|
|
Post by IsmAvatar on May 1, 2005 0:55:43 GMT -5
Seeing as nobody's willing to strike up the tune, I guess I'll get this show started.
This debate (and you don't need to number them or anything, I just felt I would to make it look professional) is based on the topic of the Law's Involvement in Hemp.
For those of you uneducated and/or uncorrupted by societal views - Hemp is a grown plant which, after several processes, may produce the mind-altering substance Marijuana.
Keep in mind, though, this debate is about Hemp, and not Marijuana. If you want to go debating about Marijuana, start your own topic. We will only touch briefly in that subject, lest I shall take corrective action to get us back on topic.
--Begin--
Hemp. Why is it illegal? Should it be legal? Are you a pot-head? Are you in it just to legalize pot? Wait, we're getting off-topic here. Lol.
So, spread whatever knowledge you know, state whatever myths you've been told, and debunk anything you feel may be incorrect.
I'll be sure to spread my wings of enlightenment from time to time.
|
|
|
|
Post by megamushroom on May 1, 2005 4:50:10 GMT -5
i had no idea what hemp was  so i did some research on it ;D www.hempnation.com/I can see why it is illegal, but i think it shouldnt However, the site i found was a bit onesided, but it did throw some useful facts at me. Hemp seems to be very useful, and banning it seems to cause more problems that solutions. As far as i can tell, Hemp can be used as food, cotton, cloth, paper, fuel and medicine. It is a very versatile crop, and we are naiive to its uses. |
|
|
|
Post by IsmAvatar on May 1, 2005 20:02:24 GMT -5
Well, there's 2 reasons behind why it's illegal. The myth, and the real reason. It's like Iraq. The myth is that we're in there because they took down the WTC. The truth is (debatably - for another debate if you wish) that we went in there for oil.
With hemp, the real reason it's illegal is the same reason why it should be legal. Surprised? You should be. Our buddies the government are hiding the truth from us again. Because it REPLACES oil in cars, because it REPLACES wood for paper, because it REPLACES textiles. All non-renewable resources, suddenly replaced by one which more than renews itself, it renews the environment. If we suddenly used Hemp instead of what we are currently using, how many people would go out of business? The economy would crumble.
The myth is what I'm not aware of, and I wish for someone to point it out. Why is it that hemp has been outlawed according to what you have been told?
The closest I've come is the fact that it produces Mary Jane, and, given high enough dosages (100,000 joints to be exact), it would have the same mind-altering effects as it's medical sedative by-product Marijuana.
By the way, why is Marijuana a good medical replacement for most of the other pain-reducing drugs? Because all the others must be injested - upon which they will most likely be expulsed (thrown up). Marijuana is smoked instead, no ingestion necessary. And to add to that, it makes you hungry (good for patients who won't eat).
On the flip side of Marijuana, however, the more grimm side - It is a mind-altering substance. When you get high, you may believe that London is having a meltdown; that you are sprouting roots and becoming a tree; or that your best friend has turned into an excellent archery target. You may believe that you are on a hunting trip (whereas you are probably just out in the streets of new york. Not a good place to go killing 'animals').
So far my statements have been unbiased and to the best of my knowledge. I, therefor, do not take a stance on the matter, yet.
Your counter-statements are more than welcome. They help educate me as to the other side's point of view. For it is through Education - not Legistation - that you can truly be a free country - free of major problem to the point that they are negligable.
|
|
|
|
Post by megamushroom on May 2, 2005 5:32:08 GMT -5
that speech is so American Ism, lol. To be honest, I share the same views as you, so it isnt a great debate. People in this world need to wake up and see what is right not just for individuals, but for everyone. Multi-corporations are in it for the money. Money is invented by man(or women, i dont want to be sexist  ), so as far as i can see, we are our major downfall. We can not see the greater loss due to the financial gain. We need to use these natural resources in order to live a better, less finance driven life, and also to help the enviroment. Eventually, our natural resources will be gone, and we will have to use hemp. I hope then they will realise what they have done and are doing to our already instable world. |
|
|
|
Post by IsmAvatar on May 2, 2005 14:05:39 GMT -5
No woman is stupid enough to create such a materialistic thing. Take that for sexism.
Unfortunately, by then, it'll be too late. Look into the effects of deforestation and oil drainage. Once we use it all up, Mother Nature will have some fun taking care of the virus known as Human-Kind. For a slightly exaggerated example, watch The Day After Tomorrow.
I'm very American. It just seems like I'm not because I don't follow the same views the rest of America has developed over the years. What time period were we in when America was founded? Answer: Enlightenment. Led by some of the world's greatest thinkers (Thomas Jefferson, to name one). It was based around freedom of religion (Ironic, isn't it, that shortly afterwards we have the Salem Trials), and Protecting Minorities (see: Majority Rule). Nothing is more anti-American than America itself.
What we need to do is figure out how to open up the eyes of the blind. An America led by irrational assumptions brought forth through the media.
What is the American Dream? Today, it's to have as much money as you possibly can. But truly, does it make you any happier to have 3 swimming pools - especially when you know that in a couple of years humanity will kill itself (if nature doesn't beat him to it)?
|
|
Megamushroom at College
Guest
|
Post by Megamushroom at College on May 3, 2005 8:23:25 GMT -5
A bit far fetched and idealistic there Ism hmm, women are the source of all money problems, their habits in shopping, the fact men can buy womens love with it etc etc. It is only men who try to find more and more of it, to compete against other men, for, you guessed it, women. Anyway, back on point: Im not sure if you believe in mother nature/god, or if this is just a far fetched exmple, but i believe that mankind can redeem himself yet. We will soon be forced into an era where by we will have no choice but to use renewable sources, into an era where the common man may overthrow the goverment/authority/common belief in an glorious realisation that we are the destroyer of our own lives, and it must stop. |
|
|
|
Post by Camo Pachyderm on May 3, 2005 11:47:50 GMT -5
I'm new to this board, so I hope no one minds me butting in. I'm not sure I'm going to join yet, so that's why I'm posting as a guest. I'm from the GMC, in case anyone was wondering.  A note: Though it may seem otherwise, I always keep an open mind. Don't be surprised if I argue with you very hard for a while, only to suddenly change my mind and agree with you. I may finally have "seen the light".  Ok, my humble opinion on hemp is derived from my opinion on drugs in general: a blanket "allow 'em". I don't do drugs, don't want to do drugs, don't plan on ever using drugs, and don't know anyone who's ever used 'em either. If people want to use drugs to damage themselves, that's bloody fine with me. (Heck, it means less people to compete for in the job market!) It's the same situation as during the Prohibition. The more controls you put on it, the more people want to have whatever you don't want them to have, and the more they'll actually obtain and get into trouble with. Sure, the first years after it's allowed you'd have people all over the country "overstocking" on them and generally getting 'high' and making wrecks out of themselves. That's why it would be a better idea to slowly reintroduce them over the course of several years. People wouldn't get as excited about it and it wouldn't seem so out of place that people would go nuts over it. Sorry for the off-topic, but that's basically my opinion about hemp too. Just that if people want to use it, it's fine with me. It doesn't affect me mentally, spiritually, or physically, and does none of the above to anyone other than those that use them either. JM2CW.  Sorry if I was mostly preaching to the choir. |
|
|
|
Post by IsmAvatar on May 3, 2005 16:42:46 GMT -5
@mega
while woman may be the source of money problems, that wasn't the issue at hand. The issue was, who created money? Women would have had a much happier time walking down the isles of a supermarket just taking whatever they wanted and not having to pay for it. if you wish to discuss this topic further, start a new debate
as for my belief in god/mother nature, I believe in mother nature, but only what is proven and displayed. I remain skeptic of anything which is not proven. As such, it's not necessarily a belief; it just supports my agnosticism further. And God is out of the question. If I were god, I would have eliminated humankind years ago, and possibly replaced it with something a little more willing to cooperate. Seeing as that hasn't happened, I can only wonder if he's really up there or not. This, too, is for another debate (and I believe I've already seen such a topic having begun)
@camo
You're not exactly preaching to the choir. We're all learning a little something from each other, to help strengthen our perception of reality, and to help build arguments against those who hold on to traditional values which hold humankind back a couple (hundred) years.
May I also point out the black market's 'quality'. While Abortion was illegal, the term 'Jack-Knife Barber" became familiar, and the ever-disturbing 'clothes-hanger' emblem arose. Having an abortion was very dangerous, and likely to harm (and/or kill) the mother. Note: while this may be a one-sided view of abortion, it's not intended to be a look at abortion, but at the black market. My views on abortion are not to be revealed here; you may start another debate topic to see my view.(end note) The same deal goes for drugs. They're dangerous, contaminated, mixed, high-priced, and already across the legal line. For more information on my view of drugs, and to continue such a debate, please start a new topic for such.
This topic is for hemp.
|
|
|
|
Post by Camo Pachyderm on May 3, 2005 18:29:22 GMT -5
I apologize for misunderstanding you. (BTW, am I misunderstanding you again, or are you acting a bit "cold" towards me?  ) I already stated my opinion on hemp, so there isn't much for me to add, seeing as you don't seem to want me to comment on your other points as they will lead off-topic.  |
|
|
|
Post by IsmAvatar on May 3, 2005 18:56:44 GMT -5
I see no misunderstanding nor coldness. I'm simply approaching the matter in a most professional way, which may seem cold because it presents the data without much emotion.
Or maybe there is emotion, you're just seeing it in a different light (emotion is kinda hard to present online unless you almost directly state it. Otherwise, it's assumed). In which case, allow me to reassure you, I mean my words in the highest, most loving light possible. My words tend to have a sense of sarcasm to them, such that you are welcome to laugh.
Take this responce, for example.
"You're not exactly preaching to the choir."
Since there's a negative ("not") in the sentance, it may be taken as cold. But imagine if there was a bit of laughter added to the voice reading it. Not so cold after all.
Hmm. since i'm the enforcer of the rules, I guess I can be a little leniant with ya. Also, since you're only a guest, and don't have the power to create topics (which is what I almost told you to do, lol)... Ok, camo. You're welcome to go a little off topic. Respond to my statements. After all, a conversation was never meant to stay on topic for as long as it lasted. And, after all, this is the Off Topic Area.
|
|
|
|
Post by Camo Pachyderm on May 4, 2005 9:01:07 GMT -5
LOL! Alright then, thank you. I'm used to misunderstandings over the 'Net, which is why I asked rather than got upset. I tend to try to use smilies in effective places. Not too many or people get annoyed, but enough so that the expression on my face as I type it comes across a little. I actually picked up on the sarcasm, but it seemed to be too dry. It was a misunderstanding, that's all. You've merely been filed away in the section of my brain reserved for people I don't understand well over the 'Net, and that will be taken into account in the future. It's not your fault really, just a necessary thing for me to successfully communicate with you over the 'Net. I know a girl who is bubblier than you could imagine, yet over the 'Net she's as expressive as a wall. A very boring wall. Ok, slightly back on topic now. First, allow me to say that I'm religious. Judging from other posts you've made on that subject, it has been my impression that you... disapprove, of religious people. Hopefully I won't sound too stereotypical when I say that I'm truly sorry that G-d made you an unbeliever.  I don't want to get into a theological debate with you on the subject, so I'll not go far into this. I'm not Christian, and I'm not going to reveal my actual religion. I will simply say that I've decided to allow my religion to govern the majority of my life and my major decisions in it. I'm sure you'll also express your sorrow over my decision, and that you're sorry that I've decided to limit my life so much. Then we'll be even.  Contrary to my understanding of your opinion of religious folk, I don't hate you or consider you a "Devil worshiper". (Unless you actually do something worth hating you for, or worship the Devil!) Nor do I go around asking people to convert to my religion, which obviously means that I've never tried to force anyone either. My religion has actually never once (to my memory) in its history done such a thing. Allow me to quote you from that 'God' thread quickly if you don't mind: I just want to say that that can be said almost word for word from a religious standpoint as well. A lot of religion is based on belief; hence the word, "Faith". Also, other than math, science is my favorite subject. I don't disbelieve any of the proven stuff, and I don't doubt most of the theories as well. They just help to enhance my understanding of the world G-d created for us to enjoy. (Sorry for not posting parts of that in the 'God' thread, I don't want to get into a theological debate as I've already said. I'm probably going to say a little something there anyway, but not really to argue, just to point something out.) Second, your post of 7:56pm Yesterday didn't really give your opinion. It said some stuff, but, as far as I could tell, nothing really about how what you said affects your opinion. Perhaps you could expand on it a little? Also, rather than make a fool of myself pretending I understood what you meant by "Jack-Knife Barber", "clothes-hanger emblem", and such, I'll simply tell you the truth and state that I've never heard of them. I did a tinsy bit of research on the 'Net, but was unable to find anything. Perhaps you could explain to me what is meant by these? Then maybe I'll be able to do some more research on my own. Second to last: my view on abortion briefly. It's quite simple really; abortion is a "no-no" except in a few cases. The basic premise of these cases is that the mother's life comes first. If there's no problems with the birth, no abortion. If only one can live, the mother lives. If either one has a better chance of living... I'm not really sure. Thank G-d I've never had any run-ins with abortion, so I've never really had much cause to think about it overly much, but it would probably depend on the situation. Of course, every case is different, but they'll all fit mostly into those basic cases. Lastly, you do realize that, "I see no misunderstanding nor coldness" means that you do see coldness, don't you? Later! |
|
|
|
Post by IsmAvatar on May 4, 2005 20:47:40 GMT -5
About the smileys. It's considered sensible to limit them. Maybe like 2-3 per view-ful. Any more and it's considered obsession/abuse of smileys, mostly common in N00bs, who get a bad rep. Now, I can understand how completely taking them out may make you seem cold, but it's professional. I mean, when you're writing a business document, you don't draw a little smiley face next to the topic you like. Anywhom, I'll see if I can brighten up your perception of my mood by throwing in smileys here and there. Hey, if people could learn to keep their hands and god to theirselves, I probably wouldn't have much of a problem. It's when they start telling other people what to do and what not to do that it gets out of hand. Mind your own business; why should you care if someone decides to destroy their life, eh?  If you think you can help them, coerce them; don't force them. When I was 'made', I had no opinions on any matter. It was only until my parents, school, and friends started introducing Him that I discovered Him and started believing. Yes, you read that right, I started believing. Up until a few years ago, I was a christian. Not a strong one, mind you, just the kind who prays and believes a bit of what the bible says and the stories and what not (pretty strange stories - rings 'fairy tale' to me). I was depressed back then, too. Almost suicidal. It was only when I discovered Agnosticism, Philosophy, and Truth that I suddenly became truly happy. I can live my life how I wish now, and don't have to sit around waiting for death, following a very strict set of guidelines. I live for life, not death. And if God really cared that much about me, he'd either do one of his miracle things or what-have-you (whatever happened to Moses and those guys and so on? It's like God just suddenly decided to break off all communication with the world). Again, it's whatever makes you happy. If religion makes you happy, so be it. Doesn't make me happy, I can tell you that much. Unfortunately, this isn't so. I respect that you have decided to be religious, and govern your life around it. Perhaps it may help you in your persuit of happiness. I'm not sorry for you at all. Nor do I feel I need to get even. I'm the type that when you attack me, I just turn the other cheek. Naw. Maybe just spread a little heresy here and there ;D, but nothing outrageous like that. Like I said, why would I waste my time worshipping something that I suspect doesn't exist? I guess that's somewhat reassuring. I'm quite aware of that. I was hesitant posting it because I know the religious folk seem to enjoy using it against me. Now, of course, their only argument of proof is a few of cooincidences and 'The bible is the proof'. Now, I've read through the bible a couple of times (you gotta keep up with the popular books if you want to be involved in conversations about them), and I can say I don't find it very convincing or proof-full at all. The writer (whomever you wish to give credit to) seemed to enjoy throwing in a few true historical references to make the book more believable. There's other books i've read which have done the same thing. And they have events which are slightly more possible than the bible (eg: a virgin giving birth wouldn't appear in these books). Yet I (and religious folk) know that these books are false. Er... I think we all know... Firstly, please don't state times without giving a time zone. Nextly, my opinion on what? My opinion on