|
U-Know! Forum » do you smoke cannabis? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Ziggypop 300 posts |
Edited Aug 30, 2010, 22:05
Aug 19, 2010, 23:02
|
||
|
pooley wrote: You should be a politician. Your ability to twist what is said is second to none. ESP the amount of people who ethically source their cannabis. Two people you and one other say they source ethically. Others have not said either way. You and others will not condemn this, disbelieve the evidence ( something you slag climate change deniers for) because you don't want to believe it You claim the police and BBC are suspect. The truth is a huge amount of farms have been closed. Something like double the amountbof tis time last year. All I am asking, is source it ethically. Is that so wrong. . I started this thread to see how this forum would react to something I presumed many used being ethically unsound. The results were sadly predictable Some mileage has been made from me using an iPad. Ok, not the most ethical of tools, but the same goes for any pc, Mac etc. How aware are younof the origin of what you write your messages on? I also said that I would not have bought it had I read the article. You Can believe that, or call me a liar. Up to you, but the fact is I have bought it. Too late. Not so with cannabis. You can stop buying it unethically right now. Things will change. If there is no market for unethical cannabis, farms will close. That simple There's nothing wrong with suggesting people source anything ethically but the problem I've had with your statements is the way you have delivered your verdict on others without knowing facts. I for one will not admit my hypocrisy regarding cannabis use as I don't smoke cannabis.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Aug 19, 2010, 23:19
|
||
|
pooley wrote: You should be a politician. Your ability to twist what is said is second to none. ESP the amount of people who ethically source their cannabis. Two people you and one other say they source ethically. Others have not said either way. From what I can tell only four people have actually stated they smoke pot on this thread. And of them, three are aware of the provenance. 75% is a healthy majority. That's not twisting words, that's just knowing how to count. I guess what's happening is that you're just blithely assuming others do smoke pot without any evidence. None that I can see anyway. Perhaps you should be the politician? After all, the willingness to make up any old shit and call it a fact is par for the course in that business. pooley wrote: You and others will not condemn this, disbelieve the evidence ( something you slag climate change deniers for) because you don't want to believe it Except of course, that I have condemned it. Other than that, you're spot on. I said quite clearly that "Contributing to sweatshop labour by smoking pot is just as wrong as buying a t-shirt manufactured in one." You even suggested that the post in which I made that statement contained "a lot of good points", therefore I'm assuming you read it. Twisting words much? So in case you're in any doubt; I condemn the use of forced labour (be it child or adult) in the production of any commodity. Is that clear enough for you? Also, could you point me to an example of me "slagging climate change deniers for disbelieving the evidence". Please. Just one. Otherwise it simply sounds like you're making shit up again. pooley wrote: You claim the police and BBC are suspect. The truth is a huge amount of farms have been closed. Something like double the amountbof tis time last year. Double 1 and you get two. Not exactly a huge number. Though that's not the point. The BBC article suggests that "almost 7,000 factories" have been shut down in the last year. Yes, that sounds large, but there is no suggestion that a significant percentage of them used child labour. It's the classic media misdirect. "Child labour in cannabis farms!" Then segue right into the total number of cannabis farms in the country without pointing out that a tiny minority of them use child labour. How do we know it's a tiny minority? Because of the glaring omission of any official figures beyond total farms. If a large number were involved in child slavery, the police would have released that number and the media would put it in the opening paragraph. In bold. But they didn't. Instead they used the misdirect, which speaks volumes in itself. Up to 5 million people regularly smoke pot in the UK (over 8% of the total population). Given that this child labour issue -- while uncontravertibly reprehensible when it happens -- is almost certainly involved in a tiny minority of pot farms, the likelihood of any specific pot smoker buying from those farms is very low. pooley wrote: All I am asking, is source it ethically. Is that so wrong. It isn't. And I do. As do most of the known tokers on this thread. What's your point again? pooley wrote: I started this thread to see how this forum would react to something I presumed many used being ethically unsound. The results were sadly predictable I actually think you started this thread as much because you saw that BBC article as a stick with which to beat the forum regulars. Certainly I feel that was partly the motive, along with the ethical issue you wished to highlight. And given the huge number of assumptions you've been making in this discussion up 'til now, I don't feel too bad about making that one. pooley wrote: Some mileage has been made from me using an iPad. Ok, not the most ethical of tools, but the same goes for any pc, Mac etc. How aware are younof the origin of what you write your messages on? I've already been quite clear about the fact that I'm guilty of playing my role in the unethical and unjust global consumer culture. I don't like that fact, but it is a fact. Do I really have to repeat everything I've said? Again, you actually claimed that the post in which I said that contained "a lot of good points". Did you bother reading it? pooley wrote: I also said that I would not have bought it had I read the article. You Can believe that, or call me a liar. Up to you, but the fact is I have bought it. Too late. I wouldn't dream of calling you a liar, and I'm not sure why you'd imagine I would. I will ask whether or not you are prepared to examine the provenance of every single purchase you make in the future? Every piece of fruit? Every can of beans? (including the packaging of course). Every t-shirt, every pair of shoes, the petrol you pump into your car, that bar of chocolate, the beer you drink...? Or, like the rest of us, will you avert your gaze and hope you're not doing too much harm? Because unless you're prepared to pledge that you'll carefully examine the supply chain of every purchase you make, then berating others for not doing so, on the single issue of cannabis, makes it seem more like a personal attack on pot smokers than any ethical stance you're taking. pooley wrote: Not so with cannabis. You can stop buying it unethically right now. And for the umpteenth time, I have done. pooley wrote: Things will change. If there is no market for unethical cannabis, farms will close. That simple And the same is true for every other product sourced unethically. Unfortunately it won't actually happen because the global economic system just isn't set up that way.
|
|||
ron 706 posts |
Aug 20, 2010, 04:12
|
||
|
pooley wrote: Your anger at this shows your hypocrisy. Will you only buy cannabis from ethical sources? It is one of the simplest things you can do. Surely. yeah dave wtf man? ethical dope dealers are on high street betwixt the ethical bank, and the ethical city hall... nancy sez just say no... x x x
|
|||
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Edited Aug 20, 2010, 05:11
Aug 20, 2010, 05:11
|
||
|
To clarify, the hashish I occassionaly smoke comes from outside the UK, obviously, so I no knowledge of anything other than it's probable country of destination. I make that choice and accept that. I choose not to smoke Skunk as it is not organic, has usually been chemically modified and I'm aware that it's source is quite often very shady to say the least, something I will not participate in for 'ethical' reasons. As for enforced child labour, that surely goes without saying. Change the law.
|
|||
|
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Aug 20, 2010, 05:12
|
||
Seconded.
|
|||
|
Toni Torino 2299 posts |
Edited Aug 20, 2010, 09:03
Aug 20, 2010, 08:57
|
||
|
Sorry to stick my oar in but.. 16th August Behold! A day later.... Edit: Oh and I don't smoke.
|
|||
|
dee 1955 posts |
Aug 20, 2010, 09:27
|
||
Its Magic !!!
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8763 posts |
Aug 20, 2010, 09:39
|
||
|
pooley wrote: Just funny that when it's middle class pursuits ie flying etc, people who indulge are bastards, when it's something like this. It's acceptable. I find that odd. And again. No one else has mentioned the hell these kids are in. You really don't bloody listen do you? Who said anything about child traffiking being acceptable? Nobody, that's who - just you in your own little universe casting aspersions, crying "hypocrite" at a bunch of people who (a) you don't know and (b) may not have done what you are accusing them of in the first place. Well, back at yer - HYPOCRITE. You are using just as many unacceptably sourced products as anyone else around here - or can you prove otherwise? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
|
|||
|
dee 1955 posts |
Aug 20, 2010, 09:46
|
||
|
Yeah, id also like to see some proof of the prevalence of these sweatshops. Also, growing GOOD cannabis is an art and a science....it aint that easy......cant see kids being used in many instances...... Ive done a bit of a web search...there isnt much about this out there, no photos etc.....c'mon, evidence.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Aug 20, 2010, 10:06
Aug 20, 2010, 10:02
|
||
|
Wow, what a lot of posts in a short space of time, and how tetchy this one's gotten too. Dave, I usually agree with a lot of your perspective and thoughts, but I think it's unfair to say handofdave wrote: the real purpose of your original post, which was to specifically attack pot smokers as being hypocrites. Obviously you really don't give a rats ass about the sweatshop workers at all... they're just a prop in your rather weak assault. That early in the thread I don't see anything that points to Pooley doing that. I see an exhortation to ensure you source ethically. I think it's an interesting story, and a relevant one to post here. Drugs are something of a blindspot for many people. I know folks who have a profound distrust of E numbers and prescribed medicines, yet readily hoof up nosefuls of stuff cut with fuck knows what. By the same token, there are folks who would refuse a cup of Nestle coffee yet happily snort cocaine without thinking about its production. Perhaps exploitation's easier to see it when it's in the shops, brazen profit-hunger that gives clear indication of exploitation. Perhaps there's something about the obscurity of supply, the mateyness of your seller, that makes drugs feel less profit-driven. I think Dave and Jim are right that we are caught in a web of exploitation, but like all the other damage we're doing, we should be looking to see if it can be eradicated and if it can't then how to reduce it. Pooley's point that most folks here won't eat at Mcdonald's or fly is really relevant. If we can switch to a more ethical source of something, and/or reduce our consumption of the most damaging stuff, we should. Dee, I didn't buy the illegal immigrant stories when I first heard them mentioned without specifics either. But I've seen numerous specific cases with people imprisoned that I find it undeniable, and I get the rationale for doing it too. This person will work for a tenner a week, cannot speak to anyone else, and if the farm gets raided they don't know anyone's names and can't grass you up (ow, no pun intended). You're right that growing good cannabis has a lot of art and science to it, but that can be done in the choice of plants and setting up the growing system. The day to day maintenance is so simple that, well, a child could do it. Squid and Dave both say that the exploitation is a good reason to remove the prohibition. Yet the things we've been comparing it to, such as Nike sweatshops and iPad factories, are all legal. Removing prohibition would give us the chance of some regulation and fair trade brands and whatnot, but we need only look at how slavery is still part of the chocolate, coffee and tea industries to guess how much legalisation would end exploitation.
|
| Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
