>> Citing the industrial side of the argument as the sole reason it was made illegal for consumers is a bit short-sighted.
As a matter of fact, my great-grandfather (not one to entertain wild theories, either) even reached this conclusion at the time (he wasn't personally affected by the ban, as he was involved in oil speculation and fruit tree production at the time), characterizing it as as a serious strategic mistake (due to the usefulness of the plant). As agriculture was always a major concern of his (interestingly, he often warned that the lack of diversity in banana cultivation may lead to a die-out of the crop, which turned out to be quite accurate!), he was probably as qualified as anyone to correlate the events surrounding the ban. At any rate, I think the evidence is clear if you consider all of the circumstances. Hemp was being hailed as the "billion-dollar crop", which naturally worried the paper industry, who stood to lose *everything*, so they worked very hard to remove the threat (and succeeded). Incidentally, I agree that the consumption of the plant should probably be restricted, but I do think it's a shame that we aren't utilizing the crop for other (numerous) purposes.
