Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

DaretothREdux (49.28)

The Gov't Made Kentucky Poor

Recs

32

June 22, 2009 – Comments (40) | RELATED TICKERS: H

One product can be used for oil (cooking, heating, and motor oil), clothes, rigging, rope, paper, and canvas.

The Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence is written on it.

It is the most useful plant in the world.

It grows quickly, restores the soil, can reverse the Greenhouse Effect, and stop deforestation.

It is annually-renewable, natural, and it used to be Kentucky's largest cash crop.

The government once begged us to grow more for the war effort. Less than ten years later they attempted to destroy all proof.

The answer is Hemp, Cannabis or Marijuana.

It is a threat to Big Oil, Paper and Textile.

Why is it illegal?

Here is the 11 minute video made by your own government:

40 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 22, 2009 at 12:46 AM, DaretothREdux (49.28) wrote:

I left out a lot of course...how much money would we save ending the war on drugs? How much money would we take away from the powerful drug cartels now running Mexico?

I could go on...but I would love to hear some of the arguments against legalization.

Dare

Report this comment
#2) On June 22, 2009 at 1:01 AM, PrestonCheek (31.09) wrote:

Hey Dare, glad to see some of your work again.

Why would we not make marijuana legal?

Some states are well on their way, the taxes alone would prove beneficial right. However, it will take some time to stop bootleggers from growing and selling without paying taxes.

It all comes down to taxes right.

Report this comment
#3) On June 22, 2009 at 1:03 AM, FleaBagger (29.37) wrote:

I'm pro-legalization, but I'm skeptical that it's all that great.

" 'War on Drugs'? I've never fought a war on drugs. I haven't done squat on drugs, except play Halo 2."

Report this comment
#4) On June 22, 2009 at 1:30 AM, AidanWeisz (< 20) wrote:

Should salvation be relied on marijuana? There are other means like

new construction, in Northern Virginia it's making waves

Report this comment
#5) On June 22, 2009 at 1:35 AM, ralphmachio (23.67) wrote:

Nice work. Hope one of my comments helped to set the fire, but even if not, I'm happy someone is talking up the plant that could've saved the world, and probably will help to restore it.  If you've never done anything productive on drugs, I would say you are abusing them.  Marijuana in particular has a very different effect on the casual, once a day, and the 'regular' pot smoker who you cannot even tell just smoked.  Some of the most motivated, interesting people I've ever met fit into the third category, but a large amount of couch potatoes reside there too.  

Sorry, no arguments against legalization here.

And preston, yes, it all comes down to taxes, so we can send troops to go kill more than 20 civilians in Iraq for every one of their own lives, and the mysterious owners of the fed can just go on leaching forever and ever... 

Report this comment
#6) On June 22, 2009 at 1:54 AM, DaretothREdux (49.28) wrote:

PrestonCheek,

I'm obviously against all taxes personally, but it would be very difficult to argue that the gov't wouldn't see an increase in funds from taxes on legal Marijunaa.

Report this comment
#7) On June 22, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Option1307 (29.90) wrote:

DaretothREdux

I have had this conversation alot with my friends/peers/etc. lately and I mainly agree. However, there is one point that I think many people fail to consider. Mainly, what can we expect during the transition period and how long will it last?

I agree that once it is legalized and "normal" there are many benefits. I am jsut not so confident that the process of going from illegal to legal will be a smooth transition.

Isn't it very likely that there will be abundant abuse of Marijuana and possibly other drugs simply because it is now legal?

Again, I'm not voting against it, jsut bringing up a seldom discussed point.

Thughts anybody?

Report this comment
#8) On June 22, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Option1307 (29.90) wrote:

btw, I've missed your awesome blogs, is this a sign that they are returning?

Report this comment
#9) On June 22, 2009 at 7:17 AM, devoish (99.07) wrote:

Am I supposed to take as informative any post that interchanges industrial "hemp" as the same as recreational "marijuana" ( The answer is Hemp, Cannabis or Marijuana)? It is not the same plant, according to the people who would like to grow industrial hemp.

It is two seperate issues.

Legalize industrial hemp.

Legalize recreational marijuana.

I hope this adds to your understanding.

