Whoa. Didn't see that comin'. Amen brutha.

The law against hemp is one one of the many bad laws we have in our country.

Any law protecting you from yourself is absurd, and goes against the very freedoms our nation was founded on.

RAF: Your comment about purchasing products made of plastic made me think about all the products that are now made of plastic that used to be made of hemp and how many more still could be if it weren't illegal. What caring parent or any person, for that matter, wouldn't buy a product that was a safer and healthier alternative, if it were made available to them?
As you may know, in the 1930’s, DuPont obtained patents for making nylon from coal, paper from trees and plastic from oil, and didn’t want to see hemp as a potential competitor. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (an oil baron) was DuPont's chief financial backer at the time and owned large swathes of timber land and oil. Mellon appointed his nephew-in-law Harry Anslinger to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics while other Dupont backers such as the Hearst newspaper group began to influence public opinion towards the perceived evils of marijuana. Basically this propaganda strategy worked and in 1937 Congress outlawed hemp, despite the fact that industrial hemp has such a low THC content that you would be better off smoking cow dung. Not only did the prohibition of hemp profit Du Pont, but also many other corporations such as Dow and Monsanto – all of whom had vested interests in ensuring hemp industries didn’t see the light of day.
So, actually, marijuana being made illegal had nothing to do with smoking it. Instead, it had everything to do with big business, like DUPONT, HEARST, MONSANTO and DOW, wanting to make billions of dollars, never mind the fact they would not only foist polyester clothing upon us, but also lead us down the path of plantary destruction and to dependence on foreign oil in the process.
I don't know if making fuel with hemp would turn out to be any better, as in cost effective, than what I have read making ethanol with corn is, but it sure would be worth finding out, wouldn't it? And hemp could be grown with virtually no use of pesticides or herbicides, another huge bonus. Say, doesn't Dow Chemical make dioxin and other lovely poisons?
How many decades will we basically be forced to continue down the path of self-destruction, regardless of all the information we have and regardless of the proven alternatives, simply because the powers that be, big business and industry, keep the pockets of our politicians filled as they all sell us, our children, grandchildren and our whole planet down the river?

Too late, it is obvious you don't.

PS. I read the rest of the comments, & I'd just like to say, I'm sorry for commenting on RAF's post. Its obvious to me that that guy is really a retired Military. How do I know that for sure? Because he's got all the markings of having a trained, & molded mind (brainwashed by the Government) & he's very good at criticizing other points of views that don't parallel his views. Something Politicians have done now for several years to get their way. Lots of Special Interest groups criticize in that way also (Gay & Lesbians, etc). I believe its a tactic used when these people are afraid they're about to be found out. I wish people would learn to ignore these tactics.. OOps, Better Practice what I preach..

RetiredAirForce: "there are those of us who actually love THIS country and wish to see it independent of oil."....

I 46 yrs old, & I'm one of those who, "Love this Country & wish to see it independent of oil." I also know of two car motors that run on Alcohol. There have been other motors I "know" for sure were invented that run on other simply made ingredients. I'm sure by now you see where I'm going with this... but for the ones that don't.. Why are we still using gasoline powered engines (Rhetorical Question). the answer is because, the Powers that be want oil to continue to be as marketable as its always been because it keeps them, & their pals supplied with money (i.e. corrupt as he.ll). We need to get rid of the oil motors, & go to alternative energy before another Exon Valdez catastrophe happens..

"there are those of us who actually love THIS country and wish to see it independent of oil."
-
As is the case with most liberal views, you want others to stop or start something you yourself have not already done. As soon as you stop using oil for a period of time then you can start your preaching of wanting others to stop.

Darwin thanks for very pointless comments. This further proves your inability to grasp reality and solidifies your habit of not reading all comments before offering your 2 cents; in addition to adding comments that have nothing to do with any conversation.

RAF, really this is best you can do? A seepage is something the wildlife has adapted to because it has been there for sometime much like your absurdly narrow minded comments. A spill however is completely destructive because it is not a natural occurrence.

I understand that you and the Republican'ts love the Saudis and OPEC and wish to see Hugo's power grow, however, there are those of us who actually love THIS country and wish to see it independent of oil.

Hypocrisy is willful participation (doing the same thing) you complain of others doing. Laziness in your case is the same as ignorance; unwilling to completely understand the definition of words.

Insignificant? In just two locations in California more than 4 billion cubic feet of seepage has occurred in the past 26 years. This compares to the 150,000 cubic feet spilled during the Exxon valdez incident. If you want to complain of one at least be constant in your outrage of spills…if not see the first paragraph.

To your questions on old growth and chemicals you really need to define your term of suffering. Most of your arguments to this point are all emotion based; whom do you refer and what type of suffrage?

Ok you have the attention of all of us consumers that hate the environment. What now? maybe we can restore all the farmland to pristine prairie glory and implement the Johnathan Swift solution to not just the Irish, but the rest of the human parasites.
Rantings do not help your arguments. I'd much rather be a conservationist than an environmentalist.

Its not hypocracy when you are aware of the effects YOUR actions have on the environment and take steps to minimize the impact. That's called responsibility RAF. Try it.
-
Sure oil bubbles from the ground and contaminates the area around it. In the past several thousand years, effects of contamination caused by natural phenomena is so insignificant that it does not warrant discussion so why do you bother bringing it up except to make some silly comparison to the destruction man has wrought on our planet. If you are too lazy to TRY and limit the negative impact you have on the planet or just too dense to grasp the long term negative effects of pollution then just admit it instead of your feeble attempt to justify destroying nature for the sake of cheap energy.
-
Who suffers when old growth forest is clear-cut, or when toxic chemicals seep into our groundwater?" Answer that for me RAF.

ekim8404 as soon as you give up filling your gas tank, purchasing products made of plastic, using medicines benefited by petroleum, heating your dwelling with oil/gas/electric, and using electricity on the internet feel free to start the lecture circuit...until then you are participating in the very social system your are crying about; called hypocrisy.

I see the anti-environmentalists are out in force. Humans, especially Americans, have great difficulty living within their means and not raping an pillaging everything around them to support their consumer culture, because that is what's most important. The freedom to consume without regard to it's effects, and even we see those effects, it's not our problem, or it's a "socialist conspiracy", or any of a whole slew of ridiculous arguments.

What it comes down to is value. Most folks around here place more value in filling up their gas tank then spending time outside, simple as that. It's not your fault though, generations of plowing under forests and natural prairie to produce massive amounts foodstuff has had it's effects. You have no public land here, it's all fenced in, with the little green spaces between the cornfields as absurd reminders of what it once was. It that's progress, then you can have it.

Enjoy your walmart junk and your pickup trucks, that's what life's all about.

Thanks for your Princeton definition of pollution, I asked about contamination...the same you mentioned with the oil.

You also side-stepped the question on natural seepage of oil...is this also contamination? Goes to your thoughts on failure to research.

Another such example, RAF, are those who are too lazy to research how much damage man inflicts upon his habitat all for the sake of profits and easy living or too dumb to care. Here is a definition of pollution RAF: undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities. Is that simple enough for you?
-
Eman, what an intelligent response to partarican1's query which is basically asking the question, "do you respect nature". Instead of formulating a reasonable response to a reasonable question, you comes back with some stupid comment that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "Wow… You lefties need to slip into something more comfortable.." "The earth is not as fragile as you would make it out to be..." Check out this link (http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/recovery/l...) and you will find the following information: "The amount of Exxon Valdez oil remaining substantially exceeds the sum total of all previous oil pollution on beaches in Prince William Sound, including oil spilled during the 1964 earthquake. This Exxon Valdez oil is decreasing at a rate of 0-4% per year, with only a 5% chance that the rate is as high as 4%. At this rate, the remaining oil will take decades and possibly centuries to disappear entirely." Eman believes its wrong to care about the planet we share, like its some "leftie" conspiracy to reduce pollution for the benefit of others. Who gains when old growth forest is saved from clear-cutting, or when toxic chemicals are kept from seeping into our groundwater? I guess only the "lefties". The earth is not fragile yet
-
So if you want to pee in your pot and drink from it join Eman. He doesn't care about anything as long as he can still only pay less than $3 a gallon for gas.

There are extremes on both side of the issue.

One such example is people who cry over trees...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFUDEmMjC...

PanamaRed, there are many areas in the United States were oil emanates naturally from the ground, are these areas considered contaminated? What about the countless other areas around the world and in the oceans were this also happens, is this also contamination?

An inquisitive person might ask how much larger these natural spill areas might be without man's activity in removing oil...

"... humans cannot evolve fast enough to adapt to such a dramatic change in atmoshperic composition"...
.
I don't see any changes that are that dramatic. Just because I don't believe in man made global warming (climate change if you prefer), does not mean that I want to coat wildlife with oil to improve its viscosity (thank you to The Onion). I would rather we quit wasting our time on things like ruining our engines with alcohol and start producing the infrastructure for hydrogen. What is the point in replacing a gasoline engine with an electric if we then need to burn more coal to generate the power?

Eman-don't be so insulting. Not all environmentalists are potheads. Even though you may not think there is a problem, there is. And I'll keep on doing what I do, which is water quality monitoring; something to ensure Rock County has a decent water supply for the recreational boaters, fishermen, hunters, drinking water, and anyone or anything else who wants to use it. I'll continue to conserve energy even when others don't, and I won't take it personal when people don't agree with me, because there are a lot of you who think over-consuming fossil fuels is OK when it is not.
As for slipping into a coma, why would you wish harm to someone you don't even know? Get yourself together man, and enjoy the season of giving.....

Also, no one who knows anything about air or water pollution would want to go back to the 1800's. If regulations hadn't been put in to place to control what was being spewed into the air and dumped into the rivers and lakes, we would be living in a far more polluted world than we already are.

Eman: You ever hug a 150-year-old massive oak tree? Obviously not, by your anti-tree-loving comment. I'll take the oak over an oil rig any day. Perhaps you should try it some time...the oak, not the rig.

sp:atmospheric

BunBun-Of course plants need CO2. What the science is saying is humans cannot evolve fast enough to adapt to such a dramatic change in atmoshperic composition, and that plants will thrive when we cannot...

Eman- just because something comes from nature does not make it non-toxic. There are plenty of compounds produced naturally that will kill in small doses. Example: chrysanthemums and tobacco produce pesticide strong enough to kill humans.

Drilling in the US means not weaning ourselves off of carbon fuels, it's being dependent on foreign fuel sources in the long term. No one said we had to go back to the 1800's. But take a look at all the CO2 data from before the Industrial Revolution and compare it to after that time. Still think it's not having an effect? If you do, you can't read.

This isn't a political issue; it's a life issue. If you want your future generations to have a planet with usable resources in the future, we have to change our consumtion habits now, and not wait for someone else to do it first.

Your pardon. I mis read the borg reference, consider that portion of my comment "exterminate(ed)" as I prefer Doctor Who geekiness to Trek.

"Increasing the levels of CO2 must have SOME effect?"
.
Yes it does, it promotes the growth of plants. Even going by the climate change hucksters own data it shows temps leading Co2 not the opposite.
.
got to love the Star Trek geekiness of the author describing drill rigs as "borg like" then ruins any credibilty with the assumption that companies will abandon the huge capital investment represented by a rig that can be relocated to the next field or scrapped for the steel.

Evidently I need to re-phrase my comment that was deleted.
Perhaps dub190, you ought to seek treatment for your malady which prevents you from seeing the world as it really is instead of the fantasy world you inhabit where every action or theory that challenges your narrow views are either a conspiracy or a lie.
-
The Alaska coastline contaminated from the Valdez oil spill remains contaminated. Coal mining has contaminated entire watersheds and irrevocably disfigured entire geographical regions. When the time comes to make companies accountable for the damage caused they simply take their profits and run by filing bankruptcy, then start up again under a new name. We will never gain energy independence by drilling for oil. Renewable forms of energy is the future, not oil.

"Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources."
"All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk."
"A tree's a tree. How many more do you need to look at?"
Ronald Reagan
"And the beat goes on." Sonny Bono

"In all the years that the eviromentalists have been around, has anything ever changed."
-
Of course things have changed, bald eagles have made a comeback, wolves now prowl territory where they had been hunted to extinction, elk have been re-introduced, steams cleaner making the fish safer to eat. Yes without environmentalists this planet would suffering under the weight of garbage and toxic substances dumped and pumped into our atmosphere all for the sake of profit. Cap and trade policies are designed to capture the cost of pollution as its created instead of charging consumers later to clean it out of our streams, land and air. We have spent over $1 billion cleaning up the Fox River and it still won't be "clean", only less toxic. Does mans activity influence the weather? How can it not!! Increasing the levels of CO2 must have SOME effect? "Intelligent" man has poisoned hundreds of animal species, which by way of the food chain, poisons other species including us. The continued push to keep using oil for energy only delays the inevitable and will cost more than money in the long run. No amount of money will "clean" dirty air and water.

"Typical liberal hack. Can't get past the first sentence without emotional school yard behavior."
.
Oh, the irony.
Is RetiredAirForce commenting on this article, or did he just want to publicly point out that he is a typical liberal hack because of his own inability to get past his first sentence in his post without resorting to emotional school yard behavior?

Typical liberal hack. Can't get past the first sentence without emotional school yard behavior.

In all the years that the eviromentalists have been around, has anything ever changed. They have been the most destructive force. Save the forests (The forests burn down). They've been saying this one owl was on the eve of extinction if we cut a tree---recently come to light that it was another owl encroaching upon the other owls space. Enviromentalists seems more interested in destroying then creating. Human life means nothing to them if it gets in their way. Nails in trees is one example. Man has discovered umpteen thousands of new specieas not previously known about with probably more yet to be discovered. We can't save everything. So, who really benefits from the environmentalist tactics? When they work with instead of against there is progress but they would rather work against and propel us back to the dark ages.