[rescue] OT: Clutter???

[vraptor at employees.org]

We'd be better off still if the feds would remove the strictures
on hemp and allow the paper co's to plant it.  Hemp makes better
paper (and more from less acreage), grows faster, and cycles more
CO^2 to O^2 than trees do.

Look up the history of Anslinger, DuPont, and Hearst if you want
to see why hemp is outlawed.

Interestingly, in the Nov. election, Nevadans will get the
opportunity to vote on the issue of whether marijuana possession/
use by adults should be illegal.  See www.nrle.org for info if
you are interested.  The measure has to pass twice to get into
NV law, so we won't actually see the results until 2004, but it
should be interesting to see the rest of the country's reaction.

=Nadine=

On 4 Aug 2002, Dan Sikorski wrote:

>On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 10:39, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>> Now I know you're a _BAD_ boy Josh!  "Burn it"!?!?!?!?!  What the heck
>> are you thinking?  Don't you know that paper is one of the more
>> recyclable commodity products we "waste"?
>
>I disagree with you on two points.
>
>1.  If he's burning the paper, he is using it a fuel, essentially
>recycling it. (one item serves multiple purposes)
>
>2.  Traditional recycling is very expensive, and often not worth it.
>
>(puts on his asbestos flame-suit to ward off eco-freaks)
>
>Yes, recycling is good for the environment, but, if the same amount of
>money was spent on planting trees instead of recycling paper, it's my
>understanding that we'd be better off.
>
>(If anyone has some solid numbers to the contrary, i'm all ears)
>
>	-Dan Sikorski
>_______________________________________________
>rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue