Archaeologica.org

I very much doubt that carried as much as teaspoon of Heroin back, it was unknown till the late 19C.
Opium Poppies were a comercial crop in the US and Britain for many years, the Poppy still is here.
Which leads me to recent humorous story.
Hemp, (Cannabis) was very widely grown here for rope, sacking and even paper. But with the replacement of Hempen ropes the production declined, until recently, when its use in 'green' products and plastics has seen a resurgence in production.
A few weeks ago a number of people were arrested for loading their cars with it from a field alongside a motorway, firmly convinced they were harvesting their year's supply of 'weed'.
The fact that they were brainless enough to think that a farmer was growings acres of 'weed' alongside a public highway says more about the effects of Cannabis smoking than anything I might add!

Roy.

Digit wrote:I very much doubt that carried as much as teaspoon of Heroin back, it was unknown till the late 19C.

Which is when cocaine was a toothache remedy...
Heroin was just as available then.
And opium before that.

Opium Poppies were a comercial crop in the US and Britain for many years, the Poppy still is here.
Which leads me to recent humorous story.
Hemp, (Cannabis) was very widely grown here for rope, sacking and even paper.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin had large cannabis farms.

But with the replacement of Hempen ropes the production declined, until recently, when its use in 'green' products and plastics has seen a resurgence in production.
A few weeks ago a number of people were arrested for loading their cars with it from a field alongside a motorway, firmly convinced they were harvesting their year's supply of 'weed'.
The fact that they were brainless enough to think that a farmer was growings acres of 'weed' alongside a public highway says more about the effects of Cannabis smoking than anything I might add!

Not as "brainless" as you think: cannabis, for marijuana production, is often grown in the middle of 8/9 feet tall corn fields. That is: 'corn fields' with 3 rows of corn planted along the perimeter, and the rest of the plot filled with cannabis plants. Ten yards from public roads, but defacto invisible from it...
Or rather was often grown in the middle of 8/9 feet tall corn fields as they are discovered more and more from the air nowadays, because cannabis' infrared signature differs from that of corn. Nevertheless, they still discover, and destroy, at least dozens of cannabis plantations like that a year overhere*. And that's in a country 1/30th the size of the UK. So, you want to bet how many cannabis crops were grown in UK fields this year...?

Plus it is difficult for amateurs, to see the difference between cannabis for marijuana production and cannabis for rope, paper, and other products when it is in the field.

* so 95% of the marijuana consumed in this country is grown inside. Under artificial light. Which produces 4 to 6 crops a year of cannabis with 4 to 6 times as much THC in it (TetraHydroCannabinol, the psycho active ingredient). It's by far the most potent marijuana in the world.

We have a top ten of agricultural products grown under glass, volume wise. Cannabis is no. 4 now. Mushrooms and tomatoes are the numbers 5 and 6...

To be sure: by law, overhere, people are allowed have 5 cannabis plants for personal marijuana production and use. If you have more you have a legal problem.
5 plants is more than enough for personal use. But if you want to sell the stuff you need more than 5 plants. So you hide 'm.
Like in this specially designed mini-plantation:







Or in large underground plantations like (a number of) sea containers dug in, underground.
The main problem remains the heat production and exhaust. That is obviously very easily detectable from the air. So the illegal growers try to mix their exhaust heat with that from e.g. a food processing plant, etc., to hide it. In plain sight.

Heroin was just as available then.
And opium before that.

Opium yes, Cocaine maybe, Heroin not till late in the century, thus the EIC could not have transported it from the east!

Not as "brainless" as you think: cannabis, for marijuana production, is often grown in the middle of 8/9 feet tall corn fields.

Not in the UK.

Plus it is difficult for amateurs, to see the difference between cannabis for marijuana production and cannabis for rope, paper, and other products when it is in the field.

It might be difficult for 'amateurs' to distinguish one from 'tother, but as I pointed out they would have to be pretty dumb if they thought that herbal Cannabis would be found growing in full view of passing police cars!

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin had large cannabis farms.

Which Cannabis?

* so 95% of the marijuana consumed in this country is grown inside. Under artificial light. Which produces 4 to 6 crops a year of cannabis with 4 to 6 times as much THC in it (TetraHydroCannabinol, the psycho active ingredient). It's by far the most potent marijuana in the world.

Agreed.

And that's in a country 1/30th the size of the UK. So, you want to bet how many cannabis crops were grown in UK fields this year...?

None! With the exception of Sunflowers and Maize we don't grow crops tall enough to hide them. I have yet to read of any outdoor production.
And BTW, I would advise you never to use the word 'mercenary' in front of a Gurkha! They aren't and find the suggestion insulting.

Roy.

Digit wrote:

Heroin was just as available then.
And opium before that.

Opium yes, Cocaine maybe, Heroin not till late in the century, thus the EIC could not have transported it from the east!

Cocaïne, the refined stuff from coca leaves, was known at least 4,600 years ago...

Not as "brainless" as you think: cannabis, for marijuana production, is often grown in the middle of 8/9 feet tall corn fields.

Not in the UK.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sweet dreams!
Just because you don't know of it doesn't mean it isn't there.
That only proves that you're not aware of it.

Plus it is difficult for amateurs, to see the difference between cannabis for marijuana production and cannabis for rope, paper, and other products when it is in the field.

It might be difficult for 'amateurs' to distinguish one from 'tother, but as I pointed out they would have to be pretty dumb if they thought that herbal Cannabis would be found growing in full view of passing police cars!

You think police know any more than users do? Think again! If anything they are even stupider. They can't distinguish between a tulip and a rose!

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin had large cannabis farms.

Which Cannabis?

Afaik not the specially psycho active types. But if you refine it enough, and/or smoke enough, you will get high!

* so 95% of the marijuana consumed in this country is grown inside. Under artificial light. Which produces 4 to 6 crops a year of cannabis with 4 to 6 times as much THC in it (TetraHydroCannabinol, the psycho active ingredient). It's by far the most potent marijuana in the world.

And that's in a country 1/30th the size of the UK. So, you want to bet how many cannabis crops were grown in UK fields this year...?

None!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sweet dreams!
Just because you don't know of it doesn't mean it isn't there.
It only proves that you're not aware of it.

With the exception of Sunflowers and Maize we don't grow crops tall enough to hide them.

And how many "sunflowers" and "maize" fields were grown in the UK this year...?

I have yet to read of any outdoor production.

That proves only that it isn't in the news, and/or maybe that UK cops aren't very actively looking for it. It doesn't prove, at all, that they aren't there.

And BTW, I would advise you never to use the word 'mercenary' in front of a Gurkha! They aren't and find the suggestion insulting.

Yup, just like fundies find it insulting if one suggests there ain't a god. Since when does someone's (extremely misguided) hurt feelings determine what the truth is? If that were so the public prosecutor would not have pleaded not guilty against Geert Wilders, the Dutch ultra right wing parlementarian (of our own version of the Tea Party) who's on trial accused of insulting moslims as we speak...

Gurkhas are mercenaries, plain and simple. Whether they, or anybody else, like(s) it or not.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sweet dreams!

Would you care to produce some evidence in support?

You think police know any more than users do? Think again! If anything they are even stupider. They can't distinguish between a tulip and a rose!

Seeing as they are trained to, yes! I doubt that Roses or Tulips are part of their training though.

And how many "sunflowers" and "maize" fields were grown in the UK this year...?

Quite a lot, unfortunately that is hardly proof of Cannabis farming, as I said, some evidence?

That proves only that it isn't in the news, and/or maybe that UK cops aren't very actively looking for it. It doesn't prove, at all, that they aren't there.

Nor proof that it is.

The Gurkha regiments are one unit within the regular British army. By your argument the members of your country who served in the British forces during WW2 were mecenaries.
Along with Canadians, Americans, West Indians, Palestinians, Czechs, French, Germans, Indians, Burmese, Rhodesians, South Africans, Norwegians, Australians and New Zealanders etc.

Roy.

Digit wrote:

And how many "sunflowers" and "maize" fields were grown in the UK this year...?

Quite a lot, unfortunately that is hardly proof of Cannabis farming, as I said, some evidence?

That proves only that it isn't in the news, and/or maybe that UK cops aren't very actively looking for it. It doesn't prove, at all, that they aren't there.

Nor proof that it is.

The point is that you accept absence of evidence as proof that cannabis isn't grown on a considerable scale in the UK countryside. That is a baseless conclusion.

The Gurkha regiments are one unit within the regular British army. By your argument the members of your country who served in the British forces during WW2 were mecenaries.

If they were paid, they were.

Along with Canadians, Americans, West Indians, Palestinians, Czechs, French, Germans, Indians, Burmese, Rhodesians, South Africans, Norwegians, Australians and New Zealanders etc.

Quite: if they were paid they were mercenaries.

The point is that you accept absence of evidence as proof that cannabis isn't grown on a considerable scale in the UK countryside. That is a baseless conclusion.

As is your assumption, without supporting evidence, that it is grown. Applying logic that means that no evidence is required for anything.

If they were paid, they were.

They pay your armed forces don't they?

Roy.

Digit wrote:

If they were paid, they were.

They pay your armed forces don't they?

Sure, but you don't seem to know what a mercenary is: a mercenary is a foreign national who soldiers for another country. Paid.
So all those nationalities you mentioned were mercenaries when they fought in the British armed forces. And the Gurkhas still are.

Thus we hit the understanding of English again...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://en ... JeR7GHNfJg

...from the above...

A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict, and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party" (Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of August 1949).[1][2] A non-conscript professional member of a regular army is not considered to be a mercenary although he gets monetary reward from his service.

It would seem that it is you versus the Geneva convention RS.
Tony Blair's wife tried to get the Gurkha pay increased some time ago and fell foul of the Convention. So much for her legal knowledge!

Roy.

Digit wrote:Thus we hit the understanding of English again...

http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://en ... JeR7GHNfJg

...from the above...

A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict, and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party" (Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of August 1949).[1][2] A non-conscript professional member of a regular army is not considered to be a mercenary although he gets monetary reward from his service.

It would seem that it is you versus the Geneva convention RS.

A regular British soldier income is a fortune for a Nepalese Gurkha, Roy! Back home they make less than 1 dollar a day! As a Gurkha what... 50 bucks a day...? Plus it is a steady income! Guaranteed for years! You don't get that in the high Himalayas.
Gurkhas are the quintessential mercenaries.

Tony Blair's wife tried to get the Gurkha pay increased some time ago and fell foul of the Convention. So much for her legal knowledge!

Cherie is an orthodox catholic. Almost a fundie. That should tell you enough of her intellectual powers.
And since Tony went over to the dark side we have good reason to doubt his intellectual prowess as well.

The recruitment of Nepalese soldiers is governed by an agreement dating back to the 19C RS. Part of that set the pay structure and the service conditions.
At one time British army service was till you died, or became useless due to age or infirmity, the agreement set the maximum service time for Gurkhas at 15 yrs. That still stands.
Any Gurkha who serves that time and retires back to Nepal is sufficiently wealthy that they have been known to build schools in their villages.
When Mother Blair started her campaign she caused panic in Nepal due to the spectre of massive inflation. The Gurkhas enjoy a pay scale far above the local structure so that there are approximately 200 applicants for every vacancy.

Roy.

Digit wrote:The recruitment of Nepalese soldiers is governed by an agreement dating back to the 19C RS. Part of that set the pay structure and the service conditions.
At one time British army service was till you died, or became useless due to age or infirmity, the agreement set the maximum service time for Gurkhas at 15 yrs. That still stands.
Any Gurkha who serves that time and retires back to Nepal is sufficiently wealthy that they have been known to build schools in their villages.

Why use a euphemism?
When Gurkhas retire they are plain rich in Nepal!

The Gurkhas enjoy a pay scale far above the local structure so that there are approximately 200 applicants for every vacancy.

And still, after 200 years (or even longer?). That says more than enough, doesn't it?

A mercenary soldiers for a foreign country to get rich. His standards of richness apply. Not those of fat politicians convening in Geneva. Gurkhas feel they get rich in British army service. Compared to their non-Gurkha compatriots.

Now, western mercenaries, like those in Africa over the last half century, make a hundred thousand bucks or more, annually! That's why they do it. To get rich. Also they are waaay better than local African soldiers as they were trained and disciplined in western armies. That's why you need only a couple dozen well organised western mercenaries to take over just about any African country.

Equatorial Guinea, Sudan, and the Comoros (2 coups a year, every year, with as little as 7 mercenaries sometimes!) come readily to mind.

That says more than enough, doesn't it?

About what?

Roy.

About the desirability for a Nepalese to become a Gurkha.

Three platoons of western Marines could easily unseat Robert Mugabe's government and take over entire Rhodesia. Excuse me: Zimbabwe.
(Zimbabwe as a country name is just as absurd as calling the UK Stonehenge! Zimbabwe is a 1,500 hundred years old ruin, no larger than maybe two dozen acres.)