The post you saw is an example of zero restraint.
Obviously, practical limitations exist to any policy that would be taken into account.
I don't think you quite grasp the ... failure ... of the average human today compared to the average human just as little as three thousand years ago. Granted, I'm talking about those who survived into adulthood - but the older generations tended to turn out much higher quality minds.
Please. You're a house pet with aposable thumbs compared to me. Grasping my true personality and motivations is no more possible than envisioning a 5-dimensional object. Just about anything you read from me should be considered a practice of social engineering - you see what I want you to see in what form I want you to see it. I know how your mind works, often better than you do, and know how to influence your perceptions the way I want.
That in mind... do you really think I didn't blatantly and intentionally portray a very intense and even extreme reaction?
Truth be told - in the absence of large-scale social order - I would generally dispose of people who got in my way and/or pissed me off. But if things are that bad, only males really need worry about such things. Generally, I find impregnable house pets a little creepy - but if society is to such extremes of disarray, survival takes precedence over many aversions.
Sometimes, when one is capable of projecting the end result of current trends... and those ends are absolutely unacceptable to any rational being... then one becomes quite open to the use of means that few others can appreciate.
You also don't quite follow my position. The genetic-level degredation of human neurological function that is enabled by society and fosters the development of parasitic biological and sociological geneologies is a threat to the overall function of society as a whole.
I never claimed to be a nice person.
I can be empathetic, and often enjoy being so. Doesn't mean I haven't reached a logical decision regarding your net worth and net liability with a plausible forecast of your future developments.
It doesnt promote government infringement. Why don't you try reading it. Or why don't you try reading my post?
.... What right?
Your grasp of legal situations is... well... blunted.
Laws are exactly what they are as they are written. Only constitutional permissions and restrictions serve to establish guides on how laws affect people. Now this will vary from country to country (and even state to state) - but the government, in many areas, has the authority to label various substances as controlled.
Ponzi Schemes are 'not criminal' because you are merely refusing to abide by the government's process.
Your passionate single-focus on this issue is quite endearing, really - but you should try to think in a few more ways.
I, honestly, cannot even believe I am gracing this with a response. I expect better from you and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Please. You don't have to be a secret squirrel to be able to find the many entrepreneurs offering the stuff. It's not as though the attempts to control it have been very effective.
Which is where your argument is completely stupid, to be blunt.
"It cures cancer!"
"The government doesn't want you to have it!"
"etc"
"etc"
- It's really quite simple. If you know what you're doing, you can make a fairly large sum of money off of a single plant. The illegal nature of it serves only to drive up the price - which makes getting into drug-running more profitable (and the ease of production means there are almost always suppliers who have a lack of runners and dealers to link into). This often ends up strengthening the drug trade at large (not all runners/dealers will get into the harder drugs - but enough will be open to it, particularly those driven by profits).
That's the rational argument to make that will bring sensible people over to your side.
Your worship of the plant is your own delusional fantasy, and you're going to find little support for it.
The two plants are not the same. You aren't going to want to smoke hemp - and cannabis is not as suitable as hemp for its fibers and other industrial processes.
*sigh*
You must be registered for see links
That is simply untrue. It is a myth propagated by misunderstandings and people overly eager to embrace hemp.
The same can be said of straw-derived fibers:
You must be registered for see links
Of course, cellulose nanocrystals are a further refinement of raw cellulose (from any plant matter) that is stronger than carbon fiber.
You must be registered for see links
See above.
For industrially-viable yields, Hemp requires fertilization and a wide range of support.
The same can be said of cannabis worth using for making inhalants.
Even then, hemp isn't really all that stellar of a performer. For an annual crop, hemp averages, commercially, a stem yield of about 3 standard tons per acre (which is what you're using for paper). While smaller crops fawned over by researchers have produced far higher yields (averaging about 5 standard tons per acre), that cannot be expected to hold in commercial farming. Either way - it's overshadowed by the most average of trees and completely trumped by variations of bamboo.
Not to mention the entire argument is for naught.
Paper and particle board are byproducts of solid lumber production. In this vein, it is simply not possible for paper production and a few particle board replacements/competitors to bear the costs of hemp farming. Hurting this even further is that almost all of the industrial applications of hemp can be applied to other standard crops to some degree or another.
No, it really isn't.
Because interest in products derived from advanced processing of cellulose fibers is only a recent thing.
Converting -any- plant to complex hydrocarbon chains is a very inefficient process. Hence the superior viability of using the stuff already in the ground.
That's horribly, horribly inaccurate and not supported by any research group or current agricultural production (which does go on in many parts of the world).
The same can be said of straw. The reason is that you are creating a very primitive form of composite material. The concrete serves as a sort of epoxy-binder while the hemp (or other cellulose fiber) serves as the fibrous weave. Though I would be wary using unprocessed fibers for this, as it might open up vulnerabilities to termites in concrete. Moisture is another concern (which would tend to duct down the fibers and cause them to expand and contract).
Honestly, I'd just go with steel mesh and rebar.
The mythos is largely hype. Hemp was used largely for rope construction. The other uses are minor. That is, largely, the reason hemp is still grown. Despite considerable advances in polymer technology - hemp is still widely used for ropes and shipping lines. A huge part of the reason is because hemp lines will part under strain with minimal recoil while a nylon line will take legs off when it snaps. The Navy uses some more modern kevlar lines - but those are expensive as all holy hell (even if they don't suffer from synthetic line snapback) and well outside the necessary performance rating of most shipping line applications.
It has its uses. The problem is that growth rates of hemp have been vastly, vastly overestimated by its crowd of worshippers. Combine that with the fact that most of its purported uses attempt to conflict with established markets and industries that would have to see considerable retooling and completely different process designs to deal with accepting hemp as a component... it's just not realistic.
By all means - farmers should be open to try and those industries should be allowed to attempt and fail. The laws regarding it are not serving their intended purpose and are not really capable of being enforced. But industrial hemp outside of a few niches it already has is a completely lost cause. Anything it can do - there exist other crops that can do it better or there exist byproducts from other primary crops (that are already harvested and the byproduct discarded) that hemp would have to be farmed specifically to compete against.
And that's the real kicker. Most of the applications for hemp can be filled by corn stalks, soybean stalks, tomato vines - whatever the hell - things that are already harvested within a self-sustaining industry... hemp would be competing with the 'trash' of other agricultural endeavors while covering costs and turning a profit while also competing for much of that same farm land.
It's not the "savior plant." It has some applications that will make it worth producing for a small segment of farmers. Otherwise - it's just not worth it, nor will it likely ever be.
