do you smoke cannabis?

close
more_vert
Merrick M
Merrick Aug 20, 2010 10:02:08
Replying to pooley

Wow, what a lot of posts in a short space of time, and how tetchy this one's gotten too.

Dave, I usually agree with a lot of your perspective and thoughts, but I think it's unfair to say

handofdave wrote:
the real purpose of your original post, which was to specifically attack pot smokers as being hypocrites. Obviously you really don't give a rats ass about the sweatshop workers at all... they're just a prop in your rather weak assault.
That early in the thread I don't see anything that points to Pooley doing that. I see an exhortation to ensure you source ethically.

I think it's an interesting story, and a relevant one to post here. Drugs are something of a blindspot for many people. I know folks who have a profound distrust of E numbers and prescribed medicines, yet readily hoof up nosefuls of stuff cut with fuck knows what. By the same token, there are folks who would refuse a cup of Nestle coffee yet happily snort cocaine without thinking about its production.

Perhaps exploitation's easier to see it when it's in the shops, brazen profit-hunger that gives clear indication of exploitation. Perhaps there's something about the obscurity of supply, the mateyness of your seller, that makes drugs feel less profit-driven.

I think Dave and Jim are right that we are caught in a web of exploitation, but like all the other damage we're doing, we should be looking to see if it can be eradicated and if it can't then how to reduce it. Pooley's point that most folks here won't eat at Mcdonald's or fly is really relevant. If we can switch to a more ethical source of something, and/or reduce our consumption of the most damaging stuff, we should.

Dee, I didn't buy the illegal immigrant stories when I first heard them mentioned without specifics either. But I've seen numerous specific cases with people imprisoned that I find it undeniable, and I get the rationale for doing it too. This person will work for a tenner a week, cannot speak to anyone else, and if the farm gets raided they don't know anyone's names and can't grass you up (ow, no pun intended). You're right that growing good cannabis has a lot of art and science to it, but that can be done in the choice of plants and setting up the growing system. The day to day maintenance is so simple that, well, a child could do it.

Squid and Dave both say that the exploitation is a good reason to remove the prohibition. Yet the things we've been comparing it to, such as Nike sweatshops and iPad factories, are all legal. Removing prohibition would give us the chance of some regulation and fair trade brands and whatnot, but we need only look at how slavery is still part of the chocolate, coffee and tea industries to guess how much legalisation would end exploitation.

S Squid Tempest
Squid Tempest Aug 20, 2010 10:11:06
Replying to Merrick

Merrick wrote:
Squid and Dave both say that the exploitation is a good reason to remove the prohibition. Yet the things we've been comparing it to, such as Nike sweatshops and iPad factories, are all legal. Removing prohibition would give us the chance of some regulation and fair trade brands and whatnot, but we need only look at how slavery is still part of the chocolate, coffee and tea industries to guess how much legalisation would end exploitation.
A good point. Nonetheless, just because other industries haven't managed to eradicate slave labour doesn't mean that legalisation wouldn't be a good thing. Obviously slavery should be stopped whereever it is found, and I would imagine that it would be easier to eradicate (or at least reduce) if the people running the industry weren't organised crime syndicates.

Having said that, I think it possibly highlights the similarity between organised criminals and the big corporations!

H handofdave
handofdave Aug 20, 2010 11:38:58
Replying to Merrick

As always, you have good things to say.

My beef with Pooley is that he's attempting to hold others to a standard that he admits he doesn't always live up to himself. I object to being labeled a 'hypocrite' because I pointed this out. It seems to me he's making a bigger deal out of 'catching hypocrites' than the story itself.

G grufty jim
grufty jim Aug 20, 2010 11:41:53
Replying to Merrick

Merrick wrote:
Squid and Dave both say that the exploitation is a good reason to remove the prohibition. Yet the things we've been comparing it to, such as Nike sweatshops and iPad factories, are all legal. Removing prohibition would give us the chance of some regulation and fair trade brands and whatnot, but we need only look at how slavery is still part of the chocolate, coffee and tea industries to guess how much legalisation would end exploitation.
Some good points, Merrick, but there is a significant difference between a legalised pot "industry" and iPads or coffee. Namely the fact that cannabis can be produced at low cost by the smokers themselves (not many people capable of knocking together their own iPad or mobile phone).

I know most smokers wouldn't grow themselves, but I suspect most would be no more than two people removed from someone who'd happily do so for beer and rent money. This is the ideal product for an efficient cottage industry.

Pooley's been making some perfectly good points on this thread. Points I've agreed with. But there's also been an element of "you people buy slave-grown cannabis" in his posts, despite most people here being quite clear that they don't.

I'm also extremely sceptical of the prevalence of this child-labour phenomenon. Again, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but if it was widespread then the police would be falling over themselves to provide official figures. Instead we have a statement it's happening, followed immediately by a figure for the total number of farms. Sorry, but my media-bullshit detector starts wailing whenever I see something like that.

Also, while your rationale for why it might be a good strategy for criminals has merit, there are also reasons why it's not a great strategy (plus there's an insconsistency in the story itself). Child labour in manufacturing situations works because the child is constantly occupied with a task requiring their attention. This isn't the case with growing pot which requires maybe an hour a day of actual work. It's easier (and cheaper! no food costs and you can use their sleeping area to grow more pot) to set up automated systems to feed plants. That's just a fact; I've known plenty of pot growers who'd laugh out loud at the idea of taking the extra risk of having trafficked kids locked in a house, as opposed to setting up a simple pump and timer system.

Yes, some idiots probably are using child labour, but the vast majority are smart enough to install a few 24-hour loop timers. Everyone I've ever known whose grown more than a couple of plants at a time does this. Maybe they use trafficked kids for harvesting, but that entails feeding and housing children for use three days out of every 10 weeks or so. As I say, there's just no way this is prevalent (unlike the use of children in manufacturing sweatshops, which clearly is prevalent and which almost all of us are guilty of inadvertently supporting at some point).

Plus one more small point -- the inconsistency in the article -- the BBC report is adamant that the kids are kept locked in the house and never permitted outside, with food being brought in. It then goes on to say that they kids are often used to attack the grow operations set up by rivals. Unless those rival operations are in the basement of the same house, that's at the very least, sloppy reporting.

Anyway, as I said, pooley is right to highlight this issue and I've agreed completely with the substance of what he wrote. But if he didn't start calling people "fucking hypocrites"; people who possibly don't even smoke pot or who might live outside the UK or who might grow their own or get it from a friend; then I suspect he'd have gotten a less defensive response.