quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Perhaps....

Or maybe it will result in amazingly creative products and innovation which has been lackluster of late.

So, are you saying that smoking marijuana could result in more products and technology innovation, the way that social upheaval and psychedelic drugs ushered in the wave of great music of the 60s and 70s ? I'm not so sure. The best performers and innovators I've observed aren't stoners. How many stoners put men on the moon in 1969 ? I'd imagine close to zero. I can't imagine an employer hiring a marijuana studies major, at least not in the part of the region I live in.

The only thing Hydroponic means (at least in this context) is that the nutrients are in (and thus delivered by) the water instead of the soil/medium. The plants, BTW, probably don't give a damn either way, and this is true for all plants.

Sometimes Hydroponic looks like a science project with tubes going everywhere and the root mass floating in a stream of water, sometimes it looks like plants in regular old buckets of dirt, and everything in between.

Neither method has much (if anything) to do with quality, in and of itself.

Much of the very best cannabis ever produced is grown in 100% organic soil (the very antithesis of Hydroponic) and watered with plain water.

Generally, Hydroponic methods are more about a simplified means of production that's easier to scale up, easier for lesser experienced people to follow, etc. Conversely, developing and maintaining quality organic soil is much more difficult than buying bottled Hydroponic nutrients and following the instructions on the bottle.

fwiw.

Like anything else, better tomatoes bring more money than shitty tomatoes full of bugs.

But whether they're grown via Hydroponic methods or not has zip to do with quality, but what happened, colloquially, slang wise, was that "Hydro" was equated with quality, erroneously. It's a classic example of a correlation-causation problem.

Sure, the "hydro" people are talking about is better than ditch weed, but the people who know what they're doing have been growing weed much better than ditch weed for decades now, via all manner of methods, Hydroponic and otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Perhaps....

Or maybe it will result in amazingly creative products and innovation which has been lackluster of late.

So, are you saying that smoking marijuana could result in more products and technology innovation, the way that social upheaval and psychedelic drugs ushered in the wave of great music of the 60s and 70s ? I'm not so sure. The best performers and innovators I've observed aren't stoners. How many stoners put men on the moon in 1969 ? I'd imagine close to zero. I can't imagine an employer hiring a marijuana studies major, at least not in the part of the region I live in.

I seriously don't get your mode thinking. Smoking some weed doesn't make anyone a stoner any more than drinking a beer makes someone an alcoholic.

There's zero difference. Zero.

Anything in excess is bad, booze, cookies, weed.

Like most who are uninformed, wrightd seems to lump those who enjoy marijuana in one bucket called "stoners" based on some TV characterization or someone they've met, etc.

It's a typical gross over-generalization, wholly detached from reality, like equating all who enjoy alcohol with Hobos, all gun owners with mass murderers, and the rest. It's absurd.

Reefer Madness, the sequel.

I've long lost count of the number of high functioning (no pun), successful, responsible, adults, many with excellent careers, wives, kids, and the rest, I've met and known who enjoy weed, most of whom do so like Joe Average enjoys a few beers here and there.

These sorts of arguments against it are tired, and tiresome, and pointless, and ignorant.

CU-Boulder is just kicking themselves right now

NMU is, as the crow flies, about a mile from me.
Actually, this may be a change for the better, since many NMU students are majoring in public intoxication.

My MD daughter has a friend who now operates 265,000 sf of legal pot growing in SoCal. These farms are 3 concrete tilt-up, windowless high zoot buildings in Irvine. I asked to visit, but was denied as apparently one has to be licensed and vetted to step foot inside. This 36 year old pot grower **nets** a little over $350K per month after all expenses. That's $350K in greenbacks - crazy!

Somewhat related, we did a Jack Daniels distillery tour in August. As I recall, they pay the Federal Gov't about $1.4 million every 24 hours in taxes. The amount when all the taxes are added in to that bottle of 'hard stuff' sold to the end user is astounding, 'sin tax'.

I don't partake, but there is likely similar $$ to be raked in with the MJ sales, where legal. The key for the legal operator is to find that niche in the chain.

