The amount of concrete and steel used to build a plant is nothing. Consider the amount of materials used to build and maintain windmills, dams, etc.
In one post I said dams also require a lot of concrete and steel. I said in another dams weren't clean either. Wind genies on the other had don't require nearly as much of either. Neither the genie nor the tower use much steel and no concrete. The pad does use both but not much of either. Check "Home Power magazine, many people erect their owe wind genies. Here's their Wind Turbine Buyer's Guide. I didn't check to see if it said anything about them but there are a number of turbines up to 5 megawatts in capacity. The CNet article "GE reshapes the future of wind power" has a quote saying 2 to 3 megawatt genies are the "most efficient and the best cost per kilowatt" by Stephane Renou "who manages research and development for General Electric's wind technology platform." Wind genies don't need to be cited in the middle of nowhere either. Here in Minnesota , as can be done elsewhere, produce farms such as corn farms have wind genies cited on them. This actually helps farmers, the pads for the genies don't take up much space yet the farmers get paid for how much electricity is produced. So far MN has 615 megawatts of wind power installed, California has 2,096 megawatts. And whereas it takes years to build a nuclear power plant wind genies can be mounted on erected towers in months if not weeks. Erect 10 5 megawatt genies a month and you add 600 megawatts a year. Say it takes 5 years to build a nuclear power plant in that tyme enough wind genies can be erected to generate 3 gigawatts. The Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station was the last nuclear power plant to go online in the US. Construction started in 1973 and wasn't finished until 1996. It took more than 30 years yet it's capacity is only 1,167 megawatts. Enough wind genies can be erected within 2 years to generate the same amount of electricity. Check out T Boone Pickens' Picken's Plan. While I don't know much about it myself, I've been following alternative energy some 30 years. The Rocky Mountains alone, which the plan considers, has enough potential wind power to power the 48 continuous states. However as the Wind Atlas shows there are plenty of other states with abundant wind power.
Mining for uranium can be and is done safely and cleanly.
Oh really? What happens to the tailings? Do they disappear? The Navajo have nothing to worry about? Neither do any of the other indigenous people on who's land uranium is mined?
Waste is "bad" because it's still radioactive.
This is where smaller plants, like the ones being developed for neighborhoods, come into play.
And where are these plants? Can you show me one?
Hell, Chernobyl was deemed fine in 2005, less than 20 years after the worst-case scenario, which doesn't even apply in modern plant designs.
Claimed fine by whom? Certainly not by Belarus. Oh but I guess the Zone of alienation means nothing.
There is simply nothing we have a handle on that can compete with nuclear power.
Okay then, let Wall Street pay for them. They won't, unless they get more massive subsidies. Give alternative sources of energy as much in subsidies as coal and nuclear power gets and I be
Let's see. Uranium mining which is usually done in indigenous communities, and who usually opposes [.doc] the mining, is dirty. The Navajo found about that. The nuclear power plants themselve require vast amounts of concrete and steel. Portland cement, which is used to make concrete, requires limestone to be heated to 1450C in a kiln. That takes a lot of energy. And like concrete steel requires a lot of energy as well. Then there's the waste. The amount of waste can be reduced if it's reprocessed however that makes the remaining waste even hotter. Reprocessing also leaves a lot of toxic chemicals. Lastly once a power plant has reached it's lifespan, the land isn't useful for much if anything. It might be possible to dispose of the waste by drilling into a subduction zone but no demonstration has been done showing it can safely be done.
Nothing is, but at least it's renewable energy with no emissions.
Dam's aren't renewable, or emissions free. They depend on water and water flow changes, even in the biggest rivers. And unless the lake created behind the dam is dredged periodically silt will pile up and eventually clog the intake manifolds or pipes. And because that lake increases the surface area of water more water will evaporate. Water vapor itself is a potent Greenhouse Gas, it's more potent than CO2. Dams also require vast amounts of concrete which uses Portland cement as the main ingredient. Portland cement is made by heating limestone to 1450C in a kiln which requires a lot of energy. Along with the concrete dams also require a lot of steel which like concrete requires a lot of heat.
However some of this can be reduced. A few years ago/. had an article about a type of hydro power that didn't require dams. Instead of blocking the flow of water a platform with blades like egg beaters is lowered into the water and the flowing water causes them to spin generating electricity. I haven't heard anything about it though, I wonder what happened.
Electricity is only generated from coal because we're not allowed to go nuclear. It's the ONLY viable option, it's perfectly safe, and it's clean as a whistle.
I use CFLs, though I've had 3 out of the 8 I installed go bad within the first 2 years of use and still haven't found the time to "properly" dispose of them.
I too use CFLs. Like you I have 3 that burned out, however one lasted about 20 years. I don't know how long the others lasted. Also like you, I haven't disposed of them either. I put them in a room nobody uses in the packaging some of the CFLs I bought came in. When I find out where I'll take them in for recycling. I heard Home Depot was starting to accept them for recycling but I haven't seen my local store with a place to put them.
There are a lot of places where the majority of power comes from nuclear and hydro.
Yes, and both of those power sources use a lot of energy to build. Then for nuclear there's pollution from mining as well as the waste.
Also, the real risk of CFLs is caused by the fact that any pollution from it is local and concentrated as a point source
Over a period of years I replaced almost all of my incandescent light bulbs with CFLs. As one burnt out I got a CFL to replace it. A point source of mercury is easier to handle than air born mercury. As for possibly breaking one, I try to use measures to reduce any possibility of breakage.
Also, consider that the plumes from garbage dumps invading your water supply
CFLs are supposed to be recycled and not thrown in the trash. Of course some people do throw them away, either because they don't care or because they don't know better. Even so, that's still less mercury in the environment than the amount of mercury that would be emitted to produce the power to light today's incandescent lights.
Which is why I hope these LEDs, or others, that are good for area lighting come onto the market within a couple of years.
trace mercury emitted into the atmosphere a hundred miles away from the city....
Not all power plants are 100 miles away from the city. There's more than one power plant in South Bronx. NYC has 25 plants serving it. The first ones built by Con Edison, used the used steam to heat neighborhood buildings.
So I bought a 3 pack of LED lights that were supposed to be the equivalent of 40 watt bulbs...
A 25 watt incandescent bulb is about 10 times brighter. I was pissed. Might keep me from stumbling in the dark, but it doesn't really illuminate a damn thing.
The problem with current LEDs is that they aren't good for area lighting, they're only good for spot lighting. You want to light up a small area of your desk or want to read a book, I know people don't read books anymore, and they're great but they're terrible if you want to light up a room. There are LEDs for area lighting but the last tyme I saw prices for them they were expensive.
You can already buy eee PC 900A laptops for $200 at BestBuy. Those suckers have 9 inch screens, Atom processors, and a gig of RAM. So who needs this OLPC stuff?
I wonder what effect the OLPC had on the eee PC. If because of the OLPC businesses like Asus start making low cost, and portable, computers then I think OLPC will have done a lot. Now if only Asus would include a similar power supply, pull a cord to generate power.
You can straighten up a lot faster from being stoned than being drunk but I honestly think your fooling yourself if you think your driving skills are as good as when you are sober.
Oh, I don't believe someone stoned can drive as well as when they're sober but they can drive better than if they're drunk. To tell the truth I don't think anyone impaired by whatever method should drive, whether that be by being drunk, stoned, or by not taking care of their diabetes. I specifically say diabetes because I was hit while riding my bike by a diabetic. I was in college and was riding my bike after class when someone who was weaving all over the road hit me. I now have a permanent disability, I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI. Witnesses to the accident had to chase down and force the driver to stop. It's said he was a diabetic and had a diabetic seizer while driving. The thing is is that he had caused accidents before he hit me for the same reason, he didn't take care of his diabetes. He moved from one state to mine because the state he moved from issued a warrant for his arrest.
Notice that while I am pro-legalization and do not believe in victim-less crimes, whether it be drinking, using drugs, or prostitution, I do believe as I've said a number of tymes people should be held accountable. In legal drugs I said "You cause an accident drunk or stoned and you pay, same with any other harm." It comes down to personal responsibility.
I don't see driving and being stoned as being responsible for example same as drink driving. I really meant theres a time and a place to be stoned and being responsible you would keep your use to those times and places.
Actually I don't see driving while stoned the same as driving while drunk either. Being drunk is more dangerous. At least when stoned a person is likely to be more careful. And while reaction tymes are slower than when not stoned reaction tymes when drunk are even slower. Stoned drivers are more "risk adverse".
If people knew the torture of living with schizophrenia then they wouldn't be so quick to jump on the "let's-all-smoke-cannabis-and-have-an-awesome-time" band-wagon.
