2012 Legalization Effort Starts

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

Were the high CBD varieties bred for or just found with GC analysis? Do you think any of your breeders have the ability to create varieties that are only one single Cannabinoid? Or to elucidate on the inheritance of the Cannabinoids without higher learning in the field of breeding? I suspect it would help.
Breeding is like lab work, sure you can fool around uneducated, but to really do the job well, like breeding, you really need an education.

Everything you say is true and I agree except I think there are two kinds of education when it comes to plants. One comes from generations of experience (ie land races). The other comes from school and life experience (ie your work). Right?

You need to fully understand genetics and plant breeding, and a bit more....
Anyone in California working on Cannabis varieties that are virus resistant? Why not?

I don't really know everything about what's going on here. I am just some dude who went to organic farm college to learn to grow great pot, and make great hash, and I got recognized for it. People are secretive with stuff like that, I'm sure you understand.

AND diversity is more important than isolating a gene for pathogen resistance, or the other countless amazing scientific feats you have accomplished between the 70s and now due to your position in the world.

Because you are ahead doesn't make everyone else idiots. You moved to Amdam for some reason(s)... We are playing catchup. The anti-corporate sentiment is not to be rude. It's large part of all ages groups in CA.

I would not call people that make simple hybrids a plant breeder, they are having fun, maybe finding good selections but a plant breeder?
I guess then most smokers are Cannabis experts?
-SamS

I really take issue with the first part of this. There are other breeders than you. Please, will you take a minute and see how condescending that is? Seriously, I mean you no malice but this belittling attitude is not befitting of a king such as yourself.

There are many folks who dedicate their all to breeding (ie up-the-way tga, and the medical breeding collectives). You sir, do not get to define breeding.

At least 10 CBD-rich strains have been identified in the past year by labs in California, Montana, and Colorado. They include Soma A+, Women's Collective Stinky Purple, Cotton Candy/Diesel, True Blueberry/OG Kush, Harlequin, Omrita Rx, Jamaican Lion, Rx Red, Misty, Cannatonic, and Good Medicine

^^^this was by accident and just from a few months of testing. the real "diamonds" are still out there in the hills... and yes I realize what the genetics are and where the came from lol

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

I do agree that others do have the ability, but not thousands of breeders.
That was my point. Breeding is not easy to do right. And to be done well requires an education. Unless you can read Theoretical and Applied Genetics, Genetics, or other such journals and understand them I doubt you have a good grasp of the basics required to do the work.
Yes, without education you can make simple hybrids and selections, I don't call that plant breeding, if you do then we need to disagree.
To me it is like calling smokers experts on Cannabis.
Or hashmakers when they have made a bit of hash.
I am not going to change my mind about this, I know what a real plant breeder is and what an amateur hobby breeder is, they are not the same.

-SamS

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

I do agree that others do have the ability, but not thousands of breeders.
That was my point. Breeding is not easy to do right.
-SamS

Correct sir. I do not attempt honestly, I'll leave it to the educated few. You got me exaggerating with thousands of "real" breeders. Think of it like American Idol for MMj genetics (another rip-off of something across the pond). There is untold "talent" out there ie trueblue/og ect.

Is there a legitimate "rockstar" to be found by science? It's hard to say as I am not familiar with the "rockstars" of medical cannabis outside of CA. But we won't know until we look. I know what varieties work for the majority of patients by ailment. I heard big ag/biz was scouring the hills with portable GC/MS "there's gold in them thar hills!"

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

To me it is like calling smokers experts on Cannabis.

Sam, I have taken over the word cannassuer as an attempt to define advanced smokers. What do you think? "Expert on Cannabis", rarely appropriate, present company excluded.

Or hashmakers when they have made a bit of hash.

hey...(scratches head)... was that a shot at me? why I oughta! ... give you some of my hash that is
How many pounds (kilograms, whatever you want to use) of A-grade hash does one have to make to start using titles? And will you here and now bestow a hash title upon me for my efforts at spreading proper ice water extraction techniques?