I knew a guy a handful of years back who got his warehouse zoneed for MJ operations near Denver. He never planned any growing himself, just owned the building and guided the rezone. As I recall, it took some politicking to get it done.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Like most who are uninformed, wrightd seems to lump those who enjoy marijuana in one bucket called "stoners" based on some TV characterization or someone they've met, etc.

It's a typical gross over-generalization, wholly detached from reality, like equating all who enjoy alcohol with Hobos, all gun owners with mass murderers, and the rest. It's absurd.

Reefer Madness, the sequel.

I've long lost count of the number of high functioning (no pun), successful, responsible, adults, many with excellent careers, wives, kids, and the rest, I've met and known who enjoy weed, most of whom do so like Joe Average enjoys a few beers here and there.

These sorts of arguments against it are tired, and tiresome, and pointless, and ignorant.

Bingo.

Id think aquaponics and talapia sales would be a good co-industry.

Time to move to CO and open an arcade to washa da money

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Perhaps....

Or maybe it will result in amazingly creative products and innovation which has been lackluster of late.

So, are you saying that smoking marijuana could result in more products and technology innovation, the way that social upheaval and psychedelic drugs ushered in the wave of great music of the 60s and 70s ? I'm not so sure. The best performers and innovators I've observed aren't stoners. How many stoners put men on the moon in 1969 ? I'd imagine close to zero. I can't imagine an employer hiring a marijuana studies major, at least not in the part of the region I live in.

I seriously don't get your mode thinking. Smoking some weed doesn't make anyone a stoner any more than drinking a beer makes someone an alcoholic.

There's zero difference. Zero.

Anything in excess is bad, booze, cookies , weed.

LIES!!!

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
hopefully the feds will shut down this nonsense. And soon.

Let me help the Prof: "Today we will review civics and go over the Federal Controlled Substance Act, which classifies Cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance, nationwide."

Wish in one hand, and then shit in the other, see which one fills up faster.

The war on pot is lost because folks figured out that it's not really that bad, like smoking a beer. Pretty soon the police will have to come up with a new reason to buy all them sweet toys they like to bring out for the town's 4th of July parade.

A law that most people do not respect is a bad law.

Do some research and find out how, when and why marijuana was criminalized.

Alcohol does far greater damage to its users and those around them. Far greater. So much more harm, in fact, that it's just about impossible to compare alcohol and marijuana.

Weed won't kill you if you stop smoking it, no matter how much of it you smoke, but alcohol will kill you deader'n Julius Caesar if you drink enough and then stop. Go ahead and try to argue with that fact.

There is no such thing as a physical addiction to marijuana. People may get pissed off when they can't get their weed, but they don't start seeing snakes crawling on them and they don't need to be restrained to prevent harm to themselves or others around them. Delirium Tremens is an alcohol-related (and potentially life-ending) condition. No such thing with weed. Again, alcohol is far more harmful. It also just happens to be the toxin of choice for society, so, you know, that fact makes it OK. The government says this toxin is OK, but not that one. The Mexicans love the devil weed, y'see. Again, do some research.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

The hypocrisy and pure ignorance surrounding marijuana use is epic.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:Alcohol does far greater damage to its users and those around them. Far greater. So much more harm, in fact, that it's just about impossible to compare alcohol and marijuana.

My daughter who is in a master's program for addiction counseling would agree.

Alcohol and Rx pain meds> heroin are the biggies. Meth is still around too, but MJ isn't even an issue.

If someone wants to go down the "gateway drug" path, you dang well better be ready to limit Rx opioids down to hospital use only. I'm not saying that we should, but it would make a heck of a lot more difference than going after weed.

My point is let's do this right. Let's get congress to take it off the Schedule I list. Then, we can look into cannabis farming and distribution.

