How Hemp Threatens the Corporatocracy

  On 3/11/2013 at 10:38 AM, compson said:

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).

 

Legalizing hemp is connected with legalizing weed in the US because the DEA has THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol) on the schedule I controlled substance list. Hemp has under 1% THC content, and that's why the DEA says it is illegal to grow hemp. By default once a state legalizes weed they legalize hemp. Take Colorado for instance, after legalization they are going through all of the steps now to be able to regulate growing hemp by 2014.

 

Each individual state has to assess its own profitability. Oregon did a study, and they would not profit from growing hemp, but Kentucky did one as well and will generate profit if they are able to grow hemp. The monetary value of hemp crops is assessed by individual businesses/states, which is largely based on how usable their land is. The US retail market for hemp products is growing---from 2010 $419 million, to 2011 $450 million. It's a positive trend.

 

At the same time though, if you want to talk MONETARY VALUE, then you should be looking at weed, not just hemp! This is going to be a billion dollar industry in the US. In Canada it's a 6 billion dollar annual industry. Colorado and Washington voters have already made their mark. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is right now determining the potential monetary value of the industry.

 

I'm not clear on what you're saying about oil production and pollution expenses burdening society has to do with hemp. I agree about jobs... it's as if the economy needs to improve in order to have jobs, but the economy can only improve if people have jobs. Catch-22

  On 3/11/2013 at 11:38 AM, apeterlives said:

At the same time though, if you want to talk MONETARY VALUE, then you should be looking at weed, not just hemp! This is going to be a billion dollar industry in the US. In Canada it's a 6 billion dollar annual industry. Colorado and Washington voters have already made their mark. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is right now determining the potential monetary value of the industry.

 

I'm not clear on what you're saying about oil production and pollution expenses burdening society has to do with hemp. I agree about jobs... it's as if the economy needs to improve in order to have jobs, but the economy can only improve if people have jobs. Catch-22

Hemp products being more durable and better for the environment contribute to the activism in the US for hemp and that by nature, pro-weed activism is inter-connected with that issue. Anyone who is pro-hemp will be pro-weed. As both are logical alternatives to deadlier legal toxins. Edited March 11, 2013 by compson

  On 3/11/2013 at 10:27 AM, compson said:

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.

i changed the wording because godel specifically said i was trying to 'win discussions'. i was replying directly to him. nice try tho (maybe you're trying to win the discussion comps?)

  Quote

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.

this is, to me, a non-sequitur. it does not follow that because i smoke weed, i should give any more shits about hemp. in my world those things do not pair up. but i never said that it instantly makes the argument illogical. i just don't feel that the two things ARE that related, and so i'm wondering what the connection really is. if i drink beer i do not have to give a fuck about hops or barley. and considering the fact that the pro-hemp groups will be the first ones to tell you that hemp does not actually get you high, that just makes the two things even less connected. if they understand that hemp will not get them high, then why does a higher percentage of stoners care about it than non-weed smokers? smoking weed does not make you an expert in production of... anything. smoking weed would not make you more knowledgeable about whether or not hemp makes the best rope. the thc does not contain that information directly inside it.

 

why do you want to suppress my wanting to understand the connection between the two? i'm not allowed to ask these questions or what? don't act like it's an obvious thing that needs no explanation. my liking pizza would not mean that i had to care about whether or not pizza sauce made the best contraceptive. there is a definite 'stoner culture'. fact. cultural movements can and do have their own agendas. fact. so i guess what i'm trying to get at here, is why exactly does the stoner culture care so much about hemp? and you have not explained this at all. so either you can explain to me why so many of them DO, or you shouldn't criticize me for just asking about it.

Yes, I am trying to win.

 

brb to rebuttal after I smoke a J

 

Actually haven't smoked yet, my rebuttal is already complete.

 

Anyone who is pro-hemp will be pro-weed. As both are logical alternatives to deadlier legal toxins.

 

Not all people who smoke weed will know about hemp or support hemp. And not all people who support weed will smoke weed.

Edited March 11, 2013 by compson

  On 3/11/2013 at 11:50 AM, compson said:

Anyone who is pro-hemp will be pro-weed.

 

Meet Mitch McConnell:

 

Mitch is pro hemp:

“I am convinced that allowing its production will be a positive development for Kentucky’s farm families and economy,” McConnell’s statement read, “The utilization of hemp to produce everything from clothing to paper is real and if there is a capacity to center a new domestic industry in Kentucky that will create jobs in these difficult economic times that sounds like a good thing to me.”

 

But he's also anti weed. He makes clear that he wants hemp regulated in a way “that does not compromise Kentucky law enforcement’s marijuana eradication efforts or in any way promote illegal drug use”.

 

Unrelated: I hate daylight savings time...

comps- i just did a google on hemp and found plenty of sites that were promoting hemp but weren't promoting weed. so you're wrong there.

 

your calling alternatives to industrial hemp for use in production 'deadlier toxins' is a nice attempt at trying to relate the two entirely unrelated things, but it only an attempt. it doesn't really explain why a high % of people who like to get baked all day care about industrial hemp.

Edited March 11, 2013 by MisterE

“I am convinced that legalizing its production/distribution will be a positive development for Kentucky’s farm families and economy” McConnell’s statement read, “The utilization of weed to produce everything from safer recreational use to medical purposes is real and if there is a capacity to center a new domestic industry in Kentucky that will create jobs in these difficult economic times that sounds like a good thing to me.”

 

aka he's a republican politician in Kentucky, not a person who really expresses logic/science... someone who has major biases

i understand why he is against it after weed smugglers kidnapped his upper lip

  On 3/11/2013 at 12:28 PM, MisterE said:

MisterE, on 11 Mar 2013 - 04:35, said:

comps- i just did a google on hemp and found plenty of sites that were promoting hemp but weren't promoting weed. so you're wrong there.

 

your calling alternatives to industrial hemp for use in production 'deadlier toxins' is a nice attempt at trying to relate the two entirely unrelated things, but it only an attempt. it doesn't really explain why a high % of people who like to get baked all day care about industrial hemp.

link the sites

 

Just because they weren't promoting weed, doesn't mean if hard pressed they wouldn't favor decriminalization/legalization of marijuana. If you are pro-hemp manufacturing in the US, you have to be annoyed with the US Government drug laws that are permitting this.

 

Further, I don't really understand why a high percentage of stoners agreeing about something negates it. A high degree of stoners think weed should be legalized/decriminalized! Does that mean they are wrong?

 

Silly propaganda tactics, characterizing the activism as stupid because the activists smoke weed. Who are you Ronald Reagan?

 

If you are gonna debate, please bring something to the table that is either for or against hemp/weed etc. Your semantics is growing tiring.

Edited March 11, 2013 by compson

Wow, great thread! WATMM is so good lately.

 

I think what we're missing here is some good old data. There are lots of good thoughts in here, but what people are calling "logic" is mostly just intuition or hypothesis. Knowing the answers to these questions would clear up a lot:

 

1) How much land/energy would it take to replace the current paper, plastic, cotton, and fuel industries with hemp? (By my guess, these products would be the most disruptive on the market.)

 

2) How energy-intensive/wasteful is converting hemp into replacements for these products? How does that compare to the energy and waste produced from the current products?

 

My guess is that hemp is capable of putting a dent in these products but not replacing them entirely, in volume. I also guess that hemp is way cleaner in terms of emissions, but if it's inefficient to grow & convert, it could be an environmental drag.

 

As an environmentalist, I am always hoping we will find a cleaner, better way to do things. I really want hemp to be that way. If the data I'm looking for exists, it will go a long way in convincing me one way or the other.

And in question 1 I meant "to be equivalent to the current production", not the resources it would take to change over production. That's separately interesting but only becomes an issue if the first two questions are answered.

  On 3/11/2013 at 5:15 AM, apeterlives said:

Just today New Hampshire was voting on pro hemp farming laws. Last time they voted for hemp farming the senate said they wanted to study it further and delayed it. They'll probably be the first, hah "live free or die".

 

Information about trees in US is misleading -- US has more trees today than 100 years ago.

