Rules for Thee and Not for Me: What Is “Intoxicating Hemp”? (Guest Post)

Guest writer “George Watchington” opines on political use of the term “intoxicating hemp” to steer the conversation in favor of corporate marijuana.

From the Editor: A client, writing under the pseudonym ‘George Watchington’, wrote this about the war on hemp. I thought it was worth sharing.

The media calls over-regulated, over-taxed, vertically-integrated, corporate Cannabis: “Recreational Marijuana” or “Medical Marijuana”.

The media calls free-market, federally legal, diversified-production Cannabis: “Intoxicating Hemp”.

The pejorative euphemism of “Intoxicating Hemp” is used to obfuscate the fact that both of these markets are comprised of the same plant: Cannabis Sativa L.

They also obfuscate that both markets comprise the same plant that has etymologically been known as “Hemp”. Cannabis Sativa L is hemp, and hemp is Cannabis Sativa L.

It’s all the same plant.

Hemp, Weed, Recreational/Medical Cannabis: these are all the same thing, scientifically speaking. Yet, it’s only the market the tyrants don’t control -and for this reason, they hate – that is designated as being “Intoxicating”, even though Medical and Recreational Cannabis are equally “Intoxicating.”

Why don’t they refer to Recreational Cannabis as “Intoxicating Marijuana”? Why don’t they refer to Alcohol as “Intoxicating Alcohol.” It would be silly to do so because everyone knows and accepts that alcohol is intoxicating, as well as being perfectly legal.

Applying the term “Intoxicating” to federally legal, free market Cannabis is a psychological warfare tactic that utilizes Sumptuary Law linguistics (pejorative euphemisms) to disparage the markets the tyrants perceive as competitors that they seek to destroy. Anyone who doesn’t know what the term Sumptuary Law means, should definitely look it up, as it is the system tyrants have used to control markets since the times of Ancient Greece. (Editor’s note: Black’s Law Dictionary defines them as “Laws made for the purpose of restraining luxury or extravagance, particularly against inordinate expenditures in the matter of apparel, food, furniture, etc.Wikipedia states: “Historically, they were intended to regulate and reinforce social hierarchies and morals through restrictions on clothing, food, and luxury expenditures, often depending on a person’s social rank.”)

It’s “rules for thee, and not for me.” It’s also disparaging terms for thee, and not for me. The object is to create separate rules for others – in particular, different rules for different classes. Economically disadvantaged people are better able to afford “Intoxicating Hemp” products from smoke shops, gas stations, and vape shops; where wealthier patrons can better afford the over- taxed, and expensive to produce, “Recreational/Medical Marijuana.” The tyrants are happy to allow the higher classes access to Cannabis Sativa L, but those “dirty peasants” want that less expensive “INTOXICATING HEMP!” Oh, the horror of it all!

The first line of attack against the lower class and their less expensive “Intoxicating Hemp” is the rallying cry by tyrants that these less well-off customers can’t keep their “Intoxicating Hemp” out of the hands of their very own children! The more well-to-do classes – it is implied – are better mentally equipped to prevent intoxicating Recreational/Medical Cannabis, alcohol, and drugstore compounds from falling into the hands of their children, as no legislative fear campaigns screech about banning any of these things even though they are all intoxicating. This makes little logical sense, as deaths from alcohol and drugstore compounds are an actual thing, whereas deaths from “Intoxicating Hemp” are not. Sumptuary Law is always illogical and can only thrive in a society that is largely ignorant of science and facts, and, the media is the Sumptuary Law promulgator’s primary psychological warfare platform.

We should not prostrate ourselves as second-class citizens and accept the pejorative euphemisms used by tyrants to describe free-market Cannabis. Accepting their disparaging terms admits defeat and compromise from the outset.

The tyrants have no problem with “Intoxicating” compound markets that they monopolize and control. They have no problem that most fine dining restaurants serve “Intoxicating” wine with their meals. They have no problem that Walgreens sells “Intoxicating” pain-relief medicines. Identifying the psychological warfare tactics of the tyrants is the first step to defeating them.

Do not accept these definitions created “for thee, and not for me.”

Editor’s note: Thanks to George Watchington for allowing me to post this piece. (You know who you are.)

June 9, 2024

4 comments on “Rules for Thee and Not for Me: What Is “Intoxicating Hemp”? (Guest Post)Add yours →

  1. This is cute, but really misleading. The truth of the matter is that you have two regulatory systems that are in conflict: 1) State regulated legalized marijuana and 2) hemp regulations under the Farm Bill. The writers of the Farm Bill did not intend to legalize marijuana. They intended to legalize hemp. Specifically hemp that has THC below the threshold of 0.3% THC, i.e. non-psychoactive hemp. Those of us lawyers, particularly regulatory lawyers, know damn well that the ambiguity around Delta 8 and Delta 9 is due to a lack of understanding and poor bill writing on behalf of legislators. Legislators are notoriously bad at writing regulations for industries they don’t understand. Those of us participating in the legal marijuana industry are not all tyrants. Some of us, like myself and my brother, are small, independent companies trying to honestly work within the regulatory system and provide high quality cannabis products at a fair price. I personally resent the fact that I pay high regulatory fees and follow strict compliance around packaging and testing to produce high-quality products in the legally regulated market while cheap, untested, psychoactive delta 8 and delta 9 products are sold at gas stations. Let’s at least be honest that it’s the loophole that’s being exploited. Let’s focus on legalizing marijuana period rather than obfuscating the true issue.

    1. Kristen- Thanks for your comments. I strongly support small businesses and understand and respect the dilemma and frustrations you expressed. The real “enemy” consists of the large, corporate, vertically integrated cannabis behemoths that lobby for limited licensing, vertically integrated, capital-intensive markets and against hemp. Regardless of whether or not Congress intended to deschedule all cannabinoids (including D9 up to 0.3%, which can be very intoxicating since percentage is different from milligrams), this is what occurred in the Farm Bill. Rather than re-schedule these cannabinoids we should embrace the descheduling “gift” that Congress gave us. (“Don’t look a gift-horse in the mouth.”) My guess is that, hemp aside, you believe that your small business is subject to onerous regulations and taxation. This is certainly what I hear from marijuana companies across the country. The state-regulated marijuana “experiment” is failing and it’s not solely due to competition from hemp products. It is that the system is problematic and unsustainable from a structural standpoint. Hemp offers an opportunity to re-think how cannabis can and should be regulated. It is not the end goal, but a major step towards a new paradigm of cannabis and a unified national market. My recommendation would be for you to pivot into the hemp industry, rather than to continue struggling and fighting the tidal wave of change that is occurring. I think a historical example is appropriate- we didn’t decide to prohibit Uber just to save the old model of taxi drivers. Rather, we as a culture embraced and pivoted into a new paradigm for consumer transportation and updated our regulations. This is how progress and change works. The federally illegal state regulated marijuana industry is like the taxi sector. Hemp is Uber. Finally, to your point about regulation, I agree and am proposing a “Three Pillar Approach” to hemp regulation, which I hope will ultimately be the foundation for regulating the entire cannabis industry under a federally lawful, unified market. Thank you again for your comments. I appreciate them. I hope that this article and my comments will expand your horizon and help you and your business to open up to, and thrive, in the new cannabis paradigm. -Rod

    2. Kristen, I mostly agree with you. The problem is not the hemp, because in some ways what has happened is a blessing, as noted below.
      There are two things I don’t like about this push to eliminate the good properties of cannabis in states that refuse to legalize the plant. Instead of big Marijuana lobbying to remove ALL injestible hemp products, we could all work together to bring the best of the plant to people that greatly benefit from it. What we need are regulations that require knowledgeable people selling it, as well as testing and requirements for manufacturing and distribution, without crippling the industry (and I think some of the crazy regulations on legal marijuana should be lifted). Is this about money and territory only, or is this about serving the people that benefit most from these products, such as veterans, cancer patients and those with chronic pain? Would you rather it all go back to black market if hemp is pulled out from under us?

      Without this farm bill, creative and curious people might have never discovered the unique benefits of the various THC isomers, such as Delta 8. I’m a CBD retail shop owner and know that many of my customers prefer D8 for its sleep and pain benefits. Many others report the benefits of relief from anxiety, PTSD, auto-immune conditions, etc without the paranoia they experience with full-strength marijuana. So should we force everyone to use the product in its entirety because that’s what was legalized first? Y’all CAN work with us to regulate the entire cannabis industry in a way that benefits all of us, including small businesses and customers. Thanks to Rod for all you do to shine a light on the truth and downsides of this industry.

      1. Carol- Thanks for your comments and for raising some really good points. I am hopeful that lawmakers will “see the light” when it comes to hemp and the benefits it has brought. Your views help inform the discussion. -Rod

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *