[robertpaulsen]

"it was much more widely used in textiles. So by your criteria (mostly used for legitimate purposes), it shouldn't have been banned, correct?"

I'm not aware that it was banned. It just went away.

You can google up any 'History of Hemp' site and you'll see that hemp was a dead industry just after the turn of the 20th century. It rebounded during WWII when we couldn't get it from overseas, but then it quickly died again.

Quite frankly, there is no reason for it to be making a comeback, other than one.

But hemp is not banned for textiles or any other non-human-consumption uses. Growing hemp is legal; however, it requires state and DEA licensing.

[ellery]

I should have been more specific -- growing hemp is illegal in the US by federal law. The only exception is a DEA registration grant; the DEA has never granted one.

That hemp can be used in many, many different useful ways is well-documented. We've just seen that it's possible to extract THC oil from hemp through a process that involves butane.

You've stated that you don't believe dual use products such as butane should be banned, because more people use it legitimately than use it illegitimately. My question is why this doesn't also apply to growing industrial hemp, given that when it was legal to grow many, many people grew it for legitimate purposes?

[Conservative til I die]

I'm not aware that it was banned. It just went away.

Not that marketability should determine legality, but the point is, hemp cannot make a "comeback" because it's illegal.