Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-23 13:42:28

Neither do I.

In fact, I've only smoked it a couple of times, in college. I've never actually see a marijuana plant in person. Funny, eh?

The difference is how they're grown, usually. Hemp is grown with a lot of seeds per square yard, so the leaves don't grow as full, and THC is highly reduced (it would take some 30 hemp cigarettes in an hour to get you high- your throat would be scorched long before you smoked that many). Marijuana, on the other hand, is grown with one or two individual seeds per square yard or so. Cultivated by hand so that the leaves get as much sunlight as possible. Hemp usually has a much larger seed shed where as marijuana has a lot less.

Genetically, they're the same. It's just in how you grow 'em.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 13:55:40

So let's make hemp legal, and keep marijuana in its drug form illegal. By making the drug growing industry nationalized, you can make sure that the hemp is grown in the right way.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-23 14:04:36

What's the point in nationalizing something if the private industry can't benefit? Nationalized hemp would put the oil industry and the wood industry out of business... economically, we'd need another business taking their place; one which is just as unregulated.

So you're suggesting that only government agencies can grow hemp? Or are you suggesting that one needs a license to grow hemp?

If we make hemp, ultimately legal, then there's nothing stopping people from growing marijauana fields in the middle of hemp fields. This is one of the main problems behind it.

I think that we may be able to create a non-THC derivative hemp, but since all science with regard to marijuana has been banned, there's no way we can possibly figure out how.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 14:12:25

We need to regulate industry very heavily if we let hemp become privatized. We can save all of that by keeping hemp in the hands of the government. I think only government agencies should grow hemp for the first 20 years, then slowly switch control over to a very heavily regulated private industry.

I would never let hemp become legal to be grown by the public. It's too risky.

I think we should try to find a THC-void version of hemp. Then we could let anyone grow it.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-23 14:16:15

The last time anyone tried to do any hemp research (via DOE government grant, no less! ), his fields were plowed down.

soph · 2002-12-23 14:16:25

thats ridiculous. tobacco is far worse, and its not regulated by the government. why should hemp be?

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 14:24:58

thats ridiculous. tobacco is far worse, and its not regulated by the government. why should hemp be?

As I've mentioned before, people have gotten accustomed to the free availability of tobacco over the 400 years we as Americans have had it. If we want to make sure that hemp is grown for the right purposes, we need to make sure that people get used to its availability before we let everyone dive in.

And we SHOULDN'T let people do their own hemp "research". It should be done by the government, or in close coordination with government contracted biomedical firms.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-23 14:36:43

And we SHOULDN'T let people do their own hemp "research". It should be done by the government, or in close coordination with government contracted biomedical firms.

Oh, well, this guy had a DOE grant. They gave him permission to grow it. Indeed, it was being fron on federal property. The people bulldozed it down because of an extremely irrational fear of it. The local police thought they guy could have been selling some of the hemp underhandedly, as marijuana (despite the fact that none of it was of drug value, and it takes a lot of cultivation to get some that is).

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 14:39:11

Why, I ask, would the federal government let a confirmed "reseracher" have his field bulldozed by the local police? It's a clear overlap of jurisdiction.

soph · 2002-12-23 14:41:31

oh, so now the people arent free to information? so the government is allowed to keep secret information? is this the USA, or the Soviet Union?

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-23 14:41:33

Sorry, DOA, not DOE.

http://www.welcomehome.org/cohip/PAGES/ … ABOUCH.HTM

Probably, um, because, uh, you can avoid people easily when things are done over the phone? Obviously once the field was plowed his grant money was gone. There was nothing he could do.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-23 14:43:22

BTW, Cal, what are we to do when THC-lacking hemp is create, but it looks exactly like regular hemp? Are we going to bulldoze down peoples fields, or are we going to test it first? And how do we know we're testing all of it? We'd have to sample each and every plant in a field. Or at least a majority of them.

No, this fear of hemp is unfounded.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 14:46:59

oh, so now the people arent free to information? so the government is allowed to keep secret information? is this the USA, or the Soviet Union?

No, you have a right to LEGAL information. Learning how to efficiently grow pot isn't any of your business...yet

BTW, Cal, what are we to do when THC-lacking hemp is create, but it looks exactly like regular hemp? Are we going to bulldoze down peoples fields, or are we going to test it first? And how do we know we're testing all of it? We'd have to sample each and every plant in a field. Or at least a majority of them.
No, this fear of hemp is unfounded.

