News about durgs 2011 - interesting shit you want to know about
266 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31909750]The fact it was made illegal in the early 20th century? A full century after production of hemp began to decline?
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]hemp is easy as fuck to grow and very profitable
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31909790]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.[/QUOTE]
No, I think it was that cotton was simply more sensible. The flying shuttle came along first, followed by improving shuttle looms to eventual steam power and automation. The time it took for cotton to go from cottages to factories took a century at the least.
Added to this was that Britain was the first to do this, and for a good few more decades you could grow it and make money, yet surprisingly nobody was bothered with inventing any machine to increase hemp production.
Cotton became king for a reason, and during the centuries in which it did it seems to be surprising that Hemp did not even attempt to innovate in any way and simply declined and died out as an industry.
There's a reason it died out, and that same reason is why it won't make a successful comeback now. Even then in Britain the main textile was wool since the middle ages rather than hemp. So you could say that for around 8 centuries since the wool trade began Hemp did essentially fuck all.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31909880]No, I think it was that cotton was simply more sensible. The flying shuttle came along first, followed by improving shuttle looms to eventual steam power and automation. The time it took for cotton to go from cottages to factories took a century at the least.
Added to this was that Britain was the first to do this, and for a good few more decades you could grow it and make money, yet surprisingly nobody was bothered with inventing any machine to increase hemp production.[/QUOTE]
You just said EXACTLY what I was talking about as to why one got ahead of the other.
Why would they invent that when they're already raking in money over another material.
The reason why they shut down the hemp industry is because it was by far more efficient then paper and the paper industries were all dying.
[QUOTE=Pappa Smurf;31909932]The reason why they shut down the hemp industry is because it was by far more efficient then paper and the paper industries were all dying.[/QUOTE]
What...?
Hemp costs six times as much as wood pulp paper to make.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31909910]You just said EXACTLY what I was talking about as to why one got ahead of the other.
Why would they invent that when they're already raking in money over another material.[/QUOTE]
No, the hemp growers themselves. Surely at the same time they would invent machines to help them with hemp.
You know, since hemp growers wanted cash surely they would have discovered ways to make more money off it. The case seems to be that they were unable to and/or unwilling and simply got slowly overtaken at first by wool then cotton. (This was over the course of several centuries mind so they had plenty of time)
And grows 100x as fast as a tree
owne~
[QUOTE=TehWhale;31910007]And grows 100x as fast as a tree
owne~[/QUOTE]
Meanwhile the tree is probably 10,000 times larger, making it 100 times as efficient to grow in that case.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31909990]What...?
Hemp costs six times as much as wood pulp paper to make.
No, the hemp growers themselves. Surely at the same time they would invent machines to help them with hemp.
You know, since hemp growers wanted cash surely they would have discovered ways to make more money off it. The case seems to be that they were unable to and/or unwilling and simply got slowly overtaken at first by wool then cotton. (This was over the course of several centuries mind so they had plenty of time)[/QUOTE]
Maybe the individuals themselves weren't capable of innovation like that and failed for those reasons? What if they were crushed by competition too late?
You're ignoring that it's been seeing a resurgence in it's industrial and commercial uses which are various and many. Go ahead and ignore that like you seem to with most things.
[editline]23rd August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31910155]Meanwhile the tree is probably 10,000 times larger, making it 100 times as efficient to grow in that case.[/QUOTE]
Which takes a huge amount of time longer than a large crop that crops out often.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31909990]What...?
Hemp costs six times as much as wood pulp paper to make.
No, the hemp growers themselves. Surely at the same time they would invent machines to help them with hemp.
You know, since hemp growers wanted cash surely they would have discovered ways to make more money off it. The case seems to be that they were unable to and/or unwilling and simply got slowly overtaken at first by wool then cotton. (This was over the course of several centuries mind so they had plenty of time)[/QUOTE]
Actually 1 acre of hemp is equivalent to like 4.1 acres of trees i believe.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31910198]Which takes a huge amount of time longer than a large crop that crops out often.[/QUOTE]
No, fast growing pine trees have greater volume and use room more efficiently than hemp. If you have say 60 fields set aside you could harvest one every sixth months continually.
[QUOTE=Pappa Smurf;31910278]Actually 1 acre of hemp is equivalent to like 4.1 acres of trees i believe.[/QUOTE]
There's also the fact that you can only use a third of the hemp plant for paper production.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31910309]No, fast growing pine trees have greater volume and use room more efficiently than hemp. If you have say 60 fields set aside you could harvest one every sixth months continually.[/QUOTE]
Where as you can divide those 60 fields up into thirds and harvest 20 fields every 2 months and receive a huge crop out. You really don't seem to understand how much weed can be grown in a small field, let alone a room.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31910309]No, fast growing pine trees have greater volume and use room more efficiently than hemp. If you have say 60 fields set aside you could harvest one every sixth months continually.
There's also the fact that you can only use a third of the hemp plant for paper production.[/QUOTE]But you can use the rest of it for everything else
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31910343]Where as you can divide those 60 fields up into thirds and harvest 20 fields every 2 months and receive a huge crop out. You really don't seem to understand how much weed can be grown in a small field, let alone a room.[/QUOTE]
You don't seem to understand the scale of timber production. The trees are packed for maximum density and grow incredibly tall quite quickly. (Actually more 20 years than 30 come to think of it.) Plus with advances in technology and infrastructure production and efficiency will increase.
Timber is at the present moment vastly on a much bigger scale than hemp, which exists basically on the fringe selling speciality products.
In fact Hemp is actually still on the decline, in 1991 worldwide production was 120,000 tons a year for hemp paper, and in 2003 it had declined by as much as 60,000 tons.
Hemp also suffers from rot when used as rope, and in Western Europe, nobody banned the cultivation of hemp in the 1930s but the commercial cultivation ceased almost anyhow in the decades after the 1930s.
Cannabis will not cure /everydisease/ but it should not be illegal.
/thread
[editline]24th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31910417]You don't seem to understand the scale of timber production. The trees are packed for maximum density and grow incredibly tall quite quickly. (Actually more 20 years than 30 come to think of it.) Plus with advances in technology and infrastructure production and efficiency will increase.
Timber is at the present moment vastly on a much bigger scale than hemp, which exists basically on the fringe selling speciality products.
In fact Hemp is actually still on the decline, in 1991 worldwide production was 120,000 tons a year for hemp paper, and in 2003 it had declined by as much as 60,000 tons.
Hemp also suffers from rot when used as rope, and in Western Europe, nobody banned the cultivation of hemp in the 1930s but the commercial cultivation ceased almost anyhow in the decades after the 1930s.[/QUOTE]
I would argue that the criminalization of marijuana is tied more greatly with the temperance movement and the burgeoning medicalization of drug use at the time.
[QUOTE=Contag;31894511]Less intelligent people are less rational, tired and hormonal people are less rational and so on. At point where are you allowed to start taking people's rights away?
If you take steps to ensure that harm does not come to others, is that sufficient to allow drug taking?
Isn't medicalizing substance with strict regulation better than outright prohibition, and wouldn't the government be better at reducing harm, as opposed to having no mechanisms for regulation and treatment?[/QUOTE]
I draw the line when people lose the ability to act on what they believe is right or wrong or judge what is right or wrong. For something like marijuana, I don't believe that it is damaging enough to justify its ban, especially when alcohol and nicotine is so freely available. For things like heroin, even if they locked you in a safe room where you couldn't harm others, with their addictive properties it would be cruel to let people suffer in such a way. Nobody wants to be addicted to things in the physical sense.
[quote=HumanAbyss]Drugs can ruin anyones lives if they aren't educated enough to know better or know how to deal with it, why ban the drugs if people will get them anyways, and leave people in the dark? Why not educate people better, with real information about the drugs. More education on the subject with the drugs being regulated and controlled seems to be a far better idea.
Yes, some things and far more importantly, some people are more prone to addiction. So what are you going to do? Nerf the world? [/quote]
Some people just do not learn or care even if you drill into them the horrible facts about illicit drugs, though I would say that more education is definitely a positive move. But educating people about the dangers of many drugs but still legalising them is just silly to me. "Here's how badly this stuff can fuck you up...and here's where you can buy it!" You can say what you want about personal rights and freedoms but once you're addicted you don't have freedoms anymore.
And yes some people are more prone to addiction but for some drugs, it is not a matter of if, but when.
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;31912770]I draw the line when people lose the ability to act on what they believe is right or wrong or judge what is right or wrong. For something like marijuana, I don't believe that it is damaging enough to justify its ban, especially when alcohol and nicotine is so freely available. For things like heroin, even if they locked you in a safe room where you couldn't harm others, with their addictive properties it would be cruel to let people suffer in such a way. Nobody wants to be addicted to things in the physical sense.
Some people just do not learn or care even if you drill into them the horrible facts about illicit drugs, though I would say that more education is definitely a positive move. But educating people about the dangers of many drugs but still legalising them is just silly to me. "Here's how badly this stuff can fuck you up...and here's where you can buy it!" You can say what you want about personal rights and freedoms but once you're addicted you don't have freedoms anymore.
And yes some people are more prone to addiction but for some drugs, it is not a matter of if, but when.[/QUOTE]
Nerf the world. Try it.
Honestly, you're not getting it. People will get the drugs either way. They will. Do you think they won't? Then you don't understand people. Most people do drugs and don't become addicts. There are those that do and that sucks for them. They can fight it and get out or they can succumb to it. That's their choice and you're [b]trying to make that for them.[/b] That's horseshit.
I'm an ex heroin addict and I wish the shit was legal so that I could never do it again and so that people would be properly educated on it and choose with an informed mind. I've lost friends and family to drugs, yet, I still can't see how making them illegal would have helped that(Probably because they're already illegal and that's proved to be a catastrophic fucking failure many times).
People, you have to stop trying to tell people what to do because they're not going to listen, so give them their choice and chance to fuck up, and let them fuck up or not. Anything less isn't respecting them and their ability to make choices. Yes, people will make bad choices. [b]As they always have, and always will[/b]
And yes, it's a matter of when for some drugs, so what? That doesn't change the issue.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31912969]Nerf the world. Try it.
Honestly, you're not getting it. People will get the drugs either way. They will. Do you think they won't? Then you don't understand people. Most people do drugs and don't become addicts. There are those that do and that sucks for them. They can fight it and get out or they can succumb to it. That's their choice and you're [b]trying to make that for them.[/b] That's horseshit.
I'm an ex heroin addict and I wish the shit was legal so that I could never do it again and so that people would be properly educated on it and choose with an informed mind. I've lost friends and family to drugs, yet, I still can't see how making them illegal would have helped that(Probably because they're already illegal and that's proved to be a catastrophic fucking failure many times).
People, you have to stop trying to tell people what to do because they're not going to listen, so give them their choice and chance to fuck up, and let them fuck up or not. Anything less isn't respecting them and their ability to make choices. Yes, people will make bad choices. [b]As they always have, and always will[/b]
And yes, it's a matter of when for some drugs, so what? That doesn't change the issue.[/QUOTE]
I find the idea that people can legally peddle highly addictive, toxic substances to people for their own profits abhorrent. I think that people should be allowed to do what they want to themselves and mistakes and what not but the clincher for me is how highly addictive something is because once someone is addicted, they no longer [i]choose[/i] to continue taking a substance, they [i]have[/i] to continue taking it. Nobody would choose death or excruciating pain (if someone does then they are in need of help anyway) so offering it as a choice for the unwary is cruel.
Illegalising something is the strongest way of telling people that it is wrong. If you disagree that such-and-such is wrong and you can gather enough people that feel the same way then hopefully you can effect a change.
[editline]24th August 2011[/editline]
We make the choice for people because for many illicit drugs it is not really a choice; it is a calculation whose answer is that you should not take these drugs if you want a happier, healthier life.
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;31913383]I find the idea that people can legally peddle highly addictive, toxic substances to people for their own profits abhorrent. I think that people should be allowed to do what they want to themselves and mistakes and what not but the clincher for me is how highly addictive something is because once someone is addicted, they no longer [i]choose[/i] to continue taking a substance, they [i]have[/i] to continue taking it. Nobody would choose death or excruciating pain (if someone does then they are in need of help anyway) so offering it as a choice for the unwary is cruel.
Illegalising something is the strongest way of telling people that it is wrong. If you disagree that such-and-such is wrong and you can gather enough people that feel the same way then hopefully you can effect a change.
[editline]24th August 2011[/editline]
We make the choice for people because for many illicit drugs it is not really a choice; it is a calculation whose answer is that you should not take these drugs if you want a happier, healthier life.[/QUOTE]
And what good has it done to tell us all that drugs are wrong? Who's lives really been saved by this? Thousands of have died because they've STILL done those drugs, but they've done them in situations which only exacerbated drug use a thousand fold. They knew it was wrong and chose it anyways, so your decision is only costing lives.
I hate to call people naive, but you're a really naive poster.
And yes, I also find it abhorrent people can make money off of this, but they do now, more money than you can fathom, and being illegal has done literally nothing to stem this tide. What do you suggest? We crack down harder? Kill more innocents in the cross fire? Cut out the middle man, cut out the war and violence, save lives. Let people do what they will in much more controlled environments. That seems like something a reasonable person would do.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31913648]And what good has it done to tell us all that drugs are wrong? Who's lives really been saved by this? Thousands of have died because they've STILL done those drugs, but they've done them in situations which only exacerbated drug use a thousand fold. They knew it was wrong and chose it anyways, so your decision is only costing lives.
I hate to call people naive, but you're a really naive poster.
And yes, I also find it abhorrent people can make money off of this, but they do now, more money than you can fathom, and being illegal has done literally nothing to stem this tide. What do you suggest? We crack down harder? Kill more innocents in the cross fire? Cut out the middle man, cut out the war and violence, save lives. Let people do what they will in much more controlled environments. That seems like something a reasonable person would do.[/QUOTE]
I don't pretend that people aren't suffering from drug abuse. I know that it happens and how people don't wisen up but how is that an argument that we should make it legal? People still poison themselves and people still sell those poisons but now it's permitted by the law and somehow things will be better? People talk about regulation but for the really harmful stuff, what's the point? Make sure you give people the right dosage; enough to be affected (and addicted) and not too much to overdose them (so that they suffer more slowly and profitably)? Make sure that nothing else in their hit trumps the deadliness of the active compound? The ones that have been creating and selling the drug on the black market will still be in business but now they'll not only be reprimanded by the government but probably supported.
Yes, the law exists and is enforced but is still breached. That doesn't mean we should just give up and hope people will smarten up. Perhaps what we need is a legal reform as opposed to straight out legalisation in terms of drug usage. Legalisation carries the heavy implication that creating and selling drugs is ok and I wholeheartedly disagree with that.
I think each drug should be analysed independantly for it's pro/cons and weight against personal freedom but when I say that drugs should remain illegal I refer to the most damaging. Just in anyone reading this misconstrues my posts as meaning all currently illicit drugs.
[editline]24th August 2011[/editline]
In regards to the violence surrounding the illicit drug market, are you suggesting that we allow those organisations to continue their practice under the law because they've started pointing guns? Are we giving up because things are getting too dangerous? Is all it takes to be allowed to poison people and get them addicted while making profits is to hurt and kill as many people as needed before someone calls it quits?
Of course trying to rat out those organisations has not had much success. The true solution is to reduce the demand for and possible profit from illicit drugs and legalising them does not help in this regard.
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;31913868]I don't pretend that people aren't suffering from drug abuse. I know that it happens and how people don't wisen up but how is that an argument that we should make it legal? People still poison themselves and people still sell those poisons but now it's permitted by the law and somehow things will be better? People talk about regulation but for the really harmful stuff, what's the point? Make sure you give people the right dosage; enough to be affected (and addicted) and not too much to overdose them (so that they suffer more slowly and profitably)? Make sure that nothing else in their hit trumps the deadliness of the active compound? The ones that have been creating and selling the drug on the black market will still be in business but now they'll not only be reprimanded by the government but probably supported.
Yes, the law exists and is enforced but is still breached. That doesn't mean we should just give up and hope people will smarten up. Perhaps what we need is a legal reform as opposed to straight out legalisation in terms of drug usage. Legalisation carries the heavy implication that creating and selling drugs is ok and I wholeheartedly disagree with that.
I think each drug should be analysed independantly for it's pro/cons and weight against personal freedom but when I say that drugs should remain illegal I refer to the most damaging. Just in anyone reading this misconstrues my posts as meaning all currently illicit drugs.[/QUOTE]
You do know what decriminalization is, yes? And you realize what a mind fuck and confusing idea it is to have a law that lets you posses and use but not create or distribute or purchase.
It doesn't make it better but it makes it something we can deal with as a society without hanging our heads in shame about, it makes it something that goes from being taboo and dark to being just dark. People pretend like legalization and regulation will make people just run out and buy all sorts of highly addictive drugs and fuck themselves with them. Maybe, but in Portugual that didn't happen. If education and knowledge is required, or there's at least some modicum of regulation, than as a practical issue, something is getting better.
Argue the morality of drug use and abuse all you want, but i'm simply arguing the practicality of this.
in regards to substance legalization, I've noticed that it'd be really easy for me to get heroin where I live, but nigh on impossible to score a prescription based drug like Codeine or promethazine. So if they did legalize the prescription distribution of substances such as heroin, only providing addicts the correct amount to help them ween as opposed to them accidentally purchasing too large a dosage and dying, their lives could be improved considerably.
Plus if they don't feel like a criminal they would probably be more open to attending things like Narcotics Anonymous.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31913979]You do know what decriminalization is, yes? And you realize what a mind fuck and confusing idea it is to have a law that lets you posses and use but not create or distribute or purchase.
It doesn't make it better but it makes it something we can deal with as a society without hanging our heads in shame about, it makes it something that goes from being taboo and dark to being just dark. People pretend like legalization and regulation will make people just run out and buy all sorts of highly addictive drugs and fuck themselves with them. Maybe, but in Portugual that didn't happen. If education and knowledge is required, or there's at least some modicum of regulation, than as a practical issue, something is getting better.
Argue the morality of drug use and abuse all you want, but i'm simply arguing the practicality of this.[/QUOTE]
I could agree with decriminalisation of drug use/abuse. After all, it's the people using the drugs that are usually the victims and any punishment beyong a slap on the wrist and a stern "stop that, that's idiotic" (or rather, rehab) is excessive. I don't think that people will rush out to get illicit drugs if they're legalised and I have tried to avoid stating that explicitly though I suppose that my posts suggest it. I still don't think selling such harmful and addictive substances should be condoned by the law and I think that regulation of such substances is silly but we can settle for the understanding that people are being swindled and/or misled into drug abuse and they can't be held as accountable as they are now in many countries. Yes, that makes people seem like they can't make proper choices and need to be babied but for a lot of illicit drugs, taking it is undeniably the wrong choice and the only reason people make it is because they are uninformed or stupid at the time.
[editline]24th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;31914046]in regards to substance legalization, I've noticed that it'd be really easy for me to get heroin where I live, but nigh on impossible to score a prescription based drug like Codeine or promethazine. So if they did legalize the prescription distribution of substances such as heroin, only providing addicts the correct amount to help them ween as opposed to them accidentally purchasing too large a dosage and dying, their lives could be improved considerably.
Plus if they don't feel like a criminal they would probably be more open to attending things like Narcotics Anonymous.[/QUOTE]
Because unfortunately they have access to the harder drugs like heroin. And even if it were presciption available, will we have to provide drug abusers how ever much they need to quench their addiction? If we can't, then they'll just return to shadier means of access their drug of abuse. If we're using regulated outlets to keep track of abusers, how many will turn away to remain confidential? Will we have to barge into their homes now that we know their addresses and force them into rehab if we think they have to? Or do we have to hope that they voluntarily do it themselves before they overdose which is no different from what's happening now?
I agree that what we need is a change in drug culture but I'll need more arguments for regulation for me to believe it is worth the legalisation of selling drugs.
durgs what is that some kind of old and rotten sandwitch?
In agree on smoking being a gateway, I only tried smoking recently, chain smoked about 5 cigarettes in an hour with a couple of friends (I was told this was a lot but it was my first time and I was really drunk) and I want to try pot sometime.
[QUOTE=Badballer;31914687]In agree on smoking being a gateway, I only tried smoking recently, chain smoked about 5 cigarettes in an hour with a couple of friends (I was told this was a lot but it was my first time and I was really drunk) and I want to try pot sometime.[/QUOTE]
Why do you want to try pot, and why did you try smoking?
[QUOTE=Contag;31912202]I would argue that the criminalization of marijuana is tied more greatly with the temperance movement and the burgeoning medicalization of drug use at the time.[/QUOTE]
That is how I see it, it getting banned for reasons that people "saw as" a genuine problem rather than it being because the big monopoly companies twisted some hands to get something that was of little threat to them.
The only smoke I like the scent of is that of coal burning inside a furnace myself, which is why I am not into drug consumption.
nevermind
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.