The ecofundies have gone to pot.
If you'll excuse the corny line. *Hemp*. Yes, that's a hemp-woven smoking jacket. Why do you ask?
"Let's find out what everybody is doing – and stop them doing it" – A P Herbert Stoners are helping destroy the planet. Not by excessive snacking, but thanks to the high-energy demands of indoor marijuana cultivation. So says a US Government policy analyst with a Puritanical streak and an EYE for a SHOUTY HEADLINE. Evan Mills …
...fuck off and die. Don't plants convert CO2 to O2 during photosynthesis?
Why can't we grow the sacred herb in hot countries and import them? Oh yeah, that's right, due to silly, unjust laws. We wouldn't want to threaten the alcohol industry.
I'm about to warm up my Volcano to vaporise some fine herbs.
It's not the alcohol industrial complex fighting legalization, as much as it's the cops and lawyers and judges (all of whom may be in a hostage situation)...
Let me explain. Pot can be smuggled to a college town by cops and other people in power, then sold to kids for profit #1. Then said consumers are arrested, and charged, and ultimately pay both a fine the community, and likely hire a lawyer. Both are profitable for the community.
Is the corruption handed down from generation to generation? Yes! Any good cop, lawyer or judge is secretly ostracized or threatened into maintaining the outward appearance of Truth.
No one in the world believes the federal (USA) government doesn't know local governments are corrupt.
Illegal Pot is too profitable, for too many reasons, to EVER be legal.
Yes, plants convert CO2 to O2 during photosynthesis, however the electricity used, and we are talking about 1kW of LED lights per square meter, or more than that if you use a less efficient bulb, generates a lot more CO2 than the carbon captured by these plants. Also, that carbon gets released again when you burn the plants.
Cannabis can be grown outside even in places like Scotland, but you are much more likely to get caught if you grow outside.
A quick check of the forums or related guides would tell you a couple of things - very few people use LED lights, they need a lot more work to be viable. Most people are switching from HID setups (e.g Metal Halides) to low power CFLs. Even with High Intensity Discharge light 1,000 watts per square metre would be REALLY high and cause potentially insurmountable heat issues
Plants also convert O2 to CO2 during respiration (using the sugar produced in photosynthesis to get energy from it). Ever wondered why flowers are commonly taken away from patients in hospitals at night? The main reason trees are counted as good for CO2 is for carbon capture (tying it up for considerable time), not because of photosyntheses else just planting more grass would be in vogue rather than long lived trees.
Import it in bulk from places where it can be grown outdoors. Resin is more convenient here for transportation purposes.
Morocco ("00"), The Lebanon ("Red") and Afghanistan ("Black") always used to run a thriving resin export business back in the day and I'm sure they'd be delighted to expand the industry.....
...though, is that due to consumption of said weed, stoners sleep longer which saves enormous amounts of energy, thus overall lowering the stoners' carbon footprint. Stoners should seek a CO2 offset which they can then trade on the carbon markets, and with their profits they can buy more weed and start the cycle over.
"1 per cent of energy usage in the United States".
I have absolutely no data to back me up in this, but surely this quote is very very very far off the mark.
And if indoor pot growing is very energy-inefficient, surely teh best solution is (a) grow it outdoors and (b) stop sending SWAT teams to bust people for a few grams of marijuana. Legalise the stuff and send the SWAT teams to tear up Wall street
So, are you going to volunteer to lead by example and give up all alcohol, or cigars, or coffee, or whatever your own preferred vice is? This just sounds like more of the "I don't use it, therefore nobody should be allowed to" nonsense spouted by the control freaks who want to ban everything in society.
It amazes me the huge amount of resources used to bust someone with a few plants. The TV Cops progs show a lot of this stuff and the cops boast about "Stopping another farm" - a farm ffs? Usually about enough plants to keep yerself happy, not exactly the regulation 'houseful of plants and Vietnamese' that are apparently abundant in our cities.
Legalising the growing of just a few plants would save a huge amount of police money and time and fuel and and and.
The Troll looks like he's just had a hit off a bong
Like once you get the drug war habit, well, it's kind of hard to stop.
We'd only need half as many prisons and prison officers.
We'd have to sack half the police as most other crime is done by junkies needing the money for a fix.
Journalists would have to find other stories to write about.
Hundreds of undertakers in Mexico employed burying the 20,000 drug war victims per annum would have to find other employment.
The whole economy would go to pot - pun intended.
This is only pot we're talking about - weedheads don't quite fall into the heroin junkie type category normally ... about the only crime a stoner is likely to commit (apart from the obvious weed buying bit) is walking out of the all-night garage with 20 Mars bars because they got mixed up in the shelf maze and wandered out the door before going to the till.
And then being too paranoid to go back into the garage afterwards because like, they'll know man... O_o
Many stoners don't go on holidays or own cars as they spend their money on dope. I'm sure this offsets the dope growing that some engage in.
Rich people are destroying the planet - they fly hither and yon, pontificating about how we should all live. They often own more than one house, thus depriving others of shelter and own companies that treat the earth and its citizens as a means to making profit. They pay their workers so poorly that Government have to top wages up and then they avoid paying as much tax as possible, thus bleeding the system from both ends.
There's nothing wrong with biofuel per se, as long as the EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested) is high. Brazil and Australia get theirs from sugar cane, which has an EROEI of 8. In neither country is sugar cane depriving people of food.
The US, on the other hand, gets theirs mainly from corn, which has a piddly EROEI of 1.6. The only reason companies convert corn into biofuel is because of all the government subsidies to do so. It's bloody stupid, in my opinion.
"Targeting the pot industry appeals to environmentalists in a number of ways. It allows several new bureaucracies to sprout forth, and more importantly, it also plays to "the haunting fear" (in Mencken's description of Puritanism) that "someone, somewhere, may be happy"."
Excuse me? I think you're confusing environmentalists with the Christian right or something.
Looking at the FAQs on his website and scanning the report, I would also suggest that calling the author a "policy analyst with a Puritanical streak" is quite wide of the mark (but par for the course).
This research is just one more reason why the criminalisation of marijuana is utterly wrong. The fact that in 2006 a third of the US's *total* weed crop was grown indoors in California (you really should pay more attention to your source material), a climate so perfectly suited for outdoor growing, is staggering and predominantly down to criminalisation.
Therefore I would expect the vast majority of environmentalists to lean towards decriminilsation rather than increased control.
... but the oak tree has been locking that CO2 in place for the last few hundred years - the CO2 in the weed crop has been returned to the atmosphere (quite literally) in just a few months.
The net impact of the weed crop on CO2 levels year on year is nothing. Whereas the Oak copse will have held that CO2 trapped up until long after your grandchildren are dead - carbon offsetting in this way is all about postponing the problem so long that it's no longer YOUR problem.
In the interests in saving the environment, maybe our govt, should re-examine their stance on the illegality of a plant (made illegal after WWII (thanks dupont, and hurst), and get rid of the penalties for cultivation of a commonly occurring plant. Let these indoor farmers move outside with out fear of reprisal, give them the book authored by President George Washington on growing for potency in exchange for their Indoor Grower's guide.
Just a thought!
when there's any criticism of alcohol? it's fucking horrible and the people who drink it are fucking annoying.
Doesn't make some kind of fucking ultimate street fighter / funniest person on the planet / god's gift to the opposite sex because you drink it.
Nectar of the gods? My arse.
Give me a spliff any day.
when there's any praise of pot? It's good stuff and the people who don't smoke it are often uptight arseholes.
It doesn't make you some kind of righteous moral guardian because you don't smoke it.
Give me a spliff over a pint any day. Maybe toking up would chill you out a little ;)
(For the record, the 'sacred herb' people make me groan a little too. Taking things a little far methinks)
Some illuminating quotations from the source on the 'puritan angle' Andrew pulled out of thin air for this one:
"Does this study support the case for criminalization? No."
"What is the purpose of this study?
This study simply aims to quantify a previously undocumented component of energy demand in the United States, to understand the underlying technical drivers, and to establish baseline impacts in terms of energy use, costs, and greenhouse-gas emissions. This study does not pass judgement on the merits of Cannabis cultivation or make recommendations for how to reduce this energy use, but observes that many reversible inefficiencies are embedded in current practices."
Not a week goes by without an illegal grow operation burning to the ground here in Northern California, thanks to overloaded electrical systems, thus pumping all kinds of narsties into the atmosphere.
Hint to the brain-dead: Just because you have 150 amp service doesn't mean you can pull 150 amps continuously ... or even 125, for that matter, unless you know what you are doing.
There's been several busts in my town where people have rented houses, bypassed the meters and set up farms. A bit of a health & safety problem in our more densely populated areas, but luckily we seem to have less of a problem with meth labs exploding. So far.
As for California, their problem may be self-limiting given California's energy and carbon policies will be inflating costs. As soon as other states figure out the tax potential from licensing weed production, California's growers will probably relocate. Much like other Californian businesses are doing at the moment.
As someone who has abused both alcohol and cannabis in various forms it is clear to me that marijuana ABUSE is less deleterious to individuals and societies than alcohol ABUSE.
OTOH, since I know plenty who enjoy a glass of wine or beer without ever getting drunk, but no one who smokes weed without getting high, the percentage of users to abusers is lower with alcohol.
I'd say that most of us would be better off with neither, so policy makers should do their best to discourage both. The "war on drugs" seems a bit heavy-handed though, and given the precedent set with alcohol & tobacco in most places at huge societal cost, it seems odd to put reefer across the DMZ in that failed and costly war.
I wonder about the carbon footprint of doing these kinds of studies. But maybe I DID smoke too much dope....
"OTOH, since I know plenty who enjoy a glass of wine or beer without ever getting drunk, but no one who smokes weed without getting high, the percentage of users to abusers is lower with alcohol."
By this sentence, you seem to be implying that any intoxication from a substance = abuse of that substance. I do not believe this is a valid link to make, especially in this context.
"Getting high" with weed is nothing like getting falling-down-drunk. It's much more similar to becoming mildly tipsy. You wouldn't consider drinking to that level to be alcohol abuse, would you? To be impaired by weed to the same level as impairment due to drunkenness, you would have to smoke most of an ounce all to yourself - a ludicrous amount of pot to smoke all at once, and certainly nothing you could consume in a short amount of time.
Since you have said you abused both alcohol and pot, perhaps it's simply that you cannot imagine any use that is not abuse? I smoke weed regularly and I would certainly not consider my low levels of use to be "abuse." It is, rather, a relaxing way to wind down at the end of a week, certainly more relaxing and "cleaner-feeling" than the times I've chosen to wind down with alcohol instead.
I'd say, rather than banning things, let people consume whatever intoxicants they choose, and stop funding the expensive, failing War on Drugs.
You know; the first inhibition you lose drinking is the inhibition to drink more; coke makes you a new man but the first thing the new man wants is another hit, etc. Not so with weed. My experience is you take a few hits, then next time around ending up passing the thing.
But yeah, I am saying that when we put chemicals into our system for the express purpose of changing our mindset, that's abusive, or at least it has proven so for me. Not the end of civilization, not always a direct path to ruination for everyone, but generally a bad sign. It sounds really corny to say, but the "natural highs" (exercise, meditation, listening to music, hanging w/ friends, commenting on the Reg?, ...) are much healthier and more sustainable for the individual as well as society, although at the societal level, for "soft drugs" especially, we bring much of it on ourselves with our punitive, heavy-handed approach.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Decriminalize, then regulate. Put health and safety regulations on the growing of it (has to be in an open area, not to close to schools.. blah blah blah). Not to mention the hemp industry could take off meaning less need for other crops and less need for pesticides (as it is generally a more bug resistant plant). Not to mention all the CO2 saved by people having to go pick-up from their dealers as they would either grow it themselves or just go to the local pot shop/pub to get their stashes and if they were growing it themselves there would be more plants soaking up the C02.
Seems a no brainer.
Paris, because she is the queen of no-brainers.
Hydroponics is basically the exact inverse of biofuel: Use energy generated by some other means and store it as chemical PE in plants.
The high-intensity discharge lamps used for growing plants are already about as energy efficient as can be got (traditional, wirewound ballasts can actually be *less* lossy, due to the use of decent, thick copper wire and properly-sized steel cores, than some switched-mode ones -- which are clearly built down to a selling price, and never mind that the buyer will eventually spend many more times the difference on wasted electricity over the lifetime of the product). LED technology is looking promising, but not ready for prime time yet.
Anyway, for crying out loud: people only grow the stuff indoors *to avoid detection because it's illegal*. If it wasn't illegal, they'd be saving electricity (and therefore money) by growing it outdoors. And the "waste" (i.e., non-THC bearing) parts of the plant contain enough PE to make damn good biofuel.
What a laugh to hear The Reg complain about ethanol production. I don't think there are many "greens" that think this is a great idea, instead we get "green-wash" from the farming lobby, the same way as we get "carbon-wash" from the oil/gas lobby to keep society hooked on their products.
Both groups scared at the idea of decentralised, efficient, energy that doesn't result in ongoing mega-profits for them.
The energy gain figures for ethanol from food-stock are ludicrous- you have to pump in about as much energy to produce corn-based ethanol in the form of oil as you get out.
So this is why you don't hear the oil/gas lobby screaming against ethanol. It is more money for everyone!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019