turning seawater into fuel for $3 a gallon?
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
heckler73
Well-Known Member
May I take a few minutes of your time to tell you about our lord and saviour Richard Feynman?
It may be a strange topic in a world normally obsessed with birth certificates and communism, but there are serious economic effects with the prospect of the DoD generating its own fuel, in situ. Have you looked at how much fuel they use per day?
12.6 Million gallons
(ok...so that's a proverbial drop in the 360Mn gal US bucket, but it's something)
And have you considered how military technology has a way of dribbling its way into everyday usage? I salute their effort to do R&D along these lines. It's better than figuring out new ways and technologies to kill people with.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Just more goverment waste.
The free market has all the solutions to our problems
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
Yes, because enlisted soldiers are designing these new hydrogen from sea water refineries.
I'll grantee you it's government contracts to private companies.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Sea water should be legal to grow, but illegal to sell.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Legal to grow, illegal to sell would keep goverment involvement out of marijuana
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Like tobacco? I can grow it, but can't sell it.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
You can sell it. If you got a couple hundred grand to meet regulations
heckler73
Well-Known Member
But if it's illegal to sell, how is that "law" going to be enforced? By the good conscience of the public, or some branch of government?
I've never understood how the logic of your idea was supposed to work...
The moment you say legal and illegal in the same sentence, applied to one object, you create the conditions for government involvement, or do you not?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Not to the extent they will get involved if you made it fully legal.
I still believe legal to grow and possess, illegal to sell would be the fast trak to getting most of what you want. The ability to possess and grow.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
So if I get arrested for selling marijuana that is keeping the government out of it?
If federal agents can kick in my door because they think I am selling marijuana rather than just growing it will keep the government out of it?
You have been posting this idea for years and it has literally failed worse than any other idea I can remember.
The law wouldnt do anything to keep government out of Marijuana.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
How can it fail if it hasn't been tried.
As normal. You just don't get it.
SmokeyDan
Well-Known Member
You've said that would keep government out of it.
But you put government squarely in it when you say illegal to sell.
The pragmatist in me recognizes this would be better than that status quo. But it wouldn't be ideal because it still let's government abuse people for what they do with a plant.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
You have not properly analyzed your hypothesis.
Now, instead of saying "get government out" you are saying, "well...it's not as bad".
You've undone your own argument. Adjust your hypothesis and try again.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
If I was trying to convince a people on the fence about legalizing marijuana
I would have better luck convincing them this was no different than brewing your own beer.
LOok what happened in Florida recently. The anti pot movement told everyone legalizing medical would mean selling drugs to kids
JUst one question. Answer it.
WHy is it so important to be able to sell Weed legally?
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
...why would 'the law' want to keep itself out of regulating a commodity in high demand?
Of course the law wouldn't do anything to keep government... itself... out of a business it has deliberately established, and has killed millions, in order to sustain.
But yeah, that's a cool idea, fuel from sea water.
Alright...
Because if i make the choice to transform my labor into "goods," which are relatively harmless and in high demand... i should be entitled to trade the fruits of my labor as i see fit, but perhaps not without accurate accounting for "business tax" purposes.
It should be like anything else: if you spend your effort and resources to produce a lot of something, and other people want it, you should be able to "do business" with it. Alternatively, just like anything else... i shouldn't HAVE to "do business," if i just want to do something to help myself, and maybe a few close friends. I shouldn't have to behave as if i were a profitable business, if all i really want is enough to always have some available.
If i convert my time into goods, and another adult wants my goods... i should be allowed to do as i please with my goods/services, and they should be allowed to receive and enjoy it. No one is being endangered or injured or harmed or deprived, in any way. There is no valid justification for intervention; only arbitrary language deemed "official" by wealthy people who have invested in competing products, and so, obviously, would not like for us to prefer their competition, over their own products.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Try to manufacture cigarettes.
Let me know what the regulation costs are.
And the penalties for non compliance
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
Whether the tobacco regulations are correct, isn't really the point... maybe those need to change as well? But if you base another incorrect thing upon a previously incorrect thing, what else could be reasonably expected, but compound incorrectness? Which is exactly what we now have.
And instead of people acting like it's "so complex," everyone should simply realize that there are some very easy and fundamentally obvious solutions available, as well as better ways to profit more, at less detriment to the populace.
I mean, honestly... really... cannabis can be so much more utilized, in so many ways... it's obscene that they keep insisting on making war, instead of allowing the development of better ways for everyone. Allowing some people to choose cannabis, does not have to mean everyone abandons all comparable and often competing products... and even if it did, who is in a better position to adapt to demand, and adopt new massively beneficial direction, for their existing companies?
Everyone should be on board with letting it be "relatively free." Taxed if traded (exceptions notwithstanding), and requiring license to "manufacture," as in large amounts for commercial distribution and consumption. But if someone isn't all about trying to grow tons for millions of people and be a big brand name... maybe they just want to grow their own, much like a wine connoisseur may desire their own vineyard. Not everyone "needs" their own vineyard... but if you do, and you can, why should anyone stop you? The only "concern" comes from allowing unregulated consumables to be consumed, with no "safety protocols," and no government oversight... which is just part of the territory. If people want the freedom to consume, they have to accept the responsibility thereof, and understand that it's possible they could encounter "bad bud," and potentially develop a life-altering or even fatal complication (not from the bud itself, but from it having been contaminated in any number of possible ways). So, yeah, if you want to sell like a business, you should be subject to typical business regulations. If you want to accept a donation once in a while, in exchange for some nice nugs, that should just be a thing that people do sometimes.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Can you grow weed in Arizona within 25 miles of a dispensary?
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
Can i? Yes, i "can."
But... judging by the context, you are implying that some likely enforced regulation dictates that i may not grow a particular plant within an arbitrary proximity of a dispensary, at which said plants are dispensed.
Arbitrary laws should not exist. I have no idea how those people manage to swindle us all into paying them to make absurd and unnecessary laws... but they do. Let's fix that, while we're looking at this whole cannabis prohibition thing.
Meanwhile... sea water as fuel!
I think it sounds like a great idea. Think of all the fuel they won't need to transport, since they can just make some right there on the spot.
Edit: and of course, the "trickle-down" technology implications...