Report this comment
#10) On June 22, 2009 at 7:50 AM, maxnik0215 (62.45) wrote:

#9 is right. it's not the same plant. they do belong to the same family, but not the same. It's really stupid that government is not allowing use of hemp...

Report this comment
#11) On June 22, 2009 at 8:25 AM, ralphmachio (23.67) wrote:

It'll breed, therefore, it's the same plant.  Just as some individuals are geared toward labor, and some towards thinking, some hemp is geared toward rope, textiles, food, etc, and indicas and sativas are better for smoking.  The varieties are so distinct because the human race has been breeding hemp/marijuana for longer than any other plant (over 5000 years).

option, I fail to see how legalization would affect anyone.  Is there anyone not smoking because some government told them not to?  I'm sure they are interesting folks with plenty of ideas of there own, if so...  

Should marijuana be taxed?  Sure, right after ALL those whose houses, families, and lives were destroyed by a stupid government policy are compensated, and then some.  so funny how the worthless bastards look to the one group who they have alienated and stolen from and who never retaliated against them to try to find extra money, and who will they abuse with that money?  Someone else they have demonized with their ignorant policies for a financial reason that serves the elite?  

Yes, I recognize the right of a government to make laws.

I also recognize that they must be accountable for such laws, they must be just, and they CANNOT make a plant illegal.  

The plant was here long before them, will be here long after they are gone, and the very concept of telling others how to live is outdated.

I hope to see this in my lifetime. There is no free country where you can't grow, and smoke pot.  

 

Report this comment
#12) On June 22, 2009 at 8:40 AM, wrparks (66.35) wrote:

"It'll breed, therefore, it's the same plant"

 

So, horses and donkeys are the same animal?  Reeeealy poor choice of analogies there.

Report this comment
#13) On June 22, 2009 at 9:49 AM, dbjella (< 20) wrote:

My guess is one day it will be legal and will go the way of smoking and drinking as the state will do everything and anything through laws to "protect" us.

dbjella

(believe or not has never tried pot) 

 

Report this comment
#14) On June 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM, DaretothREdux (49.28) wrote:

devoish,

They are the same plant. Especially as far as the gov't is concerned. How many times in my life I have heard the argument well you can't legalize hemp cause it looks just like Marijuana (I have lost count). I agree that they do not look the same and any law enforcement officer who could not tell the difference should have his badge taken away.

That being said it is only how you grow it that makes the difference. Close together with little leaves (hemp) far apart with big bushy leaves (marijuana).

There is sweet corn and indian corn but you would surely not argue that they aren't both corn!

Dare

Report this comment
#15) On June 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM, DaretothREdux (49.28) wrote:

Option1307,

Thanks. I appreciate that. I have been rather busy of late, looking for work and moving. Life has been in transition, but my intention is to get back to writing screenplays. I hope to be able to blog more as well. It helps me keep my sanity.

So I guess the answer to your questions is...I hope?

Dare

Report this comment
#16) On June 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM, whereaminow (42.76) wrote:

I hope so too Dare.  Good luck with the job search!

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#17) On June 22, 2009 at 1:20 PM, jddubya (61.66) wrote:

Note that in California the sales of medicinal cannabis are somewhat governed by SB 1098 which requires dispensaries to pay sales tax...so there is at least some income to the state generated by the sale of medicinal cannabis.

Report this comment
#18) On June 22, 2009 at 10:54 PM, DaretothREdux (49.28) wrote:

Thanks for the link AidanWeisz.

I have no intention of suggesting that hemp = salvation. I am suggesting that farmers should be free to grow it if they so choose, especially if it could be profitable for my own home state ;)

Dare

Report this comment
#19) On June 24, 2009 at 12:37 AM, ralphmachio (23.67) wrote:

A little follow up on is it the same plant.  

WR parks, I really want to wind up, and let you have it, but i will remain civil, despite you knowing very little about cannibis, and perhaps even less about horses, and your willingness to show exactly how little you know.  

First of all, horses and mules make donkeys, but what can a donkey breed with?  Not a damn thing.  Therefore, no successful breeding occurred because the line ends with the first generation.

