Classical Drug users.

[Rokcet Scientist]

If you wish me to go against what is known and take into account all that might be possible then I would have to make assumptions that have no backing.
If I consider all possibilities they are as follows.
The colonists grew Cannabis for drug taking.
They didn't grow Cannabis.
They imported Cannabis for drug taking.
They produced special cultivars for the drug.
They were not aware of THC.
Without some evidence how do I decide which is correct, or which are correct?

You can't, so you don't, if you're sensible.
But if you do, on the basis of very fragmented recorded opinions, probably very coloured, then it's an inspired bias. And if everybody keeps mindlessly echoing each other they are effectively mutually brainwashing each other until everybody believes it deeply. It's called positive reinforcement. It's the strategy Goebbels used: "Say something loud enough and long enough and people will believe it".

They were not aware of THC.

Yeah right. Professional, industrial hemp growers not aware of the psycho active properties of their crop...

[uniface]

Uni's path of refusal to accept uncomfortable facts

Poo. I only insist they

a) BE facts and

b) are considered in their broader context.

A factoid for you : the hemp that grows readily as a weed in the eastern US (I grew up in a Hempfield Township) has next to no THC content. Smoke half an ounce of it for a headache, if you're so inclined, but it won't get you buzzed.

You want to be a stoner, free country (kind of). Whatever. But you sound the same way my junkie friends did about heroin.

[Digit]

As Uni says RS you can't get stoned on Hemp! It's THC is below 0.3 %! Thus the commercial growers may well have not known about THC at that time. Here I am simply applying your point of considering all possibilities!
Further, the acreages grown in the early post colonial period were vast, so that even if a small part was herbal there would have been sufficient to keep the population of the entire eastern US permanently stoned!
If it sounds like a Duck, looks like a Duck and flies like a Duck it most probably ain't a Swan!
As regards Herr Goebbels, as there was no social stigma attached to Cannabis at that time there is/was no requirement for history to hide the fact nor destroy the evidence.
Before they were banned in the US there was a song that ran as I recall...

Morphine Bill and Cocaine Sue
were walking along 5th Avenue
etc

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

As Uni says RS you can't get stoned on Hemp! It's THC is below 0.3 %!

You can't get stoned on industrial hemp when you smoke it just like that (like in blunts, roaches, chillems, or pipes) as one does with standard marijuana. But like other kinds of drugs, cannabis/hemp can be refined and processed before application and ingestion. Into ganja for instance. And then you can make it, in principle, as strong as you want. And then there is vaporising as an ingestion method, which separates the THC from the carbon and so can have a 5/6 times stronger effect than a standard blunt, pipe, chillem, or roach.

However, if the object of growing cannabis is to get stoned you would obviously not grow industrial hemp.

My point is that industrial growers most probably planted both kinds in side-by-side plots. One for ropes, paper, and cloths, and the other for recreational use. The first kind obviously in much greater volume than the second. The growing/tending process is identical. Only the harvesting is at different stages.

[Digit]

My point is that industrial growers most probably planted both kinds in side-by-side plots. One for ropes, paper, and cloths, and the other for recreational use. The first kind obviously in much greater volume than the second. The growing/tending process is identical. Only the harvesting is at different stages.

That would be logical, if there were some evidence in support. Without we might just as well debate the argument of the chap on Ishtars forum about the Moon landings being faked, he hasn't produced any evidence for that either!

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

That would be logical, if there were some evidence in support.

But since there isn't any evidence – either way – you automatically accept the chronicles' version, however coloured and imprecise it probably is. I.o.w.: at face value.

I don't.

[Digit]

I know you don't, anymore than Uni accepts the Nazi mass murders, or the fellow on Ishtar's forum accepts the Moon landings. I know of someone who accepts the existance of Fairies, 'cos there is no evidence against their existance!
Where do we stop?
You'll likely say their views are rubbish, likewise they will probably say the same of your views. A bit like putting a group of fundies together, 'I know I'm right!'
I ask all for evidence, when somebody proves that the Tooth Fairy exists I'll accept it, but not till then!

