Despite what the mainstream media may want you to believe Dr. Paul’s message of small Government and maximum personal liberty is finally resonating with a growing majority of the general public. In the Ames, Iowa debate his knowledge and positions on foreign policy, the economy and monetary policy continued to differentiate himself from all the other Republican candidates who seem to serve only the maintenance of the status quo. That consistent message in opposition to establishment republicans landed him a second place victory at the Ames straw poll, within a hair’s breadth (9/10 of a percent to be exact) of Michele Bachmann’s lead. However, in the area which most effects the common American, namely the job market, he has some aces up his sleeve which could help see him through to the final table in the presidential tournament.

In true “Dr. No” fashion, Ron Paul said to a crowd gathered to hear him speak along his Iowa campaign: “Presidents can’t create jobs. Government can’t create jobs. All they can do is create bureaucrats that interfere with your ability to create jobs,”. Texas Governor Rick Perry has said the same. Although, in comparison with other former governors in the race, Perry is not exactly the one to prove that point. Former New Mexico, and 2012 Presidential Candidate Governor Gary Johnson holds the best record for job growth in their respective states at 11.6% to Perry’s 7.2%. It might also be fair to mention that Johnson has seen surpluses in state revenue while Perry has only pushed Texas towards mountains of debt, and an increase state government jobs. So when Gary Johnson wrote in a statement on this accomplishment “The fact is, I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor… We kept government in check, the budget balanced, and the path to growth clear of unnecessary regulatory obstacles.” he alone proves Dr. Paul’s point.

With Labor Day having just passed and the August jobs report showing stagnant employment the topic of discussion at the Reagan Library debate on the 7th of September will likely be focused on job creation. I can only hope this article reaches Ron in time (but not holding my breath). That’s because now would be the time for Dr. Paul to begin touting his existing efforts in congress to get Americans back to work. One of his plans in particular would cost practically ZERO to implement.

Congressman Ron Paul is the lead sponsor of House Bill 1831 to legalize industrial hemp farming in the United States. If passed the economic effects could be enormous. The two most obvious effects being the hundreds of thousands of employment and entrepreneurial opportunities that would be created over night, as well as a reduction in prices of products utilizing imported hemp or products effected by our absence of a domestic hemp industry. Both are a win for the average tax burdened citizen.

Economic Effect

In 1938 Popular Mechanics claimed there are over 25,000 different products which can be produced from hemp. It’s not just used to clothe the crunchiest of hippies. That number has surely grown since 1938 and indicates the economic viability of hemp. China is currently the worlds largest producer of industrial hemp at nearly 70% of the world supply, with France being the second largest providing 70-80% of hemp used in Europe. In fact, most industrialized nations allow hemp farming. Since we Americans can’t farm it, we are forced to import it.

De-regulating industrial hemp would unlock an entire industry currently vacant from the American economy. Because it grows so quickly, so easily and has the most bio-mass per square foot of just about any plant, nearly anybody can grow it. What better way to reinvigorate the economy than by giving back one the worlds oldest natural resources to the people. The exact impact remains to be seen, but the sky is the limit when this resource can be used to produce everything from plastic, bio-fuel, paper, fiber board, to textiles, cosmetics and highly nutritious foods.

Thomas Jefferson knew what was up when he said “Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth & protection of the country.”

Consumer Prices

As we have established, hemp is versatile. Solely looking at its potential as bio-fuel it is apparent that it would have a profound effect on our economy. Our oil prices are dependent on the Middle East. Conflicts erupt, oil prices soar. In the early 1930′s, a time when domestic oil production was at its peak, a gallon of gas cost 10¢. Adjusting 10¢/gal for inflation, domestic made gasoline could cost as little as $1.35 per gallon today. The beautiful part is the entirety of it’s production would be handled by Americans in every step of production. Hemp could become a source of supplemental or even primary income for privately owned farms of every size. Its economic benefit would then be seen along the journey towards the production of countless everyday products, in some cases offsetting imported commodities such as oil and lumber.

Side-note from the Author:

There… I just solved in a few minutes what the Department of Energy has been incapable of doing since 1977. End our dependence on foreign oil. Ok I simplify, but it raises a good point.

Catastrophe Insurance

Another lesser discussed benefit of a prosperous American hemp farming industry is a form of social safety net. The level of self sufficiency has declined greatly since the great depression. The fact that the country was more rural and agricultural than it was urban in the 20′s and 30′s allowed a bit of a cushion for some families to survive while countless others starved. If presented with economic depression (far-fetched I know) or famine, a thriving hemp industry could be diverted to feeding the needy. As a matter of fact, in the 1800′s Australians survived two prolonged famines by eating virtually nothing but hemp seed and leaves. To that point, another tidbit of forgotten knowledge is that the medieval staple and surprisingly nutritious dish fondly known as “gruel” was made from hemp.

From this perspective we could free much of our corn production from biofuels by replacing it with hemp and still have a surplus of both to address worldwide famine. Dare I dream?

Greater Understanding and Compassion

The final and less tangible benefit of legalizing hemp farming is the continued chipping away at the myth that hemp and cannabis are one in the same. As Ron Paul has said on many occasions “You would have to smoke a joint the size of a phone pole to get high on hemp.”

The taboo on marijuana has been receding over the years, and the passage of HR 1831 will only further educate the public as to the differences between the two. This rediscovered understanding of the marijuana issue could, in an ideal world, lead to full legalization of this black market and criminal cartel boosting drug. The result would be reduced government spending by way of decreased enforcement and prison size, as wells as by taking the number one cash crop away from the mexican drug cartels, minimizing or even ending our costly and ineffective war on drugs.

And now for something completely different

Meanwhile, the “Top Tier” candidate, Mrs. Bachmann would allow her evangelical fervor and sought power to prohibit a massive, albeit controversial industry. Pornography. Regardless of your patronage to or disgust toward pornography there is no doubt that it is a huge industry made up of countless workers and enormous capital flow. In the United States alone this industry produces $13 billion a year in revenues. There is simply no denying an industry that large has a positive effect on the U.S. economy, and if prohibited we would see an immediate spike in unemployment. The only industries the prohibition of porn would serve to invigorate is lawyers and prisons. Arguably two industries most in need of downsizing.

Putting the economic effects of such a regulation aside, the Constitution does not even give the Federal Government the authority to legislate morality. The legislation of morality, boys and girls, is a hallmark of big government establishment types, which I am sorry to tell you Tea Partiers, Mrs. Bachmann is one of.

This also begs the question, what would such penalties look like under a porn-free society? Is it reasonable that anyone caught producing, distributing or watching pornography be labeled a sex-offender? If that’s the charge, I would assert that the punishment far outweighs the crime.

So here we have Ron Paul, a legitimate front runner for the Republican nomination in a race where most candidates could handily beat Obama. The question is would you support more superfluous regulation, economy be damned? Or less regulation, sparking up (no pun intended) a whole new resource for the generation of domestic wealth?