The Drug War Seems to Have Failed

[WildCat]

I don't want to turn this thread into a gardening for dummies manual, but the highlighted part is incorrect. You appear to know something about cannabis cultivation but the above sentence is just wrong. The resulting seed is NOT a clone of the parent. Very similar, yes, but a clone? No.
Yes, it is a clone. Any seeds from a self-fertile plant (doesn't matter if it's marijuana or peaches) will be clones of the parent, assuming no pollen from other plants is involved.

After all, you're not adding any new DNA to the mix so it will be genetically identical.

[WildCat]

From what I've read in the comments, it's not good for the plant....or the smoke...
A lot of marijuana growers are organic hippie types who are against any chemical fertilizers. But the plant can't tell the difference.

It may well affect taste, so those using chemical fertilizers won't use them in the weeks before harvest.

[sadhatter]

Your fatal weakness is that it is a really stupid idea. How many people would not notice that there is marijuana suddenly growing in their backyards? Your best bet if you don't want to grow on your property is to find someplace that nobody goes. Incidently, this is how lots of people do it.

Actually in the country, the method described by the person your referring to is a method often employed. It reduces risk to the person growing, and usually said person is not a large scale dealer but merely someone with some seeds. They harvest their crop before the owner harvests theirs, and if it gets found? They usually have a half dozen other crops going. All it takes is a drive by every so often to see if it has been found.

[sadhatter]

I think you misunderstand the goal of smoking pot.

The object of the exercise is to get high. If it takes twice as much of something free than it does of something with a price, most pot smkers are going to take the free option. It's not like wine (but it might get there) when people sit around talking about 'body' and 'aroma', it's about the effect as much as anything.

Sure there might be a market for 'high end' weed, but I suspect (but cannot prove) that most people, give the chance between an effectively infinite supply of cheap stuff and an expensive, limited supply version, are going to go for the free.

In this brave new world we're building, most of the pot would be homegrown and it wouldn't worry anyone.

Oh, and there would eventually be a lot of talented amateurs growing very high quality stuff, just like the best veg is from allotments, not supermarkets.

However, if I propogated a strawman, I apologise.

I agree.

I like to smoke, currently limited to tobacco, i enjoy the act of smoking. So whenever the math worked out ( Albeit a touch subjective, you can roughly grade the product.) when i smoked, i would opt for the cheaper product. More of a smoking experience, and eventually the same buzz.

During my smoking days, i honestly felt ripped off every time i broke down and bought the ultra expensive product. Most of the time it was more of a pain to smoke ( much higher THC content made it sticky, thereby making joints less of an option, and increasing the chance of a burned thumb trying to get it lit in anything else, not to mention trouble getting it to a fine enough grind.) , and even when i got it for free ( once a friend saved some of a strain he insisted was darn near hallucinogenic. i gave it a 6.5 out of 10. ) felt that , for the price, it would have been more fun to roll up a giant one and smoke it.

I feel similar about liquor, but for the opposite reason. It all tastes like **** to me, so when i drink i look for nothing more than amount of alcohol for price.

Weird that they work out the same way for opposite reasons though.

[JFrankA]

I agree.

I like to smoke, currently limited to tobacco, i enjoy the act of smoking. So whenever the math worked out ( Albeit a touch subjective, you can roughly grade the product.) when i smoked, i would opt for the cheaper product. More of a smoking experience, and eventually the same buzz.

During my smoking days, i honestly felt ripped off every time i broke down and bought the ultra expensive product. Most of the time it was more of a pain to smoke ( much higher THC content made it sticky, thereby making joints less of an option, and increasing the chance of a burned thumb trying to get it lit in anything else, not to mention trouble getting it to a fine enough grind.) , and even when i got it for free ( once a friend saved some of a strain he insisted was darn near hallucinogenic. i gave it a 6.5 out of 10. ) felt that , for the price, it would have been more fun to roll up a giant one and smoke it.

I feel similar about liquor, but for the opposite reason. It all tastes like **** to me, so when i drink i look for nothing more than amount of alcohol for price.

Weird that they work out the same way for opposite reasons though.

As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, it's not just the THC that gets someone high. There's also a chemical called "Canniabliods" (spelling?) that is involved too.

I'm saying that only because there was a special on BBC America by some reporter who did a bunch of tests to see what was safer for her: pot or alcohol. In every test, pot turned out to be the safer drug except for one:

Being injected directly with pure THC then the next day with pure "Canniabliods". The "Canniabloids" (again, I know I'm spelling this wrong) produced a feeling of happiness, giggling, feeling great about everything for a couple of hours.

