"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Charlie Morgan :

As I remember it, paraquat was not so much a defoliant as it was
something that
would make you sick to your stomach if you smoked pot that had been
sprayed with
it.

Paraquat is a defoliant. Making the people sick who smoked the stuff
harvested before Paraquat finished killing it was considered an added
bonus.
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est

Why would you consider that to be a bonus?

According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Charlie Morgan :

As I remember it, paraquat was not so much a defoliant as it was
something that
would make you sick to your stomach if you smoked pot that had been
sprayed with
it.

Paraquat is a defoliant. Making the people sick who smoked the stuff
harvested before Paraquat finished killing it was considered an added
bonus.
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est

Why would you consider that to be a bonus?

I don't: "was considered an...". I was sarcastically referring to
the DEA and the government policies that allowed them to do it.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Charlie Morgan :

As I remember it, paraquat was not so much a defoliant as it was
something that
would make you sick to your stomach if you smoked pot that had been
sprayed with
it.

Paraquat is a defoliant. Making the people sick who smoked the stuff
harvested before Paraquat finished killing it was considered an added
bonus.
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est

Why would you consider that to be a bonus?

I don't: "was considered an...". I was sarcastically referring to
the DEA and the government policies that allowed them to do it.

Oh...OK. I thought for a moment that you were one of the morons who thought
that using pot was somehow worse than using alcohol, and that prohibition of
alcohol was silly, while the same stance twoard pot was right.

According to JoeSpareBedroom :

There is no agreement on how much can be extrapolated from animal tests.

There is similarly no agreement that Armstrong landed on the moon.

For the most part, animal tests are extremely good, especially when
you have tests with multiple species.

The
chemical companies say the similarities are either valid, or not, depending
on convenience.

So we ignore the chemical companies. Simple. They're not the only
people/organizations doing studies on chemicals.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Charlie Morgan :

As I remember it, paraquat was not so much a defoliant as it was
something that
would make you sick to your stomach if you smoked pot that had been
sprayed with
it.

Paraquat is a defoliant. Making the people sick who smoked the stuff
harvested before Paraquat finished killing it was considered an added
bonus.
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est

Why would you consider that to be a bonus?

I don't: "was considered an...". I was sarcastically referring to
the DEA and the government policies that allowed them to do it.

Oh...OK. I thought for a moment that you were one of the morons who thought
that using pot was somehow worse than using alcohol, and that prohibition of
alcohol was silly, while the same stance twoard pot was right.

Heh. I'm a Canadian. We've decriminalized possession of small
amounts of pot, and permit people to use it who have a medical
exemption...[+] I fully expect that in the not too distant future
it'll become more-or-less fully legal here.

It probably would have by now if it weren't for "war on
drugs" pressure from the US. If there was an open vote in parliament
where such pressure didn't play a part, and/or a referendum, most
of these laws undoubtably would be repealed.

[+] There's a number of ludicrous self-contradictory bits in our
current suite of laws. Eg: those with a medical exemption are allowed
to have and use it, but nobody's permitted to grow/sell it to them,
and the limits for personal cultivation are too low for many.
The govt. spent millions on growing their own crop that they'd
distribute for this purpose, but someone goofed big time, and
they picked a cannabis cultivar that had virtually _no_ THC.

Sigh.

I fully expect that to be ironed out reasonably soon. In the
meantime, most police forces are turning a blind eye to the few
producers they know to be dedicated to people with medical
exemptions.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to Charlie Morgan :

As I remember it, paraquat was not so much a defoliant as it was
something that
would make you sick to your stomach if you smoked pot that had been
sprayed with
it.

Paraquat is a defoliant. Making the people sick who smoked the
stuff
harvested before Paraquat finished killing it was considered an
added
bonus.
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est

Why would you consider that to be a bonus?

I don't: "was considered an...". I was sarcastically referring to
the DEA and the government policies that allowed them to do it.

Oh...OK. I thought for a moment that you were one of the morons who
thought
that using pot was somehow worse than using alcohol, and that prohibition
of
alcohol was silly, while the same stance twoard pot was right.

Heh. I'm a Canadian. We've decriminalized possession of small
amounts of pot, and permit people to use it who have a medical
exemption...[+] I fully expect that in the not too distant future
it'll become more-or-less fully legal here.

It probably would have by now if it weren't for "war on
drugs" pressure from the US. If there was an open vote in parliament
where such pressure didn't play a part, and/or a referendum, most
of these laws undoubtably would be repealed.

[+] There's a number of ludicrous self-contradictory bits in our
current suite of laws. Eg: those with a medical exemption are allowed
to have and use it, but nobody's permitted to grow/sell it to them,
and the limits for personal cultivation are too low for many.
The govt. spent millions on growing their own crop that they'd
distribute for this purpose, but someone goofed big time, and
they picked a cannabis cultivar that had virtually _no_ THC.

Sigh.

I fully expect that to be ironed out reasonably soon. In the
meantime, most police forces are turning a blind eye to the few
producers they know to be dedicated to people with medical
exemptions.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

The whole thing's ridiculous anyway. Pot may kill your lungs if you smoke
enough. Booze may kill your liver, stomach, esophagus if you drink enough,
and doctors think it may affect the pancreas in nasty ways. Both substances
mess with your brain.

It remains illegal for reasons which are probably also illegal. Politicians
being paid to continually bury the issue.

According to JoeSpareBedroom :
The problem is that some of the testing is funded by the manufacturers. And,
very often, when there *is* independent research, the only places you hear
about it is from organizations which, according to quite a few morons, are
staffed by leftover hippies.

You're assuming that there's only chemical companies and leftover
hippy organizations.

Look at the toxnet site again. _Hundreds_ of studies w.r.t. glysophate
published in referreed journals, with the studies funded/performed by
universities, governments (not necessarily US) and other agencies.

Note the term "referreed journals". It means that the study has
been reviewed by the author's scientific peers and found to be not
only scientifically sound, but often also _reasonably_ impartial.

_Those_ are the studies to pay attention to.

Not some half-baked advocacy organization who
selects/misrepresents/exaggerates the situation based on
studies they're reluctant to name.

Greenpeace sez that Glysophate is one of the most toxic
herbicides. That's not "spin", that's an outright lie,
pure and simple.[+]

Because, in fact, glysophate is one of the most highly
tested/retested chemicals in the world, and while it's
hardly 100% non-toxic (nothing is), it's vastly less toxic
than virtually anything else, "green", "chemical" or otherwise.

You really can't win in such an environment. I
mean, what if Greenpeace is right about some of this stuff?

In those cases that Greenpeace is right, there'll be _reputable_
agencies agreeing with them.

As such, if Greenpeace says so, _long_ before you believe it, you
need to see if anybody else does.

And not the Sea Shepards for example.

Just...what if?

Then someone else trustworthy will be saying the same thing.

Is it smart to ignore everything they say because a central brain (Rush
Limbaugh, etc) told you to? (And, I don't specifically mean YOU - I mean
people who look at the world this way).

No it ain't smart to do that. Having Rush Limbaugh tell me not to
listen to Greenpeace would have the opposite effect. So I don't
listen to Limbaugh.

Let's see...who else is on the "can't be trusted" list? Sierra Club, Nature
Conservancy.....it's endless.

I trust the Sierra Club enough to report objective facts accurately,
but before I take their conclusions at face value, I'll look elsewhere or
judge myself based on what Sierra Club publishes. They're honest,
mean well, and do good research, but I don't always agree with their
conclusions/proposed actions.

In other words, just like any other reputable organization.

I don't know Nature Conservancy enough to comment.

The Sea Shepards on the other hand, are, ..., well, perhaps libel laws
suggest I should keep my mouth _firmly_ shut.

SRVS (an environmental group in Southern Ontario) can certainly
be trusted. But, that's cheating, my SO and I were on their
board of directors ;-)

[+] Unless you're into serious language warping - as in "best" is
included in "one of the worst".

Apparently in some recent sporting event, an American team was reported
as "Placing second! Wahoo! Yah!". Didn't bother mentioning who placed
first, didn't bother mentioning that there were only two teams playing,
and didn't bother mentioning that the American team was disqualified...

Well, yeah, they were second. Of two. And were DQ'd at that.
That's some serious spin.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to JoeSpareBedroom :
The whole thing's ridiculous anyway. Pot may kill your lungs if you smoke
enough. Booze may kill your liver, stomach, esophagus if you drink enough,
and doctors think it may affect the pancreas in nasty ways. Both substances
mess with your brain.

Agreed. But I don't think it's been anywhere established that
_moderate_ use of pot is on balance harmful, any more than moderate use
of alcohol is. Unlike tobacco, where the "safe dose" (if such actually
exists) appears to be _vastly_ lower than most consumers consume.

In fact, most studies show that _moderate_ use of alcohol is beneficial
on the whole, and the medical community is aware and takes advantage
of that.

It remains illegal for reasons which are probably also illegal. Politicians
being paid to continually bury the issue.

A more reasonable approach to drugs would (a) have better impact on
dealing with the problems that drugs _really_ cause (eg: crime),
and (b) put the DEA and related budgetary sinkholes out of business.

(b) trumps (a).
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to JoeSpareBedroom :
The whole thing's ridiculous anyway. Pot may kill your lungs if you smoke
enough. Booze may kill your liver, stomach, esophagus if you drink
enough,
and doctors think it may affect the pancreas in nasty ways. Both
substances
mess with your brain.

Agreed. But I don't think it's been anywhere established that
_moderate_ use of pot is on balance harmful, any more than moderate use
of alcohol is. Unlike tobacco, where the "safe dose" (if such actually
exists) appears to be _vastly_ lower than most consumers consume.

In fact, most studies show that _moderate_ use of alcohol is beneficial
on the whole, and the medical community is aware and takes advantage
of that.

It remains illegal for reasons which are probably also illegal.
Politicians
being paid to continually bury the issue.

A more reasonable approach to drugs would (a) have better impact on
dealing with the problems that drugs _really_ cause (eg: crime),
and (b) put the DEA and related budgetary sinkholes out of business.

(b) trumps (a).

I'd love to know how much lobbying money comes from private corporations
that run some of the prisons in this country, and from police organizations.
I haven't bothered to check, but it must be significant in order to convince
politicians to keep saying things like "pot leads to heroin", etc.