First off I want the choice to do whatever I want to to my own body as long as I do not harm others.
Now, do you suffer from memory problems? Because I survived a Traumnatic Brain Injury, TBI, I do have problems with my memory. And I would like to have the choice to use a drug that may help me.
I have heard from people in the research community that many papers on effects of marijuana have been suppressed for political reasons over at least the last 15 years.
Legally to do the research in the US researchers have to get permission from the FDA, DEA, and probably others. However there's not much of a chance to get that permission if the research is to show how safe hemp is.
If I had to guess I'd bet that they have been suppressed for several decades regardless of who is in the Whitehouse.
Your brain expects a connection to remain viable permanently.
Actually neurons, brain cells constantly make and break connections. Dendrites and axons form new connections through synapses. Some of these connections are temporary. Heck, new neurons even grow in the adult brain and definitely form new connections.
Actually, if you can conclusivly prove that nothing you used to grow it crossed state lines than the Federal government can't touch you...(in practice it is almost impossible to do)
However in the constitution we have:
Thoes right not reserved for the national government or the people belong to the states.
Actually you got the phrase wrong, the 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
the state GVOERNMENT can tell you to do what ever it wants.
Only with the people's approval.
Remember, in the US the PEOPLE have very few rights EXCEPT what the state decides to give them.
That's why some of the USA's Founding Fathers, like Alexander Hamilton did not want rights included in the Constitution. In Federalist No. 84 Alexander Hamilton argued "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" They felt that by enumerating rights not all rights would be listed. So the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, was proposed as a compromise. The Constitution would be approved then the Bill of Rights would be proposed as amendments.
That's an old link, from 25 Aug 2003 at 06:31:44. However let's see what it says:
"EFFECTS OF HABITUAL MARIJUANA USE ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM" "4. Marijuana suppresses the immune system" dated 11 January 2009
"Like the studies claiming to show damage to the reproductive system, this myth is based on studies where animals were given extremely high-in many cases, near-lethal-doses of cannabinoids. These results have never been duplicated in human beings. Interestingly, two studies done in 1978 and one done in 1988 showed that hashish and marijuana may have actually stimulated the immune system in the people studied."
"MENTAL HEALTH, BRAIN FUNCTION, AND MEMORY" "Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain" from 1 July 2003 (also old)
"Analysis of Studies Finds Little Effect From Long-Term Use"
"RESPIRATORY ILLNESSES"
Now this is where the trouble is, from 26 April 2005 at 15:01:33: "Q. How Does It Affect Your Health?"
"A. No drug is always safe for everybody, but after 150 years of scientific study, the only proven health problem from cannabis is that its smoke can be linked to bronchitis."
However there's also this, from 16 March 2008 at 18:57:35:
"Summary of Cannabis and HIV/AIDS"
"The effectiveness of cannabis for treating symptoms related to HIV/AIDS is widely recognized."
Well now if you're going to phrase it that way, then what's wrong with using alcohol responsibly?
Notice I'm not putting down hemp or saying it should remain illegal, actually in previous posts I've stated I think it should be legalized. It never should have been made criminal to begin with.
If cannabis was 70% cellulose why does it lose 70% of it's mass when drying?
Like you, I don't know about the 70% cellulose part, but hemp is a good source for cellulose. And that cellulose is good for ethanol and plastic, though not both at the same tyme.
Whether you care to admit it or not, pot smoking does adversely affect people's ability to get work accomplished in a reasonable way.
I don't know about you but everywhere I worked, if I couldn't do the job I could have gotten fired.
The absolute best case scenario is that pot screws up sleep and memory in the short term.
You don't have to smoke marijuana to have screwed up sleep patterns or bad memory. Though I don't smoke it I have both bad sleep patterns and bad memory. And I've seen people smoke marijuana without messed up sleeping or bad memory.
Id rather have it illegal and here is my reason. I dont care what anyone says it makes you dumb just like alcohol.
So you would prohibit alcohol then too? And what of person responsibility?
And usage would go up and that means kids would be doing it even more than they are now.
Parental responsibility means nothing then? "Teenagers whose parents talk to them regularly about the dangers of drugs are 42% less likely to use drugs than those whose parents don't, yet only 1 in 4 teens reports having these conversations."
From the same link: "Alcohol kills 6½ times more youth than all other illicit drugs combined".
