Hemp? The most valuable plant is illegal in America

It hasn't been made a legal medicine because marijuana is a plant and cannot be easily patented, controlled and marketed for profit. Unlike Paxel, Prozac, Zoloft...

What about the cultural factor and the Morality Brigade? What about simple systemic entropy? Once ingrained into society some things are very difficult to change, even if the basis for their inception was based on racism and misguided puritanism.

We're not even talking just about medecine here, there's plenty of people that smoke pot for fun - where analogies with medication for illness fall short.

The biggest issue with pot-as-medecine is the fact that its legality has stunted the research on it and its just recently that we've started delving down - only to find that the complexity of the compounds in the plant are such that we still don't know exactly why natural pot helps restore appetite to an AIDS patient while THC pills just make them really really high.

But aside from all that, the reasons it is still illegal for recreational use are quite apart from any medicinal/patent issues.
 
Jesus Herbert Christ... how does one reach the conclusion that hemp oil "cures" cancer? THC in marijuana has been shown to have a slowing effect on the growth of cancer. That is NOT the same as saying hemp oil - with unknown quantities and mixtures of whatever compounds are available in hemp - can "cure cancer". That takes the legitimate research on THC's effect to absurd, unsupported conclusions.

If hemp oil has an effect, demonstrate it with blinded studies (yes, plural) against proper control groups, then demonstrate that the trend towards cancer remission exists with meta-analysis on all the data gathered. Google videos don't cut it. Show the proof, not some vanity video making claims without corresponding documentation.

Just to shoot down one stupid claim in that movie (that I shut off before the stupidity put me in a coma):



Oh really? Explain digitalis, L-Dopa, Irinotecan, Podophyllotoxin, Taxol, Teniposide, and others, the last three specifically being anti-cancer agents derived from plant sources. If a plant has a medicinal property, you couldn't keep drug companies away from it, not even with a bat, a gun, and a pack of angry dogs. The fact that a plant cannot be patented doesn't mean that the treatment from the plant cannot be either. If a plant or a plant derivative showed true promise in blinded, controlled studies, then the drug companies would be all over each other trying to get a hold of it. That claim that Simpson makes is just brain dead.

If that's the level of intelligence in that video, then why should I believe the rest of the claims in it? Provide the proof, not a windy story. Numbers of patients, measure of tumor reduction, comparison against control, normalization against spontaneous remission, etc. etc. That's proof. Everything else is just blowing air.

The key is that the drugs you mentioned are 'derived' from plant sources. Thus Big Pharma can still develop their own unique formula and patent it, sell it and make millions.

People can grow there own marijuana medicine quite easily and not need Big Pharma to help with their ailments.

For example, folks prescribed Marinol for nausea in conjunction with chemo find that using unaltered marijuana to be much more effective.

http://www.iowatelecom.net/~sharkhaus/marinol_long.html

Since marijuana and Marinol derived from two entirely different processes (arguably polar opposites), it seems ironic that Marinol functions as the only legal alternative to marijuana. Considering their vastly disparate backgrounds, one can logically conclude that the therapeutic effects must also differ, but according to many researchers, the results are essentially the same. In fact, the two drugs' reported side effects are quite similar, although advocates of medical marijuana claim that Marinol produces more damaging side effects. Marinol proponents argue, in turn, that marijuana possesses more undocumented side effects. Upon analyzing a 1995 product brochure explaining the benefits and possible effects of using Marinol, I discovered new information that completely undermined my original assumptions about Marinol.

Considering that Marinol is legal while marijuana is not, I assumed that Marinol would have far fewer side effects than those attributed to marijuana; however, this assumption and numerous others proved quite inaccurate. According to the 1995 product insert, Marinol may be habit forming, a condition commonly linked with cannabis. In addition, Marinol may cause the following side effects: feeling "high" (i.e. easy laughing, elation, and heightened awareness), abdominal pain, dizziness, confusion, depression, nightmares, speech difficulties, chills, sweating, and even psychological and physiological dependence.19 Some of these potential side effects seem quite serious for any legal pharmaceutical. Even less comforting, the 1992 product insert explains what to do in case of accidental overdose:

A potentially serious oral ingestion, if recent, should be managed with gut decontamination. In unconscious patients with a secure airway, instill activated charcoal via a nosagastric tube. A saline cathartic or sorbitol may be added to the first dose of activated charcoal. Patients experiencing depressive, hallucinatory or psychotic reactions should be placed in a quiet area and offered reassurance.20

Considering the enormous sales of Marinol, patients must desperately need medication to risk such potentially severe reactions. While marijuana may produce such side effects as: euphoria, laughter, anxiety, dry mouth, red eyes, sleepiness, clumsiness, increased appetite; these conditions pale in comparison to those attributed to Marinol. A 1985 edition of The Medical Letter listed the side effects of Marinol as "disorientation, depression, paranoia, hallucinations, and manic psychosis." A 1986 Marinol product insert explains that even patients on low doses of the drug may experience "a full-blown picture of psychosis;" this reference was conspicuously dropped from their later product inserts.21 Given the intensity of Marinol's side effects, marijuana appears less dangerous than its synthetic Schedule II counterpart.

Many patients believe that the much higher THC content in Marinol produces these more extreme side effects. Robert Randall, a glaucoma patient who currently receives a legal supply of marijuana from the government, describes his experiences with Marinol, "It was way too psychoactive. When I took Marinol, I found it anxiety-provoking and intense, like I had wandered into a short story by Flannery O'Connor." He further explains, "I talked to hundreds of AIDS patients, and only one preferred Marinol to marijuana. It's not just that marijuana helps them gain weight-it's that Marinol is so scary." Dr. Robert Gorter, a San Francisco AIDS expert, corroborated Randall's anecdotal conclusions in the Journal of the Physicians Association for AIDS where he stated, "Again and again patients have testified that they preferred marijuana above dronabinol [the scientific term for Marinol]..."22 Further evidence citing the potential dangers of Marinol exists in the 1995 Marinol product insert itself, which warns against giving dronabinol to children and to the elderly (although Unimed is currently in Phase III testing for approval of Marinol in the treatment of Alzheimer's patients) because of the drug's "psychoactive effects."23 It seems odd that Marinol supposedly functions better as a medicine than marijuana, a substance casually consumed by millions of Americans without such debilitating side effects.

Hoping to discover specific patient complaints against Marinol, and not just potential side effects or anecdotal information, I contacted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for more information on adverse effects caused by Marinol. I was told that this information was confidential, and that only by using the Freedom of Information Act (and enclosing a check for $70) could I attain limited access to this knowledge, and even then, certain details would remain censored.24 By contrast, if I needed information on marijuana's adverse effects, I could contact hundreds of sources (including elected officials, rehabilitation centers, law enforcement, internet sites, parent groups, local libraries, pharmacies, etc.) from whom I could receive a deluge of free information. Another medical paradox exposing the sharp contrast between the popular conception of marijuana and Marinol involves carcinogenic studies. Anti-marijuana government studies had very tentatively linked marijuana smoke (and not ingested marijuana) with lung cancer in an unpublished report (although a recent panel of scientists re-examined that report and found that marijuana was actually found to prevent malignancies not cause them).25 Despite the presence of THC, common to both marijuana and Marinol, no carcinogenic studies have been performed on Marinol.26 Culturally, marijuana continues to face vilification while Marinol enjoys legitimacy and government backing. Sick people face harsh criminal penalties for self-medicating with natural THC, while patients using synthetic THC get insurance coverage and freedom from persecution and prosecution. The influential role that politics plays in science and medicine can explain the enormous rift in the cultural perception of these two essentially similar substances. Only a close examination of political influence in medicine can explain popular culture's polarity regarding marijuana and Marinol perception.
 
Last edited:
I love you all. Please forgive me. I take it all back.

