How Hemp Threatens the Corporatocracy

[awepittance]

just for the record, i thought it was clear i was pissed off 2 weeks back by stating 'go fuck yourself'. Not the nicest way to say it i'll admit, but it looks like the discussion is going pretty good without me.
carry on gentlemen

[syd syside]

(@ compson)

 

:cerious:

[cear]

also covered in this docu:

 

http://youtu.be/6jO_ncXj7RE

 

though more about marijuana it covers a large portion on hemp iirc

[Guest apeterlives]

When you quoted me, you took out the part that answers your first question! The number of trees is not a good indicator of forest health, and simply re-planting as many or more trees than are harvested (what's known as "sustainable forestry") is not really sustainable at all: Removing trees from the landscape - as opposed to allowing them to decompose in the ecosystem which gave rise to them - removes many nutrients from the soil. Those nutrients are currently available because many, many previous generations of plants and animals have decomposed on that same soil. Repeatedly removing nutrients cannot go on forever - eventually the soil will become bare and hard without microclimates to work it, runoff will increase, trees will not grow as well, and the land will begin to become "useless" in the timber industry's eyes, actually turning into a desert and then yes, catching fire even more often than a healthy forest does for survival and renewal - I hope I'm making it sort of clear why simply planting more trees is not enough to claim we have a sustainable industry.

 

This is getting away from the topic of hemp, and more just into forestry practices, so I'll stop for now... and just ftr I am not trying to make any claims about hemp. I personally think the discussion about hemp & paper mills that's been going on itt misses the larger picture, and also makes it seem like there's a shortage of paper (or even a large need for huge amounts of new raw paper...wat? we aren't even doing a good job recycling what we already have). Arguing about the most efficient way to make new paper is like arguing about the most eco-friendly way to raise more cattle to feed the world. Hemp is neat, its history is remarkable, and its legal tie-ups are worth hearing about, just...ultimately I'm not yet convinced that planting more water-intensive crops to manufacture textiles is the best way to solve our energy problems. That said, it would be awesome if hemp began to replace timber for a few select uses and I'll encourage it when I get a chance, if the legislation is right :D

 

All of this about forestry practices/deforestation is very relevent since it relates to hemp's environmental benefits. There are claims that hemp production in the US would decrease deforestation. "One acre of hemp produces four times as much pulp as an acre of timber. Hemp also grows on almost any land and in any region, so it could be grown throughout the US, unlike the trees which are used for paper and which have a fairly limited habitat. Hemp provides a more efficient alternative to timber in the production of paper products, and can produce building materials inexpensively." Then the economics come into play... in theory it's less expensive, but it varies by the area.

 

Sorry luke, didn't mean to cut your quote off. I'm not trying to say that a greater number of trees equates to greater forest health. What I'm trying to figure out is what are the true indicators of forest health? Who defines what is healthy? What is the state of US forest health compared to world forest health? If the drive for ever increasing production and profit, capitalism, is in conflict with creating a better environment, then aren't the benefits of hemp (economic and environmental) essentially at odds with eachother? That last question is the most interesting to me.

 

I like your thoughts about "sustainable" forestry. I'm trying to read more about sustainable forestry and greenwashing--I guess sustainable forestry is just an industrial greenwashing buzzword? I came across this photo essayhttp://sfigreenwash.org/sfi-photo-essay I feel today we're just bombarded with greenwashing in advertising.

 

Then, beyond this, the whole idea that human activity causes climate change promotes such a depressing view of the future. The problem of scarcity... this is shit the Jetsons didn't have to think about!

 

In the end about hemp it's like, do you support hemp because it can make you profit? Do you support hemp because it can help the environment? Do you support hemp because it's a gateway to the legalization of marajuana? Or do you support hemp because it's fashionable?

[Guest]

I don't have time to read the rest of this thread atm, but that was a really well done video. she definitely made a lot of good points. after watching the daily show for most of my news for a while now (democracy now being the other main source) this video reminds me how depressing it is that there is no place for real journalism on TV. It's all so pandering and dumbed down to be entertainment, as if americans couldn't possibly be interesed in hearing harsh, real, change inspiring journalism, when it was real, truth-motivated journalism that created a demand for an end to the Vietnam war. As good as the daily show and colbert report can be at pointing out hypocrisy in politics and news, it still feels like a corporate product built to satiate the liberal demographic, and make viacom a tidy profit. If investigative journalism was done like this on TV, there would be more than just a trickle of activism in the US right now, while humans see their last few decades as a common species on this planet

 

u wud have to use loads and loads of land to grow the hemp though

Do you know how much excessive corn we grow in this country right now? ~727,000,000 acres of the stuff, and you eat, what, 3 of 4 ears of corn a year? People are being used as human garbage dumps for it, they've got so much of it. If 2/3 of it, or more, were replaced with hemp, we would solve a ridiculous number of economic, political, ecological, and health problems.