Therefore, horses, donkeys and mules are different SPECIES.

Hemp, or cannabis's traits are determined genetically.  They strains vary for many reasons, some so much that they are practically different plants, (species), but because they can all breed, and MAKE VIABLE OFFSPRING, they all belong to the same species.

How far apart you plant marijuanna will not determine it's potency, for that is genetically determined along with flavor, consistency of fibre, content of the essential oils, height, branching structure, etc.  Marijuanna has two sexes, male and female, which have facilitated in it's breeding by humans for 5 thousand years.  Hemp has a negligable quantity of THC, making it good for rope.  Cannabis sativa, found naturally in equatorial regions is tall with slender leaves, long flowering time, and varied quality of potency.  Cannabis indica, found in afghanistan, China, and areas nearby has a squat structure, fat leaves, copious resin, pungent aroma and shorter flowering times.  Hippies brought back seeds from India, and were the first to join the new generation of breeders.  When they combined the sativas with the indicas, they found that they could get superior genetics because of the heterosis effect which is observed when distant genetics are combined and it becomes difficult to get recessive traits to line up.  This is why today we are smoking some of the best grass.  It's all in the genetics.  How well you take care of it only determines a small factor of potency, and plays a larger role in yield, smoothness of smoke, and appearance, but if you really drop the ball you could get total crap.  

So the question of whether they are the same plant amounts to species, and subspecies.  I agree, hemp and marijuana are different types of the same plant, and there is no question they have different values.  Fact is they breed, and that is the PRIMARY determinant of SPECIES. 

Hemp is a great alternative to fossil fuel, and negates the burning of carbon emitters by it's very presence, growing 5 times the anual biomass of an old growth rainforest, and not depleting the soil.  I think it just might save mankind in conjunction with marijuana, if the lessons of simplicity are not too late to be learned.  Marijuana makes you content with less physical possesions, and being more in touch with the earth.  

Report this comment
#20) On June 24, 2009 at 1:58 AM, angusthermopylae (40.04) wrote:

Not to be pedantic, ralph, but it's mules that are the result of horses and donkeys breeding...mules are sterile (usually), not donkeys.

Also, it's a bit of an overstatement that marijuana/hemp grow and don't deplete the soil.  Every plant that takes something out of the soil...the only question is, does it take out more than is replaced by other biological processes?

(After all, that towering plant above the ground is made out of something...and that something had to come from the dirt, not the air.)

Hey, I'm all for hemp, and I'm perfectly comfortable with marijuana legalization.  My perspective is more from a Libertarian view:  The "War on Drugs" is a failure, and most of the time what you do with your own body is your own business.

(I would rather just have an "under the influence" aggravating factor to crimes.  Smashing a window is a crime; smashing a window while high/drunk would just be a stiffer sentence.)

Report this comment
#21) On June 24, 2009 at 11:04 AM, ralphmachio (23.67) wrote:

Thanks angus. My mistake on the donkey and mule...  But my point is just as valid, is it not?  

With responsible farming practices, cannabis is less of a burden on the soil than corn, and removes CO2 from the air, as any plant does.  If waste matter was composted, and added to the ground each year, I wonder if the ground would in fact be affected, but I don't know. If we were to use hemp as a replacement for fossil fuel, we would have to plant millions of acres, ridding us of an appreciable amount of CO2, in comparison to burning fuel to obtain fuel from the ground, and refining it.  Yes i realize fuel must be used on hemp farms, but it could be grown, making it's carbon efficiency most likely vastly improved over fossil fuel.  

Report this comment
#22) On June 24, 2009 at 2:43 PM, angusthermopylae (40.04) wrote:

Yes, your point is valid...though I'm not a biologist, so I wasn't trying to get into the whole vocabulary-nazi thing.

And I agree about the fertilizer/fuel usage point.  Some crops take more from the soil, require more maintenance, and yield more limited (size, price, and utility) end products.

For example, one of my favorite examples of the Law of Unintended Consequences was the whole Ethanol Corn push in 2007-2008.  "Let's make fuel from corn!  Save the cheerleader, save the world!"

Unfortunately...

