Random Announcements
-
They had to give the big companies time to grab up patents that would otherwise have put elements of the central debt machine out of business. Look at the specific bio energies Exxon is pursuing, and understand how hemp oil production would benefit it, and you understand the tune change. There wasn't a big push for solar or wind here either until those patents were secured. Left and right keep us arguing so we don't see we have become debt slaves, or that our rights in this context are fantasies. Just my opinion though
-
I am not a drug user but I don't believe in ANY drug prohibitions whatsoever.
-
Coming soon, Mega's Big Vintage Experiment
-
They had to give the big companies time to grab up patents that would otherwise have put elements of the central debt machine out of business. Look at the specific bio energies Exxon is pursuing, and understand how hemp oil production would benefit it, and you understand the tune change. There wasn't a big push for solar or wind here either until those patents were secured. Left and right keep us arguing so we don't see we have become debt slaves, or that our rights in this context are fantasies. Just my opinion though
They had to give the big companies time to grab up patents that would otherwise have put elements of the central debt machine out of business. Look at the specific bio energies Exxon is pursuing, and understand how hemp oil production would benefit it, and you understand the tune change. There wasn't a big push for solar or wind here either until those patents were secured. Left and right keep us arguing so we don't see we have become debt slaves, or that our rights in this context are fantasies. Just my opinion though
You can't patent a plant, which is the biggest issue for large companies. And you cant patent organic compounds. Companies can produce hemp oil, but I'm not sure how that can be proprietary. Unless they are putting in additives.
That was the whole issue DuPont had with it. Nylon was patentable and hemp fiber was not.
The only way weed is dangerous is if a bail falls on your head.
-
You can't patent plants? Tell that to Monsanto, who have managed to catalogue and patent heirloom seeds. Beside that, you over shot my comment. The patents I am talking about have to do with high yield methods of production, not the plant itself. Now if you want to throw in what will happen if they GM hemp, we have a completely different game. It's about cornering the market before the market exists now.
-
^^^^^Conspiracy theorist
Monsanto can patent plants that only have their terminator gene in them. This will never happen with cannabis. The chance for open cross pollination of cannabis is not the same as open field cross pollination of vegetables and shit. Quality cannabis production is always in controlled environments, not open fields exposed to the elements. And if they want to have gmo hemp, be my guest, I don't eat hemp plants so if I'm not ingesting something with gmo in it I'm not worried about it. If you want to add a gene to the hemp plant that makes it more resilient, that sounds smart to me.
-
Not a theory, the SCUSA ruled that any claim to utility patents on plants, gmo, non gmo, extinct, or otherwise was perfectly legal in 2010. My issue with GMO is being able to contain it, and you're right wide scale hemp production is a non issue now, so cross pollination won't be a immediate issue. However if we are talking legalization, in conjunction with pursuit of "green" energies such as bio fuels, this is a bridge we are likely to cross sooner than later.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kurt-friese/seeds-to-plant-or-seeds-t_b_804240.html
-
I wanna know what the experiment is!!!
Coming soon, Mega's Big Vintage Experiment -
-
-
For some reason adults that smoke weed confuse me… I know there are medical benefits, but at least in California it seems like most "medical" users are young twenty-something's.
Question: Do medical users get super baked just like everyone else? And is it the THC that helps or something else?
-
I think it's more a matter of the peer group that you are exposed to daily. There is no age separation with cannabis. It's universal. I'm sure you don't bat an eye at "adults" (always think this term is funny, BTW) that drink alcohol.
In regards to the medicinal benefits, there are so many variables that I won't even try to make a blanket statement. Understand, though, yes; you consume to get "high." Whether it's for pain relief, anxiety, appetite support, or any other myriad benefits.
-
Speaking with my experience, the easiest answer is no. My use is for Neuro tension and pain relief. High intake would lead to high tolerance, which would negate why I use it. Application becomes much more like taking meds, how much and often is more regulated and only varies due to physical condition. As to the THC question, depends on what you're looking for. Some strains put you to bed, some will give you a touch of pep and others barely have a noticeable effect outside of how they effect Neuro conditions. Each has it's own specifics (thc, cbd, etc) that contribute to what you might want it for.
As to age, I see everything from your 20 something's to 70 year old cancer patients on a normal basis. If you were more exposed to the core of the med industry you likely would too. It's the 20's that are more flagrant it seems.
-
^Yeah, there's no doubt the medicinal community has a much greater appreciation for the application and knows their own personal limits; or what suits their needs best.
I guess my disconnect is with the term "super baked." As jdl said, young 20's are more flagrant with their usage. Again, much like alcohol or other substances.
-
I don't care if people use it medicinally or recreationally, but I do care that lives are ruined and that our tax dollars wasted on prosecuting, fining, jailing, probationing, etc people who are using something that's innocuous compared to alcohol and many prescription drugs.
