[Nobody]

I am surprised this topic has not been made yet.
IMO, the rising prices are ridiculous. The nationwide average price is $2.26/gallon for regular non-leaded gasoline. This is one reason I think that research done for developing an alternate feul should be more goverment-funded.
What's ironic about this is that part of a reference book (about the enviorment) I read said that "higher gasoline prices would help reduce pollution (though I dont think it would help very much) because people wouldn't drive as much", and that George Bush is not an enviormentalist.
(I'm not sure if this is happening outside the USA though)

[TobiasMar]

Well, instead of continuing to rely on Gasoline for car energy, I say use Hydrogen engines for cars, since they can help the earth since their waste is H2o, aka water. The problem is, Hydrogen may increase accident risks; its VERY flammable. But, its better than having gasoline waste pollute the earth.

[Izar]

It depends where you get your gas. I prefer Diamond Shamrock.

Bush really has nothing to do with the gas prices. They go up do to demand for more petroleum products. The more demanding, the more they will want to raise the prices, the less oil, the more up. Gas prices are up for different ecomomic reasons. Don't blame this on Bush, or any other political leader, it's really not all it's cracked up to be.

Found this on the AAA site:
AAA, which monitors national, state and local gasoline prices as a public service, said today’s price of $2.048 per gallon compares to the record high price of $2.054 set last year on May 26.

[TobiasMar]

Well, hydrogen fuel would be much easier to get since there is hydrogen gas in the air around us. Plus, getting hydrogen instead of fossil fuel would eventually stop most of the Middle East conflict.

[Crimson Barrel Knight]

Agreed, but Bush didn't really approve of this yet. As long as Bush is in office, we may never see the light of day in fuel efficiency ...

No offense to the Bush fangirls/boys.

[Izar]

Well, Not all the confict Gimli. In Israel, the fighting is religious-wise.

Hydrogen is not at all as powerful as gasoline either, but yes, way more abundant.

[Nobody]

Izar, on Apr 8 2005, 10:25 PM, said:

It depends where you get your gas. I prefer Diamond Shamrock.

Bush really has nothing to do with the gas prices. They go up do to demand for more petroleum products. The more demanding, the more they will want to raise the prices, the less oil, the more up. Gas prices are up for different ecomomic reasons. Don't blame this on Bush, or any other political leader, it's really not all it's cracked up to be.

Found this on the AAA site:
AAA, which monitors national, state and local gasoline prices as a public service, said today’s price of $2.048 per gallon compares to the record high price of $2.054 set last year on May 26.

Uh, I wasn't blaming it on him. I was just saying that because the increases happened while he was president.
Anyway, I have heard of a special new type of engine that uses vegtable oil, which is much less pollutant when burned.
True, Izar. No known feul has an unlimited supply, but Hydrogen is abundent, virtually nonpollutant, and a base element, so many things can be made into it in special reactions. I have a "toy" that is powered by that reaction, and it does work.

[Izar]

Yes, but the power of Hydrogen is very weak in comparison with Gasoline. Nitrogen, I think, would be better. It is much more abundant, and is a bit more powerful.

Nitrogen: 78%
Oxygen: 21%
Argon: 0.9%
Carbon Dioxide: 0.03%

Hydrogen, methane, helium, neon, krypton, carbon monoxide, xenon, ozone and water vapor make up less than 0.1% in total.

Also, think of Nos (Nitrogen and oxygen) it is for cars to go really fast...

[TobiasMar]

Perhaps your right Izar, but it also depends on how safe or unsafe the Nitrogen waste material is.

[l3lueMage]

wowzers where do u guyz live XDDD
its only $1.92 here and the highest i have seen is $2.05, dunno where u guyz live but it must suck, to tell u the truth ours used to be how now they are suddenly dropping XDDDDDDDDd its 2 cents more than we are used to, 1.90 was last i rememberd, actually 1.80 is the lowest i remember.

[Ravenblade]

Unfortunately, in Britain we pay the highest petrol prices in Europe. Thats largely because our government have this policy of wanting people to own cars but not wanting them to use the things XD

Actually Im sure its with good reason but it is pretty expensive now, something like £1.80 a litre i think ($3 or so). I agree with giml though - once we've mined out the middle east and moved on to a new source (electric/battery cars perhaps - ive seen a few around) the violence in that region should become less of an internetional interest.

