How Hemp Threatens the Corporatocracy

[awepittance]

 

<p>regardless of hemp makes good paper or not, its a historical fact that paper producing companies were behind the illegalization of marijuana in the 1930s, they had no vested interest in doing this besides eliminating a competing method of doing what they already do.  I remember reading sourced information years ago about how some of them even helped spread racism to fuel the anti marijuana fever that they lobbied to create. I can try to dig some up if you like.<br />

<br />

I can't really promote deforestation in general, all one has to do is drive to certain areas of northern california to find that they do demolish what one would characterize as a 'whole forrest'. Im not sure where you live MisterE but honestly maybe you just havent seen it for yourself? I find it pretty sad personally.<br />

<br />

 just in terms of keeping natural habitats intact hemp seems like a better option. It's extremely easy to grow a marijuana plant for hemp production, far easier and faster than growing a tree for paper production. </p>

this is complete bullshit and if flies squarely in the face of logic. here's some logic-

 

i'm not going to read the rest of your post until you look into the history of marijuana becoming illegal, just because you intuitively believe it's 'complete bullshit' doesnt make it true, especially in the face of well documented history. I appreciate your feistiness in discussions. History and the actions of powerful interests don't necessarily equate to logical decisions, it would be .. well, illogical to assume that.

 

I'm not saying you're going to be convinced by looking up my assertion that paper companies lobbied harder than anyone else to make pot illegal, but there is plenty of evidence out there.

 

i think you have a fixation on things being conspiracies or not conspiracies as well, i never asserted anywhere here that there is a 'conspiracy', because i have a feeling you're still using it in a way that doesn't subscribe to the original dictionary definition. And i will admit that you and Godel throwing around the stupid as shit 'tin foil hat' phrase in the Dorner thread really pissed me off. Smetty made a perfectly rational point and then came the deluge of conspiracy accusations that always turn a decent discussion into a shit-storm super fast

[goDel]

I thought one of the issues was that the current hemp market does not match the size of its potential market? And now you're saying it's widely used? I hope you're not saying a wide use equals world wide use. It's about the size of the world wide market. Size in terms of revenue, not square meters.

 

@apeterlives

 

@awe: the dorner thread? Don't remember, but can we please stick to this thread? Havent used any thinfoil cappery in this thread so far. I might deserve a compliment?.....

[awepittance]

ok compliment to both you guys, even though you pissed me off. You are obviously smart dudes, and if you weren't it wouldn't piss me off so much to have either of you calling someone a conspiracy theorist for suggesting the police were so upset that they probably burnt dorner alive on purpose.

so yeah, i won't mention that anymore in here i promise

[MisterE]

Corporations, whatever they are, are about economic value. If hemp isn't widely used, than that basically says something about its economic value. There is no monolithic corporation ruling the world. It's free for competition.

you are stating simple facts that anyone should be able to arrive at if they employ a little logic in their thought process. but instead it's all 'corporations are big and bad and all they care about is money blablabla' and then 'hemp can make everything and it can do it better in every way and the results will be better in every way.' and there's absolutely no mind payed to the fact that these corporations would LOVE THE FUCKING SHIT out of hemp is it really was that great. they would be going around with ballcaps on with hemp leaves on them, straight to the bank. where they cashed checks written on hemp paper. the one singular thing i can agree with these people on is the fact that corporations love making money. where i can't relate is where they fail to understand that their theories make absolutely no fucking sense because they boil down to 'corporations lobbied to get something banned that would make them shit tons of money because it's more miraculous than jesus.'

 

you guys think hemp can solve all the worlds problems, go somewhere where you can grow it legally and start growing the shit to make some plastic or whatever. because if you don't, i just might start thinking you are in on the anti-hemp conspiracy. seriously. you want to use this logic against the boogeyman corporations out there that have come to serve as your scape goat for all of your daily problems, then i will apply that same logic to you. if them not using hemp to make shit instantly proves it's because they are in on some big evil plot to make more money for themselves, then why shouldn't i think you are in on the conspiracy if YOU don't make stuff with hemp?

