I don't think a state, for instance, is overly specific. It determines a lot about the form and viability of the business. Take a look at all the different laws out there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_StatesIn a state like North Carolina you could open a hookah lounge but not be able to serve food. Statewide ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, and some other workplaces: On January 2, 2010, after being signed into law by Governor Bev Perdue on May 19, 2009, North Carolina Session Law 2009-27 went into effect, banning smoking statewide in all bars and restaurants in North Carolina, as well as in government buildings and vehicles.[271] The law exempts cigar bars, private clubs that are not-for-profit (including country clubs), designated hotel/motel smoking areas, and medical research facilities studying tobacco.[271] The law generally allows local governments to regulate smoking more strictly beginning July 5, 2009 (as long as it is approved by the county, too), but preempts local governments from regulating smoking in cigar bars, retail tobacco shops, tobacco manufacturer facilities, designated hotel/motel smoking rooms, private clubs (including country clubs), theatrical productions involving smoking, private residences, or private vehicles.[271]
In a state like Wyoming it would be no problem. No statewide smoking ban. Instead, Wyoming state law only prohibits smoking where it could cause an explosion[380][381][382] and in underground mines.[383] Wyoming has no state laws concerning indoor smoking in general, and thus local governments can regulate general indoor smoking as they see fit. As of April 2009, five cities in Wyoming have enacted local smoking bans, all covering all bars and restaurants, but varying otherwise.[4] In February 2009, a bill before the Wyoming Legislature that would have enacted a statewide ban on smoking in all enclosed workplaces, except in private offices and in bars and restaurants serving only patrons over 21 years of age (and except in any local community that chose to opt out) failed when it was passed by the Wyoming House of Representatives in a vote of 31–29 but then was denied a committee hearing in the Wyoming Senate.[384] Whereas in a state like Wisconsin you would not be able to do it at all. Statewide smoking ban: On July 5, 2010, after being signed into law by Governor Jim Doyle on May 18, 2009, S.B. 181 (2009 Wisconsin Act 12) took effect, banning smoking statewide in all enclosed workplaces in Wisconsin, including all bars, restaurants, lodging establishments, and private clubs, as well as within a "reasonable distance" outdoors from any such place, except in bar/restaurant outdoor patios.[378] The Act exempts only cigar bars or retail tobacco stores already in existence, private residences, and rooms in nursing homes in which the occupants agree to allow smoking;[378] it does not cover casinos run by Native American tribes, as those casinos are in the tribes' sovereign territory. Local governments are preempted from regulating smoking more strictly than the Act.[378] Prior to this law taking effect, several localities in Wisconsin had local smoking bans in effect. And of course any local area may have their own regulations as well. Hard to determine a level of interest without some general location information. He didn't ask for a state, he asked for a city. I'm aware of these regulations and that's why there won't be a problem starting up. |
|
|
|
Why does it make you upset? Does it confuse you or is it too much to accept? It seems to make sense to me, so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as bullshit.
^ It's questions like these that make me upset. You make a claim that getting high is the transfer of energy from the plant, then when people give you legitimate reasons why your statement is false you start talking about philosophical bullshit in order to make it seem like such a claim is not false. Next, is probably arguing about what reality is and the "there is no such thing as false" argument. That type of arguing, to me, is upsetting. Just admit it. You were wrong. Getting high is NOT caused by the transfer of energy from the plant. Also, you can't cure diseases through ignorance. Sorry. I do agree that placebo plays a huge role in everything, but it's not the cure for cancer. I'll admit, optimism could help increase your chance of survival via the placebo effect. Does science confuse you? or is it too much to accept? Do these questions seem condescending to you? Let me just add, since it's related to the business more directly, that weed cures cancer. Through physical and spiritual healing. I used to be into science, too. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442435http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14570037 |
|
|
|
|
1/10/12? Wasn't that like, 9 days ago?
|
|
|
|
please stop with this philosophical bullshit.
If you grew up where I did you would understand why I just can't take it anymore. I hear nonsense like this every day from your typical college hippie that takes a hallucinogen and suddenly thinks hes the smartest philosopher ever.
The next argument from people like you is probably "well you haven't done enough drugs to be enlightened."
It seems the common consensus among your generation is the more drugs that you do the more "enlightened" you become and the more qualified you are to talk about philosophy.
Trust me. I have done plenty of psychedelics, so I would probably fit your criteria for an "enlightened philosopher" (lol).
I have lost friends who are too "open minded" and took their psychedelics experiences way too seriously.
Please just stop. I don't want this bullshit to pollute bitcointalk.org, I have to deal with it enough as it is.
GRR
sry, this kinda stuff just makes me rage
Why does it make you upset? Does it confuse you or is it too much to accept? It seems to make sense to me, so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as bullshit. As I said, there's two ways to look at everything. Perhaps we should move this to another thread, if we'd like to continue the discussion. Viceroy, the idea for your own website sounded somewhat promising, compared to any other options. |
|
|
|
Dank, how high are you right now? You should put the computer down, you are making a fool of yourself.
Is that how you refute claims to make a point? Attacks? I haven't smoked since 4:20. Nimda, I don't know what the point of your post was, you just proved that I said it was a transfer of energy, which I thought we agreed was true, albeit a very small amount of energy. It's not that complicated, weed connects you to the universe because it is made of the universe, just like you. You hadn't made any point worth refuting, I was just giving a friendly piece of advice. There is nothing about getting high involving transferring energy. None. Getting high is all about switching around which chemicals in your brain are connected where. Attach the appropriate molecule to the receptor and release a bunch of other molecules. It is not energy. Eat some cookies, the sugar goes into your brain, that is transferring energy. Smoking pot is not. There is no "connection to the universe", it is all in your head. You're right, the universe is also in my head because we were created by the universe and therefor are the universe. It requires chemical energy for the plant to make the chemicals, so there is a small amount of energy transfered. The amount of energy is quite small. The affect of the drug is due to interactions with receptors, not because of the energy in the chemical.
Which is it? I didn't say they released energy, I said they transferred it from the plant, through smoke, through your lungs, into your blood and into your brain. I don't see why both of our statements can't be correct, there's two ways to look at everything. |
|
|
|
I'm taking it bitcoinbear is not interested in investing, so why would I share that with him? I have no problem talking details with people who are really interested.
Presumably, anybody who would invest is reading this thread. I assume this information would be useful to them. Therefore, I asked you so you could disclose it so they could see it. Plus I was curious. I prefer to talk about specifics off a public forum. The Internet's a scary place. |
|
|
|
Dank, how high are you right now? You should put the computer down, you are making a fool of yourself.
Is that how you refute claims to make a point? Attacks? I haven't smoked since 4:20. Nimda, I don't know what the point of your post was, you just proved that I said it was a transfer of energy, which I thought we agreed was true, albeit a very small amount of energy. It's not that complicated, weed connects you to the universe because it is made of the universe, just like you. You said, "Getting high is a transfer of energy from the plant." This is false. The transfer of energy doesn't cause the high. The chemical transfer and their subsequent energy transfer are what makes you high. It's both, we can both be right. Because there is energy in those chemicals, right? |
|
|
|
Dank, how high are you right now? You should put the computer down, you are making a fool of yourself.
Is that how you refute claims to make a point? Attacks? I haven't smoked since 4:20. Nimda, I don't know what the point of your post was, you just proved that I said it was a transfer of energy, which I thought we agreed was true, albeit a very small amount of energy. It's not that complicated, weed connects you to the universe because it is made of the universe, just like you. |
|
|
|
Making up numbers? Would you like to review my spreadsheet and tell me what's made up about it?
Yes, I would. Post or PM a dropbox or google docs link. Will PM. Out of curiosity, which city are you setting this up in?
I'd prefer not to disclose to non-investors at this time. Seems like information anyone will be asking for before investing. I'm taking it bitcoinbear is not interested in investing, so why would I share that with him? I have no problem talking details with people who are really interested. Out of curiosity, which city are you setting this up in?
I'd prefer not to disclose to non-investors at this time. Seems like information anyone will be asking for before investing. Right. How is anybody going to invest if you will not even share simple things like where it is, let alone important information like your identity? See comment to Rarity. |
|
|
|
Scientific proof backs up my claim that sickness is caused by a weak soul
I'd like to see your scientific proof. where's your evidence?
I have made no claims, what should I show you evidence of exactly? You inferred that cancer is not caused by negativity, a week soul. I'm not saying faith in religion will heal you, I'm saying faith in yourself. If you really want evidence, all you have to do is think, within yourself. If life is what you perceive to be real, what you believe, if you perceive that you're dying, you're going to die. If you believe that you're healthy, by having a healthy soul, you won't. Remember, everything happens for a reason, after all. |
|
|
|
Getting high is a transfer of energy from the plant, after all.
No. No it is not. It has certain chemicals which react interestingly with your brain. It's both. Do you know what "energy" actually is? Do you? Yes. What is it? Why are you dodging the question? I asked you first. Energy is classically defined as "the ability to do work." I'd further define doing work as "causing a change." Obviously, you're going to jump on that and say "being high is a change, ah-ha!" Something as primitive as energy, however, is difficult to define; don't pull a MNW. Now, being high is a change. A very small amount of chemical energy is required to create this change in the brain. If you feel "strong" or "energetic" or something along those lines while high, though, that's not due to an influx of energy (let's abstract energy at least as far as ATP, thanks); it's simply the THC altering your perception. Going back to the original quote, "Getting high is a transfer of energy from the plant" now. That statement is largely incorrect. Getting high is your feelings, emotions, and perceptions being altered due to the reactions in your brain which use or release a small amount of energy. The use of the word 'transfer' implies you can use the energy transferred. You can't. Thanks for inaccurately answering for me. I'm not arguing about what energy is, I'm just saying the energy from the earth/universe is released into your brain when you smoke weed, no matter how small of amount. You're also claiming that the small amount of energy causes the high, which is incorrect. No, I said it's a transfer of energy. Sorry Viceroy, just trying to clear up misinformation regarding cannabis. |
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, which city are you setting this up in?
I'd prefer not to disclose to non-investors at this time. |
|
|
|
Getting high is a transfer of energy from the plant, after all.
No. No it is not. It has certain chemicals which react interestingly with your brain. It's both. Do you know what "energy" actually is? Do you? Yes. What is it? Why are you dodging the question? I asked you first. Energy is classically defined as "the ability to do work." I'd further define doing work as "causing a change." Obviously, you're going to jump on that and say "being high is a change, ah-ha!" Something as primitive as energy, however, is difficult to define; don't pull a MNW. Now, being high is a change. A very small amount of chemical energy is required to create this change in the brain. If you feel "strong" or "energetic" or something along those lines while high, though, that's not due to an influx of energy (let's abstract energy at least as far as ATP, thanks); it's simply the THC altering your perception. Going back to the original quote, "Getting high is a transfer of energy from the plant" now. That statement is largely incorrect. Getting high is your feelings, emotions, and perceptions being altered due to the reactions in your brain which use or release a small amount of energy. The use of the word 'transfer' implies you can use the energy transferred. You can't. Thanks for inaccurately answering for me. I'm not arguing about what energy is, I'm just saying the energy from the earth/universe is released into your brain when you smoke weed, no matter how small of amount. It requires chemical energy for the plant to make the chemicals, so there is a small amount of energy transfered. The amount of energy is quite small. The affect of the drug is due to interactions with receptors, not because of the energy in the chemical.