As it is now the last stats I saw said that by the tyme they're 18 more than half of the teenagers have already smoked marijuana, and more have tried alcohol. In 2000 37.7% of those between 12 and 17 used marijuana at least once a month. By not allowing parents to offer alcohol to their teen children, when they leave home they will binge. At least if parents are allowed to serve them they can learn to drink in moderation. When I was in Germany in the early '80s it was a common sight to see parents ordering and serving their children alcohol in restaurants, yet I didn't see a lot of drunks or alcoholics.
Of course personal responsibility doesn't mean much any more.
Why this push by millions to legalize a drug.
Why this drive to deny freedom and liberty? Why this attempt to deny an extremely industrially useful plant, and along with it economic progress?
Interesting read but the Alternet article leaves holes. For instance it says nothing about the Rothschild and Rockefeller oil magnates. He then admits Hearst did rail against hemp however he dies not say Hearst owned thousands of acres of forest which he used to harvest trees to make paper. Instead it says he had to sale his "prized art collection to avert foreclosure" because of a debt owned to Canadian paper producers. It also doesn't say "The family continued to own forest products and petroleum properties".
Perhaps racism had something to do with making hemp illegal afterall his "Reefer Madness" did rail against Mexicans smoking "marijuana" the "Devil Weeds", he railed against Blacks, and during the Second World War as part of his "yellow peril" he not only pushed to have the Japanese interned but Chinese as well. However he could have opposed hemp for economic reasons as well.
Slashdot Mirror
The amount of concrete and steel used to build a plant is nothing. Consider the amount of materials used to build and maintain windmills, dams, etc.
In one post I said dams also require a lot of concrete and steel. I said in another dams weren't clean either. Wind genies on the other had don't require nearly as much of either. Neither the genie nor the tower use much steel and no concrete. The pad does use both but not much of either. Check "Home Power magazine, many people erect their owe wind genies. Here's their Wind Turbine Buyer's Guide. I didn't check to see if it said anything about them but there are a number of turbines up to 5 megawatts in capacity. The CNet article "GE reshapes the future of wind power" has a quote saying 2 to 3 megawatt genies are the "most efficient and the best cost per kilowatt" by Stephane Renou "who manages research and development for General Electric's wind technology platform." Wind genies don't need to be cited in the middle of nowhere either. Here in Minnesota , as can be done elsewhere, produce farms such as corn farms have wind genies cited on them. This actually helps farmers, the pads for the genies don't take up much space yet the farmers get paid for how much electricity is produced. So far MN has 615 megawatts of wind power installed, California has 2,096 megawatts. And whereas it takes years to build a nuclear power plant wind genies can be mounted on erected towers in months if not weeks. Erect 10 5 megawatt genies a month and you add 600 megawatts a year. Say it takes 5 years to build a nuclear power plant in that tyme enough wind genies can be erected to generate 3 gigawatts. The Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station was the last nuclear power plant to go online in the US. Construction started in 1973 and wasn't finished until 1996. It took more than 30 years yet it's capacity is only 1,167 megawatts. Enough wind genies can be erected within 2 years to generate the same amount of electricity. Check out T Boone Pickens' Picken's Plan. While I don't know much about it myself, I've been following alternative energy some 30 years. The Rocky Mountains alone, which the plan considers, has enough potential wind power to power the 48 continuous states. However as the Wind Atlas shows there are plenty of other states with abundant wind power.
Mining for uranium can be and is done safely and cleanly.
Oh really? What happens to the tailings? Do they disappear? The Navajo have nothing to worry about? Neither do any of the other indigenous people on who's land uranium is mined?
Waste is "bad" because it's still radioactive.
This is where smaller plants, like the ones being developed for neighborhoods, come into play.
And where are these plants? Can you show me one?
Hell, Chernobyl was deemed fine in 2005, less than 20 years after the worst-case scenario, which doesn't even apply in modern plant designs.
Claimed fine by whom? Certainly not by Belarus. Oh but I guess the Zone of alienation means nothing.
There is simply nothing we have a handle on that can compete with nuclear power.
Okay then, let Wall Street pay for them. They won't, unless they get more massive subsidies. Give alternative sources of energy as much in subsidies as coal and nuclear power gets and I be
Yes, it is.
Please explain how it is not.
