Editorial 2.2, by Deirdre Helfferich Bribes and Prohibition Amid the hubbub of people pondering how to spend Mackie’s Bribe quickly and cleverly enough to evade the taxman, I wonder at the seeming inability of our (supposedly conservative) legislature to see past Big Money, whether in the Permanent Fund or the pockets of Big Business. It’s as though our elected officials are so mesmerized they can’t see their way out of a paper bag, much less our financial situation. Take a local example: Garry Hutchinson, new Borough Assembly member, was quoted at a recent borough meeting as suggesting that we should aggressively encourage “industries that need the assistance of the borough....” Good idea. Proactive encouragement of businesses, organizations, and programs that help to create a varied, healthy economy leading to a more independent borough is something I’m all for. Garry may have something here—or would if he was talking about your small-time entrepreneurs, who hire locally and whose successes are felt and shared directly by their neighbors in the borough. But who does he have in mind, specifically? Kinross! This is not a company that needs assistance. In fact, enthusiasm such as Hutchinson’s worries me a little: I want to be sure that obstacles to a big corporation’s ability to trash the local environment are not reduced in the name of such encouragement. A big corporation, such as BP or Kinross, has a big legal fund—they can take care of themselves, and often do. And just because companies like these have a big bottom line doesn’t mean that the borough’s economy will benefit all that much from it. While the big flood of money sure is nice for a while, the true picture comes to light when the company pulls out, which it will. Small-time competitors get driven into the ground, the profit goes Outside, and the borough gets left with an economic quagmire—booms are always followed by busts. The other problem with Hutchinson’s thinking is that there’s nothing original in it: it’s the same old biz. You can count ‘em on one hand: mining, fishing, logging, tourism. Oh, yeah—and oil, too. These industries are characterized by their dependence upon something Out There (minerals, fish, trees, tourists, petroleum) that we didn’t create. Why not put our money and our encouragement where we are? Why not encourage things that will give us a measure of real independence, like manufacturing or agriculture? Why do we in fact discourage innovative thinking by rewarding the same old blah and rapine? While our legislature is cutting the higher education budget and doing its best to run in circles, we here in the Last Frontier could be striking out in bold directions to create a vibrant atmosphere conducive to inventive and exciting economic development. We could do this on both the state and the local level, and we could do this without resorting to the usual exploitative choices. For example, there is a rich renewable resource we could be utilizing to get an edge on Canada’s hefty export business. I’m not talking fish, here: I’m talking hemp. That’s right. I suggest that we legalize hemp. Hemp, unlike good old Mary Jane, has not enough THC to get a flea stoned, much less a human being, thus avoiding that pesky problem of whether Big Gummint should be able to dictate to its citizens what, when, and where they can eat or smoke. It’s a moot point. No one in their right mind is going to even try incinerating their lungs for a decided lack of high, nor will they eat something that tastes just like rope and has about the same effect on the digestive tract. The blind across-the-board prohibition of all things cannibis is as stupid as the across-the-board prohibition of alcohol, and about as effective—except when it comes to the stuff that isn’t grown for its medicinal properties. No criminal is going to risk twenty years imprisonment and confiscation of everything they own for something that makes nice soap and dish towels. So nobody grows hemp—but they do grow THC-laden marijuana, and quite illegally. Conservatives, however, don’t seem to be very conservative on points like this; for some odd reason being conservative these days seems to involve radical governmental control of individual self-determination. (Remind you of George Orwell’s vision of the future, anyone?) Legalizing hemp can be politically safe, once people realize it isn’t dope. And hemp is a versatile plant; not only can it make toiletry items, but it is an excellent competitor to wood pulp for paper. Hemp fabrics are all the rage—and durable, too. And the plant does grow like the proverbial weed. By re-legalizing it in Alaska we could be fostering not only farming, but myriad light manufacturing industries. But we would have to act quickly to get in on the ground floor—pilot programs for growing it legally are already being considered in the Lower 48. Diversification is good for local economies. Competition inter-spersed with cooperation makes small economies bloom. The larger the corporation, the closer it comes to monopoly, and the fewer actual pockets hold the profits—and in the case of a multinational, most of those are out of state. Megacompanies still seem to impress those in political office—despite the fact that real growth and true independence lie in small companies and new directions. Entrepreneurs can help us all out, so I think we ought to help them—even if (and perhaps especially) they grow hemp. | ||
 | | |
