I am well aware about the two plant species and their uses by humans.
The original poster said MJ, which is not hemp. Marijuana is psychoactive and hemp is not, though they are the same species. The economic idea of "replacement" is that one good (Coca-Cola) can be replaced by a comparable good (Pepsi) based on price discrimination or differences in quality. My point is that MJ can displace a comparable good (another narcotic like opium) but it cannot replace corn or cotton as the uses of all these products are different.
Now maybe you mean hemp can replace/displace cotton or corn? I definitely agree hemp can displace cotton but that's because the water requirements, fertilization and effort spent harvesting are so much easier for hemp than cotton.
I am really confused by your assertion that a cannabis farmer is going to sell their MJ "on the cotton market." Maybe you mean that resources that would have been spent purchasing cotton commodities will instead be used to purchase cannabis commodities?
Cannabis and hemp are basically the same plant -- yes, one is psychoactive and the other is not, but they share cultivation tools and as far as I know, cannabis can be used in the same way hemp is (although the opposite, of course, is not true). At the moment hemp is locked out of the market because it's too similar to cannabis for authorities to just let people grow it; but once cannabis is legalised, hemp will likely make a big comeback, as cannabis grower will grow both cannabis and hemp, if necessary switching between one and the other at very short notice, especially if the price of cotton rises over the one for psychoactive cannabis. Even without switching actual cultivations, as far as I know, you could sell cannabis as hemp (although the opposite is not true) right away.
> I definitely agree hemp can displace cotton
That's what I'm saying. Hemp is much cheaper and it's been shut out of the market only because cannabis was and the two cannot easily be distinguished. Once they're both legal, things will change.
At this time though, the only reason farmers are not allowed to grow hemp is because hemp is related to marijuana. We would have to assume, that if marijuana was legal to grow, hemp would be as well. Legalizing marijuana probably would upset the cotton industry.
edit: Just re-read the parent comment that spawned this exchange. I get the distinction you are trying to make.
The original poster said MJ, which is not hemp. Marijuana is psychoactive and hemp is not, though they are the same species. The economic idea of "replacement" is that one good (Coca-Cola) can be replaced by a comparable good (Pepsi) based on price discrimination or differences in quality. My point is that MJ can displace a comparable good (another narcotic like opium) but it cannot replace corn or cotton as the uses of all these products are different.
Now maybe you mean hemp can replace/displace cotton or corn? I definitely agree hemp can displace cotton but that's because the water requirements, fertilization and effort spent harvesting are so much easier for hemp than cotton.
I am really confused by your assertion that a cannabis farmer is going to sell their MJ "on the cotton market." Maybe you mean that resources that would have been spent purchasing cotton commodities will instead be used to purchase cannabis commodities?