Yeah I know it won't happen but the two should really be mutually exclusive. You aren't going to smoke hemp to get high, just like you aren't going to grow pot to make a pair of jeans
This thread smells like patchouli.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's just practical, in the same sense that Australia shouldn't grow rice, being the driest country in the world.
Jared diamond covered that in 'collapse'. Basically how the early colonists to Australia tried to mimic the agriculture in their homeland and the negative impact it had on the environmentJaekus wrote:
It's just practical, in the same sense that Australia shouldn't grow rice, being the driest country in the world.
Yeah it's becoming quite an issue here. The Murray-Darling river basin is basically fucked from Agriculture, and it's the biggest river system in Australia, the city of Adelaide gets all their drinking water from it (kinda lol). All up the river the cotton and rice farmers are lobbying all their local MPs and crying out how water restrictions will basically fuck over their third/fourth generation farms. What they're not realising is that by being selfish they're fucking themselves and everyone else over. One farmer on tv a while back said he switched to corn and now has no dramas. It's just people's inability to adapt that creates these ongoing problems, and it shouldn't really happen in this day and age to this extent.
/rant
/rant
Adelaide is pretty much Australia's hick asshole isn't it?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That's Darwin. Adelaide has a pretty alternative scene there.
Last edited by Jaekus (2012-01-23 16:21:44)
lol we make enough rice to impact global marketsJaekus wrote:
It's just practical, in the same sense that Australia shouldn't grow rice, being the driest country in the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/busin … wanted=all
some parts of Australia are pretty wet namely northern QLD.
Jay: anything that's not sydney and melbourne is pretty hick imo But Darwin is a fucking hole.
Since real hemp has a low enough cannabinoid content not to be worth worrying about, and that could be bred out anyway 'hemp is useful' is a stupid argument for legalising recreational use of other varieties for getting stoned.Jaekus wrote:
I still think the hemp debate should be separate from the weed debate, mainly for the paper production angle.
Polystyrene is useful, people shouldn't be allowed to smoke it, poppies are pretty, people shouldn't be injecting heroin and so on...
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Yeah that's my point. Just because hemp comes from the cannabis genus of plants does not mean it should be illegal. Like you said, you can buy poppies, just not the ones you make opiates from (though if you live in Tassie you can just jump a rusty barbed wire fence on the side of the road and grab a few if you wanted) and use the seeds to make cake or just have them as plants, whatever.Dilbert_X wrote:
Since real hemp has a low enough cannabinoid content not to be worth worrying about, and that could be bred out anyway 'hemp is useful' is a stupid argument for legalising recreational use of other varieties for getting stoned.Jaekus wrote:
I still think the hemp debate should be separate from the weed debate, mainly for the paper production angle.
Polystyrene is useful, people shouldn't be allowed to smoke it, poppies are pretty, people shouldn't be injecting heroin and so on...
There's no proper argument why hemp is still so restricted, due to it's minimal THC content. It's a separate issue entirely.
Hemp isn't illegal. There are tons of hemp products available. It's just not widespread.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The whole article goes into depth explaining things a bit more. I condensed it down as much as I could.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/1 … rug-court/
NJ laws are pretty draconian when it comes to pot (relative to similar states). A good move by any standard. It could be better but you take what you can get.
There's a bit more to it than both sides coming together to get something good done. If you aren't familiar with NJ politics: NJ state government had to deal with a massive budget gap the last few years. Since states can't collect debt they have to find some sort of way to cut cost and increase revenue. Christie and the other Repubs and have been trying to lure businesses and others back while also preventing ant tax increases. In order to meet obligations the democrats refuse to give up, the state is looking for other creative ways to save money. Stopping people from going to prison for drug use is one of them.
tl;dr : The state doesn't care for drug offenders or reducing crime but just want to save money.
If people want to see the war on drugs end they have to focus on the economic side of it. Arguing for someones basic right to their bodies won't work. Putting something into a cost-benefit
On a sidenote
He's very American (in attitude and demeanor), he's building up a reputation for effectiveness, and has shown willingness to work with the other side. If Obama wins 2012, the Fatman has a good shot at 2016.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/1 … -viol.htmlGov. Chris Christie said New Jersey’s 15-year-old drug court program will be expanded as part of a plan to ease inmates’ transitions back to broader society and to get help for addicts who are involved in many crimes.