 

More like New Hempshire.

can mankind live in dyson spheres full of hemp?

also has anyone said about RT being awful lolz (no offenc 2 awp+ur sister)

  On 3/11/2013 at 3:04 AM, Awepittance said:

glad to hear it. If anybody here has interesting or under reported stories they think should be on Breaking the Set, let me know in this thread and I'll pass them along to Abby if they pique my interest.

she should look at freemasonery behind most of the things, but I think you already know that...

haha awp can ur sister do a segment on the hidden banking cartels and OBAMA mind control FEMA deathcamps and the aurora shooting (result of MKULtra mind control CIA mind interrogation techniques) and also the pyramds (how did they even move stones back in the day i hear they had a special helmet which allowed them to levitate the blocks via sound wave manipulation) also about how NATO is really bad and how great gadaffi is / was THANK YOU

  On 3/11/2013 at 8:59 AM, MisterE said:

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.

 

 

no

  On 3/11/2013 at 3:12 PM, RichieBees said:

can mankind live in dyson spheres full of hemp?

also has anyone said about RT being awful lolz (no offenc 2 awp+ur sister)

With it being illegal, we may never know.

Edited March 11, 2013 by ZiggomaticV17

  On 3/11/2013 at 5:45 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 3/11/2013 at 8:59 AM, MisterE said:

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.

 

 

no

yeah, double no.

 

parasites leach off a host till it dies then move on or die with it.

Hemp is not a perfect solution. It would take lots of $ and research+development to manufacture and refine processes of using hemp bi-products as a complete or over half replacement of what the petroleum/plastics/cotton/logging industries fulfill in terms of supply and demand. Hemp is indeed a versatile and amazingly useful plant, like it or not.

 

Its like the fact that we have had the technology and ability to make cars get 50+ miles a gallon for well over 20 years, but have slowly implemented these things into being sold to the market over a few decades. People who make money will keep on doing whatever that thing is to maximize, plan around and protect that way of making money, its called business.

 

Another thing to note is that has only been 'illegal' for less than 200 years, it was a huge part of early America, and about 75% of the world where it grows. Lets get back to our roots. Literally.

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.

"Information about trees in US is misleading -- US has more trees today than 100 years ago."

 

FYI, this isn't a meaningful way to look at deforestation. The number of trees is not the important variable here, and a timeframe of 100 years (meaning they are comparing today's data with data from 1913) is also misleading - forestry in the US had already been going on for generations by 1913, and environmental awareness was at a seeming low point in the 1910's. It's more than a bit strange to suggest that the raw number of trees on the land is an indicator of forest health. As trees are removed from the land, soil is degraded. A tree farm is not a forest, and doesn't support the same amount of life or microclimates in the soil. The trees may be higher in number now, but the land is far less healthy. I can link up some literature later if people want to know more about that, but it's kinda basic knowledge. Just sayin.

Good points luke.

 

 

MIsterE...

 

  On 3/11/2013 at 7:35 PM, luke viia said:

FYI, this isn't a meaningful way to look at deforestation. The number of trees is not the important variable here, and a timeframe of 100 years (meaning they are comparing today's data with data from 1913) is also misleading - forestry in the US had already been going on for generations by 1913, and environmental awareness was at a seeming low point in the 1910's. It's more than a bit strange to suggest that the raw number of trees on the land is an indicator of forest health.

Why isn't it a meaningful way to look at deforestation in North America? Yes, today US forest land is at 2/3 of what it was in 1600, but by the 1920s this stabilized and today we are seeing forest growth, about four times as much as in 1920. The US is the biggest producer and consumer of forest products, yet since 1940 there has been a positive trend in increasing forest growth. There are rules in place to protect biodiversity in the US...the biggest threat to US forests has not been manufacturing but wildfires. But it's a different story if you look at deforestation worldwide. The reason I was talking about the US specifically is because that's where this hemp issue is hot with the idea that hemp production will create dramatic ecological change... I have to wonder in the US how much of a difference hemp will really make in that regard. That's why they're doing the studies now I guess, but those are mainly to assess profitability.

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

Edited March 11, 2013 by luke viia

(@ compson)

Edited March 11, 2013 by Iain C

Yes, Iain?

 

 

(nvm)

Edited March 11, 2013 by luke viia