>>8349509 pb

>(You)

It seems that you're the moron.

I'm 100% in favor of the legalization.

BUT TREES ARE BETTER THAN HEMP.

Because when you have people getting paid instead of trees doing their thing without people getting paid, the thing is cheaper.

One acre. 1 person cuts down the trees one time in 50 years. 1 person cuts down the hemp every year for 50 years. 50 times more labor costs. Are you really stupid?

Trees grow big by themselves. Hemp is an ANNUAL. You have to plant new hemp every year.

You haven't even tried to argue against my core basic point - trees grow big by themselves. Hemp doesn't.

That makes TREES CHEAPER THAN HEMP.

>>8349511 pb

>(You)

Ok, maybe. I'm not going to argue against that.

However, what you're talking about is not the model that people are proposing. People aren't proposing letting hemp turn into trees, People are proposing cutting down the hemp every year.

If hemp becomes a tree, it doesn't have any advantage over any other tree.

Again, 100% in favor of letting people do whatever they want with that.

>>8349540 pb

>(You)

Trees grow back.

Not telling anyone not to grow hemp.

>>8349577 pb

>(You)

Do you think you're saying anything remotely NEW? I've heard these arguments since the beginning of the internet.

It was Big Pharma and monopoly profits, not the intrinsic superiority of hemp over trees.

Or the superiority of hemp plastic over oil plastic.

If hemp was better, they would've used hemp.

Again, 100% in favor of whatever anyone wants to do with hemp.

>>8349580 pb

cut down the trees, plant hemp. pretty simple.

It was Big Pharma.

>>8349839 pb

>(You)

Not the point.

Trees grow for 50 years.

Hemp does not.

So you have labor costs EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

>>8349865 pb

>Sorry, but your thinking isnt deep enough to have an intelligent discussion of the topic, and I'm not interested in trying to help you because you keep posting the same trope. It's a waste of my time and yours. I wish it were otherwise, but you just keep on with the same misguided thoughts/posts. I give up

Wow, so many words, yet you're saying NOTHING SPECIFIC AT ALL.

You want to be right. But you're just NOT SMART ENOUGH. THE FACTS DO NOT SUPPORT YOU.

TREES GROW BY THEMSELVES. HEMP REQUIRES LABOR EVERY YEAR.

Unless you can tell me how that basic fact is wrong, you're right to back out of this conversation.

>>8350156

>(You)

Agreed. It pissed me off that the government (and that includes Trump) is not on our side.

>>8350206

Well, you're not simply yelling "hemp is best because Dupont"

I'm arguing that trees are best for biomass / paper because they grow by themselves, and don't require workers every year. Leave it alone, you get trees.

I'll agree that it's true that "another location" might be best for trees or hemp.

I'm still thinking that trees do a good job at heavy lifting for paper.

You and everyone else have a wide variety of arguments that can be used. But hemp is more labor intensive than trees, and labor costs money.

Perhaps you could consider all the arguments that I'm not making. I'm only making a hemp vs trees for biomass/paper argument.

The other point you're making, let's see, well, I'm talking about trees. Farmers don't grow trees. You're talking about farmers. I'm talking about trees vs hemp. You're talking about trees vs, maybe corn or wheat or soy or cotton? I'm only talking about hemp vs trees. I've been saying over and over and over again, that trees grow by themselves. I haven't said that corn grows by itself or soy or wheat or cotton.

I'm only talking about biomass, paper labor costs.

What I'm telling you is that trees are not for farmers. Trees grow by themselves. Farmers work. Farmers get paid more because they work. Trees don't require farmers to watch the trees grow for 50 years.

I was pretty clear that the advantage that trees had over hemp was that trees didn't require farmers at all. I called it "labor costs". My argument was pretty specific, and had nothing to do with the choices that farmers would make. Farmers don't grow trees on farmland. Farmers are choosing between different types of annual crops, typically.

>>8350324

yeah, I know all that.

It's the "they'll kill Trump if he tries to do anything" argument.

I'm not saying that Trump is in any way worse than all the rest of them.

I'll also add that Rothschild, at one point, owned a shitload of Royal Dutch Shell.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee120/node/227

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread44715/pg1

>>8350408

>(You)

I'm not missing the point.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FARMERS.

You are.

I'm talking about TREES. Farmers DON'T GROW TREES.

TREES grow by themselves and don't need farmers.

That's what I was saying about Hemp having high labor costs, and Trees having low labor costs.

I'm guessing you might be a farmer, and you know about farming. But trees make paper and trees grow by themselves.

I don't think that farmers grow trees. Do you think that farmers grow trees? I don't think that you think that farmers grow trees. I think we're on the same page here. Farmers don't grow trees, I'm talking about trees, you're talking about farmers.

You still are talking about farmers. I'm in Maine. They have paper mills in Maine. It's the Pine Tree State. There are very few farms in Maine. Maine is most suitable for Trees. Maine is almost entirely covered by trees. About half of Maine has no people at all. Much of that land is owned by timber companies. And every so often they chop some trees down and plant new ones. There is no "farmer" involved. I'm simply saying that, when it comes to making paper, (and lumber, but that's not the point) trees win. But I'm not talking about what farmers in Ohio should do.

I think that annual crops would likely make more money for farmers than trees would. But that's just a guess.>>8350408

>>8350592

>(You)

I live in Maine. Trees do grow by themselves.

I wasn't here years ago, but I suspect that most of the trees that are everywhere were once farms that weren't successful.