Cannabis Conspiration

[MatS21]

Part 1 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faU9N4WYETM
Part 2 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOvg2W1XUoU

Those videos explains why the cannabis plant is illegal and why the decision to illegalize this plant was the worst in the history of the humanity. Seriously, there is a lot to learn in those videos and I'm not talking for stoner, there is good information and you can find proof of it. Watch them fully, second half is why I'm sending those videos here but you have to watch it full to understand.

Sadly I haven't found the video in english but there is english subtitles and it is translated very well.

WATCH THEM.

[Jeremy]

I think the conclusion is false. We should push for the people using less substances. Criminalisation doesn't seem to work, but certainly tobacco, many prescription and non prescription drugs and alcohol also have a negative effect on society, and we should be asking why they're not outlawed, and how we can reduce their usage, rather than trying to add more dangerous and socially harmful substances to the "socially acceptable" list.

[brian relly]

I think the conclusion is false. We should push for the people using less substances. Criminalisation doesn't seem to work, but certainly tobacco, many prescription and non prescription drugs and alcohol also have a negative effect on society, and we should be asking why they're not outlawed, and how we can reduce their usage, rather than trying to add more dangerous and socially harmful substances to the "socially acceptable" list.

[crazylegs32]

If the weed has to be illegal then why not make hamburgers or exessive driving illegal too.

[bdams19]

The video makes a case for cannibus to be legalized NOT as a drug but rather as a plant that can be made into various other products. Although I have made the decision to quit completely post college (I am in my last semester and I have been lessening my usage considerably), I have not completely quit yet but I certainly regret smoking as much as I have over the past few years due to health reasons. I honestly believe it's a waste of money and time and wished I had spent my time doing other things.

I think the government's attempts at getting kids to stop smoking pot is completely ridiculous (alien stealing girlfriend, girl saying oh i got so high on saturday and kids texting "picture" of her, sitting on petes couch till ur 85, etc.) and are actually hilarious and terrible at driving any point home. If they did an objective analysis of the health risks and released it maybe then kids would listen.

[MatS21]

Exactly, Jeremy, I don't think you got the reason why I put this topic on the table. I'm talking about the possibility of using the cannabis plant to create gas, oil, plastics, paper, fabrics. And all those products would be biodegradable in opposition to those created with petrol. Plus the plant can grow everywhere and in only one season leaving the ground ready for the next one. It has better properties than the wood for the paper and there's three or 4 times (cant remember exactly listen to the video) less pollution created by transforming the cannabis plant in paper than for the wood. There's more I can't remember and I don't want to tell everything here but it still shows lots of potential to help the planet. If to save to planet we need to use the cannabis plant I'll go with it. And that is without considering the drug itselfs, the videos obviously shows the opinion of the creator but they're is many many many good information in this video.

[max]

I'd have to agree with Jeremy on this point. Regarding cigarettes in particular and alcohol to a lesser extent, European member states have been passing mass legislation lately outlawing smoking (tobacco) in public places. It started in Ireland, seeral years ago Italy followed suit, Belgium did too, it is also illegal to smoke in bars / restaurants / clubs in France since the 1st of Jan 2008.

Another way the government has helped reduce smoking is in heavily taxing tobacco products. The price of a pack of cigarettes has roughly tripled in France in the past 12 years.

Despite this, big tobacco companies are still raking in record proits and are developping heavilly in Asia, Eastern Europe and the African continent.. yeah this is a little off topic sorry.

[Jeremy]

Exactly, Jeremy, I don't think you got the reason why I put this topic on the table. I'm talking about the possibility of using the cannabis plant to create gas, oil, plastics, paper, fabrics. And all those products would be biodegradable in opposition to those created with petrol. Plus the plant can grow everywhere and in only one season leaving the ground ready for the next one. It has better properties than the wood for the paper and there's three or 4 times (cant remember exactly listen to the video) less pollution created by transforming the cannabis plant in paper than for the wood. There's more I can't remember and I don't want to tell everything here but it still shows lots of potential to help the planet. If to save to planet we need to use the cannabis plant I'll go with it. And that is without considering the drug itselfs, the videos obviously shows the opinion of the creator but they're is many many many good information in this video.