I am not going to change my mind about this, I know what a real plant breeder is and what an amateur hobby breeder is, they are not the same.-SamS

Fair enough with the exception that you left out the breeders of the land races, do those families not count as "breeders" and their work not count as unique/meaningful contributions to the cannabis genome and MMj (potentially, possibly presently)?

Gosh, we are way off topic but at least it's in (american) English and not just insults. I got to throw an alliteration in there at the end

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Landraces are not the work of one breeder. They are the collective results of many many farmers over many many years, with isolation to help to fix the traits. That said, I am sure happy they did the work. And some is just amazing, what can I say? I love landraces and spent much of my youth chasing down and collecting them.
-SamS

 

[David762]

Not to interject and quibble here ...

Not to interject and quibble here ...

It's closer to saying "I don't need a fully-automatic machine gun because I can use my 9mm."

I get your point... get mine. You said you couldn't even grow enough for your own personal needs in a 5x5. I'm suggesting ways that you could. Not even arguing about whether 5x5 is fair or reasonable.



I don't grow vert. I grow in two chambers that are 1.5ftx1.5ft each.

So... for the mathematically challenged, I am growing in about 4 sq ft. Not 25 sq ft which is what Prop 19 would've allowed. 4.

And yes, I cover my own needs. My needs are to smoke about 2g a day, every day and a little extra on some days.

2g x 31 days = 62g a month. (A little over 2 ounces.)

I'm a pretty heavy smoker, at least compared to anyone I have ever known who smoked. (In Cali or elsewhere.) Recent informal polls on this website show that the average grower here is smoking the same OR LESS than I smoke myself.

So you're telling me you couldn't find a way to pull 18 oz out of 5x5? I think you're not trying very hard.

(18 oz / 3 people = 6oz each. 6oz each / 3 months = 2 oz a month per person. 3 people in original scenario.)

18 ounces is only a little over a pound. JJ says he was doing 2 lbs in only 21sq ft with only 1200w of light!

Honest discussion is one thing, but making shit up like you are doing is getting us nowhere.

Not to interject and quibble here ... but not everybody that grows cannabis is doing so primarily to smoke it. Ingested encapsulated hash oil has been a viable medical application that for serious ailments would require far more than a 5x5 grow space -- 8 pounds of cured herb might not qualify as a useful quantity for even 3 months for 1 person. Not everyone has had a documented medical history to qualify for major MMJ status, let alone have (or can afford) regular medical check-ups. There are 50+ million Americans today without medical care/coverage, and that number is growing daily. I cannot vouch for how many are CA residents, however.

I personally haven't had medical coverage or seen a doctor in 15 years, nor could I afford to. The legal (Prop 19) 5x5 grow space would not have done me very much good for my ailments, but I would have been able to look forward to dying comfortably numb. That's all your 8 pounds per year professionally done cannabis grow operation would have meant to me, under a victorious Prop 19. That's reality ...

 

[dagnabit]

Not to interject and quibble here ... but not everybody that grows cannabis is doing so primarily to smoke it. Ingested encapsulated hash oil has been a viable medical application that for serious ailments would require far more than a 5x5 grow space -- 8 pounds of cured herb might not qualify as a useful quantity for even 3 months for 1 person. Not everyone has had a documented medical history to qualify for major MMJ status, let alone have (or can afford) regular medical check-ups. There are 50+ million Americans today without medical care/coverage, and that number is growing daily. I cannot vouch for how many are CA residents, however.

I personally haven't had medical coverage or seen a doctor in 15 years, nor could I afford to. The legal (Pop 19) 5x5 grow space would not have done me very much good for my ailments, but I would have been able to look forward to dying comfortably numb. That's all your 8 pounds per year professionally done cannabis grow operation would have meant to me, under a victorious Prop 19. That's reality ...

except for the fact that as a 215 user not a damn thing would have changed for you...
folks keep bringing up medical....
some say we cant pass recreational until every state passes med(absolute foolishness)
others complain 5X5 is not enough for their med use. but i doubt they would be burning their med recs if 19 passed...

people seem to forget 19 really would have had very little practical change for people. it would have been a perception victory(arguably more important with 215/420 in place) as it stands we lost the perception battle.

in public perception leo/prohibition won.

