If I were a seed company

[BENJI]

as much as u would like it to happen sam and all the rest of us would like it to happen the fact still remains it is illegal and will remain that way for the rest of your life and mine and probably my childs life to..
how many of them 800,000 people use it for medical reasons and only smoke weed and dont do other harder drugs ? Id like 2 know what percentage of that 800,000 dont have criminal records for other crimes and other drugs i mean dont get me wrong i have smoked and grown pot for 18 years i have been put in jail and fined over 15,000 dollars for doing something i love and i have no regrets, but if we let the government and politicians have control over something us breeders/growers control then all the work of yourself and other hardworking breeders will eventually become non-existent...I think the negatives far outweigh the positives when talking about leagalising pot from a breeders/growers point of view..
notice the new strain on the end of my signature forgot to add it...lol

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I can't see any negatives to legalization...
There is absolutely no legitimate reason for cannabis to be illegal in the first place, and nothing but good can come from the removal of any criminal penalties for possessing/producing/using cannabis.

 

[BENJI]

TAX, POLITICS AND BIG BUISNESS = legalisation
Decriminalisation not legalisation

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

Benji, that is the point, the goverment does not really control shit regarding legal crops as it is... as I already cleared up in a previous post, what the law can prevent you from doing is re-selling already trade-marked hybrids as your own, but it does not control whether you can breed your own new hybrids or grow landrace/heirloom strains as much as you want etc... so in a legal scenario, we would all keep doing what we do, with the exception that we won't be persecuted like the nazis persecuted the jews, and we won't be imprisioned and even killed over the ridiculous idea of an "illegal" plant.

Peace

 

[BENJI]

Benji, that is the point, the goverment does not really control shit regarding legal crops as it is... as I already cleared up in a previous post, what the law can prevent you from doing is re-selling already trade-marked hybrids as your own, but it does not control whether you can breed your own new hybrids or grow landrace/heirloom strains as much as you want etc... so in a legal scenario, we would all keep doing what we do, with the exception that we won't be persecuted like the nazis persecuted the jews, and we won't be imprisioned and even killed over the ridiculous idea of an "illegal" plant.

Peace

true but The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

TAX, POLITICS AND BIG BUISNESS = legalisation
Decriminalisation not legalisation

Do you not understand that if you don't like the laws you don't have to obey them? Kind of like growing pot at all now...

You really think there should be no rule against giving hash to a 5 year old?
How about a rule against vending adulterated cannabis?
It is kind of naive to suggest anarchy, imho... or to imply that legalization is tantamount to absolute control...

I have no problem paying taxes I owe...
I have a choice in almost every consumable product available to me...
Buy whiskey from a liquor store, or a moonshiner...
Buy a beer from budweiser, or the brew/pub 'round the corner...
Buy Lettuce from the supermarket chain, or the farmers market...

I could give a rat's ass if phillips-morris sells packs of prerolled schwagg joints... I'll never buy any of them, there will always be too many other choices...

 

[Crazy Composer]

Legalization would = miraculously positive all around, even IF cannabis names/varieties were trademarked/copyrighted. After all, ALL pot comes from the same original few regions in the first place, we can always find new variations on old genetics. Thank GOD cannabis is so customizable. You can take a tall, berry-flavored plant and breed it to a tall hashy plant and fully expect to see tall, hashy, berry-flavored plants. It's amazing to me how predictable cannabis breeding usually is. The combinations are virtually endless.

It would be a shame to see the free breeding of cannabis get stifled, but I guess since Sam did the breeding that resulted in Skunk#1, no one should benefit commercially from breeding with Skunk#1, not if they're using the Skunk#1 name to sell the new hybrid. However, since cannabis is so customizable, A SK1 can be bred just a few times with another distinct strain to create something quite new and unique... at which point I believe there should be no limitations placed on the breeder.

The benefits of NOT having to go to jail for pot are so obvious they barely warrant mentioning, really. It's not even worth making a topic of. The foggy area for us growers is the copyrighting of strains and hybrids to make breeding with them illegal. In this case people will still face legal troubles, but because they pissed off another breeder by using his/her work.

