Criminals Using Drones To Find Cannabis Farms and Steal Crops

schwit1 (797399) writes "There has been a huge surge in the number of hidden cannabis farms across Halesowen, Cradley Heath and Oldbury, towns on the outskirts of rural Shropshire some seven miles from central Birmingham. They require hydroponic lights for the marijuana plants to grow – and the huge amounts of excess heat given off make them easily spottable for a would-be criminal with a drone carrying infrared cameras. One such man says that after finding a property with a cannabis farm he and his crew either burgle or 'tax' the victim."

Comments

Just one more reason

[lawnboy5-O]

... to legalize and regulate.

Re:Just one more reason

[ShanghaiBill]

... to legalize and regulate.

That is unlikely to happen in Britain. Politicians won't legalize it because there are too many special interest groups that want to keep the status quo of the endless "War on Drugs" and all the money that flows into it. In America, it has only been legalized in states with citizen referendums, so the politicians were bypassed.

Re:Just one more reason

[perpenso]

It may be to a lesser degree but legal businesses are the victims of theft and extortion too.

Re:Just one more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, no time for useless shitsacks like you.

Re:Just one more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason there were violent gangs who made money selling alcohol back in prohibition was because it was illegal. Once alcohol was legalized, it took a lot of power away from gangs. Legalizing weed would take some money/power away from cartels which is always a good thing.

Re:Just one more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

""Then the pot growers and the thieves can kill each other off.""

User 'mendax' WTF are you on? Is it meth? Heroin? Were you being sarcastic? Or completely clueless? I forgot the part where pot growers are like cartels recklessly killing people to protect their empires.. (sarcasm)

The article is f**kin stupid to begin with ""Hydroponic Lights"" what the f**k are they talking about? They are call HPS -High Pressure Sodium- lights, leave it up to people or the press to also be clueless. Hydroponics is a method used to grow plants!! Actually for some reason I found that a little funny.. Hydroponic Lights.. haha

I'd agree with your comment, but the Colorado Government is already at it with their right wing propaganda, their claiming it is far easier for high school teens to get it. And here I thought one of the reasons it being legal was because of it being widely available while it was illegal. And I forgot of all those pot smokers in High school that continued smoking in college who then went on to become rich yuppies, by being smart enough to cheat the system, or came up with genius ideas/innovations.

Re:Just one more reason

[ShanghaiBill]

Legalizing weed would take some money/power away from cartels which is always a good thing.

Sure. But it would also take money/power from the police, police unions, prison guards unions, etc.

Re:Just one more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

>it would also take money/power from the police, police unions, prison guards unions, etc.

Like he said, the cartels. :)

Re:Just one more reason

[jcr]

Yeah, like he said: cartels.

-jcr

Re:Just one more reason

[jopsen]

Sure. But it would also take money/power from the police, police unions, prison guards unions, etc.

Come on, I refuse to believe that these entities are actively working to put more people in prison for no good reason.
That's bullshit, police unions represents police officers, usually union policies are made by vote.
I refuse to believe that most police officers want to lock up people for no good reason

That said, they may very well have insights into why weed is bad. They may have experience traffic accidents, etc.

In that line, I think it's more likely that private prisons advocate for more prison time, etc. That would be the American thing to do :)

Re:Just one more reason

[nbauman]

Sure. But it would also take money/power from the police, police unions, prison guards unions, etc.

Come on, I refuse to believe that these entities are actively working to put more people in prison for no good reason.

That's bullshit, police unions represents police officers, usually union policies are made by vote.

I refuse to believe that most police officers want to lock up people for no good reason

I believe it. In New York City, we had the stop and frisk laws. Officers got caught on tape telling the cops under their command to fill a quota of arrests -- and to arrest black people. Most of the arrests were pot busts after illegal searches. (Possessing marijuana was a violation, not a crime. The cops forced people to commit a misdemeanor by emptying their pockets and displaying marijuana, which was a crime.) That was the subject of a lawsuit, which was also reported on Slashdot. It all came out in court, and Judge Schendlin wrote it up in her written decision.

The new police commissioner was complaining that cops arrest people towards the end of their shift so that they can get overtime pay. Think about that for a second. They're arresting people so that they can make more money.

As I recall, one of the strongest opponents of liberalizing drug laws in California was the prison guards' union. It was pretty clear that they wanted to keep the prisons full to protect their jobs.

That said, they may very well have insights into why weed is bad. They may have experience traffic accidents, etc.

Oh, yeah. Who has more insight into why weed is bad -- cops? Or doctors, psychiatrists and scientists?

Re:Just one more reason

[aynoknman]

Legalizing weed would take some money/power away from cartels which is always a good thing.

Sure. But it would also take money/power from the police, police unions, prison guards unions, etc.

I perceive that you are paraphrasing the parent.

Re:Just one more reason

[gl4ss]

in britain you can still keep it(the war on drugs). there's plenty of other substances to keep fighting against.

besides, situation with mj in britain is that if you get caught with a joint/small bag pretty much nothing happens(compared to some other countries where they will raid your property..).

anyhow, it would be pretty easy to entrap these guys, to extract money from them. setup the lights and cameras, wait with your crew and boom, they pay or go to prison for extortion.

Re:Just one more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Corrections is a billion dollar industry promoted by fear, and having little to do with protecting society. Like all unions they protect their corner of the pie. That might be good for their employees but it's most certainly not good for the public as a whole.

Re:Just one more reason

[deadweight]

California prison-guard unions are/were well known for lobbying for stricter drug laws to increase their client base ;)

Re:Just one more reason

[slapout]

But giving power to the government is a bad thing.

Re:Just one more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of like Prop 8 in California? How'd the will of the people fare in that battle??

Re:Just one more reason

[danknight48]

... to legalize and regulate.

Only if your volunteering to live next door to a full time cannabis user.
Come summer time, when the windows have to be open, you'll regret it.

Re:Just one more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

In one town I used to live in, the county sheriff decided that they wanted a juvenile detention center. So what happens? The arrest rate of juveniles goes up dramatically. Mainly for petty things that in the past, the cops would have just ignored or would have taken kids home to parents and let them deal with it.

Re:Just one more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the main reason why there were violent gangs making money selling alcohol during prohibition is that nobody respected the law enough to follow it. It's a similar situation here where a ton of self centered people are more interestedin smoking pot than in respecting the law.

The blame for the narco-gangs rests solely on the people who buy illegal drugs, and it will stop as soon as people stop giving them money. Focusing on your preferred solution is just plain dishonest. Especially given that there are genuine drawbacks to having pot easily available.

Re:Just one more reason

[operagost]

Not only is the smell of cat pee the least of my concerns, but if some guy was burning trash and stinking up the neighborhood, I'd have reason to complain. Likewise, if his cannabis smoke is wafting around my house. I guess he'll have to run the A/C while he's tokin'.

Re:Just one more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

I refuse to believe that most police officers want to lock up people for no good reason

Who do you think gets the snazzy new cruisers, the cops who don't make millions on drug busts, or the cops who bust drug dealers and confiscate millions of dollars?

Re:Just one more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

well played sir

Re:Just one more reason

[careysub]

Come on, I refuse to believe that these entities are actively working to put more people in prison for no good reason.

Then you know nothing about the California "three strikes law" which was written by the prison guard union, and passed through an aggressive ad campaign that the union funded which invariably and exclusively used the stock phrase "violent criminal" to give the voter the impression that these were the only people being locked up for the rest of their lives.

But the law only required the first two "strikes" be "serious", not violent, crime and the third strike could be virtually any thing at all (given prosecutor's ability to upgrade almost any charge to a felony of some kind). "Serious" crimes included simple robbery, and since it has long been a practice for poor, lower class defendants to plead guilty to questionable charges to get light sentences - large numbers of defendants found that old pleas (some quite ancient) suddenly made them "three strikes" fodder for any offense. In fact a large majority of "three strikes" convictions are for minor crimes.

Re:Just one more reason

[Sloppy]

Legalizing weed would take some money/power away from cartels which is always a good thing.

It's not a good thing, if your financial interests are aligned with the cartels.

If I'm on Al Capone's payroll and you ask for my opinion of the 21st Amendment, I'm going to say it's a bad idea.

Re:Just one more reason

[careysub]

No, the main reason why there were violent gangs making money selling alcohol during prohibition is that nobody respected the law enough to follow it. It's a similar situation here where a ton of self centered people are more interestedin smoking pot than in respecting the law.

The blame for the narco-gangs rests solely on the people who buy illegal drugs, and it will stop as soon as people stop giving them money. Focusing on your preferred solution is just plain dishonest. Especially given that there are genuine drawbacks to having pot easily available.

Interesting. So the real problem with Prohibition was not that it was a bad law, but that Americans were bad people, self-centered law breakers who should have respected this fine piece of legislation.

Good to know.

Re:Just one more reason

[Sloppy]

[Just one more reason] to legalize and regulate.

I can see how this kind of story would support legalization (crimes against criminals often go unaddressed), but how would it support regulating? Is theft unusually common with unregulated crops, as opposed to regulated ones?

(Ignorance plea: Heh, it occurs to me that I don't even know what crops are regulated and what isn't. Maybe agriculture is already totally micromanaged by Washington; I sure hear enough stories of corruption (e.g. subsidies) within the topic!)

Re:Just one more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, yeah. Who has more insight into why weed is bad -- cops? Or doctors, psychiatrists and scientists?
/
Cops.

Re:Just one more reason

[HornWumpus]

Tweak smells like cat pee. Pot smells a little like skunk only much, much better.

You someone is truly reeking up a large area, they need to upgrade to better strains.

They could find my patch with Google earth. But enough thieves have gotten ventilated and farmers walked, that they are starting to be a lot more careful. The real problem with the story is England's broken gun control laws.

Re:Just one more reason

[JWSmythe]

Ya, I pretty much wrote off the story when I saw "hydroponic lights". Unless someone has invented a lightbulb that spews water from it, they're just writing a news story with keywords to try to make a buck.

Re:Just one more reason

[Walter White]

Come on, I refuse to believe that these entities are actively working to put more people in prison for no good reason. ...
I think it's more likely that private prisons advocate for more prison time, etc. That would be the American thing to do :)

Are you suggesting that money is not a good reason?

http://cca.com/

  Prison operation is now private and they want to grow the business.

Re:Just one more reason

[DedTV]

As I recall, one of the strongest opponents of liberalizing drug laws in California was the prison guards' union. It was pretty clear that they wanted to keep the prisons full to protect their jobs.

Not quite. Their jobs are safe either way as California (and most other states) has far more prisoners than they have capacity.
What they are interested in is protecting themselves as a prison full of non-violent offenders who can look forward to getting out relatively soon if they behave is far safer for guards than a prison full of violent felons who will remain in prison for decades no matter how they behave. Police unions usually oppose drug law liberalization for similar reasons.

Re:Just one more reason

[jopsen]

Prison operation is now private and they want to grow the business.

I believe you on that one... But if cops and prison guards are advocating for more arrests and longer sentences in order to secure their jobs, you guys really need to fix that...
Maybe, offer a decent unemployment support so they don't have to be homeless if fired :)


Either way, cops should be trying to create more business for themselves. That's a problem to fix before trying to legalize soft drugs..

Re:Just one more reason

[jopsen]

California prison-guard unions are/were well known for lobbying for stricter drug laws

I'll believe that... But:

to increase their client base ;)

Really, if so... You have a different problem to solve first :)

Re:Just one more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

they may very well have insights into why weed is bad. They may have experience traffic accidents, etc.

Which is why drinking alcohol is illegal. Wait, it's not. Driving under the influence of any incapacitating drug is illegal. Traffic accidents and criminalization of certain drugs are completely unrelated.

Duh...