Let's see. Uranium mining which is usually done in indigenous communities, and who usually opposes [.doc] the mining, is dirty. The Navajo found about that. The nuclear power plants themselve require vast amounts of concrete and steel. Portland cement, which is used to make concrete, requires limestone to be heated to 1450C in a kiln. That takes a lot of energy. And like concrete steel requires a lot of energy as well. Then there's the waste. The amount of waste can be reduced if it's reprocessed however that makes the remaining waste even hotter. Reprocessing also leaves a lot of toxic chemicals. Lastly once a power plant has reached it's lifespan, the land isn't useful for much if anything. It might be possible to dispose of the waste by drilling into a subduction zone but no demonstration has been done showing it can safely be done.
Falcon
Nothing is, but at least it's renewable energy with no emissions.
Dam's aren't renewable, or emissions free. They depend on water and water flow changes, even in the biggest rivers. And unless the lake created behind the dam is dredged periodically silt will pile up and eventually clog the intake manifolds or pipes. And because that lake increases the surface area of water more water will evaporate. Water vapor itself is a potent Greenhouse Gas, it's more potent than CO2. Dams also require vast amounts of concrete which uses Portland cement as the main ingredient. Portland cement is made by heating limestone to 1450C in a kiln which requires a lot of energy. Along with the concrete dams also require a lot of steel which like concrete requires a lot of heat.
However some of this can be reduced. A few years ago /. had an article about a type of hydro power that didn't require dams. Instead of blocking the flow of water a platform with blades like egg beaters is lowered into the water and the flowing water causes them to spin generating electricity. I haven't heard anything about it though, I wonder what happened.
Falcon
Electricity is only generated from coal because we're not allowed to go nuclear. It's the ONLY viable option, it's perfectly safe, and it's clean as a whistle.
Nuclear power is NOT clean.
Falcon
The Home Depot near me, less than 5 miles, does not a place to recycle CFLs. Unless it's hidden.
Falcon
I get my power from HYDRO!!!!
Are you hooked up to the grid or do you have a micro hydro system?
Tell that to the environmentalists who won't let us build dams, water wheels, nuclear power plants, or anything that actually makes sense.
Dams are not environmentally clean, neither are nuclear power plants.
Falcon
Nuclear power isn't clean.
Falcon
I use CFLs, though I've had 3 out of the 8 I installed go bad within the first 2 years of use and still haven't found the time to "properly" dispose of them.
I too use CFLs. Like you I have 3 that burned out, however one lasted about 20 years. I don't know how long the others lasted. Also like you, I haven't disposed of them either. I put them in a room nobody uses in the packaging some of the CFLs I bought came in. When I find out where I'll take them in for recycling. I heard Home Depot was starting to accept them for recycling but I haven't seen my local store with a place to put them.
Falcon
There are a lot of places where the majority of power comes from nuclear and hydro.
Yes, and both of those power sources use a lot of energy to build. Then for nuclear there's pollution from mining as well as the waste.
Also, the real risk of CFLs is caused by the fact that any pollution from it is local and concentrated as a point source
Over a period of years I replaced almost all of my incandescent light bulbs with CFLs. As one burnt out I got a CFL to replace it. A point source of mercury is easier to handle than air born mercury. As for possibly breaking one, I try to use measures to reduce any possibility of breakage.
Also, consider that the plumes from garbage dumps invading your water supply
CFLs are supposed to be recycled and not thrown in the trash. Of course some people do throw them away, either because they don't care or because they don't know better. Even so, that's still less mercury in the environment than the amount of mercury that would be emitted to produce the power to light today's incandescent lights.
Which is why I hope these LEDs, or others, that are good for area lighting come onto the market within a couple of years.
trace mercury emitted into the atmosphere a hundred miles away from the city....
Not all power plants are 100 miles away from the city. There's more than one power plant in South Bronx. NYC has 25 plants serving it. The first ones built by Con Edison, used the used steam to heat neighborhood buildings.
Falcon
So I bought a 3 pack of LED lights that were supposed to be the equivalent of 40 watt bulbs...
A 25 watt incandescent bulb is about 10 times brighter. I was pissed. Might keep me from stumbling in the dark, but it doesn't really illuminate a damn thing.
The problem with current LEDs is that they aren't good for area lighting, they're only good for spot lighting. You want to light up a small area of your desk or want to read a book, I know people don't read books anymore, and they're great but they're terrible if you want to light up a room. There are LEDs for area lighting but the last tyme I saw prices for them they were expensive.
Falcon
You can already buy eee PC 900A laptops for $200 at BestBuy. Those suckers have 9 inch screens, Atom processors, and a gig of RAM. So who needs this OLPC stuff?