 

[David762]

Perhaps you didn't actually parse my post.

Perhaps you didn't actually parse my post.

except for the fact that as a 215 user not a damn thing would have changed for you...
folks keep bringing up medical....
some say we cant pass recreational until every state passes med(absolute foolishness)
others complain 5X5 is not enough for their med use. but i doubt they would be burning their med recs if 19 passed...

people seem to forget 19 really would have had very little practical change for people. it would have been a perception victory(arguably more important with 215/420 in place) as it stands we lost the perception battle.

in public perception leo/prohibition won.

I would not qualify for a CA MMJ recommendation adequate to my medical needs, due to not having a documented medical history -- that takes much $$$ and normally also continuous medical coverage. Even if Prop 19 had passed (my other legal medical treatment avenue) the 5x5 grow operation restrictions would have done me very little good considering that my best avenue for treatment is encapsulated hash oil.

Is there some sort of cognitive disconnect going on due to the emotions raised over Prop 19? A person, such as myself, who cannot afford medical coverage & co-pays is hardly likely to be in a financial position to purchase 20 - 30 pounds of cannabis per year to process into ingestible hash oil. The only alternative is to be able to grow my own, and a 5x5 plot is hardly large enough to deal with my personal medical needs.

 

[dagnabit]

I would not qualify for a CA MMJ recommendation adequate to my medical needs, due to not having a documented medical history -- that takes much $$$ and normally also continuous medical coverage. Even if Prop 19 had passed (my other legal medical treatment avenue) the 5x5 grow operation restrictions would have done me very little good considering that my best avenue for treatment is encapsulated hash oil.

Is there some sort of cognitive disconnect going on due to the emotions raised over Prop 19? A person, such as myself, who cannot afford medical coverage & co-pays is hardly likely to be in a financial position to purchase 20 - 30 pounds of cannabis per year to process into ingestible hash oil. The only alternative is to be able to grow my own, and a 5x5 plot is hardly large enough to deal with my personal medical needs.

so you dont qualify for a rec in cali?
ok
wouldnt you rather have 5X5 than 0X0?
or is there a moral reason you would deny yourself at least some medicine?

 

[vta]

Author: Ezra Shapiro


A HEALTHY DOSE OF EMPIRICISM FOR THE DEBATE ON POT LEGALITY

Marijuana legalization has been raised countless times by politicians, newspapers, hippies and, of course, college newspapers. Again and again it has come up, to the point that it has become somewhat trite - a cliche policy issue that is urgent for no one. But just as a reminder: Marijuana for personal use is still illegal.

Under the Obama administration, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has ceased federal prosecution of licensed medical marijuana clinics, ceding enforcement to state control. At the same time, though, Attorney General Eric Holder has said that legalization of marijuana as a commercial product was "off the table."

Even so, the debate is not over. Information about the real effects of marijuana use, both sporadic and habitual, abounds.

But first, the debate must be put in context: It would be impossible to understand why a drug with relatively mild side effects remains illegal without looking at the history of drug enforcement.

The 60s were a time of social upheaval. Drugs were an integral part of youth culture, although LSD and ecstasy were relatively nascent. Lawmakers saw the effects of these drugs on their users - depression, memory loss, mental disease - and passed a flurry of anti-drug laws. For the most part, all drugs were conflated into one big evil - no distinction between the effects and severity of each drug was drawn by lawmakers.

The 80s and early 90s saw a spike in crime. Because much of it was drug-related, both federal and state legislatures passed stringent laws mandating minimum sentences and authorizing huge packages of money for drug-law enforcement.

Crime rates dropped again in 1993, but drug laws for the most part did not change. Although the Supreme Court struck down federal mandatory minimum sentences, many state courts did not. And the War on Drugs continued to grow in popularity and in budget. As of 2009, the federal government spends $50 billion a year on enforcement alone. That number ignores state enforcement costs, as well as the $150 billion spent on policing and courts and $68 billion spent on prisons.

And for all that money, what have we got in return? Nothing. The War on Drugs has not yielded any significant drop in drug use, yet money continues to flow into enforcement. Similar to Prohibition, rates of use have not dropped. Also similar to Prohibition, smuggling and related turf-wars have spiked.

The amount spent on prisons mystifies as well. Although part of a larger criticism of American prisons - a country that has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of its prisoners - the amount of money spent on keeping marijuana users in jail is ludicrous.

By rough estimation, if $68 billion is spent on prison upkeep annually, and one-third of those in prison are in for non-violent drug-related crime, and 47 percent of all those are in for marijuana arrests, then that comes out to about $9.5 billion dollars a year spent keeping pot-smokers in jail. For comparison, a fleet of F-22 fighter-jets was vetoed a few years back because it was too expensive. Its total proposed cost? $6 billion.

While on the economic track, let's talk about potential revenue from harvesting marijuana; California's growers bring in $14 billion annually. A 10 percent tax would bring the state $1.4 billion every year. For a state so buried in red ink, that proposal must look promising. If California alone could raise that much from a 10 percent tax, imagine the revenue Uncle Sam could raise. Saying the government shouldn't profit from immoral activity is a specious argument - gambling, tobacco and alcohol industries are all taxed ( and subsidized ) by the government.

Another huge source of worry for the country is Mexican cartels - the cartels control large parts of the country, and the murder and kidnapping from drug wars that were once contained to Mexico have crept over the border into Texas and Arizona. Legalizing would cut 65 percent of their profits, and destroy a large part of their motivation for drug-fueled killings.

But all this would be meaningless if marijuana was truly detrimental. After all, legalizing something that kills or has a high rate of addiction would't make any sense, would it? Yet an objective look at the short and long-term effects of marijuana are next to nothing. This is not new information: both Nixon and Reagan formed blue-ribbon commissions to study the effects of marijuana, but when both concluded that marijuana was far less severe than alcohol or tobacco, the results were dismissed.

First, addiction rates are tiny: Canadian government and RAND Corporation studies have shown that addiction rates for those who use pot regularly are a steady 9 percent, considerably less than alcohol and tobacco addiction rates.

Second, myths that marijuana leads to schizophrenia, depression or harder drugs have been disproved time and time again by virtually every objective research agency. While it may be true that those who do hard drugs started off with pot, that by no means proves that those who do pot automatically will go on to harder drugs. Given the rate of at least occasional use of pot - 15 percent nationwide - wouldn't there be a lot more users of hard drugs if there was indeed a causal link between pot and hard drugs?

The mushrooming of medical marijuana clinics and the drug's application for pain relief for a diversity of diseases is a convincing fact, as well. Surely a drug with virtually no one-time-use damages is better than the prescription painkillers now legally used. Among their side effects are vomiting, headaches, dizziness, liver and kidney failure. To me, it's an easy choice.

Virtually every myth about marijuana's long-term effects have been disproved, but one fact is undeniable: The damage from marijuana to the teen brain is noticeable. A brain still in formation is at much greater risk for short-term memory loss, among other symptoms.

Still, though, to say that kids may be affected is a specious argument. Alcohol and tobacco are legal, so how does law prevent kids from buying? Age restrictions. Very simply, there is no difference between allowing the marketing of alcohol and tobacco and allowing the marketing of marijuana. Fact clearly isn't the barrier in the way of legalization - it is the outmoded beliefs of the past that hinder passage of more just, balanced drug laws.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

so you dont qualify for a rec in cali?
ok
wouldnt you rather have 5X5 than 0X0?
or is there a moral reason you would deny yourself at least some medicine?

I have a feeling that he grows enough to supply himself.

What's wrong with a 10x10?

It doesn't need to be legal to exist.

If legal meant something feasible or useful then maybe many more would vote.

As it stood 5x5 just pissed people off.

It's not stopping too many from getting what they want.

 

[igrowone]

How about a logical strategy for realistic positive movement regarding cannabis legislation? I say more MMj states, then federal re-scheduling. then recreational/commercial state by state.

Sounds wonderful, just doesn't reflect current realities. We are probably near a plateau of MMJ.
Many non-MMJ will probably stay non-MMJ, states like Kansas and Alabama are not California(or even NY for that matter).
And the new MMJ states are very restrictive, that is the current trend.
Federal re-scheduling is only being considered because it's becoming a disproportionate pain in the ass for the Feds.
It's an expensive and ineffective law, but bureaucracies don't change because it's right.
They change from external pressure. Less pressure, less incentive to change.
This argument is more about blowing off non California residents that post in threads like these.

Do you think CA needs to push recreation/commercial legislation? I do not
And if it passes do you think this will help other states push medical? I do not.

This is a better point, the benefits to California are less.
It is about challenging federal law. There is of course some economic benefit from rec sales.
But there is an argument it will simply reshuffle money from the existing MMJ to recreational.

Do you think CA passing recreational/commercial will hold up in court? The administration and lawyers expressed legal concerns, to put it nicely.

No one knows. There are a number of opinions. But if it's not attempted, the chances are zero.
The real chance is in pushing Federal authority to take over MJ enforcement in the state.
There is no great desire to do this. Costs would be huge.
Even a new levy of 1000 DEA agents would be insignificant compared to local law enforcement numbers.
It simply would not be sustainable, except if DEA decides the rest of the country is 'expendable' to allow for California enforcement.

Do you think CA passing recreational/commercial legislation, that is then struck down in court, will affect other states ability to pass MMj? I do.

No. That is a fallacious argument. States will pass MMJ law(or not) based on their internal dynamics.
Now if you mean will this raise the risk of MMJ laws being struck down?
Very unlikely. California MMJ law has been argued at the SCOTUS. No reversal was done.
SCOTUS is very unlikely to accept another MMJ case unless it differs radically from California law.

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

Sounds wonderful, just doesn't reflect current realities. We are probably near a plateau of MMJ.
Many non-MMJ will probably stay non-MMJ, states like Kansas and Alabama are not California(or even NY for that matter).
And the new MMJ states are very restrictive, that is the current trend.

So how would CA passing recreational/commercial help these states with MMj?

Federal re-scheduling is only being considered because it's becoming a disproportionate pain in the ass for the Feds. It's an expensive and ineffective law, but bureaucracies don't change because it's right. They change from external pressure. Less pressure, less incentive to change.

ie pressure from sick citizens of non-med states for access? If that is the case, you all need to take a good look in the mirror and go act locally. CA can't do it for you.

This is a better point, the benefits to California are less. It is about challenging federal law. There is of course some economic benefit from rec sales. But there is an argument it will simply reshuffle money from the existing MMJ to recreational.

If I read this correctly, you are saying 19 was important because it challenged federal law? It was doomed in court. If we are going up against the fed we need solid legislation and federal rescheduling. Y

No one knows. There are a number of opinions. But if it's not attempted, the chances are zero.
The real chance is in pushing Federal authority to take over MJ enforcement in the state.
There is no great desire to do this. Costs would be huge.
Even a new levy of 1000 DEA agents would be insignificant compared to local law enforcement numbers.
It simply would not be sustainable, except if DEA decides the rest of the country is 'expendable' to allow for California enforcement.

Again, 19 was doomed to fail in court (the likely outcome). This would have caused a wild west scenario in CA in the interim. Allowing the fed to take authority of MMj in CA... that's not what CA is about. We prefer the least amount of gov't intervention in our affairs as possible.

SCOTUS is very unlikely to accept another MMJ case unless it differs radically from California law.

Well, it seems like the expansion of MMj is where it's at then.

 

[dagnabit]

1-900-ask-thom

for all your precognitive legal needs...

So how would CA passing recreational/commercial help these states with MMj?

maybe those states could no longer point to the abuses in the CA medical system as justification for their exclusionary legislation if there were no longer a need to abuse the system.
but you are still trying to say passing a rec prop in one state prevents another from going med.
how?
ohhh wait your still "ignoring" me and only responding to my posts in pm's

 

[igrowone]

So how would CA passing recreational/commercial help these states with MMj?

ie pressure from sick citizens of non-med states for access? If that is the case, you all need to take a good look in the mirror and go act locally. CA can't do it for you.