[Mashiki]

In the old days, criminals would just follow others out or use dogs trained to sniff out other peoples grow ops in some farmers field, woods/back wood lot/etc. They're just going hi-tech, nothing to see in that sense.

Re:Duh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but damn, anyone who'd steal from someone else's farm would steal Tiny Tim's crutch.

.

the jew in the sky...

[Anonymous Coward]

sees all!

Move

[Anonymous Coward]

If you didn't live in such a crappy climate this wouldn't be an issue...

So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

"They require hydroponic lights for the marijuana plants to grow"

What the fuck is a hydroponic light? Are we talking sonoluminescence or what? That's gotta be inefficient.

You mean an HID light, which produces tons of heat and is easy traceable from both ballast noise and heat.

Shoulda gone LED, suckers.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[beelsebob]

They don't care if it's inefficient, they just tap into the neighbouring house's electricity meter, or tap into the line into the house directly.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

I think you're not understanding my words.

First, I'm mocking the term 'hydroponic light' as if the water were generating light. Then I go on further to explain that the only way they'd get light from a liquid that would even be usable enough for horticulture would have to be produced by sonoluminescence, which is highly inefficient and wouldn't produce the kind of heat (let alone light) an HID bulb would do, which is how these people are getting caught by drones using infrared thermal cameras.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[beelsebob]

Ah sorry, I simply misread then. I assumed that it was a simple typo for "hydroponics light" - as in, a light used for growing things using hydroponics. It didn't even occur to me that it could be misinterpreted.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Jmc23]

apparently you have no idea just how much heat LED arrays put out.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[guevera]

LEDs aren't there yet. You can't get cannabis to flower properly under LED lighting, nor can you get the sort of growth rates you'll get under HID lights. It might be useful for cloning...but flourescents work fine for that.

Also, the newer digital HID ballasts are silent. Even older magnetic ballasts don't make much noise, especially if they're installed properly. Your biggest noise issue is going to come from exhaust fans, but that can be minimized as well if you know what you're doing. Or so I've heard..."

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[plover]

LED lamps do not put out nearly as much heat as High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lamps. I have a (disconnected) 400W HPS that I could easily have cooked on the top of the reflector, and probably broiled meat directly beneath it. I replaced it with a 144W LED floodlamp, and now I can hold the operating heat sink in my hand; the glass lens pane on the bottom is at room temperature. I am no longer concerned about fire safety in my house.

One major difference, though, is I'm growing orchids, which require far less light than cannabis. I need only two 144W LED floodlamps to illuminate a 72 square foot area. The pot growers will cram as many 400 W lamps in a grow operation as they can, sometimes a dozen or more in a single small room, whatever they can draw from the circuit breaker panel. They'll keep a large external vent fan running year round, including the dead of winter, to keep the room from igniting.

If I were to grow pot, I'm sure I'd need a lot more light fixtures, but even a dozen LED lamps in the same room probably wouldn't risk burning my house down.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Anonymous Coward]

here you go

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Mr.CRC]

You're confusing heat with temperature.

HPS is in the >100 lumen/watt ballpark. LEDs, while capable of much more efficiency when operated at currents below their maximum ratings, usually operate near the same 100lm/W efficiencies when operated at maximum current. Economics dictates pushing them to their limits in order to minimize the number of expensive emitters needed per fixture.

I suspect that your HPS just concentrates its heat dissipation over a smaller area, so it gets much hotter. And it of course produces nearly 3x more heat if it's 400W vs. 144W. But a 400W LED fixture would produce nearly the same heat overall. It just wouldn't get as hot ;-)

Electronic ballasts with PFC can run HID lamps quietly.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Anonymous Coward]

Compound words formed in the manner "word 1 word 2" do not necessarily mean that "word 2" is something made of "word 1". It often means that "word 2" is something that is used on or for "word 1"

Examples - A "rock hammer" is not a hammer made of rock. A "baseball bat" is not a bat made of baseballs.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't get cannabis to flower properly under LED lighting.

LOL!

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[dkf]

But a 400W LED fixture would produce nearly the same heat overall [as 400W HPS lights].

Well yes. Duh. All those watts have got to go somewhere, and that's virtually all going to be heat eventually. What matters is how much light you get for that power. And LEDs and HPS are fairly similar (enough that the details of exactly what you're doing and how they were manufactured matter; the luminosities per unit power are similar, according to Wikipedia).

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[guevera]

If you've got evidence to show, please share....our electric bills will thank you... but so far every person I've seen tell me LEDs work great has been full of it and usually trying to sell LED grow lights.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[serviscope_minor]

LED lamps do not put out nearly as much heat as High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lamps. I have a (disconnected) 400W HPS that I could easily have cooked on the top of the reflector, and probably broiled meat directly beneath it. I replaced it with a 144W LED floodlamp

I'm guessing that the LEDs are putting out much less light, since the efficiency of HPS lamps is sustantially above most commercial LEDs. However that may be OK since the sodium vapour lamps are skewed towards orange, probably making them less good per lumen for plant growing.

The other thing is that HPS lamps have an immense power to size ratio, meaing most of the substantial amount of head it emitted in a small region.

Likewise if you replaced your setup with quality electronic ballast mercury fluorescents (not as good as HPS) you'd find the whole thing only got warm since you'd be spreading the head out over a low area.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Anonymous Coward]

First maybe define 'flower propely'? I assume it means yield, if so, then the issue might be that LEDs are not that much better than HIDs. You still need a lot of watts. HIDs are actually more efficient in terms of the lumene output*, so LEDs have only the spectrum efficiency, and maybe also an advantage in the form of lower surface temperature, which means that they can be kept closer to the plant. I would not change existing HIDs to LED, but I would maybe use LEDs for small installations.

* in the kW range at least

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[marsu_k]

My sister-in-law works developing LED lamps. She's a biologist, was headhunted from the university after her PhD (that was about how different types of UV light affect plant growth) by some engineers. Basically what she does is she tests various configurations of LED lights and fixtures, checks how they affect plant growth, tells the engineers to build "that one". Rinse and repeat.

What she's told me, and I have no reason to doubt this as she's not trying to sell me anything (and the fact that she's very proud of her work ethics), they're getting very much better results than with HIDs. With much less power consumption, obviously. Now, they specifically haven't tested cannabis, but I have a hard time believing the light requirements would be so drastically different than from other very light-needy plants.

The thing is though, they're not yet selling to consumers, just to large commercial greenhouses. The company is still early stages. And she's been unwilling to loan me a unit for test purposes, dammit ;) But I'm willing to bet in a few years HIDs will no longer be the choice, at least when it comes to power consumption and heat; I expect the lights will be quite pricey, at least initially.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Megol]

The parent post already stated HPS and LED lights have near the same efficiency...

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

Many people think a light is either specifically for hydroponics or soil. It's neither. It is a horticultural light. It will grow anything that will grow under the sun, regardless of hydro or soil.

The joys of misleading marketing.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

And a hydroponics light is a bullshit term because there is no specific light for hydroponics alone.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

"apparently you have no idea just how much heat LED arrays put out."

I design LED systems globally, son.

Try again when you know who you're talking to - THE LED expert on this site.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

"HPS is in the >100 lumen/watt ballpark"

Only in their more inefficient ranges like 250 and 400w. 600w can get up to 160l/w.

"LEDs, while capable of much more efficiency when operated at currents below their maximum ratings, usually operate near the same 100lm/W efficiencies when operated at maximum current"

Current LED tech is 130+ l/w and Cree's already popped 200+ at room temp 5600K 80mA drive with their MK-R, and in the lab, they've already hit 303+ at room temp 5150K color temp and 350mA drive.

" But a 400W LED fixture would produce nearly the same heat overall. It just wouldn't get as hot ;-) "

Comparing 400w HID to 400w LED, full power, the LED will produce on average 15-20% less heat, with that heat difference made up as light output.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

"The parent post already stated HPS and LED lights have near the same efficiency..."

The parent post is wrong. Wikipedia is a horrible source for the rapidly-evolving world of semiconductor lighting. I've already got LEDs with 200+ l/w efficiency (Cree MK-R.) In single color LEDs, going to equal weighting and ignoring the weighting of green, you might as well just say 330+l/w, which is double any HID (excepting the almost pure-green low pressure sodium lamp, which can do 220+ l/w.)

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

"LEDs aren't there yet. You can't get cannabis to flower properly under LED lighting, nor can you get the sort of growth rates you'll get under HID lights"

Yea, explain why I made it on High Times Pix of the Crop six years in a row using pure LED lighting.

Or how about you go roll over to http://ledgrowersforum.co.uk/ and learn how dead wrong you are.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

"If you've got evidence to show, please share....our electric bills will thank you"

Sure. http://ledgrowersforum.co.uk/

How about a cola as big around as my leg?

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

"And she's been unwilling to loan me a unit for test purposes, dammit ;) "

Your sister does my exact job.

What sort of unit are you looking for? I've got tons. General purpose, microgreens, hell I've got technology to grow some plants without any light at all (very useful for the cattle/sheep ranchers) with a 99% reduction in water requirements.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Oceanplexian]

It's funny, but growers usually know more about lighting than most engineers.

Marijuana plants like direct, intense sunlight. Unfortunately LEDs aren't very scalable. As you increase the current they start to run into physical limitations and the efficiency goes to hell. A 100W led may only put out 50lm/W, where a 1W led could put out 100lm/W.

HIDs are actually extremely efficient (Around 100lm/W) and scalable (bulbs go up to 1kw+). To get and equivalent amount of light out of LEDs with some sense of efficiency, you'd need thousands of them. This may be suitable for plants that can deal with indirect sunlight, but it is not ideal for Cannabis.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[NoImNotNineVolt]

hell I've got technology to grow some plants without any light at all (very useful for the cattle/sheep ranchers) with a 99% reduction in water requirements.

Do you call this technology Farmville?

How do you reduce water requirements by 99% and still grow a plant? Since plants are made mostly of water, wouldn't there be an upper bound on water requirement reduction that's nowhere near 99%? Otherwise, what is the plant made of? Do plants really lose >99% of uptaken water to respiration, etc.?

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Jmc23]

So you put heatsinks on them don't you?

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Anonymous Coward]

For cannabis flowering (at least for temperate varieties, equatorial varieties flower differently), the spectrum of the HPS light is superior because it has the red/orange light that the plant would naturally see as the sun gets lower in the sky approaching autumn. This (supposedly) helps to trigger the flowering process and helps to add yield. Grow ops that I have seen (granted this was in the 80's/90's) generally used flourescent lights for cloning, metal halide lights for vegetative growth and high-pressure sodium for flowering.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Enigma2175]

My sister-in-law works developing LED lamps. She's a biologist, was headhunted from the university after her PhD (that was about how different types of UV light affect plant growth) by some engineers. Basically what she does is she tests various configurations of LED lights and fixtures, checks how they affect plant growth, tells the engineers to build "that one". Rinse and repeat.

What she's told me, and I have no reason to doubt this as she's not trying to sell me anything (and the fact that she's very proud of her work ethics), they're getting very much better results than with HIDs. With much less power consumption, obviously.

Why would they need less power consumption. The lumens per watt of most HID lamps is the same or better than LEDs. This Wikipedia page has several examples of the efficiency of different kinds of lights. Most of the LED examples they give show around 50-100 lumens per watt. For metal halide, they show 65-115 l/w, for high pressure sodium it's 85-150 l/w and for low pressure sodium it's 100-200 l/w. It sounds to me like the HID lamps are MORE efficient than the LEDs, so why is it obvious that the LEDs would use "much less power consumption"?

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

If you consider a strip of metal barely rigid enough to support the strip a heat sink, sure.