[goDel]

ok compliment to both you guys, even though you pissed me off. You are obviously smart dudes, and if you weren't it wouldn't piss me off so much to have either of you calling someone a conspiracy theorist for suggesting the police were so upset that they probably burnt dorner alive on purpose.

so yeah, i won't mention that anymore in here i promise

 

Awe, i fully respect your point of views even though we might disagree. If i have offended you in any way, tell me directly and not weeks later in an unrelated discussion.

 

As far as i can tell i was only asking sm4 to specify what he meant. And even defended him from being stigmatized as tinfoilwhatnottery. Imo, but apparently that message did not come across very well. For which i can take at least part of the blame.

[MisterE]

ok compliment to both you guys, even though you pissed me off. You are obviously smart dudes, and if you weren't it wouldn't piss me off so much to have either of you calling someone a conspiracy theorist for suggesting the police were so upset that they probably burnt dorner alive on purpose.

 

so yeah, i won't mention that anymore in here i promise

 

 

haha woah dude back up. when you say that you appreciate that i'm being aggressive or whatever with my end of the debate, i appreciate that you appreciate that. i obviously enjoy shooting my mouth off in a debate that interests me. and i might get aggressive doing it at times. i guess the fact that my feelings are often in a clear minority around here might contribute to that. but at the end of the day, i try not to make direct personal attacks. i havent taken anything you or anyone else said personally. now some of my language maybe comes off as a personal attack, i dont know. but i don't mean for it to, unless i do. but here i haven't. but it's kind of hard to declare that you think something is wrong or misleading without getting confrontational. at the end of the day, if i see something said that i dont agree with and i feel like saying something i will. if after that debate i can still get along with that person, then that's super. and i hope that that will usually be the case.

 

as far as the dorner thing, i agree that they may very well have set that house on fire on purpose. what i do not agree with was the general sentiment, which has come to be something expected with these types of stories, that the whole thing was some big massive operation by the cops to silence this man who for whatever reason they let live after firing him 4yrs ago. people WERE, maybe not here, i dont know and i don't really care so much, but people across the net WERE suggesting that dorner had some info that would burn the PD so they were out to assassinate him. it's entirely possible but logically it seems unlikely. is or is it not misleading though, when most people on that side of the issue bring up the house being burnt down, that they conveniently leave out the fact that he shot two more cops from that house, killing another? does there really need to be some big shadowy element that the cops had something to hide brought into the affair, or can the fact that the fucker openly declared war not just on the PD but on their FAMILIES, does that honestly not go very far in explaining why cops would want to skullfuck that guy? do i think it's acceptable that cops often do seem to be more aggressive going after a cop killer than they do going after some other suspect of another crime? no. i think it's wrong that cops seem to place more importance on their buddy's lives, and on getting each other's backs, than the do on protecting and serving us. but guess what? we didn't have THAT debate here. that to me is a worthy conversation to have. but instead of having it, we had people with pet theories or even just alluding to vague undefined notions that 'the cops are probably up to something'. and all or most of this going untempered with any comments about how dorner was a total fuckhead. this is what i've come to expect of this place though. so yeah i do see that as conspiratorial mentality. 'the cops are up to something!' no shit sherlock. they want to get a guy who killed a bunch of cops and one of their daughters. if i were one of the cops at the scene and he shot and killed one of my buddies from that house, i'd want to burn the fucker down too. is it right? no. is it fucking difficult to understand? HELL NO

 

by the way, did you see the article i linked in that thread that said that no drones were ever used which was part of the whole trumping up of the 'the PD are up to something fishy' angle? i agree with godek that we should keep threads separate but i see that the types of thought processes behind the two things are linked.

[goDel]

You should have agreed with keeping those discussions seperated AND not have written this huge fest of words on that other subject. Logic also requires consistency. At least, once in a while.

[essines]

nvm. godspeed mistere.

[MisterE]

You should have agreed with keeping those discussions seperated AND not have written this huge fest of words on that other subject. Logic also requires consistency. At least, once in a while.

maybe. but maybe you shouldn't apologize for not making yourself clear about not accusing people of being involved in a conspiracy, when you went out of your way to defend smetty against my suggestions of conspiratorial leanings. awe brought the other thread up, so in his mind something about the things i've said in both threads are related. i agree.

