I’d like to see the Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa genuses completely wiped off the face of the earth out of existence and just keep a strain of hemp for rope making and such that doesn’t contain any significant cannabinoids. It’s not economically feasible for narcotics producers to synthesise Cannabinoids so once we get rid of the plant itself entirely then the problem is pretty much solved. How to develop methods to specifically, genetically target those two plants is the key.
The DEA is tasked with coordinating local agencies in a nationwide campaign against illegal marijuana but of course their hands are tied by in state laws for decriminalisation and legalisation and “medical marijuana” and all the rest of it. In 2013 they destroyed 4395000 marijuana plants:
http://www.dea.gov/ops/cannabis.shtml
That’s just a drop in the ocean. If it’s not working then maybe we need to look at more innovative and aggressive means to tackle this menace.
Has everyone seen the sniffer dogs the police use to effectively and efficiently weed out the junkies who have the smell of drugs on them? A really large scale drug dog unit for every station across the country would be good. I like the idea of training dogs to sniff out the malcontents and miscreants. They do it so effectively too.
I’ve seen trot right up to some longhair and sit beside him waiting for his handler who’s close behind holding the lead and maybe with a reward. Just quietly, without any fuss singles out the pothead; the scourge; the dregs. But that’s when you need a hard-nosed cop; the Broderick Crawford type, to come in with the phone books and the rubber hose. Clean up the streets.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’d like to see the Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa genuses completely wiped off the face of the earth out of existence and just keep a strain of hemp for rope making and such that doesn’t contain any significant cannabinoids. It’s not economically feasible for narcotics producers to synthesise Cannabinoids so once we get rid of the plant itself entirely then the problem is pretty much solved. How to develop methods to specifically, genetically target those two plants is the key.[/quote]
There is also Cannabis ruderalis, not very common, not very productive either.
The thing is having thc is a naturally occurring expression of Cannabis. There are going to be plants with more or less of it that can be targeted and selectively bred.
In the end, I don’t think it’s anything like Cocaine and the coca leaf. The process of making hash and other extracts is pretty simple, ranging from drying it out and beating the trichromes off of it in the cold to make hashish, to stuffing a glass tube with shredded cannabis and knocking the trichromes of by freezing them with liquid butane, then letting the butane evaporate, then vacuum purging it. Then there are various ways of extracting it with CO2 and even forms of Alcohol.
The trichromes are just the resin glands that stick out of the flower and leaf… When you look at pot,it looks kind of fuzzy (if its good), I’m not talking red hairs, I’m talking tiny tiny fuzzy hairs, when you look closely or under a looking glass or microscope you see little globs at the end of the hairs which is the plants resin, and natural defense, and the whole of that tiny little hair and glob of resin at the end is a trichrome.
That’s what is processed, it’s easy to strip from the plant.
I think I understand where you might be coming from in terms of cannabis extracts and stuff… The thing is it’s really easy, and it’s not dangerous like coke to crack, or opium to heroine. It’s a little more like beer to hard liquor, it just gets you there quicker.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
There is also Cannabis ruderalis, not very common, not very productive either.
The thing is having thc is a naturally occurring expression of Cannabis. There are going to be plants with more or less of it that can be targeted and selectively bred.
[/quote]
Yeah I know. Maybe some genetic mutation introduced into the crops can destroy their potential? A virus? Parasite even?
I don’t see your point. Marijuana is needed to make hash in the first place. Many strains of hemp, like the ones traditionally used for rope making, have very little Cannabinoids in them and are not suitable for smoking or production into hash. Strong hash needs strong source material. It’s to expensive and time consuming to try to refine it from material of low Cannabinoid content such as leaves and stems. Get rid of marijuana and you get rid of hash.
Gets you where? Nevermind.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’d like to see the Cannabis indica and Cannabis sativa genuses completely wiped off the face of the earth out of existence and just keep a strain of hemp for rope making and such that doesn’t contain any significant cannabinoids. It’s not economically feasible for narcotics producers to synthesise Cannabinoids so once we get rid of the plant itself entirely then the problem is pretty much solved. How to develop methods to specifically, genetically target those two plants is the key.[/quote]
They already do produce synthetic cannabinoids. Ever heard of JWH-018? IMO, replacing illicit drugs with untested designer drugs is a worse road to go down.
Also, is anyone else a little concerned about the idea of unleashing genetically engineered micro-organisms on the world to stop people from eating a few bags of Doritos more than they should’ve? The thing about the uncontrolled use of genetically engineered microbes is that they don’t always do exactly what you intended them to do. The high rate of mutation, genetic recombination, horizontal gene transfer, etc. could result in a microbe that does a whole lot of other stuff than just killing some pot plants.
