Article

2006-06-27 Britain

Britain 'deserves its drugs problem', says UN

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-27 09:02|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 i thought it was an italian river that had measurable levels of cocaine?

Posted by Greamp Elmavinter1163 2006-06-27 09:59|| 2006-06-27 09:59|| Front Page Top

#2 Speaking as former cannabis grower (funny story which I think I've told here before) and a former psylocybin mushroom picker (they are common in the UK if you know what to look for), the problem comes down to making people grow up and deal with the real issues in their lives, which the pervasive victim culture of the Left obviates.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-06-27 10:24|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-06-27 10:24|| Front Page Top

#3 From the Telegraph:

The Thames: awash with cocaine
By Nina Goswami and James Orr (Filed: 06/11/2005)

The Thames is awash with cocaine as Londoners snort more than 150,000 lines of the class A drug every day.

The figure is 15 times higher than official Home Office statistics and equates to four out of every 100 people regularly taking cocaine, or up to 250,000 of the capital's six million residents.

An investigation by the Sunday Telegraph found that, after cocaine had passed through users' bodies and sewage treatment plants, an estimated 2kg - 80,000 lines - of the drug went into the river each day.

Anti-drug campaigners said last night that the findings showed that cocaine use was a ticking "health-care time bomb" and called for the Government to take drastic action.

The Thames investigation, the first of its kind in Britain, was conducted by scientists using the latest technology. It is regarded as the most accurate large-scale drug-detection method available.

Britain's illicit cocaine trade, estimated to be worth £352.8 million a year, is thought to have caused 139 deaths in 2002, the last year of available figures - a seven-fold rise on the 1996 figure of 19. Doctors fear that, with little routine testing for the drug in heart attack and stroke cases, the real toll may be much higher.

4% of the population using cocaine is a lot, when you consider that that population includes kids and the elderly.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-27 11:08|| 2006-06-27 11:08|| Front Page Top

#4 As another small "l" libertarian with no direct experience with illicit drugs, I note that we are rapidly approaching the centenary of federal regulation of drugs. I draw three conclusions from this. First, the drug problem must have been considered to be pretty bad 100 years ago. Second, the implementation of these laws and their draconian enforcement has done little to reduce the use of drugs, protect non-users, or increase human happiness. Finally, we seem to have accomplished a lot in that 100 years despite continued use of drugs and all governments intrusive efforts to control our personal habits.

if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It's my job.

O. W. Holmes

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-27 11:11|| 2006-06-27 11:11|| Front Page Top

#5 Indeed, we have as a society accomplished a lot in the last 100 years. The question is whether the next century will be as productive.

Drug abuse by the Gatsby and jazz set, which dominated domestic drug use up through the 50s, is a lot different issue than having a significant proportion of the adult population using drugs regularly.

The effectiveness of regulation is a red herring for my argument, although not for the UN's. I'm not suggesting we ban this stuff, except for sale to kids I think.

I *am* saying that the prevalence of psychoactive drug use is a worrying indicator of the society. And I include in that the prevalent use, in some places, of legally prescribed mood-altering drugs by people with no serious mental illness.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-27 11:19|| 2006-06-27 11:19|| Front Page Top

#6 Why is there a UN Office on Drugs and Crime in the first place?

Posted by rjschwarz 2006-06-27 11:31|| 2006-06-27 11:31|| Front Page Top

#7 Gee, just one more internal contradiction for all those UN luvvie "anti-war" types that are also involved with drugs. (A very high overlap I'd wager, including the Kennedys)

The UN they love doesn't want them to do drugs.

Oh me, oh my. ROtFLMAO

Posted by AlanC">AlanC 2006-06-27 11:37|| 2006-06-27 11:37|| Front Page Top

#8 That was my thought to RJ.

I'm fairly libertarian. I look at drugs like I do cigarettes. Legalize or de-criminalize - whatever your liking, then regulate and tax them. Like alcohol - I'd make it 21 and over for consumption and severe penalties for those caught operating a vehicle while under the influence. If people want to get high as a kite in their own home I care not - "do what thou will but hurt no one else in the process".

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-27 11:42|| 2006-06-27 11:42|| Front Page Top

#9 Do you really want a coke, heroin or meth addict working / fighting with you?

Posted by ed 2006-06-27 11:49|| 2006-06-27 11:49|| Front Page Top

#10 My understanding is that heroin use was high among UAW workers in Detroit during the 90s - one reason for quality and other problems in the cars they built. Union made it hard to deal with.

Full disclosure: my father and a couple uncles were UAW (although not in Detroit), one uncle served on national negotiating committees, Dad got fed up and refused even to be shop steward later in his union life.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-27 12:00|| 2006-06-27 12:00|| Front Page Top

#11 Do you really want a coke, heroin or meth addict working / fighting with you?

We've got them now. Is it affecting their job performance? Address it as a performance issue. Once you use issues other than job performance, the company will tell you you can't smoke, you're overweight, you've got bad genes, etc.

I really doubt that if we legalized controlled distribution of drugs we'd see more than a 10% increase in use, if that. It's not hard to get drugs now, if you want them. And it's not like there's penalties for use. The big money would disappear from distribution, so there would probably be less marketing. Control of advertising would be the big issue.

The much bigger problem is the one lotp is focused on, why is there so much demand and what are the implications for our society. I'm not nearly as concerned as she, but it is an issue that should trouble us all.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-27 12:11|| 2006-06-27 12:11|| Front Page Top

#12 Have fun discussing performance issues with a meth addict who has been up 5 days straight and has a shotgun pointed at your face.

Posted by ed 2006-06-27 12:21|| 2006-06-27 12:21|| Front Page Top

#13 Yep, what NS said. My teen age neice and nephews can get the stuff at their high school if they wanted. They also don't smoke. Why don't they? Not because it's illegal but because they have too much respect for themselves, know it kills you in the long run, and the fear of mom & dad.

Morons will be morons. Those who want to do drugs to a point where they become addicts will do so whether they are legal or not. Cigarettes are legal but most people don't smoke. Those who were born in the 70's on and smoke are purely morons in my book. After the amount of education we got smashed with on the consequences of substance abuse - for those people to still imbibe - I have no sympathy for. Alcohol is legal but most folks do not go to work drunk. Being over 21 I could drink every night but I don't - I drink in moderation and only rarely on a "school night". Still comes down to personal choice and responsibility.

Bottomline, the same folks who have no self discipline now will be the same ones who get fired from their jobs and someone else will step up to take that spot. Treat it like alcohol - 21 and over - can't be high on the job, etc, etc.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-27 12:27|| 2006-06-27 12:27|| Front Page Top

#14 The bottom line is that hard drug addicts will kill their friends, parents, siblings, and you to get their fix. Irritate or get in the way of a meth addict and he/she will kill you. make it legal and socially acceptable as booze or cigarettes and you will have a lot more addicts, crime, and murder. Take it from someone who grew up in that. Your life ain't worth shit.

Posted by ed 2006-06-27 12:35|| 2006-06-27 12:35|| Front Page Top

#15 "Have fun discussing performance issues with a meth addict who has been up 5 days straight and has a shotgun pointed at your face."

-um, okay, kind of a super exagerated "what if" situation we can play forever here.

If you couldn't discern the guy was hopped up the past four days you prolly shouldn't be in charge or should be firing his immediate supervisor.

I know - but then we could pontificate "what if" the immediate supervisor is a closet crack-head and he has a bazooka pointed at your dog and then half the accounts receivable department are gun toting speed freaks doing blow off some hooker's chest in the deep sink locker? Hahahahaha........

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-27 12:39|| 2006-06-27 12:39|| Front Page Top

#16 Not "what if". Happened to me, though not at work.

Posted by ed 2006-06-27 12:41|| 2006-06-27 12:41|| Front Page Top

#17 ed's talking about the street, not at work I think.

And yeah - I lived not all that far from South Central LA at one point. We were in a "nice" neighborhood, but when the crack addicts came by it was, simply, lethally dangerous. Cops can't and won't be everywhere and usually aren't in the places these people inhabit.

Meth is worse than crack for stupid crazy aggression. The type where people keep coming at you despite having already been shot twice. If you've never seen it -- and more importantly, if you've never had to factor it into a decision about going out for milk at 9 or 10PM on a Saturday -- it's all too easy to dismiss as a concern.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-27 12:42|| 2006-06-27 12:42|| Front Page Top

#18 I'm talking & being sarcastic wrt work scenarios as per ed's original premise in post#12.