The move came with an admission from the Republican governor. The so-called “War on Drugs,” which brought harsh penalties to drug offenders, hasn’t worked, he said.
...
Flanked by former prisoners being trained at a food kitchen in Camden, Christie called for expanding the state’s Drug Court Program — which offers non-violent drug addicts treatment and counseling rather than prison sentences — by making it mandatory for certain offenders.
About 8 percent of those who participate in the drug courts, which are available statewide and accept about 1,400 new participants each year, are convicted again — as compared to 43 percent of drug offenders released from prison, statistics show. Also, drug court participants cost taxpayers about $11,379 a year, as opposed to the $38,900 for the average prison inmate.
...
The Governor's initiative calls for:
• Expanding the state's Drug Court program, which allows those convicted of certain non-violent drug offenses to bypass incarceration by agreeing to a strict regimen of court appearances and drug or alcohol treatment and other recovery services to break the addiction.
• The creation of the Task Force for Recidivism Reduction, which will be co-chaired by attorney Lisa Puglisi, formerly of the state Department of Corrections and the State Parole Board, and James Plousis, chairman of the State Parole Board. The task force will coordinate the many treatment and reentry programs across the state government to bolster reentry efforts, as well as make recommendations to the governor on how to improve those programs.
• The task force will also assess the effectiveness of all reentry programs currently offered using a real-time recidivism database, which will allow officials to track individuals and the success of the programs they participate in. Using the data, the task force will identify programs that fail and suggest how resources could be better spent to improve recidivism rates.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/1 … rug-court/
NJ laws are pretty draconian when it comes to pot (relative to similar states). A good move by any standard. It could be better but you take what you can get.
There's a bit more to it than both sides coming together to get something good done. If you aren't familiar with NJ politics: NJ state government had to deal with a massive budget gap the last few years. Since states can't collect debt they have to find some sort of way to cut cost and increase revenue. Christie and the other Repubs and have been trying to lure businesses and others back while also preventing ant tax increases. In order to meet obligations the democrats refuse to give up, the state is looking for other creative ways to save money. Stopping people from going to prison for drug use is one of them.
tl;dr : The state doesn't care for drug offenders or reducing crime but just want to save money.
If people want to see the war on drugs end they have to focus on the economic side of it. Arguing for someones basic right to their bodies won't work. Putting something into a cost-benefit
On a sidenote
NYT called him the most successful post '08 governor in the country. According to them he has shown results and has done it with bipartisan support. He's a republican and NYT is famously liberal...Christie’s announcement was also welcomed by other Democrats, including Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), who has proposed his own programs to get non-violent offenders out from behind bars.
He's very American (in attitude and demeanor), he's building up a reputation for effectiveness, and has shown willingness to work with the other side. If Obama wins 2012, the Fatman has a good shot at 2016.
I'd vote for Christie. It was smart for him to stay out of this presidential race though.
I don't think the GOP is quite ready to come to its senses yet. It has to suffer through a Romney/Gingrich/Santorum nomination before it will.
I don't think the GOP is quite ready to come to its senses yet. It has to suffer through a Romney/Gingrich/Santorum nomination before it will.
Last edited by Turquoise (2012-01-27 14:32:47)
Whilst that is true, it doesn't present a very accurate picture of what actually happened. Cannabis was temporarily downgraded from class B to C, effectively decriminalising it (not legalising). Put in proper context, it doesn't represent a step in the wrong direction at all.jord wrote:
Actually britain took a step in the wrong direction a couple of years ago and changed cannabis to a class B drug, from class C.
There are few compelling reasons for legalisation of cannabis from the perspective of the state. The first is money - legalisation and taxation creates a whole new taxable industry which could generate up to around £3.5 billion per year in tax for the government, there would also be savings for law enforcement costs, but in comparison these would be negligible. The second is prevention of criminalisation of a large number of people who aside from choosing to indulge in smoking some weed from time to time are productive members of society who do not represent a threat to anyone.