Corn crops that are good for making ethanol are bad for food and feed.  The have higher carbohydrates (which are converted to ethanol) but much lower in protein..and the animals slowly starve, or you have to feed them more empty calories to keep them healthy.  Sounds like McDonald's, huh?

That means that, even if the same out of corn as a species is planted, there is less feed.  Less feed means higher feed prices, more expensive to raise beef/pork/chickens, higher meat prices across the board.  In the end, meat prices climb(ed) because it both cost more to get them to market (gas prices), and the fix for gas prices ended up raising the price of meat a percentage, too.

Hemp, as I understand it, has a wide variety of uses.  (Cue the advocates for a listing of the Wonders of Hemp.)  The same crop makes paper, clothing, rope...and apparently fuel.  While it might replace some corn crops, I would bet that fallow farmland would be used for the most part; people are always looking for a new cash crop.  And there is only so much market for corn.

Report this comment
#23) On June 24, 2009 at 3:00 PM, farmnut1985 (48.73) wrote:

Depends on what you could get net on an acre of hemp vs corn, soybeans, or wheat for that matter.  Biofuels are in the future, it is just which ones.  I consider corn to be the biggest in regular corn production with cellulosic ethanol production from the stover, in a sense double cropping.  If hemp could be grown on tougher drier soils like they are proposing with switchgrass, it could be another nice option.  It all comes down to money.

Report this comment
#24) On June 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Philyogy (24.61) wrote:

Marijuana, isn't a drug. It is a plant.. It is something that can be used for more than just a high... :P

The government has made a HUGE profit, over the years... Not the people, but the Government... From the war on drugs....

When someone is arrested for growing and selling marijuana, they are busted, not for drug reasons, but for tax reasons......

But.. here is the BIG BUT... Even tho if we legalize marijuana, and tax the heck out of it, the government will not be making as much off of the product...

When the so called drug lords are busted with their weed.. The goverment can take anything they want from them.. Car, house, boat, land. etc.... Reason being, is the money made from the marijuana sells were not taxed.. But the government won't allow anyone to be taxed.. 

Not since the Carter era, has weed been legal.. And even then, it was banned once again, due to someone in the Carter adminstration being busted with cocain, not weed,  and then the pressure was on to re-bann the plant.... I guess smoking weed, leads to snorting coke, or worse.. what a joke.. It is all about the money, and with all the FREE money the government gets from all the so called drug bust, we the people will never see a dime..

 Why would the governemt legalize something that would help the people, if it takes free money from the government skank tank. Just my thoughts on the matter...

Report this comment
#25) On June 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM, angusthermopylae (40.04) wrote:

farmnut1985

Glad to see another farm-type out there.  lol...I've been feeling a bit  like a country bumpkin with all these market movers, attorneys, and high-rollers around.

Any thoughts on this article?

 

Report this comment
#26) On June 24, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

Dare-- A couple points to ponder. Politics and Money

1. The chemical companies. Cotton is arguably the most chemically treated, and environmentally disasterous crops, from soil treatment to pesticides and finally defoliant (think paraquat). Cotton production is huge in Cali with miles and miles of nothing but cotton. Anyone who has driven I5 will confirm, These are corporate mega-farms with the money and the juice to fight your cause. So what if hemp makes a finer fabric using a fraction of the water and no pesticides.

2. The Pharma lobby would lose staggering sums if one were allowed to sow a seed for the insomnia, chronic pain, eating disorders glaucoma, etc,etc,etc,etc,etc. Again, strong lobby.

 3. The liquor lobby would lose staggering sums if one could take a couple puffs instead of have a couple cocktails. So what if smokers tend to just chill while drinkers become loud, belligerant and sometimes violent. (Domestic abuse comes to mind). Strong lobby.

4. The tobacco guys could never allow it. So what if tobacco is the #1 cause of preventable illness.  Strong lobby.

5. The Medical Industry could not stand for that. How many doctor appointments would be lost if you didn't need to get a scrip for Vicadan at Wal-Mart. Just take a poke from the garden.

6. You are right. There is a lot of money in "creating a class of criminals. The lawyers, court system, IRS, etc. Could never allow that loss of revenue.

That about covers the medicinal strain. Now for the industrial strain. By the way, poodles and pitbulls can breed but are not the same.

