2014 Colorado and Marijuana

Ian- plants under stress cannot utilize their natural defense systems against pests, thus the need for pesticides as they are more susceptible to pest invasions when they are grown indoors, in unnaturally crowded environments. Just like factory farms have to pump their animals full of antibiotics.

as far as the random sampling finding 35% pesticides among random testing of medical producers in California- I don't have my source handy but it know that information is presented in this great presentation Humboldt State Institute for Integrative Marijuana Research Presentation on November 19, 2013
Streaming Video Link (you may have to google it if this isn't a hot link)

As for energy consumption, this paper was peer reviewed in the journal of Energy Policy evan-mills.com/energy-assoc… showing the energy consumption facts that i "made up".

Basement grown doesn't mean from unknown origins- but unless you know the grower and see the operation and really have faith in their claims, we currently have no means of ensuring a safe product.

Until you've also done the research- hold your tongue boy.

It will stay indoors, as of the 20 states currently allowing some level of legal/decriminalization, many are in areas that would be climate prohibitive for outdoor cultivation, nevermind the security concerns.

My guess is that the industry will eventually move towards passive solar indoor/outdoor growhouses that make the most of the sun while still being capable of providing their own artificial light/heat/cooling to fill in the gaps.

Regulatory bodies will and are moving on this as well.

the claims do seem inflated until you do the research: 2nd largest energy user in Denver, after city of Denver? take a guess!

germsauce,

I would agrue that regulatory oversight does not ensure the standards that we assume it does. Plenty of examples of this happening with food and drugs or the environment.

germsauce wrote:As for energy consumption, this paper was peer reviewed in the journal of Energy Policy evan-mills.com/energy-assoc… showing the energy consumption facts that i "made up".

Quote from the source you linked:

"In California, the top-producing state—and one of 17 states to allow cultivation for medical purposes—the practice is responsible for about 3% of all electricity use"

You said "5% of all energy consumption in CA". The paper that you linked to says 3% of all electricity usage. Even if electricity is 100% of the energy use in CA, you've still increased the stats by 1.67x. I'm not going to spend much time researching this, but a quick wikipedia check says that electricity is around 41% of the total energy consumption in the US. So this 3% of electricity usage in the report becomes less than 1.5% of energy consumption. Now your original statement is 3.3 times what the research shows. So yes, you're still throwing out bullshit stats.

I'm not arguing that harmful pesticides are found in marijuana. They are. I'm not arguing that indoor growing is heavy on it's energy usage. It certainly is. My issue is with you bashing all home/basement growers as if they're all guilty, and thinking that regulation and commercial sales are going to magically fix all of these issues.

Now that it's legal to grow, I'm quite certain you'll find most home growers will be more willing to share their growing methods. Before 2013 it was illegal to grow anywhere in the USA, and so home growers wouldn't even share that they were growers because of obvious legal fears.

Might I suggest you gentlemen partake in some cannabis? This may clear things up for you for a few hours.

I just appreciate this law as it allows those friends of mine that partake to stay out of prison. It is nice to see this being slowly decriminalized, hopefully across the country. We don't need anymore people in jail for this.

But hey, sorry prison industry. You may lose some jobs there.

I haven't smoked before and I won't start either. Same reason I don't smoke cigarets/cigars/pipes.

I noticed that on the long overdue and finally available Illinois conceal and carry weapons permit forms, that they will deny you if you use medical marijuana or are a 'farmer' for legal pot sales. Leave it to IL to find more wayst to take the fun out of life.

What bugs me about those posters that say they had toked years ago and quit, then talk down to the rest of us.

The main reason most people quit is: They got paranoid because they would lose their house assets children and face jail time (or execution)

My question to them is if it was legal would you have quit?

About the energy usage… There is full spectrum LEDs available for such.
I was told that they cost a bit more, but in the long run save energy.

Legal Pot Means Less Budget for Police

"In Washington’s Snohomish County, legalization means that the local drug task force is faced with a 15% budget cut. The task force’s commander, Pat Slack, is an outspoken critic of legalization, which he says will mean less money for overtime, training and new equipment."

Old and Busted wrote: Legal Pot Means Less Budget for Police "In Washington’s Snohomish County, legalization means that the local drug task force is faced with a 15% budget cut. The task force’s commander, Pat Slack, is an outspoken critic of legalization, which he says will mean less money for overtime, training and new equipment."

What part of that budget was dedicated to handling weed-related "crimes"...

Is this police chief against lower crime rates as well? because that would also cut police force budget, no? such twisted logic in our reality.

I loved the part where they are crying about lost overtime.

Old and Busted wrote: Legal Pot Means Less Budget for Police "In Washington’s Snohomish County, legalization means that the local drug task force is faced with a 15% budget cut. The task force’s commander, Pat Slack, is an outspoken critic of legalization, which he says will mean less money for overtime, training and new equipment."

This post just made my day. Thank you.