:)I apologize for my ill manners. I just don't have much patience for folks who refuse to face the ugly truth about the super rich folks who control things. The Tavistock Institute and Operation Mockingbird gang have done such a fantastic job of programming people to believe such nonsense. Again, I apologize for being so insulting. I probably shouldn't participate in such forums with so many idealists who reject the idea that virtually everything is a conspiracy today. The honest truth, IN MY OPINION, is that things are much, much uglier and more diabolical than most folks believe.

Again, forgive me. I honestly wish we were ruled by a more loving group of trillionaires. The world could be such a wonderful place. However, the truth appears to be, IN MY OPINION, that the Jesuit General, along with his Rothschild-led trillionaire banker friends are at the very top of the Global Pyramid of Power, calling the shots. They rule the world. Remember, IN MY OPINION, those with the most gold rule.

Again, please forgive me for being so insulting to those of you with whom I disagree. You are entitled to your opinions and I should show you respect, regardless.

I honestly love you. I know that seems ridiculous to say after being so insulting, but I really do. Why? Because I believe that Einstein's Unified Field is also intelligent, and that we are all connected, all part of the oneness, making us all part of the same whole, bothers and sisters so to speak. I think of all of us as gods within GOD. Yeah, some may disagree but this is MY OPINION.

I love you. Please forgive me for being unloving. I honestly do feel bad when I act that way, so I do feel the pain. However, now that I've told you I love you, I feel MO BETTA.
 
The fact of the matter bwinwright is that your feelings of us being "naive" or "gullible" are actually mirrored completely on "our side".

We think the same thing about you for the most part and in my opinion those attitudes cancel each other out and we'll all be better off without the namecalling and sticking to the issues.

Your mea culpa is appreciated..;)
 
So, on the subject of THC and cancer treatment, there are a number of studies showing that it may induce apoptosis in colon, pancreatic and other gut-type cancer cells. Of course, there are also some indications that it can lead to the proliferation of cancer cells, so its a bit of a mixed bag.

It seems too early to say if there are any new therapies that will come out of this, but folks are certainly working on it.

If there was a conspiracy to cover up the miracle benefits of hemp oil, why would this work be being done? Wouldn't any mention of the relationship between THC and a cancer cure be avoided?

Seems messy on the part of the world controllers to let all this free and unfettered academic research continue. What, are they high?
 
I am simply informing you. You can choose to do your own homework or not. I don't have to prove a thing. If you get cancer, go ahead and let them kill you with radiation and chemotherapy because they showed you some "proof", false proof.


Proof? Get real. You can't trust anyone today. You'd better check it out for yourself. Don't rely on anyone else to do your homework for you. Hell, there are countless people participating on this forum who still believe Osama bin Laden was responsible for the crimes on 9/11. Why? The government told them so. The the official 9/11 report is proof, right?

Man, you need to grow up. I'm simply trying to inform you about something that might save your life. If you are too lazy to check it out, that's your choice. How in the hell can I possibly PROVE it to you. The stuff is ILLEGAL. Please grow up.

El mondo hummus, wow, what a naive person you are. Let me remind you about the Golden Rule of our current Corporate ruled government, which is He who has the most gold rules!

Why do you people insist on acting as if truth, love, and justice play any role at all in this big money game? Wow! The naivety is incredible here. Wake up.

You act as if the Rockefeller controlled Medical establishment gives a damn about fairness or your life. Please. Marijuana is illegal for one reason. The Rockefeller family and their trillionaire friends want it illegal. That's it. Any other explanation is sheer nonsense.

Money, money, money is the answer here. Follow the money. You girls might prefer the girl scouts forum where you can eat some cookies, drink your milk , and talk about which outfit Brittany should wear next.

:)I apologize for my ill manners. I just don't have much patience for folks who refuse to face the ugly truth about the super rich folks who control things. The Tavistock Institute and Operation Mockingbird gang... (the rest snipped for brevity)

I did do my homework, bwinright. I've been doing that "homework" for nearly two decades now, starting when I concentrated on the biological sciences in college, adding express urgency when I had a leiomyosarcoma pulled out of my leg in '96, and continuing through family members bouts with various cancers. That's why I'm so harshly calling BS on this guy's claims. I don't know anywhere near as much as an oncologist does about cancer, and compared to even a simple general practitioner, I'm a lowly layman, but judging from the information in Simpson's video, I know more about it than he does. Regardless of comparisons, though, I'm no mere uninformed fool.

There is a clear cut way to demonstrate to us JREFer's that something works: Provide the numbers. Provide the proof. This may sound harsh, and I'm moderating my tone in the face of your last post, but it still needs to be said: Unsubstantiated claims about what the Rockefellers supposedly want does not aid the debate. What a single group or supposed ruling power supposedly wants or doesn't want doesn't matter, not in the face of all the actors invovled in medical research around the world. It doesn't matter. But numbers do. If you show the proof, there's nothing more to say. "X" number of people were treated with this regimen, "Y" number were used as a control, "Z" showed remission. That's it. Let us see the numbers. You are advocating a guy who's making an extraordinary claim, and such a claim needs extraordinary evidence to back it up. Mere testimony is unfortunately insufficient; that's why science has developed quantitative methods to deal with the uncertainty of observations generated in experimentation. It's in response to the understanding that any one person can make any one claim but that the course of knowledge generation will reveal the trend that either demonstrates the correctness of the hypothesis - in this case, treatment "X" has effect "Y" - or disproves it. One person making claims is simply insufficient evidence in the face of general scientific knowledge, and it is incredibly insufficient when the rubber meets the road and a tested concept is used on a person.

That's just the way knowledge generation works. Either he provides the proof, or his advocates do. Not us; we're the consumers. The burden is on him or anyone who champions his claims. Until then, until such evidence is provided, we have to dismiss the claims as unsupported and undocumented. Which is the way any claim regarding health care should be dealt with: Prove the treatment works and to what degree the treatment works and what the chances are for remission and survival. When we're talking disease treatment, nothing less is acceptible.

Look, I know many other survivors of cancer who've had chemo and radiotherapy. They're not dead, and some of them are going on a decade-plus since the treatments. My mother knows a couple who are going on over two decades. Chemo and radiotherapy does weaken, and does have some seriously deleterious side effects - trust me, I know; I personally escaped having to undergo that, but family members with their own disorders (breast cancer, and for another leukemia) did not, and I've seen the effects firsthand - but saying it "kills" is hyperbolic. There's a difference between killing the cancer and killing the whole being. And not all treatments can be gentle, not with terrible diseases like cancer. Some diseases are so terrible that the treatments themselves are harsh. This is not by design, but by documented, proven effectiveness. It's just the way the regimens worked out.

I don't know how to put things more directly. All of your background information is appreciated in that it explains your point of view, but the problem is that practically none of it matters. The only thing that matters - the only thing - is the quantitative demonstration that a treatment has an effect. Not even a cure or a forcing of remission, but just an effect that slows the progress of the disease. If that's not provided, then can you blame a patient for rejecting a proposal?
 
I did do my homework, bwinright. I've been doing that "homework" for nearly two decades now, starting when I concentrated on the biological sciences in college, adding express urgency when I had a leiomyosarcoma pulled out of my leg in '96, and continuing through family members bouts with various cancers. That's why I'm so harshly calling BS on this guy's claims. I don't know anywhere near as much as an oncologist does about cancer, and compared to even a simple general practitioner, I'm a lowly layman, but judging from the information in Simpson's video, I know more about it than he does. Regardless of comparisons, though, I'm no mere uninformed fool.

There is a clear cut way to demonstrate to us JREFer's that something works: Provide the numbers. Provide the proof. This may sound harsh, and I'm moderating my tone in the face of your last post, but it still needs to be said: Unsubstantiated claims about what the Rockefellers supposedly want does not aid the debate. What a single group or supposed ruling power supposedly wants or doesn't want doesn't matter, not in the face of all the actors invovled in medical research around the world. It doesn't matter. But numbers do. If you show the proof, there's nothing more to say. "X" number of people were treated with this regimen, "Y" number were used as a control, "Z" showed remission. That's it. Let us see the numbers. You are advocating a guy who's making an extraordinary claim, and such a claim needs extraordinary evidence to back it up. Mere testimony is unfortunately insufficient; that's why science has developed quantitative methods to deal with the uncertainty of observations generated in experimentation. It's in response to the understanding that any one person can make any one claim but that the course of knowledge generation will reveal the trend that either demonstrates the correctness of the hypothesis - in this case, treatment "X" has effect "Y" - or disproves it. One person making claims is simply insufficient evidence in the face of general scientific knowledge, and it is incredibly insufficient when the rubber meets the road and a tested concept is used on a person.

That's just the way knowledge generation works. Either he provides the proof, or his advocates do. Not us; we're the consumers. The burden is on him or anyone who champions his claims. Until then, until such evidence is provided, we have to dismiss the claims as unsupported and undocumented. Which is the way any claim regarding health care should be dealt with: Prove the treatment works and to what degree the treatment works and what the chances are for remission and survival. When we're talking disease treatment, nothing less is acceptible.

Look, I know many other survivors of cancer who've had chemo and radiotherapy. They're not dead, and some of them are going on a decade-plus since the treatments. My mother knows a couple who are going on over two decades. Chemo and radiotherapy does weaken, and does have some seriously deleterious side effects - trust me, I know; I personally escaped having to undergo that, but family members with their own disorders (breast cancer, and for another leukemia) did not, and I've seen the effects firsthand - but saying it "kills" is hyperbolic. There's a difference between killing the cancer and killing the whole being. And not all treatments can be gentle, not with terrible diseases like cancer. Some diseases are so terrible that the treatments themselves are harsh. This is not by design, but by documented, proven effectiveness. It's just the way the regimens worked out.

I don't know how to put things more directly. All of your background information is appreciated in that it explains your point of view, but the problem is that practically none of it matters. The only thing that matters - the only thing - is the quantitative demonstration that a treatment has an effect. Not even a cure or a forcing of remission, but just an effect that slows the progress of the disease. If that's not provided, then can you blame a patient for rejecting a proposal?

Nominated! Thanks ElMondoHummus. :cool:

Besides which, I have it on authority from Bob Marley that ganja causes cancer in your leg. :duck:
 
The key is that the drugs you mentioned are 'derived' from plant sources. Thus Big Pharma can still develop their own unique formula and patent it, sell it and make millions.

People can grow there own marijuana medicine quite easily and not need Big Pharma to help with their ailments.

Nobody is stopping you from growing foxglove and eating it to obtain digitalin for your heart condition.

Likewise, nobody is stopping you from growing yew trees and eating the leaves or berries to obtain taxol for your cancer.

Of course, the dosage in either case is likely to be either (a) so low as to be ineffective; or (b) so high as to be fatal, but you don't need to take nothing off those eebul Big Pharma quacks.

Your mea culpa is appreciated..;)

...if only it weren't so heavy-handedly sarcastic...
 
Wow, you're pretty confrontational bwinwright, did you start this thread for a discussion or for sermonizing/insulting other board members?


If I'm remembering correctly, that's pretty much how most of his threads begin: preaching.

If you show the proof, there's nothing more to say.


Indeed. Show us the the proof, bwinwright, and you won't have to get upset with our annoyance at your preaching. Save yourself some energy.
 
Nobody is stopping you from growing foxglove and eating it to obtain digitalin for your heart condition.

Likewise, nobody is stopping you from growing yew trees and eating the leaves or berries to obtain taxol for your cancer.

Of course, the dosage in either case is likely to be either (a) so low as to be ineffective; or (b) so high as to be fatal, but you don't need to take nothing off those eebul Big Pharma quacks.

Well, to be fair, that's a bit more practical in the case of cannabis.
Still, if it were legal, it'd be so cheap and available, nobody'd bother growing it themselves. Growing plants is hard work, and if you could just buy joints at the drug store, most people would opt to do that...not spend months tending to a crop with fertilizer, grow lamps, etc.
 
Why why why can't the pro-marijuana movement just come out and say:

"I enjoy smoking weed. It's harmless. It should be legal. I want it legalized so that I and others can continue to smoke and enjoy it."


I'll agree with them. What do I care?

But this is so freaking annoying the way they try this back door argument about paper and conspiracies and cancer and on and on and on. That kind of dishonesty just completely kills any sympathy I have for your cause.

This used to drive me nuts in college, legalizing "hemp" was the only issue I saw a lot of my friends get really passionate about. Yeah, you draw marijuana leafs on all your notebooks because you care about the paper industry. Riiiiiight...

Oh, and nice dreadlocks.
 
:( Doesn't it make you angry whenever you think about the fact that the hemp plant, cannabis, and marijuana are illegal in America today? This fact, alone, is enough for any critical thinker to realize that our government is absolutely corrupt beyond measure.

It doesn't make me angry so much as it makes me shrug at a probably unneeded law.

This is a conspiracy REALITY. So call me a Conspiracy Realist, CR. Why is this plant illegal? George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and virtually every founding father of America grew the hemp plant and encouraged everyone else to grow it too. Why? Because it was considered the most useful and valuable crop on Earth.

Hemp is actually a really crappy crop in many ways. I note that the founding fathers that state this were the ones who owned slaves. Slaves that would do the harsh, devastating harvesting of the stuff.

Of course, all the canvas was made from it, rope, and the strongest, most durable clothing, even the finest lace.

Horse-crap. Hemp makes tough rope and strong fabric (albeit fabric that is very vulnerable to rot and a royal pain to weave and sew). Making lace out of hemp is like making lace out of Cecil fibers. What's the point?

The finest paper products could be made from it too.

Horse crap as well. Read some old paper-making manuals from yesteryear, such as old printings of Pulp and Paper. Hemp is considered the worst material to make paper 'of the worst quality' was the words used.

The oil from the seeds was found to be the cleanest burning fuel available.

Doubtful.

After the oil was extracted from the seeds, the seeds could be ground into flour that made wonderful tasting bread.

Not in my experience.

The fibrous part of the plant can be used to make thousands of environment friendly plastic products.

So can many other fiberous plants, fiberous plants that don't destroy farming equipment when they are harvested.

Mercedes Benz uses industrial hemp in the body of their automobiles. Simply from an industrial perspective, the hemp plant is the most versatile and valuable plant on Earth.

And yet, where it is legal, which pretty much the rest of the world, it hasn't exactly taken off as a crop. You'd think such a wonderful crop would dominate the farming industry in say, Germany, which is top of the heap when it comes to the paper industry. Yet beyond some minor novelty products and some very minor industrial uses it pretty much isn't there.

The reason for this is simple: Hemp is, at best, the second best way to do all the things it is praised for. Almost always there is a better crop, better product. Most of which do not damage farming equipment.

What about the medicinal value of the plant? Apparently, cannabis has been used for thousands of years as an effective means of empowering the body's immune system which then cures you of whatever ails you.

According to Rick Simpson, he has been effectively curing cancer with what he calls Hemp Oil. See the video on Google. Then, of course, smoking marijuana has been proven to help folks with glaucoma, people suffering the after effects of radiation and chemotherapy treatment, and folks with muscular dystrophy, etc.

This has been already argued by others.

So, why then is such a wonderful plant illegal in America? Because of the corruption in government, fostered by the greed of corporate billionaires.

Actually, it was mostly racism. Sorry, but a lot of folks share the blame. Not just billionaires.

Apparently, E.I DuPont, along with John D. Rockefeller and friends, decided this plant had to be illegal or they would lose billions in profits. During the late 1920's into the early 1930's E. I DuPont patented a new process for making paper and counted on this to be his primary breadwinner for the next 30 years or more.

While DuPont's paper making process was expensive and not very environmentally friendly, requiring the use of trees which took 20 years to grow, he stood to make billions.

Hoo-boy.

He knew that superior paper could be made from hemp

He knew no such thing because it was not true.

[QOTE]
and that one,even two crops could be harvested each year, but he couldn't make anywhere close to the profits from using it. Also, he wanted to eliminate all competition which he could by making hemp illegal.
[/QUOTE]

Nonsense. Complete ignorance of reality.

Then, of course, at the same time John D. Rockefeller wanted the crop illegal because he would lose billions too. Rockefeller, at the time, owned the 18 largest chemical companies in America and held patents on various drugs which he could make big profits from. You can't make big profits from a plant anyone can grow in their backyard.

Pure nonsense.

So, DuPont, Rockefeller, and gang, using their enormous wealth and influence got this dork named Anslinger to spearhead the movement to make hemp illegal. They made the outrageous film called Reefer Madness and started calling hemp marijuana justto scare the hell out of folks.

Anyone who has a clue about history knows Anslinger didn't need any influencing, and the movie Reefer Madness was hardly effective at doing anything.

They paid off politicians, educators, and the clergy to demonize marijuana and by using their totally controlled media easily sold the gullible public a pack of lies, resulting in making the most valuable crop in the world illegal.

Nonsense, totally unfounded. Anslinger was determined to find something new to demonize, the clergy certainly didn't need payoffs to preach against another vice, and politicians were always happy to cowtow to a bit of racism in that era. This was an era of particularly gross pandering.

It doesn't help your cause that hardly any hemp was being grown in the US even before it was made illegal. In fact, a few farms that were growing it kept on growing it after the laws were passed simply because nobody came around and told them not to. Those growers eventually stopped growing the stuff because of indifference and the fact that it is a bitch to harvest.

This is not conspiracy theory. This is Conspiracy REALITY. All you need to do is some homework and you'll soon realize this is true. Please don't believe a word I write here until you do your own research. I am here to inform you, not convince you.

I'm sorry, but for someone who plans to inform me, perhaps you might want to get a few facts about your crop straight to begin with. Hemp ain't 'all that'.
 
Really?
Why's that?


Pretty much for the reasons David just gave above. All the preaching and getting fired up over all this when the truth is I just wanted to fire one up.

Bottom line is so much of the "truth" about marijuana supression all comes from one source: Jack Herer. While a pretty convincing guy he's certainly not the most unbiased reference out there, yet almost nobody who reads him bothers to take a skeptical approach to his version of history simply because he's saying what they want to hear.

And as recently as six months ago, I was among them. :o

For all the love Herer gets, I can tell you firsthand he's not the sharpest tool in the shed. I went to go see him speak at a rock club years ago. As we walked in we saw his van outside covered with "legalize it" and various other bumper stickers. Sure enough, later that night he got busted on the way out of town. Of course, to all of us it was a set-up perpetrated by the man rather than a dumbass who'd written "hey cops, I'm breaking the law" all over his ride.

Don't get me wrong, I had a lot of fun with it the last 20 years or so. And I'll never be one to say it should be illegal because it really shouldn't. But it doesn't take long after walking away from it to realize it's anything but the wonder drug it really, really seemed like.
 
Why why why can't the pro-marijuana movement just come out and say:

"I enjoy smoking weed. It's harmless. It should be legal. I want it legalized so that I and others can continue to smoke and enjoy it."


I'll agree with them. What do I care?

But this is so freaking annoying the way they try this back door argument about paper and conspiracies and cancer and on and on and on. That kind of dishonesty just completely kills any sympathy I have for your cause.

This used to drive me nuts in college, legalizing "hemp" was the only issue I saw a lot of my friends get really passionate about. Yeah, you draw marijuana leafs on all your notebooks because you care about the paper industry. Riiiiiight...

Oh, and nice dreadlocks.

As usual, you hit the nail on the head. This particular behavior got on my nerves in college too. I have nothing against legalizing the stuff but all this disingenuous stuff about its other potential properties does not help.

By the way, why is this being brought up now? Did I get **** faced and accidentally sleep all the way to April 20th? Or is January 23 the new 4/20?
 
Of course, all the canvas was made from it, rope, and the strongest, most durable clothing, even the finest lace. The finest paper products could be made from it too. The oil from the seeds was found to be the cleanest burning fuel available. After the oil was extracted from the seeds, the seeds could be ground into flour that made wonderful tasting bread.


I hear drinking colloidal silver is pretty awesome, too...
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom