Hemp & Biodiversity

Just an interesting link I stumbled upon (not literally) while doing my hemp project;

From the link;

Hemp plants have few insect enemies, and respond to most soil types. They have a huge potential to be grown organically - without the use of chemical pesticides, fungicides and fertilizers. There is also no need for genetic modification (GM) of these plants - they already have the desired characteristics.

The plants are very fast growing - this means that they soon swamp out weeds. They also have very few pest enemies, especially so in North America and Canada. They tend to attract a larger proportion of pests in Western Europe, although still comparatively fewer than traditional crops. Research in Holland suggests that fungal diseases and pests can be reduced in traditional crops if grown in rotation with hemp.

Hemp has also traditionally been used to stabilize the soil in regions where there is a high chance of soil loss, for example upon the slopes of the mountains of the Himalayas. The plants have very penetrative roots. The main tap root can grow up to 12" deep in just 30 days. There is also a system of finer lateral roots which disperse themselves through the subsurface soil over 7-8", providing further stability.

Hemp plants are also wildlife friendly. Monoculture tends to lead to low levels of wildlife, particularly due to the loss of hedgerows and suitable habitats. Hemp plantations on the other hand have been shown to be beneficial to animals. Montford and Small (1999) found that hemp is biodiversity friendly in terms of species numbers and in competition of nutrients with wild land. Hemp plantations especially increase the numbers of birds. As many bird keepers will be aware, hemp seed is by far their favourite food. Scientific studies have shown that birds with a staple diet of hemp seeds can live up to 20% longer, be much healthier, have more lustrous feathers and produce more off-spring. The plant has the potential to resolve the problems associated with conventional farming.

Super High Me

Will Pot Ever Be Legal

From Alternet

There is a very powerful stereotype afoot in much of the population, the belief that anyone "on drugs" is a brutish beast from whom all reason hath fled, a conglomeration of the snapping-at-phantoms temper of a rageball drunk, the stolen-goods appetite of a $500-a-day dope fiend, the self-abasement of a crack addict performing oral sex for a $5 rock, and the casual and calculated sadism of an '80s cocaine kingpin ordaining, "Manolo, choot this piece of chit."

Anyone who knows a pothead knows that this belief is absolutely ludicrous, but it's what sets the tone of American political discourse on drug issues -- or more accurately, almost no one in the political mainstream has the guts to defend drug users by pointing out that it's propaganda.

BEWARE! LEAD TAINTED MARIHUANA!

Apparently, someone in Germany was lookin' to make an extra buck. I hope I don't put the idea into any AMERICANS heads. From the New York Times article;

The authorities do not know where the tainted marijuana came from or why the lead was added, but the German police suspect that it was done to make money. The samples tested contained 10 percent lead by weight, which translates into an increased profit of about $682 per pound of marijuana.

Keep an eye out!

Hooray Online Newspapers!

After recently reading an article in the Daily Bulldog, I was compelled to write a Letter to the Editor. Had this been any other newspaper in Maine, my letter probably would never have been published, but thanks to online newspapers, they CAN publish inflammatory letters. So they put mine on their website; On the "Dangers" of Underage Drinking. Here's the letter in full if you're feeling lazy;

Upon reading the article recounting Maine First Lady Karen Baldacci's words on the "dangers" of underage drinking I found myself chuckling.

Oftentimes for me, politicians' comments are comical. It seems to me that at times they choose they words specifically to be self-contradictory and illogical. The "danger" of underage drinking is the law itself. The cognitive dissonance that parades around inside a bureaucrats' head must be bigger than the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.

First Lady Baldacci recognizes that “underage drinking costs us all...[and that it's a] community problem with a community solution.” But then I'm sure moved on to continue pushing the 21-year-old drinking age. The article claims that the main reason why we have such a high drinking age is because the brain is still in development until the age of 21, though major cognitive development continues until at least 25, if not longer, while some neurologists will tell you that the brain never fully completes development.

Not to mention that all of these studies of the effects of alcohol on the brains of children were conducted
on rats, and not humans, as that would just be unethical. But if this is the case, and the way we should protect our helpless children from harming their brains is keeping the drinking age at 21, shouldn't we also
be raising our enlistment age as well? In the United States our young men and women can enlist at the young age of 18, and with parental consent can enlist at the age of 17. With all sorts of disorders now
associated with tours of combat, shouldn't we be worried about our soldiers' brain development? But I digress.

An HCC representative said that she found it "startling" how young children were when they had their first alcoholic drink. Reading this as well made me chuckle. Obviously this poor woman hasn't been outside of the United States in the last oh, century or so, where the drinking age is always significantly lower than the United States, if existent at all.

A recent World Health Organization study found that Europeans, whose average drinking age is always lower than ours, have more average drinking occasions per week, but less occasions of dangerous intoxication than Americans. One in ten of Europeans' drinking occasions end in intoxication, while half of Americans' end in intoxication. So it seems that the earlier one introduces children to alcohol, the less likely they are to form habits of "binge" drinking, though that concept doesn't seem to even exist outside of the United States.

As a recent 22-year-old, having had a full year of legal drinking under my belt, the concept of a 21-year-old drinking age still seems absurd to me. In speaking to older folks about the good ol' days when 18-year-olds could die for the country AND drink legally, they have always brought up the same story about how when they were younger, and 18, they'd come into the bars and drink with the old-timers who would teach them how to drink responsibly.

It's this idea that we need to protect children from themselves rather than let them be responsible that breeds all sorts of malcontent among youngsters. By taking away the right for these children to be autonomous and make safe and responsible decisions, we're just furthering their lives as mindless cattle who don't think for themselves.

A 21-year-old drinking age breeds disrespect for the law, but a law that recognizes that children of an age younger than 21 can make responsible decisions on their own would do the opposite, and instead make children realize that they are responsible for themselves, and if they can realize that, maybe they'll starting caring about others and the world around them.

And then we can all sing Kumbaya.

Mike Simpson
(Graduating senior at UMF)
Farmington

Stoned drivers are SAFE drivers?

Hooray for completely UNBIASED reports, from Cannabisculture.com;

Two decades of research show that marijuana use may actually reduce driver accidents.

The effects of marijuana use on driving performance have been extensively researched over the last 20 years. All major studies show that marijuana consumption has little or no effect on driving ability, and may actually reduce accidents. Here's a summary of the biggest studies into pot use and driving.

A 1983 study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that the only significant affect of cannabis use was slower driving - arguably a positive effect of driving high.

A comprehensive 1992 NHTSA study revealed that pot is rarely involved in driving accidents, except when combined with alcohol. The study concluded that "the THC-only drivers had an [accident] responsibility rate below that of the drug free drivers." This study was buried for six years and not released until 1998.

A 1993 NHTSA study dosed Dutch drivers with THC and tested them on real Dutch roads. It concluded that THC caused no impairment except for a slight deficiency in the driver's ability to "maintain a steady lateral position on the road." This means that the THC-dosed drivers had a little trouble staying smack in the center of their lanes, but showed no other problems. The study noted that the effects of even high doses of THC were far less than that of alcohol or many prescription drugs. The study concluded that "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small."

A massive 1998 study by the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia examined blood samples from drivers involved in 2,500 accidents. It found that drivers with only cannabis in their systems were slightly less likely to cause accidents than those without. Drivers with both marijuana and alcohol did have a high accident responsibility rate. The report concluded, "there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents."

In Canada, a 1999 University of Toronto meta-analysis of studies into pot and driving showed that drivers who consumed a moderate amount of pot typically refrained from passing cars and drove at a more consistent speed. The analysis also confirmed that marijuana taken alone does not increase a driver's risk of causing an accident.

A major study done by the UK Transport Research Laboratory in 2000 found that drivers under the influence of cannabis were more cautious and less likely to drive dangerously. The study examined the effects of marijuana use on drivers through four weeks of tests on driving simulators. The study was commissioned specifically to show that marijuana was impairing, and the british government was embarrassed with the study's conclusion that "marijuana users drive more safely under the influence of cannabis."

According to the Cannabis and Driving report, a comprehensive literature review published in 2000 by the UK Department of Transportation, "the majority of evidence suggests that cannabis use may result in a lower risk of [accident] culpability."

The Canadian Senate issued a major report into all aspects of marijuana in 2002. Their chapter on Driving under the influence of cannabis concludes that "Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving."

The most recent study into drugs and driving was published in the July 2004 Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention. Researchers at the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research analyzed blood tests from those in traffic accidents, and found that even people with blood alcohol between 0.5% and 0.8% (below the legal limit) had a five-fold increase in the risk of serious accident. Drivers above the legal alcohol limit were 15 times more likely to have a collision. Drugs like Valium and Rohypnol produced results similar to alcohol, while cocaine and opiates showed only a small but "not statistically significant" increase in accident risk. As for the marijuana-only users? They showed absolutely no increased risk of accidents at all.

How the weak dollar is like, killing your buzz, man

From Foreign Policy.com:

While production costs for potent "B.C. bud" remain at around $2,000 Canadian per pound, the value of the American dollar has fallen to about $1.10 Canadian due to record public debt and the rise of India and China. This means that the backpacks of cash that regularly cross the Canadian border to buy pot have declined in purchasing power and its no longer worth the risks and costs for many smugglers. This is bad news for Canadian growers, who ship about 90 percent of their crop to the United States, as well as for their customers in the United States, who now have to pay a lot more or buy elsewhere. No wonder rappers are now flashing euros.