religion is (as stated in the God thread) agnosticism. My opinion on hemp has not yet been stated (I'd like to appear neutral such that my posts are informative, rather than persuasive). My opinion on Abortion (and others) are the same. Of course. Sorry for assuming that everyone knew what I meant. As of today, most, if not all of the US states that abortion is legal. However, previously, it was illegal. During that time, there were people who were illegally having abortions. And beeing that it was the black market, doing such was very dangerous. Jack-Knive Barber. Note the term Barber. Lots of barbers would perform abortions using tools that I'll leave to you to figure out. Pretty safe and painless, eh? Clothes-Hanger emblem. Clothes Hangers were another very popular tool for performing abortions (I'll leave you to imagine how, if you do so desire). As such, Clothes-Hangers became the emblem which the democrats would haunt the Anti-Abortionists with. At the last legislative debate over the matter, the dems handed out Clothes-Hangers to all the repubs. May I give you a suggestion should you ever get into a debate? Never use the term 'no-no' or 'wrong'. You're not convincing anyone, and may be taken less practical with those laughable vague terms. People are gonna wanna know why. Again, I'm not stating my opinion on abortion - yet. For all you know, I could be anti-abortion as well. I'm just presenting the facts that you should know but may or may not know already. Er, last time I checked english, "[subject] [verb] no [target1] nor [target2]" meant that both target1 and target2 are false, because 'nor' means 'additionally no'. "So, who is this God guy anyways? One of your imaginary friends? Isn't that cute." - anonymous "I believe in God, only I spell it NATURE" - Frank Lloyd Wright "Theism - Claiming that all gods except ones own are false. Atheism - not making that exception." - anonymous |
|
|
|
Post by Camo Pachyderm on May 5, 2005 8:52:20 GMT -5
LOL! I appreciate the lesson in "Smiley etiquette", but I'm fairly well versed already. I was not actually asking that you use them, but I appreciate your effort nonetheless. That wasn’t quite what I meant... I don't believe that you have much choice in the matter. It's very complicated, but basically I don't believe that we have true freedom of choice. (I'm not saying that people don't get punished for things they do... see, this is where it gets complicated. You don't have to understand, and I'm not going to try very hard to explain it.) Not just from a religious perspective though; (this is also partially my own speculation, it's not really my religion’s "official opinion on 'freedom of choice'") ever heard of "Chaos Theory"? It's a very fascinating subject that I can expound on for you a little bit (I don't claim to be any sort of expert on it!) if you haven't heard of it. One could argue that we 'decided' (no, not really consciously) to break off all communication with Him. But again, I don't want to argue theology. 'Discuss,' maybe a little, but 'argue'? Nope. ("Unfortunately"?!) Hmm, I seemed to remember you saying (in another thread) something that disagreed with what you've said above, but now it seems that I misread it. I apologize for assuming you thought something. Ooh, so I can attack both sides equally? I appreciate the gesture, but it really isn't necessary. ( ) Apologies. Your fourth post in the thread. I was actually inquiring about your opinion on hemp, because that's what this thread is supposed to center on. It now appears however that you would like to refrain from giving it, so you need not give it if you still wish to keep it private. I figured as much, but was strangely unable to find much on them. I now know in which direction to continue looking. Thank you. Please go to the ' God' thread, go to your first post, and scroll down to the bulleted lines. Check the last word before the first bullet. I appreciate your suggestion however. As to why abortion is a "no-no" in my opinion, there are a couple of reasons. Firstly, my religion says so. (No, it doesn't use "no-no".) Secondly, according to my moral sense, it's wrong. (Seeing as you live your life by feelings and emotion, I don't see why you might have a problem with me making a decision based off of mine.) There are differing opinions on this, but in my opinion it's murder. Also, using "no-no" wasn't much of a big deal in this case, because I wasn't expecting to persuade you. I wasn't arguing, merely stating my opinion. (You seem to be doing that a lot yourself...) In the rules of this forum, it also asks that we should 'state our position on the debate in a straightforward manner' if we don't mind. That's pretty much what I was doing, and I'll point out that you just said that that is exactly what you're not doing. Mmm... I suppose it's possible, (English grammar isn't one of my strong points) but it would seem to me that it's a double negative. If I were to have phrased it, I would have done so more like this: I'm probably wrong, but that's what seems correct to me. |
|
|
|
Post by IsmAvatar on May 5, 2005 17:07:00 GMT -5
I understand fine. It's the question of 'do you believe that everything is random, based on choice, or pre-planned for you'. I've been through all three, in order Very familiar. Everything is related - if a butterfly flutters its wings in congo, it can cause a piano to fall on someone's head in brooklyn. This is ironic because the definition of Chaos is quite the opposite. I say 'unfortunately' on your behalf, because now you'd prolly feel that I'd want to get even. Or some other obfuscated reason that I don't realise at this time (hey, with all the philosophies flying around in my head, it's no surprise I forget small stuff so easily). I probably did say an opposing view on that statement in another thread (please point it out if you find it). That's because I'm in more of a hurry when I make other posts. When it comes to philosophy and such, I'm much more thorough, take more time to determine what my opinion really is, and so on. Yeah, it's a problem, but i'm constantly fixing my problems. Now you may see why I 'disagree' with religious people. If someone turns the other cheek, you're a psychopath if you whack them again. That's gotta be some kind of sin. I wasn't really trying to prove a point there. I figured most people would understand that it's a statement of position. And if you oppose the view, you're probably a psychopath (not to say there's anything wrong with that. Seeing as it's quite natural to have an occasional psychopath, pedophile, and selective sexual orientation person (such as homosexual AND heterosexual). I'm still trying to figure out why, and what to do with them, lol). If you're not trying to prove a point, and just stating an opinion (which you were, and I see that now), it's fine. Lol, it's more of a suggestion that you state your opinion in order for people to understand where you're coming from. Since I'm not coming from anywhere, but rather just presenting facts, i don't really have to worry about that. If the rules seem to infer otherwise, I'll make sure to clarify them. I apologize if I sound like a hypocrite - heck I probably am; another thing for me to watch out for about myself. I'm always seeking to better myself. The 'nor' issue. lol. The dictionary gives the example of "Neither A nor B." which means that A is false and B is false. I also notice they use the word 'neither' instead of 'no'. The effect would still be the same, it's just possible that it's not grammatically correct. But grammer isn't the question at hand here (a grammer checker would have a field day here), it's the question of if I said what I meant, which I did. Also, "I see no misunderstanding or coldness" would not be grammatically correct at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Camo Pachyderm on May 5, 2005 17:46:15 GMT -5
No, you don't. Forget it. It actually can be taken further than just that. A molecule of air that is disturbed half an angstrom by the flap of that butterflies wings in Congo, can make you decide to have a vanilla cream instead of a chocolate. (I know; that was completely from out of the blue.) In other words, when the universe was "created", (either by "Creationism", "The Big Bang", or whatever; it makes no difference to me) if one atom had been off by the smallest bit, or something like that, the entire universe would be completely different now from how it currently is; the synapses in our brains and everything included. Another way to think of it is that the universe is a giant "computer". (Ok, did that last part sound too much like HHGTTG?!) And yes, "Chaos" Theory is the theory that there's no such thing as "chaos". *sigh* You keep referring to my "wanting to get even" with you. This probably stems from my comment earlier that "then we'll be even". I'd just like to point out that that was a joke, and that I have nothing against you that I deem necessary to "get even with you" for. I'm sorry, but I didn't follow that. That comment on my part was another joke. I was making a play on the words you used. Apparently my humor isn't working well through text... Hence my phraseology, "it also asks". Nor: LOL! Whatever! |
|
), so as far as i can see, we are our major downfall. We can not see the greater loss due to the financial gain.
Sorry if I was mostly preaching to the choir.
)
I don't want to get into a theological debate with you on the subject, so I'll not go far into this. I'm not Christian, and I'm not going to reveal my actual religion. I will simply say that I've decided to allow my religion to govern the majority of my life and my major decisions in it. I'm sure you'll also express your sorrow over my decision, and that you're sorry that I've decided to limit my life so much. Then we'll be even. 
If you think you can help them, coerce them; don't force them.