Sequencing the Weed Genome 315
GNUman writes "Maybe soon we'll be able to genetically modify humans so that a specific action (e.g., tapping your nose, pinching your ear) triggers the release of THC directly from your own cells. From the Nature blog post: 'At last, the field of genomics has something to offer Cheech and Chong. DNA sequencing hit a new high last night with the midnight release of the Cannabis sativa genome. The raw sequence was posted on Amazon's EC2 public cloud computing service by a young company called Medicinal Genomics, which aims to explore the genomes of therapeutic plants.'"
What about cannabis inidica? (Score:2)
i know i wish i could get natural cbd's to treat arthritis without messing up my mind.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
indica has a much more pronouced sedative effect... 10 minutes after using some strong indica, you are either completely zoned out or passed out. Sativa is a much more energetic intoxication. Strong sativas come from cross breeding with indicas, but still retain the energetic intoxication.
...without messing up my mind
There is a very rapid tolerance with strong cannabis. By the third day of heavy use, you don't even notice it anymore. So the side effect of intoxication is there initially, but if you were using strong stuff daily, you
Re: (Score:2)
Would love to have a link for the sewage comment.
Yes. THC is the heavy paranoid high part. Cannabinoids are the happy laughing part.
They had a cool special on BBC which had a reporter spending 30 days in Amsterdam and you got to see both. She couldn't stop laughing on the Can. But the heavy THC weed- she felt bad and went to sleep for the day.
Re: (Score:3)
THC *IS* a cannabinoid.
Elsewise, it would not interact with our endoCANNABINOID system.
Re:What about cannabis inidica? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No, as THC is highly useful as an immunosuppressant and in the field of transplant medicine that would be far more desirable of a compound to isolate.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the biggest argument against medicinal pot. The THC is the psychoactive component, this is what gives you the munchies and what gets you high. But in its pure form without the other cannibinoids to fuck up the balance of cannibinoids already in the brain, the high is more "harsh".But THC in the form of Malarone does stimulate apatite and relieve pain, nobody disagrees with that. So why is smoking it a better pain reliever and apatite stimulator? It isn't! It's like prescribing whiskey to someone who
Re:What about cannabis inidica? (Score:5, Informative)
btw, the drugs name you were looking for was marinol and it doesn't have the benefits of cannabis because it lacks cbd's/cbn's. That's precisely why the US government only allowed studies to be done with hemp laced with marinol to show that it wasn't a good medical treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you've got a medical degree, otherwise complaining about folks spreading their ignorance would be rich with irony.
If it really is as you say, then provide some sort of citation. The US is hardly the entire world, and if that's really the case then surely there's studies out of Europe that show that you're not full of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad, and illogical.
Re: (Score:2)
Cannabis has one advantage over the other treatments that you just can't beat: It's dirt cheap.
Of course, nothing the pharma companies would like. I mean, how do you trademark and patent it?
Re: (Score:2)
I keep hearing this canard, but I don't think there's any truth to it. It's a convenient scapegoat, but it doesn't make sense.
Aspirin is cheap too, but the pharma companies love it; it's one of the best-selling drugs in the US. Many trademarks are out there: in the US there's Bayer, Excedrin, Anacin, Ecotrin, Midol, St.Joseph, Alka-Seltzer Plus, Rite-Aid brand, CVS brand, Duane Reade, Walgreens, etc. Clearly cannabis is generally illegal for other reasons than cost.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have many local anesthetics that cause less systematic effects than cocaine. Yet the medicinal use of cocaine remains legal. The mind boggles.
Re: (Score:2)
False analogy. Cocaine is used only for nasal and lacrimal duct surgery, because it's a potent vasoconstrictor (meaning it cuts down on bleeding during surgery). The systemic effect of cocaine is actually a downside for any other surgery (vasoconstriction increases risk of necrosis), which is why doctors use synthetics from the same family; like lidocaine, xylocaine, novocaine, and tetracaine.
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that cocaine is a highly addictive drug with limited medical usage that has for the most part been superseded by synthetic alternatives. But it's classified as CII. Cannabis is a drug with a fraction of the addiction potential and widespread use as an anti-emetic and analgesic. But it's stuck as CI.
Re:What about cannabis inidica? (Score:5, Informative)
Marijuana is carcinogenic
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection [washingtonpost.com]
You've been lied to by the government... again. Smoking pot does increase your risk for COPD, but as the linked articl says, pot may actually help prevent cancer.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not a doctor, but I've heard that some of the compounds other than THC may have medicinal value. But such research would be hard to carry out because of it's legal status. The DEA claims that marijuana is on CI because it has no medical value, which is false.
Also, cancer is such a scary word. I mean you also get cancer from a CT scan. But I could go through some of the other scary drugs that the FDA allows. Like anti-psychotics that cause people to balloon and develop diabetes. Or pain releavers that ar
Re: (Score:3)
NSAIDs plus pot works better for arthritis than either one by itself. And many people can't take NSAIDs. Here's [slashdot.org] what NSAIDs can do -- put you in the hospital for a month leaving a scar from your breast to your belly button.
Re: (Score:3)
Problem is "Marinol" is just not effective medicine and is likely to be replaced by Sativex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sativex [wikipedia.org]. Which in itself is still a low complexity formulation rather than yet to be fully investigated high complex natural formulation.
Everything of course is blocked by sheer unadulterated greed. Greed of drug enforcement agencies for their power and salaries and of course their partners in crime the drug dealers and their dollars influencing politics. Greed by pharmaceuticals in th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of the Rx eyedrops for glaucoma are cheap.
Or nearly as effective, for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you please show me some peer-reviewed scientific studies of the subject to prove your claim? Studies have shown a reduction of IOP in glaucoma patients who smoke cannabis, but the effects are generally short-lived. Since it can also decrease blood flow to the optic nerve (causing a potential worsening of the condition), it's not recommended by physicians when eye drops are such low-risk. Ask any licensed pharmacist or doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
SMOKING it is one thing.
Purified extracts are an entirely different world and last much, MUCH longer.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the marinol medication (purified THC) lasts longer in the body, but the Glaucoma Foundation says [glaucoma.org] that its effects are "not impressive."
Re: (Score:3)
None of the Rx eyedrops for glaucoma are cheap.
Or nearly as effective, for that matter.
And they have more side-effects. I have a friend with glaucoma who can't use her scrip for medical marijuana since her husband works in the airline industry. She hates the drops but puts up with it for now. Her data point is that the drops are less effective and have side effects she doesn't want.
Natural? uranium is 'natural'... weak argument (Score:3)
I think this argument that something is worth taking because it is 'natural' is a weak position, not well though out. There are a lot of things out there that occur naturally but are downright poisonous and will kill you. There are many synthetic products that are really helpful. I'd like to see a more rigorous discussion of the difference between 'natural' and 'unnatural/synthetic'. I have this suspicion that there are many borderline products and preferring 'natural' is just a psychological position that
Re:Natural? uranium is 'natural'... weak argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We don't eat it, precisely because it's near-impossible to function once that first liver pass happens and that THC becomes even more potent.
Re: (Score:2)
whoops, I meant to say Marinol (Dronabinol).
Re: (Score:3)
Once you can get it to the addictiveness of crack, or at least a fraction thereof, you might have a case. 'til then, sorry, won't work.
Somebody's going to combine this (Score:3)
with the Opera gestures [opera.com].
Hold your arm and move to the right for the next high.
Boss coming? Minimize: down and then left.
Bad pun (Score:2)
DNA sequencing hit a new high last night ...
I don't like it.
Re: (Score:2)
If they did find a way to alter people to no longer be receptive to THC and other similar substances, and also completely allergic to nicotine then we would have something that could let us get rid of all smokers. Let it be distributed through a virus like the flu virus and we can be pretty sure to get rid of all potheads and smokers.
I hate liberty, too! As long as we've got distribution methods for viruses set up, let's distribute another one that makes everyone's penises fall off. We can combine it with a program to store everyone's sperm in sperm banks. Then, if a couple wants to procreate, they can withdraw sperm and fertilize with artificial insemination.
The lack of penises would really clamp down on vile, pleasure-seeking sex that no one has a right to practice (last I checked it wasn't in the bill of rights). And there wo
Re: (Score:3)
And I would call that a new low - is there any way we can moderate down articles? People genetically altered to be potheads is incredibly stupid.
If they did find a way to alter people to no longer be receptive to THC and other similar substances, and also completely allergic to nicotine then we would have something that could let us get rid of all smokers. Let it be distributed through a virus like the flu virus and we can be pretty sure to get rid of all potheads and smokers.
Just continue and render other illegal drugs ineffective too and the world may be a better place.
Not everyone that smokes MJ want's to sit on the couch and play video games all day.
Gotta love authoritarians (Score:3)
...or hate them. Depends right?
Seriously, haven't you ever had a bad week? I have. Haven't you ever gathered with friends, looking for a evening of social antics? I have.
One of the basic, simple pleasures in this world is a nice buzz, and there are many different kinds, some good eats, entertainment, and friends. Have a nice long chat, tickle the senses, and just wash away lots of painful things for a while, happy to just be, love, do, share.
Anything good can be abused. That goes with simple food.
I li
Now all we need is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now all we need is for someone to take an existing food plant that is legal to grow (and that couldn't be banned) like corn and add some weed genes so that when its consumed, it gives the effects of weed (i.e. make the corn contain the THC and things that the weed contains)
No way for the cops to detect it short of chemical analysis and there is far too much corn grown in the US to make that possible.
Re:Now all we need is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
And then use the corn to make Cheetos and kill 2 birds.
With one stoner?
Re: (Score:2)
Too complex. They need to make algae that acts like weed. So you still get the same delivery methods, but growing it becomes a lot simpler. Go down to the pond, or use a 2L bottle in the windowsill. Not to mention that instead of a 50-80 day growing cycle you shorten it to under a week.
Re:Now all we need is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize it takes much longer than a week for any photobiological system to create cannabinoids, right?
Also, you need UV light for THC production. Water likes to cut that out quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
HIGH fructose corn syrup
(sorry)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok Blofeld, we'll get right on that...
Re: (Score:2)
How about adding THC to actual, native weeds? Make it so everyone in the whole city has some hallucinogenic plant growing in their backyard, whether they want it or not.
In any case, being impossible to adequately enforce hasn't stopped them from trying so far.
Re: (Score:3)
Obligatory, it seems... (Score:2)
I just can't help myself.
Ontopic (sort of), and funny, IMHO.
Real, or not, still funny. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Weeds, hell. Add it to lawn grass, and make it aggressive, so it takes over the lawn in no time. :)
"Leroy, what'choo doin' out there?"
"Mowin' the lawn, ma!"
"Agin????"
"Needs mowin', ma. Really, really needs mowin. Could you make me a snack?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with that is you establish a new base line.
Or even better (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "legend" of Nanofsky's trippy oranges (Score:3)
It's not true, of course - but even if it were, they'd just ban all oranges, like they did to hemp cloth.
Re: (Score:2)
Hemp cloth isn't banned nor has it ever been banned. I know this because I can go to the local mall and buy items that are made with hemp without having to use code words and the package itself says that it's made from hemp.
Now, if you're talking about cultivation, that's a completely different matter. Either way, you shouldn't be spreading that sort of misinformation.
Mmmmm, corn (Score:2)
Re:Now all we need is... (Score:5, Informative)
People have been doing that for many years with the common hop vine (Humulus lupulus) which is also a member of the Cannabaceae family. Grafting hop vines onto a good Cannabis rootstock yields a scion with strobili that are visually indistinguishable from an ordinary hop flower. Unfortunately, the product is not very potent-- the best outcome is maybe 1.5-2% THC (and only trace amounts of other interesting compounds) which is terrible compared to the 10-20% THC that you can get from a well-managed C. sativa or C. indica flower. Also, the graft process is very finicky, the scion does not grow as well as an ungrafted vine, and your resulting plant is annual (like Cannabis) rather than perennial (like Humulus.) The hops you get are not terribly useful for beer-making, which is pretty much the only use for hops. (Some people like to make a sedative tea from hops, though I doubt that would be a good delivery method for the THC, since it's not water-soluble.) One other major "gotcha" is that the Cannabis plant matures much faster than hops, and the production density is hundreds of times better for Cannabis than Humulus.
Interestingly, there is some published scientific literature (see Crombie) that claims this grafting process does not work. However, I wonder, because Crombie talks about the hops "leaves" even though the only useful part of the plant is the flower (or properly, the "strobile.") The research I mention above has not been published, though the "1.5-2% THC" value I quoted has been measured by GC-MS. And, of course, there are just tons of anecdotal evidence from amateur gardeners that support either opinion.
I'll let someone else do the genetic research, but I think it may eventually be possible to engineer an algae that eats sunlight and poops THC. Wouldn't that be fun!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Whomever rated this informative needs some extra information, here.
First off - Australian Bastard Cannabis - a crossbreeding of hops and cannabis, is quite potent, actually, and doesn't look like cannabis due to the rounded leaves. Well, it doesn't look like it until it flowers, then you aren't mistaking the cannabis buds. And you've never had beer until you have had it made from ABC.
THC is not ENTIRELY water soluble (saturation at 2% concentration in water) but is quite soluble in ethanol - why use hops if
Re: (Score:2)
You would likely need something you could smoke or vaporize, or at least easily cook into/dissolve in fat, because I don't *think* enough cannabinoids would be released for a person to feel the effects, otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to pop your balloon, but they'll simply outlaw all corn with enough THC to get a high. Like they did with hemp. You can grow hemp all right, as long as it's a kind that is low on THC and can't be used to get high.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that unless you test every one of the 1000s of fields of corn in the US and test them every season (or probably more often) as well as testing imports of corn and retailers selling corn products you cant tell the difference between the good corn and the normal corn.
Also, although some states in the US now technically allow the production of hemp under license, its still illegal under federal drug laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, those Bt crops needing less pesticides & containing less mycotoxins and those Ht crops needing less soil eroding & environment damaging tillage both giving higher yields are just sooooo terrible.
But in seriousness, the issue of putting a biologically active compound in a genetically modified food crop could be done reasonably safely, to a point. It just depends on the crop. If you use something that is propagated sexually and is known for outcrossing, like corn, that would be a pretty bad id
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, if the genetic engineering is done right, it becomes impossible to find the "bad" plants unless they go around to every producer in the nation and test samples (and for that matter test every imported shipment too)
That or completly ban whatever crop has had the weed genes added to it
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, those Bt crops needing less pesticides & containing less mycotoxins and those Ht crops needing less soil eroding & environment damaging tillage both giving higher yields are just sooooo terrible.
Yes they are, because higher yield is a myth and the plants are killing insects indiscriminately (see honeybees). Also, familiarize yourself with terminator gene [wikipedia.org].
Re:Now all we need is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes they are, because higher yield is a myth
Wrong [oregonstate.edu]. Wrong. [wustl.edu] Wrong [cornandsoybeandigest.com] I could dig up more from my bookmarks, but it's late here and you get the point. You might be thinking of the study titled 'Failure to Yield' [ucsusa.org] a study claiming that GMOs actually had lesser yield (although it was based on data showing an increase). Actually, yield gains in developed countries are relatively low, only like 3-5%. But that is because pesticides already pushed yields to the limit. If you replace pesticides with resistant GMOs, it isn't that much difference (but make no mistake there still is a difference). Where Bt GMOs really shine is in developing countries where they might not always have access to pesticides. There, the difference can be dramatic. And of course in the case of viral resistant GMOs or fungal resistant GMOs they can make the difference between an industry continuing to exist or disappearing (without GMOs there would be no Hawaiian papaya industry and I've read some very promising information about GMOs with anti-fungal proteins).
the plants are killing insects indiscriminately (see honeybees)
The cry proteins used in the Bt GMOs are actually very specific, much more so than the pesticides they replaced. Do you have any evidence (besides some anti-GMO nutter's rantings) that Bt plants are in any way responsible for CCD, which need I remind you occures even in countries where GM crops are banned?
Also, familiarize yourself with terminator gene
I've done genetic engineering before, so I'm already pretty familiar with that thanks. Terminator technology was developed to prevent unwanted gene transfer. You know, that thing the anti-GMO groups are always complaining about. ISo, a safeguard to prevent that would make them happy, right? Ha! These people are harder to please than anti-vaxxers. They just put a nasty spin on it and freaked out even more! In other words, damned if you do and damned if you don't.I know what you (the agricultural layman) must be thinking: how horrible to keep farmers from saving seed. But you miss something very important: no one really does that anyway (besides those growing heirloom crops, the smae people the terminator gene would protect). Back in the early 1900's pretty much every farmer realized that if you use hybrids, superior crops but whose seeds do not possess genetic uniformity (making them unsuitable for seed saving), you could get higher yields. The gain was so much that it justified the cost of buying new seed every year. So, ever since then, farmers bought their seed from seed companies. Almost a hundred years later, GMOs get the blame. Makes no sense, but that's the anti-GMO movement for you. As an aside, some people are working on GMOs with apomixis traits, meaning the seeds are basically clones and as such the hybrid vigor would be preserved thus eliminating the need for seed vendors. But anyway, the terminator trait, despite the ill will directed toward it, is more misunderstood than dangerous. Course you could say the same thing of every other GM crop.