I don't use heat sinks unless I'm dealing with insane power. Like 1,000w in a 70mm x 70mm package.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[marsu_k]

Why would they need less power consumption. The lumens per watt of most HID lamps is the same or better than LEDs. This Wikipedia page has several examples of the efficiency of different kinds of lights. Most of the LED examples they give show around 50-100 lumens per watt. For metal halide, they show 65-115 l/w, for high pressure sodium it's 85-150 l/w and for low pressure sodium it's 100-200 l/w. It sounds to me like the HID lamps are MORE efficient than the LEDs, so why is it obvious that the LEDs would use "much less power consumption"?

I'm not pretending to be an expert on the issue, as stated this is second hand information - however, that Wikipedia page seems to describe the kind of lights one would use in general lighting. The lights she's shown me are nothing of the kind, mostly a mixture of red(ish) and blue(ish) LEDs. Apparently that's what plants crave (I suppose the light has electrolytes).

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

Let's take one of the crops I've done. Wheat fodder grass for animals. Using current traditional soil methods, one acre of fodder grass will require 100,000 gallons of water. Most of this water is lost via transpiration of the plant and evaporation from the soil.

I can build you a 1/8 acre building, load it up with recirculating vertical-stacked NFT channels, and you could produce that same acre of grass using 1,000 gallons of water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... - have one of the UK projects I worked on.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

"Marijuana plants like direct, intense sunlight. Unfortunately LEDs aren't very scalable. As you increase the current they start to run into physical limitations and the efficiency goes to hell. A 100W led may only put out 50lm/W, where a 1W led could put out 100lm/W."

I'm sorry, we've got plenty of LED systems out there pushing 2,000+ umol from several feet away, like any HID. And typical 100w LEDs are about 130 lumens per watt. Cree has LEDs available for the consumer that at 1w drive get 200+ lumens per watt (Cree MK-R) We figured out the Auger/watercooler effect and are working around it. We've got LEDs that dump 150+ lumens per watt at 5-10A drive current, now (Cree XPG2.)

"HIDs are actually extremely efficient (Around 100lm/W) and scalable (bulbs go up to 1kw+)."

We've got 1,000w LED packages in 70mm x 70mm size, with better efficiency.

" To get and equivalent amount of light out of LEDs with some sense of efficiency, you'd need thousands of them."

Plants care about photon flux, not lumens, which is weighted at green wavelengths for human vision. That's not saying that green light isn't useful in itself, but lumens mean jack shit when it's overall photon flux density making the real difference. I'm questioning how out of date your information is. Seems like way early 2000.

And thousands? Seriously?

http://tinyurl.com/mxq5w2b (PDF WARNING)

Try a couple hundred, easily fit on a 30mm x 30mm COB array board. Those are 5W LEDs each. The Cree MK-R is a 15W LED. 100 of those is 1.5kW.

" This may be suitable for plants that can deal with indirect sunlight, but it is not ideal for Cannabis."

http://i.imgur.com/5sCX9NX.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KDI9NNX.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cu2IsVO.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0sJiDxs.jpg

Uhhhhhh..... what? Speaking as a medical cannabis user and grower, and as a landrace genetics preservation specialist for a Dutch seed bank, you're totally, absolutely, utterly wrong.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

Correction, XPG2 is a 5W LED, not 5A. 1.5A drive.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

You've listened to wayyyyy too much marketing and read too much ill-educated nonsense on cannabis forums.

The light cycle itself triggers flowering. Red light just happens to be a bit more efficient than blue for photosynthesis. I've done flowering under pure blue light and still obtained the typical stated yield from the seed supplier's website.

HPS gets used for flowering because the intense green output, which can go through the canopy, down to lower sections of the plant, where the green has overall superior quantum yield, as red and blue will not penetrate that far. IR has minor effect.

Guess what? We've got white LEDs pushing well past anything HPS lamps can do in terms of lumens per watt (really we're looking for photon flux density) and at color temperatures much closer to the natural light of the sun. HID? Finished.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

"This Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] has several examples of the efficiency of different kinds of lights. Most of the LED examples they give show around 50-100 lumens per watt."

Quit relying upon Wikipedia. It's outdated. Cree's already pushing 300+ in the labs and have 200+ commercially available. Most LEDs are pushing 130-150 right now.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they need less power consumption. The lumens per watt of most HID lamps is the same or better than LEDs. This Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] has several examples of the efficiency of different kinds of lights.

1. The figures listed on that page are out of date. LEDs are now being produced with efficiency of around 300lm/W. We currently see typical improvement year on year of about 20-40lm/W. Expect the actual efficiency to peak at around 400lm/W, because this is probably close to a fundamental limit.

2. Plants don't see visible light, they absorb radiated energy. Lumens are therefore not the appropriate measure of output power, as that is a scale calibrated to human sensitivity to different wavelengths. Specifically, green output contributes much more to a measurement in lumens than, say, orange, because the human eye is more sensitive to green than it is to orange. Unfortunately, plants are more sensitive to that orange light than they are to green, so the calibration is wrong. You should be comparing radiant flux, which is typically measured in Watts. Or a weighted value calculated for the purpose of photosynthetic absorption, if you can find one.

3. Gas discharge lamps are only available with a very limited set of emission spectra. LEDs are available in a much wider band of colours. Plants are very selective in which bands they absorb; if your discharge lamp has an output in a band that is not absorbed by the plant, this power is wasted. Looking through the list of common types on Wikipedia, only sodium has a spectrum that doesn't contain significant amounts of green output (which is only about 25% as efficient as some other wavelengths -- see graph at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/ligabs.html for comparisons), but unfortunately its ~600nm wavelength is still less than half way up the side of the valley, so is only about 50% as efficient as reds and blues. I don't know if there are some unusual types of HID lamp that are better suited for plant growth, but if there are, it is a little peculiar that wikipedia entirely neglects to mention them.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Anonymous Coward]

HPS is in the >100 lumen/watt ballpark

Yes, but its output is concentrated in a peak at around 600nm. Plants don't absorb this anywhere near as well as they do, say, 450nm or 650nm, both of which are available as monochromatic leds. And please, stop using lumens for this. The lumen is a scale that is calibrated to human visual sensitivity, and is utterly useless for plant growth purposes.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[guevera]

Looks nice...but still not as dense as what I'd expect under HIDs...I really want to be excited about LEDs but I just haven't seen them work well enough on a per watt or per sqft basis...yet. They've gotten a lot better in just the last couple of years....and someday soon they'll be ready for prime time.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[Khyber]

Density is 100% genetic. Sativas will produce fluffy buds no matter how much light you throw at them.

http://imgur.com/5mhBwQh

Here's an autoflower - Think Different strain. from a 200w LED, that's an easy pound plus harvest right there.

Re:So much nonsense in terms

[RockDoctor]

Using current traditional soil methods, one acre of fodder grass will require 100,000 gallons of water. Most of this water is lost via transpiration of the plant and evaporation from the soil.
I can build you a 1/8 acre building, load it up with recirculating vertical-stacked NFT channels, and you could produce that same acre of grass using 1,000 gallons of water.

That would be say 10,000lbs, 4.5 tons of grass. Not a great yield for an acre, but not a disastrously bad one either.

So the 1000 gallons of water cycles through the hydroponic system around 100 times as it is gradually absorbed by the plants. Each time it is picked up by the plants and transpired (moving nutrients around in the plant in the process), it then gets re-captured from the atmosphere, re-condensed and pumped back into the hydroponics system.

There is another answer

[mendax]

The development of anti-drone weapons is the next step. Small radar-guided missiles the size of a bottle rocket used to destroy "enemy" drones. Or "fighter" drones armed with heat-seeking missiles. It could add a new dimension to the phrase "too close for missiles, switching to guns".

Of course, as someone has already pointed out, legalizing pot is the best solution. Then the pot growers and the thieves can kill each other off.

Re:There is another answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, given legalization, the pot growers, being respectable farmers, will have every reason to stand their ground and turn the thieves into fertilizer.

Re:There is another answer

[Anonymous Coward]

But how does one encourage the development of anti-drone technology. I assume various militaries are either trying to develop or have developed some technologies/strategies to combat drones (but are keeping them closely held until they need them (or I am over-estimating their foresight and intelligence.)

But also, in the case of drones being used by police states or just by public/commercial entities (invading privacy, etc) I would appreciate the development of defense methods accessible to the common person.

I can only guess based on theory and sci-fi, but I can't think of too many different avenues for defense against drones. One is just stealth/camouflage, but I assume it is hard to hide from infrared or just an over abundance of cameras (especially if those cameras are hard to detect.) .So like while roofs would prevent basic cameras, thermal shielding of some sort would be needed for infrared or heat detecting ones. Plus, in the case of say a guerrilla war/rebellion/protest/revolution/etc mobility is an issue and big, roofed buildings are obvious to other means of detection.

One could target the control signal for controlled drones (hack the signal, disrupt it, replace it with your own) and either take over the drone or at least cause its failure. For autonomous ones, one would have to interfere with the signal transmitting the camera/detector feed, perhaps replace it with a false one. But I assume with the right precautions and encryption, these methods can be thwarted.

Physically targeting drones would be the most likely solution, and at first would probably be some sort of seeking missile or counter-drone, but there are plenty of problems with this. High flying drones, if they are even detected, would be hard targets. Furthermore, drone vs missile combat would probably resemble current anti-aircraft/SAM combat, and would require both a means of drone detection/targeting and high number of anti-drone weapons.
And as the technology improves, drones and their cameras are getting smaller and cheaper, and then it becomes a problem of numbers. If someone can deploy hundreds of cheap cameras, they only need one or a few to survive any counter-measures. Or they can become so small as to be virtually undetectable, or so numerous as to be ubiquitous, or taking the form of natural entities (birds, insects, etc.) and they can operate individual or as bot-swarms (each providing unique problems.) In this case, its becomes an arms race as measures and counter-measures and counter-counter-measures are developed.

Perhaps the best countermeasure on both large scale and the small/personal scale will be drones themselves. Eventually, large areas (countries, cities, estates) would be protected by a "dome" of numerous, replaceable, small defense drones (similar to the ones in Stephenson's The Diamond Age.) And then personal defense drones shadowing and protecting individuals or perhaps even clouds of defensive nano-tech. (like in plenty of sci-fi stories,)

But the development of countermeasures needs to be spurred on by necessity and needs both funding and technical means.
So I would suggest just constantly invading the privacy of the rich. Hovering over their pools and outdoor parties, peering in their windows. Either they will get lopsided laws written that only prevent poor, citizens from using drones (which is entirely a possibility,) or a market will appear spurring the development of measures to thwart drones. Of course this could spiral out of control in many, many ways, from just private, semi-sanctioned police/security forces "protecting" their clients, to a robot vs human war (where maybe EMPs would be helpful.)

Re:There is another answer

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You don't necessarily even need a hard kill, with the accompanying risks of damage/injury to bystanders and their property...

Thanks at least in part to the robust market for green diode-pumped solid state lasers, moderately alarming and dangerous IR lasers are ubiquitous and cheap. Depending on the quality of your optics and the robustness of theirs, outcomes ranging from temporary washout of the image to swift and permanent death of the imager are highly likely.

Re:There is another answer

[Enigma2175]

So I would suggest just constantly invading the privacy of the rich. Hovering over their pools and outdoor parties, peering in their windows. Either they will get lopsided laws written that only prevent poor, citizens from using drones (which is entirely a possibility,) or a market will appear spurring the development of measures to thwart drones. Of course this could spiral out of control in many, many ways, from just private, semi-sanctioned police/security forces "protecting" their clients, to a robot vs human war (where maybe EMPs would be helpful.)