Also, have fun making that strategy work out long-term. Finding an essential gene that’s high-consensus and specific to just 2 specific members of the Cannabis genus to target is probably unrealistic, so it would likely be based on a non-essential cell-surface antigen. Now, the problem with picking a non-essential target is that they tend to be lower-consensus, so more variation of that antigen would be seen/possible.
The Cliff’s is that resistant plants almost certainly exist already and it wouldn’t take long for resistant strains to emerge. It seems the only logical response to that is to develop a new genetically modified microbe to unleash. And the cycle continues until the plant is eliminated or we give up.
The question is, how many genetically modified bugs with fairly high potential for off-target effects are you comfortable unleashing upon the globe in the name of stopping the serious menace of bored kids sitting on couches?
PS: The plural of “genus” is “genera”.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Has everyone seen the sniffer dogs the police use to effectively and efficiently weed out the junkies who have the smell of drugs on them? A really large scale drug dog unit for every station across the country would be good. I like the idea of training dogs to sniff out the malcontents and miscreants. They do it so effectively too.
I’ve seen trot right up to some longhair and sit beside him waiting for his handler who’s close behind holding the lead and maybe with a reward. Just quietly, without any fuss singles out the pothead; the scourge; the dregs. But that’s when you need a hard-nosed cop; the Broderick Crawford type, to come in with the phone books and the rubber hose. Clean up the streets.[/quote]
Oh please. I don’t smoke pot anymore but I was quite high-functioning when I did. I went to a very selective, publicly-funded residential gifted and talented high school with approximately 230 students and I smoked pot with no fewer than 100 of them. That was in the late '90s.
Where are me and my stoner friends now? Well, we’re doing things like making lots of money in many different competitive fields. I am a Sr. Business Analyst. My most notorious cohort is an associate professor at Yale. My other best friend from that school is working in international finance. Others are practicing law. Practicing medicine. Doing international humanitarian work. Being real estate moguls. We’re basically the people you want in any society.
Sure, a few probably ended up in their parents’ basements, but so did plenty of people who never toked up.
I am dead-serious when I say that you should take some mushrooms in a safe, positive setting with music you enjoy and two or three people you trust. Take a hit or two off of a joint with good weed about two hours in. You are a very smart guy and I think you’ll come out the other side with an experience that will enrich your life.
Regardless of whether or not you do that, I recommend losing this mentality of “get 'em up against the wall”. After all, you’ve taken the alias of a character from a Rodriguez/Tarantino film. How much weed do you think those guys smoked during their creative process?
I’ll just leave this here and point out that it pharmaceutical companies buying off congressmen isn’t really an underground thing.
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
They already do produce synthetic cannabinoids. Ever heard of JWH-018?
[/quote]
I was talking about illegal drug producers/smugglers not pharmaceutical companies. It’s not cost efficient to synthesise cannabinoids illicitly.
Maybe so. But that’s not what I was advocating.
Well sure. But who said anything about that?
Very true. We need to be very careful. We know from larger organisms what can happen like the cane toads that were introduced to fight the cane beetles. The toads quickly spread and multiplied and became a major pest. Yes, I know we need to be careful with this sort of thing.
True. Caution must be taken.
You sound like you know a bit about it.
[quote]
The Cliff’s is that resistant plants almost certainly exist already and it wouldn’t take long for resistant strains to emerge. It seems the only logical response to that is to develop a new genetically modified microbe to unleash. And the cycle continues until the plant is eliminated or we give up.
The question is, how many genetically modified bugs with fairly high potential for off-target effects are you comfortable unleashing upon the globe in the name of stopping the serious menace of bored kids sitting on couches?
PS: The plural of “genus” is “genera”.[/quote]
Good points.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]thehebrewhero wrote:
Weed is awsome…haters gonna hate… they hate us cuz they anus[/quote]
Hebrew folk know whats up
[/quote]
Well, yeah. What do you think that “burning bush” thing was all about?
Moses was also an early proponent of hemp cultivation among the Hebrews, but he always ran into opposition from Egypt’s powerful papyrus lobby. This of course gave rise to his famous plea to Pharaoh, “Let my people Grow!”
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Oh please. I don’t smoke pot anymore but I was quite high-functioning when I did.
[/quote]
Yeah, yeah I’ve heard it all before. Just take note of the posters here who say they smoke marijuana. I’m not going to name any posters specifically but seriously, all the dumbest posters are also the big pot smokers. It’s the same story everywhere. Maybe not all pot smokers are stupid or lazy but most of them are.
Just picture one of those animated gifs of someone clapping…the Orson Welles one from Citizen Kane. Yeah, that one.
And you deny any side effects like lack of motivation? Short term memory problems?
