BrightonLiveWire
BrightonLiveWire
Home | Profile | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?





 All Forums
 News
 National News
 Legalzie and controll cannabis.
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
Previous Page
Author Topic
Page: of 3

No Expert
Barsoom



427 Posts

Posted - 31/07/2007 :  12:28:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Another double-standard is the way in which the government insists on keeping the cannabis trade in the black market"

Yes! And another is that you're advocating legalising a drug that grows under lights that consume more power than a washing machine on spin cycle. Multiply that by a crop and you're using more power than the blackpool illuminations. Multilply that nationwide, and we're talking about a carbon footprint the size of your idiocy. Huuuuuge!

So, another slice of hypocrisy is exposed.

So let me spell it out: Growing cannabis requires an enormous amount of electricity. End of.

Feel free to argue that it's not the case but it is.
Go to Top of Page

Miriam Binder
Earthsea



United Kingdom
5805 Posts

Posted - 31/07/2007 :  12:35:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
No Moon as I have had occasion to mention before and for a moment I actually thought it had sunk in when you mentioned the fact that the government has been able to use the same argument for both issues, you are self serving to the extent where you cannot even see it. You cannot on the one hand agree to a ban on smoking, even a so called limited ban as this is, and then expect similar arguments not to be used in other 'smoking' issues. I remember telling you at the time that it was a 'thin end of the wedge'. Many things are and you would do better looking at issues in that context then trying to justify them because they suit you.

Once you agree that 'x' justifies 'y' then 'x' justifies 'y' ... end of, no arguments, no debates, no whys or wherefores. Such is the way of politics, policy making and all matters pertaining to the same.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin
Go to Top of Page

Miriam Binder
Earthsea



United Kingdom
5805 Posts

Posted - 31/07/2007 :  12:41:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by No Expert

"Another double-standard is the way in which the government insists on keeping the cannabis trade in the black market"

Yes! And another is that you're advocating legalising a drug that grows under lights that consume more power than a washing machine on spin cycle. Multiply that by a crop and you're using more power than the blackpool illuminations. Multilply that nationwide, and we're talking about a carbon footprint the size of your idiocy. Huuuuuge!

So, another slice of hypocrisy is exposed.

So let me spell it out: Growing cannabis requires an enormous amount of electricity. End of.

Feel free to argue that it's not the case but it is.

Wonderful point No Expert and very well made.

I'd be tempted to tell Moon to put that in his pipe and smoke it but ... hey hop, not in an enclosed public space eh Moon.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin
Go to Top of Page

moon23
Calaspia



841 Posts

Posted - 31/07/2007 :  13:24:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by No Expert

"Another double-standard is the way in which the government insists on keeping the cannabis trade in the black market"

Yes! And another is that you're advocating legalising a drug that grows under lights that consume more power than a washing machine on spin cycle. Multiply that by a crop and you're using more power than the blackpool illuminations. Multilply that nationwide, and we're talking about a carbon footprint the size of your idiocy. Huuuuuge!

So, another slice of hypocrisy is exposed.

So let me spell it out: Growing cannabis requires an enormous amount of electricity. End of.

Feel free to argue that it's not the case but it is.



No Expert this would be hypocrisy if all cannabis was grown under lights and the only way that cannabis could be grown was under lights. However it is not hypocrisy because there are many strains that grow naturally outside. I've grown it outside in Patcham before and it was fine. Some of the weaker strains of cannabis are very hardy, it is only some of the hybrid skunk varieties that don't grow so well without the add of artificial lights. It would grow very well in poly tunnels or green houses.

One of the reason why so many people grow it indoors under lights is to avoid detection. Legalizing the drug might well bring down energy consumption as more people would be free to grow it naturally without the risk of being prosecuted. It would also allow for the industry to be properly regulated by any future governmental legislation or schemes designed to reduce energy consumption. An unregulated and illegal trade is one which is outside of any environmental protection laws.

Hemp can also be used as a biofuel crop and makes an excellent natural fiber for use in many house hold products.

Another ill thought out and flawed argument by No Expert exposed…



Mim

Although I agree that the government is blurring the arguments and piggy backing on the smoking ban to moralize on everything from Drink to Food, I think the solution lies exposing where they have blurred the arguments and exposing their irrational thinking.

Smoking and personal liberty issues are not simply reducible to a pro/against lobby as you suggest. All you are doing is painting a false dichotomy which prevents anyone reaching a compromise that respects people's freedom from smoke and also their freedom to smoke.

People need to be clearer about understanding the distinctions between different rationale arguments. Saying you should ban smoking in public places when it affects others does not equate to saying you should ban all smoking/drinking/drug/fatty foods. You suggest that smoking shouldn't be banned in public and this ignores the views of many non-smokers. If you said instead that yes smoking should be banned where it affects others, but smokers have a right to smoke in private then you are still in a consistent and strong position.



A stronger position would be to say that you agree with the smoking ban in principle but you fear that once it is in place the government will then proceed to try and ban smoking where it doesn’t affect other people and that this intrusion into our personal liberty is unwarranted. This is the position that I am starting to come to following the governments quick announcements on Drinking and Cannabis after the smoking ban.





Go to Top of Page

Miriam Binder
Earthsea



United Kingdom
5805 Posts

Posted - 31/07/2007 :  20:13:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Scrambling are we Moon. Fact boyo ... you have a spurious argument.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin
Go to Top of Page

Fluffy Sheep
Discworld



1178 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2007 :  00:11:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
A thingy that once went `heyyy`

Row faster, slaves! Caesar wants to waterski!
Go to Top of Page

moon23
Calaspia



841 Posts

Posted - 01/08/2007 :  09:34:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder

Scrambling are we Moon. Fact boyo ... you have a spurious argument.



Not really Mim, seeing as yours and no experts 'wonderful' argument about energy consumption is based on a huge assumption that cannabis is only grown under lights whilst forgetting that a legalized trade can be brought under governmental legislation to controll CO2 emissions.

You're scraping the barrel big time if that's your best shot.
Go to Top of Page

Horseman7
Barsoom



United Kingdom
160 Posts

Posted - 03/08/2007 :  18:35:59  Show Profile  Send Horseman7 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
1930 tonight on Channel 4:

The Insider - Heroin on the NHS

A doctor, himself a (former?) addict, puts the case for.


Go to Top of Page

long time no see
Earthsea



United Kingdom
6771 Posts

Posted - 03/08/2007 :  19:35:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Sure
on now the old NHS Thatcher adviser
Dr.Froggatt.

It will never be made Legal.



Near Death - Cold Turkey is the ONLY option.

Life In The City.


Edited by - long time no see on 03/08/2007 19:49:45
Go to Top of Page

moon23
Calaspia



841 Posts

Posted - 06/08/2007 :  10:49:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see

Sure
on now the old NHS Thatcher adviser
Dr.Froggatt.

It will never be made Legal.



Near Death - Cold Turkey is the ONLY option.

Life In The City.





It would cut drug related crime if it was supplied by the NHS. Also bring addicts into a system that can help rehabilitee them
Go to Top of Page

long time no see
Earthsea



United Kingdom
6771 Posts

Posted - 06/08/2007 :  11:47:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Into the System
for Near Death - Cold Turkey ONLY.

Life In The City.
Go to Top of Page

moon23
Calaspia



841 Posts

Posted - 06/08/2007 :  12:15:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by long time no see

Into the System
for Near Death - Cold Turkey ONLY.

Life In The City.



You could immeditatley inforce a complusory cold turkey on all addicts, but it would make many try and avoid the authorites and stay in a life of addiction and crime.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
Jump To:
BrightonLiveWire © 2000-05 ForumCo.com Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.91 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000
RSS Feed 1 RSS Feed 2
Powered by ForumCo 2000-2008
TOS - AUP - URA
ForumCo Free Blogs and Galleries
Signup for a free forum or Go Banner Free