As an example, Not thread drift, but an example: the W.J Clinton AWB was a bad law. But we all had to wait until the sunset before we could build the rifle we wanted with all the features we wanted. I didn't see any movement among state governments to let me build what I wanted during the AWB. I didn't see any in-state full feature rifles or newly built standard cap mags (non-LEO-only) being built and sold within any states at gun shows, gun stores, etc. The AWB law was bad, but we waited until it was legal before we built/displayed/sold any new full feature rifles.

How is cannabis different? How is it special? Is it solely about the money?

Maybe I'm too much of a boy scout, but it's how I was raised, to obey the law whenever possible. And don't ask "do you ever speed" etc. when I say I obey the law, because that would just be lame and misses the point.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
There is going to be a huge demand for the knowledge gained in a program like this. I think in the long haul it will become a very lucrative vocation. I'll bet some of the grads with this degree will be making 6 figures in no time....

Jim

There are a number of high school dropouts in CA making 6 figures in the pot business. I did have a college student who told the class his occupation was "street pharmacist".

quote:

that would just be lame and misses the point.

It's almost the entire point.

You (the universal) either follow *all* laws or you don't, period. And the simple and irrefutable fact is, neither you (personally) nor anyone else follows *all* laws. *Everyone* is a lawbreaker, and you (personally, and universally) are *subjectively* choosing a topic like this to make your "but it's the law" stand, which, flatly, has *zero* substance.

It's an absurd argument that holds *no* water. It's hypocrisy of the highest fucking order.

You're not a "boy scout", you're a typical hypocrite making tired, old, hypocritical points, and no matter where one stands on marijuana, we'll all be better off when people set aside such absurd arguments. At least be honest, and you, sir, are no doubt a lawbreaker, too, and as such have no standing whatsoever to make a "but it's the law" argument. None.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

that would just be lame and misses the point.

It's almost the entire point.

You (the universal) either follow *all* laws or you don't, period. And the simple and irrefutable fact is, neither you (personally) nor anyone else follows *all* laws. *Everyone* is a lawbreaker, and you (personally, and universally) are *subjectively* choosing a topic like this to make your "but it's the law" stand, which, flatly, has *zero* substance.

It's an absurd argument that holds *no* water.

Um, no. I think it's pretty clear that some laws are more series than others.

quote:

It's hypocrisy of the highest fucking order.

you're down to using the 'f' word. Nice.

quote:

You're not a "boy scout", you're a typical hypocrite making tired, old, hypocritical points, and no matter where one stands on marijuana, we'll all be better off when people set aside such absurd arguments. At least be honest, and you, sir, are no doubt a lawbreaker, too, and as such have no standing whatsoever to make a "but it's the law" argument. None.

Is that the best you can come up with? So now you're calling me names and pointing to me as a 'lawbreaker' with no evidence whatsoever. You don't even know me.

Tell you what, next time you get pulled over, tell the cop the same thing, that he/she is a lawbreaker too, and see where it takes you. Better yet, appear in court and tell the judge.

Just like the hooker thread, so long as I'm paying for healthcare for the country, I'll support laws that help minimize lung cancer.

Once they tell me I don't have to pay for national healthcare, I'll sing a different tune.

People want to be allowed to do what they want and not have others tell them what to do...but then so many in our country turn to folks like us and say, "I need you pay for my shit tho." It just irks me.

We can't have it both ways. Asking .gov to pay for our healthcare invites them into our private lives imo.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

Maybe I'm too much of a boy scout, but it's how I was raised, to obey the law whenever possible. And don't ask "do you ever speed" etc. when I say I obey the law, because that would just be lame and misses the point.

Are you just still mad that Kevin Bacon taught all the kids in your town to dance?


Serious question.
Have you ever had any personal experience with MJ?

Every job I've ever had I've had to take a drug test, usually urine, sometimes hair sample. And any conviction for a drug related offense will make you unemployable. This is just how it is for large Fortune 500 manufacturing companies.

So to me, it's not worth the risk to buy or use any illegal substance. Respect of law is part of it, but common sense and self preservation is the other part.

That said, I don't have any problem with legalization and taxation. I do wonder about health effects for smokers. Inhaling smoke from any burning substance is worse for you than not inhaling smoke...