I'm originally from Detroit. Before I joined the Corps a lot of my running buddies were into selling pot & a few did coke/ectasy etc. I've never been into drugs as only pussies did drugs as per my upbringing. That doesn't mean I care if folks get high in their own homes on their own time. If they obey all the other applicable laws - who cares. I concede there are big difference from the "hard" junk and the pot clientele to be sure. Meth is a big problem in So Cal as I remember from my time at 29 Palms. They had meth labs all over the desert - and that was the problem - drug gangs making the shit and competing between each other for turf and customers. Now, we can agree to disagree - however, if it's legalized you take away the street value, the "turf", and the gangs make nothing or have to go into another racket as they are not going to plausibly compete w/the market - the market can fix a lot of things if we give it the chance. I can cede the point that hard drugs would be a different animal from cannabis and other "soft" stuff. Legalizing meth is prolly way out there right now. Cannabis is prolly more feasible from a social and economic perspective.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-27 12:55|| 2006-06-27 12:55|| Front Page Top

#19 I've always found it easiest to "Just Say No", just like Nancy Reagan told me to. :)

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-06-27 12:58|| 2006-06-27 12:58|| Front Page Top

#20 Have fun discussing performance issues with a meth addict who has been up 5 days straight and has a shotgun pointed at your face.

How about an alcoholic or a functional alcoholic with strong sociopathic leanings? Same problem, different drug.

I'm a little younger than most here. By the time that I was in high school in the LA Basin, my peers were warping their brains with just about everything available now, except for meth. As witnessed at reunions, the very worst abusers are now some of the most successful. I have known people who have used cocaine socially and seem to have never become addicted. I have known lifelong pot users (old beatniks) who were highly functional and successful. In my estimation (and I think that BH6 comes from a similar background and seems to have similar opinions) coke is about as socially harmful as alcohol. Marijuana and X are far less harmful than alcohol. Meth is more socially harmful than alcohol. We should design our drug policy using alcohol as a benchmark, and stop the scaremongering and ridiculous talk about "gateway drugs."

Posted by 11A5S 2006-06-27 13:07|| 2006-06-27 13:07|| Front Page Top

#21 People's physiological and psychological reactions don't change depending on whether the drug is legal or illegal. Except there will be more of that aberrant behavior as usage increases.

I doubt legalizing and taxing marijuana will change behavior and economics (unless taxes are very low). It just increases demand. It costs little to grow and a lot of money changes hands smuggling it. Years ago one of my acquaintances was shot 4 times in the head during a pot deal. For a few thousand dollars. Cops found his car and his wife opened the trunk to find his body.

Posted by ed 2006-06-27 13:14|| 2006-06-27 13:14|| Front Page Top

#22 I doubt many people who don't use drugs would start using them if they became cheaper. Perhaps those who use them would use more, but they would spend a whole lot less time robbing and burgling and sponsoring turf wars.

There's no nice solution, only more and less bad ones.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-27 13:31|| 2006-06-27 13:31|| Front Page Top

#23 ed: Have fun discussing performance issues with a meth addict who has been up 5 days straight and has a shotgun pointed at your face.

11A5S: How about an alcoholic or a functional alcoholic with strong sociopathic leanings? Same problem, different drug.

Actually, he was a nice guy that I knew for a few years. You would have never suspected he was capable of it. But he got into meth dealing 2 weeks prior and became his best customer. I came by to see friends next door. He in his meth paranoia was sure someone was there to rob his stash. Out of the door he flew with shotgun. You really have to see a deep meth addicts face to even begin to understand the paranoia. I've also seen it with folks injecting cocaine and attacking their own families. The reason I am alive to post today is because he recognized me and did not pull the trigger right away. Though it was a quite uncomfortable few minutes. So yeah, I'm quite antidrug. A lot of lives ruined.

Posted by ed 2006-06-27 13:35|| 2006-06-27 13:35|| Front Page Top

#24 Ed: I don't want to denigrate the human aspect of the drug problem by my remarks. I am very sorry about what you and your friends have been through. I just think that the right way to deal with this is through education, outreach (esp. by charities), and regulation. This has been our current approach to two socially harmful drugs (alcohol and nicotine) and it's worked. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol. There is no evidence that without (probably unacceptable in the US) draconian measures that it will work for any other drug.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-06-27 13:50|| 2006-06-27 13:50|| Front Page Top

#25 Education won't be enough. I have seen over and over it is the physically addictive people who get in way over their heads. How do I predict who will become addicted to drugs? Those that are alcoholics or who have family members who are alcoholics. Those people have to be physically separated from drugs. Once they get involved, the drugs overwhelm them.

