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 another thread.

Hi Mark,

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 pattern?

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to