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

I know you don't, anymore than Uni accepts the Nazi mass murders, or the fellow on Ishtar's forum accepts the Moon landings. I know of someone who accepts the existance of Fairies, 'cos there is no evidence against their existance!
Where do we stop?
You'll likely say their views are rubbish, likewise they will probably say the same of your views. A bit like putting a group of fundies together, 'I know I'm right!'
I ask all for evidence, when somebody proves that the Tooth Fairy exists I'll accept it, but not till then!

I don't belong to that group. If I don't know of any real evidence either way I don't assume either way. And leave it open to both possibilities. Unlike you do.

[Digit]

I am open to both possibilities, I accept that the colonists grew Hemp and I am open to the idea that they grew Cannabis. I haven't closed my mind to the possibility at all. I haven't closed my mind to the idea of ET either, nor to the various ideas relating to the recent warming of this planet.
I am simply waiting for appropriate evidence, as I would on a Jury.
There is no evidence that they grew Cannabis, so you have taken the stance that there is no evidence that they didn't. True, but as I pointed out there is no evidence against Fairies, nor anti gravity or Noah's Ark. If I accept your view then you and I must accept the possibility of those examples. Unless of course you want to make the rules fit what you want them fit.
I would require evidence for all those examples.

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

I am open to both possibilities, I accept that the colonists grew Hemp and I am open to the idea that they grew Cannabis. I haven't closed my mind to the possibility at all. I haven't closed my mind to the idea of ET either, nor to the various ideas relating to the recent warming of this planet.
I am simply waiting for appropriate evidence, as I would on a Jury.
There is no evidence that they grew Cannabis, so you have taken the stance that there is no evidence that they didn't. True, but as I pointed out there is no evidence against Fairies, nor anti gravity or Noah's Ark. If I accept your view then you and I must accept the possibility of those examples.

Unfortunate examples, because, exactly like with GW growing hemp, beliefs in fairies and Noah's Ark are based on writing, socalled accounts, and hundreds of millions of people accept them therefore as real... While you know full well (I should hope) they are fantasy, pure imagination. So if your examples apply to GW he's sure to have been a drug grower and dealer IRL! But in any case not what he's been made out to have been!

And since GW is the "father of the republic", the archfather of American patriottism, upon whom sainthood would be bestowed if such were in the arsenal of Congress (well, him being on the dollar bill is practically greenback godhood, isn't it? Our kings and queens never made it beyond coins, small change... ), GW's P.R. resume in particular is automatically deeply suspect!

The jury's still out on anti-gravity, but they're making progress, I hear.

Unless of course you want to make the rules fit what you want them fit.

One can dream, can't one?
And 'authorities' have been doing it for aeons!

[Digit]

One can dream, can't one?

Absolutely, as long as you don't confuse your dreams with reality.
To ask for evidence is hardly an Earth shattering requirement, it's a basic requirement in all branches of science.

Roy.

[Digit]

Just to change the subject, (well don't we always?)
You commented about progress in anti gravity. I've discussed this elsewhere and Immediately understood the different people understand the definition differently.
A rocket, a helicopter oppose gravity, they are not anti gravity machines.
So what is your understnding of the term? And anybody else who's still awake!

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

I wouldn't pretend to even understand normal gravity, let alone anti-gravity...

I've been trying to wrap my head around the concept of string theory for 25 years but I still haven't got the faintest clue how it's supposed to work. Especially since it now presumes eleven fucking dimensions! My mind literally boggles.
I'm not very good at physics.

[Digit]

Frankly RS I don't think the human brain is capable of comprehending more than the four dimensions we are familiar with.

Roy.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Frankly RS I don't think the human brain is capable of comprehending more than the four dimensions we are familiar with.

Well I understand, and accept, the concept of more (than 4) dimensions, I think, but I lose track when I try to make sense of how they would interact.