I wonder what effect the OLPC had on the eee PC. If because of the OLPC businesses like Asus start making low cost, and portable, computers then I think OLPC will have done a lot. Now if only Asus would include a similar power supply, pull a cord to generate power.
Falcon
You can straighten up a lot faster from being stoned than being drunk but I honestly think your fooling yourself if you think your driving skills are as good as when you are sober.
Oh, I don't believe someone stoned can drive as well as when they're sober but they can drive better than if they're drunk. To tell the truth I don't think anyone impaired by whatever method should drive, whether that be by being drunk, stoned, or by not taking care of their diabetes. I specifically say diabetes because I was hit while riding my bike by a diabetic. I was in college and was riding my bike after class when someone who was weaving all over the road hit me. I now have a permanent disability, I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI. Witnesses to the accident had to chase down and force the driver to stop. It's said he was a diabetic and had a diabetic seizer while driving. The thing is is that he had caused accidents before he hit me for the same reason, he didn't take care of his diabetes. He moved from one state to mine because the state he moved from issued a warrant for his arrest.
Notice that while I am pro-legalization and do not believe in victim-less crimes, whether it be drinking, using drugs, or prostitution, I do believe as I've said a number of tymes people should be held accountable. In legal drugs I said "You cause an accident drunk or stoned and you pay, same with any other harm." It comes down to personal responsibility.
Falcon
I don't see driving and being stoned as being responsible for example same as drink driving. I really meant theres a time and a place to be stoned and being responsible you would keep your use to those times and places.
Actually I don't see driving while stoned the same as driving while drunk either. Being drunk is more dangerous. At least when stoned a person is likely to be more careful. And while reaction tymes are slower than when not stoned reaction tymes when drunk are even slower. Stoned drivers are more "risk adverse".
Falcon
I'm waiting for an ex-Professional wrestler to show up
Will Jessy "The Body" Ventura do?
Falcon
If people knew the torture of living with schizophrenia then they wouldn't be so quick to jump on the "let's-all-smoke-cannabis-and-have-an-awesome-time" band-wagon.
First off I want the choice to do whatever I want to to my own body as long as I do not harm others.
Now, do you suffer from memory problems? Because I survived a Traumnatic Brain Injury, TBI, I do have problems with my memory. And I would like to have the choice to use a drug that may help me.
Falcon
I have heard from people in the research community that many papers on effects of marijuana have been suppressed for political reasons over at least the last 15 years.
Legally to do the research in the US researchers have to get permission from the FDA, DEA, and probably others. However there's not much of a chance to get that permission if the research is to show how safe hemp is.
If I had to guess I'd bet that they have been suppressed for several decades regardless of who is in the Whitehouse.
As president Richard Nixon set up a presidential commission to investigate whether hemp should be legalized. However Nixon said that no matter what the commission decided he would never allow marijuana to be legalized. And that's exactly what the commission decided, "Presidential Commission Shocks White House: Recommends Marijuana Should Be 'Decriminalized'".
Falcon
Your brain expects a connection to remain viable permanently.
Actually neurons, brain cells constantly make and break connections. Dendrites and axons form new connections through synapses. Some of these connections are temporary. Heck, new neurons even grow in the adult brain and definitely form new connections.
Falcon
Actually, if you can conclusivly prove that nothing you used to grow it crossed state lines than the Federal government can't touch you...(in practice it is almost impossible to do)
However in the constitution we have:
Thoes right not reserved for the national government or the people belong to the states.
Actually you got the phrase wrong, the 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
the state GVOERNMENT can tell you to do what ever it wants.
Only with the people's approval.
Remember, in the US the PEOPLE have very few rights EXCEPT what the state decides to give them.
That's why some of the USA's Founding Fathers, like Alexander Hamilton did not want rights included in the Constitution. In Federalist No. 84 Alexander Hamilton argued "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" They felt that by enumerating rights not all rights would be listed. So the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, was proposed as a compromise. The Constitution would be approved then the Bill of Rights would be proposed as amendments.
Falcon
Just a few examples (source http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html):
That's an old link, from 25 Aug 2003 at 06:31:44. However let's see what it says:
"EFFECTS OF HABITUAL MARIJUANA USE ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM"
"4. Marijuana suppresses the immune system" dated 11 January 2009
"Like the studies claiming to show damage to the reproductive system, this myth is based on studies where animals were given extremely high-in many cases, near-lethal-doses of cannabinoids. These results have never been duplicated in human beings. Interestingly, two studies done in 1978 and one done in 1988 showed that hashish and marijuana may have actually stimulated the immune system in the people studied."