[FusionDragon28]

Nitrous Oxide is not good for the environment. When you get your car smogged, one of the catagories is how much NOZ is emitted.

FD28

[Mycarayne]

Izar, on Apr 9 2005, 12:41 PM, said:

Yes, but the power of Hydrogen is very weak in comparison with Gasoline. Nitrogen, I think, would be better. It is much more abundant, and is a bit more powerful.

Nitrogen: 78%
Oxygen: 21%
Argon: 0.9%
Carbon Dioxide: 0.03%

Hydrogen, methane, helium, neon, krypton, carbon monoxide, xenon, ozone and water vapor make up less than 0.1% in total.

Also, think of Nos (Nitrogen and oxygen) it is for cars to go really fast...

*sigh* Pure Nitrogen is not flammable mate. NOS works nice in an engine because it has a much more concentrated solution of O2 in it, thus ingintion is more effecient. The effect of Nitrogen is very little, know why? Because it is considered inert dude. Meaning, it has a VERY high activation energy. In lamans terms: It's lazy, fat, and generally likes being Nitrogen (In the from of N2), not Nitrogen dicloride or the like. But if you give it a nice big cheese cake, it will do anything you want.
Thus, N2O, is a little hard to artificailly produce. But it is doable. Obviosly. If it wasn't possible, I wouldn't play NFS. Full Stop.

Another thing dude, Hydrogen kicks Gasolines ass all the way from here in Australia to you in America. Think: Hydrogen + Oxygen = ROCKET FUEL. They don't fill up rocket tanks at your local service station ya'know. (It's to expensive apparently. lol) Yes siree, Hydrogen is MUCH MUCH more explosive than normal petroleum. MUCH more. *Think: Hydrogen bomb*

Okay, the reason the don't use Hydrogen in cars yet is because it's to ineffecient. You need ALOT is it in other words. Apperently, Ice or greenland use it. But im not to sure on that.

One more thing: Yes people, I did chemistry. And was pretty good at it too. And yes, I failed english. *cries*
---------------

Anyway, gas prices: Here in OZ, it isn't called gas for the general reason that it is in fact in a liquid form, not gaseous. Stupid Americans. Sheesh. And I hate "gas" because I now have a car, and paying for "gas" cuts deep into my weekly pay. I do not like it at all. No siree. It's about $1.10ish per Litre over here (which is pretty much the same over there if you look at conversions. But I didn't because im smart and know these things) Usually, it costs about 50 bucks to fill the tank and get a 600mL coke at the same time. This happens about every three weeks I guess, so Im not terribly fussed about the prices. 'Cept for the fact that I have to pay for it in the first place. lol

Thank you for enduring my huge post.
Come again for more Yr12 Chemistry lessons. Have fun now.

[Izar]

I never said Nitrogen was flamable... Hydrogen is in such SMALL quantities, it will mess up our atmosphear badly if we use it. We use the gas word becauswe it's short for Gasoline, we know it's not a gas! I did Integrated Phisics and Chemisty, all A's...

Gimli the Great, on Apr 8 2005, 11:46 PM, said:

Perhaps your right Izar, but it also depends on how safe or unsafe the Nitrogen waste material is.

Uh... Where did you get that? Lol, Nitrogen is very safe, and less flamable than Hydrogen. Also, it's "waste" products are mostly oxygen and/or hydrogen if you use it as nos.

Uh... Where did you get that? Lol, Nitrogen is very safe, and less flamable than Hydrogen. Also, it's "waste" products are mostly oxygen and/or hydrogen if you use it as nos.

Nos doesn't really hurt anything. plus, the ozaone falling... That's pretty bad science in my opinion.

Th bad thing about hudrogen is that it is TOO flamable.

In the 7th grade (back a few years) We used Nitrogen, Helium, and Hydrogen to push little vehicles of the same size. Nitrogen came in first, then hydrogen, then helium.

[Power Piers]

I did a report on the rising of gas prices...I got an A :-D!

I think they should start more drilling in Alaska...there's oil there. (If they haven't done that yet that is..)

[Sea of Time]

It's happening up in Canada too. I have to walk everywhere now, cuz my Dad doesn't want to drop me off using our car anymore. It's totally ridiculous.

