If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen! You're now in a grey business rather than a black business but nothing stands still. If we get a conservative president, it could be prohibition times again... My point is that if you are in that business, expect those headaches.
From the standpoint of the recreational/medical user, I want the price to go down. From what I can see the cartels aren't growing special tinctures for specific needs. Therefore the more tonnage they drag in here,the more the price goes down, and it has gone down.
Of course, the real answer is to legalize and tax it. Have it graded, branded and available at Seven-Elevens. Use the tax money for anything but environmental/corporate degradation and armaments/war. The grading would cut down on people getting paranoid and driving impaired.
I'm totally down with that scenario. If it gets to that point the cartels can become legal exporters from Mexico. They won't fight a war because the price went down. Have I missed something except the current state of anarchic affairs?
Hi all. Hey Now :) Really cool, hopefully site. One on Current events, or things in the World. Or Action :) (Notice I did'nt say activism. But nothing wrong there). Again really good site; to start dialogues with open-ended potentials...
O.K. so here I go, diving in. And the subject is..da dum..Medical Marijuana. Now with this, I'm not bringing it up for the pros & cons of it's efficacy. But namely about the subject on the production end. It's a subject that is'nt going away; it's coming toward. And even in Colorado, recreational Marijuana in January.
O.K. so Pot is going to be more easily available legally; less-anything resembling red tape. But what I'm curious about is, how do things..groups like the Mexican drug cartels fit into all of this? Yea sure you can have a Dispensary with 4 grow houses with rooms; but what about production in outside acreage? How is all of this production going to be done amiably? For some reason I have a feeling, forsee this whole legal cultivation biz eventually getting violent. Just from the competitive perspective. If sales become legal, or more legal..& cultivation..this is just eventually going to marginalize the cartels operating here stateside. More instances of sabotage,say.
Medical Marijuana, or legal Marijuana..I guess I can see or get accustomed more to this concept daily. But I can't see how this is going to 'rise above the waterlevel of social respectability' without it falling into more cartel/crime production market-cornering desires. I don't think much thought has gone into this; Yea growers in Humbolt co. want their product to arrive to market stress free & open. Also in British Columbia. And Morocco too I guess. But again, how are the Mex. Cartels supposed to react. Or any other just-big grower/entrepreneur who owns 1/2 dozen residences..and wants his or her product to be the top dollar...all on the up & up?
I don't expect consumption to really go down at all; but I cant' one bit see anything considering itself a south cartel change it's heavy handed market-cornering methods.
To be honest it just scares me. Back in the beginning of August I want to say I heard on the news that the Northern Calif. wildfires..there was a suspicion that it started by arson due to a sabotage of Pot fields. 'Turns out this was'nt the case, but I have to admit this was something I never thought of before, yet it does'nt surprise me. Stands to reaso.
So thats' my thoughts, on a current subject matter. Can recreational Marijuana actually come to be in the U.S.A. without the gangster prohibition criminal muscle-casualties; to run the whole gambit of it. Extortion, Legitimacy, safe growing etc.
If I was the owner of a Dispensary in Colorado, when January arrives I might have more fear of losing my head if not dealing with a cartel representitive. Or having a plan to deal with. If pressure gets applied, who you going to run to?
About the facts of the US economy being dependent on war between 1918 and 1936 but it's a minor point. Certainly the beginning stages are there. I still believe it is in the 30s that the government made permanent policy for benefit and profit from war while controlling the lower class, which kept striking and was reaching a kind of pinnacle of resistance with with the "general" strike". Indeed, one of the years in which we had the most strikes in this country by labor was 1944 and organized labor bosses were not in control of most of them.
The article you point to certainly shows what happens to organized labor striking in the armament industry or those who would try to prevent enlistment efforts in the armed forces: Heavy prison terms have been the norm.
Of course, with shrinkage in the labor movement and the outsourcing(!) of war materials none of this seems to have any relevance anymore except for the possibility of an anti-war, isolationist candidate for president. Oh my, the very thought conjures us such a plethora of false-flag operations and other actions to keep the Holy Grail military budget profit in the hands of certain corporations.
Interesting site Mike, though the writing is somewhat stilted and academic.
> since WW II our economy has depended on preparing for or fighting a war.
It's a lot longer than that. Here's a great little essay on the subject from 1918:
Many people were surprised by the large percentage of people (some estimates say as high as 80%) of people against any military response by the US in Syria. Was it the right attitude? Certainly! There were no good outcomes to be seen after such military strikes.
But what reasons were people giving their Congresspersons?
America is not the world's police
We are tired of war
It would be wrong
We need to take care of our own country
These kinds of responses were widespread across both parties and independents and scare the living crap out of politicians and the MIC.
Why? Because it limits drastically what policy options are available in certain situations where the polls may take a hit but the country won't in the case of non-action. We have been in a war economy since 1936 and are addicted to it. It would be a great conundrum if politicians couldn't take money from the Mil.-Ind.-Com. AND get people's votes. Something that would have to be corrected by scaring the crap out of us some more...
Positive news! I like that! 377 megawatts ain't nothing to sneeze at and being engineered by some of the biggest names in the corporate world like Bechtel. It's almost enough to give one hope.
Most of world isn't like the Mojave dessert with 330 sunny days a year. Still, you take what progress you can get. The Saudis have the most massive desalination plants in the world.
Who is to say we can't get huge returns for mega-plants in the right places? Enough to make a significant reduction if the 400,000 tons of carbon emissions being saved at Ivanpah is any indication.
It's good. It' positive. It is hope.
...the largest solar panel array in the world went on line last week. It's located in the Mojave Desert and will provide enough energy for 140K homes during peak hours of usage.
Y'know, I'm so glad that the massive oil spill in the gulf taught everyone a lesson. I mean, it was SSOOOOO LONG ago, right? Like, those oil tycoons MUST've upgraded their hardware, right? Like, totally!
Ugh...this country's (and this planet's) dependence on oil is sickening. I realized several years ago that there will be no alternative energy development worth talking about until the oodle and oodles of dollars to be made in the trade of oil dry up. Nothing is holier than the Almighty Dollar!
Considering how popular a video game Final Fantasy 7 was (and still is), it's a shame no one else grasped the subtext of the storyline: draining the planet's resources will ultimately kill not only the planet but everyone and everything living on it. And the final boss? An environmental terrorist. Go figure!
The heavy oil being extracted through tar sands in Alberta and proposed to be shipped through a pipeline 800 miles long that would end in Nebraska is a heavy green-house gas emitter.
Obama has said that if it can be proven that this pipeline (joined to an existing pipeline) and the heavy crude it carries to be refined in the South is more environmentally-unfriendly then he will be against it. What is not often mentioned in this debate is that the oil being replaced is heavy crude from Venezuela. Thus it contributes to our country's energy independence, but is as dirty. There will be a cut-in to the new pipeline from Montana, flowing further tar sands oil down the line.
Given this reality, Obama has been telling the Energy Minister and PM of Canada that they shouldn't worry, by his test there will be an equal amount of greenhouse gasses emitted. What is left out of this equation is alternative energy sources to heavy crude. American corporate oil dinosaur corporations continue to roam the great plains screeching massive decibels of propaganda.
It's coming to a head again next weekend with demonstrations against in 45 US cities and an opening tirade for the pipeline by the Senator from big oil in Alaska. I used to be upbeat that Obama would do the right thing, but by his own logic and test I think he'll end up supporting it and using it as a bargaining chip.
Anybody want to bet which side Obama comes down on?
I have long said that since WW II our economy has depended on preparing for or fighting a war. There is a big arsenal in a town near here. The economy of that town and other towns in that county would collapse if that arsenal shut down.