"MENTAL HEALTH, BRAIN FUNCTION, AND MEMORY"
"Heavy Marijuana Use Doesn't Damage Brain" from 1 July 2003 (also old)
"Analysis of Studies Finds Little Effect From Long-Term Use"
"RESPIRATORY ILLNESSES"
Now this is where the trouble is, from 26 April 2005 at 15:01:33:
"Q. How Does It Affect Your Health?"
"A. No drug is always safe for everybody, but after 150 years of scientific study, the only proven health problem from cannabis is that its smoke can be linked to bronchitis."
However there's also this, from 16 March 2008 at 18:57:35:
"Summary of Cannabis and HIV/AIDS"
"The effectiveness of cannabis for treating symptoms related to HIV/AIDS is widely recognized."
Falcon
Well now if you're going to phrase it that way, then what's wrong with using alcohol responsibly?
Notice I'm not putting down hemp or saying it should remain illegal, actually in previous posts I've stated I think it should be legalized. It never should have been made criminal to begin with.
Falcon
If cannabis was 70% cellulose why does it lose 70% of it's mass when drying?
Like you, I don't know about the 70% cellulose part, but hemp is a good source for cellulose. And that cellulose is good for ethanol and plastic, though not both at the same tyme.
Falcon
Whether you care to admit it or not, pot smoking does adversely affect people's ability to get work accomplished in a reasonable way.
I don't know about you but everywhere I worked, if I couldn't do the job I could have gotten fired.
The absolute best case scenario is that pot screws up sleep and memory in the short term.
You don't have to smoke marijuana to have screwed up sleep patterns or bad memory. Though I don't smoke it I have both bad sleep patterns and bad memory. And I've seen people smoke marijuana without messed up sleeping or bad memory.
Falcon
Yes, it's illegal when it shouldn't be. And it's not cheap because it's not legal.
Make it freely available, usage will soar and the damage WILL be greater than tobacco.
Alcohol and tobacco are freely available but where's all the damage from them? Fact is is alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana. And while smoking tobacco causes cancer, smoking marijuana "Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk". "Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection. However "The effectiveness of cannabis for treating symptoms related to HIV/AIDS is widely recognized."
Id rather have it illegal and here is my reason. I dont care what anyone says it makes you dumb just like alcohol.
So you would prohibit alcohol then too? And what of person responsibility?
And usage would go up and that means kids would be doing it even more than they are now.
Parental responsibility means nothing then? "Teenagers whose parents talk to them regularly about the dangers of drugs are 42% less likely to use drugs than those whose parents don't, yet only 1 in 4 teens reports having these conversations."
From the same link: "Alcohol kills 6½ times more youth than all other illicit drugs combined".
As it is now the last stats I saw said that by the tyme they're 18 more than half of the teenagers have already smoked marijuana, and more have tried alcohol. In 2000 37.7% of those between 12 and 17 used marijuana at least once a month. By not allowing parents to offer alcohol to their teen children, when they leave home they will binge. At least if parents are allowed to serve them they can learn to drink in moderation. When I was in Germany in the early '80s it was a common sight to see parents ordering and serving their children alcohol in restaurants, yet I didn't see a lot of drunks or alcoholics.
Of course personal responsibility doesn't mean much any more.
Why this push by millions to legalize a drug.
Why this drive to deny freedom and liberty? Why this attempt to deny an extremely industrially useful plant, and along with it economic progress?
Falcon
Interesting read but the Alternet article leaves holes. For instance it says nothing about the Rothschild and Rockefeller oil magnates. He then admits Hearst did rail against hemp however he dies not say Hearst owned thousands of acres of forest which he used to harvest trees to make paper. Instead it says he had to sale his "prized art collection to avert foreclosure" because of a debt owned to Canadian paper producers. It also doesn't say "The family continued to own forest products and petroleum properties".
Perhaps racism had something to do with making hemp illegal afterall his "Reefer Madness" did rail against Mexicans smoking "marijuana" the "Devil Weeds", he railed against Blacks, and during the Second World War as part of his "yellow peril" he not only pushed to have the Japanese interned but Chinese as well. However he could have opposed hemp for economic reasons as well.
Falcon