Stich wrote:I just appreciate this law as it allows those friends of mine that partake to stay out of prison. It is nice to see this being slowly decriminalized, hopefully across the country. We don't need anymore people in jail for this. But hey, sorry prison industry. You may lose some jobs there.

Thankfully for the prison system, there are always politicians and cops looking for new and creative ways to criminalize freedom.

It always amazes me the endless stream of people that just love to tell others what to do.

Ronin wrote: Why do we have receptors for not just the THC but the CBDs and CBNs in our brains? How can it cure cancer if it is a toxin? Research much?

I'll start in reverse with those 3 Q's:

Q1: "Research much?"
- Yes, in fact.

Q2: "How can it cure cancer if it is a toxin?"
- Easy, it can't cure cancer, and that's a silly question anyway, since "toxin" is a BS jargain term these days. The question is about toxic concentrations, not toxins. Vitamin A is carcinogenic if ingested in high enough doses, and people who drink too much water die of hyponatremia.
As for pot, The LD 50 is most probably > 40 mg/kg of body mass... I wouldn't worry too much about smoking enough to die of it, but I am establishing that it indeed has a toxicity.
Furhtermore, the logic behind the question is BS if the language isn't. Wwhat do you think Chemotherapy is? They poison the body (with "toxins") to kill the fastest growing cells (cancer) in many of the practices. It used to be done with mustard gas, and successfully so! Toxic stuff kills cancer cells too.
So that you know, there has only been one published clinical trial testing whether cannabinoids can treat cancer in patients, led by Spanish Dr Manuel Guzman. Nine people with glioblastoma multiforme – (a cancerous brain tumor) – were given highly purified THC through a tube and injected directly into their brain tumor. Eight people showed some response to the treatment. One didn’t. All of the patients died within a year. Cured? No. Not quite. Try "died" instead.

Q3: "Why do we have receptors for not just the THC but the CBDs and CBNs in our brains?"
-The fact that a neuro-receptor responds to a ligand does not imply ANYTHING about if we are supposed to be taking it or if the body was designed to take it. There are plenty of other lipids, proteins and alkaloids out there that we don't internally produce that we respond to. Hell, how do you think a poison dart frog kills? We "HAVE RECEPTORS" for that shit. We also have a receptor for Nicotine... except that it isn't "for nicotine" at all. It is for acetylcholine, and the Nicotine has a semi-analogous structure which happens to be about 10,000 times more active that aCh in the synaptic gap. Oh, and LSD, and Heroin, and all that stuff (painkillers) that the pro-pot say is bad for you also has a receptor, but pot is implied to be good because you have "a receptor for that?"
The actual fact is that you have an inhibitory G-protein coupled receptor for Anandamide, but that TCH is a structurally analogous amine that can activate that receptor. Then you get the cascade of effects including inhibition of the K+ and Ca2+ channels and (perhaps most importantly) a cascade of effects with the reduction of cyctosolic adenylyl cyclase, all of which lead to slowed neuronal firing & the decreased neuronal activity that changes your perception and association. It should also be noted that the kinases activated are responsible for gene expression, activation and transcription in neuronal neuclii. So the changes that take place on TCH are a little less short term than those of simple agonists for intracellular membrane receptors.

OK, so smoke it if you got it. I got no problem with that. But the psuedo-junk-science stoned-bullshit-talk doesn't fly, OK?

And now we return you to your regularly scheduled program - I've been pro-choice on everything since 1990 (voting age for me). But I'm also anti-bullshit.

And this leads me to a question in return:
"Research much?"

chills wrote:http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/23/20-medical-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer/ To any one who might be on the fence about cannabis as a cure for cancer here is a link to 20 international studies conducted on the topic. 2 of which where done by the Harvard medical schools experimental treatment program I personally receive wonderful pain reduction and have noticed anti inflammatory properties with various methods of ingestion for my right knee that has had three major reconstructions as well is missing 50 percent of my miniscus All I will say on the subject but I urge you to take a look the results

It is a monumentally huge leap to say that tumor reduction in the lab equates to a cure for cancer. If that were true, we'd have about eight hundred thousand "cures" for cancer.

Edit: I'm with TB. Put on your BS meters. Pot is not as horrible as some would like you to believe, but it's also not completely benign. As to its medicinal benefits, that remains to be seen.

Edit part 2: And another thing. NIH research is bullshit? Yes, you need to do more research on the nature of research.

Richard Radcliffe wrote: It is a monumentally huge leap to say that tumor reduction in the lab equates to a cure for cancer. If that were true, we'd have about eight hundred thousand "cures" for cancer.

And fusion in a flask...

Richard,
Glad to see you chiming in here. The level of BS was getting pretty high. Do you still "research much?"

Should we tell them about GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid) reducing/reversing Alzheimer's in Rhesus Monkeys?
Never mind that it had to be injected directly into the core of the brain... No other way to get it right there at the moment...

this article from drug war LOSER William Bennett is good for a laugh

cnn.com/2014/01/16/opinion/…