And you guys want the same federal government that wastes our tax dollars banning and enforcing something as harmless as hemp to create a public healthcare system?

I really hope the farmers win this suit.

http://www.komotv.com/news/business/8070937.html

Quote :

"BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) - Two farmers granted the first licenses in the nation to grow industrial hemp filed a federal lawsuit Monday to get final permission from the Drug Enforcement Administration. The lawsuit asks a federal judge to recognize that hemp is allowed to be grown in North Dakota, said the farmers' attorney, Tim Purdon. Industrial hemp, a cousin of marijuana, is used to make everything from paper to lotion. But without permission from the DEA, the farmers could be arrested for growing the crop in the U.S. Hemp contains trace amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, a banned substance, and it falls under federal anti-drug rules, the DEA says. Hemp proponents say it is safe because it contains only trace amounts of THC, a mind-altering chemical - not enough to produce a high. "What they say is hemp, we say is marijuana," said Garrison Courtney, a spokesman for the DEA in Washington. "As long as the active ingredient is THC - that's what makes it illegal, and it's still marijuana under the law." Dave Monson, a state legislator who has pushed for years to grow hemp, said it is grown legally in Canada, just 25 miles to the north of his farm near Osnabrock. "After 10 years, I've lost patience," Monson said. "I've come to the conclusion that the only way to get any progress is to file this lawsuit and get them off the dime." The other plaintiff in the lawsuit is Wayne Hauge, who said he planned to seed 100 acres of hemp on his farm. Hauge and Monson were granted the state licenses to grow hemp in February. State Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson hand-delivered the farmers' applications to grow industrial hemp to the DEA, along with their nonrefundable $2,293 annual federal registration fees. He asked the DEA to give permission by April, in time for planting. Courtney said the review of the farmers' applications was "still in process" and he would not comment on the specifics of the lawsuit filed against his agency"

6/20/2007 11:19:24 AM

Quote :

"As long as the active ingredient is THC "

it's not the active ingredient......you'd think a DEA spokesman would get the verbage right.

6/20/2007 11:24:14 AM

pretty much my opinion on all things government

Quote :

"And you guys want the same federal government that wastes our tax dollars banning and enforcing something as harmless as hemp to create a public healthcare system?"

fucking government and their feel good prohibition on things

6/20/2007 11:25:21 AM

Also, not only is it harmless, but hemp is an extremely versatile crop and could easily have a massive positive effect on US agriculture.

6/20/2007 11:28:50 AM

Quote :

""I've come to the conclusion that the only way to get any progress is to file this lawsuit and get them off the dime (bag).""

Seriously, it has far more promise as a crop than corn does for ethanol, and yet we push corn like its the next big thing. *shrug*

I hope those North Dakotans win, eh.

6/20/2007 11:44:43 AM

I'm seriously afraid of next years corn prices


it's so dry down east right now, and my farm in Joco has only gotten a one measureable rainfall in the past 2 months

6/20/2007 11:46:23 AM

Driving between Fayetteville and Raleigh and driving back from the beach this weekend, I've noticed that there seems like a lot more corn this year than two years ago. But yeah, I noticed a lot of the corn east of here wasn't looking too hot. I wonder how drought resistan hemp is?

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 12:04:02 PM

Our government is going down the shitter with these ridiculous laws. America has tried to write a law to cover every possible aspect of every situation and it is choking our country. People believe in things simply because they are "the law" despite the fact that laws are often made by people with no clue. It is the result of our fear of allowing anyone to use common sense or make a judgment call because that could lead to someone being treated unfairly. Common sense says farmers should be allowed to grow hemp. The DEA says nay because of an 80 year old law that should have never been passed.

Garrison Courtney sounds like a prime example of a person who believes in the law as if it is a god. It sucks, but I have a feeling America will end up as a country where half the folks work for the government and more of your income goes to taxes than to yourself within our generation's lifetime.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 12:07 PM. Reason : s]

6/20/2007 12:04:55 PM

Does anyone actually think the choice of corn-based ethanol has anything to do with energy production?

6/20/2007 12:37:40 PM

^ I thought that was the main reason, at least. What's the real reason?

6/20/2007 12:52:45 PM

Quote :

"...more of your income goes to taxes than to yourself within our generation's lifetime."

Governor Easley has reached his term limit, so maybe it will take two generations.

6/20/2007 12:57:33 PM

^^ the Farm lobby. Corn based ethanol is not particularly efficient and, in many cases, requires more energy to make than can be harnessed from the corn.

6/20/2007 1:17:55 PM

^^^Agro-business, with a boost from the location of the first presidential caucuses.

6/20/2007 1:56:39 PM

Quote :

"fucking government and their feel good prohibition on things"

Yeah what the fuck ever happened to state's rights. Originally in the constitution the federal gov't garnered its power from the overall support of the individual states with a seperation of power. Think about the name of our country the United States. When it comes down to it the American Civil War wasn't just about slaves. The issue was states rights and individual members feeling that the federal government was getting to powerful allowing shit like this to happen. Does anyone remember the story a few years ago when some old lady with glaucoma got issued medical marijuana from the state of California only to have the DEA come raid her house a few months down the line

Quote :

"Our government is going down the shitter with these ridiculous laws. America has tried to write a law to cover every possible aspect of every situation and it is choking our country. People believe in things simply because they are "the law" despite the fact that laws are often made by people with no clue. It is the result of our fear of allowing anyone to use common sense or make a judgment call because that could lead to someone being treated unfairly. Common sense says farmers should be allowed to grow hemp. The DEA says nay because of an 80 year old law that should have never been passed."

That is one of the smartest things I have read in the soap box this week. It really is sad. A lot of people really do think that Congress is full of super heroes all sitting around making laws that make us the perfect society. Anything that is illegal must be bad and immoral b.c the government says so. A good examples are the kids who do not drink b.c it is "against the law" and they do not want to break it then as soon as they turn 21 they become alcoholics. (I don't have problems with people who do not drink for various reasons but i think those who don't b.c they are not 21 are retarted)

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 3:10 PM. Reason : l]

6/20/2007 3:06:12 PM

^bingo.....the feds used the interstate commerce clause of the constitution to basically rape the states of their power starting with FDR and continuing into the present.

6/20/2007 3:12:30 PM

another problem is with the federal raking in so much more of the income tax money then the state gov't they basically control the money bag. If there is some domestic issue they want all the states to adopt instead of directly making it a federal mandate which would cause an uproar; they coerce the states into passing it in the state legislature under the threat of taking away federal highway money or some other kind of funding. Kinda like how the drinking age is 21 not b.c it is a federal law. The drinking age is 21 due to state passed legislature but they changed it under the threat of losing money to help build their highways.

l

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 3:28 PM. Reason : l]

6/20/2007 3:26:46 PM

Quote :

"Corn based ethanol is not particularly efficient and, in many cases, requires more energy to make than can be harnessed from the corn."

I don't think you meant it that way, but there's no "case" where you can derive more energy out of corn-based ethanol than it would take to produce the ethanol.

6/20/2007 3:27:49 PM

i think essentially he is trying to say its not cost effective

6/20/2007 5:08:59 PM

Quote :

"but there's no "case" where you can derive more energy out of corn-based ethanol than it would take to produce the ethanol. "

ethanol has a positive energy balance, so you most definitely can derive more energy from the ethanol than it takes to produce. you can also feed the corn to animals and burn the resulting manure like coal. don't spew off false jibberish about shit you don't understand to make your argument sound prettier.

6/20/2007 7:57:35 PM

some of the best tasting stuff on earth... head out to Whole Foods and grab some!

6/20/2007 9:37:18 PM

One of the products that can be made from hemp is paper--and you don't have to cut down any trees to do it. The government should get the fuck out of the way concerning hemp products--and a lot of other things.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 9:55 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 9:54:39 PM

Quote :

"ethanol has a positive energy balance, so you most definitely can derive more energy from the ethanol than it takes to produce."

Sugar based ethanol, yes. This is done in Brazil quite efficiently. This is not the case, at least right now, for corn.

At present, the production of 1 gallon of corn ethanol consumes roughly 1.3 gallons of oil. I'm not saying it shouldn't be looked into, but its not efficient yet.

Quote :

"there's no "case" where you can derive more energy out of corn-based ethanol than it would take to produce the ethanol"

Correct. Basic physics means that energy will always be lost. The promise of biologically developed ethanol however, is that the sun will provide the lion's share of creating that potential energy. However, as long as extracting the energy in corn requires more energy than can be extracted, it will not be efficient.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:03 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 9:59:42 PM

How many people have died smoking Marijuana? How many have died believing politicians?

6/20/2007 10:26:29 PM

Quote :

"This is not the case, at least right now, for corn. "

all the research out today proves this actually is the case for corn too. there are dozens of studies proving it around. No research has seriously claimed corn based ethanol to be at a negative energy balance in 5 years.

6/20/2007 10:55:39 PM

I'll take your word for it, but that is not what I have read. Either way we're looking at 5 years, not now. It makes sense to continue research, it doesn't make sense to grow corn for five years down the road. One or two maybe, but not five.

6/21/2007 6:22:48 AM

that's not what I said. I said that there hasn't been any research claiming corn based ethanol to be a negative energy balance since 2001-2002, 5 years ago.

6/21/2007 8:32:25 AM

Do you have any reliable sources that claim corn based ethanol has a positive energy balance since 2001-2002?

I still don't buy it, Ike.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/12/14/132136/93

6/21/2007 8:46:46 AM

^not just that, what good is ethanol, if the increased corn consumption causes prices for everything from the corn, to meat to rise and offset the savings?

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18173/

Quote :

"The recent rise in corn prices--almost 70 percent in the past six months--caused by the increased demand for ethanol biofuel has come much sooner than many agriculture economists had expected. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, this year the country is going to use 18 to 20 percent of its total corn crop for the production of ethanol, and by next year that will jump to 25 percent. And that increase, says Marshall Martin, an agriculture economist at Purdue University, "is the main driver behind the price increase for corn." The jump in corn prices is already affecting the cost of food. The most notable example: in Mexico, which gets much of its corn from the United States, the price of corn tortillas has doubled in the past year, according to press reports, setting off large protest marches in Mexico City. It's almost certain that most of the rise in corn prices is due to the U.S. ethanol policy, says David Victor, director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development at Stanford University. The rising food costs fueled by ethanol demand are also affecting U.S. consumers. "All things that use corn are going to have higher prices and higher cost, to some extent, that will be passed on to consumers," says Wally Tyner, professor of agriculture economics at Purdue University. The impact of this is being felt first in animal feed, particularly poultry and pork. Poultry feed is about two-thirds corn; as a result, the cost to produce poultry--both meat and eggs--has already risen about 15 percent due to corn prices, says Tyner. Also expect corn syrup--used in soft drinks--to get more expensive, he says. The situation will only get worse, says David Pimentel, a professor in the department of entomology at Cornell University. "We have over a hundred different ethanol plants under construction now, so the situation is going to get desperate," he says. Adding to the worries about corn-related food prices is President Bush's ambitious goal, announced in his last State of the Union address, that the United States will produce 35 billion gallons of ethanol by 2017. Still, some suggest that the overheated ethanol market could soon cool down. "Politicians will see that, first of all, it is not helping our oil independence," says Pimentel. "It is increasing the price of food for people in the U.S., it is costing an enormous sum of money for everyone, and it is contributing to environmental problems. But I can imagine it is going to take another year or more before politicians realize they have a major disaster on their hands." "

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 8:54 AM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 8:53:08 AM

Agreed. Taking precious arable land away from food crop production in favor of fuel crop production is a bad, bad thing.

6/21/2007 9:18:23 AM

if all of the country's corn and soybeans are put into ethanol production, it will only meet 5% of the gas/diesel need in the US. and thats if nobody eats and no animals eat either. LOL it will never work

6/21/2007 9:19:58 AM

Ultimately, Biofuel, solar power, "clean" coal, hyrdro, and wind power are not the answer. Nothing is really the answer by itself, except perhaps fusion power some time in the future when the the technology becomes viable (still waaaay out)

But just as hydropower is great where it can be tapped freely, biofuels can be a good complement, although it cannot replace oil on global scale. But just as wind power possibly can produce 5% of world electricity, biofuels could reduce the need for oil by a few percent, but only as long as those fuels are refined without decreasing the food supply.

6/21/2007 9:38:50 AM

I was under the impression that biofuels were created from all the leftovers of the corn plant

6/21/2007 10:13:20 AM

also a lot of people think some biofuels (ethanol in particular) actually use more oil...the production costs are much higher considering you cant transport in pipelines, etc

6/21/2007 10:18:24 AM

^^ Biofuel can be created from corn biomass. But hemp, miscanthus, poplar, switchgrass, sugarcane, and willow are also used to make biofuels or to produce some other type of energy.

6/21/2007 10:53:28 AM

Quote :

"Ultimately, Biofuel, solar power, "clean" coal, hyrdro, and wind power are not the answer. Nothing is really the answer by itself, except perhaps fusion power some time in the future when the the technology becomes viable (still waaaay out)"

I'd say that in the next 4-5 decades alternative energy sources and renewable energy could replace a big portion of our dependence on fossil fuels. I mentioned in another thread how they're already implementing solar power on a large scale.

"A major 154MW photovoltaic (PV) Solar power station in Victoria is planned and will cost $420 million. It will be the biggest and most efficient solar photovoltaic power station in the world. The power station will have the capability to concentrate the sun by 500 times onto the solar cells for ultra high power output. The Victorian power station will generate clean electricity directly from the sun to meet the annual needs of over 45,000 homes with zero greenhouse gas emissions.[1]"
http://www.solarsystems.com.au/

In my belief it is wrong to discredit renewable energy sources just because we don't currently have the economy or ability to make it work right now. That's why there are companies like solarsystems and alternative enery research centers around the world. It's because we HOPE sometime in the future we can all use renewable energy sources, and it's silly to think we have to be relient on something like fossil fuels for the rest of history.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 11:02:24 AM

Where did i ever say that? Don't put words in my mouth, dipshit.

6/21/2007 11:13:50 AM

lol you just said it. Hence the quote box.

6/21/2007 11:27:21 AM

renewable energy could take a heavy burden off energy production, but it would have to be specialized to the area (i.e. a solar station in Ireland won't work well). I think that's half the battle, fitting the correct type to the correct area around the world.

6/21/2007 11:37:13 AM

^exactly. Obviously solar wouldn't work where the sun don't shine as much. But yeah renewable energy needs to specialized by location.

6/21/2007 11:39:26 AM

no dumbass, where did I say anything like this?

Quote :

"we have to be relient on something like fossil fuels for the rest of history. "

Obviously it wasn't in the text you quoted from me. If you have to resort to making shit up in a feeble attempt to make a point, then just kill yourself.


\/ I'm down with that. I'm completely against farm subsidies.

6/21/2007 11:42:58 AM

why don't you take farm subsidizes away from farmers and let them earn the $$ instead by growing hemp for biofuels?

6/21/2007 11:49:07 AM

How do you ship ethanol? Using gasoline powered trucks I would guess since you cant send it through a pipeline

6/21/2007 11:54:57 AM

Quote :

"no dumbass,"

Quote :

"If you have to resort to making shit up in a feeble attempt to make a point, then just kill yourself."

When did i ever make anything up? I don't post something unless i read it somewhere and can provide a link. I'm sure you've all noticed that.

aww someones got sand in thier vagina. Dude i'm not insulting you, don't insult me. I NEVER SAID YOU SAID THAT. That's why i didn't quote you on that, all i said was that it's my belief that we shouldnt' be relient on fossil fuel for the rest of history. Don't put words in my mouth. Also change your arguing tactics, if you put more effort into making legit points, and providing references, rathering then making childish insults, then you'd get further.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 12:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 11:55:52 AM

^^^I don't mind some farm subsidies to promote keeping domestic capacity for food, etc. so we are not completely dependent on a foreign food supply. They can also work in some situations (more on the local level) to promote land and open space preservation. What I don't like is dumping money into programs that amount to little but pork barrel corporate welfare while providing little benefit to the public.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 1:37 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 1:37:03 PM

^^well, when you quote someone's text, and then argue a different point, there is an implication of directing it at the individual whose text you quoted.

If that wasn't your intent, then i withdraw my insult. If it was your intent, then i stand by the aforementioned insults.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 1:38 PM. Reason : fr]

6/21/2007 1:38:13 PM

^My intent was to dispute your quote "Ultimately, Biofuel, solar power, "clean" coal, hyrdro..." because i believe it is possible sometime in the future to rely completely on renewable energy sources.

THEN i did go a little off track by saying we shouldn't discredit renewable energy sources. In saying this i meant you were making the point that "Ultimately, Biofuel, solar power, "clean" coal, hyrdro, and wind power are not the answer." I was saying i believe they ARE the answer, because in the future i think we can fully rely on those sources. So in turn i wasn't exactly arguing a "different point", rather i was expanding on what you said about renewable energy sources not being a complete answer.

^Either way, despite what i say i don't think it's smart to throw names around as an insult. It's much more intelligent to bash me with sources and evidence backing your point. When you call people names it just makes you look ignorant. I agree everyone does it, but it never helps in this case, other than to discourage people.

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 1:53:27 PM

Quote :

"My intent was to dispute your quote "Ultimately, Biofuel, solar power, "clean" coal, hyrdro..." because i believe it is possible sometime in the future to rely completely on renewable energy sources. "

And if you read the next sentence, you'd have read "Nothing is really the answer by itself" which, I'll spell out for you in simple words. This means that while these are good steps to take, they aren't going to solve all of our energy problems, because individually (that means each of those things by itself) none of those solutions are scalable to meet global demands.

Quote :

"about renewable energy sources not being a complete answer."

Again, I wasn't citing ALL renewable energy sources, only the ones that I listed.

I hope that I didn't use too many words that might confuse you.

6/21/2007 2:07:21 PM

Quote :

"I hope that I didn't use too many words that might confuse you."

Explain this and how does it help your argument?

Anyway I misunderstood i'm sorry, i meant i don't think we should discredit renewable energy sources as a whole. I think in time we can completely rely on renewable energy.

Also why is it so unrealisitic to believe we could some day rely completely on solar power? Everything else on Earth does. Why can't we?

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2007 2:15:19 PM

Quote :

"I was under the impression that biofuels were created from all the leftovers of the corn plant"

HUR

Quote :

"Biofuel can be created from corn biomass. But hemp, miscanthus, poplar, switchgrass, sugarcane, and willow are also used to make biofuels or to produce some other type of energy."

hooksaw

What's this? Someone from CHASS educating the omniscient engineering student? Can it be? Oh, the horror! If you had taken Global Sustainable Human Development, you could have answered your own question.

6/22/2007 3:03:57 PM

set em up

6/22/2007 7:23:56 PM