Sorry, I didn't watch the video. In most countries (including Australia), using cannabis that does not contain THC is legal and there are plenty of cannabis based products available (such as footbags). I would argue that the amount of land needed to produce paper grown from trees is hugely smaller than the amount of land needed to produce the same amount of paper from cannabis. An average regal eucalyptus grows well over 70 meters tall. Certainly in my state, the issue with paper production is how much land is available, so the larger amount of paper you can produce per piece of land, the better.

[Jeremy]

If the weed has to be illegal then why not make hamburgers or exessive driving illegal too.

Certainly there is a strong push towards making highly fattening foods illegal. Of course we need food to survive, we don't need to inhale toxic chemicals to survive. It seems very hard to enforce "excessive" driving, but certainly the rising cost of petrol is helping to curb this problem. I don't know about the rest of the world, but in my state (and some other states in Australia), drivers caught "hooning," street racing or other such activities (I think one of the legal definitions is "intentionally creating loss of traction in order to impress") face criminal charges, as well as having their cars confiscated and in some cases, crushed. There is also a "dob in a driver" program where people are encouraged to dob in drivers they see driving dangerously in such manner.

[MatS21]

I agree with you Max.... I don't get why you're saying all this I'm just telling that the plant should be use for it's property.

And yeah Jeremy I know it's true but why nobody uses it ? Or so few? I'm trying to see if the video really contains something we're doing wrong or if it's a bunch of bullshit and it doesn't looks like it is at all for now. There is just so much possibility in using it! If you've listened to the video you'll understand what I mean.

[The Actual Sized E]

I would argue that the amount of land needed to produce paper grown from trees is hugely smaller than the amount of land needed to produce the same amount of paper from cannabis.

According to the first video Mathieu posted, governmental studies showed that 1 acre of cannabis can produce the same amount of paper as 4.1 acres of trees. You might as well at least watch the video before you post again.

[MatS21]

Exactly Eric, I read too fast and thought he said the opposite so just didn't mentionned it but it's totally true.

[Jeremy]

Ok, as requested I've watched the video. I usually avoid such videos, and I'll explain why in the moment, and like (and it is very like) the Zeitgeist movie, only watched it because somebody sent me a PM really interested in what I thought. In the future you can probably guess the answer to that question by asking yourself if you're asking me to watch a documentary, or a propaganda film.

Here were my overall concerns.

1. It presents an extremely one sided view of the issue. It's obviously trying to convince views that one perspective is correct. It doesn't attempt to address any criticisms or counter arguments that may be put up.

2. Like the Zeitgeist movie, it is completely American centric. America has a lot of countries you could call enemies. If what the documentary presents is true, those countries could make massive economic gains against the US by not following the lead of the US on issues that apparently only benefit specific business men in the US.

3. On issues like this, and the Zeitgeist movie, the only people who have anything to gain from investing time into the concerns (I'm basing this on my view, which is that both films are rubbish, I'll address this more later) are people who agree with the film. People who don't believe there is any kind of conspiracy have nothing to gain in debunking or even watching such films.

4. How many of the people in this topic who have defended the film honestly do not smoke weed? Do you believe this applies to the film makers as well?


Now some more specific claims.

1. The film claims that nobody has ever died from smoking cannabis.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0 ... 48,00.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085550.htm

The scientific evidence says that cannabis smoke contains many toxic chemicals, some in much higher quantities than tobacco smoke (some in less quantities) and that smoking 1 joint has the same impact on the lungs as smoking 5 cigarettes. Now are you going to argue that nobody has ever died from smoking either? It seems very intuitive to presume that something that is at best equal to one of the biggest killing drugs in the world also kills people. Sure nobody has died from a direct overdose of smoking too much weed in one session (according to the movie), but the same applies for tobacco as well. I've put this comment first in my specific problems because there's a very high level of weed smokers in the footbag community (disproportionately high in my opinion), and although I very rarely also smoke weed in social situations (less than once a month), I don't believe that people are at all aware of the risks involved.


