|
U-Know! Forum » do you smoke cannabis? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Toni Torino 2299 posts |
Aug 20, 2010, 15:10
|
||
I can't help but think that kids would be trafficked for much more sinister reasons than a bit of plant watering.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Aug 20, 2010, 15:19
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: Regarding the localised thing: I hear what you're saying about localised production, but then Megacorp has the benefit of economies of scale. Thus we see lots of things that can be done cheaply locally being done on massive scale in far-off lands and imported. We can all brew our own beer easily for next to nothing, but almost none of us do. And the shops are full of imported stuff that undercuts much of the domestic craft stuff. My guess is the cannabis market would go the same way. It may do over time, but my argument against that is the fact that there's already a thriving homegrown subculture (and it really is thriving just now) that would likely bloom (pun intended) if legal restrictions were removed. The corporations would try to muscle in on the action of course, but I suspect any legalisation would include a very strict ban on advertising and tight controls on where it could be bought and sold. This would severely limit the ability of the conglomerates to dominate the market. Yes, I know there's a home-brew subculture as well, but there are cultural differences between the two products. The vast majority of drinkers have already been weaned on mass-produced beer and tend to find the idiosyncratic taste of many homebrews less than palatable (and being one of the brainwashed masses, I speak for myself there). Whereas pot heads are already dedicated to a product that is grown in clandestine circumstances, as much by enthusiasts as hardened criminals. Nobody knows for certain, but it's my guess that were pot prohibition lifted, a significant portion of the market would fall into the hands of home growers. Simply because it doesn't actually involve a change in behaviour for most people. Could be wrong about that, but it's just my sense of the situation. Merrick wrote: not that I'm advocating prohibition, far from it. Yeah you are! Old "Short sharp shock" Merrick as we call you. Old "lock 'em up and throw away the key" Merrick. 'Course you are! Merrick wrote: I'd rather have Nestle cannabis than stuff sprayed with unknown chemicals, paying no tax, organised by beatings and killings. As would I. But I'd prefer even more to be able to get the bus down to my mate's house and pick up my pot. Just like I do now, except without being paranoid about the smell of the stuff on the bus home. My behaviour wouldn't change were it legalised. I'd just experience less anxiety (as would the chap who grows it).
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Aug 20, 2010, 15:23
|
||
|
Toni Torino wrote: I can't help but think that kids would be trafficked for much more sinister reasons than a bit of plant watering. Of course. Don't get me wrong, Toni. I'm not suggesting that people-trafficking or child labour doesn't happen. It does happen and it's a major problem. A major evil. I just don't see the logistics of using trafficked kids to grow cannabis as making any sense. As I've pointed out, it's not a labour intensive process and most of what little work there is can be automated very cheaply. Introducing forced labour simply increases the risks for sod all gain. And again, let me stress, I'm sure there probably are some idiots doing it, but it's highly unlikely to be widespread.
|
|||
pooley 501 posts |
Aug 20, 2010, 15:25
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: handofdave wrote: Don't call me a fucking hypocrite and then try to act friendly. Fuck you. pooley wrote: Fuck you too, hypocrite. Jeez guys, does it need to descend to this level? I had hoped not. I regret that last post, but I seem to be paying the price for voicing a concern that goes againt the ethos of the site
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Aug 20, 2010, 15:28
Aug 20, 2010, 15:28
|
||
|
pooley wrote: grufty jim wrote: handofdave wrote: Don't call me a fucking hypocrite and then try to act friendly. Fuck you. pooley wrote: Fuck you too, hypocrite. Jeez guys, does it need to descend to this level? I had hoped not. I regret that last post, but I seem to be paying the price for voicing a concern that goes againt the ethos of the site pooley, I have already agreed with the thrust of your argument. Merrick has staunchly defended your position. With one exception, every pot-smoker here has clearly stated that they know the provenance of their pot. So please stop insisting that you're a lone voice against the "ethos of the site" on this particular issue. You're not. You and handofdave have gotten into a regrettable slanging match, but damn near everyone is agreeing with your basic point here.
|
|||
|
machineryelf 3681 posts |
Aug 20, 2010, 15:32
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: We can all brew our own beer easily for next to nothing, but almost none of us do. And the shops are full of imported stuff that undercuts much of the domestic craft stuff. My guess is the cannabis market would go the same way. but a lot of people grow their own veg, even window box herb gardens,you dont need a huge garden. brewing good beer takes time & skill and proper equipment, growing a few strawberries or a pot of Basil is something many people do, just for the fun of it Cannabis supposedly grows like wildfire so legalising it would just mean you could plant it with your runner beans & pots and bake it up in a nice cake after your Sunday lunch
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Aug 20, 2010, 15:38
|
||
|
Come on, man. You called me, quote; 'A fucking hypocrite' Then you tried to laugh it off. I'm not gonna play that game with someone who declares that he's exempt from the rules he's laying down.
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8769 posts |
Aug 20, 2010, 15:40
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: pooley wrote: grufty jim wrote: handofdave wrote: Don't call me a fucking hypocrite and then try to act friendly. Fuck you. pooley wrote: Fuck you too, hypocrite. Jeez guys, does it need to descend to this level? I had hoped not. I regret that last post, but I seem to be paying the price for voicing a concern that goes againt the ethos of the site pooley, I have already agreed with the thrust of your argument. Merrick has staunchly defended your position. With one exception, every pot-smoker here has clearly stated that they know the provenance of their pot. So please stop insisting that you're a lone voice against the "ethos of the site" on this particular issue. You're not. You and handofdave have gotten into a regrettable slanging match, but damn near everyone is agreeing with your basic point here. Thats as maybe, but personally I object to everyone here being branded a "hypocrite", hence my reaction.
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Aug 20, 2010, 15:50
|
||
|
grufty jim wrote: pooley wrote: grufty jim wrote: handofdave wrote: Don't call me a fucking hypocrite and then try to act friendly. Fuck you. pooley wrote: Fuck you too, hypocrite. Jeez guys, does it need to descend to this level? I had hoped not. I regret that last post, but I seem to be paying the price for voicing a concern that goes againt the ethos of the site pooley, I have already agreed with the thrust of your argument. Merrick has staunchly defended your position. With one exception, every pot-smoker here has clearly stated that they know the provenance of their pot. So please stop insisting that you're a lone voice against the "ethos of the site" on this particular issue. You're not. You and handofdave have gotten into a regrettable slanging match, but damn near everyone is agreeing with your basic point here. You are right, Jim. I hadn't read alot of the new stuff before spouting off. Will teach me to take more time and not just respond. Lesson learnt
|
|||
|
pooley 501 posts |
Aug 20, 2010, 15:53
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: Come on, man. You called me, quote; 'A fucking hypocrite' Then you tried to laugh it off. I'm not gonna play that game with someone who declares that he's exempt from the rules he's laying down. I dont think I tried to laugh it off. I just said I dont know you or your values, only what your said here. I then said despite that you couldn't be all bad. That isn't laughing anything off! it's just pointing out that I dont know you, or your values (must i say it again???)) OK hypocrite may have been overly harsh. But then again, maybe not. because, you see - I DONT KNOW YOU
|
| Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
