On 12/3/2012 9:11 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Your point in context of climate change with another reefer madness
study permeated by various formulations of "may" is what?
Me too, I see all these folks from the sixties and seventies, that
have kept their smoking habits go psychotic, become "dope fiends" full
of "abnormalities" and sub threshold "psychotic behavior" like the
Manson family everywhere. If you want to defend this line start
Maybe you can help me figure out which scientific study is cause
for concern and which is not. They are all loaded up with "maybe" and
"might", etc. That is the nature of science, there is no 100% certainty.
My point is that the climate change studies are believed in the worse
case scenario and parroted ab nauseum and yet a well documented study
(and there are many) on possible adverse effects of long-term cannabis
use is dismissed as a "reefer madness study". Can you see the larger
Bruno is talking about hemp as an energy resource.
What is the BTU per unit volume of hemp, what is the production and
infrastructure cost and /_*how do those compare to
alternative*_/_/*s*/_? How many spin-offs may occur as market forces
push for increasing efficiency in a hemp energy infrastructure as
compared to alternatives?
One thing that I have noticed is that a sucessful technology and
methodology tends to be one that has many spin offs that are themselves
successful technologies and methods. Compare for example the spin-offs
of fission reactors based on Uranium vs reactors based on thorium.
How is your quoted study relevant?
It was an attempt to try to communicate a larger point.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at