The main argument for legalisation of cannabis is simply "why not?". There are no convincing reasons for it being illegal. It does damage your health, but the current conclusions of studies into this show that it has very minor effects on physical health (the only two dedicated widespread medical studies (more than 1000 participants) into health consequences of this have shown that regular cannabis use does not damage lung function or contribute to any forms of lung, head, neck or throat cancer). Studies into effects on mental health are less conclusive (but then they always are). The main view being that it can contribute to mental illness in those pre-disposed to it and that it has an anti-motivational effect which can lead to a very unproductive lifestyle for users.
Granted I didn't know the change was temporary, but how can you say class C back to B is not a step in the wrong direction?Bertster7 wrote:
Whilst that is true, it doesn't present a very accurate picture of what actually happened. Cannabis was temporarily downgraded from class B to C, effectively decriminalising it (not legalising). Put in proper context, it doesn't represent a step in the wrong direction at all.jord wrote:
Actually britain took a step in the wrong direction a couple of years ago and changed cannabis to a class B drug, from class C.
I think he was referring to the move from B to C, even though temporary.
Putting one's toes in the pool, as it were.
Putting one's toes in the pool, as it were.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Exactly.FEOS wrote:
I think he was referring to the move from B to C, even though temporary.
Putting one's toes in the pool, as it were.
The willingness to give it a try was a step in the right direction.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2012-01-28 09:26:38)
As someone exposed to alcoholics and potheads in my family, as well as having a few too many drinks myself from time to time, I just cannot understand the logic behind banning marijuana use.Bertster7 wrote:
The main argument for legalisation of cannabis is simply "why not?". There are no convincing reasons for it being illegal. It does damage your health, but the current conclusions of studies into this show that it has very minor effects on physical health (the only two dedicated widespread medical studies (more than 1000 participants) into health consequences of this have shown that regular cannabis use does not damage lung function or contribute to any forms of lung, head, neck or throat cancer). Studies into effects on mental health are less conclusive (but then they always are). The main view being that it can contribute to mental illness in those pre-disposed to it and that it has an anti-motivational effect which can lead to a very unproductive lifestyle for users.
IMHO smoking marijuana daily (whatever the amount) will always be healthier (mentally, physically, emotionally) than drinking liquor on a daily basis. I challenge anyone in the world to argue the opposite.
Marijuana should be legal.
And i totally agree with this:
And i totally agree with this:
I never understood what the hell is wrong with people's minds. You drink 1 bottle of vodka and you're the damn man awesome top shit drunk dude. Doesn't really matter if you go into your car and drive home and if you'll be lucky you won't kill someone in the process. You smoke 1 joint and they treat you like you're the worst drug addict/dealer/junkie of all time.Spearhead wrote:
IMHO smoking marijuana daily (whatever the amount) will always be healthier (mentally, physically, emotionally) than drinking liquor on a daily basis. I challenge anyone in the world to argue the opposite.
Last edited by LittleBitchy (2012-01-31 00:28:40)
Fall seven times. Stand up eight.
It's probably a cultural thing. Afghans and the Taliban apparently get high as fuck smoking opium but alcohol is seen as a big no no
I argue the opposite, how about you prove your argument first?Spearhead wrote:
IMHO smoking marijuana daily (whatever the amount) will always be healthier (mentally, physically, emotionally) than drinking liquor on a daily basis. I challenge anyone in the world to argue the opposite.
Alcohol is well understood, there is barely any data available for marijuana.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Yeah, basically.Jay wrote:
Adelaide is pretty much Australia's hick asshole isn't it?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Haha, quality post - saved me from having to make a similar rant about the horrors of the MDB. Oh no I can't flood irrigate my rice crop every six months in the middle of a 100-year drought, woe is me...Jaekus wrote:
Yeah it's becoming quite an issue here. The Murray-Darling river basin is basically fucked from Agriculture, and it's the biggest river system in Australia, the city of Adelaide gets all their drinking water from it (kinda lol). All up the river the cotton and rice farmers are lobbying all their local MPs and crying out how water restrictions will basically fuck over their third/fourth generation farms. What they're not realising is that by being selfish they're fucking themselves and everyone else over. One farmer on tv a while back said he switched to corn and now has no dramas. It's just people's inability to adapt that creates these ongoing problems, and it shouldn't really happen in this day and age to this extent.
/rant
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
NSW farmers are pretty stupid.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!