If I read this correctly, you are saying 19 was important because it challenged federal law? It was doomed in court. If we are going up against the fed we need solid legislation and federal rescheduling. Y


Again, 19 was doomed to fail in court (the likely outcome). This would have caused a wild west scenario in CA in the interim. Allowing the fed to take authority of MMj in CA... that's not what CA is about. We prefer the least amount of gov't intervention in our affairs as possible.


Well, it seems like the expansion of MMj is where it's at then.

good thoughtful replies, it comes down to core beliefs, which can differ

the benefit of recreational MJ law is a federal challenge, at least for other states
it is of course not a guarantee, the outcome can not be predicted with certainty
current pressures from MMJ laws are a good thing, they are the best game in town
but when you have momentum, don't back down, add more
take the boxing analogy, when you see your opponent show some weakness, get him down on the mat while you can

now when you argue legalization is doomed in the courts, that is a stretch
there are indications of some federal judges not being so keen on MJ law as it exists
they're tired of the pointless cases that clog their courts and the federal prison system(which is a full house at the moment)
i believe we need to agree to disagree on this point, there is no sure path i can see in how such a law would play out in the federal courts

 

[dagnabit]

there is no sure path i can see in how such a law would play out in the federal courts

this was the biggest benefit to 19 imo!
the first scotus case based on the 10th for recreational!
imagine the argument before the courts!!!!
it would force the repubs/tea partiers to either say "follow the constitution" or to completely fall to pieces!

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

good thoughtful replies, it comes down to core beliefs, which can differ.
i believe we need to agree to disagree on this point, there is no sure path i can see in how such a law would play out in the federal courts

Thanks you for the reply. And for setting the example for the trolls out there regarding what civil discourse looks like.

Do you honestly think the fed/courts will allow recreational/commercial cannabis in the near future? I do not. That is why I choose to focus on the protection and expansion of MMj. This is not a valid reason for division in the community, and the anti-CA grower rhetoric that came with 19 and still exists by the butt-hurt few who actually thought it had a chance of passing, and then being upheld by the courts. Nor is the seasonal affect of cali bud on nationwide markets a reason to divide the community. Cali bud has been seasonally flooding the markets for decades. I remember the floods from back in college, messing with my hustle, but it was the way of the black market. We should all focus on MMj, that's where this starts. Horse before cart. Patients before stoners and big ag.

If I had my way 215 would be in every state. But that's not real. Neither is recreation/commercial pot a reality so long as cannabis is schedule 1.

 

[THE PABLOS]

....It's still here!!!

Nice when the debates are not shit slings...seems Tommy has some solid winners....Dag is still hanging game and working his grip..Mustard playing a peaceful set....good stuff

edit....O my friend vta....always has interesting inputs

 

[TruthOrLie]

Legalization won't happen on the fed level until people who like to hang out at ICmag start hanging out on DARE websites, Parents against Drugs groups, the local church.... and spreading the word that MJ isn't the badguy.

As it is we just hang out and argue amongst eachother how much we should have to pay/get paid for this stuff

 

[Thomkal Vwalaa]

....It's still here!!!

Nice when the debates are not shit slings...seems Tommy has some solid winners....Dag is still hanging game and working his grip..Mustard playing a peaceful set....good stuff

edit....O my friend vta....always has interesting inputs

Thanks man. I voted yes on 19, but have serious concerns about the details of a post-tax/regulate CA. Beyond that, I think the nation is leaning on us way too hard to "fight the good fight" for them.

I do feel like via this thread I pretty much (with some help) showed the non-CA folks that they need to stop pointing fingers and work on their respective state's MMj legislation.

I also feel I presented a valid argument for the small farms of 215.

Seems to me that CA is leading the way in terms of establishing a legitimate (safe) medical cannabis system from the ground up, without corporate interests dictating the game. We have the genetics, we have the scientists, we have breeders, we have the organic farms. Now is the age of small farmed organic medicinal cannabis in the US. The untold genetic treasures grow as usual by the breeding families, waiting to be discovered by science and made into medicine. It's an exciting time for MMj.