People won't kill you for a cigarette or beer. They will if they need their fix.

Posted by ed 2006-06-27 13:59|| 2006-06-27 13:59|| Front Page Top

#26 "I doubt legalizing and taxing marijuana will change behavior and economics (unless taxes are very low). It just increases demand."

-If it's legalized people are not by and large going to buy black market stuff. What would be the point? If that were the case drug gangs would have been trying to compete w/Budweiser and Phillip/Morris.

I'm not anti-drug, anti-cigarettes, or anti-alcohol - I'm anti-me doing drugs, cigarettes, or abusing alcohol to excess. Like I said before, regulate it, tax it (w/the fair tax of course :) ), add on the applicable common sense laws to protect society wrt operating vehicles in general and make it 21 and over to use.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-27 14:02|| 2006-06-27 14:02|| Front Page Top

#27 "People won't kill you for a cigarette or beer. They will if they need their fix."

-I don't know anybody who got killed over a joint either. I don't think the problem will get worse if it's decriminalized. If anything it would cost a lot less in housing in-mates convicted of intent to distribute, legal fees, and court time, and you could prolly use a fraction of that money to deal w/treatment of addicts. Boortz wrote some powerful stuff on this.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-27 14:08|| 2006-06-27 14:08|| Front Page Top

#28 It depends on the level of taxation. At $100/ounce, the level of smuggling won't change a lot. May even increase because users know they won't get busted. At $10/ounce, smuggling won't be worth the risk, especially if the penalties stay high. And you know they will because the government becomes the dealer.

Posted by ed 2006-06-27 14:08|| 2006-06-27 14:08|| Front Page Top

#29 People did kill for alcohol during prohibition. I have already seen documented cases of gangs in NYC (where prohibative taxes have made a black market feasible) killing over cigarette shipments. IIRC, we have cut tobacco use in half in this country through the measures that I outlined above. I think that alcohol consumption has fallen even more from its peak. How many lives, relationships, and jobs have been saved by my plan? How many have been saved through drug prohibition?

Evil is a funny thing. If you fight it hard, you can reduce it to manageable levels. If you try to eliminate it, you usually end up with a greater evil. I personally think that has to do with free will and the way God designed this universe. But that's just my crazy 2¢.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-06-27 14:09|| 2006-06-27 14:09|| Front Page Top

#30 A5S - you articulated it better than me. Your post sums it up, thanks.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-27 14:14|| 2006-06-27 14:14|| Front Page Top

#31 Education is part of it. But people have to physically separated from drugs that overwhelm hunger, love, ambition, even self preservation. Lots of folks say they will experiment with a hard drug just once to see what it is like, and they get hooked. Not all, but a large enough percentage of the population that, without penalties, will destroy society.

Posted by ed 2006-06-27 14:18|| 2006-06-27 14:18|| Front Page Top

#32 #19: "I've always found it easiest to "Just Say No", just like Nancy Reagan told me to."

I've always found it easier to say, "Are you out of your f*cking mind?"

But Nancy's idea works too. ;-p

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-06-27 14:23|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-06-27 14:23|| Front Page Top

#33 The problem with drugs is the "frogs in the frying pan" problem: by the time the user realizes they're in trouble, they are frequently too weak to get out.

As for the "biggest users are frequently the most successful", the biggest single reason for career failure among professionals/managers is drug or alcohol abuse.

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2006-06-27 14:55|| 2006-06-27 14:55|| Front Page Top

#34 "Not all, but a large enough percentage of the population that, without penalties, will destroy society."

-I doubt it. Who said there would be no penalties for those who harm other citizens? I certainly don't advocate that. I believe drug decriminalization means leaving alone those who want to use drugs in privacy on their own time. If you drive under the influence you still go to jail, lose your license, and possibly your job. If you rob, cheat, steal, you still face punitive penalties. If a drug is decriminalized it doesn't make it any less dangerous - maybe only to those stupid or weak minded enough to want to rantionalize it that way.

Overall, I have more optimism in the common sense of most of my fellow countrymen to know what's best for them and their families. BTW - I was wondering, did that guy who pointed the shotgun at you get a visit from the police?

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-27 15:30|| 2006-06-27 15:30|| Front Page Top

#35 Legalize it all and sell it in Government Stores.

Every once in awhile have a slip up where RAT POISON get in the mix.

View it as Darwin in Action.

Posted by 3dc 2006-06-27 15:37|| 2006-06-27 15:37|| Front Page Top

#36 I'm already having this conversation w/the kid - it's so depressing.

And what was said here, ironically, was said by my grandfather to my mother.

Some can use and it won't have any effect, some can use 1x and get hooked.

Do you want to find out?

That and saying some people get so hooked they shoot themselves up between their toes.

Give disgusting images, that's what I do.

Posted by anonymous2u 2006-06-27 16:08|| 2006-06-27 16:08|| Front Page Top

#37 Overall, I have more optimism in the common sense of most of my fellow countrymen to know what's best for them and their families

So do I, on most issues. But there is a lot of overoptimism about the relative safety of drugs out there. Example: in a significant minority of people, as little as 1 dose of Ecstasy can induce recurring schizophrenic breaks and *permanent* serious bipolar disorder. (Not anecdotal - if I had time I'd look up the medical journal citation on this.)

A lot of young people do not have the maturity to hold onto facts like that - assuming they are ever given them - and, disregarding the fact that none of their friends has been so afflicted from a rave or two, stay away from the stuff.

Some can. Others won't be affected by a little use. But for those - hard to identify beforehand - who are so affected, a single experiment can carry lifetime penalites that are severe indeed.

I'm a libertarian, but I'm not religiously fanatical about it. Life has lots of grey areas and IMO this is one. It's easy to catalog the costs of the "war on drugs". It's harder to count these kinds of costs of drug access.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-27 16:16|| 2006-06-27 16:16|| Front Page Top

#38 Which is why I never said drugs were any more safe after they've been decriminalized & only a weak minded person would rationalize it that way in order to use them. I also mentioned 21 and over, children should not be exposed to them, and the penalties for giving minors any sort of drug should be very harsh. Though in any case, whether legal or not people will do what they want to do & the access to them will not stop. Education on it still comes down to good parenting and hopefully supplemented by the school system. I know both of the aforementioned bombarded me w/anti-drug use speeches before I was a teen ager and it stuck. Overall, I could see cause and effect of things from drugs, smoking, alcohol, and even over eating. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. Either way the whole point is moot, because beyond marijuana I don't ever see "hard" drugs being legalized.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-27 16:36|| 2006-06-27 16:36|| Front Page Top

#39 Aha! You want the world to be safe for your children (you are a mother, after all). I know the world is a dangerous place full of evil (I'm a father).

What has really happened is that the world has gotten so much safer (and tolerant) that there are not as many major penalties paid by youngsters for engaging in otherwise dangerous behaviours. One exception is drug use. The other is Aids. You can petrify parents with either because they know their kids don't pay attention to dire warnings.

Whereas in the olden days, there was a lot less mitigation of penalties and kids could see first hand what would happen if you tried to fool Mother Nature. Parental warnings were given more credibility as a result.

For example, Ed will be able to do a good job of communicating to his children the risks of drug use in a way that is sure to make an impression those of us without his experience cannot, at least not as credibly.

As we make the world safer for our children they become more danger prone.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-27 16:42|| 2006-06-27 16:42|| Front Page Top

#40 It certainly is a tradeoff and I am NOT a fan either of the nanny state or of the "victim" disease that is afflicting our society.

Just pointing out that some risks are asymmetrically hard to recognize and avoid - but carry major penalites, in some cases irevocable. And I do think society has some interest in bounding those particular risks.

An analogy, which is imperfect and which I will probably regret shortly ;-):

I'm a firm NRA member, 2nd Ammendment supporter. I also support federal efforts to identify and interdict idiots who want to smuggle SAMS into the country. For most arms, my position is: prosecute when/if they are actually misused - or shoot the person who invades my home and threatens my family. But the threat posed by fanatics who can bring down an airliner just doesn't work well in that model because the threat is deemed to be REAL but also hard to see before it hits.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-27 16:46|| 2006-06-27 16:46|| Front Page Top

#41 So by the logic of the prohibitionists, we should ban alcohol and nicotine immediately. Lots of people get hooked on drinking or smoking after their first sip or taking their first drag. Skid rows and mental hospitals are full of long-term alcoholics. Alcoholism contributes tremendously to spouse and child abuse. I have personally witnessed one young person have a psychotic break under the influence of alcohol and have reliable (i.e. to legal standards) testimony of another, who ripped the bars out of a window in a holding cell. Likewise nicotine costs us billions of dollars a year in medical costs. Logically, if you are going to ban low social harm drugs like marijuana and X, then you must ban alcohol and nicotine also.

I will rephrase what I said earlier. We are solving our alcohol and nicotine problems in this country through education, treatment, and regulation. We are failing miserably to solve the drug problem. That is because the problem is purely a demand side problem. You can cut supply to zero, and the addicts will merely start huffing glue or some evil person will whip up something new in his sink and sell it on the street.

Fight the problem. Fight it hard. But fight it on the demand side, with love, patience and tolerance. Some people will always end up as addicts, just as some will end up as serial adulterers. Serial adultery destroys families and people just like drugs. The Salafi solution to adultery is to prohibit all mixing of the sexes outside the nuclear family. Which is the greater evil, the human failing or the inhuman prohibition?

Posted by 11A5S 2006-06-27 17:04|| 2006-06-27 17:04|| Front Page Top

#42 If a country truly wishes to wipe out most of the marijuana grown within its borders, it should encourage wide scale production of hemp. Its pollen will overwhelm and neutralize the vast majority of the marijuana pollen, lowering the THC content until it is much weaker.

If you follow the main industries of the stock market, "paper" is one of the largest. But by replacing low quality acid-processed wood pulp paper with high quality hemp paper, we would not only save entire forests for other uses, but our books would last a century or two, instead of just a few years before it paper turns brown and crumbles. Hemp can also substitute for most wood chip products.

Hemp feed is a superior-grade animal fodder with a very rich, non-toxic hot-burning oil. Unlike the crudely woven hemp most people are familiar with for clothing, refined hemp is not unlike fine silk in quality, appearance, durability and softness. At the same time, hemp rope is regarded as the standard for quality rope.

All told, widespread hemp production in the US could be worth over $10B a year. Best of all, hemp grows in marginal farmland, where few other crops are profitable. It requires little maintenance, is insect resistant, and has a low water to cellulose conversion factor.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-06-27 18:19|| 2006-06-27 18:19|| Front Page Top

#43 lotp, I'm a lifetime NRA member. The SAM analogy falls short because of the premise of inherent use.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-27 18:31|| 2006-06-27 18:31|| Front Page Top

#44 'moose, I whole heartedly concur. Hemp products make sense, you put forth a great post. I wish half the tie-dye wearing loonies I've met advocating hemp at various festivals could articulate it as well as you did. I used to be suspect of anything any deadheads thought was good, but hemp products and honey brown beer are the exceptions :)

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-06-27 18:36|| 2006-06-27 18:36|| Front Page Top

#45 At the same time, hemp rope is regarded as the standard for quality rope.

Or at least it was, back before the invention of Nylon.

Posted by Phil 2006-06-27 19:15|| 2006-06-27 19:15|| Front Page Top

#46 lotp, I'm a lifetime NRA member. The SAM analogy falls short because of the premise of inherent use.

Well, I did say I would probably regret the analogy. ;-)

However, somewhere in there I do think there's a valid point, namely that when there are serious and irreversible risks which are difficult to protect against other than by proactive interdiction, there's a case to be made for that interdiction.

Posted by lotp 2006-06-27 19:32|| 2006-06-27 19:32|| Front Page Top

23:59 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:52 twobyfour
23:48 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:23 Eric Jablow
23:15 Frank G
23:08 JosephMendiola
23:06 JosephMendiola
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:55 49 Pan
22:52 Barbara Skolaut
22:50 Barbara Skolaut
22:50 Frank G
22:48 Glenmore
22:47 Frank G
22:45 49 Pan
22:42 bk
22:39 49 Pan
22:38 JosephMendiola
22:37 Old Patriot
22:37 DanNY
22:34 Eric Jablow
22:34 JosephMendiola
22:33 Unavitch Unaviper3310
22:31 muck4doo