Re: (Score:3)
Hi, I do horticultural research for a living.
That higher yield doesn't man shit when an heirloom cultivar with a smaller fruit contains more nutrition than TWO larger GMO fruits combined.
And it's been that way for 50 years and steadily declining.
Sources:
University of Texas news release, Dec. 1, 2004.
Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999,Vol. 23, No. 6, 669-682 (2004).
Mother Earth News, Industrial Farming is Giving us Less Nutrit
Re: (Score:3)
"How many vegetable crops are GMO?"
In the world? More than you just listed, by far. Rices, Potatoes, Fruit cultivars, and much, much more.
Easiest way is to check every crop protected under the plant patent act. Thousands of listed crop species there with GMO modification.
And in reality, plenty of heirloom cultivars last AS LONG as their GMO counterparts in shelf-life. It's breeding for mechanical picking that begins the real fuckups.
I know these things already, and I also know that half of what you've said
Re: (Score:3)
Genetic engineering isn't the issue. The issue is that they do their test plots without any precautions against contaminating neighboring plants and it's been documented that the genes do end up in other fields and in some cases in weeds.
As for repealing prohibition, it's never a good idea to repeal things like this because there's a hardcore group that doesn't give a damn what the consequences to their actions are. Sure, that's ultimately the path that's going to be taken, but it's really not conducive to
Re: (Score:2)
The cops would be unable to detect the difference between regular corn and weed corn without analysis of the plants somehow (either by taking it to the lab or by using portable kit) because regular corn and weed corn would look the same to the naked eye.
Means they cant simply fly in their helicoptors all over the place looking for plants like they do now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah and all laws are consistently applied today...
That's the point. Once you contaminate every corn crop with this stuff, nobody will care anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the opposite - once it's figured out who's behind it the penalty will be hard. And I would hate to have permanent potheads around on the roads. There are enough stupid people on the roads these days, and we don't need them to be stoned stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the opposite - once it's figured out who's behind it the penalty will be hard.
That won't happen though if it saturates the food chain and the detectives are more interested in finding snacks to eat... :)
And I would hate to have permanent potheads around on the roads. There are enough stupid people on the roads these days, and we don't need them to be stoned stupid.
Yes that is one drawback. While driving stoned is hardly the danger that a 0.05% BAC brings, it's still a hazard i'd rather avoid. Stoned cops might be a problem too if they got a little careless with their guns.
Re: (Score:2)
War on Genes (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I foresee a new kind of prohibition. How long before the US Congress legislates to make a gene illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
Your analysis is perfectly realistic. Unfortunately, my cynicism is about congress, which is more than happy to legislate fixes to completely made-up problems. See the absurd debate about "human-animal hybrids" for a related example.
Just to check (Score:2)
1.) They are certain that heredity is solely controlled by genes.
2.) They are certain that DNA is the sole mechanism for passing on genes.
3.) That looking at DNA sequences is a productive method of finding causes of things.
Personally I believe that they are uncertain in (1), uncertain in (2) and that (3) is not true. DNA is a waste of time with regards to 99.99999% of human behaviour.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Just to check (Score:5, Informative)
that they have verified that
1.) They are certain that heredity is solely controlled by genes.
2.) They are certain that DNA is the sole mechanism for passing on genes.
3.) That looking at DNA sequences is a productive method of finding causes of things.
Personally I believe that they are uncertain in (1), uncertain in (2) and that (3) is not true. DNA is a waste of time with regards to 99.99999% of human behaviour.
WTF have you been smoking? Even if 1 and 2 are not completely true, there is enough about us programmed into our genes that it's still a useful thing to know. Human behaviour is part nature part nurture, not exclusively one or the other, and I bet the nature part is more than the 0.00001% figure you cite. Understanding the nature part can help us understand the nurture part better, so it's not a waste of time.
Clone Humphrey Bogart while you're at it. (Score:2)
Then he can Bogart the weed with out actually bogarting the weed.
Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA (Score:4, Insightful)
Somebody needs to make a version of weed that causes cancer
They have that. It's called tobacco.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually weed is already known to be carcinogenic.
Nope:
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Smoke from any burning organic matter is a carcinogen.
The thing is that people inhale less marijuana smoke than they do tobacco smoke so there's no definite link between the amount of smoke that even heavy potheads inhale and cancer.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I hate to say it but citation needed.
Remember, people have actually evolved being exposed to burning organic matter. IIRC Homo Erectus had fire.
