Neil Rockind Interview, Comments On Provision Centers

[Peragro]

Do you think it too much to suggest that evidence of harm done by untested mj be a part of the deliberations? <snip>

 

[edit: Of course it should be discussed.] I would start by making a distinction between "inspection" and "testing".

 

"Inspection" would be physical/microscopic assessment for the presence of pests and/or other foreign organisms (which might contaminate other plants or cause problems for allergic or otherwise immune-compromised patients). Any "responsible" grower (patient or caregiver) will be doing this throughout the grow as a means of maintaining plant health (and again as part of the harvesting process).

 

Any "dispensary" should also be doing this during "intake" (no matter how "trusted" the grower is or how "desperate" they are for this strain or that). I've smelled fabric softener sheets and "dank basement" in jars at "dispensaries" so I'm not sure how regularly/carefully "inspection" is/was happening in those establishments. I've also been misinformed as to the cannabinoid profile of certain plant material (a basic "scumbag sales tactic").

 

As far as I'm concerned, "contaminated" plant material should be destroyed. Not "disguised" as hashish. Not "hidden" as RSO. Destroyed. Or composted. Whatever. It sucks for the grower but the idea is to ensure that it doesn't end up in the body of someone it could hurt. I'm not sure I'd want that in legislation, though, because it would essentially mean setting up our own version of FDA with "mandatory" inspections. There's that word ("mandatory"). Please disregard this entire paragraph. Just kidding. No, really, disregard this.

 

"Testing" would be any method of assaying cannabinoid content in plant material (or any preparation thereof). I believe we already have an acceptable "standard" for expressing THC/CBD/CBN "profiles" as a percentage of total mass. This works pretty well as long as people are actually doing the testing (and not just parroting the profile given on some website).

 

I met a couple at the Jackson Market who had Cannalytics reports on all of their "products". They did this voluntarily, of course, and I thought it was pretty awesome of them. Real "bleeding edge" stuff. And I think that's where growers need to consider "heading" (if "we" manage to get "patient-to-patient" and/or "caregiver-to-non-dance-card-patient" transfers on the table in a "reasonable" piece of legislation). But the words "mandatory" and "testing" should never appear in the same sentence. Har-dee-har-har.

 

The clause about medible content is one of the only parts of 4271 that I find "truly reasonable" (this was part of my "report" - his word - to Senator Nofs; perhaps he "delivered"). There's also the "seedling" definition (but that would seem to benefit commercial operations and clone-sellers more than it would individual patients or their caregivers). The "clarification" of "useable marihuana" is pretty good, too (and makes those freezer bags of fresh-frozen plant material "safe"). Like with most things; there are "good parts" and "bad parts". I don't think the "bad parts" in this bill are worth tolerating for the sake of the "good parts" (but you already know this).

Edited March 5, 2013 by Peragro

[maxmax]

Thank you I never knew about the importance of testing mmj am one of the older people here and used it before 08 but the reason was the same

so I did buy it sometimes yes I said it anyways I would find things like compressed Bug's sometimes

Now that it's all legal here testing would be great if the buyer was paying for that their testing OK

 

then it would be like a great bottle of wine instead of the Mad-Dog 20/20 or MD40

[roadworkahead]

Thank you I never knew about the importance of testing mmj am one of the older people here and used it before 08 but the reason was the same

so I did buy it sometimes yes I said it anyways I would find things like compressed Bug's sometimes

Now that it's all legal here testing would be great if the buyer was paying for that their testing OK

 

then it would be like a great bottle of wine instead of the Mad-Dog 20/20 or MD40

what I am concerned about are the chemical fertilizers Is there testing available for that? most disp say they test for bugs mold moisture and thc . they tell nothing of the use of chemical fertilzers. If it is grown with chemicals it is not Medical IMHO

[GregS]

[edit: Of course it should be discussed.] I would start by making a distinction between "inspection" and "testing".

 

"Inspection" would be physical/microscopic assessment for the presence of pests and/or other foreign organisms (which might contaminate other plants or cause problems for allergic or otherwise immune-compromised patients). Any "responsible" grower (patient or caregiver) will be doing this throughout the grow as a means of maintaining plant health (and again as part of the harvesting process).

 

Any "dispensary" should also be doing this during "intake" (no matter how "trusted" the grower is or how "desperate" they are for this strain or that). I've smelled fabric softener sheets and "dank basement" in jars at "dispensaries" so I'm not sure how regularly/carefully "inspection" is/was happening in those establishments. I've also been misinformed as to the cannabinoid profile of certain plant material (a basic "scumbag sales tactic").

 

As far as I'm concerned, "contaminated" plant material should be destroyed. Not "disguised" as hashish. Not "hidden" as RSO. Destroyed. Or composted. Whatever. It sucks for the grower but the idea is to ensure that it doesn't end up in the body of someone it could hurt. I'm not sure I'd want that in legislation, though, because it would essentially mean setting up our own version of FDA with "mandatory" inspections. There's that word ("mandatory"). Please disregard this entire paragraph. Just kidding. No, really, disregard this.

 

"Testing" would be any method of assaying cannabinoid content in plant material (or any preparation thereof). I believe we already have an acceptable "standard" for expressing THC/CBD/CBN "profiles" as a percentage of total mass. This works pretty well as long as people are actually doing the testing (and not just parroting the profile given on some website).

 

I met a couple at the Jackson Market who had Cannalytics reports on all of their "products". They did this voluntarily, of course, and I thought it was pretty awesome of them. Real "bleeding edge" stuff. And I think that's where growers need to consider "heading" (if "we" manage to get "patient-to-patient" and/or "caregiver-to-non-dance-card-patient" transfers on the table in a "reasonable" piece of legislation). But the words "mandatory" and "testing" should never appear in the same sentence. Har-dee-har-har.

 

The clause about medible content is one of the only parts of 4271 that I find "truly reasonable" (this was part of my "report" - his word - to Senator Nofs; perhaps he "delivered"). There's also the "seedling" definition (but that would seem to benefit commercial operations and clone-sellers more than it would individual patients or their caregivers). The "clarification" of "useable marihuana" is pretty good, too (and makes those freezer bags of fresh-frozen plant material "safe"). Like with most things; there are "good parts" and "bad parts". I don't think the "bad parts" in this bill are worth tolerating for the sake of the "good parts" (but you already know this).

 

We agree in that the distinction between testing and inspection is real, and informed patients would be wise to inspect it on their own, regardless the source. Quality caregivers can insist that a patient consider such an inspection. Testing is a nice touch, but in light of the fact that I have seen no real harm done without begs the question, "why?", and I cannot agree more that to require it by law is just manufacturing a boondoggle.

 

My hard on for this bill stems largely in the notion, as has been said, that precisely those institutions that withheld the relief the drug brings should not now be in the position to profit lucratively at our expense. Call me old fashioned, but sometimes it is hard to lay down a grudge when it comes to important things.

Edited March 5, 2013 by GregS

[Petyr]

what I am concerned about are the chemical fertilizers Is there testing available for that? most disp say they test for bugs mold moisture and thc . they tell nothing of the use of chemical fertilzers. If it is grown with chemicals it is not Medical IMHO

 

They could maybe test for PGRs or something, but I am thinking you are referring to people using mineral salts. There is no test to tell if the N is from calcium nitrate or blood meal. They can test the amount of N with a tissue culture, but that isn't what the labs do.

 

How about testing for E. coli and the such from dirty organic inputs? I would be interested in that.

 

If its grown in feces or by-products of a rendering plant, its not medical IMHO.

[Peragro]

maxmax:

Compressed bugs? Never experienced that, myself, but it doesn't seem fun.

 

I'd guess that most "older" patients have "used" for medical reasons before '08. It's not as if the illicit market only caters to "recreational users" (though policy-makers love to perpetuate this myth and some "medical professionals" continue to label all illicit use as "recreational" or attempt to denigrate it as "self-medication"). The illicit drugs market has been "the pharmacy of the underprivileged" for as long as anybody cares to remember. I seem to remember a study on this but it's been so long that I can't remember if it was a standalone "thing" or part of a larger work. It was a fun read, though, and basically dismantled every aspect of Federal drug policy.

 

As for who should "pay" for testing... Thin-layer chromatography is dirt cheap. Ready-made testing plates cost about $8 each (4~5 "profiles" per sheet) and they're fairly easy to make "at home". Let's just say that if patients are dishing out anywhere near "prevailing market price" for their cannabis, they're "paying for" TLC but didn't even know it (because, really...$400/oz?). I think that growers who are "scientific" about what they're doing "should be" testing via TLC for their own knowledge (or to document the results of experimental growing techniques, "drift" from repeated cloning, and so forth).

 

roadworkahead:

A short answer is "Not really." (see Petyr's reply)

 

A long answer is "You shouldn't 'have' to test for it. The grower should disclose this voluntarily."

 

An even longer answer is that plants don't seem to "know" the difference between "chemical" and "organic" and the patient really shouldn't notice a difference either. Most of the arguments I've seen from organic proponents involve flavor (and very refined palates, apparently). They claim that organic nutrients and "living soil" contribute to flavor (and plant health) in ways that are more complex than "N-P-K". Many cannabis-specific fertilizers attempt to bridge this "gap" by providing a variety of "micronutrients" and/or "beneficial fungi". So either there's something to "the flavor argument" or fertilizer manufacturers decided to latch on to a marketing opportunity. I'm thinking it may be a little bit of both (but I lean toward "marketing").

 

At the end of the day (or growing cycle) as long as the grower does a proper "flush", any remnants of artificial fertilizer are "used up" and should not be present except as the "building blocks" of the plant material itself (Petyr commented well on this). I typically take my cannabis orally, in gelatin capsules, so "flavor" isn't nearly as important to me as cannabinoid profile. When I do "smoke" (or vaporize) I use hashish or kief so turpene content in the "green material" doesn't matter much.

 

Regardless of my "personal habits", or anybody's, what I believe is "the real reason" behind the "organic vs. chemical debate" simply isn't as relevant to small-scale/indoor horticulture as it is to "real farming in the great outdoors" (but discussion of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, along with "factory" and "monoculture" farming, is way beyond the scope of this thread). There are plenty of agricultural/environmental studies out there which document the damage done. Some of the information is downright "scary". The "other side" (quite correctly) states that our great surpluses (and "cheap" food) wouldn't exist without chemical fertilizers and pesticides (toxic "runoff" and groundwater contamination be damned!) Throw dependence on farm subsidies, below-cost pricing, industrial food manufacturing, patented genetics, and the decline of "public seed" into the mix...it's basically a big freakin' mess!

Edited March 5, 2013 by Peragro

[MasterKush]

"Peragro"

 

I "think" that you "should" have "used" a few "more" quotation "marks" in "your" "posts." There "aren't" nearly "enough" "for" my "liking"

 

""

 

Seriously though...you do make several excellent points. Your posts seem to be well thought out...however the "excessive" "quotation" "marks" "make" "it" "hard" "to" "get through"

[+Malamute]

maxmax:

Compressed bugs? Never experienced that, myself, but it doesn't seem fun.

 

I'd guess that most "older" patients have "used" for medical reasons before '08. It's not as if the illicit market only caters to "recreational users" (though policy-makers love to perpetuate this myth and some "medical professionals" continue to label all illicit use as "recreational" or attempt to denigrate it as "self-medication"). The illicit drugs market has been "the pharmacy of the underprivileged" for as long as anybody cares to remember. I seem to remember a study on this but it's been so long that I can't remember if it was a standalone "thing" or part of a larger work. It was a fun read, though, and basically dismantled every aspect of Federal drug policy.

 

As for who should "pay" for testing... Thin-layer chromatography is dirt cheap. Ready-made testing plates cost about $8 each (4~5 "profiles" per sheet) and they're fairly easy to make "at home". Let's just say that if patients are dishing out anywhere near "prevailing market price" for their cannabis, they're "paying for" TLC but didn't even know it (because, really...$400/oz?). I think that growers who are "scientific" about what they're doing "should be" testing via TLC for their own knowledge (or to document the results of experimental growing techniques, "drift" from repeated cloning, and so forth).

 

roadworkahead:

A short answer is "Not really." (see Petyr's reply)

 

A long answer is "You shouldn't 'have' to test for it. The grower should disclose this voluntarily."

 

An even longer answer is that plants don't seem to "know" the difference between "chemical" and "organic" and the patient really shouldn't notice a difference either. Most of the arguments I've seen from organic proponents involve flavor (and very refined palates, apparently). They claim that organic nutrients and "living soil" contribute to flavor (and plant health) in ways that are more complex than "N-P-K". Many cannabis-specific fertilizers attempt to bridge this "gap" by providing a variety of "micronutrients" and/or "beneficial fungi". So either there's something to "the flavor argument" or fertilizer manufacturers decided to latch on to a marketing opportunity. I'm thinking it may be a little bit of both (but I lean toward "marketing").

 

At the end of the day (or growing cycle) as long as the grower does a proper "flush", any remnants of artificial fertilizer are "used up" and should not be present except as the "building blocks" of the plant material itself (Petyr commented well on this). I typically take my cannabis orally, in gelatin capsules, so "flavor" isn't nearly as important to me as cannabinoid profile. When I do "smoke" (or vaporize) I use hashish or kief so turpene content in the "green material" doesn't matter much.

 

Regardless of my "personal habits", or anybody's, what I believe is "the real reason" behind the "organic vs. chemical debate" simply isn't as relevant to small-scale/indoor horticulture as it is to "real farming in the great outdoors" (but discussion of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, along with "factory" and "monoculture" farming, is way beyond the scope of this thread). There are plenty of agricultural/environmental studies out there which document the damage done. Some of the information is downright "scary". The "other side" (quite correctly) states that our great surpluses (and "cheap" food) wouldn't exist without chemical fertilizers and pesticides (toxic "runoff" and groundwater contamination be damned!) Throw dependence on farm subsidies, below-cost pricing, industrial food manufacturing, patented genetics, and the decline of "public seed" into the mix...it's basically a big freakin' mess!

 

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1203343/JOANNA-BLYTHMAN-A-cancerous-conspiracy-poison-faith-organic-food.html#ixzz0Mv40D9Ug <--- full story

 

According to the FSA's findings, organic vegetables contain 53.6 per cent more betacarotene - which helps combat cancer and heart disease - than non-organic ones.

 

Similarly, organic food has 11.3 per cent more zinc, 38.4 per cent more flavonoids and 12.7 per cent more proteins.

 

In addition, an in-depth study by Newcastle University, far deeper than the one conducted by the FSA, has shown that organic produce contains 40 per cent more antioxidants than non-organic foods, research the FSA appears to have overlooked. But the concentration solely on nutrition is to play into the hands of the anti-organic, pro-industrial lobby.

 

-----

 

http://michigancannabispatients.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30

 

A way to think of organic versus chemical fertilizers is vitamins versus a well-rounded, healthy diet. If a person takes a lot of vitamins, thinking that it will make up for a poor diet, they are fooling themselves. The body cannot absorb concentrated amounts of vitamins in a short amount of time. What the body cannot absorb at one time, goes down the toilet. As well, the vitamin pills do not provide fiber, good fats and oils, and other elements which comprise a healthy diet.

 

It's the same for plants. Chemical fertilizers provide a concentrated rush of a small spectrum of nutrients. What the plant cannot absorb, runs off or leaches away. This can cause problems in the environment. As well, plants, like us, need trade minerals, and bacterially active soil. Chemical fertilizers cannot provide this.

 

Anyhow..

 

A plant can filter out the impurities from an acid based salt fertilizer and store it within the leaves and flowers of the plant. Hydrochloric and sulphuric acids can build up. Odd things like certain antibiotics can be stored within the plant. Many many substances in some fertilizers are easily absorbed into the plant. Chemical fertilizers are directly responsible for destroying our aquaculture in the world. Read up about it. "dead" zones. Most chemical fertilizer companies tend to pollute the area where they are made. It finds it way into groundwater then all of us get to drink your crappy leftovers from growing. Thanks for the pollution. ;-p

 

The plants do not recognize the difference between organic and chemical. Mr happy would be correct in that point when it comes to NPK.

 

But what do you do with your leftover water? put it down the drain? run it into your backyard to be absorbed into the groundwater? This is where organic and chemical become two different monsters. Post use.

 

Chemical fertilizers are salts, manufactured from coal or natural gas. The chemical salts, that white crusty residue left from chemical fertilizers, “suck the life right out of beneficial soil microbes which is the very heart of healthy soil”.

 

Organic fertilizers increase a plants resistance to disease (Artificial fertilizers do the opposite which works out nicely for the manufacturers since they sell more insecticide, fungicides and other chemical poisons. Plants become addicted to the chemicals.)

 

"Plants grown with ammonia- based synthetic fertilizers actually attract pest insects (Earth Kind Gardening, 1993). Many studies since then have confirmed that insects and diseases are attracted to plants that have had artificial fertilizers applied.

 

Evidence is accumulating that synthetic chelates (fertilizers) are ineffective and have harmful side effects. Synthetic chelates are alien molecules, and plants can absorb them slowly. Also, after the chelating molecule releases its payload it may latch on to other nutrients in the plants, thus making them unavailable. For example: synthetic iron chelates cause a manganese deficiency and lower zinc and copper levels; EDTA grabs calcium ions and thus upsets the calcium-potassium balance. September 1981, Acres U.S.A., p. 32-33

 

Repeated applications of chemical fertilizers may result in a toxic buildup of chemicals such as arsenic, cadmium, and uranium in the soil. These toxic chemicals can eventually make their way into your fruits and vegetables.

 

Plant growth is often limited by the amount of CO2 available to the plant. C.H. Wadleigh, 1957 USDA Yearbook of Agriculture, "Soils", (p.41). Agronomists and farmers are increasing yields by adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to their bag of practices...Carbon dioxide is a basic requirement for plant growth (October 1968, World Farming, p.31). We have evidence that CO2 produced by the respiration of microorganisms in the soil is an important factor in the supply of the gas to photosynthesizing plants. A soil rich in decomposing organic matter provides a much higher level of CO2 in the air just above the soil than a barren, infertile soil.

 

Using compost as an organic soil amendment stimulates microorganisms to take nitrogen from the air and fix it in the soil where plants can use it.

 

High nitrogen artificial fertilizers can increase yields in some cases (temporarily) of certain grains, however the amino acid content of the protein is actually adversely affected. For example in wheat and barley grown with synthetic fertilizers are less nutritious even though the total protein weight may be higher since critical amino acids are missing or reduced in quantity as compared to organically grown (USDA Researcher).

 

Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers increase the amounts of toxic nitrates in dietary intake. According to the National Research Council, 6 of the top 7 and 9 of the top 15, foods with oncogenic (cancer causing) risk are produce items with high nitrate content from pesticides or nitrogen fertilizers. A 12 year study comparing organically grown versus chemically grown showed that chemically grown foods had 16 times more nitrate (a carcinogen).

 

Excess synthetic nitrogen (fertilizers) can also reduce carbohydrate synthesis which results in lower glucose content which affects taste (Soil Scientist, USDA).

 

Artificial synthetic nitrogen (fertilizers) has been found to reduce insect and disease resistance of plants (Soil Scientist, USDA). Numerous studies have now confirmed that the use of artificial fertilizers significantly increase the amount of insects and disease problems one has.

 

Four metals that are considered harmful to humans; aluminum, cadmium, lead and mercury are lower in foods grown organically as compared to those with synthetic chemicals. Doctor's Data Analytical Laboratories.

 

The toxic chemicals found in chemical fertilizers can be absorbed into the plants and enter the food chain via vegetables and cereals. although the biggest health risk is when the chemicals seep into the ground water which is then extracted for drinking water. This water can contain high levels of nitrates and nitrites and have been known to cause blue-baby syndrome (methemoglobinemia) and can also lead to miscarriage in pregnant women. Mercury, lead, cadmium and uranium are some of the toxic heavy metals that have been found in chemical fertilizers and can cause distrubances of the kidneys, lungs and liver and cause cancer - depending on how much has been consumed.

 

Synthetic fertilizers use strong chemical salts used to carry nutrients that create a thatch buildup by killing both microorganisms and earthworms in the soil that eat and breakdown thatch. Thick layers of thatch (high lignin content) create a fertile breeding ground for diseases and destructive insects unlike mulch.

 

Excess salts used in synthetic fertilizers cause 2 problems. First, they reduce the moisture holding ability of soils and cause what moisture is present to be bound more tightly to the soil making it harder for plants to absorb. Second, also salt exposure reduces a plants roots ability to absorb water even if the soil is fully saturated. Since most commercial fertilizers are composed of soluble salts (ammonium nitrate, potassium chloride, etc.) and as these salt build up in the soil more water (irrigation) is required, the plants are weaker and more susceptible to insects and disease hence require more pesticides, fungicides, etc.

 

NaNO3 - "sodium nitrate or nitrate of soda", contains 16% Nitrogen, very soluble hence leaches easily and pollutes (not good for conifers or hardwoods).

NH3NO3 (NH4NO3) - Ammonium nitrate, 33.5% nitrogen (50% in nitrate form & 50% in Ammonium form), highly soluble hence leaches and pollutes lakes and streams. Also flammable and can explode if stored in a closed warehouse. Also absorbs water. Commonly used in nurseries, may also be used as a top dressing, acidifies soil. Kills soil microbes that prevent diseases.

(NH4)2SO4 - "ammonium sulfate", source of N and S, can acidify soil, may be used as a top dressing, kills microbes in the soil that prevents disease.

CO(NH2)2 - "urea", nitrogen loss by volatilization can be a problem, dissolves rapidly and suffers leaching losses.

KNO3 - "potassium Nitrate or nitrate of potash", 13% nitrogen (not good for trees as a N source, may be okay for K), raises soil pH

CaNo3 - Calcium nitrate, 15% nitrogen, raises soil pH

Anhydrous Ammonia - 82% nitrogen, a particularly lethal form of nitrogen, combines with soil moisture to form colloids that stay in soil, when applied to soils low in humus over 2/3 (67%) can be lost to the atmosphere

 

Most (all) synthetic fertilizers use "fillers" to help carry the nutrients. These fillers are not listed on the label. These can be chemical salts, sand, lime, dolomite, or even (as it was recently discovered) contaminated wastes containing dangerous heavy metals and hazardous wastes. These fillers can often cause problems. For example, if your soil has high magnesium relative to calcium, then using a fertilizer with a dolomitic lime filler will make the soil imbalance worse.

 

Synthetic fertilizers kill the soil microbes that are so essential for healthy soil and healthy plants. The residues from these fertilizers can adversely affect the soil biology for years.

 

If anhydrous ammonia (synthetic fertilizer and a particularly lethal form of nitrogen) is applied to a field low in humus, over 2/3 of the material can be lost to the atmosphere, sometimes before the farmer can move from one end of a field to the other. Acres USA Primer, 1992

 

Chemical fertilizers are generally used far in excess of the requirements of the crop. The unutilized fertilizers cause soil pollution.

Toxic concentrations of nitrogen fertilizers cause characteristic symptoms of nitrite or nitrate toxicity in plants, particularly in the leaves. Nitrogenous fertilizers generally cause

deficiency of potassium,

increased carbohydrate storage and reduced proteins,

alteration in amino acid balance and consequently change in the quality of proteins.

Ammonium fertilizers produce ammonia around the roots that may escape the soil and cause ammonia injury to plants.

Ammonium and nitrate produce acids in the soil and increase soil acidity.

Nitrate and nitrite bacteria are reduced while ammonifying bacteria are increased in the soil disturbing the nitrogen cycle.

Excessive potash in the soil decreases ascorbic acid and carotene in the plants.

Superphosphates cause deficiency of Cu and Zn in plants by interfering with their uptake.

Excessive lime prevents the release of Co, Ni, Mn and Zn from the soil and their uptake by plants is reduced causing their deficiency symptoms.

 

Excessive deposition of various substances released from chemical fertilizers into the soil generally causes their over-absorption by plants. These over-absorbed substances become accumulated in plant parts (bioaccumulation) e.g. nitrogen and sulphur are deposited in the leaves.

 

High nitrogen artificial fertilizers can increase yields in some cases (temporarily) of certain grains, however the amino acid content of the protein is actually adversely affected. For example in wheat and barley grown with synthetic fertilizers are less nutritious even though the total protein weight may be higher since critical amino acids are missing or reduced in quantity as compared to organically grown (USDA Researcher).

 

Ok that is it for now. I hope you understand why organic is better than chemical now.

 

Espescially for those making medibles.

---

[Peragro]

MasterKush:

I tend to use quotation marks around jargon or words/phrases whose meanings are context-dependent. I also use them as a kind of "shorthand", meaning "for lack of a better term", or to emphasize words/phrases the person I'm responding to used (rather than quoting their entire post). I guess I could use the fancy interface to create other forms of emphasis (or just code them in) but I just don't feel it's worth the time. Sorry for any confusion. Thanks for reading (and what seemed to be compliments).

Malamute:

OK. You basically reinforced my point. Nearly everything you posted was from studies of commercial agriculture. I'd nearly forgotten that old British study on "flavonoids" and whatnot so thanks for reminding me. Basically; I've seen/heard every "reason" for organic produce that you presented. But, as I wrote, I just don't feel this is relevant to small-scale (especially indoor) cannabis horticulture. I thought this thread was supposed to be a discussion of HIB4271 (or commentary on Rockind's support of this highly unethical bill).

Not only do I understand the reasons for "the organic vs. chemical debate", I have firsthand experience with the environmental consequences of the over-use of (which quickly becomes "dependence on") chemical fertilizers. Never mind RoundUp and Monsanto's GMO seed (see: monoculture farming). I grew up watching neighboring fields turn from beautiful dark soil, full of life and tilled yearly with "green manure", to dry gray-brown sand. I saw creeks "die" during a single rainy year (see: runoff). And I won't even talk about the conglomerates eating up all the little farms. Frankly, there's not much you could tell me about this that I haven't already seen, learned, or experienced. Again; this may be a discussion for another thread.

Unfortunately (or, rather, fortunately) none of this is relevant to the small-scale (particularly indoor) production of cannabis. If you honestly believe that a 12-plant indoor garden has the same impact as (or anything remotely similar to) a commercial farm, then I don't believe you're grasping the concept of "scale". Every single one of "us" growing year-round and dumping cannabis-specific fertilizers onto our lawns wouldn't have as much "impact" as one decent-sized commercial farm.

I can't believe that anybody thinks it's a good idea to pour unused fertilizer "down the drain". If that's not a violation of ordinance, statute, or EPA regulation, it ought to be (dumping pesticides is certainly illegal; read the labels). I don't see a point in mixing more fertilizer than one expects to use (as/where needed) but if there's excess I don't see any problem with cutting it 50/50 with water (it's never "full strength" anyway) and dumping it onto my flowerbeds. Yeah, yeah, groundwater. Whatever. I live in the city and everything you can imagine that's actually "bad" was put into that ground long before I got there.

But since I'm on the subject; I basically moved out of the sticks to get away from the pollution that commercial farms and oil operations have done to the groundwater out there. People are right to be upset that huge corporate farms and companies are ruining their water/air/soil. But I really don't feel like I'm "that guy" when I put a few gallons of watered-down fertilizer onto my flowerbeds (and the flowers seem to be OK with it).

 

I'm fortunate to live in a city with excellent municipal springs and wastewater processing/management. I know there are many communities in Michigan with terrible tap water and people should be asking questions about that. But, again, this really isn't the thread for a discussion on environmental issues. Thanks for the reply.

[GregS]

MasterKush:

 

I tend to use quotation marks around jargon or words/phrases whose meanings are context-dependent. I also use them as a kind of "shorthand", meaning "for lack of a better term", or to emphasize words/phrases the person I'm responding to used (rather than quoting their entire post). I guess I could use the fancy interface to create other forms of emphasis (or just code them in) but I just don't feel it's worth the time. Sorry for any confusion. Thanks for reading (and what seemed to be compliments).

 

Malamute:

 

OK. You basically reinforced my point. Nearly everything you posted was from studies of commercial agriculture. I'd nearly forgotten that old British study on "flavonoids" and whatnot so thanks for reminding me. Basically; I've seen/heard every "reason" for organic produce that you presented. But, as I wrote, I just don't feel this is relevant to small-scale (especially indoor) cannabis horticulture. I thought this thread was supposed to be a discussion of HIB4271 (or commentary on Rockind's support of this highly unethical bill).