7. Cotton should be down here. Sorry

 

8.Paper? Superior. No chopping down forests (selecctively of course).  Wayerhouser could never let that happen. So what if its a no brainer

9. Hemp fiber was the material of choice for rope, twines and many other like products for thousands of years. So what. Now we have petro based Nylon.

Dare, there's a lot of stuff that seemingly doesn't make sense, but if you look closer, you will see crony capilalism and $$$.

By the way, these aren two seperate issues-- medicinal and industrial. Yes they are related I.E. medicinal and industrial but we protect the status quo. Who said follow the money-- Deep Throat? No truer words were ever spoke. By the way, hemp was outlawed when DuPont patented nylon. You see, they had a strong ally  in William Randolph Hearst- Who happened to hol vast epanses of timber. (Read paper) Go figure.

One last tidbit for all you Fools, Here in Reno, a couple yrs ago, there was a company called A-51. A guy named Gunter

Gunderson developed an emulsifier to blend water with gas (49%/51%). We were running city busses on this stuff and it worked. Sadly, A51 simply fell off the face of the earth without a trace. Think 200 mi per gallon carburators. That's how we roll here in the USA. I'm trying to get to what Crony Capilalism really means, and I'm glad he didn't find brake  failure coming down the hill from Tahoe, but accidents happen. That's how we roll. Any questions?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! couldn' resist, sorry.

ONE FINAL THOUGHT: Recently the Great state of California

recently toyed with the idea tha taing mary could be the answer to the dilemna of fiscal holocost. (Read taxation). Isn't it strange how something can morph from the "scourge of youth" into "fiscal salvation". Only in America my fellow fools.

Starfire's in the house. Alltho I choose not to play the caps game, I am in the market and have been for some time. 7 figs.  

Thank all you cereberal fools for your contributions and         hard work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#27) On June 24, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

See above. Any questions?

Report this comment
#28) On June 24, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

see.

Report this comment
#29) On June 25, 2009 at 9:02 AM, wrparks (66.35) wrote:

ralphmacio, I merely copied what you said and pointed out the flaw.  I admit it was a bit nit picky, but I get frustrated quite easily with people presenting "science" in support of an argument when the science does not in fact support the conclusion as it was stated.  Plus, I admit, I had forgottent that most donkeys are sterile, though it is obvious in hindsight. 

Yes, classicly, breeding is used to assess speciation.  But,breeding is no longer the sole determinant of speciation , since quite a few organisms are capable of breeding between species within a genus, and producting fertile offspring.  We have molecular markers that determine speciation in these cases.  It is still a reliable measure for most cases, especially mammals and most plants.  Eventually, I'd bet that we could breed in isolation and force a speciation event, but that could take thousands of years.

Agriculture, breeding, and genetics is the one topic that I would argue I have far more knowledge than 99% of people, especially on a finance board, no matter what you may think of me or my opinion. I admit, I know nothing about hemp or hemp breeding, but that doesn't matter to the discussion of speciation.

I actually agree that they are the same plant, and that is the problem that makes legalization unlikely.  I dont' see us ending the war on drugs, even with it's failures.  And, since they are the same species, distinguishing industrial vs "medicinal" lines would be difficult to enforce without a battery of federal agents testing the lines grown for the concentration of THC and ensuring it's below some threshold.  It's not likely to happen I'm afraid.

Report this comment
#30) On June 26, 2009 at 2:57 PM, SolarisKing (< 20) wrote:

 In the first place, there can be no such thing as a war on drugs, or a war on poverty, or a war on terror.

 War is a state of open agression between one government and another. Any other use is poetic.

If you look at the history of the word 'war' it was only recently sold to the public by big brother as a word we use against eachother. What it implies (to those that read carefully) is that the police state has it's own government, and that it is at war with the government of the people. It's rhetoric, and to fall for it is sad.

The reason it's illegal is to capture the vote. Most votes are decided by less than 2%, so if you disenfranchise 2% of your opponents you win almost every vote.

With this single act the empire gained control of every aspect of everything; by moving the center into their camp. What we witness, thinking it is a vote, is a vote between far right, and near right.