Just FYI, you're talking to someone who thinks that cancer comes from thinking negative thoughts. How people trust him with their money is a mystery to me. Scientific proof backs up my claim that sickness is caused by a weak soul, where's your evidence? |
|
|
|
Hey Dank, you should shadow some Hookah bar owners/managers in nearby towns and buddy up to them.
He would, but he's busy not having a job, making up numbers for spreadsheets, and asking for handouts. Plus, he'd probably have to ask his folks for a ride. There's really no sense in doing something that would give him real world knowledge of the business that he wants to start. Making up numbers? Would you like to review my spreadsheet and tell me what's made up about it? I have real world knowledge regarding hookah. I've smoked at hookah bars, I have a hookah sitting right in front of me. I've run plenty of web based businesses, I know how it works, don't tell me I'm incompetent because I haven't done it the way you want. There's no sense in waiting around when I have the opportunity to maximize profit now. You're missing that part. |
|
|
|
Getting high is a transfer of energy from the plant, after all.
No. No it is not. It has certain chemicals which react interestingly with your brain. It's both. Do you know what "energy" actually is? Do you? Yes. What is it? |
|
|
|
Getting high is a transfer of energy from the plant, after all.
No. No it is not. It has certain chemicals which react interestingly with your brain. It's both. Do you know what "energy" actually is? Do you? |
|
|
|
Getting high is a transfer of energy from the plant, after all.
No. No it is not. It has certain chemicals which react interestingly with your brain. It's both. |
|
|
|
Getting high is a transfer of energy from the plant, after all.
Your body, interestingly, has cannabinoid receptors. It has been suggested that cannabis is the cause of mankind changing from an ape to a human. It has also been suggested that cannabis is the inspiration for humans believing in god. Whether either of those suggestions is is true or not it certainly is interesting that the human body has cannabinoid receptors (cb1 and cb2) and that cannabis is the only plant known to produce cannabinoids. We should all wonder "why do we have receptors for cannabinoids" in our bodies. I'm pretty sure all animals have cannabinoid receptors, I know my fish does, works as a medicine on him too. I agree, there's a few other chemicals that probably played a role in that, as well. I never believed in god until altering my conscience (over time). |
|
|
|
I don't mean hemp seed oil, I mean use the whole plant to make cannabis biodeisel. I've read hemp is good for biodeisel but fully flowered plants will give you more energy.
Biodiesel is made from oil. Triglycerides + alcohol (+catalyst) --> fatty acid ester (biodiesel) + glycerol (+catalyst) alcohol is usually methanol but could be ethanol. catalyst can be NaOH or KOH, but more advanced catalysts might work better. Calcium hydroxide or calcium ethoxide or even some solid acids are being researched. Solid catalysts make the separation easier. There is also a guy out there trying to sell a variant of this process: Tryglyceride + 2 ethyl acetate --> 2 fatty acid ester + fatty acid glycerol diacetate Which is a monophasic mixture, thus gives no waste product (glycerol in the usual synthesis). This mix has lower energy content than traditional biodiesel, so the easier production has a tradeoff, which is why it has not been adopted. To bring this back on topic, you need the seeds to make biodiesel, but you do not get seeds if you harvest flowers. Perhaps I was thinking hemp ethanol. I don't know for sure how flowers would affect it, but what someone said, about it increasing the amount of energy, makes sense. Getting high is a transfer of energy from the plant, after all. |
|
|
|
You need to move here and join us in Colorado. Happy to experiment but I can tell you that there is not yet any way to grow that much hemp in the US without the Fed shutting you down (you'd need hundreds of acres). This year Colorado passed a law to allow for experimentation with "remediation" and hemp. We are going to do a multi-year study to determine the efficacy of using hemp to remove harmful pollutants from dirt. Hemp is an amazing plant. http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/05/marijuana_industrial_hemp_stud.phpIt'd be interesting to see how much energy you can turn out with a couple good plants, I'm sure it couldn't power the facility but I wouldn't be surprised the slightest if it outperforms solar energy. You should add mycelium to the study. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