They already have lopsided laws on the books (like the law in Texas), but it is not rich people getting these laws, it is rich corporations. The Texas law was a direct response to a drone pilot embarassing a corporation by recording them dumping a river of blood into the environment. Why would corporations (or rich people) bother with expensive drone countermeasures when they can just buy some nice, cheap legislation? Our legislators have shown time and time again that they are for sale, and the price is incredibly low.

Economic Threat

[Ukab the Great]

This will lead to thousands of drug enforcement pilot jobs getting offshored to afghanistan where militants can remotely fly drug search drones around England for 100th of the price of a guy in a Cessna.

Re:Economic Threat

[Anonymous Coward]

The only militants remotely flying drones in Afghanistan are American...

Re:Economic Threat

[JimSadler]

Or we could just let people in the drug trade murder each other and let it be known that we will turn a blind eye to such murders.

Re:Economic Threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Or we could just let people in the drug trade murder each other and let it be known that we will turn a blind eye to such murders.

Isn't that close to what we've done with bacteria? Kill off the weaker ones and the super-bugs can thrive?
It seems like the result of your plan would be to have as much crime as before, but with tougher and more dangerous criminals.

Re:Economic Threat

[eneville]

That's an interesting thought, but survival of the fittest just means for the current environment. Once the environment in which the criminals thrive changes you end up with a set of criminals who are unfit for the current set of conditions. Or, say the farmers they poach off find ways to evade their drones. Criminals are clever people, don't ever underestimate them, yet they are also greedy and that ends up being their downfall. The pool of criminals genes to become "super" would need to know when to quit.

Re:Economic Threat

[goarilla]

Yes and here comes the resurrection of large crime syndicates: Murder inc, Maffia Families etc...

Re:Economic Threat

[ComputersKai]

Well, in Mexico, gang wars often end up wrecking cities and turning residencies into unsafe battlegrounds between the government and the criminals. During the Chicago gangland era, the gang wars between Capone and his enemies also led to the so-called "St. Valentines Day massacre".

I think legalizing some aspects of pot-growing would be a much better idea, as there wouldn't be that much criminal incentive anymore.

Fight fire with fire

[Anonymous Coward]

Get some sort of drone detector to launch anti-drones. Or get some IR lamps to confuse the drones. Etc...

Cartels will be fine....

[guevera]

...if weed is legalized. It's mom and pop growers who will be hurt. Serious organized crime groups will just make up any lost weed money with other drugs. People who have turned to growing because the economy sucks so bad, like pretty much everyone in my hometown, will be the losers from legalization.

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[antifoidulus]

Except for that's not how it's panning out in places like Colorado and the Netherlands, where it's largely smaller growers who are making money....

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[erikkemperman]

Except for that's not how it's panning out in places like Colorado and the Netherlands, where it's largely smaller growers who are making money....

The Netherlands here. Not quite. We have this utterly silly situation where the selling of mj is sort of legal, up to a certain weight and only in designated establishments (the famous coffeeshops). However the growing and distributing is quite illegal.

The mom and pop growers are entirely insignificant compared to organized criminals. The latter produce way more than local demand, so much of that is exported.

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[guevera]

Except for that's not how it's panning out in places like Colorado and the Netherlands, where it's largely smaller growers who are making money....

Sure, as long as it remains illegal enough that no legitimate corporation is willing to touch it. The minute you've got real legalization, as opposed to just decriminalization or some sort of nebulous status like Colorado (legal state, illegal under federal law) then it'll be a whole different type of criminal running the show...the same business a$$hole$ who run the rest of the economy.

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if Philip Morris, BAT etc get into the business.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[Zumbs]

If I understand you correctly, any marijuana sold at Dutch coffee shops must then have been either grown illegally or smuggled into the country?

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[erikkemperman]

That is correct. Like I said, an utterly silly state of affairs. So the output of these coffeeshops is legal (provided they respect the weight limits, don't sell to underage visitors, etc) while their inputs aren't.

The way it is now (but this is being debated constantly) we are basically not enjoying the major potential benefit of decriminalisation, which is taking the wind out of the sails of organized crime.

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you are correct. Buying (anywhere) afaik is not illegal so the coffee shop operator buying the weed does not commit a crime, only the seller.

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[Eunuchswear]

Drugs would no longer be grown by organised criminal gangs.

They would be grown by respectable businessmen who have no problem with killing 50% of the people who buy their products while deliberately making them more addictive.

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[cheesybagel]

AFAIK you can grow hemp for fiber legally in the Netherlands. I would not be surprised if that is how people got the cannabis in the first place.

Is the law on cultivation actively enforced or not? If the law is only on paper but not enforced it might as well not be there.

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[erikkemperman]

AFAIK you can grow hemp for fiber legally in the Netherlands. I would not be surprised if that is how people got the cannabis in the first place.

Possibly so, at first. However, these days the strains used for industrial use (rope, clothes, paper) are almost a different species from the ones for, um, recreational use. In fact, some of the mom and pop growers specifically do so because they find the stuff from the coffeeshops too potent.

Is the law on cultivation actively enforced or not? If the law is only on paper but not enforced it might as well not be there.

Yes, it is actively enforced. Everything over 5 plants constitutes a rather serious offense, and people do get caught.

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[Copid]

Serious organized crime groups will just make up any lost weed money with other drugs.

If they were able to increase their profits from other drugs at a whim, why would they wait to incur marijuana losses before doing it? Why wouldn't they just do it now?

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[Copid]

For all of the badness of Philip Morris, I think I'd still rather they be running the show than the guys who kidnap busloads of people, rape them or make them fight to the death, and then bury them in the desert.

I don't think that's just personal squeamishness talking. It may very well be that the sociopaths who did bad stuff for the cigarette companies are just as evil as the sociopaths who run the cartels. But they do seem to control themselves a little better when they can make tons of money by staying in the law's good graces.

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[Eunuchswear]

Philip Morris and the others sell a product that kills large numbers of the people who use it. They know this, but attempt to prevent other people finding out.

They research how to make their product more addictive, and sell the more addictive versions as being "low tar" while knowing they are just as dangerous as the old versions. They simultaneously deny that their product is addictive.

They have a history of deliberately aiming their product at children,

When governemnts attempt to convince people not to use the product by taxing it they engage in illegal smuggling to make tax-free product available to addicts.

How do you measure evil? In terms of the number of dead the tobacco companies make the drug cartels look like girl guides.

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[Copid]

Let's say we go after the bastards, then. Make tobacco illegal and drive them underground. We could outsource the production and distribution of tobacco to Los Zetas and it would be a net win, right? At least that terror Philip Morris would be out of the picture.

To some extent, I measure how threatening they are by how dangerous they are to me as a bystander. I'd much rather see a major cigarette outlet near my house than an illegal marijuana distribution center. I can avoid most of the problems with a cigarette outlet by simply not going in. Not so much with the drug import hub.

We seem to have managed to neuter them pretty effectively by taxing cigarettes and making the public aware of just how bad they are for us. It looks like smoking is down about 60% in the US just due to minor regulation and social trends. Our approach with other drugs doesn't seem to be following the same trend.

Finally, measuring "evil" in absolute numbers is fraught with problems. If all we care about is number of dead rather than how they died and why, we'd be pounding on GM's door too. And of course, I don't think we Americans would be so unconcerned about the drug war if it was our country that they were turning into a failed state. Deaths notwithstanding, the total collapse of law and order in a democracy is something that should be talled on the "drug cartels are bad" side of the ledger, even if it's not our country they're doing it to. Duffel bags full of the heads of police officers and elected officials in some foreign country aren't a really big deal for us, so we tend to turn down the knob on "evil" when we assess it.

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[ultranova]

If they were able to increase their profits from other drugs at a whim, why would they wait to incur marijuana losses before doing it? Why wouldn't they just do it now?

For the same reason corporations wait until being fined before passing it on to their customers: they're just too nice to try and profit more than their fair share.

Re:Cartels will be fine....

[guevera]

Opportunity costs, mostly.

bad farmers

[tleaf100]

if they were decent farmers they would not have a problem with the heat,use it for something, i feed my warmed,cleaned air from mine (very small) into my flat and now have under-floor heating and warm air heating,all controlable from anywhere with with internet/mobile coverage. i pay full cost of my electricity,no mucking about with meters etc and same unit also helps make some cash to pay for itself by having orchids etc in room as well and produce good stock early or out of season so sellable at premium prices,also fresh herbs and salad veg as well as my weed. kind of thing that would be much simpler,easier and safer if folk could self-produce,i only ever grow 6 plants,3 each for myself and partner.we have not had to do any buying of weed for years now,so no cash to criminals,we smoke all we grow,so no dealing,probably the only cash i have made for criminals are the ones who use hydro bit shops as fronts for their farms etc and i have bought lamps,feed etc from. legalise self production (3 plants per person) and that would probably do away with 50/75% of the criminality involved. if legalised,look at the amount of tax they are raiseing in usa + extra taxable profits for energy use and less theft also less house fires (mine is regularaly checked by

Can have trippy cake and eat it too

[SuperKendall]

You can easily legalize MJ and continue your money-generatin war on all the other drugs. It's like a token gesture to the people to make them think the government has given them something, while at the same time pacifying them even further. Win/Win (for the government).

Re:Can have trippy cake and eat it too

[turp182]

The private prison industry would suffer, not sure how big of a lobby they are (or if they would be effective because --->). Governments at all levels would benefit from lower incarceration costs (so win/win/win). And there's revenue from taxes (win x 4). The only downside I see is that people would just continue using marijuana as they did when it was illegal, and no more threat of legal problems. That's not a downside of course, in fact it is another win, this one for personal liberties (win x 5, this one for the people).

I had the pleasure of visiting and purchasing legal weed in Colorado, we actually went with the mayor of the town who hadn't been there before. Having the mayor with us got us VIP treatment, we skipped the line entirely (they didn't look happy...). Then we went back to his office and... sampled things. It was fantastic.

Trynna snatch my crops?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article title, immediately thought of Cypress Hill. Surely I can't be the only one...

Captcha: reread

Where?

[freeze128]

Halesowen? Cradley Heath? Oldbury? Shropshire? Where are these towns, Middle Earth?

Re:Where?

[dkf]

Halesowen? Cradley Heath? Oldbury? Shropshire? Where are these towns, Middle Earth?

Where do you think Tolkien stole the names from? Though he should've avoided getting creative with "Mordor" and stuck with Wolverhampton.

Re:Where?

[Anonymous Coward]

.... Where are these towns, Middle Earth?

That's why they need artifical light to grow weed...

Re:Where?

[serviscope_minor]

Halesowen? Cradley Heath? Oldbury? Shropshire? Where are these towns, Middle Earth?

Specifically, the Shire.

Re:Where?

[niks42]

Aw bless. This is why the World Series gets as far as Florida. This is called your HISTORY. You should be interested in it.

Re:Where?

[hey!]

"Mordor" sounds French to me. And "Sackville-Baggins" sounds like a frenchified English name, which I'm sure was no accident.

Left-Wing Propoganda

[SuperKendall]

the Colorado Government is already at it with their right wing propaganda

Colorado is (narrowly) governed by the Democrats, not right wing. The Democratic governor is trying to slow down states from legalizing, despite it being a roaring success for everyone.

In fact what you'll find these days, is that most right-wing people lean libertarian - which is exactly why the people of Colorado (who lead independent/to the right) were perfectly fine legalizing something so many people did all the time anyway.

Look to the Democrats to shut it down... They are the ones that need the massive funds the government gets from the war on drugs to help fund lots of other progressive measures.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Plunky]

Colorado is (narrowly) governed by the Democrats, not right wing

Hello America!

I think you will find that both the Democrats and the Republicans are firmly right wing.

Sincerely,
The Rest of the World

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[SuricouRaven]

No, most right-wing people *claim* they lean libertarian.

