OldMan&TheWeed

This is a half truth. The source for this idea is George Andrews as argued, in “The Book of Grass: An Anthology of Indian Hemp” (1967). It is based on Washington's August 7, 1765 diary entry:

May 12-13 1765: "Sowed Hemp at Muddy hole by Swamp."
August 7, 1765: "--began to seperate (sic) the Male from
the Female Hemp at Do--rather too late."


Andrews writes that this “clearly indicates that he was cultivating the plant for medicinal purposes as well for its fiber." He might have separated the males from the females to get better fiber, Andrew concedes, “…but his phrase 'rather too late' suggests that he wanted to complete the separation before the female plants were fertilized,” and this was a practice related to drug potency rather that to fiber culture.

The argument depends on the well-known practice among marijuana growers that the quality or quantity of marijuana resin is enhanced if the male plants are eliminated before the females can be pollinated. And there can be no doubt that Washington separated the males and the females, but as to his motives for doing this being to produce a psychotropic substance, no evidence can be found.

Historian, and former medical marijuana patient Richard Brookhiser, in his book “What Would the Founders Do” casts doubt the idea that Washington cultivated hemp for use as a drug, writing that, “The master of Mount Vernon was a meticulous farmer, and if he had found an additional intoxicating or medicinal use in any of his crops, he would have recorded it.”

Since there is no proof that Washington grew hemp for anything other than fiber, why spread a story that, at best, is speculation, and at worse is a fabrication?

__________________
Nintey-three percent of what I say is brilliant, factual information and seven percent is complete bullshit. Have fun deciding which is which.