[goDel]

 

Something about fast ships on the sea?

[syd syside]

the toxicity of petroleum products and there 'shelf life' as waste, in landfills, as well as through negligent, improper disposal around the world could be projected against the same virtual volume of hemp derived waste. if this was done i'm certain it would prove one less destructive then the other. also you have the invasive process of procuring petroleum and the toxins released in manufacturing, as well as the loss of liquid petroleum and petroleum byproducts into the environment every year through human and mechanical error, which would far outweigh that of hemp. furthermore, there are the other niches hemp could fill, eliminating the timber industry and countless other hemorrhaging wounds which petroleum is simply unable to heal.

 

Hemp is much more efficient at creating the biomass (one of the best crops for this) and the materials we could use it for than trees or petrolium. The paper and textiles derived from hemp actually ARE more durable than cotton or trees. Look it up. So it beats our current methods in efficiency, the amount of space used for manufacturing, and durability. Troon is correct by bringing up the fact that the shift from our current way of doing things would not only be a challenge, but not in the best interests of the companies that create many of the products we use everyday. It's a major barrier to change, even if it is the best idea for us in the long run. Meanwhile, it costs 60 U.S. dollars to fill my car with gas, and the electric car was swept under the rug faster than anyone knew about it. America, fuck...yeah..

these posts wrap up the reason why we must look at hemp MisterE

 

1) waste aka over-population / climate change 2) greed looks at time the same way it looks at money, why end the short term money train and risk not having more later? 3) efficient/durable products need to be replaced less 4) shipping hemp products oversees costs more money than local production

 

so I guess one has to ask themselves, when will it be the right time to start seriously demanding corporations to sacrifice something? how will we know when the machine has gotten out of hand and society / human race propels downward in sacrifice due to faith in corporations that are profit over people?

 

Your argument seems to weigh the importance of pollution/corporate revenues over the long term benefits of hemp. Something the Government has a lot of control over due to their banning of hemp/marijuana (unjustifiably).

[goDel]

 

You should have agreed with keeping those discussions seperated AND not have written this huge fest of words on that other subject. Logic also requires consistency. At least, once in a while.

maybe. but maybe you shouldn't apologize for not making yourself clear about not accusing people of being involved in a conspiracy, when you went out of your way to defend smetty against my suggestions of conspiratorial leanings. awe brought the other thread up, so in his mind something about the things i've said in both threads are related. i agree.

The most related issue, imo is attempts to win discussions with ad hominem points. If I go "out of my way" it's because I mean it and I think it's more productive to stay away from the ad hominem crap. Which it is most of the time. Useless bullcrap.

[MisterE]

also, i think that saying logic requires consistency is kind of like saying that banana requires yellow.

[goDel]

also, i think that saying logic requires consistency is kind of like saying that banana requires yellow.

 

But did you get my point though? If you agree to keep topics separated, you might as well put action to where your mouth is. Or however the hell the saying goes. Because bananas actually requires yellow and not just saying they're yellow and act red.

[syd syside]

Let me clarify, you (MisterE) are taking the stance that because hemp won't make corporations as much money, it is therefore justified to conclude the desire for hemp production/products is rooted in conspiracy. This is logical to you?

 

You are making a good case as to why corporations don't have to be in a conspiracy to avoid hemp, but you aren't tackling the main issue of whether or not society benefits. The reason why hemp is not manufactured in the US is because of drug laws. Once an industry is up and running, switching gears at its own expense, for the long term benefit of the human race is not in a corporations interests. There is no conspiracy, capitalism is good but by nature it looks ahead in the short term and humanity is in a unprecedented stage of population increase and climate change.

 

These issues should weigh precedence to you as an individual more than the cost/benefit of hemp. Should they not?

[MisterE]

im not trying to win any discussion. but do you want to tell me that it was entirely unrelated or irrelevant of me to mention that hemp is, as a matter of fact, more championed by the stoner community than it is by the average person outside of that community? to my mind that says something. i'm not 100% sure exactly what but i can see that there is something there...

