I don't think marijuana should be legal in US--your thoughts?

[LOC NAR on probation]

I honestly don't think we should legalize weed in America. I love herb, and know of all it's potential, however, I feel as if legalization would lead to an inevitable raping of the plant by our capitalistic society. I wouldn't want the government to rule the crop, and basically be pawning off low-quality products for mass profits. Rather, I think decriminalization would be the solution. The ambiguity with decriminalization would mean, with such mass support, it would be virtually legal, while still keeping the professional growers (and rookies) in business. Something has to change with the legislation, but I feel as if complete legalization would undermine the goals of the people who would directly benefit (i.e. not just money) from this problem. The people who matter: Us.

Please share your thoughts...peace

It was never made illeagle.

Only prohibition. and that was done by one drug Zsar.

We The People need to lift the prohibition.

There are no illeagle substances in the US CONSTITUTION.

[Rusty Trichome]

And ayyyyyeâ??m no genetic engineer but it is my understanding â??genetic engineeringâ?� requires some form of gene splicing.

Doesnâ??t that require duct-tape or sumtin?

Actually, duct tape binds the DNA to a pre-determined expression. :thumbsup:

There's the epigenetic theory:
Epigenetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And there's the pre-formationism theory: Preformationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A cause-and-effect theory versus a predetermined outcome theory. Both have their merits, but in different contexts. With the pre-formation theory, do we have all the genetic material on-board to handle the variety of outside influences without change, or is this a learning process for genes, and they adapt (and possibly change) as a result of the extended influences? Subtle difference in the written word...big difference in long-term evolution.

Guess my new vape works...I was just going to post the first sentence, and kinda took off from there...(and has nothing to do with OP's question on legalization. Sorry)

[khyberkitsune]

"however, I feel as if legalization would lead to an inevitable raping of the plant by our capitalistic society."

This plant was already commercially raped before it was ever made illegal. In fact, before making cannabis illegal, it was once illegal to NOT GROW on your land.

The people need to learn their history a bit better. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[Rusty Trichome]

Hmm...I wonder how nature feels about us growers raping ('manipulating and optimizing') cannabis for our own ends. And it's kinda the pot calling the kettle black blaming capitalists. Or are breeders "capitalists" too? I guess it could be seen as both sides of the same coin, now-a-days. Without capitalists, where would you get your soils, nutrients, seeds, lights, fans, electricity...

I'm pretty sure it was hemp the colonies required of landowners. You don't want to smoke hemp.

But I agree. It would be nice if someone has preserved the genetic integrity of base strains from all the continents, just in case we need to start over from scratch.

[pepurr]

"however, I feel as if legalization would lead to an inevitable raping of the plant by our capitalistic society."

This plant was already commercially raped before it was ever made illegal. In fact, before making cannabis illegal, it was once illegal to NOT GROW on your land.

The people need to learn their history a bit better. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Could you please define the terms "raping of the plant", and "commercially raped"? What does it mean to you?

I bet if you walked down the street and asked people to define that, you would get many different answers.

If you mean planting many acres of land, and doing it on an industrial scale, what would be the harm in that? People have been moving that direction for many thousands of years. Look at wheat.

Ten thousand years ago wheat was a wild grass that provided way less food per plant than the verities we have today. It was all done with selective breeding and experimentation.

Just like many other products, there will be large producers and small ones. I doubt these producers will want to flood the market with crap, especially the smaller ones.

I mean like, what do you want to drink Red White & Blue beer (crap), or fine, tasty beer from a micro brew?

See? People have a choice to make. They make that choice using money. The people who wish to profit can not do so by pissing off their customers with a lousy product.

[khyberkitsune]

"It would be nice if someone has preserved the genetic integrity of base strains from all the continents, just in case we need to start over from scratch."

Guess what I just happen to do for the Dutch Seedbanks?

"You don't want to smoke hemp."

Not from this day and age, but back in the 1700s there are plenty of mentions of the smoking of hemp flowers, so I'm quite willing to bet back then there was some potency.

"Could you please define the terms "raping of the plant", and "commercially raped"? What does it mean to you?"

Going by the term stated in the comment I replied to of "capitalistic" the plant has been commercially exploited in all sorts of manners from cannabis tinctures to insufflated concoctions. Granted most had *SOME* effect but back then it was all done through a bunch of quack science, and since the quacks were involved, the commercial raping happened.

"I mean like, what do you want to drink Red White & Blue beer (crap), or fine, tasty beer from a micro brew? "

Neither, malt liquor is my preferred carbonated alcoholic beverage. Between the pisswater and the high-and-mighty, I think I'll stick with the humble 40oz.

[Rusty Trichome]

Guess what I just happen to do for the Dutch Seedbanks?

My guess is that you "design grow lights for horticultural firms across the globe." (at least that's what it says in your signature) But now you've almost got me curious what you really do. Almost.

[ghettoBlunt]

By "raping the plant," I meant that, being capitalist America, our style is to go bigger and cheaper. Unless we had specific agricultural guidelines paired-up with a group of surveyors doing random checks at grow sites, this perfect plant could be tainted with cheap fertilizers and other unhealthy chemicals. It's all about making money in America, quick and easy, which would lead me to believe a legalization would undoubtedly put the plant into the hands of someone (government) who only cared about the bottom line: the money. When they don't care about the quality of the product, and just want to see stocks jump, they'd end up selling taxed, potentially unhealthy, marijuana for lower prices than the competition (experienced growers). Without specific guidelines and a powerful board of people who could enforce the rules, legalization would probably make the plant far less enjoyable, and potentially very unhealthy.
I don't know what you like to smoke, but I support my local growers and the immaculate organic farming and true appreciation of the crop to which I've become accustomed. Blaze up.

[pepurr]

I don't know what you like to smoke, but I support my local growers and the immaculate organic farming and true appreciation of the crop to which I've become accustomed. Blaze up.

I don't like any product of inferior quality. Just like you and many others, we like fine smoke.

If in the future if there are capitalist mega-grower brands, I'll give them a try. If they suck, they loose my business. All the while I'll be buying the local primo too. Also, I'll be growing my own kick butt grass. Then I'll tell them all to kiss my azz.

I don't think this can be put into such a narrow focus. There are many forces at work here, and will be in the future. We are the shapers of the future. We are part of the forces at work. If there is a failure in the future of marijuana, it is we who fail.

[khyberkitsune]

My guess is that you "design grow lights for horticultural firms across the globe." (at least that's what it says in your signature) But now you've almost got me curious what you really do. Almost.

I do that, as a main job. But I'm really, really dedicated to horticulture. I help with preserving pure landraces of cannabis from around the globe. My duty is to breed and generate seed of this pure stock. Here is a pic of what I've been allowed to keep for personal furtherance/crossbreeding:

From left to right, these are only known as CAN-39, CAN-22, CAN-17, and CAN-59. Eurasian and Asian landraces. Not only do I breed it, but I'm tasked with documenting the characteristics and typical likes/dislikes of what I've generated. CAN-39 is odd. The female doesn't produce anything we'd call a bud (it produces two or three calyxes per node,) but it drips with crazy resin and just suddenly ram-horns at the leaves. The male produces typical pollen sacs. I have yet to do CAN-22, CAN-17 has managed to produce some almost hash-quality buds, and I have yet to touch the CAN-59.

And then I do some volunteer horticultural lecturing at the garden clubs on weekends, and of course dedicate tons of time to sites like this.