[delet...]

lol, i'll be in studio on her show between this Thurs and next Weds you sons of bitches

​glad to see Abby's show gaining traction enough to be posted on watmm ndependently of me.

 

 

We do a once every 2 weeks podcast where Abby and I get to speak more in depth about stuff.

 

My favorite episodes we've done are http://mediaroots.org/media-roots-radio-breaking-apart-the-911-coincidence-theory.php">here  and http://www.mediaroots.org/mr-radio-transcript-anthrax-attacks-from-the-memory-hole.php">here 

 

She's still finding her feet with the whole presenting to camera thing, imO (she'll get better, i know). Also, she wasn't nice enough about chavez (was that editorial interference?). But at least ab's show when i have seen bits of it ain't bullshit arseleavings com cnn et al.

 

Plus what's up with the nose ring!!

[MisterE]

no

no? no explanation why not either, and i'm not surprised at all. someone needs to explain why it is that yesterday or the day before, some of you pro-hemp people were in a conversation somewhere about how greedy the big bad corporations are, and how they would literally do anything for money. but NOW you are arguing that they wouldn't switch to hemp which supposedly makes products that would be superior in every way because hemp is better than jesus. wouldn't having superior products make them more profit?

MisterE, if you're going to talk about logic and the fact that more people need to use it, please hold yourself to the same standards.

can you give an example where i haven't instead of just making an accusation without any substance to back it up, which is pretty common around here? example- hemp being super awesome.

Good points luke.

 

 

MIsterE...

 

compson, you don't get to use a fizzy lifter against me. i invented it.

[skotosa]

 

 

>MisterE, if you're going to talk about logic and the fact that more people need to use it, please hold yourself to the same standards.

 

example- hemp being super awesome

Just look at Hemp's wiki/sources...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

 

Building Materials, plastics, paper, most of the stuff seems to be there.

[MisterE]

i could build something with popsicle sticks. that alone doesn't mean i would want to, that the thing i built would be any better, that it would save me money, OR that it would be better for the environment. i'm sure there are a lot of other things i could also do with posicle sticks though.

 

so what were you saying about logic?

[luke viia]

Well, if you really need me to do it, after finals this week I'll take a moment to list the informal fallacies you've so graciously made an ass of yourself with ITT. I was hoping you wouldn't need anyone to do that, but I'm willing to help.

 

 

 

edit -- and to apeterlives -- I owe you a direct reply sir, that last post of yours was great. I just kinda forgot about this thread.

[MisterE]

Well, if you really need me to do it, after finals this week I'll take a moment to list the informal fallacies you've so graciously made an ass of yourself with ITT. I was hoping you wouldn't need anyone to do that, but I'm willing to help.

 

 

 

edit -- and to apeterlives -- I owe you a direct reply sir, that last post of yours was great. I just kinda forgot about this thread.

go ahead, knock yourself out. i mean, it's pretty weak to just toss out accusations or claims without being specific.

[MisterE]

just for the record, i thought it was clear i was pissed off 2 weeks back by stating 'go fuck yourself'. Not the nicest way to say it i'll admit, but it looks like the discussion is going pretty good without me.

carry on gentlemen

just for the record dude, and i've already pointed this out so i don't know how/why you still aren't acknowledging it, but godel did not accuse anyone of 'wearing a tin foil hat' in that other thread. he was essentially defending smetty from what he probably rightfully perceived as my own suggestions/insinuations that smett, among others, had some kind of conspiratorial thoughts about the dorner incident. godel was defending the dude. fast forward to this thread and you throwing a hissy fit, mentioning how you 'were totally pissed' about something that happened practically forever ago, and godel actually apologizes when he had absolutely no reason to. he went back and forth with me for a few comments telling me that i SHOULDN'T suggest smett was a 'tin foil hat nutter' or whatever.

 

so basically, if anything, you owe godel an apology. ass.

 

beyond that, if you can't turn your emotion machine down enough to be able to clearly read a thread and see who is actually saying what before you decide to be pissed at them, i can't really bring myself to care about whether or not you are pissed at ME.

 

and to godel, this perfectly proves MY point. i don't need to follow your advice on how to post (my supposed ad hominems), because as careful as you were/are to be totally un-confrontational, you still got someone 'pissed' at you (and he STILL is). if you don't just nod your head in agreement with whatever popular bullshit the people around here are agreeing with, you will get enemies. no matter how polite you are about it.

Do you support hemp because it's a gateway to the legalization of marajuana?

GOOD QUESTION.