Who says you can't genetically engineer this new plant farther than you already have? As long as you've got your MIT gene splicer warmed up, why not put in a fluorscent gene, or one that makes the plant bright pink?

soph · 2002-12-23 14:51:45

legal? and if hemp is legal, why should hemp research be illlegal?

and we can hardly perform gene threrapy on humans, let alone plants.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 14:55:59

legal? and if hemp is legal, why should hemp research be illlegal?

Because hemp is essentially weakling pot. I wouldn't trust anyone but the federal government or a trust contractor of the government with living marijuana seeds.

and we can hardly perform gene threrapy on humans, let alone plants.

You just compared the hardest type of therapy to the easiest. We're already building frost-resistant corn and grain, using an "anti-freeze" type gene from deep sea fish, and we even turned a monkey green (using a phosphorescent gene).

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-23 15:00:18

Who says you can't genetically engineer this new plant farther than you already have?

Uh, and who says you can't genetically engineer marijuana to look exctly like the legal version of low-THC plants? Hello? This is as ridiculous as trying to prevent copying or something similar. I'm betting you wouldn't be able to get rid of the THC completely anyway, and all it would take is a little selective breeding to take genetically engineered seeds and turn them into a heavy THC producing marijuana plant.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 15:02:43

You defeat your own arguement, Josh. You want people to legalize pot as a material, but then you admit that we couldn't tell a THC-void plant from a real one. If you can't find a way to tell safe pot from real pot, then the industry will have to remain nationalized.

soph · 2002-12-23 15:04:46

Says who? Have to nothing. Pot is hardly a health hazard. Why should it be controlled by the government? Theres no reason it needs to be.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 15:10:22

Because even though it (pot) poses fewer risks than tobacco use, it still has risks. We don't want people growing a super material in their backyards and then smoking it. The only reason I agreed we should legalize hemp is because you can't get high by a small amount of it.

Why smoke pot, and let the government have everyone grow it and then use government health programs to fix it, when you can solve your problems with a walk around the park, or a hike on the weekends, or playing video games, or playing with your dog? It blows my mind!

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-23 15:11:40

Cal, um, the way you tell them apart, is testing them for THC. Yes, you could tell them apart, simply by smoking it or doing a THC test. The question, is how you test every single plant that's being grown?

Regular hemp has a very very low quantity of THC as it is, what's the difference between it and hemp that was genetically engineered to have no THC? I'm betting that the real difference, is that the hemp void of THC doesn't grow as good...

soph · 2002-12-23 15:12:59

cal, you dont need health programs to fix it. what major health effects are there that need treatment?

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-23 15:13:17

Yes Cal, the same logic was used about people who brew their own alcohol... we don't see a national crisis because people grow their own alcohol, do we? Nope.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 15:15:22

People don't "grow" their own alcohol. Ever watched the Beverly Hillbillies? They never show you when granny mixes her sour mash wrong and drinks wood alcohol instead, instantly blinding her. Good call.

soph · 2002-12-23 15:17:36

alcohol is easy to make. add yeast, filter out yeast, drink.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-23 15:20:29

Maybe its easy if you have a "Mr. Brew" kit sitting around. Not if you're trying to distill it in a giant kettle next to the "cement pond". I can see granny slowly falling to the ground and Jethro screaming: "Ellie! Go get Mr. Drydsdale! Granny done drank a whole heaping mess a wood al-kee-hawl!"

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-12-23 13:42:28

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#27 2002-12-23 13:55:40

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#28 2002-12-23 14:04:36

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#29 2002-12-23 14:12:25

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#30 2002-12-23 14:16:15

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#31 2002-12-23 14:16:25

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#32 2002-12-23 14:24:58

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#33 2002-12-23 14:36:43

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#34 2002-12-23 14:39:11

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#35 2002-12-23 14:41:31

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#36 2002-12-23 14:41:33

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#37 2002-12-23 14:43:22

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#38 2002-12-23 14:46:59

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#39 2002-12-23 14:51:45

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#40 2002-12-23 14:55:59

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#41 2002-12-23 15:00:18

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#42 2002-12-23 15:02:43

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#43 2002-12-23 15:04:46

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#44 2002-12-23 15:10:22

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#45 2002-12-23 15:11:40

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#46 2002-12-23 15:12:59

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#47 2002-12-23 15:13:17

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#48 2002-12-23 15:15:22

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#49 2002-12-23 15:17:36

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

#50 2002-12-23 15:20:29

Re: Smoking Good Or Bad - Vote Now

Board footer