Biodegradable Sneakers Sprout Flowers When Planted 242
Zothecula writes "People may joke about their dirty old sneakers turning into science projects or mini ecosystems, but once OAT Shoes' compostable sneakers become commercially available within the next several weeks ... let's just say, those same people may no longer be joking when they make those kind of statements. Made using hemp, cork, bio-cotton, certified biodegradable plastics, chlorine-free bleach and other nontoxic materials, the shoes are designed to completely break down when buried in the ground – the first batch will even come with seeds in their tongues, so that wildflowers will sprout up in commemoration of users' planted, expired kicks."
Life Time (Score:5, Insightful)
How long are these shoes expected to last under normal use? I have shoes that I bought four years ago, and aside from replacing the insoles a few times, they're perfectly fine. No reason to toss them out. I'm not sure how viable a product these would be if they need to be replaced every few months because they're disintegrating.
It's a trap (Score:5, Insightful)
Good way to introduce invasive species.
The important question is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Seeds in the Tongue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we stop legislating what I am allowed to consume as an adult?
How about those supposed small government types stop worrying about what people ingest and what people do in there bedrooms.
Re:Makes Sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Or wearing them in the rain?
I don't know about you, but I keep my sneakers for a VERY long time. I can count on one hand the number of pairs I've purchased over the past 20 years--and still have a couple free fingers. I love the biodegradable idea, and I really like the photo of the shoes. They look great! I just don't want to take a chance that flowers are going to sprout from my shoes before I'm done with them.
Re:Obligatory (Score:2, Insightful)
You might want to lay off the stuff, I think you've had enough. Hemp is banned in the US because it's easy to conceal pot plants next to them, there is no law against importing the stuff, and AFAIK, never was, which really leads me to question the DuPont conspiracy angle.
You can legally get a prescription for THC in the US, the trade name is Marinol and assuming that the doctor is willing to go along with it, you can get it without any trouble. Which sort of discards the view that it's about big pharma.
At the end of the day, couldn't this really be just a matter of politicians viewing pot as being dangerous? Legitimate or not.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it makes you a social moderate. It doesn't speak at all of your fiscal views.
If you're fiscal view are the same as the Tea Party, that makes you a dumb ass.
Disinfo (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason it is called weed is because it is and yes, it is potent. Obviously a wild plant is not going to be as intensely potent as something bred for potentcy and grown in "optimal" conditions. However, the potency is plenty sufficient. The same goes for Papovar Somniferum aka the Opium Poppy. The DEA and other anti-drug liars like to say things like it is a "fact" that these plants do not grow wild except in Colombia or some place like that. But that is just their little way of rationalising their absurd law that actually criminalises weeds. Because these plants are so prolific and common it is common for "innocent" people to be growing them in their garden - especially the poppy flower. The only difference between "evil" drug cultivation and "innocent" flower gardening is the awareness of the full use of the plant. Hence, it is the knowledge that makes it illegal. Effectively the DEA then has the job of fighting against knowledge with disinformation or "drug facts" that conflate Heroin with Opium, Hemp with THC Cannabis etc etc.
As well, the prohibition is what leads to the higher potency as more dense narcotic effect is really most useful when you have contraband that needs to be hidden. Heroin, crack, and other high potency drugs are going to be a lot less popular if they are legal. Alcohol is a good analogy. Alcohol is partially criminalised. For underage drinkers it is, adults not. Adults mostly drink beer and wine with relatively low potency. If they drink hard liquor it is more often a sipping drink or mixed with flavours that weaken the potency. Underage drinking is a different story. The cheapest most potent gutrot is the best formula for booze when your supply is limited. Of course its not like this across the board (for instance addicts) but generally when people are allowed to take what they prefer (instead of just what they can get their hands on) they are going to choose something more moderate. One could go on.
Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't expect the judiciary of a great christian nation to not care that you might be jerking off in your bedroom with a giant dildo up your asshole for you aren't truly alone in your bedroom but are a naked offense in the sight of the LORD, the omnipotent omnivoyeur