Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his State of the Union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the president and his party to bring about these changes.

Given Bush's record of follow-through on past green-ish SOTU policy proposals, one could be forgiven for being entirely skeptical this time around. We have been here before, and we have been disappointed in the days, weeks, and months that followed. Think Progress has even compiled a video of unfulfilled environmental promises from previous SOTUs.

In the midst of the genuinely clean and renewable energy sources that Bush mentioned, we might also be concerned about presence of "clean coal" and "nuclear energy" in the speech along with the statement:

So as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must also step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways.

Not to worry, oil companies: you've still got a friend. Make yourselves at home in our national parks, wildlife refuges, on our shores, and in our waters. Bush, not surprisingly, did not offer his blessing to the bill that passed the House last week that repeals tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies and diverts the money to alternative and renewable fuel research and development.

But maybe we skeptics are not giving the president enough credit. Maybe he'd like future historians writing about his legacy to include paragraphs on issues other than Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, wiretaps, unprecedented executive secrecy, Katrina and New Orleans (conspicuously missing from the speech tonight), dismal approval numbers, Kyoto withdrawal, and special prosecutors. Again from an environmental perspective, it was a B+ speech near the end of a D- presidency from a politician who never again will be asking for our votes and from a president that for the first time must face an opposition Congress. Perhaps President George W. Bush is finally ready (and/or forced) to take the green road less traveled.

It could make all the difference.