I put this question to Sam... Is there ANY scenario you can fathom where another breeder would be able to use Skunk#1 in one of their own commercially available hybrids? Any at all? Or is Skunk#1 totally off limits to all breeders, no matter how far up the parental line the Skunk#1 is, and no matter how dissimilar the final product was to Sk1 by the time they release their seeds? I'm trying to guage your intent, because the further you talk on the topic, the more I realize I may agree with the majority of your points.

I agree that taking a Skunk#1 and breeding it to... say... a hindu kush, then selling it as Sk1xHK is shady. However, using the Sk1 as a starting place, then breeding away from it's phenotypes in favor of another target phenotype after several generations to arrive at something different, seems okay in my book. At this point the genetic expressions are almost totally different than the Sk1 all those generations ago. What's your opinion on that?

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

In a legal Cannabis world if a breeder wanted to use Skunk #1 as one of the parents then they would owe royalties to me, I honestly do not know what that % or amount it would be but it must be common info published if you want to find it for tomatoes or corn or beans or apples, Cannabis would be the same if legal. Some countries have plant protection for all plant work, and some protect the original varieties but not any new hybrids that used a protected variety as one of the parents. So the hybrids are allowed I think royalty free. None of this is new, if Cannabis was legal it would be binding law.
You can self Skunk #1 for several generations and it don't change a lot. It is much more Homozygote then people suspect.
-SamS

 

[DocLeaf]

Aim to do a good thing,, and little bad will happen.

That's all we have to say on the matter... :wink:

peace peace peace
DocLeaf

- - -

If I were a rich man,
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a wealthy man.
I wouldn't have to work hard.
Ya ha deedle deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum.
If I were a biddy biddy rich,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle man.

I'd build a big tall house with rooms by the dozen,
Right in the middle of the town.
A fine tin roof with real wooden floors below.
There would be one long staircase just going up,
And one even longer coming down,
And one more leading nowhere, just for show.

 

[BENJI]

were can i get your skunk #1 beans from sam?

 

[oldtoker]

hey sam, ed rosenthall trys to say jingles made skunk 1, just thought u should know i read it in a book of his, but hey man i belive you for sure but just thought maybe u wanna write a note to old ed eh......

 

[Dalaihempy]

Or work to make Cannabis legal then normal plant protection laws would protect anyone that wanted to protect their work.

-SamS

Sam you know better than most how fucked up this community is at times and as it stands we do more harm to the couse than most think i cant see it being free as long as theres greed and anarchy and divition in this community.

I think the cannabis community needs to take a few leeds from the gay community on how they loby and do things gay groups are a small % of most citys or towns yet they have used the systeam well and have gone from haveing little to no rights to now putting the fear of god into goverments.

The gay community have gone far in the last 20 years yet we the canna community infact have gone no were if any thing we went backwards.

 

[420247]

I think the cannabis community needs to take a few leeds from the gay community on how they loby and do things gay groups are a small % of most citys or towns yet they have used the systeam well and have gone from haveing little to no rights to now putting the fear of god into goverments.

The gay community have gone far in the last 20 years yet we the canna community infact have gone no were if any thing we went backwards.

WOW!!!! I have thought the same thing but never hear about it...

I remember when gay people were Satan's spawns but now there just harmless hair dressers and interior decorators

Thank you so much for posting that Dalaihempy

 

[DocLeaf]

The gay rights movement in the UK benefited from the involvement of the ARL / ADL(Anti Racist / Deformation League)... whereby those protagonists (mainly from the NF) who got in the way on rallies,, received a f-ing good kicking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkFCuhZzJo8


Try not to confuse one and the other...the above holds no place in Cannabis Culture... !!!

peace peace peace

 

[DocLeaf]

At the point a breeder sells his/her stock, they sell the genetics in the line.

Otherwise it's like saying you can't buy a dog and stud it to another dog,, unless you pay the original breed stable royalties. When yo already paid..

What nonsense... the world just doesn't work like that.

Most underground breeders do in fact find the time/respect to ask fellow breeders for permission before working with their strains.

The professional breeders don't,, that's the difference.

Peace dLeaf

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

At the point a breeder sells his/her stock, they sell the genetics in the line.

Otherwise it's like saying you can't buy a dog and stud it to another dog,, unless you pay the original breed stable royalties. When yo already paid..

