My guess is it has to do with political pressure. Other countries export hemp products. Romania is said to export some of the most environmentally friendly hemp. Chinese hemp is processed with a lot of harsh chemicals, which pretty much negates the whole point. Now Canada is getting into the game too.

It may be like the "Super Size Me" guy said about McD's...what McD's does, the rest of the industry does. Maybe it's that way with the US in this respect..."The US isn't producing hemp and phasing out petrochemicals, so we won't either". That sounds arrogant, I know, but it may be the reality of the situation.

I think too many people in influential positions are thinking too short term. But who would stand to lose in the short term if hemp production became the standard in the US? Cotton, lumbar, petrochemicals/big oil...very powerful economic and political entities. But this is where the short term thinking comes in. I'm guessing if I was in charge of lumber or cotton or oil production, I'd be pretty comfortable with the status quo. I've still got plenty of resources to process, and financially I'm very comfortable. So why would I advocate something that might threaten that level of comfort and security? I WOULDN'T! Because my instinct for self-preservation tells me that my position on Maslow's hierarchy of needs is just where I like it, I've got financial security, material security, my family is well taken care of, and that feels good and safe to me. What if this idea of producing hemp to make clothes and paper and biomass fuel and building materials and food and any of the other 4000+ uses there are for the plant doesn't take off? So what if one acre of hemp can produce four times the amount of fiber that one acre of trees can? It needs little or no pesticides to thrive unlike cotton? Yeah, so what? Do I really want to let go of my nice comfortable piece of the pie to take a chance on something like that? No way! I'm sure I've got enough resources to keep myself and my children comfortable, and who knows, maybe even my grandchildren too. By the time I'm gone, someone else will have to worry about air pollution, water pollution, global warming and all that stuff that a bunch of scientists with nothing better to do sit around and think up. Why would I let go of the bird in the hand for the possibility of two in the bush?

Even considering the impact you have on the world in one lifetime is short term thinking. I prefer what I understand to be an old Native American belief: Preserving resources for the seventh generation. Make sure you don't take more than you need so that your descendents seven generations from now will still have some to use.

You're right norad, something doesn't add up. But I'm voting with my dollar to do what I can to change the equation.