Cannabis referendum.

[Katman]

Her transformation has turned her friends, her husband and family members into yes voters from an unequivocal anti weed, traditional conservative view.

I suspect the Grey vote will be significant.

[Kickaha]

I suspect the Grey vote will be significant.

I tend to agree, it would be interesting to see the demographics after the vote

[jellywrestler]

I suspect the Grey vote will be significant.

even more so with the referendum to kill old people in there

[Kickaha]

even more so with the referendum to kill old people in there

Dad said it's a pity it's not already in so he could take that option

[ellipsis]

So when you put a sugar cube in your mouth, you're simply tasting what your mouth tastes like at that time, and not the sugar?

...having been told by my pancreas that my penchant for custard square, apple pie and cream, black forest gateau, hot pikelets and butter and jam, beer, bread and mashed spuds and gravy and, pies, and the forecast result of me continuing to indulge in such stuff was, death, I kinda took note and have cut out the sugar to the extent that refined sugar now has the sensation of an unpleasant burn...this is with any processed food...such as jellybeans or the odd sweet thing I sometimes have to dive on when my sugar levels drop to near death experiences...sugar actually tastes like the death it can unleash...

...just sayin...

[pete376403]

even more so with the referendum to kill old people in there

Not just old people - young people get terminal diseases too.

[jellywrestler]

Dad said it's a pity it's not already in so he could take that option

heard two coherent words out of my partners mother in six years, if i kept a cat or dog like that i'd be in a court of law.... i'll be ticking yes

[mashman]

I have students that ask questions like that, annoying wretches.

Describe the taste of the sugar and we will converse.

Which variety sugar?

Foreshore, sugar, salt, acid, umami, bitter, cause a "taste" but they are rarely dominant unless you put in too much, then they overwhelm the other compounds which is when they become apparent. If you sucked a box of sugar cubes the taste would peak, your taste buds are saturated. Same with eating spoonfuls of salt. Don't do it!

When you use seasonings on food it's a bit like a Russian doll, the receptiveness off the taste buds can detect layers of compounds, becoming more refined and subtle as you chew. Without seasoning flavour can be flat, you get the initial taste but nothing more. Lion Red is a good example.

I demonstrate this with pumpkin soup. We make a really nice soup, good stock, roast butternut, mirepoix, bay leaf and a touch of cinnamon, smells delicious. Once the soup is ready we taste. It's flat, a slightly pumpkin / cinnamon dominant, nicely textured, ambiguous orangeness. Sad faces all round. Add sugar, vinegar and salt. Boom. Lingering, rich pumpkin and layers of spice, mirepoix, herbs and cream. Woo hoo, happy faces.

When is too much too much if ones taste buds, and potentially physiology, have been used to it since the sippy cup?

More pertinent to the thread.. I was accosted by an arthritis burdened elderly lady today. Haven't seen her for 18 months, before even a hello, she grabbed me and said you must vote yes in the referendum.
I knew she had been self medicating for a couple of years with the help of a green fairy but it turns out she is now a home grower. She looked the best and most mobile I have ever seen her, sharp as a tack compared to 18 months ago in a supermarket car park, a bit stoned waiting for her husband to finish the shopping.
She makes edibles and topical salves using the whole plant to help with her pain. Her transformation has turned her friends, her husband and family members into yes voters from an unequivocal anti weed, traditional conservative view.
At the moment she is a criminal. That's not right.

Good on her. Without question a large number of people receive mental and physical comfort from the plant. Makes one wonder why it was banned in the first place (oil). Heard of a guy recently, on older fella, that grew his own. I say grew, because his dog alerted him to 3 guys helping themselves to his plants one evening. He was roughed a little but was also stabbed in the hand. He can't even go to the cops and report that there are people out and about doing this tooled up without incriminating himself. All because some people are scared that the world will suddenly self-implode because weed becomes legal. Madness that's been going on for far too long innit.

[mashman]

...having been told by my pancreas that my penchant for custard square, apple pie and cream, black forest gateau, hot pikelets and butter and jam, beer, bread and mashed spuds and gravy and, pies, and the forecast result of me continuing to indulge in such stuff was, death, I kinda took note and have cut out the sugar to the extent that refined sugar now has the sensation of an unpleasant burn...this is with any processed food...such as jellybeans or the odd sweet thing I sometimes have to dive on when my sugar levels drop to near death experiences...sugar actually tastes like the death it can unleash...

...just sayin...

That answers that question then. That doesn't include booze right?

[Scuba_Steve]

heard two coherent words out of my partners mother in six years, if i kept a cat or dog like that i'd be in a court of law.... i'll be ticking yes

It's still ironic we use the word "humane" when putting down pets - "we did the humane thing & had them put down"
It's not "humane" to put them down, currently the "humane" thing to do is leave them alive & suffering; Not the good, nice, or right thing to do but definitely the humane thing by definition.

[Viking01]

Makes one wonder why it was banned in the first place (oil).

I can't find the particular references that I had in mind, but the following might do.

If you want a list of countries and dates of prohibition, you can look at the Wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cannabis_law

You'll see that cannabis was not prohibited in NZ until 1965 (under the Narcotics Act).

Some of the literature I've read recounted that the prohibition of cannabis was essentially a worldwide initiative, but driven primarily by the US temperance movement. Fervour peaked following a 1921 US Conference (and a drug scandal that year), resulting in prohibition within various other jurisdictions soon after (e.g. Canada; several EU countries) .

United States
In the case of the US, it was prohibited effectively on a preventative basis, from fear that it might become a substitute for alcohol which had been banned under Prohibition legislation.

While the role of the US temperance movement was widely acknowledged, I've also seen anecdotal mention of several other contributory drivers
e.g.
1. Anti-Mexican xenophobia (in the 1910's and 1920's)
2. Post WW1 fear of Negroes (coupled with the Jazz era of the 1920's)
3. Suppression of hemp growing (use as a possible fibre for newsprint)

The following two links might be of general interest:

http://origins.osu.edu/article/illeg...-brief-history

Article 2: See Summary and Notes from page 32 onwards.

https://www.canorml.org/wp-content/u...ginsmjproh.pdf

[mashman]

I can't find the particular references that I had in mind, but the following might do.

If you want a list of countries and dates of prohibition, you can look at the Wikipedia entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cannabis_law

You'll see that cannabis was not prohibited in NZ until 1965 (under the Narcotics Act).

Some of the literature I've read recounted that the prohibition of cannabis was essentially a worldwide initiative, but driven primarily by the US temperance movement. Fervour peaked following a 1921 US Conference (and a drug scandal that year), resulting in prohibition within various other jurisdictions soon after (e.g. Canada; several EU countries) .

United States
In the case of the US, it was prohibited effectively on a preventative basis, from fear that it might become a substitute for alcohol which had been banned under Prohibition legislation.

While the role of the US temperance movement was widely acknowledged, I've also seen anecdotal mention of several other contributory drivers
e.g.
1. Anti-Mexican xenophobia (in the 1910's and 1920's)
2. Post WW1 fear of Negroes (coupled with the Jazz era of the 1920's)
3. Suppression of hemp growing (use as a possible fibre for newsprint)

The following two links might be of general interest:

http://origins.osu.edu/article/illeg...-brief-history

Article 2: See Summary and Notes from page 32 onwards.

https://www.canorml.org/wp-content/u...ginsmjproh.pdf

All very lovely, but none of that explains why the Male was banned too, until Oil joined the party. Until Oil joined the party, the prohibitchin movement weren't asking for the Male of the species to be banned. That transition caused the Wall Street Crash, and rendered millions of the Owners of Production to employee or to change business in favour of monopoly that went on to set the tone for the education systems of the world etc... But hey, your picture looks nice too.

[Viking01]

All very lovely, but none of that explains why the Male was banned too, until Oil joined the party. Until Oil joined the party, the prohibitchin movement weren't asking for the Male of the species to be banned. That transition caused the Wall Street Crash, and rendered millions of the Owners of Production to employee or to change business in favour of monopoly that went on to set the tone for the education systems of the world etc... But hey, your picture looks nice too.

Evening.
I'm not quite clear on exactly what question you're trying to answer, but the following link might provide some more information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_...United_States#

It might not be the temperance movement that was directly responsible for the action you refer to in your last post ( #222 ). I point to the following sections:

1. The Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act (1925-32) appeared to restrict itself to only those parts of the plant which had recognised intoxicating properties (as known at that time). See and read Reference 28 , Appendix 1, p321

2. However, there appeared to be a "sea change" with the creation of the National Bureau of Narcotics in 1930, and the opinions of its head, Harry Anslinger. See Reference 34.

3. The US Marijuana Tax Act 1937. From doing some further background reading, I cannot add anything else to what already appears in this section - re (i) proposed taxation (ii) hemp processing.

With the authorities seeming intent to stamp out "cannabis" (usage) in all shape and form, I can only suggest that the justification for such action perhaps lies in the last paragraph of this section (i.e. the difficulty that authorities experienced in consistently identifying exactly which parts of the plant were primarily responsible for intoxicating effects) as well as the personal beliefs of Harry Anslinger himself. See References 43, 44.

No more information to offer you.

[mashman]

Evening.
I'm not quite clear on exactly what question you're trying to answer, but the following link might provide some more information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_...United_States#

It might not be the temperance movement that was directly responsible for the action you refer to in your last post ( #222 ). I point to the following sections:

1. The Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act (1925-32) appeared to restrict itself to only those parts of the plant which had recognised intoxicating properties (as known at that time). See and read Reference 28 , Appendix 1, p321

2. However, there appeared to be a "sea change" with the creation of the National Bureau of Narcotics in 1930, and the opinions of its head, Harry Anslinger. See Reference 34.

3. The US Marijuana Tax Act 1937. From doing some further background reading, I cannot add anything else to what already appears in this section - re (i) proposed taxation (ii) hemp processing.

With the authorities seeming intent to stamp out "cannabis" (usage) in all shape and form, I can only suggest that the justification for such action perhaps lies in the last paragraph of this section (i.e. the difficulty that authorities experienced in consistently identifying exactly which parts of the plant were primarily responsible for intoxicating effects) as well as the personal beliefs of Harry Anslinger himself. See References 43, 44.

No more information to offer you.

The question I have answered is the why it all came about. Without Big Oil the argument was going to go nowhere given that a simple spliff test would have solved all problems i.e. go smoke Industrial Hemp strength "bud"/leaf v's the Female bud/leaf and tada, one gets you smashed v's one doing nothing noticeable given its lack of THC and therefore earning it its classification of Industrial grade Hemp. This involved weeding, snigger, out the Female plants to make harvesting and processing easier... and so on. There is no logic in killing off an entire industry simply to stop people from doing something that has always been impossible to police. Oil tipped the scales, because it came with political leverage and the money to pay for it, as well as the media and the money to pay for them, as well as a plan for a future with regards to how to keep everyone rich, and provide more jobs coz oil was less efficient to produce and needed more people and new technology to produce for our ever insatiable desires, and maybe even benefit mankind along the way yada yada yada.......... 42 = Oil.

[Viking01]

The question I have answered is the why it all came about. Without Big Oil the argument was going to go nowhere given that a simple spliff test would have solved all problems i.e. go smoke Industrial Hemp strength "bud"/leaf v's the Female bud/leaf and tada, one gets you smashed v's one doing nothing noticeable given its lack of THC and therefore earning it its classification of Industrial grade Hemp. This involved weeding, snigger, out the Female plants to make harvesting and processing easier... and so on. There is no logic in killing off an entire industry simply to stop people from doing something that has always been impossible to police. Oil tipped the scales, because it came with political leverage and the money to pay for it, as well as the media and the money to pay for them, as well as a plan for a future with regards to how to keep everyone rich, and provide more jobs coz oil was less efficient to produce and needed more people and new technology to produce for our ever insatiable desires, and maybe even benefit mankind along the way yada yada yada.......... 42 = Oil.

Morning.

Most of the material I have read has focused on the "health related" aspects. I had seen only very limited mention of other industries (e.g. petrochemical and cotton) arguing against hemp.

There was mention of petrochemical companies (e.g. du Pont) having an interest in this area, due to hemp being a potential competitor for the newly developed nylon (or rayon). Which puts the petitioning of Anslinger by du Pont - as well as the implementation of the hemp taxation regime - in further context.

Demand for nylon sky-rocketed in the period 1940-1945, due to the demand for cord to be used in the making of parachutes. Du Pont was unable to produce nylon in sufficient volumes, so the US Government did resort to commissioning farmers to grow hemp (in order to meet the demand).

There is some mention of Anslinger's motivations made in the following article (see paragraph 6):

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-hemp-m...1-list-in-1970

Hemp fibre was also seen as a competitor to cotton, in terms of producing a fibre able to be woven and made into cloth suitable for wearing. I'd read that the US cotton industry had also petitioned Anslinger, but I can't find the references.