What nonsense... the world just doesn't work like that.

Most underground breeders do in fact find the time/respect to ask fellow breeders for permission before working with their strains.

The professional breeders don't,, that's the difference.

Peace dLeaf

So you can buy some protected variety of tomato seeds, knock them off and start selling them yourself?
You obviously have no idea how plant protection works. You can't take a protected plant variety and make and sell copies of the seeds or plants you will be stopped and taken to court. You could maybe make copies for your own use as long as you did not sell anything that came to the attention of the owners of the variety.


The PVPA confers a limited period of legal control to breeders of sexually reproduced or tuber propagated plant varieties. In order to be eligible for a certificate under the PVPA, a plant variety must satisfy four requirements.

First, it must be new, in the sense that propagating or harvested material has not been sold or otherwise disposed of for purposes of exploitation for more than one year in the United States, or more than four years in any foreign jurisdiction (or six years in the case of a tree or vine).
Second, the variety must be distinct -- that is, clearly distinguishable from any other publicly known variety. Distinctness may be based on one or more identifiable morpological, physiological, or other characteristics, including commercially valuable characteristics affecting activities such as milling and baking (in the case of wheat).
Third, the variety must be uniform, in the sense that any variations are describable, predictable, and commercially acceptable.
Finally, the variety must be stable, in the sense that the variety, when reproduced, will remain unchanged with regard to its essential and distinctive characteristics within a reasonable degree of commercial reliability.
A plant variety certificate gives the breeder the right to exclude others from selling the variety, or offering it for sale, or reproducing it, or importing it, or exporting it, or using it in producing (as distinguished from developing) a hybrid or different variety. The term of protection runs 20 years from the certificate's date of issue, or 25 years in the case of a tree or vine.
-SamS

 

[DocLeaf]

I n I grow my own food crops...

For example:

If we buy some 'Santa f1' seed from Suttons,, then we are free to cross this variety with a 'Beefsteak' variety to produce our own Santa/Beef line. If we in-bred the 'Santa F1' and tried to sell them on as 'Santa f1',, sure Suttons would be pissed and litigation may follow. However there's nothing to stop people selling 'Santa f2s' on an open market.

On the other hand if/when we are gifted with seed for FREE from heritage seed libraries we are free to inbreed or out breed the line as we wish.

Copyright then operates over the 'name' beneath which a cultigen is "marketed" ,, not over the plant itself.

Copyright on "drug-type cannabis" doesn't yet exist...(it does on registered "Hemp" varieties)... otherwise ppl would be filing on GHSco left, right, and back again.

I n I created Saxon Axe,, but the day we gave the seeds away we no-longer owned it!! Cause it's now sat in another growers garden...

This is how we understand it at least,,,

peace peace peace

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

DocLeaf,
Read the last paragraph in my last post, from the USA PVPA, you are just plain wrong....
I also have grown my own food crops for over 25 years now.
-SamS

 

[marijuanamat]

I'd understand if you'd made music and some re-mixer took the bass line and hook from your music and re-used it in there new tune then you'd have a right to get royalties but a plant is a living thing put on this earth for all to enjoy and no one person/corperation has the right to say they own it no matter who/what you are.

Like someone already said ,when you buy a pure breed dog like a huskie the breeder of that dog doesn't expect royalties from you when you stud it out so why should a plant be any differant???

 

[Tomacco]

Like someone already said ,when you buy a pure breed dog like a huskie the breeder of that dog doesn't expect royalties from you when you stud it out so why should a plant be any differant???

er, the dog world protects its pedigree.

papered breeders would lower the price and neuter pet-quality dogs (which would effectively prevent you from breeding them), while the show quality dogs would come with a hefty price (which would include the premium for allowing to breed on. there is no point in showing neutered dogs). this is akin to the 'breeders' stock'.

i suppose you could get non-papered dogs and start a puppy mill (~nirvana seeds, et al), but you wouldnt be able to command as high a price. you cannot guarantee that the puppies would be close to the pedigree's ideal. given this higher %age for hit-or-miss when it comes to puppy shopping, its only fair the buyer would not pay a lot for those puppies.

dont get me wrong, a dog is a dog. i love them all equally.