But see:
Does anyone have a cite for how much hemp oil can be produced per, say, acre? I wanted to do a quick rough calculation of how many acres of hemp it’d take to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, as hemp activists often claim we could do if we ended this prohibition (I’m guessing at least the entire acreage of Texas, but that’s purely speculation–if anything, I’d think much more than that, though).
I’m not personally a big fan of THC (it never did anything for me the times that I experimented in college, so I’ll stick to old fashioned alcohol)… but I agree that hemp and marijuana should be legal. That said, I think a lot of the claims of the pro-hemp activists are ridiculously exaggerated.
I’m surprised nobody has brought up the “gateway drug” argument (if only to refute it). I’ve always assumed any evidence that MJ is a “gateway drug” is only because it’s illegal–since our drug policy lumps it in with truly dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine, I can see how people would think, “Well, MJ didn’t kill me, so they probably lied about that other stuff, too.” Does anyone know of anything vaguely scientific on either side of that argument?
jharmon
You might find this to be a somewhat grounded site on the properties (including energy) of hemp.
ralph124c said:
I would like to point out that industrial hemp is not the same stuff you see on the streets. The THC level is much lower, to the extent that you would be smoking multiple joints to get a high. Marijuana used for smoking has been selected over ther years for its potency, hemp was selected for its fiber stregnth. In fact, I have heard (no cites, this was from a conversation years ago) that some growers didn’t like the idea of expanding industrial hemp growth because that would mean that the weaker (THC-wise, that is) hemp pollen would be prevalent and could lead to fertilizing of outdoor cloned females and/or ruining future generations of outdoor grown bud. (Not sure how valid this was, but it makes sense to me).
This is true, many growers fear such a thing although its largely only a concern with outdoor growers AFAIK as the indoor ones have special fans and filters and stuff.
As for smoking hemp, dont go there! It wouldnt even be “multiple joints”, you apparently have to smoke a few tons at least to get a buzz by which point i imagine the carbon monoxide “buzz” would have got you already!
As for the energy thing, I’ve heard the figure that if 6% or US farm land were used for hemp it would produce enough fuel to be energy efficient.
Even if it did take a larger amount of land, wouldnt it be worth it? Think of those billions of dollars that wouldnt be leaving the country anymore but going back into the American economy not to mention the environmental benefits and the gain in respect and perception of the US government which would no doubt result from a foreign policy which didnt include securing oil as its perceived aim anymore?
I don’t have exact figures but the answer is “probably not”.
Let’s use corn for example. Corn can produce 2.5 gallons of ethanol per bushel, and is probably one of the more energy rich crops available (more than hemp). This sounds good, until you realise that the US consumes 300 million gallons of fuel per day, or almost 110 billion gallons of fuel per year.
Now US production of corn is around 10 billion bushels of corn per year, and varies signifigantly with droughts, etc. So if 100% of our corn crops were converted to fuel, it would satisfy 23% of our fuel needs. Corn, in terms of acreage is pretty close to being the #1 field crop, possibly only second to soybeans, with some 70+ million acres devoted to it. To match our fuel needs, you would have to convert all wheat (60 million) and soybean (70+ just to get to where 75% of our yearly needs. If we used a more energetic crop, like Canola, we could squeze a little more per bushel, but would still come up short.
Keep in mind that these figures are in a vaacum. When distilling crops it takes fueld to make fuel, so a certain percentage of that fueld is going to be needed to make that fuel. Cracking crude also also requires energy, but far less
There are other problems, ethanol doesn’t store very well and crops don’t grow much in the wintertime.
I’m afraid there’s no secret solution to our fuel need that’s growing under our nose.
Here you go:
The site goes on to quote from the report.
Each state differs, but “possession” can cover a gamut of offenses. This article does not adress the differing amounts of marijuana that each offender was charged with, and I’m having difficulty finding any statistics along these lines from an unbiased source. It’s entirely possible, for example, that an individual may have been caught with a bale of marijuana, but plead down to possession of a felony amount in order to avoid a trafficking charge.
Many states have decriminalized simple, “small-time” possession. Under a certain amount, possession in many cases is a misdemeanor which may or may not be accompanied by a fine. Prosecutors generally only push for prison time if it’s possession of a large amount, which can not be reasonably explained as personal use. My husband works in a prison which has over two thousand inmates. Not one is incarcerated for possession of a small amount of pot.
I must take exception to this example. Ever see the leftover resin on the bowl end of your pipe, then compare it to the leftover resin on the mouthpiece end? There’s a thick coat at the bowl end, and hardly any at the mouthpiece end. You can infer how little resin actually makes its way into your lungs. Sure, there’s some, but a pot smoker’s lungs don’t look like the inside of a pipe.
It really depends on the kind of pot being smoked. Noticing that you’re in the Northwest, I’d guess you get the good stuff, although even some strains of that are a bit resinous.
I’ve smoked joints that literally had resin dripping out the mouthpiece! Really. We had to blot them with a paper towels every two hits, and even then it still left that nasty smell and taste all over our lips.
Of course, if pot was legal, people could all smoke specially bred low tar strains of high quality dope that would get them high in three or four puffs and save them some serious wear and tear on the 'ol lungs.
Alas, it’s not. Prohibition continues to make drugs even less healthy than they already are for the people who choose to use them. Thanks again, Uncle Sam.
I don’t believe that carcinogenicity is a valid argument for marijuana being illegal. Marijuana is no more likely to cause cancer than tobacco – perhaps less likely.
The first reason is that a marijuana user smokes far less material than a tobacco smoker. This being obvious, people often resort to saying that marijuana smoke is inherently more dangerous than tobacco smoke.
But the truth is it really isn’t. I’ve seen a detailed breakdown* of the carcinogens in tobacco and marijuana smoke, and the amounts are very similar. Marijuana has slightly larger amounts of a few chemicals, but the most dangerous carcinogens (like benzo[a]pyrene) are present in slightly larger amounts in tobacco smoke.
Another argument, which to me is the least potent, is the purported increase in strength over the last few decades. Saying that marijuana is 10 or 20 or 40 times stronger than it was in the 1960s, and should therefore be kept illegal, is absurd. It’s just a means for baby boomers to extricate themselves from the problem of opposing a drug they once used. It’s stronger now, though, so it’s somehow evil. If anything, more potent strains of marijuana would do nothing but decrease the risk of cancer – users would smoke less of it, since marijuana smokers typically smoke only enough to reach their desired level of intoxication.
For a very balanced, rational and mostly non-technical description of psychoactive drugs, I strongly recommend “A Primer of Drug Action” by Robert M. Julien. One sentence from that book summarizes my opinion: “Drug abuse should be a public health issue, not a legal issue.”
- I saw the table in Julien’s book, but I think the reference, if anyone wants it, may be New England J. Med., 318(6), 347-351 (1988).
This may sound radical but why not legalize and regulate all drugs, even the ones we know are harmful? Let’s face it, the law doesn’t deter anyone. Anybody who’s stupid enough to use heroin is going to do so whether it’s legal or not. Why legislate what people do to their own bodies. It’s as pointless as laws against gambling, prostitution, even suicide. Myself, I think our own government are the world’s biggest profiteers from the illegal drug trade and that elements of own government are actively involved in it.
OK. So everyone (almost) on the SDMB agrees that pot should be legal or at least de-criminalized. Most of us already knew this. Most of us also know that a majority of thinking people–be they righties or lefties, dems or 'pubs agree with this board’s opinion. As someone else already pointed out-- it seems like it’s been years since anyone here took the pro-prohibiton point of view. And so people continue to ask… “What’s the problem, then?” And others answer, “It’s the stupid politicians!”
Fine. True enough, although I don’t believe the politicians are so stupid. Rather they are smart enough to realize that if they support the reform of pot laws, they will not be (re)elected. So, it is really the voters who are stupid. Or more accurately, ignorant.
Here is the big question then. Maybe it should be another thread, but it is tangential to this so I submit it here:
What now? We have nearly a consensus among intelligent people (those without an axe to grind, anyway) so what do we do now? Do we tell all the sluggards that they are ignorant and best wake up? (That usually doesn’t work too well.) Do we all run out and write checks to NORMYL (I doubt it). Do we just wait until the weight shifts? We all know it’s right and that it is coming (eventually)… but what do we do NOW??
sorry, I mean NORML
Well, of course not. The inside of a person’s lungs is FAR larger than a pipe, and so the tiny amount of resin from inside a pipe would be spread over a wide area. Further, the inside of a pipe is a solid, static surface, whereas the inside of a person’s lungs are fleshy and replace cells over time, “cleansing” out buildup.
But to say that none of that crap gets left in your lungs? Nonsense.
You smoke something-- shit gets in your lungs, and it usually ain’t good. Don’t like it? Don’t smoke. Eat it instead. Good luck eating tobacco, by the way.
Right. The most recent big poll about pot legalization (sorry, no cite, saw it on CNN Headline News ~6 months ago) indicated that 37% percent of people in the U.S. believe pot should be legalized or decriminalized. This is the highest percentage ever recorded. People are coming around; it just takes a while - a long while.
The government is, of course, doing its best to keep the people ignorant for some reason. Witness the absurd drug use == terrorism commercials from last year.
At least the smart people are paying attention. I’ve indicated my pot use to every doctor I had in the past few years. Most of them were rather young doctors. None of them told me to quit or even expressed any concern at all about the pot.
neutron–
Yes-- but if you indicate pot use when applying for new health insurance-- you will probably be denied coverage. Admit heavy drinking? “Hey no problem! We’re here to help get you better!!!” :rolleyes:
I was denied coverage by Blue Cross for stating that I’d used pot 3 years previously when I’d lived in the Netherlands.
Wish those enlightened physicians would clue in the bean-counters.
neutron star:
The main problem I have with the whole hemp thing is that hemp is illegal. Maybe there are exagerrations (sp?) about what hemp can do, but since there is no THC in it why is hemp illegal? Even though there are other materials that can make things better and cheaper, what is the harm in hemp? I mean, It won’t get anyone high!
To I Love Me, Vol. I:
I agree. I’ve always thought that the reason why marijuana remains illegal is because fighting marijuana users looks good politically.