March 11, 1998(Ed. note: Complaining to the media does have an effect. Last Month John
Dvorak submitted a news article from The Concord New Hampshire Monitor about the narrow
defeat of a hemp cultivation bill. I it ran as an example of bad journalism because of its
flippant tone. A friend of John’s wrote the reporter who then responded. I think that
the response also tells us something about the uneasy relationship between the industrial
hemp and the marijuana reform movements.)
SeeLearning
Important Lessons from Bad Journalism in An Article Supposedly About Hemp
Their correspondence follows:
From SulfurFury <SulfurFury@aol.com
To jgraham@cmonitor.com
Re I read your story about the New Hamphsire Hemp Bill.
I just want to say to you that your opening comments to the article, and the title of
the article, were very flippant and not a serious way to start a news article about a
serious subject.
Obviously you were confused with the differences between industrial hemp >production
and use of marijuana as a drug - as were the Representatives who voted against the bill.
sf
The response:
From jgraham@cmonitor.com (Jim Graham)
To sulfurfury@aol.com
Dear sf,
Thanks for your comments. I’ve received a great deal of feedback on that article,
mostly from people who were also upset. Although the lead was primarily meant to be a
joke, it obviously misfired.
Without belaboring the point, however, here are some further observations:
After attending the House debate and pro-hemp rally, it seemed
clear to me that the most outspoken pro-hemp backers had an agenda extending beyond the
mere legalization of an easy-to-grow cash crop to help New Hampshire farmers and to save
the environment. Few, if any, were actual farmers, textile makers, paper
manufacturers, clothing designers or serious environmentalists.
Both the Dept. of Agriculture and the NH Farm Bureau were also lukewarm to the
proposal.
So for supporters to claim that they have absolutely no interest beyond legalizing hemp
was, I thought, disingenuous. In fact, most I’ve debated this point with eventually
admit that they also favor decriminalizing pot and see the passage of a hemp bill as
making that easier to achieve. When pressed, those most outraged
with my article generally tell me they also smoke pot.
So why were they upset when I pointed out that, for many hemp backers, there’s at
least some connection to the drug culture? Even if my lead was over-the-top flip?
I don’t have any problem at all with an open debate on decriminalizing drugs.
It’s a debate that’s long overdue, given the costs of police, courts and prisons
aimed at what are often victim-less crimes. So I say this: If people want to debate the
legalization of pot, don’t hide that intention with a hemp bill. And if hemp is good
for farmers, get rank-and-file farmers to support it.
Thanks again for your time, patience and comments. I’ll
try to be more careful next time and less flip, so long as the hemp backers are more
honest.
I do not want to get into an e-mail argument with this guy, mainly because of his
comments about getting "rank-and-file farmers to support it" which I have no
argument against. Although his reference to rank-and-file farmers is over my head,
I’m confused about his remarks about needing to report the "connection to the
drug culture" that the hemp bill had. Though he supports open discussion about
legalizing drugs, it doesn’t seem like he has been reading what I’ve been
reading about the differences between legalizing all drugs across the board, and just
legalizing varieties of cannabis. Unless I can get him to understand this, it seems futile
to pursue this particular argument with him. Can I get your opinion?
Thank you very much.
Supported