Posts: 14,083
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
legalizing marijuana - while neglecting the effects it has on brain function, on learning, on attention span, and a variety of other long-term adverse effects
Some people can't handle their weed, so let's make it illegal for everyone -- but we should still be allowed to make our own decisions about what to eat, even if those foods have "long-term adverse effects".
Posts: 1,131
Threads: 39
Joined: Oct 2016
quote:
Originally posted by geochem
Well let me be the first to say Thank You glinda - for thinking for me and deciding for me whether I want to obsess over non-existent threats to my health and well being.
I am afraid that I have to line up with TomK on this: you and many of the anti-gmo anti pesticide zealots are quite comfortable legalizing marijuana - while neglecting the effects it has on brain function, on learning, on attention span, and a variety of other long-term adverse effects. You claim that that is a personal decision and harms no one but the user - I beg to differ: it harms everyone who has to deal with that user on a day to day basis. I don't want to hire someone who uses cannabis (I unknowingly did in the past and over the course of his short employment he managed to trash three vehicles), I don't want to deal with someone providing me paid services while they are mentally impaired; I don't want them driving on the roads I use and exposing me to the risks of their inability to focus poses to me and the other drivers on the road.
But, no thanks, glinda, I would prefer to make my own decisions about what foods I choose to eat or not and what is a complete fraud - those being chemo-phobia and the whole gmo paranoia...
Actually geochem, though I don't know how it has anything to do with Roundup I have many reservations regarding the transition to legal marijuana. But since you brought it up you might consider that alcohol does far greater harm to society. And as such one has to wonder when was the last time you, or one of your family, friends, had a glass of the evil beverage?
You go on about other people’s “rants,” using the word as if to insult, belittle, show your superiority, in a discussion about a herbicide. But dude, you’re ranting pretty hard there yourself, don’t you think?
And besides, I am not saying your choices should be any less than anyone else's. All I was saying is that this is important, and going off and growing one’s own food isn’t the answer. Addressing the issue, in public, with full disclosure is. I get that for you all this is settled science, but find that for others it is still an open question. And further that they feel as if there has been a bit of avoidance on the part of Monsanto. And now, instead of honoring others with a difference of opinion you want to belittle and insult them because of their concerns. Gee, I actually thought you were one of the mature ones here. I guess I’ll have to rethink that.
Posts: 1,674
Threads: 81
Joined: Aug 2014
EW, I am very sorry that you and glinda are so thoroughly ignorant
I said I was done too but I can re-post to defend that ignorant statement of your own and tell you, geochem, to go on ahead and $crew yourself.
My response "rants" to your statement being ridiculous was based on the fact that you put words into my mouth. Not appreciated!
My insistence is to be able to limit dangerous man-made chemicals into my body. I'm going to put Roundup in that category.
Can you see how that is different from the words you crammed in my mouth geochem?
I have said I would like to NOT have glycophosphate in my body and would like to always know what I'm ingesting and limit my chemicals that I do ingest/absorb/inhale etc. I want to be in control, somewhat, of the chemicals introduced into my body. That's why I grow my a lot of my own food.
You go on ahead and post your assumptions of how I think. Jerk.
I was settled. There is a clear divide in this topic. Those who demand the light be shined on Monsanto/ Roundup and who don't want to ingest it and there are those who do not mind eating Roundup saturated food and think it is perfectly safe to eat the residue left behind.
That's that.
Also Paulw once in the past said, "let's check back in a year on this topic"
Well it took two months for the check-back. 180 million dollar suit won by the people against Monsanto. That's why the topic got re-introduced. (And yes I think many people use Roundup in Puna and eat Roundup sprayed food in Puna)
I think it won't matter what happens. Even if there is no appeal and many more suits are won vs Monsanto many of you people will still be fine horking down Roundup saturated veggies.
Posts: 10,987
Threads: 748
Joined: Sep 2012
Two diametrically opposed news stories about Roundup from the last few days. If you have time, read them both in their entirety. There’s a lot of useful info in both beyond statistics, such as, in what manner is information compiled, disseminated, and released to the public, informing or influencing them to believe what they choose to believe?
Roundup Bad:
On Wednesday, the prominent consumer-advocacy group Environmental Working Group, or EWG, released a report that found glyphosate, a common herbicide, in breakfast foods. The report, which focuses on cereals, granola bars, and oatmeal, determined that out of the 45 products tested, only two were free from traces of the herbicide. Twelve samples contained amounts of glyphosate that were lower than what the EWG believes is harmful to consume, and 31 of the samples contained levels of glyphosate higher than this benchmark.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch...sy/567784/
Roundup Not Definitively Proven Bad:
The Environmental Working Group knows how to play the media like a goddamn piano. They take a category of healthy things we all use—sunscreen, makeup, vegetables, now cereal—and divide them into “safe” and “toxic” categories. You better know the difference, they imply.
Most recently they looked for glyphosate, a common weedkiller used in farming, in oat based cereals. They found only the tiniest traces, well under anybody’s safety benchmarks, so there’s really no story here. But with the right spin, the report—which is a press release, not peer-reviewed science—made headlines.
https://vitals.lifehacker.com/no-your-ce...1828424844
“What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” - President Donald J. Trump, 7/25/18
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 44
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2017
The whole topic seems to rely upon something that the '2 sides' never agreed to as a method to decide the process of the discussion.
How do we as a society, or as a Puna sub-set of society, want to agree to develop the method of the discussion?
There is so much base-level of mutual respect of how knowledge and information is obtained that underpins the trust of this complex issue.
In my opinion, the structure of many aspects of this discussion is similar to flying on a plane 'safely' with informed consent.
Do we trust the engineers and regulatory safety process of every component in a plane from our education in physics / math / to material allow science / to computer switches of hydraulics, etc... Or should we create an exhaustive list of every component that each individual plane is made of, and the science behind the development of those components, and the complete list of failures that the company that developed each component had, regardless if the failure was fixed, or led to new leadership of the company to make changes or improvements, and provide this everyone who flies on each different plane, so you can see the difference in each plane to decide if you want to fly on that plane. If any person does not want to fly on that plane, then they should or should not have the right to tell everyone else that the plane is dangerous... even if the person making the decision is not and expert in every aspect of the components of the plane...
Or... Planes are not 'natural' therefore no one should use one. If you want to fly, you must breed a bird big enough to carry you. Since it's natural.
The entire argument does not came from the base-level of trust or knowledge to have a fruitful outcome.
Maybe all agriculture technology and chemical companies should stop everything this week, fire everyone, stop production, and give billions of dollars to schools, and let teachers teach the science behind everything, then come back and discuss the risks of applied agriculture in 20 years and start from cratch... (but time marches on during that interim, and we would need vastly more farmers and laborers for at least 20 years... which would slow down 'progress'...)
Mauka Hilo-side
Mauka Hilo-side
Posts: 10,987
Threads: 748
Joined: Sep 2012
If you want to fly, you must breed a bird big enough to carry you. Since it's natural.
Excellent idea, although would you agree the birds should be bred through natural methods, species crosses or perhaps non-synthetic hybrids, not the harvested DNA of prehistoric pterodactyls or god forbid, a GMO eagle with the genes of Dumbo ears inserted?
“What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” - President Donald J. Trump, 7/25/18
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 1,099
Threads: 71
Joined: Jan 2009
Ahhh, like a fine wine gone bad, or a nice bud with a huge hint of mold, Punaweb is officially back to normal...
Actually, just trying to get to page 22. I have a side bet with one of the children who is a victim “of the failure of our education system” where “there’s millions of people who have forgotten how to say thank you entirely and seemingly don’t give a sh*t about the quality of food they eat, the health of the environment, or the well being of their neighbors.”
I suspect the kid will win. You can’t choose your parents.
Sweet fresh water falling from the sky! We’re rich! We’re rich!
Hope nobody sprayed any patent-expired Monsanto products recently!
Cheers,
Kirt
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Really geochem? Talk about scientific superiority run amok. Why use knowledge, experience, and insight to education when you can use it to dominate, marginalize, and dismiss those who think differently? FFS that was ugly.
Label it, legalize it, let people make their own choices. Can skip all the "I know what is best for you" BS that seems to be spreading.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Did you know? In Hawaii homeowners and the county/state are the biggest users of roundup - not farmers!
If roundup is so dangerous why aren’t people getting sick? Have you ever met someone who got sick and went to the doctor and the prognosis was roundup poisoning? Why haven’t you ever heard of this?
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 57
Joined: Mar 2013
" If roundup is so dangerous why aren’t people getting sick? Have you ever met someone who got sick and went to the doctor and the prognosis was roundup poisoning?"
The way Roundup would work adversely--if in fact it is a hazard--is exceedingly slowly. It would arise over years of use and increase the likelihood you can get a cancer. Or it would weaken your immune system, meaning a case of pneumonia could prove fatal.
Definitive evidence on Roundup danger--or lack thereof--is not there 100% either way, but it is pretty clear that if is there is a danger, it is low percentage.
Meaning that if clearly dangerous asbestos (it causes lung and mesothelioma cancers) would be assigned say an 8% risk, Roundup might rank something like a .007% risk. And since many people are subject to various chemicals and pollution, it is hard to segregate out individual agents as causing a health problem. The term inconclusive is commonly used.
Research into Roundup continues....
|