Or do you support hemp because it's fashionable?

another good question.

 

actually those were both great questions, and i think they go a long way towards explaining why there is a higher % of pro-hemp people among stoners. it doesn't take a scientist to see that there is a correlation, and since industrial hemp for making products has nothing to do with smoking weed to get high, it begs the question 'why do they care about it?'

[Guest Iain C]

There's definitely a strain of that. I remember when I was an exceptionally naive, idealistic and heavily stoned teenager, I ended up on the mailing lists of a number of organisations like the Legalise Cannabis Alliance and UK Cannabis Internet Activists. Their propaganda would always rail about the world-saving prospects of industrial hemp - how it could be our only source of paper, fuel, food, textiles and all the rest of it.

 

Even then, it seemed like the wishful thinking of a bunch of activists who really, honestly, just wanted to smoke pot and get high. I've no objection to that, even with the aggressively dumb culture that surrounds it - I do it myself. Of course it should be legal.

 

And no doubt, hemp is a useful crop in other respects. We probably should grow more. But with the way society is currently structured, taking advantage of hemp's vaunted potential, as a fuel especially, would require fundamental structural change. It will not and cannot happen within capitalism as it exists at the moment. But most hemp warriors aren't advocating that - they're anchoring the "But hemp is a saviour!" argument to a far more moderate position RE legalising cannabis.

 

It's a decent tactic because it associates opposition to hemp/cannabis with an endorsement of the fossil fuels that we know are destroying our environment. But I suspect that a lot of the people making that argument will stop when cannabis is inevitably legalised across the US and later Western Europe. Prove me wrong, kids. Prove me wrong.

 

And I can't let this pass:

 

"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? "

 

If you really think this is possible, you need to put down the fucking bong. In fact just put it down anyway. You've embarrassed yourself in this thread and several others recently.

[RichieBees]

weed rules blaze chron

[YO303]

I wish the argument was "we just love smoking weed is not that bad just leave me alone"

 

To me this is more of a personal freedom issue rather than big pharma is oppressing this miracle remedy for all sorts ailments.

 

I get that the way to get this legalize is to exaggerate and lie to the public but i find that disingenuous and kind of disgusting, to be them we have to become them?

 

I just dont like scams and deceit, sometimes when i see these crusaders for weed i see lies in their eyes, i can tell they dont believe the shit they are saying, its weird.

[Hoodie]

[Adieu]

That test isn't even accurate either. Most people aren't used to driving in a coned course, a coned course isn't as easy to navigate as a street, and hitting a cone is much easier to do than hitting other things. Hitting a cone is not the same as backing into a pole.

[Hoodie]

yeah agreed. i almost hit a traffic cone when i took my driving test (sober, obviously) and, after two years of driving now, i've never hit something with my car (except a raccoon ).

 

in any case, i think it shows that the legal limit in legalized states is ridiculous, especially for daily smokers who use it for medical purposes. when someone has such a high tolerance, the inebriation they get is totally different from someone who only smokes occasionally.

 

i also like that all the drivers acknowledge that they shouldn't be driving when they feel so stoned. you don't get that with alcohol (because it lowers inhibitions, pot does not).

 

edit: one more thing. very few people smoke a gram of pot when they want to get stoned. that's just excessive, lol. to get a better idea of how much that is, here is a picture:

 

[Guest RadarJammer]

the test also illustrates that people who are really stoned (at least these people under the test conditions) realize that they shouldn't be driving. drunk people seem to miss that point most of the time

 

edit: hoodie already said that

[lumpenprol]

girl was hot.

 

and anyone thinking pot does not impair badly is kidding himself. I once drove stoned and went up on the curb and almost took out a stop sign.

[Friendly Foil]

This thread is so watmm

[zkom]

[RichieBees]

[skotosa]

girl was hot.

 

and anyone thinking pot does not impair badly is kidding himself. I once drove stoned and went up on the curb and almost took out a stop sign.

I'm not proud to admit this, but I've driven high before. I must say it was amazing though, I kept the speed limit and was cruising to some BOC. Shit was clean man... although cruising to BOC is amazing in itself

[Hoodie]

girl was hot.

 

and anyone thinking pot does not impair badly is kidding himself. I once drove stoned and went up on the curb and almost took out a stop sign.

impairment depends on a lot of factors.

 

- type of weed

- tolerance

- quantity used

- method of consumption

- time passed since consumption

- how you personally react to all of the above

 

i know people who can take a gravity bong hit and be ready to go for food twenty minutes after and they will drive totally safe. i'm not one of those people, so i don't drive when i'm blazed. it's about common sense. i think blood testing is a crappy way to determine inebriation. behavioral tests have the potential to be more accurate imo.