Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
do you smoke cannabis?
Log In to post a reply

114 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Edited Aug 20, 2010, 12:12
Re: my tuppence worth
Aug 20, 2010, 11:41
Merrick wrote:
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.

Some good points, Merrick, but there is a significant difference between a legalised pot "industry" and iPads or coffee. Namely the fact that cannabis can be produced at low cost by the smokers themselves (not many people capable of knocking together their own iPad or mobile phone).

I know most smokers wouldn't grow themselves, but I suspect most would be no more than two people removed from someone who'd happily do so for beer and rent money. This is the ideal product for an efficient cottage industry.

Pooley's been making some perfectly good points on this thread. Points I've agreed with. But there's also been an element of "you people buy slave-grown cannabis" in his posts, despite most people here being quite clear that they don't.

I'm also extremely sceptical of the prevalence of this child-labour phenomenon. Again, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but if it was widespread then the police would be falling over themselves to provide official figures. Instead we have a statement it's happening, followed immediately by a figure for the total number of farms. Sorry, but my media-bullshit detector starts wailing whenever I see something like that.

Also, while your rationale for why it might be a good strategy for criminals has merit, there are also reasons why it's not a great strategy (plus there's an insconsistency in the story itself). Child labour in manufacturing situations works because the child is constantly occupied with a task requiring their attention. This isn't the case with growing pot which requires maybe an hour a day of actual work. It's easier (and cheaper! no food costs and you can use their sleeping area to grow more pot) to set up automated systems to feed plants. That's just a fact; I've known plenty of pot growers who'd laugh out loud at the idea of taking the extra risk of having trafficked kids locked in a house, as opposed to setting up a simple pump and timer system.

Yes, some idiots probably are using child labour, but the vast majority are smart enough to install a few 24-hour loop timers. Everyone I've ever known whose grown more than a couple of plants at a time does this. Maybe they use trafficked kids for harvesting, but that entails feeding and housing children for use three days out of every 10 weeks or so. As I say, there's just no way this is prevalent (unlike the use of children in manufacturing sweatshops, which clearly is prevalent and which almost all of us are guilty of inadvertently supporting at some point).

Plus one more small point -- the inconsistency in the article -- the BBC report is adamant that the kids are kept locked in the house and never permitted outside, with food being brought in. It then goes on to say that they kids are often used to attack the grow operations set up by rivals. Unless those rival operations are in the basement of the same house, that's at the very least, sloppy reporting.

Anyway, as I said, pooley is right to highlight this issue and I've agreed completely with the substance of what he wrote. But if he didn't start calling people "fucking hypocrites"; people who possibly don't even smoke pot or who might live outside the UK or who might grow their own or get it from a friend; then I suspect he'd have gotten a less defensive response.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index