2. The film contains basically no sources. The only source it gives for its claims is the Encyclopaedia Britannica; a source that people can't access without paying money for, and they give no references to where in that source we can find the information. Not only that but there are a number of claims made that are presumably not contained in the EB at all; especially relating to the conspiracy. Where does the source come from, that claims that cannabis was outlawed in the US because of the effect it would have on that select group of people's industry? Wasn't Rockefeller a banker (that's what Zeitgeist claimed - I may have learnt something from that movie after all )? How was a banker going to lose money from higher productivity? If it was because he had investments in petrochemical industries, couldn't he also invest in Cannabis industries? If they are so much more productive, he would make more money.


3. People in the 30s were sheep who respect authority. My view of history must be distorted. Wasn't the 30s the time of the great depression, where there were mass strikes and riots? Rioting doesn't sound like respecting authority to me. Do you know what I thought when they claimed that people in the 30s were sheep? I thought "what are they smoking?" But, of course, we know the answer to that.

4. Paper. A claim of the existence of a study from the first half of the 20th century without providing the name or author of the study so that we can find it, and from so long ago, does not convince me of anything. Another important question is; "what is the quality of the paper involved?" Right now in my state trees that thousands of years old are being logged so that they can produce low grade paper, but can be replaced with much smaller trees that produce much higher grade paper. The only reason this is profitable is because the government basically gives the old trees away for free. Producing low grade paper is basically not profitable at all, producing high grade paper is much more profitable, and the government invests on this; gives away the old trees because the returns on the plantation trees will (in their opinion) make a substantial profit.

5. Meaningless arguments. All the statements about former presidents growing cannabis, all the uses in the past for cannabis etc. are meaningless. None of those facts have any impact on whether it would be a cost effective and appropriate crop today. Was Benjamin Franklin a scientist? Could he read the future? If you answer NO to both these questions, what possible impact does it have on the argument to include him in the debate? Of course the reason is obvious. The film is trying to give their opinion more weight by making such a statement. They know that people have a great deal of respect for the founding fathers and so they're hoping that people will think that if the founding fathers thought it was ok, it must be ok. It has nothing to do with any rational argument, but simply an attempt to emotionally manipulate us.

There were probably a few more claims that I had issue with and have forgotten, but basically it's a film with no credibility, probably made by stoners who think that cannabis is a fantastic plant because they smoke it every day, and having come up with that idea, set about proving it; seeing exactly what they were looking for in all the evidence they found, and not questioning anything they agreed with, and everything they disagreed with. I would say that pretty much all conspiracy films are the same; made by people who are trying to prove their theory true. Notice how this contradicts science; where you come up with a theory, and then look at all the ways it might be false and test those.

[BainbridgeShred]

Weed should certainly be legal. Anyone who deabtes otherwise is leaning towards Totaltarianism-and regardless-a policy that is going to fail especially in larger countrie's with area's harder to monitor. If you think we should be stepping up enforcement, and looking at making other substances illegal, you're a fruit. Weed will grow almost anywhere so trying to stop people from buying and selling a weed is a job for special ed graduates. Honestly you'd have to be a retard to try and control something like Weed, which grows on every continent, especially if your country is at all Democratic and has the least of respects for privacy and property rights. Like I said earlier, if you disagree, you are arguing for much greater government control and stewardship of individual's lives. Anyone care to disagree?

3. People in the 30s were sheep who respect authority. My view of history must be distorted. Wasn't the 30s the time of the great depression, where there were mass strikes and riots? Rioting doesn't sound like respecting authority to me. Do you know what I thought when they claimed that people in the 30s were sheep? I thought "what are they smoking?" But, of course, we know the answer to that.

