Smoking pot is pretty much innocuous. I'm all for accepting whatever downside it would have on our society if legalized since it would be minimal. The environmental benefits are too great to ignore.
An acre of hemp can produce 2-3 (can't remember which) barrels of crude oil. Or, if converted to food oils instead of crude, I believe it's a complete protein.
This stuff grows quickly too. Blocking the use of hemp should criminalized, all things considered.
<strong>For instance, in the ACT it's not criminal to grow 3 plants each less than 1m in height.</strong><hr></blockquote>
:eek: I gotta move there...
see... I'll never do it (again) as long as it is illegal... and when it does become legal... (and it WILL)... the only way I will do it is through ingestion from my own crops...(YOU DON'T HAVE TO SMOKE IT, so all of those arguments about lung cancer are bunk)
noone will be making a DIME off my usage...
why is this not legal?
there is absolutely NO REASON why I shouldn't be able to grow my own damn plants if I want to... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
but as many others have pointed out... it has more to do with the economic considerations of the drug then any health "problems"...
Big business doesn't want to lose their cash crops (Oil, lumber, paper...etc...)
I believe there is a misconception here between the growing of the hemp plant and the smoking of the plant.
There is a very good book called The Hemp Conspiracy which deals with the social and political pressures leading up to it's illegality. William Randolph Hurst was partially to blame for depicting it as the danger it is perceived to be today. Of course, his interests in getting cheaper paper from a company which wanted a patent (and develop a larger market) for its paper from wood pulp also may have colored his drive to make the public opinion go against hemp. (you know Hurst... watch Citizen Caine sometime)
Try to imagine if oil could be produced from tobacco plants... Who would be the first to call for crimiinalizing tobacco?
It is only in the past few decades that people have begun to examine the costs involved with maintaining a criminal population or saving lives of people who are dying of preventable illnesses. As a society we are much more concerned today with the cost of incarceration and healing than we were forty years ago.
Decriminalizing marijuana will no doubt have both good and bad results. The main problem in Holland, for instance, is not people who live in a country with the acceptance of legal pot, but those who visit for whom the access is forbidden in their own country. Think binge...
If the use of marijuana was made legal for smoking (and industrial) purposes, the bad effects on society would not persist forever but it would be a noticable problem for five years or so, until it became more accepted and less of a novelty. The problem is no government wants to leave a bad impression in the immediate future, regardless of the societal/industrial benefits in the long run.
The crime-related benefits for decriminalization may be more immediate.
There are places in Canada (and no doubt the states too) where the plant grows far easier than elsewhere. In those places it is easier on law enforcement to ask people smoking it in public to move on, instead of incarcerating them. The sellers and growers are still treated criminally.
Obviously there are concerns about misuse, and smoking it in public will be adjusted criminally, but the pressure is definitely on to make a decision based on facts, and not emotions. And the fact is the plant has far more benefits than the detriments smoking the leaves has.
And in case you are thinking I smoke it, I don't. I just want the paper, the production of which does not require bleach. The river near here is heavily polluted by a pulp mill upstream.
I think hemp (that's the word I was looking for before -- ill memory, ooops, yes, it does have bad effects, smoked or not.) anyway, yeah, hemp. I think hemp will have a hard time supplanting oil, wood pulp and cotton. It just couldn't do it against oil, but it seems like a more logical source for paper. It would probably do well for textiles too. I have a hemp T-shirt I bought as a novelty and it's very good, like a very strong heavy weight cotton, stands up to washing, doesn't pill... it makes a good fabric. And modern techniques can give it the look and feel of silk if need be. Oil alternative? Not really. Pulp and paper? Yes certainly. Cotton? Yes, that too.
Hemp seeds are the highest source of protien available. In anything (Something like 88 or 92 percent)
Hemp is used as an alternative to cotton in some countries (Have you ever bought a pair of jeans, somewhat cheap, which never wear out? Especially China)
Hemp fibres are ten times as long as those made from trees (The cell, which is what makes the fibre after all) The cell walls are stronger as well.
There is bleach required in the processing.
Hemp paper can be recycled over ten times. Wood pulp paper only three.
American money is printed on hemp paper (why do you think it is such a secret in its production, and why do you think it lasts so long?) Most countries with paper money use it because of its durability.
All major compositions of the classical geniuses from centuries past are written on hemp paper. If you want a good source, try to find music sheets from the victorian era. And yes, the declaration of independance from America down south is written on it as well, not to mention our own Canadian Constitution.
In Germany a company has developed a way to create plastics from hemp... a renewable source of plastic.
(Fuel from hemp is not as productive as using Canola...)
During the second world war, hemp was grown in North America to feed the war effort (rope, canvas, etc)
Abraham Lincoln (or Jefferson, can't remember which) had a plantation in Virginia. It was also being tested in Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC at the beginning of the 1900's.
The seeds also have some rather remarkable properties regarding their chemical composition... Something specific, but I can't remember right now.
And something else you may not have known. The plant itself gives off a different heat signature than other plants. That is why the police (and other enforcement agencies) can spot a large plantation from the air. That is also why many people plant smaller plots.
And lastly, a decade or so ago one of the American Surgeon Generals, when doing a study on the medical uses of marijuana, produced a book detailing the growing of the plant for your own purposes. The book is considered the bible for hydroponic growers everywhere. Why did he do such a thing? Because it is illegal to buy it, of course, so his suggestion was to grow it responsibly. He didn't last long as a surgeon general after that...
The illegality of marijuana was, in my opinion, due to the overeaction of public opinion as triggered by lobby groups and the press.
As a crime, it has been expensive to enforce, expensive to maintain, and a poor use of resources which could have been better spent on housing or feeding the less fortunate. Not to mention the criminal records which have limited some peoples chances on a better life.
Yeah, I forgot to mention that, not that it wouldn't make a good bio-fuel, just from what I've read there seem to be better alternatives for bio-fuel than hemp.
Given the Hurst "conspiracy" when hemp was originally outlawed, what "conspiracies" does anyone think exists today to keep it illegal? What are some of the strongest arguments against legalizing marijuana?
<strong>Given the Hurst "conspiracy" when hemp was originally outlawed, what "conspiracies" does anyone think exists today to keep it illegal? What are some of the strongest arguments against legalizing marijuana?
The benefits exist, so what's the real excuse?</strong><hr></blockquote>
fear. many people fear the detriments, even in face of their minimalism when compared to the benefits. many people still believe the shit that was said long ago.
did I mention that I scored a 33 on my ACTs while I was stoned out of my gourd? <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
What i don't get about this discussion, beyond the points of whether Hemp/Cannabis is beneficial or evil is the simple and unresolved issue of personal freedom - If a man decides to grow a plant and smoke it in his own home (even if it kills him - which we all know it doesn't) what right does the government have to stick its head into his business and tell him - Sorry dude, you're damaging yourself - therefore we'll do you good and put you in jail for it <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> ... I mean WTF????
Where's the logic in that? - constitutionally and otherwise!
All arguements for its continued criminalization are smug, morailizing, and also simply wrong as far as the "detriments" socially, personally or otherwise.
People who don't smoke it, like myself*(though I used to and wouldn't necessarily turn down a puff in the right circumstances), should have no problem with its decriminalization with proper usage guidelines..... the effects, economically, would be drastic . . . but in the long run the shift from an incarceration based economy of "drug-war" to another of money-flow-dude would be nothing but socially beneficial . . .money out of the hands of the two worst elements of society: criminals and thoose who profit from taking people's freedoms away
<strong>Rashumon, you mean you were too lazy to actually read 5 pages of people arguing for and against pot to have your question answered? Get real.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whats your bloody problem?
I made a point, one I think is pertinent, if you disagree with it - argue the merits of yours instead of resulting to insults.. what's wrong with you today? Too much egg-nog?
To reiterate - for me this is primarily an issue of personal freedom - a true liberal democracy cannot dictate to its citizens to choose a particular lifestyle - hence we have all the current abysmal results of the WAR ON DRUGZ.... it will never succeed hammering people into submission and its unacceptable according to the principles of western liberal democracy.
By all means define controlled substances and control their distribution like we do with Prozac and Alcohol - fight the dirty criminals who abuse the situation but leave individuals to make their own lifestyle choices - which what smoking pot really is!
I made a point, one I think is pertinent, if you disagree with it - argue the merits of yours instead of resulting to insults.. what's wrong with you today? Too much egg-nog?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's the same ****ing point discussed throughout 5 pages of this thread here. If you have something "pertinent" to add, by all means go ahead. But don't rehash the same questions posed two, three, four pages ago.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
There are substances and activities which are perfectly legal and kill people. If you feel that tobacco should be made illegal on those grounds, then why not alcohol, for example?
If there is any validity in the concept "The Government knows whats best for us", (which, fwiw, I do not believe), then perhaps it should get its priorities in order, namely quit hassling and criminalizing individuals on account of their own chosen personal and private habits, which result in no victims apart from the individual.
........................
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Damn good point SAM! sky diving, mountain climbing, car racing kill far more people every year then Pot ever does, yet these are hailed as glorious activities. certainly no one is considering making mountaineering illegal even-though arguably its probably more dangerous for you the even the worst hard drugs...
I just don't get this! this nanny-state approach that says people in authority can impose a lifestyle on you just because of their personal views and interests... and then choose all sorts of dodgy arguments to maintain that lifestyle prohibition. its got nothing to do with medical issues either ... chemical food additives and pollution probably kill more people then drugs but I see no major WAR ON ARTIFICIAL COLORINGS (those m&ms are bad for you too)
I think the biggest problem facing the decriminalization today is the ease of transport. Think of it. When transportation wasn't so cheap, and it took longer for stuff to get anywhere, any smoking was done around the place it was grown.
Now with transportation costs way down, it is easier for bales of leaves to be sent anywhere.
If Canada did decriminalize it, and America didn't, they would say we were feeding their habit. If America decriminalized it, Canada would follow suit. Mexico would probably also want in on the sale of products (I am surprised South America countries don't grow it for product export already)
To decriminalize it, there would have to be set rules and regulations on the export of unprocessed or processed hemp across Nafta. I kinda like Amsterdam's considerations, where its legal to buy it, it's legal to carry it and, if you are the proprietor of a hash bar, it's legal to sell it. But the amounts beyond which it should be a controlled substance (with special licences for carriers and quality) would have to be determined.
I mean lets face it. You cannot legalize Hemp growing for the benefits of the plant without realiizing it will be sold and smoked as a social drug. To try and do one without the other would be naive and rather foolish.
Comments
<strong>Okay, stoner. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Just don't stammer when you talk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Er... um..... humm.... OK
what were we talking about again ??
An acre of hemp can produce 2-3 (can't remember which) barrels of crude oil. Or, if converted to food oils instead of crude, I believe it's a complete protein.
This stuff grows quickly too. Blocking the use of hemp should criminalized, all things considered.
For instance, in the ACT it's not criminal to grow 3 plants each less than 1m in height.
I'm not sure how much is "personal" and how much is "traffickable".
Pot is a very big thing pretty much everywhere in Australia. Especially in South Aus and Canberra.
Barto
<strong>For instance, in the ACT it's not criminal to grow 3 plants each less than 1m in height.</strong><hr></blockquote>
:eek: I gotta move there...
see... I'll never do it (again) as long as it is illegal... and when it does become legal... (and it WILL)... the only way I will do it is through ingestion from my own crops...(YOU DON'T HAVE TO SMOKE IT, so all of those arguments about lung cancer are bunk)
noone will be making a DIME off my usage...
why is this not legal?
there is absolutely NO REASON why I shouldn't be able to grow my own damn plants if I want to...
but as many others have pointed out... it has more to do with the economic considerations of the drug then any health "problems"...
Big business doesn't want to lose their cash crops (Oil, lumber, paper...etc...)
There is a very good book called The Hemp Conspiracy which deals with the social and political pressures leading up to it's illegality. William Randolph Hurst was partially to blame for depicting it as the danger it is perceived to be today. Of course, his interests in getting cheaper paper from a company which wanted a patent (and develop a larger market) for its paper from wood pulp also may have colored his drive to make the public opinion go against hemp. (you know Hurst... watch Citizen Caine sometime)
Try to imagine if oil could be produced from tobacco plants... Who would be the first to call for crimiinalizing tobacco?
It is only in the past few decades that people have begun to examine the costs involved with maintaining a criminal population or saving lives of people who are dying of preventable illnesses. As a society we are much more concerned today with the cost of incarceration and healing than we were forty years ago.
Decriminalizing marijuana will no doubt have both good and bad results. The main problem in Holland, for instance, is not people who live in a country with the acceptance of legal pot, but those who visit for whom the access is forbidden in their own country. Think binge...
If the use of marijuana was made legal for smoking (and industrial) purposes, the bad effects on society would not persist forever but it would be a noticable problem for five years or so, until it became more accepted and less of a novelty. The problem is no government wants to leave a bad impression in the immediate future, regardless of the societal/industrial benefits in the long run.
The crime-related benefits for decriminalization may be more immediate.
There are places in Canada (and no doubt the states too) where the plant grows far easier than elsewhere. In those places it is easier on law enforcement to ask people smoking it in public to move on, instead of incarcerating them. The sellers and growers are still treated criminally.
Obviously there are concerns about misuse, and smoking it in public will be adjusted criminally, but the pressure is definitely on to make a decision based on facts, and not emotions. And the fact is the plant has far more benefits than the detriments smoking the leaves has.
And in case you are thinking I smoke it, I don't. I just want the paper, the production of which does not require bleach. The river near here is heavily polluted by a pulp mill upstream.
Hemp seeds are the highest source of protien available. In anything (Something like 88 or 92 percent)
Hemp is used as an alternative to cotton in some countries (Have you ever bought a pair of jeans, somewhat cheap, which never wear out? Especially China)
Hemp fibres are ten times as long as those made from trees (The cell, which is what makes the fibre after all) The cell walls are stronger as well.
There is bleach required in the processing.
Hemp paper can be recycled over ten times. Wood pulp paper only three.
American money is printed on hemp paper (why do you think it is such a secret in its production, and why do you think it lasts so long?) Most countries with paper money use it because of its durability.
All major compositions of the classical geniuses from centuries past are written on hemp paper. If you want a good source, try to find music sheets from the victorian era. And yes, the declaration of independance from America down south is written on it as well, not to mention our own Canadian Constitution.
In Germany a company has developed a way to create plastics from hemp... a renewable source of plastic.
(Fuel from hemp is not as productive as using Canola...)
During the second world war, hemp was grown in North America to feed the war effort (rope, canvas, etc)
Abraham Lincoln (or Jefferson, can't remember which) had a plantation in Virginia. It was also being tested in Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC at the beginning of the 1900's.
The seeds also have some rather remarkable properties regarding their chemical composition... Something specific, but I can't remember right now.
And something else you may not have known. The plant itself gives off a different heat signature than other plants. That is why the police (and other enforcement agencies) can spot a large plantation from the air. That is also why many people plant smaller plots.
And lastly, a decade or so ago one of the American Surgeon Generals, when doing a study on the medical uses of marijuana, produced a book detailing the growing of the plant for your own purposes. The book is considered the bible for hydroponic growers everywhere. Why did he do such a thing? Because it is illegal to buy it, of course, so his suggestion was to grow it responsibly. He didn't last long as a surgeon general after that...
The illegality of marijuana was, in my opinion, due to the overeaction of public opinion as triggered by lobby groups and the press.
As a crime, it has been expensive to enforce, expensive to maintain, and a poor use of resources which could have been better spent on housing or feeding the less fortunate. Not to mention the criminal records which have limited some peoples chances on a better life.
The benefits exist, so what's the real excuse?
<strong>Given the Hurst "conspiracy" when hemp was originally outlawed, what "conspiracies" does anyone think exists today to keep it illegal? What are some of the strongest arguments against legalizing marijuana?
The benefits exist, so what's the real excuse?</strong><hr></blockquote>
fear. many people fear the detriments, even in face of their minimalism when compared to the benefits. many people still believe the shit that was said long ago.
<strong>Exactly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
did I mention that I scored a 33 on my ACTs while I was stoned out of my gourd? <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Where's the logic in that? - constitutionally and otherwise!
It is idiotic that Marijuana is illegal
it is as simple as that: idiotic
All arguements for its continued criminalization are smug, morailizing, and also simply wrong as far as the "detriments" socially, personally or otherwise.
People who don't smoke it, like myself*(though I used to and wouldn't necessarily turn down a puff in the right circumstances), should have no problem with its decriminalization with proper usage guidelines..... the effects, economically, would be drastic . . . but in the long run the shift from an incarceration based economy of "drug-war" to another of money-flow-dude would be nothing but socially beneficial . . .money out of the hands of the two worst elements of society: criminals and thoose who profit from taking people's freedoms away
<strong>Rashumon, you mean you were too lazy to actually read 5 pages of people arguing for and against pot to have your question answered? Get real.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whats your bloody problem?
I made a point, one I think is pertinent, if you disagree with it - argue the merits of yours instead of resulting to insults.. what's wrong with you today? Too much egg-nog?
To reiterate - for me this is primarily an issue of personal freedom - a true liberal democracy cannot dictate to its citizens to choose a particular lifestyle - hence we have all the current abysmal results of the WAR ON DRUGZ.... it will never succeed hammering people into submission and its unacceptable according to the principles of western liberal democracy.
By all means define controlled substances and control their distribution like we do with Prozac and Alcohol - fight the dirty criminals who abuse the situation but leave individuals to make their own lifestyle choices - which what smoking pot really is!
[edit] just had to add few things
[ 12-24-2002: Message edited by: rashumon ]</p>
<strong>
Whats your bloody problem?
I made a point, one I think is pertinent, if you disagree with it - argue the merits of yours instead of resulting to insults.. what's wrong with you today? Too much egg-nog?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's the same ****ing point discussed throughout 5 pages of this thread here. If you have something "pertinent" to add, by all means go ahead. But don't rehash the same questions posed two, three, four pages ago.
Yeah.
<strong>
There are substances and activities which are perfectly legal and kill people. If you feel that tobacco should be made illegal on those grounds, then why not alcohol, for example?
If there is any validity in the concept "The Government knows whats best for us", (which, fwiw, I do not believe), then perhaps it should get its priorities in order, namely quit hassling and criminalizing individuals on account of their own chosen personal and private habits, which result in no victims apart from the individual.
........................
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Damn good point SAM! sky diving, mountain climbing, car racing kill far more people every year then Pot ever does, yet these are hailed as glorious activities. certainly no one is considering making mountaineering illegal even-though arguably its probably more dangerous for you the even the worst hard drugs...
I just don't get this! this nanny-state approach that says people in authority can impose a lifestyle on you just because of their personal views and interests... and then choose all sorts of dodgy arguments to maintain that lifestyle prohibition. its got nothing to do with medical issues either ... chemical food additives and pollution probably kill more people then drugs but I see no major WAR ON ARTIFICIAL COLORINGS
or WAR ON POLLUTION,
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Now with transportation costs way down, it is easier for bales of leaves to be sent anywhere.
If Canada did decriminalize it, and America didn't, they would say we were feeding their habit. If America decriminalized it, Canada would follow suit. Mexico would probably also want in on the sale of products (I am surprised South America countries don't grow it for product export already)
To decriminalize it, there would have to be set rules and regulations on the export of unprocessed or processed hemp across Nafta. I kinda like Amsterdam's considerations, where its legal to buy it, it's legal to carry it and, if you are the proprietor of a hash bar, it's legal to sell it. But the amounts beyond which it should be a controlled substance (with special licences for carriers and quality) would have to be determined.
I mean lets face it. You cannot legalize Hemp growing for the benefits of the plant without realiizing it will be sold and smoked as a social drug. To try and do one without the other would be naive and rather foolish.