And they do. Except on drugs. And media regulation. And pornography. And abortion. And federal abstinance-only funding. And gay marriage. And government religious endorsement. And assisted suicide.

'Libertarian' in the US is essentially a codeword for 'conservative, but don't want to admit it.' The only true libertarian aspect they have left is their economic policy, which stems less from any form of idealism than it does from the influence of corporate pressure groups who regard any form of regulation as a direct attack on their profit-making ability.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes...

IF: 1. Every human being has the right to live, which should be protected by law,

AND: 2. From the moment of conception, the unborn are human beings,

Pulling religion out of the argument completely, if you have scientific agreement on points 1 and 2 then:

THEN: 3. The unborn have the right to live, which should be protected by law.

Just because you wish to associate other issues with the definition of life doesn't mean we have to accept murder as our lifestyle.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[DNS-and-BIND]

Dear You,

Please butt out of our domestic politics. It's none of your goddamn business, and yet foreign politicians know more about state-level politics in America than they do their own provinces.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Note to self: DNS-and-BIND is a fucking idiot who thinks his personal definitions reflect the state of reality.

Thanks for making that clear, I can now filter your posts. Saved me some time.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Ginger Unicorn]

It's everyone's business, because we all have live on this planet together. Most of the world realises this, and we'd all feel a lot more comfortable if America would realise it too.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[goarilla]

From the moment of conception, the unborn are human beings,

Where is the scientific agreement on that ? I don't consider a blastula a human being.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear You,

Please butt out of our domestic politics. It's none of your goddamn business, and yet foreign politicians know more about state-level politics in America than they do their own provinces.

Dear you yourself.
You first.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Talderas]

It's called a life cycle or specifically a diplontic life cycle. A new human is created the moment a zygote is formed. Just because a creature is in a different stage of its life cycle and doesn't look anything like the members of your species that you deal with on a daily basis does not mean it is not a member of your species. Abortion is nothing more than setting arbitrary points at which to declare a human as "sub-human" and not warranting the rights afforded to humans.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Pikoro]

Wait, what? So if a mother miscarries, we should toss her in prison for murder?

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[luis_a_espinal]

Dear You,

Please butt out of our domestic politics. It's none of your goddamn business, and yet foreign politicians know more about state-level politics in America than they do their own provinces.

As one American to another - STFU. Perhaps you are right in that other people should stick their noses in our internal affairs. But that does not change the truth of what the OP said (Dems and GOPers are pretty much right wing.)

That you chose to enforce the former instead of acknowledge the later, that is intellectually disingenuous to say the least. To kill the messenger is not supposed to be the American way.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I guess Iraq was OK. After all, Hussein was abusing the locals and funding terror in the rest of the world. Glad we've got that cleared up.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Please butt out of our domestic politics. It's none of your goddamn business

Oh, the irony. If only American foreign policy would do this... The Rest Of The World would probably stop butting into yours pretty quickly.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[goarilla]

Ssome rights, privileges only start to apply from a certain age.
Driving, Drinking, Fucking, "You must be this age to drive the rollercoaster".
You loathe these "arbitrary points" as well ?

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[I'm New Around Here]

So you assign the "privilege" of living to be the same level of importance as driving?

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the scientific agreement on that ?

DNA
It is a 100% scientific fact that it is human.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Megol]

A grouping of cells with no brain isn't more alive than the cells normal people sneezes out, defecates out (yes, in addition to the excrement living cells from the intestines are discharged) or are output in other ways.

Most civilized countries have abortion laws that limits abortions to a collection of cells unless special circumstances like the life of the mother is at stake.

But I guess you are one of those that thinks that men ejaculating when masturbating (or those ejaculations that aren't conscious - those happens too) and women that have periods are murderers? After all those collection of cells are wasted potential life.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Quirkz]

Don't be silly. Miscarriage isn't intentional. It would be prosecuted under involuntary manslaughter.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

If individual choice and freedom is 'right wing' to the rest of the world, then fuck the rest of the world.

Sincerely,
The U.S

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[goarilla]

Spin this thing however you like. Women should be able to choose an abortion.
Childbirth is an intensive and dangerous undertaking, and they have the right to choose if they want to take that risk.
Stop embellishing your Misogyny and enter the 21th century with the rest of the world.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[I'm New Around Here]

I claim to lean libertarian.

I wish the government would DECRIMINALIZE ALL DRUGS. But, at the same time, let the idiots who decide to overdose suffer the consequences of their actions. That is the point at which the liberals who want to LEGALIZE drugs fail the logic test. They want the government to allow them to use their favorite substances, and then rescue them when they have trouble. I want the government to stop inserting themselves into everyone's personal choices, including during the negative results that will result.

Media regulation??? It is the lefties that want to bring back "equal time" laws to shut up right-wing talk radio.

Porno? What is the feminist stance towards this issue that objectifies women? It is the same as the righties stance, just with a different reason.

Abortion? Scientifically, a new organism is formed when sperm and egg cell join. Would you claim a baby chick in an egg is not a separate organism from the hen that laid the egg? Does it matter than the baby chick is living off the matter that the mother hen included inside the calcium wrapper? Or that the chick's life is dependent on the mother's body heat as well. It seems quite obvious that the chick is a separate organism that is dependent on its mother's sacrifices to live. How is this different when it comes to mammals?

With that being said, I don't oppose abortion. I don't support abortion. I think society has to decide on abortion, which is not what happened in this country with Roe v Wade.

I hope I don't get Eiched here for not supporting gay marriage, because I think it is the stupidest debate in recent history. Get government out of the marriage business entirely, end all legal designation of a religious rite, and be done with it.

I would finish the other minor points you made, but I have to go give the government some of my money today.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[operagost]

Appeal to popularity, right? I'm pretty sure the USA is quite leftist compared to the entire Middle East and much of Africa, regardless. So by "The Rest of the World", what an elitist like you means is, "Western Europe".

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[operagost]

Well, then it's about time the UK starts allowing their citizens to arm themselves, stop being monitored in public, and paying for stupid TV licenses. While we're at it, the French need to work longer hours and wear deodorant, and the Germans need to have the sticks up their asses surgically removed.

Comfy?

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[operagost]

Nice straw man.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[drinkypoo]

Then I guess Iraq was OK. After all, Hussein was abusing the locals and funding terror in the rest of the world. Glad we've got that cleared up.

Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to look like a dumbshit on Slashdot. Quick quiz, how did Saddam Hussein come to power in the first place?

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[drinkypoo]

All the people I know personally who claim to be libertarian are pro-choice, pro-drug, pro-porn, against federal government being involved in sex education At all, against special status for churches, and pro-assisted-suicide.

I, mind you, am not a libertarian. I'm far too socialist for that. But I agree with them on many principles of freedom. Where we part company is that I want business to be heavily regulated. Businesses are legal fictions to begin with, otherwise they are simply groups of people.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Shatrat]

So go pick a fight with Boko Haram.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[SuricouRaven]

I was really making the point that political labels are so adaptable as to be to some extent meaningless.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

You're totally correct. The USA strives to be more like the Middle East and much of Africa, obviously.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

and they have the right to choose if they want to take that risk.

You mean like the choice of sticking an unwrapped penis up their vagina?

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[SuricouRaven]

You're getting distracted in trying to answer the question posed, when the question itsself is missing the point.

Life isn't the issue here. Life is misdirection. No-one outside of a few of the strictest Buddhist groups actually cares about life itsself - as is demonstrated with every animal slaughtered for meat, every pest rodent killed with traps or poison, and every insect swatted because they look ugly and dirty. The real question shouldn't be over when human life begins* - the question is when, for purposes of moral judgement, a new awareness emerges which is deserving of some form of recognition or protection. There's some vagueness in this question too, because there is no 'magic moment' at which awareness flicks on light a switch, but it should be possible for everyone to at least agree that it can't happen before there is brain with some level of function. No brain, no problem!

It gets a bit ugly the more you go into it, with pitfalls awaiting in matters such as comparative abilities of newborn humans and adult animals, but this approach at least provides something of a concrete framework which can be worked with. The only alternative is the special pleading approach: 'Humans lives must be protected because they are made of magic soul dust.'

*An awkward question its-self - one may as well ask when a new fire begins as one candle is lit from another.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[operagost]

Nice straw man.

-Defusing bad moderation since 1999.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

funding terror in the rest of the world

Not as much as Saudi Arabia.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Enigma2175]

Please butt out of our domestic politics. It's none of your goddamn business

Oh, the irony. If only American foreign policy would do this... The Rest Of The World would probably stop butting into yours pretty quickly.

THIS. America insists on being "Team America: World Police" but cries when anyone points out any problems.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Enigma2175]

Don't be silly. Miscarriage isn't intentional. It would be prosecuted under involuntary manslaughter.

Unless the mother does something to endanger the health of the child, like leaving the kitchen or putting on shoes. Then she is a depraved murderer and should be imprisoned.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello Europe!

You are not The Rest of the World.

Sincerely,
Asia, Africa and the Middle East

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Your.Master]

?

Because Asia is known for its right-wing politics, what with China and Russia?

Where are you getting this?

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Your.Master]

There are a couple problems with your argument.

First, in the abstract I can agree with definition one and definition two, but only by using a slightly different definition of "human being" each time. If you insist on having a consistent definition, then you have to display it and I'm sure I'll disagree with one or the other of those statements. Your #2 definition involves genetics. Your #1 definition involves moral culpability and is unrelated to genetics.

The second problem is that just because the unborn have the right to live which should be protected by law, it does not imply that abortions should be illegal. Otherwise this logic would hold:

IF: 1. Every human being has the right to live, which should be protected by law,

AND: 2. The person brutally assaulting your family is a human being.

THEN: 3. The person brutally assaulting your family has the right to live, which should be protected by law.

I agree with both premises and even the conclusion, but if you kill somebody in self defense or in the defense of another, it's not murder.

Likewise, nobody ever argues that any human being *other than a fetus* gets to attach themselves in a biologically parasitical fashion to another human being for months at a time. Why do the unborn get this special right that nobody else gets?

Call me when you make a Star Trek transporter that can zap a fetus out of the womb and into an incubator and we can ban abortions at that time, since then the fetus doesn't need a special right to remain inside somebody else's body.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Your.Master]

I'm not sure who you're talking about with media regulation and drug rehab etc. I can pretty much tell you that porno restrictions aren't some universally agreed-upon principle of feminists, and not all liberals consider themselves feminists in the first place.

For abortion, nobody disputes that a new organism was formed at conception. They dispute that the new organism's right to survive supercedes the mother's right to autonomy.

I don't actually disagree about the marriage thing, but I disagree that it had anything to do with Eich. Eich was fighting for discrimination, by donating to the cause of keeping certain rights arbitrarily designated to one class. A fight to get government out of marriage is a different fight entirely, and not one that many people seem to be seriously fighting.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[sjames]

Proper Libertarians would object to the existence of corporations in their current form. Incorporation is a grant of special status from the government.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[sjames]

So you support human rights for skeletal remains?

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[crunchygranola]

A bit broader than "Western Europe" - you are a couple of decades out of date at least. It would be more like "the entire rest of the advanced industrialized world" since much of Eastern Europe is now included, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, and a fair part of South America as well (I'm sure you have flown on Brazil-made airliners, they are very good).

I guess that is a bit elitist.

I find it very interesting that the American right is finding it necessary to point to the worst nations in the world (Middle East police states, African kleptocracies) to prove U.S. virtues.

I think that is very telling.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[crunchygranola]

... But, at the same time, let the idiots who decide to overdose suffer the consequences of their actions. That is the point at which the liberals who want to LEGALIZE drugs fail the logic test. They want the government to allow them to use their favorite substances, and then rescue them when they have trouble...

