|
<$Project P.E.A.C.E. -- Planet Ecology Advancing Conscious Economics$>
|
The following post is an exchange of opinions on the subject of whether to post information about Cannabis on the Plants Database site. The letters are in reverse-chronological order.
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul J. von Hartmann"
Subject: Food for thought
To: "davesgarden.com"
Dear Terry,
Thank you for your thoughtful letter. Please understand that I never doubted your intellectual
capacity. The fact that you have created such a valuable website speaks for itself.
I see you have put energy into this before, which I respect and appreciate. I didn't mean to sound
overbearing in my experience. I was actually referring to what you had written about this not
being the first time you had fielded this issue. I came off sounding know-it-allish, without
meaning to. Thirteen years is a long time to say the same things, perhaps it is time for me to
stop.
There are always intelligent reasons not to speak the truth, or in this case, to not allow others
to speak the truth, about Cannabis. Telling people what the true value of the plant is (i.e.
"unique and essential") might seem like encouraging people to grow it, because not growing it is
obviously a poor choice. In Europe, Canada, New Zealand...etc people ARE growing Cannabis to
produce fuel, food, medicines and much more! Still, most people aren't aware that the seed of this
plant is so nutritious that it can prevent 75% of the diseases that are likely to kill us
(Erasmus).
In addition, most farmers are not aware that infusions made from Cannabis can be applied to other
crops to discourage pest infestation; and that as a rotational crop, there is nothing better for
the soil than Cannabis. As a seasonal windbraek, for remineralizing the soil, stopping erosion,
creating regionally available feedstock for a multitude of industries, for ending our society's
forced addiction to petroleum, alcohol and cigarettes...there are so many important reasons for
people to communicate about this determinate agricultural resource, that, in my opinion, the
reasons not to actively oppose prohibition through the spread of information, just don't hold up.
Trust mewhen I say that for me this has very little to do with my personal beliefs. If that were
the case, I would have given up this effort a long time ago. It actually has more to with an
individual responsibility to the planet that bares us all, and to human society. As a lifelong
scholar of Nature, with some science-based understanding of population dynamics and synergistic
social evolution, I recogize that mankind is behaving "extinctionistically", by inducing essential
resource scarcity and tragically devaluing Nature. I feel it is my obligation to communicate what
I have learned, for the purpose of healing the imbalances in the environment and our society.
Just as an example, do you think 9/11 would have happened if people grew all of our fuel from
biomass crops? This is quite feasible with hemp as a part of an holistic approach to resource
management. Cannabis produces more biomass per acre, sustainably, organically, in more soil and
climate conditions than any other plant. This is not my opinion, or a belief. It is a
well-documented fact. This fact is currently under-valued in our society, which results in
violence, illness, suffering and death all over the world. In developed countries, one person in
three dies of cancer, and most others succumb to heart disease or diabetes.
I concede that, because of social imbalances created and perpetuated by prohibition there can
sometimes be practical inconveniences associated with speaking the truth about Cannabis. It has
been my experience that these are rare and infrequent however.
More often, after some initial resistance or minor hassle, there comes a wonderful feeling of
freedom and having awakened from a fog of confusion. There is a lot to be said for supporting the
rational side of the arguement, in favor of respecting and standing up for Nature, but I'm sure
you've already experienced that.
Agreeing to disagree means choosing to block fundamentally important agricultural information that
currently is enjoying a renaissance in Europe. Giving that much power to the people who abuse
Cannabis, or those that profit from its prohibition, is one choice, which has its effects. It is a
choice I hope you will reconsider.
In any case Terry, thank you sincerely for sharing your time and thoughts in replying, and for
producing a valuable on-line resource, albeit at present, substantially incomplete.
for peace and health,
Paul von Hartmann
Project P.E.A.C.E.
Planet Ecology Advancing Conscious Economics
http://www.webspawner.com/users/projectpeace
with links to other sites of photographic beauty and possible interest
--- "davesgarden.com" wrote:
> Dear Paul,
>
> Just as you've "heard it all before", I'm sure you can probably
> imagine that yours was not the first attempt to enter this plant
> in our database.
>
> With all due respect, please spare me the lecture on how I must
> lack intellectual capacity if I don't ascribe to your particular
> beliefs and values. You'll just have to trust me when I say the
> intellectual part of me is perfectly capable of understanding and
> appreciating attempts to set the record straight on a maligned
> plant. However, as an editor of a large and growing database,
> there are at least two major factors that I have to consider:
>
> 1) All arguments about natural law aside, the laws of the U.S.,
> where our website originates and where the majority of our
> members reside, prohibit the cultivation of this plant. To
> explain how to grow it, display photos of it, and invite reader
> comments and observations would be tantamount to encouraging our
> readers to break the law. (I won't debate whether the law is
> moral or not; it simply is the law.)
>
> 2) Pragmatically, we are dealing with a self-service website. We
> don't have the resources or the desire to continually monitor and
> edit the comments and information that would inevitably be
> entered for this plant, when we have 57,000+ other entries to
> also tend to. Nor am I convinced that the type of traffic such
> an entry would generate is congruent with the type of audience
> our database we're attempting to appeal to. Cannabis may have
> gotten a bad rap, but a lot of the reasons it is seen as a drug
> is because that's how a lot of people use/misuse it. Our
> database is not designed to be a repository of hallucinogenic or
> psychotropic information, and we take a dim view of those who
> would try to use the site for such.
>
> At the end of the day, it's highly probably that we're going to
> simply agree to disagree, as my decision still stands. I remain
>
> Respectfully yours,
> Terry Lea
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul J. von Hartmann"
> To: "Terry"
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Cannabis entry
>
>
> > Dear Terry,
> >
> > Thank you for writing. As you might imagine, I kind of expected
> this, since there was not the
> > slightest mention of the world's most useful and nutritious
> plant on your website. I've been a
> > Cannabis scholar for more than thirteen years, and I have heard
> all the reasons for censorship
> > more than once.
> >
> > To intentionally dumb-down your site, subjugate your
> intelligence and insult the "right to know"
> > of your readership, really is indefensable. As a gardener, you
> must know that Natural law is much
> > more significant and abiding than man's statutes, edicts,
> proclamations, etc... The laws are
> > changing in Europe, Canada, Australia. Cannabis is being
> recognized for what it truly is, once
> > again. Perhaps it is time for your site to reflect that Natural
> re-emergence of the truth.
> >
> > Cannabis has never been truly illegal, because it is too
> valueable to be within the rightful
> > jurisdiction of any court. Unless people learn the truth about
> this plant we will all continue to
> > suffer from the induced scarcity of an historically proven
> sustainable resource, which has been
> > illegally prohibited to the detriment of the free market,
> organic agriculture, and fair economic
> > competition.
> >
> > Please see my website and blogs eo get a fuller picture of why
> it is so important to include this
> > plant on your site. Prohibiton can only continue in the
> presence of a misinformed electorate.
> > Please reconsider your commitment to telling the whole truth,
> when presuming to tell any of it.
> >
> > for peace and health,
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Terry wrote:
> > > Dear projectpeace,
> > >
> > > I help edit the Plants Database and reviewed the entry you
> > > crated for Cannabis. As you might imagine, the issue of
> whether
> > > to include illegal/prohibited plants has come up with our
> > > editors before. Since we are a website "for and by
> gardeners",
> > > we do not include plants that are not legal to grow and are
> not
> > > widely grown for ornamental or nutritional value. As your
> note
> > > indicated, this plant cannot be legally cultivated in the
> U.S.
> > > and other countries; therefore I've removed the entry and
> your
> > > comments.
> > >
> > > If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate
> to
> > > contact us.
> > > Warm regards,
> > > Terry Lea, Editor
> > > Plants Database
> > >
posted by projectpeace @
11:05 PM
|
Tuesday, September 23, 2003  |
|
|