Potheads are outstanding citizens? Come on give me a break! Potheads have a reputation for a reason.
Excuse me? I should take some “mushrooms” in a “safe setting” with “people [I] trust?” Say what? No seriously, 1. I’m not interested and 2. The people I trust wouldn’t trust me if I were to take powerful hallucinogenic drugs in their presence. And 3, many other reasons I don’t think are worth going into. However, I’ve had visions and been in altered states of consciousness from fever and on a few other occasions. I’m in my 30’s now. I have no interest in experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs for whatever reason.
No thanks. To be honest, I’ve actually been taking powerful pain killers recently due to injuries. That’s a whole different class of drug(opiates) and they can be very addictive and destroy your life. So basically, I don’t like recreational drugs in general. I know a fair bit about drugs due to my general knowledge and people I know and I’m not unaware of the effects of hallucinogens and marijuana and so on. I really don’t think experimenting with drugs like that(or any drugs) at this stage in my life. Right now I’m dealing with chronic pain and trying to ensure I don’t develop a tolerance to the pain killers I’m prescribed.
I was being a little facetious to a certain extent because some of the pot smoking losers who claim it’s a harmless miracle drug annoy me. It’s a certain class of drug that has side effects and possible reactions that can be harmful and it’s delivered by a means that introduces smoke and carcinogens to the lungs. Anyway, I don’t want to get into an argument about the effects. It does have the potential for great harm with some people including mental illness and so on.
Tarantino and Rodriguez? I don’t even like their films.
I really have a strong dislike of Tarantino to be honest. Bob Mitchum was a pot smoker for a while. Although I don’t think he would’ve argued it facilitated his creative talents.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Oh please. I don’t smoke pot anymore but I was quite high-functioning when I did.
[/quote]
Yeah, yeah I’ve heard it all before. Just take note of the posters here who say they smoke marijuana. I’m not going to name any posters specifically but seriously, all the dumbest posters are also the big pot smokers. It’s the same story everywhere. Maybe not all pot smokers are stupid or lazy but most of them are.
Just picture one of those animated gifs of someone clapping…the Orson Welles one from Citizen Kane. Yeah, that one.
And you deny any side effects like lack of motivation? Short term memory problems?
Potheads are outstanding citizens? Come on give me a break! Potheads have a reputation for a reason.
Excuse me? I should take some “mushrooms” in a “safe setting” with “people [I] trust?” Say what? No seriously, 1. I’m not interested and 2. The people I trust wouldn’t trust me if I were to take powerful hallucinogenic drugs in their presence. And 3, many other reasons I don’t think are worth going into. However, I’ve had visions and been in altered states of consciousness from fever and on a few other occasions. I’m in my 30’s now. I have no interest in experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs for whatever reason.
No thanks. To be honest, I’ve actually been taking powerful pain killers recently due to injuries. That’s a whole different class of drug(opiates) and they can be very addictive and destroy your life. So basically, I don’t like recreational drugs in general. I know a fair bit about drugs due to my general knowledge and people I know and I’m not unaware of the effects of hallucinogens and marijuana and so on. I really don’t think experimenting with drugs like that(or any drugs) at this stage in my life. Right now I’m dealing with chronic pain and trying to ensure I don’t develop a tolerance to the pain killers I’m prescribed.
I was being a little facetious to a certain extent because some of the pot smoking losers who claim it’s a harmless miracle drug annoy me. It’s a certain class of drug that has side effects and possible reactions that can be harmful and it’s delivered by a means that introduces smoke and carcinogens to the lungs. Anyway, I don’t want to get into an argument about the effects. It does have the potential for great harm with some people including mental illness and so on.
Tarantino and Rodriguez? I don’t even like their films.
I really have a strong dislike of Tarantino to be honest. Bob Mitchum was a pot smoker for a while. Although I don’t think he would’ve argued it facilitated his creative talents.
[/quote]
I’m not saying hemp and marijuana are “the answer” to any of life’s great problems. I AM saying that keeping them illegal, much less going to any of the lengths you describe, is most definitely NOT the answer to anything other than wasting public resources.
The link between intelligent, high-functioning people and drug use of all types, especially cannabis, is documented far beyond my personal anecdotes. While few will argue that their intelligence or high-level of function is a product of cannabis use, getting stoned does not seem to do much to hinder a motivated person.
It seems that you are only taking note of the people who give you a negative impression. Did it ever occur to you that high-functioning people who smoke pot are simply escaping your notice because they do not fit the stereotypes you hold?