[Mycarayne]

Izar, on Apr 9 2005, 10:36 PM, said:

I never said Nitrogen was flamable... Hydrogen is in such SMALL quantities, it will mess up our atmosphear badly if we use it. We use the gas word becauswe it's short for Gasoline, we know it's not a gas! I did Integrated Phisics and Chemisty, all A's...
Uh... Where did you get that? Lol, Nitrogen is very safe, and less flamable than Hydrogen. Also, it's "waste" products are mostly oxygen and/or hydrogen if you use it as nos.

Nos doesn't really hurt anything. plus, the ozaone falling... That's pretty bad science in my opinion.

Th bad thing about hudrogen is that it is TOO flamable.

In the 7th grade (back a few years) We used Nitrogen, Helium, and Hydrogen to push little vehicles of the same size. Nitrogen came in first, then hydrogen, then helium.

Straight A's? woah. Your a lot smarter than I picked fisrt though Izar. lol
I know you know that what you call gas is liquid- I was just having fun dude. heh heh.
Here we call it petrol- short for petroleum I presume. AKA: C8H18. ie: a ring consisting of 8 carbon atoms; with 18 Hydrogen atoms assorted amongst them. See, I know what a petrol molecule looks like. lol Im smat. I mean smart. *ahem*

[l3lueMage]

hehe, did I say $1.90 ? Well im a bit outdated o.o it has gone up even more its about $2.18/gal I was like ZOMG ur kidding me...

[Andross]

...

First of all, hydrogen energy would be much cleaner and efficient, and I don't remember anything on hydrogen harming the environment. That just makes no sense. However, it is not easy AT ALL to come by. Hydrogen is not a gas which is always sitting in its pure state. If it was, we'd already be using it as an energy alternative. But because you have to spend a lot of money to extract it out of stuff like water, it is still not useful. Some cars will use it in fuel cells in the future, but it is not likely to get much cheaper.

Next, gasoline prices are CHEAP in America compared to everywhere else. It can cost $5.00 a gallon in Europe.

I believe Nobody mentioned that vegetable oil gas as well. That would be Bio-Diesel, and is a great fuel alternative - for diesel users. Maybe Willie Nelson will help get Bio-Unleaded out as well ;)

Last comment, nitrogen gas would be VERY harmful to the environment. Why? Because it could overload the plants and crops in the environment with too much nitrogen. Yes, they need it to grow, but it's not healthy and can just damage the habitat if too much of it seeps into the ground. Leave it to the bacteria for nitrogen fixation.

[Echo_djinn]

I think someone might have already said this but soon the government will be making electrcial cars and be mass producing them because gas and oil is slowly disappearing.

The gas prices have gone past the one dollar sign in some places and soon it will be to expensive to buy. Thats why there trying to get electrical cars out on the road as soon as possible.

[TobiasMar]

Izar, on Apr 8 2005, 09:35 PM, said:

Well, Not all the confict Gimli. In Israel, the fighting is religious-wise.

I know, but actully, the money used for gasoline from the middle east goes first to the gas people and alot of others. and eventually, the terrorists themselves.

[My Best Wishes]

I'm not gonna debate what is the best fuel source but i reckon hurry the hell up with solar and hover technology (go read hover car racer by matthew rielly).

Prices are steadly increasing, same time last year we were pay at the most 90 cents for a litre. Now we're paying at the least 98 cents a litre. average is about $1.08.

I have a suggestion for all of you. We call 'gas' petrol and real gas gas. Which goes for about 40 cents a whatever you messuare gas in. It may have long long time effect on your car but it saves alot on fuel.

[Andross]

Echo_djinn, on Apr 11 2005, 01:00 AM, said:

I think someone might have already said this but soon the government will be making electrcial cars and be mass producing them because gas and oil is slowly disappearing.

The gas prices have gone past the one dollar sign in some places and soon it will be to expensive to buy. Thats why there trying to get electrical cars out on the road as soon as possible.

Oil and natural gas is still prevalent enough that it could last the world until 2050 and beyond. And even then, there could easily be energy breakthroughs that offer replenishable energy, and who knows, we could get close to hot fusion.

As well, the gov't (US at least) has no plans on mass producing electric cars, because that would be unconstitutional - the gov't can't interfere with the market. They can only provide incentives, such as tax breaks, which are already available.

In addition, electric cars are not efficient enough to be a viable option over hybrids, mostly because they lack good enough acceleration and speed.

[Echo_djinn]

Andross, on Apr 10 2005, 09:45 PM, said:

Oil and natural gas is still prevalent enough that it could last the world until 2050 and beyond. And even then, there could easily be energy breakthroughs that offer replenishable energy, and who knows, we could get close to hot fusion.

As well, the gov't (US at least) has no plans on mass producing electric cars, because that would be unconstitutional - the gov't can't interfere with the market. They can only provide incentives, such as tax breaks, which are already available.

In addition, electric cars are not efficient enough to be a viable option over hybrids, mostly because they lack good enough acceleration and speed.

It's true that electrical cars are not as efficient as the modern car we have today but the oil in the middle east is running out and that is were North America gets most of it oil from. Electrical cars maybe are only choice soon since gas has gone up so high and soon people wont be able to pay for it. I don't know if the US has any plans to make or produce these cars but I have heard rumors that Canada is looking into this.

In Canada though oil is being discovered in the frozen areas near the Yukon and other places so I agree with you that we may still have some time before the oil on this planet does reach a critical situation.

[Andross]

As said, gas is CHEAP in the US compared to everywhere else. And again, oil reserves aren't low enough to cause enough of an issue to lead to such.

Electrical cars would still solve nothing. Power plants still rely on fossil fuels and gases for energy, and that is what is used to make those cars AND provide power plants with the energy to make electricity. No matter what, fossil fuels are being used.

The Middle East isn't the only source of oil either. I'm sure you know that, but you make it sound as if when the Middle East goes, we all go. Not true.

South America, Canada, Southeast Asian Islands, Alaska, and Russia have oil, natural gas, and other types of energy reserves. A lot too, which offer better return than Middle Eastern oil. There are also energy spots located all over the ocean. Plenty of species of decayed and crumbled enough over the years to leave deposits there.

Energy is not tight quite yet, and it usually takes the exhaustion or halt of advancement to lead to new developments.

[Nobody]

But in places like the Misissippi river, they could build power plants there to rely on the same power used during the first years of the industrial revolution-power of flowing water. Though hydroelectric power doesn't produce a large amount of energy compared to gasoline, more hydroelectric plants could help in cutting relyance (sp?) of oil.
Windmills in places such as Kansas or Oklahoma would also be useful.

[Nemphtis]

Damn, you mean it's gonna cost more to make molotov ****tails?! Nooo!

[Nobody]

uh, what I meant was that Gasoline (whch is also used in molotov ****tails) can run out. Water and wind emergy can't, so it can be an alternative source for generating power of make battery-cars and things like that.

[Eugine]

I think solar power cells, will be a good way to combat the rising gas price.

[Tachyon360]

This is a Tachyon Moment.

1. Hydrogen fuel cells aren't all that efficient yet, and until they can get a lot of hydrogen shoved into those tanks without them bursting under pressure, they won't have a long range either. Furthermore, it takes electricity to electrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen. Most power plants still burn fossil fuels. More demand means more plants that burn fossil fuels. You can't learn to walk without first learning to crawl (or however that saying went). Same here. If fuel cells are to be truly clean, the power plants that ultimately supply them must be clean as well. IMO, we need to research and develop feasible clean power plants before fuel cells would make any ecologic sense.

2. Fuel cells are just another kind of chemical battery. The only difference is that it reacts hydrogen and oxygen, and dumps the waste product. Taking this into account, if we can't get hydrogen to be very efficient, perhaps other materials can be used.

3. Internal combustion engines could be eco-friendly, if we burn only what we grow. Dude, we can like, save the world with hemp.

This has been a Tachyon Moment.

[Andross]

TOTALLY forgot about hemp! THE BEST WEED EV4R!
*save that quote for me*

On #3, that is completely true. Bio-Diesel, as I mentioned before, and nuf said.

[Tachyon360]

If memory serves, the first diesel engines were designed to run on hemp oil. Kinda funny, isn't it?

It makes sense, though, since hemp is technically a weed and can grow just about anywhere with nearly no fertilizer or pesticide. And considering that it takes a lot of care and *very* potent strains to produce psychoactive properties with outdoor growing, the government need not worry about kids getting high off of the stuff (not that it's anywhere near as dangerous as a lot of the legal stuff out there).

Quote

Last comment, nitrogen gas would be VERY harmful to the environment. Why? Because it could overload the plants and crops in the environment with too much nitrogen. Yes, they need it to grow, but it's not healthy and can just damage the habitat if too much of it seeps into the ground. Leave it to the bacteria for nitrogen fixation.