I have seen studies that show tobacco smokers who also smoke pot to have less of an incident of cancer then smokers who only smoke tobacco.
The studies I've seen on pot smokers and cancer have been inconclusive though there was a trend to show that smoking pot was as bad as taking an airplane flight, very minimal and within the error bars.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to say it but citation needed.
Burning organic matter releases aromatic hyrdocarbons. They are carcinogens.
Remember, people have actually evolved being exposed to burning organic matter. IIRC Homo Erectus had fire.
You seem to believe that carcinogens are not found in nature. Wood smoke is particularly bad. There has been documented DNA damage done by exposure to wood smoke.
You need to get this bullshit out of your head [burningissues.org] that just because something's natural means that it's good for you.
LK
Re: (Score:3)
IIRC Homo Erectus had fire.
Homo Erectus were also lucky if they hit the ripe old age of twenty-five years old. Cancer was the least of their worries.
Re: (Score:3)
Homo erectus also died a long time before cancer could kill him.
You know why cancer is the big killer today? Because we eliminated everything else that could kill us before cancer gets us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's one of the things I don't get: Cannabis is by no means different from tobacco or alcohol (allegedly less addictive, I didn't test it myself), why not sell it to those that want it? Legally, and most of all, with a tax on it? And face it, ATFEC sounds a lot "rounder" than ATFE. That's missing an ending, don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
Because luckily Slashdot isn't written for you.
Personally I think it's pretty cool the potential to create natural THC in other plants or even in our own cells. It goes from being something you have to smoke which has an association with cancer in peoples minds to something scientists can show they understand and can deliver to those in need of therapeutic THC in a form a little more friendly.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not reading "high times", I'd rather not see this sort of junk.
Then grow some thick skin and ignore it.
While you might think the world evolves around you, it doesn't. In fact, most of us don't even care what you think.
Sorry, did that hurt?
Seriously though, i don't give a fuck that you don't care about this. It's science and it's news.
Oh, and oddly enough, a lot of people smoke weed and don't see any problems with it. I know that hurts ya, but deal with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, I'm sorry, did you think I give a fuck that you don't give a fuck? Why don't you just grow a thick skin and ignore comments you don't like.
While you might think the world evolves around you, it doesn't. In fact, most of us don't even care what you think.
Sorry, did that hurt?
Seriously though, i don't give a fuck that you don't care about him not caring. This isn't on Slashdot because it's science (there's a lot more that goes unreported). It's here because hurr, I could get high by scratching my nose!
Re: (Score:2)
While you might think the world evolves around you, it doesn't. In fact, most of us don't even care what you think.
It does evolve around him. It doesn't revolve around him.If you're going to spew bile, at least do it accurately ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't tell me (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure how these arguments are related, but I like my "High Voltage" and "Corrosive" labels, thank you very much. Some warnings exist for a reason.
The issue with drugs is that, when legalized in large quantities, they tend to lead to the same situation that happened with opium. That is not good for society as a whole. Alcohol is bad enough, but putting hallucinogens and other drug chemicals into plants that do not naturally have them is a bad thing. At best it makes drugs far too easily availabe, at worst it brings the country to its knees.
Drugs are a complicated issue, as I would like to think that freedom to choose is always best, but the simple fact is that a vast majority of people will abuse the privilege. People still smoke and even choose to start smoking, despite the warnings, despite the taxes, despite all common sense to the contrary.
I have seen the damage that even "weak" drugs can do when they become the center of someone's life. We need to end all the "War on X"s, but blanket legalization is not a good thing. Maybe pot should be legal, but with crack and heroin, that is never going to happen. There needs to be some balance, and as it stands, we're far too much towards the prohibition side. The administrative costs (police, court, prison, appeals, legislation, investigation...), the infringements upon civil rights, and the seriously questionable gain is just too much. However, THC-laced vegetables is far too much towards the stoned-out society side.
Like I said, it's not a simple issue, and trying to make it into one by running around saying "your fucking business" isn't going to convince anyone. That's the kind of attitude that causes pot to be so stigmatized in US politics. Learn civility, it's the only way you'll ever get what you want in life.
Re: (Score:2)
I've occasionally wondered if legalising personal use but criminalising commercial use would be more effective (in terms of net benefit to society) than anything else. You want to make your own, share it with friends? Fine. You bought person? Only person at risk from the cops is the dealer. You want to make money off it? Felony crime, hard labor, etc.
Any country tried that? Did it work?
Re: (Score:3)