 

see i can't help but like to look at possible biases someone might have in a debate and how it might be shading their view. we all have them. i guess with your use of 'ad hominem' you are trying to say that this is something that should be ignored? i guess, if you want to try to be absolutely sure that you don't offend anyone or hurt their feelings, but even then you have no guarantees. you just found out, for example, that a guy has had a chip on his shoulder over something you said like a month ago, and it wasn't even something you actually said. so not using those ad hominems has worked out for you real super hasn't it?

[Guest Atom Dowry Firth]

nvm. godspeed mistere.

[syd syside]

im not trying to win any discussion. but do you want to tell me that it was entirely unrelated or irrelevant of me to mention that hemp is, as a matter of fact, more championed by the stoner community than it is by the average person outside of that community? to my mind that says something. i'm not 100% sure exactly what but i can see that there is something there...

 

see i can't help but like to look at possible biases someone might have in a debate and how it might be shading their view. we all have them. i guess with your use of 'ad hominem' you are trying to say that this is something that should be ignored? i guess, if you want to try to be absolutely sure that you don't offend anyone or hurt their feelings, but even then you have no guarantees. you just found out, for example, that a guy has had a chip on his shoulder over something you said like a month ago, and it wasn't even something you actually said. so not using those ad hominems has worked out for you real super hasn't it?

Sure you are trying to win, you called this a debate. And in a debate, there is a winner and loser. The fact you changed the wording to "discussion" speaks volumes on your contrarian intent.

haha woah dude back up. when you say that you appreciate that i'm being aggressive or whatever with my end of the debate, i appreciate that you appreciate that. i obviously enjoy shooting my mouth off in a debate that interests me.

And no shit people who smoke marijuana are more aware of hemp. Did you know that people who are more aware of rape have a pro-choice bias? Just because two issues are related does not mean the argument in favor is illogical. You can pretend you are winning because we are just conspiracy tin-foil nutters or we smoke weed, if it makes you feel better.

[Guest apeterlives]

I thought one of the issues was that the current hemp market does not match the size of its potential market? And now you're saying it's widely used? I hope you're not saying a wide use equals world wide use. It's about the size of the world wide market. Size in terms of revenue, not square meters.

 

Sorry, I wasn't being careful with wording. I meant to say that right now hemp is widely used in the US. Since the US is the biggest importer of hemp, and China is the biggest producer/exporter, it gives a picture of the world hemp market. The US uses a ton of hemp (mostly in value added products).

 

Worldwide hemp markets are still developing, but world production of hemp fiber/grain has seen a decline for some reason. The increased demand for hemp products hasn't had an effect on production either. Hemp as a commodity can be unstable in price. But, hemp is valuable to farmers worldwide since it's a rotational crop (can grow it during off seasons from other crops, and it enriches soil).

 

I'd argue there is wide use of hemp products generally. Hemp is used by the US, Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey and Ukraine, and I'm sure others. I don't know the monetary value of the world hemp market, and each individual country's revenue. It seems it's not so easy to look up that information, and without that how can you figure out specific hemp futures? I can't really say anything about predicting the potential market of hemp without generalizing/making something up, so it's difficult to compare it to the current hemp market.

 

Regardless, it seems that everything about legalizing hemp in the US isn't so much about hemp but about legalizing weed. That's the real issue here with the government, and with the American public. We're the leader in hemp product imports, we've got the benefits of hemp products already. Hemp farming may be profitable in certain states, but if it's just about profits they could legalize weed and make a ton more (just like Canada).

 

But, right now we've got something else entirely on our minds: oil. Did you know that the US is set to become the largest oil producer in the world? We'll overtake Saudi Arabia by 2020 in gas/oil production.

[syd syside]

apeterlives, on 11 Mar 2013 - 02:37, said:

 

 

goDel, on 11 Mar 2013 - 00:55, said:

 

I thought one of the issues was that the current hemp market does not match the size of its potential market? And now you're saying it's widely used? I hope you're not saying a wide use equals world wide use. It's about the size of the world wide market. Size in terms of revenue, not square meters.

Sorry, I wasn't being careful with wording. I meant to say that right now hemp is widely used in the US. Since the US is the biggest importer of hemp, and China is the biggest producer/exporter, it gives a picture of the world hemp market. The US uses a ton of hemp (mostly in value added products).