Up to 40% of black males disenfranchised in some states.

angusthermopylae

(After all, that towering plant above the ground is made out of something...and that something had to come from the dirt, not the air.)
No, not really, that towering plant comes mostly from photosynthesis. So yes, out of thin air.

You fools will run out of space trying to list what Hemp can do. It is a smaller list (though not less easy) to list what hemp CAN'T do.

In fact i'd love to see someone try to make that list, 'cause i can't really think of much that is needed that it doesn't do (yes, i know, define need).

Report this comment
#31) On June 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM, angusthermopylae (40.04) wrote:

(Sorry for this off-topic reply...but..)

SolarisKing, I don't even know where to begin.

--Why add fertilizer?  If it's just light, then no soil would ever need fertilizer.

--How does photosynthesis convert light into mass?  A simple water molecule is equivalent to burning thousands of gallons of gasoline in energy.  That means that, according to this site, a 2 lb plant has created matter out of about 19.87 Megatons of TNT (that's a sizeable nuke!!!)

Furthermore, since the power density of the sun is only about  1.353 KW/m-squared, it would take 60,261,640,798,226  seconds to gather that energy (at 100% efficiency), which is  1,910,884 years per plant!

In this universe, plants convert food/dirt to their own body mass, just like people...

...at least, that's what I've always been taught....

I'm glad my aerospace engineering degree is coming in useful, somewhere!

Report this comment
#32) On June 26, 2009 at 5:42 PM, SolarisKing (< 20) wrote:

 angusthermopylae, Well since you ask, i will say you began in a fine place for a novice. Good questions, young man.

Well i don't have a degree is space ships, but i know that a very large plant can be grown with a very small amount of dirt and fertilizer.
   I didn't say that it grows without dirt, or that it takes nothing out of the soil, I said 'mostly photosynthesis'. You can grow a ten pound plant in 1 pound of soil with only a small amount of fertilizer. The plant in the end barely reduces the weight of the soil. Promise. Been there, done that. If the plant is then used as biomass compost it actually adds to the soil. Promise.

People add fertilizer because their incomplete understanding of the process has stripped the land of many of it's natural nutrients. Plants grow fine all over the planet, naturally, without 'fertilizer', and have done so for eons. In fact only a miniscule fraction of all the plants in this planets history have had what you probably mean when you asked me "why add fertilizer?"

In this universe plants conduct photosynthesis, converting carbon dioxide (thin air) into matter (sugars).  Not at all like people.

Hope that helps. Let me know if you have more questions on farming. If i think i need a spaceman i'll let you know.

Love all your blogs, and dig your caps picks. Keep looking for a place to use your spaceman degree. Good luck.

-solaris,  7th generation Full time professional organic farmer. Hemp Activist, and co-author to the Supreme Courts of Missouri, California, and Kansas marijuana laws.

Report this comment
#33) On June 26, 2009 at 8:18 PM, angusthermopylae (40.04) wrote:

From your link:

Photosynthetic organisms are photoautotrophs, which means that they are able to synthesize food directly from carbon dioxide using energy from light.

Which I agree is absolutely correct...but a plant is not all food or sugars--potassium, nitrogen, iron, magnesium, etc, etc.  All come from the soil, and are part of the basic structure of the plant.  The food for the plant (sugar) is made from the photosynthetic process.

As for the rest, I agree.  Fertilizers are, basically, to support the removal of products from the crop.  Most plants do just fine without additional fertilizers, and that is because most plants sprout, grow, and die in the same spot,with very little removed (meaning harvested and used somewhere else by humans.)

I bow to your greater experience, and apologize for getting pedantic (again!); it's been a rough day in RL, and I shouldn't introduce that to what has been a very cogent and enlightening discussion.

As for the spaceman degree :-)  it hasn't been much use since 1992...mostly  something to cover the peeling paint on that spot on the wall.

Report this comment
#34) On June 26, 2009 at 8:30 PM, AllStarPortfolio (38.77) wrote:

Angus, Hope you check back long enough for me to say:

 Thanks for enjoying my humor, not everybody gets it. Actually i'm a little jealous, because, i'm not a spaceman, and i bet you got to play with a lot of neat toys, and fun kids. It probably helps you pick stocks, and read charts. There're a lot of charts in farming, but i bet there are ALOT of charts in space school.

How did you make that face?  ;-)

 

Report this comment
#35) On June 26, 2009 at 9:11 PM, DaretothREdux (49.28) wrote:

To everyone who responded past comment #18 I am so sorry that I have not yet read your comments!

I thought everyone was done, but was I ever wrong. I am greatly pleased at the debate and responses and will get back into it soon, but first I have to rant about the house passing Cap and Trade.

Dare

Report this comment
#36) On June 26, 2009 at 9:23 PM, programmerEd (< 20) wrote:

Hemp is a term that covers several plants. Marijuana is one of them, but the hemp that used to be grown here was not Marijuana, it was Hemp and grown for fibers.  The confusion is common.

Report this comment
#37) On June 26, 2009 at 9:27 PM, DaretothREdux (49.28) wrote:

Ok. I read the comments and discussion that followed suit. Loved them all btw.

To hemp/cannibus lovers and libertarians out there I would suggest a great read by a fellow Kentuckian of mine:

The Last Free Man in America: Meets the Synthetic Subversion

by Gatewood Galbraith

He has run for governor in my state many times. He has one simple plan. Legalize hemp/marijuna and tax it to bring revenue back to the state. Great read. He has lived a very free and interesting life.

Thanks everyone,

Dare

Report this comment
#38) On June 26, 2009 at 9:30 PM, DaretothREdux (49.28) wrote:

programmerEd,

Personally, and this is an aside I don't give two sh*ts if they are the same or different or can breed...(although I find the discussion interesting and giving me high school bio flashbacks)...because as far as I am concerned the gov't should not be able to tell anyone what they can grow in their own soil or put into their own body.

And the practical uses for this plant are incredible that's enough reason for me to support it.

Dare

Report this comment
#39) On August 08, 2009 at 4:36 AM, FleaBagger (29.37) wrote:

The reason drug use is illegal is not because anyone thinks it's worse to hurt someone or break someone else's something while high than to do so while sober. It's largely because people get away with that crap when they're drunk off their @$$, so people are afraid that stoners would get away with it if they're flying high. If you drive your car into some people, you go to jail for the rest of your life. But if you were drunk, they take your license away, fine you, and let you go. So people want it to be illegal to drive drunk.

We need to stop sympathizing with criminals. If someone who's drunk or high kills someone, they should be put to death just like anybody else. Then we could legalize pot use (and crack use, and heroin, and PCP - whatever). No harm, no foul. Harm, and you suffer the same consequences as anyone else. Then people would find a way to smoke pot safely, or give it up, or suffer the consequences when they hurt someone. It's win-win-less of a lose than we're accustomed to.

I think the other thing informing drug laws is the law against suicide. Using a drug like crack (concentrated cocaine), heroin, or any of many other drugs (including legal drugs like Vicodin and Oxycontin) puts you at an extreme risk for an addiction that can warp your mind, change your personality, tamper with your body's hormonal production, and leave you a wasted husk that dies long before its time. (Kind of like what supralegal authority does to freedom and prosperity, but that's a discussion for another time.) So trying a highly addictive drug is basically like committing suicide. To a lot of people, that's the reason they should remain illegal. To me, that another reason they should be legalized.

By the way, did you ever explain how it could stop deforestation?

Report this comment
#40) On September 27, 2009 at 10:35 PM, DaretothREdux (49.28) wrote:

FleaBagger,

I'm not sure if I explained it clearly or not....

1 acre of Hemp can produce as much paper as 4 acres of forest....

So...we don't have to cut down nearly as many trees for paper production.

Sidenote: Mary Jane has never been proven to be addictive...

Second Sidenote: If you are claiming that suicide being illegal is the justification for making Mary Jane illegal you will first have to show me someone who died from an OD of the stuff...(hint: you can't).

You might argue that it is slowly killing you...fine, so are cigarettes, alcohol, food, and air....all are estenially slow posions. So, ban them all or let people be free to choose.

I personally think it would be a difficult argument to get people to ban O2....but I could be wrong.

Dare

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement