Can always make oils, butters, preserves as well. I don't particularly like a THC high but am 100% down for trying a high CBD / low or no THC solution to nerve pain and muscle spasms for my L5-S1 bulging disc. Right now I'm taking high doses of a tricyclic antidepressant that also does nerve pain... which isn't a comfortable solution.
Whether or not you can extract the active ingredients is very important to people in my situation. It's also probably the weirdest gray area to legislate for at-home growing.
If anyone has Netflix I strongly suggest checking out the newest season of Bill Nye Saves the World. They touch briefly on how far behind the USA is on research and with how life changing it can be for treatment of seizure disorders. We should be fucking furious at the federal government.
dispatch.o on
+6
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Oregon knows how much weed comes from a plant. The State Police put out a notice that while it was legal to have 4 plants per household that come harvest time you could easily harvest an amount of weed that would put you well above the legal limit of ownership, and to pretty much not be stupid about it.
The biggest problem with grow your own in the northern states is that mold can annihilate a plant in a matter of hours. It really pays to have a temperature/humidity stable place to grow, while still providing the light and nutrients needed.
So what's the strategy here: harvest and them destroy the surplus "in a series of small conflagrations"? Or are there ways to refine the output such that the limit can be skirted?
PS Sorry to be asking all these noob questions: I'm neither a grower nor a smoker of anything, so my technical knowledge is very limited. My primary interest is as a taxpayer who would prefer not to be paying the huge costs of the War On A Plant, and a human being who would like to see the social cost reduced as well.
Would keeping them on a rotation help for that?
rotation is a good plan. With decent controlled conditions you can bring plants to harvest when you want, as they go to bud based on light cycles. This is harder if you are doing an outdoor grow, as the plants will naturally want to go to bud late august/early September, just as the air gets cool and moist and prime for mold. Outdoor grows don't produce superior product though, so you're trading quality for quantity. You can grow good marijuana outside, but the best product is produced in warehouse grow ops where everything is controlled; temp, humidity, light cycle, nutrient feed, watering etc... There are scratch built IoT style products that monitor each plant directly and all talk to each other and talk to the control systems to really generate perfect growing conditions on a per plant basis.
Another viable option is to turn it into other things as you harvest, like edibles, butter and oils, as each product has its own unique limits put on it. As long as it is still on the plant it doesn't count towards your limit. Mostly the limits are there for smokable product, as its the least refined/easiest to transport and consume. Everything else takes more work and additional processes and skill to produce good product.
One nice side effect is if you can grow good marijuana, is that you have the skills to grow a damned good garden if you so choose. All the knowledge about how nutrient additions, soil composition, watering and light levels effect plant growth and quality transfers over seamlessly to other green thumb pursuits.
Oregon knows how much weed comes from a plant. The State Police put out a notice that while it was legal to have 4 plants per household that come harvest time you could easily harvest an amount of weed that would put you well above the legal limit of ownership, and to pretty much not be stupid about it.
The biggest problem with grow your own in the northern states is that mold can annihilate a plant in a matter of hours. It really pays to have a temperature/humidity stable place to grow, while still providing the light and nutrients needed.
So what's the strategy here: harvest and them destroy the surplus "in a series of small conflagrations"? Or are there ways to refine the output such that the limit can be skirted?
PS Sorry to be asking all these noob questions: I'm neither a grower nor a smoker of anything, so my technical knowledge is very limited. My primary interest is as a taxpayer who would prefer not to be paying the huge costs of the War On A Plant, and a human being who would like to see the social cost reduced as well.
Gotta burn the excess somehow.
Breaking it down to hash, oil, wax, and further still to edible options as well is also a good call. There's ways to trim a stash. Heck my mom makes a topical cream that relieves aches and pains, but requires a shit load of weed to create properly.
You could also just stock all your friends up with weed. In my state I'm allowed 10 ounces in my house stash... even if I'm doing the "grow all 6 harvest, plant again, cruise oon that stash", plan...10 ounces is enough for years of smoking. If i somehow produce more than 10 ounces of weed at one time... I'd just hook up every smoker I know with the overflow.
I legit need like maybe 3 to 4 ounces of weed a year, and that's like all day to day and party smoking. Anything else is pure gravy on the year...
If you can have 2 or 3 plants flowering at even a quarterly interval... you can basically start trashing weed simply because it doesn't meet your freshness standards... Or smoking amounts that put Willie Nelson to shame.
These plans for what to do with all this excess make it sound like you are stockpiling so you never have to be not-high for the rest of your life.
And if I wanted to I could have enough booz around to never have to be not drunk for the rest of my life. It's super easy peasy. I don't do that because I have to like work and go to the gym and shit.
Realistically you don't actually need this volume of weed around, unless you are learning to process it into other forms.
It is nice that you can have it around, and can do all the different stuff you might want to do with it, but there isn't much use to trying to get full yield from 6 plants unless you're running a side business.
Like I said, volume wise, 2 to 3 plants flowering quarterly... you never actually need to buy again, unless you want to try a new strain before you try to grow it.
Thats the other thing. lets say you do have 3 plants flowering. 2 sativa 1 indica. That indica high acts a bit differently than the sativa high does. Growing 6 plants means you can have different strains with different smoking flavors, and different highs. You are going to have a surplus, but now you've got variety. Yeah you might have to get rid of some weed if you flower all 6 plants at once.
There are a lot of awesome ways to get rid of the excess that doesn't involve wasting weed, but after enough surplus hits... wasting weed isn't as much of a sin as it is when you can only get it for 5 bucks a gram from some random flaky dude.
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
These plans for what to do with all this excess make it sound like you are stockpiling so you never have to be not-high for the rest of your life.
That's the dream! I prefer to call it medicating.
+1
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
edited January 2018
I'm hoping the most recent setbacks aren't too huge because I'm hoping the equipment to make the oils for the vape pens keeps going down in cost. That's some fancy livin' right there. Cloud chasing from a fancy bit o tech.
I'm hoping the most recent setbacks aren't too huge because I'm hoping the equipment to make the oils for the vape pens keeps going down in cost. That's some fancy livin' right there. Cloud chasing from a fancy bit o tech.
Well, all 3 of Alaska's congresscritters are pretty livid about this, and they're all republican, as is that one Senator in Colorado who has completely shut down judicial nominees because Jeff Sessions went back on his word about not doing specifically this. I think there's actually a pretty good chance Congress might wind up doing something about it all.
I’m starting to see articles on right wing media sites declaring weed is actually dangerous again. Do they not realize that most people know it isn’t? Reefer madness is old hat.
Oregon knows how much weed comes from a plant. The State Police put out a notice that while it was legal to have 4 plants per household that come harvest time you could easily harvest an amount of weed that would put you well above the legal limit of ownership, and to pretty much not be stupid about it.
The biggest problem with grow your own in the northern states is that mold can annihilate a plant in a matter of hours. It really pays to have a temperature/humidity stable place to grow, while still providing the light and nutrients needed.
So what's the strategy here: harvest and them destroy the surplus "in a series of small conflagrations"? Or are there ways to refine the output such that the limit can be skirted?
PS Sorry to be asking all these noob questions: I'm neither a grower nor a smoker of anything, so my technical knowledge is very limited. My primary interest is as a taxpayer who would prefer not to be paying the huge costs of the War On A Plant, and a human being who would like to see the social cost reduced as well.
Yes, you can refine the plants down to THC rich oils that are used for the baked goods or on their own, additionally you can compost them.
If they went with industrial scale, the additional mass could be left fallow to re-fertilize the fields. IIRC Marijuana plants don't have the huge problems of, say, tobacco plants which poison their own fields. It could also be burned for biomass power production.
I’m starting to see articles on right wing media sites declaring weed is actually dangerous again. Do they not realize that most people know it isn’t? Reefer madness is old hat.
Can always make oils, butters, preserves as well. I don't particularly like a THC high but am 100% down for trying a high CBD / low or no THC solution to nerve pain and muscle spasms for my L5-S1 bulging disc. Right now I'm taking high doses of a tricyclic antidepressant that also does nerve pain... which isn't a comfortable solution.
This is one of my issues with a lot of home-growing right now. There are people who grow plants for the Cannabidiol to treat health issues, but the amount varies a lot and many of the strains used for recreational smoking don't have an effective amount of it. I think home growing can be a poor choice for self-care unless there's either a lot of education or regulation (IE, no selling plants or goods as "medicinal" without actually sending it in for testing).
I don't think it needs to be industrialized or over-regulated, but if it is and people make money from it good on them as long as they're being ethical about it. But I think a lot of people are going to buy/try strains without even knowing that there's a difference in the amount of CBD and they are either going to associate the high with relief or are going to decide that it doesn't work at all for them. The former is a problem because a good amount of CBD will relieve you for a longer period of time than any relief you might get from the high.
Which US Attorney is going to be the first to bring charges in a state that has legalized?
How do you get a jury to convict, if the majority of people in a state don't think a crime was committed?
Bring charges against the state itself on the grounds that state nullification hasn't ever been proven to be legal in the history of the US. The only people who would rule differently are on the left, the right wing has been packing the courts, and in this case there's a hundred or so years of legal precedent that says that states cannot nullify federal law with their own laws.
Right now the only judges who would rule in favor of the state are constitutional liberals who would vote that the state has the right to overturn a federal law that has been proven incorrect or unjust.
Which US Attorney is going to be the first to bring charges in a state that has legalized?
How do you get a jury to convict, if the majority of people in a state don't think a crime was committed?
Bring charges against the state itself on the grounds that state nullification hasn't ever been proven to be legal in the history of the US. The only people who would rule differently are on the left, the right wing has been packing the courts, and in this case there's a hundred or so years of legal precedent that says that states cannot nullify federal law with their own laws.
Right now the only judges who would rule in favor of the state are constitutional liberals who would vote that the state has the right to overturn a federal law that has been proven incorrect or unjust.
No he means like if they charge a dispensary in Massachusetts... good luck finding a jury in that state that will convict. You are basically looking at constant jury nullification and/or hung jury's on the felonies you are charging the dispensaries for.
Which US Attorney is going to be the first to bring charges in a state that has legalized?
How do you get a jury to convict, if the majority of people in a state don't think a crime was committed?
Bring charges against the state itself on the grounds that state nullification hasn't ever been proven to be legal in the history of the US. The only people who would rule differently are on the left, the right wing has been packing the courts, and in this case there's a hundred or so years of legal precedent that says that states cannot nullify federal law with their own laws.
Right now the only judges who would rule in favor of the state are constitutional liberals who would vote that the state has the right to overturn a federal law that has been proven incorrect or unjust.
No he means like if they charge a dispensary in Massachusetts... good luck finding a jury in that state that will convict. You are basically looking at constant jury nullification and/or hung jury's on the felonies you are charging the dispensaries for.
I wonder how many jurors a judge would let a prosecutor go through by dismissing anyone that answers yes to the "do you believe weed should be legal?" question. Let's be honest, the federal case would be ridiculously easy to prove so the only way you wouldn't convict as a juror is if you believed weed should be legal. So the question then becomes would the prosecutor go after the juror for lying under oath for answering no and didn't vote for a guilty verdict?
Which US Attorney is going to be the first to bring charges in a state that has legalized?
How do you get a jury to convict, if the majority of people in a state don't think a crime was committed?
Bring charges against the state itself on the grounds that state nullification hasn't ever been proven to be legal in the history of the US. The only people who would rule differently are on the left, the right wing has been packing the courts, and in this case there's a hundred or so years of legal precedent that says that states cannot nullify federal law with their own laws.
Right now the only judges who would rule in favor of the state are constitutional liberals who would vote that the state has the right to overturn a federal law that has been proven incorrect or unjust.
No he means like if they charge a dispensary in Massachusetts... good luck finding a jury in that state that will convict. You are basically looking at constant jury nullification and/or hung jury's on the felonies you are charging the dispensaries for.
Yeah, this is what I mean. It only takes one juror to derail the case, which would be a big blow to any US Attorney.
Can always make oils, butters, preserves as well. I don't particularly like a THC high but am 100% down for trying a high CBD / low or no THC solution to nerve pain and muscle spasms for my L5-S1 bulging disc. Right now I'm taking high doses of a tricyclic antidepressant that also does nerve pain... which isn't a comfortable solution.
This is one of my issues with a lot of home-growing right now. There are people who grow plants for the Cannabidiol to treat health issues, but the amount varies a lot and many of the strains used for recreational smoking don't have an effective amount of it. I think home growing can be a poor choice for self-care unless there's either a lot of education or regulation (IE, no selling plants or goods as "medicinal" without actually sending it in for testing).
I don't think it needs to be industrialized or over-regulated, but if it is and people make money from it good on them as long as they're being ethical about it. But I think a lot of people are going to buy/try strains without even knowing that there's a difference in the amount of CBD and they are either going to associate the high with relief or are going to decide that it doesn't work at all for them. The former is a problem because a good amount of CBD will relieve you for a longer period of time than any relief you might get from the high.
There's usually a pretty good breakdown on the different strains and their properties when you look into the seeds. Exact concentrations can't really ever be given for plants though because each one grows a little different, but you can get the ballpark idea on what a plant is going to do for you.
However, in the processing department you can go from flower to its constituent parts in almost pure concentrations. You can process down to pure cbd and/or pure thc, but it starts to get a little meth labby. I actually expect the processing layer to become the best money maker. Folks offering the service of, "give us the green you grow at home, we process it into oil/wax/distillate/whatever, and return the yield to you so you don't have to deal with the chemistry".
Oh man, if we get nationally legalized weed because Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III pulled this bullshit I might just die from laughing too much.
Alanis Morissette should right a song about this or something.
Honestly if we are going to get some sane legality it almost requires somebody doing the stupid like sessions and try to crack down on it fully to get legislation to actually clarify things made. I hope they can get this sorted out so if states want to do it it is legal for them and the people in their state to do it and use it without worrying some random attorney general with a bug up his behind will come and thrash it every 4 to 8 years.
Would it be possible to make a bill that bans it in every state that doesn't have written laws specifically regulating it? That might be easier to pass than something that legalizes it everywhere and makes states have to scramble to handle it.
Would it be possible to make a bill that bans it in every state that doesn't have written laws specifically regulating it? That might be easier to pass than something that legalizes it everywhere and makes states have to scramble to handle it.
Every state already has either laws to legalize or criminalize it, and that's within their purview, in the same way a state is free to ban alcohol.
All the federal government needs to do is change its classification in the Substance Control Act to leave it up to the states.
Would it be possible to make a bill that bans it in every state that doesn't have written laws specifically regulating it? That might be easier to pass than something that legalizes it everywhere and makes states have to scramble to handle it.
All the federal government needs to do is change its classification in the Substance Control Act to leave it up to the states.
This really seems optimal. Conservative states can ban the demon weed, hippy states can enjoy it, everyone is happy.
Would it be possible to make a bill that bans it in every state that doesn't have written laws specifically regulating it? That might be easier to pass than something that legalizes it everywhere and makes states have to scramble to handle it.
All the federal government needs to do is change its classification in the Substance Control Act to leave it up to the states.
This really seems optimal. Conservative states can ban the demon weed, hippy states can enjoy it, everyone is happy.
That wouldn't work, conservative states want everyone on their god awful level not some states happier than others.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Would it be possible to make a bill that bans it in every state that doesn't have written laws specifically regulating it? That might be easier to pass than something that legalizes it everywhere and makes states have to scramble to handle it.
All the federal government needs to do is change its classification in the Substance Control Act to leave it up to the states.
This really seems optimal. Conservative states can ban the demon weed, hippy states can enjoy it, everyone is happy.
Definitely won't work. Haven't conservative states already tried to make legal weed states distribute their extra funding or am I misremembering something? Neighboring states did sue Colorado, trying to claim making it legal there will cause big problems in trying to keep it out of the neighboring states. It'll be a case of "Look how much better those states are doing, this is unfair, we have to fix it" but they won't want to fix it by just emulating what's working.
All the federal government needs to do is change its classification in the Substance Control Act to leave it up to the states.
Problem is it could at best be moved down to Schedule 2 due to the definition of "potential for abuse" including recreational use. Alcohol and tobacco should be classified Schedule 2 based on that, but they both have specific exemptions from that law. I don't think there's enough difference in SCA enforcement between Schedule 1 and 2 to account for the difference in how legalized states are currently treating it. It would likely still run into federal issues without such an exemption.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Would it be possible to make a bill that bans it in every state that doesn't have written laws specifically regulating it? That might be easier to pass than something that legalizes it everywhere and makes states have to scramble to handle it.
All the federal government needs to do is change its classification in the Substance Control Act to leave it up to the states.
This really seems optimal. Conservative states can ban the demon weed, hippy states can enjoy it, everyone is happy.
That wouldn't work, conservative states want everyone on their god awful level not some states happier than others.
But then you could just say "State's Rights", and the inherent illogic in their position would cause them all to spontaneously combust.
0
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Can always make oils, butters, preserves as well. I don't particularly like a THC high but am 100% down for trying a high CBD / low or no THC solution to nerve pain and muscle spasms for my L5-S1 bulging disc. Right now I'm taking high doses of a tricyclic antidepressant that also does nerve pain... which isn't a comfortable solution.
This is one of my issues with a lot of home-growing right now. There are people who grow plants for the Cannabidiol to treat health issues, but the amount varies a lot and many of the strains used for recreational smoking don't have an effective amount of it. I think home growing can be a poor choice for self-care unless there's either a lot of education or regulation (IE, no selling plants or goods as "medicinal" without actually sending it in for testing).
I don't think it needs to be industrialized or over-regulated, but if it is and people make money from it good on them as long as they're being ethical about it. But I think a lot of people are going to buy/try strains without even knowing that there's a difference in the amount of CBD and they are either going to associate the high with relief or are going to decide that it doesn't work at all for them. The former is a problem because a good amount of CBD will relieve you for a longer period of time than any relief you might get from the high.
There's usually a pretty good breakdown on the different strains and their properties when you look into the seeds. Exact concentrations can't really ever be given for plants though because each one grows a little different, but you can get the ballpark idea on what a plant is going to do for you.
However, in the processing department you can go from flower to its constituent parts in almost pure concentrations. You can process down to pure cbd and/or pure thc, but it starts to get a little meth labby. I actually expect the processing layer to become the best money maker. Folks offering the service of, "give us the green you grow at home, we process it into oil/wax/distillate/whatever, and return the yield to you so you don't have to deal with the chemistry".
I attended a tech start-up pitch night at a local bar for small businesses to talk to angel investors and such (The PNW is awesome btw) right after we made weed legal, and about half of the companies involved were talking about doing almost exactly what you are talking about, taking all the extra bits and bobs from other growers and extracting components. Not idea if any of them made it, but people with money/know-how were talking about preparing for a commercial market where knowing exactly what is in what you are getting is important. You get a breakdown of THC and CBD levels on every container of legal weed in WA, its handy for knowing what you are getting.
Would it be possible to make a bill that bans it in every state that doesn't have written laws specifically regulating it? That might be easier to pass than something that legalizes it everywhere and makes states have to scramble to handle it.
The senators/representatives that don't want to legalize it at the federal level because of "states rights" also oppose allowing states to legalize it because they're hypocrites
Would it be possible to make a bill that bans it in every state that doesn't have written laws specifically regulating it? That might be easier to pass than something that legalizes it everywhere and makes states have to scramble to handle it.
All the federal government needs to do is change its classification in the Substance Control Act to leave it up to the states.
This really seems optimal. Conservative states can ban the demon weed, hippy states can enjoy it, everyone is happy.
That wouldn't work, conservative states want everyone on their god awful level not some states happier than others.
But then you could just say "State's Rights", and the inherent illogic in their position would cause them all to spontaneously combust.
Would it be possible to make a bill that bans it in every state that doesn't have written laws specifically regulating it? That might be easier to pass than something that legalizes it everywhere and makes states have to scramble to handle it.
All the federal government needs to do is change its classification in the Substance Control Act to leave it up to the states.
This really seems optimal. Conservative states can ban the demon weed, hippy states can enjoy it, everyone is happy.
That wouldn't work, conservative states want everyone on their god awful level not some states happier than others.
Also there's a ton of democrats and minorities in those conservative states who need protection.
Like, that's basically what the entire Southern US is.
State Rep. Steve Alford (R) said at a “Legislative Coffee” session on Saturday that Jim Crow-era policies banning drugs such as pot were to protect other citizens from the drug use of black Americans.
“What was the reason why they did that? One of the reasons why, I hate to say it, was that the African-Americans, they were basically users and they basically responded the worst to those drugs just because of their character makeup, their genetics and that,” he continued.
I hope I wake up tomorrow and hear that this is a big deal, because YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY THAT KIND OF STUFF IN 2018 AS AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE AND STILL HAVE A JOB IN THE MORNING.
I hope I wake up tomorrow and hear that this is a big deal, because YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY THAT KIND OF STUFF IN 2018 AS AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE AND STILL HAVE A JOB IN THE MORNING.
I’m starting to see articles on right wing media sites declaring weed is actually dangerous again. Do they not realize that most people know it isn’t? Reefer madness is old hat.
Links?
How about Indiana's AG, and also an IN Prosecutors group?
AG's Op-Ed (this entire thing is a doozy, like Hill watched Reefer Madness and was like "this is the best documentary I've ever seen!")
Article on the IN Prosecutors Group (the language used in here belies the paper's feelings about weed: "The Association of Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys also debunked cannabis' medicinal properties.")
I hope I wake up tomorrow and hear that this is a big deal, because YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY THAT KIND OF STUFF IN 2018 AS AN ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE AND STILL HAVE A JOB IN THE MORNING.
Posts
Whether or not you can extract the active ingredients is very important to people in my situation. It's also probably the weirdest gray area to legislate for at-home growing.
If anyone has Netflix I strongly suggest checking out the newest season of Bill Nye Saves the World. They touch briefly on how far behind the USA is on research and with how life changing it can be for treatment of seizure disorders. We should be fucking furious at the federal government.
rotation is a good plan. With decent controlled conditions you can bring plants to harvest when you want, as they go to bud based on light cycles. This is harder if you are doing an outdoor grow, as the plants will naturally want to go to bud late august/early September, just as the air gets cool and moist and prime for mold. Outdoor grows don't produce superior product though, so you're trading quality for quantity. You can grow good marijuana outside, but the best product is produced in warehouse grow ops where everything is controlled; temp, humidity, light cycle, nutrient feed, watering etc... There are scratch built IoT style products that monitor each plant directly and all talk to each other and talk to the control systems to really generate perfect growing conditions on a per plant basis.
Another viable option is to turn it into other things as you harvest, like edibles, butter and oils, as each product has its own unique limits put on it. As long as it is still on the plant it doesn't count towards your limit. Mostly the limits are there for smokable product, as its the least refined/easiest to transport and consume. Everything else takes more work and additional processes and skill to produce good product.
One nice side effect is if you can grow good marijuana, is that you have the skills to grow a damned good garden if you so choose. All the knowledge about how nutrient additions, soil composition, watering and light levels effect plant growth and quality transfers over seamlessly to other green thumb pursuits.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Gotta burn the excess somehow.
Breaking it down to hash, oil, wax, and further still to edible options as well is also a good call. There's ways to trim a stash. Heck my mom makes a topical cream that relieves aches and pains, but requires a shit load of weed to create properly.
You could also just stock all your friends up with weed. In my state I'm allowed 10 ounces in my house stash... even if I'm doing the "grow all 6 harvest, plant again, cruise oon that stash", plan...10 ounces is enough for years of smoking. If i somehow produce more than 10 ounces of weed at one time... I'd just hook up every smoker I know with the overflow.
I legit need like maybe 3 to 4 ounces of weed a year, and that's like all day to day and party smoking. Anything else is pure gravy on the year...
If you can have 2 or 3 plants flowering at even a quarterly interval... you can basically start trashing weed simply because it doesn't meet your freshness standards... Or smoking amounts that put Willie Nelson to shame.
And if I wanted to I could have enough booz around to never have to be not drunk for the rest of my life. It's super easy peasy. I don't do that because I have to like work and go to the gym and shit.
Realistically you don't actually need this volume of weed around, unless you are learning to process it into other forms.
It is nice that you can have it around, and can do all the different stuff you might want to do with it, but there isn't much use to trying to get full yield from 6 plants unless you're running a side business.
Like I said, volume wise, 2 to 3 plants flowering quarterly... you never actually need to buy again, unless you want to try a new strain before you try to grow it.
Thats the other thing. lets say you do have 3 plants flowering. 2 sativa 1 indica. That indica high acts a bit differently than the sativa high does. Growing 6 plants means you can have different strains with different smoking flavors, and different highs. You are going to have a surplus, but now you've got variety. Yeah you might have to get rid of some weed if you flower all 6 plants at once.
There are a lot of awesome ways to get rid of the excess that doesn't involve wasting weed, but after enough surplus hits... wasting weed isn't as much of a sin as it is when you can only get it for 5 bucks a gram from some random flaky dude.
That's the dream! I prefer to call it medicating.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
Well, all 3 of Alaska's congresscritters are pretty livid about this, and they're all republican, as is that one Senator in Colorado who has completely shut down judicial nominees because Jeff Sessions went back on his word about not doing specifically this. I think there's actually a pretty good chance Congress might wind up doing something about it all.
Alanis Morissette should right a song about this or something.
Yes, you can refine the plants down to THC rich oils that are used for the baked goods or on their own, additionally you can compost them.
If they went with industrial scale, the additional mass could be left fallow to re-fertilize the fields. IIRC Marijuana plants don't have the huge problems of, say, tobacco plants which poison their own fields. It could also be burned for biomass power production.
Links?
This is one of my issues with a lot of home-growing right now. There are people who grow plants for the Cannabidiol to treat health issues, but the amount varies a lot and many of the strains used for recreational smoking don't have an effective amount of it. I think home growing can be a poor choice for self-care unless there's either a lot of education or regulation (IE, no selling plants or goods as "medicinal" without actually sending it in for testing).
I don't think it needs to be industrialized or over-regulated, but if it is and people make money from it good on them as long as they're being ethical about it. But I think a lot of people are going to buy/try strains without even knowing that there's a difference in the amount of CBD and they are either going to associate the high with relief or are going to decide that it doesn't work at all for them. The former is a problem because a good amount of CBD will relieve you for a longer period of time than any relief you might get from the high.
How do you get a jury to convict, if the majority of people in a state don't think a crime was committed?
Bring charges against the state itself on the grounds that state nullification hasn't ever been proven to be legal in the history of the US. The only people who would rule differently are on the left, the right wing has been packing the courts, and in this case there's a hundred or so years of legal precedent that says that states cannot nullify federal law with their own laws.
Right now the only judges who would rule in favor of the state are constitutional liberals who would vote that the state has the right to overturn a federal law that has been proven incorrect or unjust.
No he means like if they charge a dispensary in Massachusetts... good luck finding a jury in that state that will convict. You are basically looking at constant jury nullification and/or hung jury's on the felonies you are charging the dispensaries for.
I wonder how many jurors a judge would let a prosecutor go through by dismissing anyone that answers yes to the "do you believe weed should be legal?" question. Let's be honest, the federal case would be ridiculously easy to prove so the only way you wouldn't convict as a juror is if you believed weed should be legal. So the question then becomes would the prosecutor go after the juror for lying under oath for answering no and didn't vote for a guilty verdict?
Yeah, this is what I mean. It only takes one juror to derail the case, which would be a big blow to any US Attorney.
There's usually a pretty good breakdown on the different strains and their properties when you look into the seeds. Exact concentrations can't really ever be given for plants though because each one grows a little different, but you can get the ballpark idea on what a plant is going to do for you.
However, in the processing department you can go from flower to its constituent parts in almost pure concentrations. You can process down to pure cbd and/or pure thc, but it starts to get a little meth labby. I actually expect the processing layer to become the best money maker. Folks offering the service of, "give us the green you grow at home, we process it into oil/wax/distillate/whatever, and return the yield to you so you don't have to deal with the chemistry".
Honestly if we are going to get some sane legality it almost requires somebody doing the stupid like sessions and try to crack down on it fully to get legislation to actually clarify things made. I hope they can get this sorted out so if states want to do it it is legal for them and the people in their state to do it and use it without worrying some random attorney general with a bug up his behind will come and thrash it every 4 to 8 years.
Every state already has either laws to legalize or criminalize it, and that's within their purview, in the same way a state is free to ban alcohol.
All the federal government needs to do is change its classification in the Substance Control Act to leave it up to the states.
This really seems optimal. Conservative states can ban the demon weed, hippy states can enjoy it, everyone is happy.
That wouldn't work, conservative states want everyone on their god awful level not some states happier than others.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Definitely won't work. Haven't conservative states already tried to make legal weed states distribute their extra funding or am I misremembering something? Neighboring states did sue Colorado, trying to claim making it legal there will cause big problems in trying to keep it out of the neighboring states. It'll be a case of "Look how much better those states are doing, this is unfair, we have to fix it" but they won't want to fix it by just emulating what's working.
Problem is it could at best be moved down to Schedule 2 due to the definition of "potential for abuse" including recreational use. Alcohol and tobacco should be classified Schedule 2 based on that, but they both have specific exemptions from that law. I don't think there's enough difference in SCA enforcement between Schedule 1 and 2 to account for the difference in how legalized states are currently treating it. It would likely still run into federal issues without such an exemption.
But then you could just say "State's Rights", and the inherent illogic in their position would cause them all to spontaneously combust.
I attended a tech start-up pitch night at a local bar for small businesses to talk to angel investors and such (The PNW is awesome btw) right after we made weed legal, and about half of the companies involved were talking about doing almost exactly what you are talking about, taking all the extra bits and bobs from other growers and extracting components. Not idea if any of them made it, but people with money/know-how were talking about preparing for a commercial market where knowing exactly what is in what you are getting is important. You get a breakdown of THC and CBD levels on every container of legal weed in WA, its handy for knowing what you are getting.
The senators/representatives that don't want to legalize it at the federal level because of "states rights" also oppose allowing states to legalize it because they're hypocrites
...are you new to US politics?
Also there's a ton of democrats and minorities in those conservative states who need protection.
Like, that's basically what the entire Southern US is.
Kansas state rep: Black people 'responded the worst' to marijuana because of 'their genetics'
Have you seen our president?
How about Indiana's AG, and also an IN Prosecutors group?
AG's Op-Ed (this entire thing is a doozy, like Hill watched Reefer Madness and was like "this is the best documentary I've ever seen!")
Article on the IN Prosecutors Group (the language used in here belies the paper's feelings about weed: "The Association of Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys also debunked cannabis' medicinal properties.")
We can’t have that
It probably won't get him kicked out but he's already apologized due too the backlash.
http://cjonline.com/news/state-government/2018-01-08/kansas-rep-steve-alford-claims-african-americans-character-genetics