 

Worldwide hemp markets are still developing, but world production of hemp fiber/grain has seen a decline for some reason. The increased demand for hemp products hasn't had an effect on production either. Hemp as a commodity can be unstable in price. But, hemp is valuable to farmers worldwide since it's a rotational crop (can grow it during off seasons from other crops, and it enriches soil).

 

I'd argue there is wide use of hemp products generally. Hemp is used by the US, Australia, Austria, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey and Ukraine, and I'm sure others. I don't know the monetary value of the world hemp market, and each individual country's revenue. It seems it's not so easy to look up that information, and without that how can you figure out specific hemp futures? I can't really say anything about predicting the potential market of hemp without generalizing/making something up, so it's difficult to compare it to the current hemp market.

 

Regardless, it seems that everything about legalizing hemp in the US isn't so much about hemp but about legalizing weed. That's the real issue here with the government, and with the American public. We're the leader in hemp product imports, we've got the benefits of hemp products already. Hemp farming may be profitable in certain states, but if it's just about profits they could legalize weed and make a ton more (just like Canada).

 

But, right now we've got something else entirely on our minds: oil. Did you know that the US is set to become the largest oil producer in the world? We'll overtake Saudi Arabia by 2020 in gas/oil production.

How do you figure everything about legalizing hemp is about weed in the US, when the basis of that conclusion is missing a very key bit of consideration: monetary value. If the monetary value is not an improvement then that provides the explanation for less production of hemp. And if you add the fact that more oil production and pollution expenses burden society, it seems reasonable to accept that as a real justification and not just a desire to smoke weed. Not to mention the need for more jobs here at home, something that could take place if it wasn't for the US Governments law against marijuana (reason why the two are inter-connected and your generalization is flawed).

[goDel]

so not using those ad hominems has worked out for you real super hasn't it?

 

Yes, I think it has. Perhaps the chip on his shoulder is gone? It might be. It's largely out of my influence though, but the world is a better place without chips on shoulders I'd say.

 

One step closer to world peace and all.

 

*goes off to hug some trees*

[goDel]

But, right now we've got something else entirely on our minds: oil. Did you know that the US is set to become the largest oil producer in the world? We'll overtake Saudi Arabia by 2020 in gas/oil production.

 

I believe fracking is on our minds. It's so cheap the US exports it's old fashioned coal to Europe. Which is in a crisis of its own and just burns up all that crap because it's looking in another direction.

[MisterE]

But did you get my point though? If you agree to keep topics separated, you might as well put action to where your mouth is. Or however the hell the saying goes. Because bananas actually requires yellow and not just saying they're yellow and act red.

nah, i can agree but still act discordantly. free will. if a guy has a chip on his shoulder over something i said a month ago and reveals that fact, then i guess i might feel inclined to clarify my stance on that older issue. then he can decide if he still wants to 'be pissed' at me, or that maybe i had a point.

 

 

and to compson- i can 'debate' without caring about 'winning', especially if i fully understand there is no such thing as winning an internet debate.

[syd syside]

I think capitalism, like any machine needs a good rest/nap every once in awhile, where society and corporations accept scientific/legitimate explanations of the long term population/environmental crisis facing humanity and re-gears appropriately. The question is how can we have faith in the mechanic when he is dealing with a lot of archaic components? It's like telling your dad that he has to live in a retirement home, some of that stuff just needs to be thrown out the window.

 

A slow sludge in the distance, creeping inches by the months. It only just looks like a giant black wall, not really threatening at all. It's like 500 yards away from us. I'm sure someday we'll really re-tool this buggar and stop the leakage. Boy, isn't it a beautiful day? Thank you God.

[syd syside]

MisterE, on 11 Mar 2013 - 03:27, said:

and to compson- i can 'debate' without caring about 'winning', especially if i fully understand there is no such thing as winning an internet debate.

The debate begins because you think someone else is wrong. If you don't care about them being wrong, why would you type so many words explaining why they are wrong? Winning in a debate means enlightening another with truth. If you are going to post many sentences about why someone else is wrong and then avoid the rebuttal without surrendering. Then you lose.

 

Saying there is no such thing as winning on the internet is to say there is no such thing as truth on the internet. Illogical conclusion.