Nitrogen-fixing bacteria produce nitrates and nitrites. Elemental nitrogen gas would escape into the atmosphere, where it was taken from in the first place (thus no damage would be done there), and even if some would get into the ground, it's too inert to do any damage.

[Izar]

Um, NOT the same hemp as the Marijuana Hemp...

Anyways, Not many people gotta worry about the gas prices (on the forum) because most of you don't drive! :P I do!

[Tachyon360]

There's only one hemp. There have been cheap substitutes that have been occasionally refered to as hemp (such as sisal and flax), but all true hemp comes from the genus Cannabis. And it was grown far and wide, until the government made it illegal in the 1930's under growing pressure from the textile and pharmaceutical industries.

Just because it's Cannabis, doesn't mean it's marijuana. There are many different strains. Some are food-grade (hempseed is the single most nutritious pseudograin in the world), others have psychoactive properties, and still others have long primary fibers (which are great for rope).

But I digress. Back to the topic.

BTW, driving isn't something to flaunt. Most people here will eventually drive anyway. I can drive, but I doubt anyone could care less.

[Nobody]

Tachyon360, on Apr 18 2005, 06:33 AM, said:

3. Internal combustion engines could be eco-friendly, if we burn only what we grow. Dude, we can like, save the world with hemp.

This has been a Tachyon Moment.

Agreed. That also gave me an idea.
You know how people cut down trees in rainforests and just....burn them? Why not cut it into firewood for--
Wait, that isn't a good type of car feul. But things like vegtable oil, peanut oil, olive oil perhaos, etc CAN be good as bio-deseal feuls. Like what you said, they are natural, and so much less pollutant.

[Tachyon360]

Wood can be distilled into alcohol, which can burn in gasoline engines with no special modifications. However, we didn't plant most of that wood, so cutting forests down and burning 'em would release greenhouse gasses not intended to be released on a very short term.

For it to work, you'd need fast-growing plants requiring minimal maintenance, so that human-contolled carbon dioxide is ultimately released to the atmosphere at the same rate it's taken out. (Nature adds greenhouse gasses as well, but people contribute more than necessary While humans contribute relatively little, that little bit adds up pretty quickly year after year.)

Hemp and bamboo fit the bill perfectly. Hemp oil is not only nutritious, but great for diesel with only minor, inexpensive modifications. The rest can be fermented and distilled, making a bio-friendly gasoline replacement (or vodka, depending on what you intend to do with the ethanol). The remaining stuff can continue to be decomposed, creating simple hydrocarbons, which can supply everything from gas grills to small power plants. The compost left over from that would be an excellent fertilizing mulch for farms, both reducing the impact of soil erosion and supplementing (or even replacing) chemical fertilizers.

There are some areas that use this strategy, but if the US government were to finally tell Bush where he could shove his oil money and mandate wide-scale bio-fuel production, fuel would be expensive at first, but cheapen dramatically with production, and if nothing else, the tree-huggers would finally shut up about global warming.

As for the rainforests... well, that's a much stickier problem. Forests are burned to make way for large farms, and there's a heavy demand for tropical hardwoods on top of that.

[Elliott]

Our petrol prices have gone up to around 1.10 a litre in some places.
I remember a couple of years back when it was around 80 cents.

[Izar]

Tachyon360, on Apr 18 2005, 08:19 PM, said:

There's only one hemp. There have been cheap substitutes that have been occasionally refered to as hemp (such as sisal and flax), but all true hemp comes from the genus Cannabis. And it was grown far and wide, until the government made it illegal in the 1930's under growing pressure from the textile and pharmaceutical industries.

No, the Hemp term means any cannabis plant. Cannabis is the most durable of the hemp plants. It's definitly NOT nutritousthe chemicals found in it, such as THC, are very pointless. Believe me, I would know.

Matthew Ducheneaux, currently fighting his own legal battle for the right to use THC to ease spasms caused by "quadriplegia," says, "Any idiot knows that marijuana and industrial hemp are not the same. I don’ think any amount of industrial hemp could get you high."

http://www.innvista....rition/hemp.htm

Some Site said:

`Hemp' is any durable plant that has been used since pre-history for many purposes. Fiber is the most well known product, and the word `hemp' can mean the rope or twine which is made from the hemp plant, as well as just the stalk of the plant which produced it.

Hemp was never meant as any energy source.

Legalizing hemp for any purpose is almost always just a way to advocate it for legalization, bah. Many more things are better for fuel.

--------------

The main thing is, in order to use other fuel sources, costs to be able to use them are pretty high.

[Tachyon360]

There are a handfull of points I want to make:

First of all, Cannabis is a genus, made up of several species (sativa, indica, ruderalis, americana), though some botanists suggest that they're all one species with several highly specialized breeds.

*Side note: I should also mention that delta-9-THC and its complementing cannabinoids (synthetic delta-3,4-THC, especially alone, is horribly ineffective) relieves eye fluid pressure in glaucoma patients, prevents and relaxes muscle spasms, and relieves severe, chronic pain. The doses required for such effects are far below those needed for psychoactive effects. I won't go further about that, though, since this post is about hemp and not marijuana.*

Second of all, hemp refers to Cannabis plants used for industrial use. Cannabis and only Cannabis is truly considered hemp. There have been other cordage materials reffered to as hemp, but they are not hemp. These days, the Cannabis strains used for medicinal and recreational use are generally reffered to as marijuana.

Third, psychoactive cannabinoids in Cannabis strains bred for industrial use are in such small quantities that they border undetectable. (Edit: Well, at least you agree there.)

Fourth, there is evidence that cannabinoids, including psychoactive ones, are rather potent antioxidants. There is also evidence that cannabinoids reduce the effects of tar and smoke on the lungs, making cannabis smoke less dangerous than tobacco smoke (though smoking anything isn't ever the best way to ingest it).

Fifth, it has long been believed that psychoactive cannabinoids attach to the same receptors as opitates and barbituates, but recently, it's been found that while they do indeed work in those pathways, it's a rather mild interaction. Shortly thereafter, distinct cannabinoid receptors have been found in the human brain, and those receptors are nearly non-existant in the parts of the brain that control involuntary functions.

Sixth, hempseed is packed with nutrients. The lipids have a rich amount of Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids, in a ratio perfectly suited for the human body (flax comes in as a close second), and also has the lowest amount of saturated fatty acids of any other plant. The proteins are mostly globulin edistin, the protein most easily digested and used by the human body. Taking this into account, as well as the fifth point, it suggests that humans and cannabis co-evolved for millenia.

Seventh, back in the ancient world, hemp was indeed used for energy. Hemp oil, was used as a high-quality lamp oil and the fibers were often used as wicks. In more recent times, the need for bio-fuels has been recognized. Considering how hardy hemp is, how fast it grows, and how easy it is on the soil it grows in, it's ideal for harvesting for biodiesel, biogas, and fuel-grade alcohol. Each of those work just as well as, if not better than, petrochemical fuels, and they don't harm the environment.

Eighth, hemp ropes and textiles are far more durable than their cotton and polyester counterparts. It used to be that cotton was far more comfortable, but circa 1930, new processing techniques and machinery allowed hemp to compete with cotton as comfortable clothing, and allowed hemp fibers to be processed much faster and in much larger quantities.

Ninth, considering that at around the same time, hemp was finding more and more uses and competing ever more strongly in more and more industries, there was a wide-scale industrial conspiracy to brainwash the public and make it illegal. Of course, it didn't stop with hemp, and many other products were either overwhelmed or banned.

*Side note: We're currently in a dark age of medicine and agriculture, where humanity has pretty much forgotten all the things that were available in the past and how effecive they are. For example, most people don't know that fenugreek and lavender have pretty strong antimicrobial properties, and can be used to dramatically increase the shelf life of perishable foods.

So what do they do? They give in to the brain washing and sanction genetically engineering the crops with all kinds of nasty things (that the people were brainwashed into thinking they're benign), all in the name of progress and research. Unfortunately, it creates even nastier toxins and allergens in the process.*

Lastly, legalizing hemp does not require legalizing marijuana (though that would be a good idea as well, for reasons I won't get into). It's very easy to tell the difference between Cannabis grown for industrial use and Cannabis grown for psychoactive properties. In mature plants, you can often look for glistening resin glands, and prominent, resinous trichomes. If you want to be absolutely certain, or if somewhat younger plants are involved, a quick reagent test for THC can eliminate all doubt.

Game, set, match. I win.