Cannabis: The renewable resource
Lost in all of the hoopla over medical marijuana is this: Cannabis is an easily renewable resource and could greatly reduce our energy dependence on oil, natural gas, etc.
Cannabis is the best choice as a renewable resource because it is easily grown and harvested and is pest resistant and drought tolerant. Cannabis fiber (hemp) is among the strongest of any plant in the world and compares favorably in strength to steel. Anything made from wood pulp, fabric or soy beans can be made from cannabis.
Growing cannabis shouldn't be a crime; the crime is the cannabis plant is not utilized to benefit the world and that millions of nonviolent people have been incarcerated or have had their futures clouded by simple possession charges.
I am not asking people to believe me, but to do research on their own and share that information to educate others to the many positive qualities of the cannabis plant. Cannabis is only illegal and demonized because some individuals profit from that situation. It's a beneficial plant and should be utilized.
Recent research and reputable polls show almost 60 percent of Americans believe cannabis should be legalized, but too many of our elected officials do not. This problem needs to be addressed at the polls by voting on the issue.
Right now, politicians are padding their pockets and those of their friends from big pharma and other big corporations. We need to move forward on legalization and make marijuana a product for all people.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pedro must go
- Steel at stake, too
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Duty to disclose
- Good riddance
- Incomprehensible? That’s Obama
- Oberdorf firing
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Reverse red-kettle ban II