So you are advocating that anyone showing up at an ER with the strong smell of alcohol on their breath, and no obvious injury, should be kicked out on the curb to die. Correct?

(This is 3.5% of all ER admissions, and outnumbers all illegal drug admissions combined).

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[ultranova]

Please butt out of our domestic politics. It's none of your goddamn business, and yet foreign politicians know more about state-level politics in America than they do their own provinces.

You can be the Top Dog or you can be just another face in the crowd but you can't be both. And America made its choice. Don't blame the rest of us if you don't like it.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

That's mostly bullshit. You may get the impression from your narrow media that they want the same thing, but but they don't. When the democrats aren't busy throwing their more vocal allies under the bus during election cycles, they all break bread and dream of bringing the same socialized custerfucks to America that The Rest Of The World enjoy.

Of course, you can change the channel on the TV and watch the republicans whoring themselves out to batshit insane religious nuts and simpleton patriots.

Personally, I thought the system worked pretty well until about a decade ago. Either side would temper the ambitious of the other. The Rest Of The World may view government as some sort of egalitarian constructed staffed by angelic unicorns, but we weren't so easily fooled. Well, until Bush decided to recruit the unicorns to defeat the terrorists.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[ultranova]

But, at the same time, let the idiots who decide to overdose suffer the consequences of their actions.

I'm not entirely sure why consider suicide a sign of idiocy. Or did you mean "decide" in the same way as people would randomly "decide" to die of food poisoning if only those pesky regulatory agencies didn't interfere?

That is the point at which the liberals who want to LEGALIZE drugs fail the logic test. They want the government to allow them to use their favorite substances, and then rescue them when they have trouble. I want the government to stop inserting themselves into everyone's personal choices, including during the negative results that will result.

Do you have any particular reason for your wish? Because it seems to me that mitigating risks (of drugs, of walking out at night, of eating at a restaurant, etc) makes people effectively more free, and I don't really understand why anyone would think this is a bad thing.

Do you simply want to control people and pretend you don't?

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[careysub]

...

I hope I don't get Eiched here for not supporting gay marriage, because I think it is the stupidest debate in recent history. Get government out of the marriage business entirely, end all legal designation of a religious rite, and be done with it.

...

This is one of the most astonishing turns in right-wing thinking (using the term loosely) - attempting to extract themselves from the tar pit of principle-free support for denying equal rights by pivoting and declaiming that the legal institution of marriage be abolished.

Religions do have religious marriage ceremonies they like to perform, and the state grants religious practitioners the authority to act as legal officiators and witnesses to the formation of this contract (same as judges and sea captains), but marriage is just that - a legal contract with deep and vast ramifications throughout society. The idea that marriage is properly only a "religious rite" with no legal consequences is just stunning in its lunacy and denial of basic facts.

Far from being something remotely "conservative", this sudden inspiration to abandon a core set of laws as old as Western secular civilization, is the most extreme, radical proposal I think I have ever heard presented with a straight face. And note that there is no real justification offered for such a bizarre proposal - it just sort of pops up at the end of a disclaimer that "I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but...".

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[HornWumpus]

We'll acknowledge that the dems are center right when you and the rest of the leftists acknowledge the NAZI's were left wing.

Detaunt it is.

Nobody who's honestly studied history would ever vote for a true left wing party.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[HornWumpus]

Being top dog means you get to butt into their business, not the other way around.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[HornWumpus]

After the first 3 trimesters the father should also be able to choose to abort. Up to the 75th trimester for ETHER parent.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[HornWumpus]

Enjoy it when every petition you sign or penny you give to a cause is available to your neighbors and bosses for review and don't expect to be on the popular side of all arguments.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[operagost]

You've basically just made a "my dad can beat up your dad" argument. I'm leaving this dick-waving discussion.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody who's honestly studied history would ever vote for a true left wing party.

And Nobody who's honestly studied history would ever vote for a true right wing party either.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Jerk2]

I know what the label means, and unless you have some statistical basis to claim "most" and the list of exceptions.. Please STFU and what a tool. Bob: Sig: A liberatarian drugger that is funding my girlfriend's abortion as a result of unprotected sex she did in a porno movie. And still waiting for most of the CEOs of the large banks in the mid 2000's go to jail. What a F(&*% moron.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[careysub]

You do realize that going on public (repeat PUBLIC) record is the very purpose of signing petitions, right? If you truly believe what you promote, then why back away when it proves unpopular? Why the insane "but really it just that I don't believe in the legal institution of marriage" deflection? No courage to your convictions?

(And it is now entirely legal to give billions to support causes secretly through front organizations. If you don't take advantage of this when advocating for causes that embarrass you to support, then you are an idiot, as well as a "well lubricated weather vane".)

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[crunchygranola]

A graceless concession after a showed up the foolishness of your post, and more than a bit of a non sequitur, but I accept it anyway. Have fun waving whatever it is you are waving now.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[I'm New Around Here]

Spin this thing however you like.

I'm not the one spinning it, you are. You are saying your life is no more notable than my drivers license. I think you are foolish for believing that, but I do still think you have the right to have that belief.

Stop embellishing your Misogyny and enter the 21th century with the rest of the world.

Really? Saying a living person isn't the same as a drivers license is misogyny? If you wonder why your side loses the argument, it's because of stupidity like that.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[I'm New Around Here]

First, let me say thanks for taking my argument seriously, even if you don't understand my reasoning.

Second, I've been saying the same thing for twenty years. Long before the term 'gay marriage' became the cool thing to support, I was saying that the state should not be in the marriage business. Regardless of how long marriage has been part of Western society, it nearly always was a religious rite. The governments recognized the institution because the governments were either theocracies (such as the Vatican), or were supported and affirmed by the church. There was no separation of church and state.

It seems weird to me that people who want no interaction between government and religion want to hold onto this one last tie. That includes both the left and the right groups, for their own reasons. It is also weird that we still think the state should recognize the act of two people saying a magical incantation, and then grant them legal rights they didn't have five minutes earlier.

But, as far as the actual reason of my position, it has nothing to do with gay marriage, but with getting religion away from government, and vice versa.

Others who are claiming this stance may fit the mold you have described. Their motives may be pure bigotry and small-mindedness. I still think it is the correct position.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[I'm New Around Here]

But, at the same time, let the idiots who decide to overdose suffer the consequences of their actions.

I'm not entirely sure why consider suicide a sign of idiocy.

I wasn't talking about people who are committing suicide. I was referring to idiots that take drugs for fun, and take too much because their stoned from all the drugs they decided to take.

Or did you mean "decide" in the same way as people would randomly "decide" to die of food poisoning

People randomly "decide" to overdose on tainted lettuce or dairy products? I was unaware of this trend.

if only those pesky regulatory agencies didn't interfere?

That is the point at which the liberals who want to LEGALIZE drugs fail the logic test. They want the government to allow them to use their favorite substances, and then rescue them when they have trouble. I want the government to stop inserting themselves into everyone's personal choices, including during the negative results that will result.

Do you have any particular reason for your wish? Because it seems to me that mitigating risks (of drugs, of walking out at night, of eating at a restaurant, etc) makes people effectively more free, and I don't really understand why anyone would think this is a bad thing.

Do you simply want to control people and pretend you don't?

Wow, good projection there. It is almost subliminal, following as it does something that makes no sense at all. Givien that my argument is about allowing people to choose to put poison in their body, you want to equate it to walking around and eating food. And somehow that translates into me wanting to control them.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not the one spinning it, you are. You are saying your life is no more notable than my drivers license. I think you are foolish for believing that, but I do still think you have the right to have that belief.

I never said that nor did I ever meant to imply that. I was trying to make the point that
not everybody is capable of choosing the appropriate actions for variable reasons: age, health, class, job, ...
Never did I meant to equate a drivers' to a human live.

Really? Saying a living person isn't the same as a drivers license is misogyny? If you wonder why your side loses the argument, it's because of stupidity like that.

My side has won the argument in the rest of the world for decades now, It's your country's republic party that's so retarded on this subject.
You think it's the last vestige of virtuousness, but it's misogyny. You're enslaving women to the role of incubator.
 
Funny thing is, I vote right in my country. I'm all for capitalism with the least amount of government interference.
I sit at your side of the table in the rest of the world.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Ginger Unicorn]

Ignoring the childish trolling, the implied sentiment is correct - the entire world as a whole needs to take collective responsibility for the entire human race.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[ultranova]

Being top dog means you get to butt into their business, not the other way around.

Who lives their lives in the public eye, Joe Average or Joe President? Who has their affairs and birth certificates and stupid remarks and pastors discussed in (inter)national media?

The chains of power bind both ends. All the chains the Top Dog holds end up determining his moves; the necessities of maintaining all that power override any other concern. The US is a fine example: it's politics have worldwide consequences, thus they attract worldwide interest, and are in large part determined by the desire to keep that worldwide effect rather than the good of the citizens.

That's one of the reasons leaders tend to be so awful: what kind of person does it take to want the job?

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[ultranova]

I wasn't talking about people who are committing suicide. I was referring to idiots that take drugs for fun, and take too much because their stoned from all the drugs they decided to take.

A person who overdosed either chose to do so deliberately, in which case it's suicide, or he did so accidentally, in which case he didn't choose to do so so any more than people who go out after dark choose to get mugged. Which one is it?

People randomly "decide" to overdose on tainted lettuce or dairy products? I was unaware of this trend.

So it's bad luck when people get bad consequences from actions you approve of, and deliberate choice when people get bad consequences from actions you disapprove of? Why do you have such double standard?

Wow, good projection there. It is almost subliminal, following as it does something that makes no sense at all. Givien that my argument is about allowing people to choose to put poison in their body, you want to equate it to walking around and eating food. And somehow that translates into me wanting to control them.

Nice evasion. Now answer my question: Do you have any reason why potential bad consequences from drug use shouldn't be mitigated, besides trying to discourage such use - in other words, control people?

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Europe is still butt hurt over the fact that we ditched them and their policies a couple hundred years ago. Or they forget the reason why...we don't agree with their political policies. They need to get over it. Making us more like them, will negate the whole reason we fought for our independence and became our own country.

While I tend to agree that most of the Dems, and many of the GOP are two sides of the same coin, from my point of view they are left of center. So I guess it all just depends on what you're measuring when you define Left and Right (social vs. economic vs. a combination, etc.) and what you perceive as the center point between those ideologies. Everyone looks through their own moral "lens".

I'm registered independent, and consider myself to be somewhere between a libertarian and a constitutionalists. I see the Dems as FAR left, and GOP as Center-Left. Both of which I cannot fully support, as neither seem to to align with my values (less government/more personal freedom & following the constitution as it was written not as it has been twisted by interpretation over 200 yrs). When I hear someone say that both current parties lean right, I perceive that to mean either the poster is FAR, FAR left (left-wing radical) -OR- The other option is that our values in what ever particular area they are using to measure this might be closer than expected, and we are just defining left-right differently, or measuring it by different standards.

A good example is the one brought up, the Nazi's. I would consider the Nazi's to be a left-wing political party, due to the fact they were socialists, and some other factors like against personal freedom, etc. Yet people on the Left define the same group as Far-Right, due to other factors. Each person has their own "lens" and different people classify Left/Right by different traits of groups.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[DedTV]

Until it can survive without the host, a fetus is a parasitic infection. Denying the right to abort because that infection will eventually spawn a living human being is almost as silly as denying people the right to take anti-biotics because someday those bacteria could one day evolve into a higher life form.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Look to the Democrats to shut it down...

The link to the newspaper article that you posted does not support your opinion.

"California voters strongly favor legalizing marijuana. The state Democratic Party adopted a platform last month urging California to follow Colorado and Washington in ending marijuana prohibition. The stateâ(TM)s lieutenant governor, Gavin Newsom, has called for legalizing the drug."

"Even with Democrats and younger voters leading the wave of the pro-legalization shift"

"Nationally, 51 percent of adults support legalizing the drug, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in February, including 60 percent of Democrats, 54 percent of independents and 72 percent of young adults. Even 44 percent of Tea Party members said they wanted the drug legalized."

They are the ones that need the massive funds the government gets from the war on drugs to help fund lots of other progressive measures.

You shouldn't have inhaled. The "war on (some) drugs" is a massive government spending program:

http://www.drugsense.org/cms/w...
https://suite.io/christina-gle...

It is, however, a massive subsidy programme for border and drug police, drug dealers, paramilitary groups, defense and aerospace firms, international organizations like the UNODC, private prison operators, and politicians.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh... What individual choice? What freedom? Are you even aware of what those words *actually* mean to people?

Sincerely
The Rest of the World
(and non-USians in the US)

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[the_digitalmouse]

...Please butt out of our domestic politics...

why? the US doesn't butt out of other country's domestic politics. in fact, the US is known to stick it's nose into affairs more often outside the country (and I'm not just talking about wars, either. just look at industry and technology) than in it's own backyard, so there is no valid or valuable reason to say "stay out of our business". it's a classic troll-like "pot calling the kettle black" nonsense.

and don't troll back with a silly "but we bring democracy to the world! it's our job!"... that's bullshit in general, plain and simple. besides, the US is an oligarchy, not a democracy.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[the_digitalmouse]

Quick quiz, how did Saddam Hussein come to power in the first place?

*raises hand frantically* oh oh oh! i know, Mr. Kotter, i know!

The US funded him!

Now where's my cookie?

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[HornWumpus]

Like I said; now every prospective employer/lender/landlord can see your politics before dealing with you.

Your blinded by your hate, if you don't see the problem with this.

Re:Left-Wing Propoganda

[HornWumpus]

Obviously the world pays attention. Just that the powerful pay minimum attention to the rest of the world.

Which is why the smart grow underground

[Karmashock]

Many growers have been doing this for years. Its not a big deal. You dig out a big hole in the ground, line it with concrete, throw a roof on it, and then pile dirt on top of the roof. No infrared signature.

You can even put it under your house or another greenhouse that has vegetables and flowers. If anyone quizzes you about all the materials you say its for that.

There is an issue with the smell. Nothing you can really do about dogs besides creating a hermetically sealed compartment that has very serious airfilters. Which is sort of the Walter White solution.

Anyway, build underground... its easy and works.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Anonymous Coward]

Just farm in the open, using farming drones, addressable via the I2P network, with 360 degree cameras to detect intrusion. You can extract the harvest via UAV.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Karmashock]

Obviously impractical... where as underground green houses have been a real thing for over 40 years.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[flyingfsck]

I've been wondering why someone don't just dump a sack of seed in a river and then all pot heads can harvest it for 2000 km all the way to the sea. After all, it is called 'weed' for a reason.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparantly one "easy" solution is to grow pot is to grow it in pine forrests which act as a thermal mask. Bonus points if you bypass forfiture laws by growing it on public land.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[dargaud]

Couple years ago there was a town where some pranksters had it seeded and growing everywhere, even in that plaza fountain in the middle of town hall.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Karmashock]

Its a favorite of the cartels but it has obvious problems.

If you're going out there it means you can be monitored, seen, etc... it lacks privacy.

Also... hikers will steal your product unless you camp out there to protect it which just increases the inconvenience and risk.

The cartels get away with it because they have some poor guy sit out there to guard it... frequently an illegal immigrant that doesn't know anything. They just hand him a wad of cash, give him some camping supplies, and tell him to guard the crop.

Rangers run them off occasionally.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[swb]

A guy I used to know in college was from a rural area. There was a small river that was navigable by canoe, and his brother used to go canoeing in the spring and plant seeds along the river.

He'd make a few trips during the summer to check up on them, in the fall he'd come by, cut them down to dry and then make one last trip to pick up the most promising plants.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Anonymous Coward]

Also: deer will eat it.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Anonymous Coward]

Also: deer will eat it.

I bet that makes for some pretty righteous deer!

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Karmashock]

Most forest creatures are pretty much constantly stoned on one thing or another... often stomach parasites. All sorts of stuff.

Cows... drunk... constantly... they literally have a brewery in their stomachs.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Rich0]

Hmm, the electric company will still spot and report your usage, unless you supply your own power.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Karmashock]

if you're going to the trouble to build an underground green house then you can go to the trouble to put a few solar panels/wind mill out with a battery bank.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[operagost]

Maybe this is why the hypocrite Democrats aren't legalizing cannabis-- they're hoping the illegal growers will drive adoption of green energy to hide their energy usage.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck is this modded so high...can you explain to me in your magical scenario where the hell all the heat is going in your little plan here? Do you plan on having giant ac units down there too? No matter where your grow the thousands of watts of heat (and excess moisture) has to go somewhere.

I seriously lol as well at you thinking no one will bat an eye as you bring in an excavator and displace a pools worth of dirt on your property. Your neighbours better not be nosey during this week long operation. This is done, but its definitely not the small time thing you make it out to be.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[operagost]

Maybe this is why the hypocrite Democrats aren't legalizing cannabis-- they're hoping the illegal growers will drive adoption of green energy to hide their energy usage.

-Defusing bad moderation since 1999.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Anonymous Coward]

A 'few' lol...try 8 4' x 6' panels to power one light, fans, and ancillary equipment...and thats with maximal output, so most likely 2-3x that many.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Sloppy]

You can extract the harvest via UAV.

Sometimes I think the war-on-people has an upside. This is how we're going to develop the tech to colonize other worlds. I think you just described a Martian farm from the year 2200.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Anonymous Coward]

Because outdoors, you have limited opportunities to prevent pollenation. Pollenated weed plants grow seeds instead of synthesizing THC and other cannabinoids. Well, they still synthesize these compounds, but in much smaller quantities. That's why weed with seeds in it is comparatively shitty.

Posting anon because it's still not socially acceptable to know much about cannabis.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Karmashock]

You think a few grow lights are going to significantly warm the earth?

By your logic geo thermal cooling and heating wouldn't work.

Yet they do... People run air through the ground to cool it... and it stays cool all year round even if you run the system 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

In a battle between your petty heating system and the planet... the planet wins.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[HornWumpus]

You get an occasional seed, but you get those indoor too. Damn hermaphrodites.

If you grow from cuttings you don't have to be there to kill the males.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Khyber]

" Pollenated weed plants grow seeds instead of synthesizing THC and other cannabinoids. Well, they still synthesize these compounds, but in much smaller quantities."

As a medical user that grows it all the time, WRONG.

Most of the useful cannabinoids are produced and contained within the trichome. Seeded sections of flowers tend to have higher concentrations of these trichomes, as it's a protective measure against UV damage by the sun to the developing embryo, due to how thin the tissue of the calyx is.

Re:Which is why the smart grow underground

[Karmashock]

How many kilowatt hours do you see all of that using per day?

sorry but

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it.. even low level crime has gone high tech

Re:sorry but

[Dan1701]

Actually, if you read the original story this is just one man talking, and there's a pretty good chance he could just be spinning a yarn for a journalist. Drone aircraft are rare here in Britain, and thermal cameras are similarly rare and expensive to buy (the thermal imagers fitted to high-end BMW cars are about the cheapest such units).

All UK police forces which operate helicopters (which is pretty much all of them) have a stated policy of keeping the thermal image camera turned on whenever the helicopter is in flight, and the operator has standing orders to note the location of any unusually warm buildings for later assessment by ground units. This is likely where this man has got his idea from, but I seriously doubt that he is actually putting it into practice.

Re:sorry but

[HornWumpus]

Cops are just thieves with uniforms.

huge amounts of excess heat

[Anonymous Coward]

First, what is a 'hydroponic light'??? I grow (more than just cannabis too) and have never heard of this? I can't imagine there'd be "huge amounts of excess heat" if the light was 'hydroponic' (read: water cooled lighting), sign me up for some of those after the initial test phase :) ... Second, how is there "huge amounts of excess heat"?? How big are these operations? Do they have 10 600W HID's glowing AT THE ROOF?? I've done everything from soil and hydro to gravity systems and fog-ponics, the MOST my rooms EVER heat up is a few degrees (2 to 5) ... if ANYTHING you would see that my growing areas are COOLER than other spots ... HEAT KILLS PLANTS and breads mold!

I'm not buying a lot of this story; the original article didn't mention anything more than 'some 33 year old dude claims he's stealing bud using a drone and an IR camera`

Re:huge amounts of excess heat

[Anonymous Coward]

breads mold!

That's why I keep mine in the fridge. Sure, it seems to go a bit stale faster, and you get mold eventually regardless, but it sure as hell beats keeping it one of those old-style bread boxes.

Re:huge amounts of excess heat

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad someone else noticed that this author does not know whats up.
Hydroponics is a way to grow plants in water.
The author should have said High Pressure Sodium lights (since halogen are way too hot) or Mercury, or HID.
Author doesn't know what they are talking about, article is probably BS.

STOP SPREADING PARANOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but STOP SPREADING THIS PARANOIA INDUCING FODDER!

Unless these grows were big (some thousands of watts worth of lighting), had ZERO insulation in their grow rooms or were being done in shanty sheds in peoples backyards (which would explain 0 insulation), a simple IR camera attached to a user drone would NOT pick the heat signature of a grow .. guess what it WOULD pick up though: the heat signature of the ROOF!

Thought experiment ... it's 2 in the afternoon, you have your grow going in a nominal portion of your house: if an IR camera could pick up the heat of your grow THROUGH THE ROOF of your house OVER the heat of the roof from the sun, wouldn't you think it would be so hot in your house as to be possibly unbearable???

Unless these grows were directing all of their lights at the roof or just idiots who don't understand basic horticulture, this article reeks of paranoia mongering ...

Re:STOP SPREADING PARANOIA

[findoutmoretoday]

Big enough to raid, that's thousands of watts. And that heat ends somewhere.

Re:STOP SPREADING PARANOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they were flying over rural areas and finding plants growing outside. In the 90s my buddy would go hiking all over the woods in Western Mass looking for plants and many times he would find them. From what I understand outdoor plants on the West Coast are grown on an even more massive scale in Northern Cali so maybe they aren't even looking for hydroponic grow houses but actually outdoors.

Re:STOP SPREADING PARANOIA

[HornWumpus]

The cops go looking just before dawn. When the lights have been on all night and the air is coldest. Only a moron would go looking in the middle of the afternoon.

More like, it was destroyed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans have been using violence to destroy crops for decades. Their kind has no interest in the product. They only want to keep it away from others. Their kind is the very definition of sour grapes.

Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

"Halesowen, Cradley Heath and Oldbury, towns on the outskirts of rural Shropshire some seven miles from central Birmingham"

Not sure if these are real locations or you just started listing locations from Lord of the Rings.

Re:Ummm

[mrbester]

Ever notice how when there's some story from somewhere obscure in US a whole bunch of arseholes jump in with "is that a real place, lol"? No, me neither, because as residents of other countries we aren't brought up to be arrogant parochial dickheads.

Re:Ummm

[SuricouRaven]

These are noteable for being a few of the places in the UK where the pronounciation actually reflects the spelling.

Re:Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you're the posterboy of civility. Would you like a biscuit?

Dealers also use webcams

[Anonymous Coward]

According to a newspaper article in sweden (translated)
Drug dealers have set up webcams to be able to monitor police activity in the area.

Catch the drone with a Net Gun !

[advid.net]

The best answer would be a Net Gun.

From market or DIY. That's $400 or $60-$80.

I think many of the catched drone parts can be salvaged, after the fall.

Re:Catch the drone with a Net Gun !

[McDrewbie]

Net Gun would only work for low flying, slow speed ones (unless you have a huge net.) Same problem one would have with birdshot. Other anti-drone/UAV tech is needed. But how does one encourage the development of anti-drone technology. I assume various militaries are either trying to develop or have developed some technologies/strategies to combat drones (but are keeping them closely held until they need them (or I am over-estimating their foresight and intelligence.) But also, in the case of drones being used by police states or just by public/commercial entities (invading privacy, etc) I would appreciate the development of defense methods accessible to the common person. I can only guess based on theory and sci-fi, but I can't think of too many different avenues for defense against drones. One is just stealth/camouflage, but I assume it is hard to hide from infrared or just an over abundance of cameras (especially if those cameras are hard to detect.) .So like while roofs would prevent basic cameras, thermal shielding of some sort would be needed for infrared or heat detecting ones. Plus, in the case of say a guerrilla war/rebellion/protest/revolution/etc mobility is an issue and big, roofed buildings are obvious to other means of detection. One could target the control signal for controlled drones (hack the signal, disrupt it, replace it with your own) and either take over the drone or at least cause its failure. For autonomous ones, one would have to interfere with the signal transmitting the camera/detector feed, perhaps replace it with a false one. But I assume with the right precautions and encryption, these methods can be thwarted. Physically targeting drones would be the most likely solution, and at first would probably be some sort of seeking missile or counter-drone, but there are plenty of problems with this. High flying drones, if they are even detected, would be hard targets. Furthermore, drone vs missile combat would probably resemble current anti-aircraft/SAM combat, and would require both a means of drone detection/targeting and high number of anti-drone weapons. And as the technology improves, drones and their cameras are getting smaller and cheaper, and then it becomes a problem of numbers. If someone can deploy hundreds of cheap cameras, they only need one or a few to survive any counter-measures. Or they can become so small as to be virtually undetectable, or so numerous as to be ubiquitous, or taking the form of natural entities (birds, insects, etc.) and they can operate individual or as bot-swarms (each providing unique problems.) In this case, its becomes an arms race as measures and counter-measures and counter-counter-measures are developed. Perhaps the best countermeasure on both large scale and the small/personal scale will be drones themselves. Eventually, large areas (countries, cities, estates) would be protected by a "dome" of numerous, replaceable, small defense drones (similar to the ones in Stephenson's The Diamond Age.) And then personal defense drones shadowing and protecting individuals or perhaps even clouds of defensive nano-tech. (like in plenty of sci-fi stories,) But the development of countermeasures needs to be spurred on by necessity and needs both funding and technical means. So I would suggest just constantly invading the privacy of the rich. Hovering over their pools and outdoor parties, peering in their windows. Either they will get lopsided laws written that only prevent poor, citizens from using drones (which is entirely a possibility,) or a market will appear spurring the development of measures to thwart drones. Of course this could spiral out of control in many, many ways, from just private, semi-sanctioned police/security forces "protecting" their clients, to a robot vs human war (where maybe EMPs would be helpful.)

Small IR cameras are expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Drones cheap. Small IR cameras, expensive currently. Note that drone in the article in no way is using an IR camera.

if someone has a source of small cheapish IR cameras, ideally IP cameras, let me know. The cores exist, but I understand it's not easy to get them.

Re:Small IR cameras are expensive

[Mendy]

Something like this?

Re:Small IR cameras are expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish. That one is short wave infrared sensitivity and doesn't help looking for heat, you need long wave infrared sensitivity, I think something in the range 8-14nm wavelength. You need something like this one used in the FLIR one. The FLIR Lepton cores.

http://www.flir.com/cvs/cores/...

While I'm inclined to agree...

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm inclined to agree that it's a protectionist move, they also have a whole lot of first hand experience with the people who are the real problem.

Re:While I'm inclined to agree...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a fan of marijuana, but I also don't see the point of locking people up. They're stupid yes, but dangerous? Maybe if they were already unstable to start with or have a history of disregarding the law. People who simply sit in their homes smoking pot and occupying the couch don't hurt anybody and it doesn't make a lot of sense to pay for their incarceration.

Re:While I'm inclined to agree...

[Anonymice]

The people who are the real problem are the criminals. The only way to resolve that issue is by cutting them out of the market.

The only other problems are a public health issue. You'll have more cases of people driving under the influence, and smoking in general increases the cancer risk of the population. Now whilst those are credible issues, they're no worse than the legalisation of tobacco & alcohol. In fact, you could argue that tobacco & alcohol are worse due to their higher incidence of addiction & the latter's habit of causing an increase violence.

Re:While I'm inclined to agree...

[Enigma2175]

I'm not a fan of marijuana, but I also don't see the point of locking people up. They're stupid yes, but dangerous? Maybe if they were already unstable to start with or have a history of disregarding the law. People who simply sit in their homes smoking pot and occupying the couch don't hurt anybody and it doesn't make a lot of sense to pay for their incarceration.

Drug war rhetoric aside, most of the people sitting in their homes smoking pot do not end up incarcerated if caught. For simple possession, in most cases the offender is cited and released. They go to court, pay a fine and probably have to go to a mandated drug class. It's great for the police and courts - a bunch of revenue and seized property which they can use to arrest more people to shakedown.

EGADS! Only one fiend who could be behind this!

[RevWaldo]

THE SHROPSHIRE SLASHER!!

.

cops, doctors, scientists & DEA

[Anonymous Coward]

here's something that's donned on me somewhat recently in thinking about legalization (which I fully support):

how the hell did a bunch of cops (DEA) get the authority to assign schedules for substances instead of MDs (AMA) and/or PhDs (FDA, etc) in the first place? regardless of whether you agree w/their current scheduling (which I don't see how any rational person could but for argument's sake) how can any objective person make a rational case for that power resting with them vs FDA and/or AMA (or other MD group[s])? let them (DEA) enforce the schedules but they are by no means qualified to SET it! at BEST they are the 3rd most qualified (& that's being generous)...

secondly, why are they an autonomous agency? why not at a minimum merge them w/ATF? why do we have one agency that handles two controlled substances and another one that handles all others? even then why should that hypothetically merged agency be autonomous versus just a department of the FBI?

I actually know the answers (as I suspect most of you do) but I figure it can't hurt to plant that seed & get those ideas out there...

Contractor Work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Import American redneck growers to guard the fields?

LED Grow lights

[PPH]

I've seen a number of indoor hydroponic installations. They all seem to have gone to LEDs. And these are for food production (exotic herbs, vegetables, etc.). What with the big money in pots grows, the extra investment should be a no-brainer. So much for the heat signature giving the location away to thieves or the local constables.

Yeah, I've heard the arguments that LED lighting isn't 'natural'. But some of the food farmers using these are on the cutting edge of holistic organic naturaopathic bullshit. And they don't seem to have problems with it. Stuff grown for sale to the local highscholl stoners should be a no-brainer.

more like a run on gun shops

[swschrad]

and in England, where this story obviously hails from, the Acme Boobytrap Catalog will start getting a lot more orders. I should think scimitar installation and bear traps will be big. yes, new technology creates business!

Headline ("Head" Line?)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Criminals Using Drones To Find Cannabis Farms and Steal Crops"

You are referring to the DEA?

Wrong

[SuperKendall]

And they do. Except on drugs. And media regulation. And pornography. And abortion.

The only one of those things that most people "leaning to the right" I know disagree about ever, is abortion. That's still a hot topic which society has not figured out an answer that pleases everyone, and probably never will.

But all of the other things? Please. Modern libertarians are not not for heavy regulation on anything, much less drugs... I personally think legalizing all drugs is the only sensible thing to do.

Not in agreement

[SuperKendall]

I think abortion should be allowed twosome degree. But this argument has a problem:

it should be possible for everyone to at least agree that it can't happen before there is brain with some level of function. No brain, no problem!

When you buy a lamp without a bulb, do you throw it away before you plug it in because it's not emitting light?

Or instead is some value placed on the container before it's switched on, because of inherent capability...

Re:Not in agreement

[sjames]

So every menstruation is a murder? Had the woman (or older child) just added sperm, it could have been a life!

Re:Not in agreement

[SuperKendall]

There are some that go that far (I am not one). But at least they are logically consistent. If you are not OK with killing babies one second before birth, or one second before the brain activates, you are not logically consistent.

It's OK to not be logically consistent. It's NOT OK to not be so, while claiming others should be. Then you are just a dick.

Re:Not in agreement

[sjames]

I am not OK with 12 year olds having babies, that's for sure. That is what your lamp analogy would suggest.

Life begins at birth. That's when the brain becomes active. Before that it's just in a dream state but has nothing to dream about. Arguably, that suggests a growing ethical problem at the point that a fetus could be viable if birth is induced (that suggests the 2nd trimester as the cutoff).

Grade A Reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are "hydroponic lights"? The root media has jack shit to do with the lights.
I am disappoint.

Water Cooled Lights

[crunchygranola]

Water cooled lights. End of problem.

So the New "Great Game" begins....

[Anonymous Coward]

So you have drones up there spying on you....get our handy andy war fighter drone complete with autonomous targeting and firing capability. Just 599 Pounds and 12 Shillings and ...awwww Euro price 799.99 from Al and his boys at Al Kaida and ass-ociates. Now you have to buy two orders cuz' yer' spies have already bought some of our warfighter drones for fighter escort and to take out your guards.....death from above!!!! Course you also need our laser defense system complete with kilowatt grade ultraviolet lasers that cannot be seen by MI6's spying black helicopters so that will keep the Tommys off yer front porch for weapins' pinches. Those lasers will pot what the warfighters do not in order to keep your pot crop safe. Now then maybe you need real human guards too, but we do not wannna muscle in on Blackwater Security....aka Halliburton.... 'Sides dey' got betta' gunz than we can get thru MI5 wid' alla' da' gunz cuntrol in the new Al- Britaanistan now, cuz' dey' can bribe da' Grand Vizier AND da Grand Mufti of Al-Lundonabad.

light under a rock?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess if you're still buying your led's from knock-off fly-by-night ebay shops, this could be true. However, a 2-minute google search will confirm that aquarium hobbyists (mostly reefers (salt water)) have been switching to LED's for years. If it can grow SPS coral under two feet of water, it can for damn sure grow cannabis.

The up front cost is still high compared to halides (and HPS, for the 'alternate reefers'), but if you check out the last 4 or 5 lines from Cree (or even bridgelux if you're on a tight budget), this is already well covered ground.

http://www.ledgroupbuy.com/

http://www.rapidled.com/

I'm running LED-only on half my terrariums and aquariums, and they grow plants with high light requirements just fine, thanks.

Re:light under a rock?

[Khyber]

Exactly. I've got a 55 gallon freshwater, using a single 50w 6500K panel (I'm only driving it at half power.) Everything is well-lit and the plants grow so quickly I'm having to remove an entire jungle every time I'm changing the water.

And anyone with half a brain knows they can just go to the manufacturer direct in most cases and get what they need. They have no qualms selling to you at the price they give to wholesalers and retailers. None.

On the other hand, finding someone that knows EXACTLY what you need (my job) per a given situation is not easy, which means most people are still stuck listening to the marketing of fly-by-night ebay companies and less than reputable LED grow light companies that claim to have patents when they're just reselling stuff from China.

dammit.

[Anonymous Coward]

now comes the "look what criminals can misuse drones for!" ammunition to boost FAA jurisdiction.

Since "think about the children!!" doesn't scare most childless hipsters, they're going straight for the throat.

"Won't somebody think about the WEEEeeeeeD!" :P