News about durgs 2011 - interesting shit you want to know about
266 replies, posted
Until they realise that Hemp was made illegal long after it was made obsolete as a industrial material.
you're still dumb sobotnik
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;31900844]you said "I still wouldn't touch any of that [I]shit[/I] with a ten foot barge pole" Whether you meant it or not, that isn't really neutral, and it makes a comment about those who would choose to use it.[/QUOTE]
I use shit as a general noun, often as a replacement for 'stuff'.
That doesn't mean that I consider it to be any less unpleasant. But if there is one thing I understand, it's that people have the right to do what they will.
[QUOTE=TehWhale;31902715]you're still dumb sobotnik[/QUOTE]
But I am correct on Cotton being better for cloth than Hemp.
but yet hemp is the strongest natural fiber?!?!??
[QUOTE=TehWhale;31902887]but yet hemp is the strongest natural fiber?!?!??[/QUOTE]
And very inefficient to grow, process, spin and weave into cloth in comparison to Cotton for example.
Also the strongest natural fibre is actually spider silk, some scientists managing to genetically modify a goat to produce a milk that allows this fibre to be extracted for use. (Silk is great but the difficulty is in getting the bloody thing.)
extract silk from a spider
ok
[QUOTE=TehWhale;31903123]extract silk from a spider
ok[/QUOTE]
Like eating 4 pounds of raw chicken for a bet, turns out its hard.
Now luckily the goat-milk-silk method is a bit more easier.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31902844]But I am correct on Cotton being better for cloth than Hemp.[/QUOTE]
No, you're not. I know you keep spewing this crap, but you're fucking wrong.
Hemp is a fantastic fibre and the industrial uses for it are huge. Do you even know why marijauna was illegalized(hemp too) in the 20's? Henry Ansligner was a senator who was owned by the paper companies and big pharma. Because of this, he made it illegal because they feared it was a superior product for many textiles and that it's complicated chemistry would make it a powerful use in pharma, but at the time, it wasn't possible to patent a plant.
It's a very viable material even today. Hemp shirts and hemp clothing is of extreme quality when made well(not some hippy enclave) and lasts much longer than cotton.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31903643]No, you're not. I know you keep spewing this crap, but you're fucking wrong.
Hemp is a fantastic fibre and the industrial uses for it are huge. Do you even know why marijauna was illegalized(hemp too) in the 20's? Henry Ansligner was a senator who was owned by the paper companies and big pharma. Because of this, he made it illegal because they feared it was a superior product for many textiles and that it's complicated chemistry would make it a powerful use in pharma, but at the time, it wasn't possible to patent a plant.
It's a very viable material even today. [B]Hemp shirts and hemp clothing is of extreme quality when made well(not some hippy enclave) and lasts much longer than cotton[/B].[/QUOTE]
I can attest to this, my hemp shoes are still in good nick now
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31903643]No, you're not. I know you keep spewing this crap, but you're fucking wrong.
Hemp is a fantastic fibre and the industrial uses for it are huge. Do you even know why marijauna was illegalized(hemp too) in the 20's? Henry Ansligner was a senator who was owned by the paper companies and big pharma. Because of this, he made it illegal because they feared it was a superior product for many textiles and that it's complicated chemistry would make it a powerful use in pharma, but at the time, it wasn't possible to patent a plant.
It's a very viable material even today. Hemp shirts and hemp clothing is of extreme quality when made well(not some hippy enclave) and lasts much longer than cotton.[/QUOTE]
If it was such a brilliant fibre, and had been farmed for thousands of years please explain why Cotton superseded it in the 18th century, and the fact that before wood pulp was used for paper cotton was used.
Hemp was good at its original purpose, a jack of all trades. Beyond that its been made obsolete. Plus the actual first laws to ban them began in 1906?
Plus if he feared it was superior, then why had it been shown to be inferior ever since the flying shuttle was invented?
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;31903736]I can attest to this, my hemp shoes are still in good nick now[/QUOTE]
I wear leather shoes, a cotton shirt and pants. I wear woolen socks and a jumper along with a polyester necktie. My coat has a cotton shell and a polyester lining.
They all have served me well for good time, with the tie having lasted 6 years and still doing excellently and my coat as well. (The shoes requiring replacement every 2 years due to heavy use.)
[QUOTE=confinedUser;31866571]there's one thing MDMA burns through serotonin levels leaving you depressed all drugs cause some sort of damage even weed, weed is not good for the heart in anyway but is a great aphrodisiac[/QUOTE]
Weird, weed turns me off for some reason :v:
[editline]23rd August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;31903736]I can attest to this, my hemp shoes are still in good nick now[/QUOTE]
Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.
[editline]23rd August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31903643]No, you're not. I know you keep spewing this crap, but you're fucking wrong.
Hemp is a fantastic fibre and the industrial uses for it are huge. Do you even know why marijauna was illegalized(hemp too) in the 20's? Henry Ansligner was a senator who was owned by the paper companies and big pharma. Because of this, he made it illegal because they feared it was a superior product for many textiles and that it's complicated chemistry would make it a powerful use in pharma, but at the time, it wasn't possible to patent a plant.
It's a very viable material even today. Hemp shirts and hemp clothing is of extreme quality when made well(not some hippy enclave) and lasts much longer than cotton.[/QUOTE]
Make a claim, back it up.
[QUOTE=Swilly;31903771]
Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.
[/QUOTE]
I know, I wasn't trying to state a definite fact, just saying "hey, that's true for my shoes"
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31901261]Today a small number seems insistent that the ability to smoke some plant leaves is as important as this when clearly it isn't.[/QUOTE]
You're right, smoking pot isn't important, smoking pot without being criminalized is.
[url]http://www.ourwardfamily.com/cotton_trade.htm[/url]
At one point cotton made 4-5% of the national income of Britain, and by 1812 had reached 8%.
Now America is interesting, due to the fact that yes it did grow hemp. However you must consider that at the time America consisted of a few cities, and was mainly agricultural and had very poor industry. It did not necessarily possess the ability to produce cotton cloth the way Britain could until much later.
[QUOTE=edberg;31904015]You're right, smoking pot isn't important, smoking pot without being criminalized is.[/QUOTE]
That's essentially what I mean.
[url]http://www.informationdistillery.com/hemp.htm[/url]
not the best source but it gets across the point that it's not outdated.
[editline]23rd August 2011[/editline]
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/econ9631
Some proof there's still a strong desire to grow it.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31909348][url]http://www.informationdistillery.com/hemp.htm[/url]
not the best source but it gets across the point that it's not outdated.
[editline]23rd August 2011[/editline]
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/econ9631
Some proof there's still a strong desire to grow it.[/QUOTE]
Yet none of the sources given actually show or are too outdated to prove that Hemp is a useful material to this day or even in the early 1900s.
[QUOTE=Swilly;31909388]Yet none of the sources given actually show or are too outdated to prove that Hemp is a useful material to this day or even in the early 1900s.[/QUOTE]
If you say so
[url]http://davesgarden.com/guides/articles/view/1886/#b[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp[/url]
[quote]Since 2007, commercial success of hemp food products has grown considerably.[/quote]
I mean, that's gotta be 100% bullshit, right swilly?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31909348][url]http://www.informationdistillery.com/hemp.htm[/url]
not the best source but it gets across the point that it's not outdated.
[editline]23rd August 2011[/editline]
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/econ9631
Some proof there's still a strong desire to grow it.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't excuse the fact that Hemp was made obsolete at the time that only one country in the world had any factories with steam powered machinery.
Cotton and Jute are damn useful. Both grown in vast efficient quantities in India before being shipped to Britain where it was mass produced into cloth and sacks respectively.
By the time the first law towards banning it was enacted (In 1906) all the steam locomotives in America were pulling wagons with sacks made of jute holding goods inside them, and most people on board the train would be wearing cotton clothing reading off wood pulp newspapers and books. The posh carriages would have silken curtains and the men inside would be smoking tobacco in pipes.
People are right in that it was money that meant that Hemp isn't used to make everything. What they get wrong is that it is simply too expensive and inefficient to use Hemp, rather than there being any actual competition from it.
Even if people sell it, well fuck them. I'm not buying it unless it is A: cheaper and B: better in most aspects to what it is intending to replace.
I remember when I was all anti-drugs and stuff. And then I smoked weed and was like "holy shit, why was I against this?"
People make it out to seem worse than it is. Also, something I noticed: It's not that weed makes you hungry, it just makes you never full.
[editline]23rd August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31909523]That doesn't excuse the fact that Hemp was made obsolete at the time that only one country in the world had any factories with steam powered machinery.
Cotton and Jute are damn useful. Both grown in vast efficient quantities in India before being shipped to Britain where it was mass produced into cloth and sacks respectively.
By the time the first law towards banning it was enacted (In 1906) all the steam locomotives in America were pulling wagons with sacks made of jute holding goods inside them, and most people on board the train would be wearing cotton clothing reading off wood pulp newspapers and books. The posh carriages would have silken curtains and the men inside would be smoking tobacco in pipes.
People are right in that it was money that meant that Hemp isn't used to make everything. What they get wrong is that it is simply too expensive and inefficient to use Hemp, rather than there being any actual competition from it.[/QUOTE]
Give up bro, what are you like 13 and following the ideas of DARE?
[QUOTE=lemonlimecom;31909569]I remember when I was all anti-drugs and stuff. And then I smoked weed and was like "holy shit, why was I against this?"
People make it out to seem worse than it is. Also, something I noticed: It's not that weed makes you hungry, it just makes you never full.
[editline]23rd August 2011[/editline]
Give up bro, what are you like 13 and following the ideas of DARE?[/QUOTE]
If you have read the thread you would actually see that I am somewhat for its legalisation as it has no reason to be. I however hate it when pot smokers claim of its miraculous uses when in fact they have about as much credibility as snake oil.
you might be for legalization, but you're still really dumb
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31909649]If you have read the thread you would actually see that I am somewhat for its legalisation as it has no reason to be. I however hate it when pot smokers claim of its miraculous uses when in fact they have about as much credibility as snake oil.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the thing is, I don't give enough of a fuck to look through the thread and argue with some douchebag via the internet.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31909649]If you have read the thread you would actually see that I am somewhat for its legalisation as it has no reason to be. I however hate it when pot smokers claim of its miraculous uses when in fact they have about as much credibility as snake oil.[/QUOTE]
You act like it's useless when it's not. While you've said repeatedly it's bested by other materials, you leave out that those materials have had more accepted use for the most important part of our history, the last 100 years. Modern day techniques and technology have shown hemp to be a very great fibre, no one ever said the word miraculous so ease the fuck off on that.
[editline]23rd August 2011[/editline]
Cole Phelps is way too eerily fitting of an avatar for you.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31909694]You act like it's useless when it's not. While you've said repeatedly it's bested by other materials, you leave out that those materials have had more accepted use for the most important part of our history, the last 100 years. Modern day techniques and technology have shown hemp to be a very great fibre, no one ever said the word miraculous so ease the fuck off on that.
[editline]23rd August 2011[/editline]
Cole Phelps is way too eerily fitting of an avatar for you.[/QUOTE]
If it is such a great fibre explain why production of it declined massively during the 19th century then?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31909694]Cole Phelps is way too eerily fitting of an avatar for you.[/QUOTE]
So a self-righteous, condescending douchebag?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31909714]If it is such a great fibre explain why production of it declined massively during the 19th century then?[/QUOTE]because it was...made illegal?????
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31909714]If it is such a great fibre explain why production of it declined massively during the 19th century then?[/QUOTE]
I guess industrialization, chance, and greed wouldn't affect anything in your mind, Mr Phelps.
[QUOTE=TehWhale;31909728]because it was...made illegal?????[/QUOTE]
The fact it was made illegal in the early 20th century? A full century after production of hemp began to decline?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31909731]I guess industrialization, chance, and greed wouldn't affect anything in your mind, Mr Phelps.[/QUOTE]
I think its more a case that hemp growers were unable to compete, and switched to more profitable and sensible ways of generating income.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31909750]The fact it was made illegal in the early 20th century? A full century after production of hemp began to decline?[/QUOTE]
I really don't believe that capitalism of the early 19th century and beyond was fair to all products. Cotton became established faster and deeper. Hemp didn't get that same treatment.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.