 

Not only do I understand the reasons for "the organic vs. chemical debate", I have firsthand experience with the environmental consequences of the over-use of (which quickly becomes "dependence on") chemical fertilizers. Never mind RoundUp and Monsanto's GMO seed (see: monoculture farming). I grew up watching neighboring fields turn from beautiful dark soil, full of life and tilled yearly with "green manure", to dry gray-brown sand. I saw creeks "die" during a single rainy year (see: runoff). And I won't even talk about the conglomerates eating up all the little farms. Frankly, there's not much you could tell me about this that I haven't already seen, learned, or experienced. Again; this may be a discussion for another thread.

 

Unfortunately (or, rather, fortunately) none of this is relevant to the small-scale (particularly indoor) production of cannabis. If you honestly believe that a 12-plant indoor garden has the same impact as (or anything remotely similar to) a commercial farm, then I don't believe you're grasping the concept of "scale". Every single one of "us" growing year-round and dumping cannabis-specific fertilizers onto our lawns wouldn't have as much "impact" as one decent-sized commercial farm.

 

I can't believe that anybody thinks it's a good idea to pour unused fertilizer "down the drain". If that's not a violation of ordinance, statute, or EPA regulation, it ought to be (dumping pesticides is certainly illegal; read the labels). I don't see a point in mixing more fertilizer than one expects to use (as/where needed) but if there's excess I don't see any problem with cutting it 50/50 with water (it's never "full strength" anyway) and dumping it onto my flowerbeds. Yeah, yeah, groundwater. Whatever. I live in the city and everything you can imagine that's actually "bad" was put into that ground long before I got there.

 

But since I'm on the subject; I basically moved out of the sticks to get away from the pollution that commercial farms and oil operations have done to the groundwater out there. People are right to be upset that huge corporate farms and companies are ruining their water/air/soil. But I really don't feel like I'm "that guy" when I put a few gallons of watered-down fertilizer onto my flowerbeds (and the flowers seem to be OK with it).

 

I'm fortunate to live in a city with excellent municipal springs and wastewater processing/management. I know there are many communities in Michigan with terrible tap water and people should be asking questions about that. But, again, this really isn't the thread for a discussion on environmental issues. Thanks for the reply.

The fact remains that we are permitted to operate small gardens, opposed to large, commercial grows, which are prohibited. Some of us, to include me, will remain happy to provide quality cannabis at bargain prices to patients, and to enjoy the right to grow our own! The cards are stacked against commercial interests in Michigan, and in favor of patient grows, by them or through their caregivers.

 

Are you okay with that?

[Peragro]

Greg:
 

What have I ever written here that gave you the idea that I oppose the provisions of the MMMA? I can't see how it was anything in the post you quoted...in its entirety...for no discernible reason. Really. You may want to read my "open letter" regarding last year's crop of anti-MMMA bills (it's on here somewhere; there's even a PDF). That thread (and document) pretty much distill my thoughts on the MMMA and our State legislature's misguided (and often despotic) attempts to "clarify" it.

[GregS]

 

I'm coming more to this side of the debate.

The people using Dispensaries, while not fairly represented here, do exist and appear to be ready to take some desperate measures that will end them up in jail. Maybe i shouldn't care because ultimately it doesn't affect my situation, but I really don't want to see that happen.

Pass the Bill with good language that does NOTHING to alter the current PT to CG model and be done with it. If Neil has ok'ed it, that's a great sign. Would love to hear Micheal's thoughts if he has seen it.

Dispensary advocates have been here and left. They were unable to answer our questions with justified answers. There are still issues in question, and until and unless they can be answered to our satisfaction, they know that they are on a fool's errand. We asked without rhetoric or bias, but were after facts. They obviously ran out of the latter before the discussion was finished, but are long on the first.

[GregS]

Please forgive me in that I touched a nerve P. I was ramped up on pain and frustrated to the point that I wanted to take a blunt object to something. Sorry it was you that got in the way.

Edited March 22, 2013 by GregS

[Peragro]

Only slightly rustled here, Greg. Just honestly wondering what that was all about.
I hope you're feeling better.

[GregS]

Thanks. Good to hear from you.