What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Cocaine, Meth and Chronic, oh my!

  • #81
I hope they let him do it :)

I thought ALL hemp was industrial. I had no idea it wasn't. Where do they grow it if not on farms?
 
  • #82
Lol, this little comedy/subtle windows ad thing is great to watch if your stoned (which you shouldn't be children! don't break the law!)

http://Clearification.com

I could watch that all day lol
 
  • #83
Well for the record Hemp and MJ are the same genus. It is just that over time plants were bread for various reasons. Now the plants used for industrial hemp are substantially lower in THC than those varieties used for the "high" They technically are the same plants though just bred out for different uses.


HEMP vs. MARIJUANA

The word "hemp" is English for a number of varieties of the cannabis plant, particularly the varieties like "industrial hemp" that were bred over time for industrial uses such as fuel, fiber, paper, seed, food, oil, etc.

The term "marijuana" is of Spanish derivation, and was primarily used to describe varieties of cannabis that were more commonly bred over time for medicinal and recreational purposes, like cannabis indica , and certain strains of cannabis sativa.

In fact, when all forms of hemp were made illegal in the early part of the last century, it was used in the majority of the prescription drugs then sold in America. That was certainly no accident. Those who favor the use of what is now called "medical marijuana" recognize these strong medicinal qualities.

But marijuana and the medical or recreational varieties of cannabis are not really at issue today, because science readily allows us to distinguish them from industrial hemp by simple tests for the huge difference in the potency of the plants, i.e. the percentage of the psychotropic ingredient: delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC"), the active psychotropic ingredient found in the leaves and flowers of the female plant, but not in her seeds or stems.

Two cannabinoids are preponderant in cannabis: THC, the psychoactive ingredient, and CBD, which is an antipsychoactive ingredient. Marijuana is high in the psychoactive cannabinoid, THC, and low in the antipsychoactive cannabinoid, CBD. The reverse is true for industrial hemp; when hemp was or is bred for its desirable industrial qualities, the percentage of THC is minimal, while the percentage of CBD is high.

While marijuana has a potency range of 3% to 20% by dry weight of THC, industrial hemp is generally defined as having less than 1.0% THC, and the normal range is under 0.5%. These THC levels are so low that no one could get high from smoking it. To receive a standard psychoactive dose would require a person to power-smoke 10-12 hemp cigarettes over an extremely short period of time. The large volume and high temperature of vapor, gas and smoke would be almost impossible for a person to withstand.

Moreover, hemp contains a relatively high percentage of another cannabinoid, CBD, that actually blocks the marijuana high. Hemp, it turns out, is not only not marijuana; it could be called "antimarijuana."

Feral hemp, or "ditchweed", is a remnant of the industrial hemp once grown on more than 400,000 acres by U.S. farmers. It also contains extremely low levels of THC, as low as .05 percent. It has no drug value, but does offer important environmental benefits as a nesting habitat for birds. About 99 percent of the "marijuana" being eradicated by the federal government-at great public expense-is this harmless ditchweed.

So industrial hemp or ditchweed simply does not have enough THC for any practical use as a recreational drug, and anyone who grows industrial hemp will certainly have to suffer the legal consequences of trying to grow marijuana. But that too is very unlikely for a number of reasons:

Industrial Hemp is grown quite differently from marijuana. Hemp plants are cultivated inches apart to produce plants with tall stalks, while pot plants are short and spaced a few feet apart to produce bushy, THC-rich flowers and leaves. Moreover, they are harvested at different times.

Marijuana cultivators also try to cull male plants to prevent fertilization of the female plant. Unfertilized females produce more THC, making it attractive as a drug (sinsemilla). In contrast, hemp production typically seeks fertilization to produce seeds.

And cross-pollination between hemp plants and marijuana plants would significantly reduce the potency of the marijuana plant. If hemp does pollinate any nearby marijuana, genetically, the result will always be lower-THC marijuana, not higher-THC hemp. "The pot crop would always get weaker," Mahlberg said. If hemp is grown outdoors, marijuana will not be grown close by to avoid producing lower-grade marijuana. A pot grower would fear the inevitable pollen from hemp cultivation in a mixed plot, and would not hide his plant in industrial hemp fields.

Likewise, extracting THC from industrial hemp and further refining it to eliminate the preponderance of CBD would require such an expensive, hazardous, and time-consuming process that it is extremely unlikely anyone would ever attempt it, rather than simply obtaining high-THC marijuana instead.

[Also see: www.votehemp.com/PDF/myths_facts.pdf to review: Hemp and Marijuana -- Myths and Realities by Dr. Dave West, who holds a Ph.D. in Plant Breeding from the University of Minnesota and has spent 18 years as a commercial corn breeder, and, since 1993 he has served as an advisor to the emerging hemp industry regarding industrial hemp germplasm.]

All of this goes to show why, in countries where hemp is grown as an agricultural crop, the police have experienced no such burdens. In fact, there are over 30 nations on the planet currently growing industrial hemp. These include Canada, Australia, England, France, Germany, Austria, Spain, Russia, and China.

The regulations established in these countries are simple: contract production, aerial ASCS type maps of fields, only government certified low THC seed, pre- and post-harvest field surveys, field checks on THC levels and an open field policy. And they do not have an increased problem with prosecution for marijuana use. So legalizing hemp would not burden local police forces.

This explains why the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) recently adopted a resolution strongly urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to collaboratively develop and adopt an official definition of industrial hemp.

This also explains why legislation to deregulate industrial hemp and/or allow scientific study by state universities is pending or passed in over 20 states:

Bills Passed: ND, HI, MN, IL, MD -- Resolutions Passed: AK, CA, KY, MT, VA, VT
Legislation In Process: SD, IA, ME, NH, NM, OR, TN -- Voter Initiatives: AK, CO, MI




[Home] [The Facts] [Facts] [History] [Legal Issues] [Uses] [Other Countries] [Attributes] [Bibliography]




All material on this website © 2001, Arizona Industrial Hemp Council

Might want to check out this website too. Rather interesting. http://www.freedomdomain.com/hemppot.htm

From the article.

The many benefits of Hemp include, but are not limited, to the following : Hemp utilizes the sun more efficiently than
virtually any other plant on the planet, reaching 10-20 feet or more in a single short growing season. It can even be grown in
almost any climate or soil condition on Earth. Hemp is softer than cotton, warmer than cotton, more water absorbant than
cotton, has three times the tensile strength of cotton and many times more durable. 50% of all chemicals used in American
agriculture today are used on cotton and Hemp requires no chemicals or pesticides to grow




The Dutch word for CANNABIS is CANVAS



Another good site. http://www.naihc.org/hemp_information/content/hemp.mj.html
 
  • #84
As far as man-made, where do you draw the line? Coke is natural. Lsd is. Mescaline is. Psilocybin is, heroin is.


and so are many deadly toxins, too. Oh wait they are natural so i guess it is OK. er...not
 
  • #85
and so are many deadly toxins, too. Oh wait they are natural so i guess it is OK. er...not
*********************************************************

as i have stated before you cant legislate against stupidity. if a person is informed about the risks of something and still chooses to do it it is their right.........no different if its a drug or jumping out of a plane or attatching ones self to a rubberband and jumping off a bridge........you know the risks there for you have no one to blaim but your self if something bad happens
 
  • #86
but this assumes someone is informed of the risks of something, and that is not always the case
 
  • #87
Well Finch I don't think there is a sole out there hat hasn't heard all their fill about the "dangers" of MJ. The fact of the mater is that THC and MJ is harmless. Period. All the anti-drug BS about MJ is false and propaganda against the "drug".

I agree with Rattler that the government should not be able to tell me what I cannot do in my home.

I am surprised the Bush bashers and those against big oil have not partnered up with the MJ movement. Since Hemp could reduce our need for fossil fuel oil. Make biodegradable plastic and paper that requires less chemical to grow, bleach, and produce. Not to mention all the other host of things the plant ans seeds are useful for.

I dunno how many people read the pages I linked to, but cannabis was the second most prescribed substance before its banning in 1937. It was in almost every prescribed med of those days. The AMA did not realize the connection of Hemp and cannabis to MJ. And it seems that a lot of folks still do not see the connection, but Hemp and Marijuana are both cannabis plants.
 
  • #88
but this assumes someone is informed of the risks of something, and that is not always the case
*********************************************************

goes back to the stupidity issue, if someone chooses not to get themselves informed it is there own fault. if some one chooses to take an unknown substance at a party and think its harmless, well thats Darwinism isnt it? population control is what it sounds like to me
 
  • #89
If someone isn't informed about the risks of drug use then they must be blind, deaf, and unable to read braile. You'd literally have to be Helen Keller. Oh wait, she invented braile didn't she?

If you're going to use them you gotta play by the rules of the drug and know what you're doing. You need to know what you can mix with what and how much you can have. You need to know your own medical history aswell. If it's your first time, start out low. You need to know how the drug works and what it does.

Look at Britney Spears. She recently OD'd on MDMA, cocaine and Vicodin. Just like in the kitchen, you can't mix ingredients and not know what you're doing and expect a cake. With drugs, you can't mix chemicals and not know what you're doing and expect good results.


Not that i'm advocating drug use because i'm not. IF you choose to use, know the rules or your gonna lose.

I just made that up :)
 
  • #90
I JUST saw the tail end of a news segment on channel 2.

There was a "water drinking" contest hosted by a local ATL DJ/ radio station and a girl died from a water overdose.
 
  • #91
silly girl drinking to much water! i think you all need make your own choices dont listen to the man listen to youre heart
 
  • #92
Well... I'm sure those of inclined to break the law will not listen to the "man" but the problem at hand is "the man" has no right to tell us what we can and can not snort or smoke or inject. What we do in our own homes is our own business. If I want to wake up in a pool of what I HOPE is my own filth, that's my problem, not my next door neighbors. Lol, auctually my next door neighbor is a preacher who used to be a heroin dealer.

"You gotta smoke, snort, inject or swallow, lets get high on God today! Smoke, snort, inject or swallow, did you forget? Let's count the ways!"
-Reno 911
 
  • #93
The word was
first coined in the 1890s, but was adopted by the Bureau of Narcotics in the 1930s to
describe all forms of Cannabis and to this day U.S. drug enforcement agencies
continue to call the plant marijuana without regard to botanical distinctions.

So that means if you had a variety of Cannabis that wasn't the "drug" then you could fight and win a case against the US because you weren't growing pot?

The only real problem with legalizing Cannabis is the fact that people are afraid. I personally don't like the idea of people driving around high or drunk....but when you legalize a motor functions and judgment inhibitor, those are the risks. Another reasons is because Cannabis has been given such a bad name in the past due to false accusations against it, people are afriad of loosing braincells/etc. Take a wiff of city air, betch you'll lose 10x's the amt. of braincells in 1 wiff of city smog then u would smokin a joint/bowl.

The only real reason Im kind of a fence sitter is how many irresponsible pot smokers I've met in my life. I only know about 2 that I feel comfortable around when they are smoking it. The others wierd me out, esp with bowls...thats just wierd....

My .02 cents.
 
  • #94
Lol, they aren't going to bite you Dustin :)

Unless you're hogging the Doritos that is lol

I agree that driving drunk or high is bad. A reasonable person wouldn't do that. If they do that then they deserve to be punished.

BTW, what's weird about bowls?
 
  • #95
You guys keep talking like the user of a drug is the only person who gets hurt. Maybe it's not primarily the user that the laws are protecting? No one lives in a bubble... our actions ripple out across the planet like the wingbeats of the famous butterfly in China.

Betting that people under the influence will be self-policing is usually a losing bet. That much should certainly be obvious with any judgement-impairing drug. Their intentions may be noble before the drug usage. During, however, they may be unable to keep their promises.

And when it comes to addictive drugs, the path from use to abuse is the path of least resistance. Of course that's where most people are going to drift... momentum in the direction of abuse is chemically built into the drug. The term "addictive" means "you are more likely to get addicted than not".

Maybe you guys are responsible about it. Maybe there's no one in your immediate vicinity that gets hurt (though with some drugs, there may very well be a hidden trail of blood from its origin to your doorstep). It's easy to assume that one's own experience is the experience of the majority. In this case I don't think that's true. For every one of you, I'd bet there are at least 20 people out there who'd be better off without access to drugs.

So maybe you guys should try looking at it from another angle to see how it sits with you. Instead of all the "me, me, me" ("*I* want drugs so I should be allowed to have them, and the consequences to society are someone else's problem")... try thinking of the loss of access to drugs as a fair sacrifice. Think of it as taking one for the team. I don't really care much about legality. To me that isn't the issue. "Should we" do drugs seems a lot more relevant to me than "can we" do drugs. Try to look at the world as a whole, and ask yourself, knowing how most humans work, whether a world that supports drugs is a better place to live in than a world that attempts to eliminate them (as futile as that may be). You may find that even though you like drugs and can handle drugs, a sense of concern for humanity's future dictates that it's wiser to give them up for the greater good. Drugs don't interest me at all, but if they did I still wouldn't touch them for that reason. I couldn't sleep at night knowing I was helping to create a darker future for society, even if my own life was going just fine. I'd be disturbed knowing where my money was going, and who I'd be giving more power to.

We can't complain about the world being a dungheap and contribute to the dungheap at the same time. If our actions support decay, then we support decay, no matter what we think we support.

In short... get out of your bubbles. They don't exist. You affect the world, whether you like it or not. You can do harm whether you think you are or not. That's a burden we all have to live with.

And after high school they burst pretty violently of their own accord, so you might as well get it over with early. :)
 
  • #96
The anti-libertarian in me wonders whether the marijuana or the laws against it causes more trouble. I certainly favor abandoning the war on drugs because it's been a disaster. But complete legalization would be a disaster too. Somewhere there's a line in between "The War On" and legalization that would minimize the harm to society. But, given what we see with alcohol, society is willing to accept quite a carnage in exchange for easy access to an intoxicant.
 
  • #97
no one has yet had a good answer to my question. You cannot run a policy on the assumption that people know what they need to know. are all those 'dangers' fabricated? To tell these wouldnt we have to educate on the harfmfull effects of these drugs.... oh wait, but that would be anti drug?! So confusing...

What im saying is most of the information you guys say people need to know was put out by the war on drugs in the first place.
 
  • #98
Well... I'm sure those of inclined to break the law will not listen to the "man" but the problem at hand is "the man" has no right to tell us what we can and can not snort or smoke or inject. What we do in our own homes is our own business. If I want to wake up in a pool of what I HOPE is my own filth, that's my problem, not my next door neighbors.
I disagree. Imagine for a second that crack, meth and heroin was legalized.

Do you know how much crime would increase? You can't tell me that legalizing these addictive drugs that completely ruin peoples lives, even ones not using the drug, is a good idea.

People have been killed by addicts trying to get money for their fix.

And I don't know of any addict that has quit and beleives the feeling was worth the pain inflicted on them or others around them.

My neighbor across the street is a crack head that deals and is personally responsible for over 20 break ins around my neighborhood and regularly knocks on me and my neighbor's door looking for a couple bucks so he can "take the bus to work". Its sad that this jackass always seems immune to the law and the reasons for his actions are entirely to support his substance addicted lifestyle. And its never going to stop until he kills someone or someone is waiting in their house with a gun and blows his head off.

These extracts/chemicals should NOT be made available for legal use by the American people unless you want to see the country go down the drain.

However, weed is harmless and should be legal, when was the last time someone went out and robbed or killed someone cause they wanted to smoke some bud?

That propaganda I see on TV all the time about marijuana is pretty damn annoying. :glare:
 
  • #99
Problem is people smoke weed and try to do things that they shouldn't be when high, and thats when people get hurt. Like any other thing that impairs you.
 
  • #100
Weed acts as an inhibitor and makes you less likely to do things you wouldn't normally do.

Ofcourse if its legalized it should have strict laws placed on its use, just like alcohal.
 
Back
Top