While my 1990’s-era stoner friends (some of whom still toke up) and I have found success in business and hard sciences, it goes without saying that the creative class uses drugs of all types to a staggering degree. The man in my avatar was quite open about his drug use and he was one of the most influential writers of the last 50 years. Would The Beatles have reached the creative heights they did without drugs? The list goes on and on…
While I’m not sure the exact extent to which you were being facetious with your comments, it does seem that you believe our society would be better off if my very successful friends and I spent our youth in the criminal justice system instead of getting our educations. You are, after all, advocating some very draconian measures.
Do I have that right?
What I’m saying is that the majority of pot smokers I’ve known were losers - especially the heavy/longterm smokers. And legalisation advocates are always saying the war on drugs is not working. So I suggested a different tactic that doesn’t involve putting you or your dope smoking friends in prison. I suggested a novel new approach of attacking the plant itself.
That’s what Cab Calloway said about it.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What I’m saying is that the majority of pot smokers I’ve known were losers - especially the heavy/longterm smokers. And legalisation advocates are always saying the war on drugs is not working. So I suggested a different tactic that doesn’t involve putting you or your dope smoking friends in prison. I suggested a novel new approach of attacking the plant itself.[/quote]
Those ideas were bad. Very bad. Aggressive global herbicide, what could go wrong? My sister-in-law, who spent her teenage years as a hard-partying metal-head, could explain WHY much better than I could. She’s a Sr. Research Associate at a biotech firm where she develops gene therapies.
You know, just another one of those damn stoners, developing treatments for lysosomal storage disorders and eating all of the Cheetos.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Has everyone seen the sniffer dogs the police use to effectively and efficiently weed out the junkies who have the smell of drugs on them? A really large scale drug dog unit for every station across the country would be good. I like the idea of training dogs to sniff out the malcontents and miscreants. They do it so effectively too.
I’ve seen trot right up to some longhair and sit beside him waiting for his handler who’s close behind holding the lead and maybe with a reward. Just quietly, without any fuss singles out the pothead; the scourge; the dregs. But that’s when you need a hard-nosed cop; the Broderick Crawford type, to come in with the phone books and the rubber hose. Clean up the streets.[/quote]
Way to go! Generalize an entire portion of the population as losers!
Bring in the Brownshirts, right?
Dumb ass.
Well, I do not think Hemp and Marijuana are THE answer, but I think illegalizing is not an answer as well. I did not read all the posts, maybe somebody already pointed out the obvious similarities with alcohol and drug prohibition:
- Organized crime gets crazy amount of money, since prices go up with increased risk, although the “fatcats” are rarely at risk themselves, usually some poor desperate people will carry most of the risk and thereby get caught and send to jail. But since they are easily replacable with new desperate people that will not destroy the market.
- There is no control over what is in it, who makes or sells it → obvious drawbacks: no control over quality, kids buying it, people fixing other people on to get new customers etc.
- It costs a shitload of money to fight against it, which is then not available for research, treatment or any other important stuff the state funds, like education.
- Many people get alienated by the law enforcement because they get harrassed and maybe even thrown in prison for not even hurting anybody
And to all the people who say stoners are losers (or any other stereotyping), that is most definitely a misconception, since all social classes do drugs, but usually the lowest classes have the hardest time not getting addicted (since they often have no perspective in life and use drugs as an escape).
I prefer drinking since it makes one more active and easy going and don’t like to be sedated too much. A negative effect I observed is the lazyness, but that is the result of not doing anything, and that can just as eaisly develop by watching TV or surfing the internet all day.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Potheads are outstanding citizens? Come on give me a break! Potheads have a reputation for a reason.[/quote]
Put that way, no, potheads are not outstanding citizens.
But there are outstanding citizens that have a past or present that involved smoking pot recreationally.
Not everyone who smokes is a pothead; not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Potheads are outstanding citizens? Come on give me a break! Potheads have a reputation for a reason.[/quote]
Put that way, no, potheads are not outstanding citizens.
But there are outstanding citizens that have a past or present that involved smoking pot recreationally.
Not everyone who smokes is a pothead; not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic.[/quote]
Yes I agree. My beef is with losers who smoke pot every day and have a constantly idiotic look on their face. The type who say “dude” a lot and are always getting confused by simple things(totally spun out man). They’re also very vocal legalisation proponents and they always claim pot is harmless and a miracle drug. I know a lot of people might’ve smoked for a while when they were in high school or university but i think most sensible people give it away and don’t go through their adult life lunging cones and vaping hash oil and so on.
The only people who have a problem with weed are
A. Those with a political agenda
B. Those with a stick so far up their ass they’re chewing on the handle.
I’m not saying weed is good or bad,
however
Alcohol and prescription pills are FAR WORSE than weed, but is legal, and promoted in society.
Either legalize weed, or put alcohol and prescription pills on schedule 1 right next to it…