When injected with pure THC, she was paranoid, scared, didn't want to be touched, felt sick, etc. (In fact, the doctor who administered the injection ran a psychology test that showed that while under pure THC, she was schizophrenic.

Because of that one test, she decided to stay with alcohol. (Stupid!)

Now I'm typing this on my break. Once I'm home, I'll find the program and the specifics.

[Georg]

It may well affect taste, so those using chemical fertilizers won't use them in the weeks before harvest.


Stopping two weeks before harvest is enough :).

[Mycroft]

Yes, it is a clone. Any seeds from a self-fertile plant (doesn't matter if it's marijuana or peaches) will be clones of the parent, assuming no pollen from other plants is involved.

After all, you're not adding any new DNA to the mix so it will be genetically identical.

But you are re-mixing the DNA, so the results will be similar, but different. About half your chromosome pairs will be identical.

ETA: Although my understanding is this is how feminized seeds are produced. If you stress a female to turn hermaphrodite, then you only have x-chromosomes involved.

[nota]

Yes, it is a clone. Any seeds from a self-fertile plant (doesn't matter if it's marijuana or peaches) will be clones of the parent, assuming no pollen from other plants is involved.

After all, you're not adding any new DNA to the mix so it will be genetically identical.

NO NO NO
each seed gets 1/2 of the mothers DNA and 1/2 the fathers
if the plant has one recessive bit the offspring can get 0 or 1 or 2 of them
AND MOST PLANTS WILL HAVE A WIDE MIX OF RECESSIVE AND DOMINATE BITS
a clone is a 100% perfect copy every time
a self fertilized plant seed is not a clone and not a 100% copy
it can and does range from close to the parent to very different

cuttings are true clones
and eazy to do
any gardening shop has the root growth hormones
[they are common to most plants]
ONLY CUTTINGS ARE CLONES
SEEDS ARE NOT CLONES

[Mycroft]

As a side note, Scott's Miracle-Gro wants to get in on the Medical Marijuana trade.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/06/miracle-gro_tries_to_figure_ou.html

From what I've read in the comments, it's not good for the plant....or the smoke...

I've heard from people connected to the culture that pot growers don't like miracle grow and say it's awful for the plant. I personally am a bit skeptical and suspect these rumors might be started by people who have a much more expensive line of specialty fertilizers for sale.

[OrangeCatz]

I like to smoke, currently limited to tobacco, i enjoy the act of smoking. So whenever the math worked out ( Albeit a touch subjective, you can roughly grade the product.) when i smoked, i would opt for the cheaper product. More of a smoking experience, and eventually the same buzz.

During my smoking days, i honestly felt ripped off every time i broke down and bought the ultra expensive product. Most of the time it was more of a pain to smoke ( much higher THC content made it sticky, thereby making joints less of an option, and increasing the chance of a burned thumb trying to get it lit in anything else, not to mention trouble getting it to a fine enough grind.) , and even when i got it for free ( once a friend saved some of a strain he insisted was darn near hallucinogenic. i gave it a 6.5 out of 10. ) felt that , for the price, it would have been more fun to roll up a giant one and smoke it.

I feel similar about liquor, but for the opposite reason. It all tastes like **** to me, so when i drink i look for nothing more than amount of alcohol for price.

I currently smoke cheap cigarettes and cheap pot. I care more for quantity than quality. I just enjoy smoking. The guy I buy from grows indoors. He sells me the trimmings for cheap and I love it.

I can no longer stand alcohol. I don't like the taste or the feel. I am about to enter the job market, so I will have to do without inebriants until I get hired somewhere. Hopefully, somewhere that doesn't drug test throughout employment.

[JFrankA]

Okay, sorry for my previous post. (I gotta learn never to post while at work. :) ) but I found the documentary on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C211EB9A413845F8

Even as a non-smoker (of anything) I found her investigation to be biased against smoking pot.

[MikeSun5]

By far and away the majority of marijuana consumed in the US costs only a few cents an ounce to produce. It's grown in dirt, sun, and rain. Upwards of 50 million pounds of it per year. I already linked the source. Again, your ignorance of that source does not make it go away. If you don't believe that's what they're smoking, you're welcome to provide a source of your own to show otherwise.

Again, nobody is arguing any of that. You shifted the goalposts from what originally got you saying this (you made a distinction between low and high-grade weed, made a few sweeping generalizations, you got called on them, and you've been trying to avoid explaining/proving ever since). You have ignored that fact. So much so that you have other people here believing that I said things that I clearly did not. You are not respsonding to points, and you are not answering questions. You don't like the answers I've given to your questions, but at least I played ball and answered them. It's not really a debate if you just keep repeating yourself and ignoring any counter points.

In MikeSun5's fantasy world, if seeds really are as hard to get or as expensive as he describes

Please link to my posts where I describe seeds as being "hard to get" or "expensive." I'm interested to see where you got that idea.

Fantasy world, indeed. :rolleyes:

Basically, your premise is that most pot smokers love spending lots of cash on something any idiot can grow.

If that's what you understood about what I've been posting, then I don't know what to tell you. That's just... wow.

I should just stop being surprised when people don't pay attention and respond as if they were.

[Georg]

Please link to my posts where I describe seeds as being "hard to get" or "expensive." I'm interested to see where you got that idea.

Fantasy world, indeed. :rolleyes:



Well, that's certainly the impression I got when reading those posts of you:


but...but... that would mean you'd have to BUY something! :eek:

Now you're going to tell me that if weed were legal and everyone could just grow the best of the best by themselves, that the best seeds available would be super duper cheap, right? Probably tax-free too, huh? Dudes selling the seeds probably didn't spend any money on advertising or anything else that could drive up price, huh? :rolleyes:

Please research what commerce is and get back to us.




Exactly. But do you think that IF weed were to be legalized, and that legalization included growing it yourself in your yard, don't you think the seeds would be taxed as much if not more than a bag of kush would?




By the way, the price I cited was from Holland, and the seeds surely are taxed.

[Taarkin]

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-prisoners-rights/40-years-and-over-40-million-arrests-later-war-drugs-still
Two factors have emerged as determining whether drug offenders in Cuyahoga County are sentenced to jail: geography and race. For instance:

* White offenders from the suburbs or out-of-town are 77 percent more likely than African-American city residents to receive a misdemeanor charge rather than a felony.
* Whites account for nearly three-quarters of the participants in jail diversion programs, such as treatment and job training, in the county. African-Americans only account for a quarter of participants, despite the fact they are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.
* While African-Americans are only about a quarter of the county's total population, they make up nearly three-quarters of those sentenced to prison from Cuyahoga County.
Mayhaps there is some sort of ulterior motive here?!

[BStrong]

The sad fact is that there is too much money in continuing the WOSD, and none of the law enforcement parties to the "war" are going to voluntarily surrender their jobs, power or funding just because the war has been lost.

[Praktik]

I can no longer stand alcohol. I don't like the taste or the feel. I am about to enter the job market, so I will have to do without inebriants until I get hired somewhere. Hopefully, somewhere that doesn't drug test throughout employment.

Note part in bold. Perhaps we're approaching this the wrong way. Appeal to legalization through the language of productivity and capitalism - how many honest workers have been prevented from gainful employment because they smoked weed and got caught on a test?

Seems like a "shoot yourself in the foot" economic policy. Kind of like a modern-day version of keeping women out of the workforce, but on a smaller scale I grant...

but the principle is the same. Take good workers out of the workforce for ideological/theological reasons.

[Mycroft]

Note part in bold. Perhaps we're approaching this the wrong way. Appeal to legalization through the language of productivity and capitalism - how many honest workers have been prevented from gainful employment because they smoked weed and got caught on a test?

Seems like a "shoot yourself in the foot" economic policy. Kind of like a modern-day version of keeping women out of the workforce, but on a smaller scale I grant...

but the principle is the same. Take good workers out of the workforce for ideological/theological reasons.

Drug testing in the workforce is a different issue from legalization, but you make good points. I have worked at places that drug test their employees, and it's a huge waste of time and resources. The company puts out a lot of money for the tests both in direct costs and lost productivity, then they end up fighting a lot of legal battles with employees who say their test was wrong (and the error rate is pretty high) and in the end they end up firing some of their most productive employees and then needing to go through the expense of replacing them.

It just makes a lot more sense to make your decisions based on the quality of a persons work, not on how he spends his time off.

[OrangeCatz]

It would be nice if they developed a test that actually measured THC. It would be gone about the time the effects wore off.

[Emperor_Gestahl]

From what I've read in the comments, it's not good for the plant....or the smoke...

I've heard that anecdotally as well, supposed to yellow the leaves or something.

[TheNooch]

Funny thing about the drug war. I can get Dilantin, which makes me crazy and forgetful.

However, if I want some weed, I have to grow it, in my closet.