Correct, indeed. The 30's birthed the "mass protest" movement and whole "Popular Front" thing. As much as Baby Boomer's would like to take credit as the first American's ever to question authority, it was the Lost and GI Generation's respectively that protested on the scale that America hadn't seen before.

[Jeremy]

I guess I lean towards totalitarianism then, since I support it only being used as a prescription drug (or better yet, having the thc extracted and placed in a pill or medicine so it can be easily administered in a safe manner). I support decriminalisation for users of all drugs, but certainly not legalisation. I don't want to see people doing drugs in public (or on drugs in public). Although I've had great fun on a number of different drugs, I think I have to accept the evidence that the benefit I received from those drugs (in terms of enjoyment) is not weighed up by the cost to some people. I'm still probably going to occasionally break the law in this regard, but it should not be socially acceptable.

Laws reflect what is deemed socially acceptable, and socially beneficial, and what is not.

[Bringerofpie]

I happen to think that Cannabis should be legal, but as Jeremy said, the film was entirely unconvincing.

[Jeremy]

I would absolutely agree that in countries where cannabis that does not contain THC is illegal, this should change. In many countries around the world (such as Australia), this is already the case. (As in you can grow non thc cannabis as a crop). Like most crops, there is some regulation surrounding this.

[BainbridgeShred]

Decriminilization is hardly a step towards Totalitarianism. Making it perscription only and decriminalizing it for users is a step in the right direction; and users would probably be happy because it would keep the quality of the Ganja high, along with dropping prices (When I say price drops, we're talking 5 dollar Dub's here) and keeping the quality high.


Though, it's funny that for someone whose aim is to lower the amount of Marijuana smoked in the populace (Despite as you say, smoking "once a month" yourself, but that's different because you're totally in control of your habit) I can say that you're "reasonable enough" sounding plan here would probably backfire on you, and lead to more frequent Marijuana use. Shit, I wonder how many college kids would be changing their degree's to Pharmacy if your plan actually came through. The amount of Marijuana in the market would quadruple.

So my question is: Do you hyper-Centralizer's actually think about the convoluted policie's you implement- or is it all about how the words look against the paper?

[BainbridgeShred]

Also, as addicts of OxyCodin, Vicodin, Percocet, Xanax, Valium, Librium, Ritalin, Dexedrine, and Meridia know, Pharmascists' are eeeeasily the largest drug dealers in this country. And, as addicts of these drugs also can tell you, there are always plenty of corrupted Pharmacists willing to make an absolutely stunning financial gain by selling these to the street dealers, or by just pushing them relentlessly on to normal patrons for even the silliest of conditions.

I have no doubt, Jeremy, that you have no problem with these "expert", licensed Pharmacist's having access to this wide array of drugs with a sweeping range of effects. I'll take this opinion, despite it's senselessness, because not only did you prescripe it to the situation in writing, but you also offered your briliant view that flooding the market with a high quality, inexpensive product as a way to stimmy marijuana use.

[MatS21]

Well you take it as you want Jérémy but it looks like the problem is that there was no research about the propriety of the plant. If only half of what he says is true, we could change a lot of things on the planet, but there's nobody that tries to use the plant or barely and these are mostly stoners. If only a part of our paper would come from Cannabis we could help our planet dramatically.

The only comments you made about the environmental helps that could be provided by using the paper made by cannabis is saying that there is solution with wood too­, yeah there is some better solution than the one we use right now but it is always gonna be destructive for our environments because you can't use the same field every year. You have to plant trees and wait maybe 20 years and than reseed it again. With cannabis you can use the same field every year dude.

And I'm not even talking about the possibility to use cannabis to make gas to use in cars and to create plastics, oils and more.

I did asked you to watch the video but you didn't even watched it with an open mind of what good things could come out of the video. I told you that the video had a position and that it's not what I wanted to talk about and you come up with destroying everything except the reason why I asked you to watch the video. And the reason I asked you is because I know you work for an environmental group or something and I wanted you toconsider that­.