Jump to content

Pros & Cons: Soil Vs. Hydro?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Oh man, that makes me laugh. The differences between well grown cannabis and a mistake filled swag grow are far greater than the differences between a grow deemed organic and one not. I get a kick ou

When I first started growing it was in Hydro....Grew that way for several years..I think the stress level of growing hydro isnt worth the hassle..With soil growing you don't have to worry as much abou

Sorry I'm a bit late to this thread, but here are my two cents.    DWC is very popular here especially when bubblegrower was on this site. It's easy and the yields are huge. I would recommend this m

If you actually did full spectrum testing for THC, CbD, THCA, terpenes, molds, bacteria, and all pesticides it would cost around $800-$1000.

but you would never need to test for all pesticides, just the ones associated with indoor pests like mites..avid/floramite/forbid etc...but obviously you would already know if any of those are present or not.
Link to post
Share on other sites

but you would never need to test for all pesticides, just the ones associated with indoor pests like mites..avid/floramite/forbid etc...but obviously you would already know if any of those are present or not.

False. There is a new pesticide invented practically every minute. That would require a new test. Tests for pesticides would only give a false sense of security. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

but you would never need to test for all pesticides, just the ones associated with indoor pests like mites..avid/floramite/forbid etc...but obviously you would already know if any of those are present or not.

 

Your buyer does not know.  That is the whole point your making right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys can not seriously be alright with no required testing when we finally get an open market. Just think of the amount of residual crap that would be sold over the counter if there is not.

Like we said, testing just makes for a false sense of security. You really need to know and trust your grower. If your grower is anonymous he's not a grower, he's a flinger. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys can not seriously be alright with no required testing when we finally get an open market. Just think of the amount of residual crap that would be sold over the counter if there is not.

I am 100% okay with no required testing. In fact, I am 100% for it. I'm against crappy growers. Get rid of crappy growers and there is no fantasy that requires testing. The home cottage law let's me process tea, herbs, and coffee beans. Cannabis is a herb, no?

 

Wet

Edited by WET
Link to post
Share on other sites

So when I went into the retail cannabis stores in Portland earlier this week the impressive testing results stickers aren't accurate?

 

It never occurred to me to ask about the details of the testing protocols. I was mainly curious about the supply chain and the general attitude towards legal cannabis.

 

The 'benchmark' store, Shango, Oregon's largest retailer is self-supplied from five industrial sized production facilities and a dedicated relationship with a certified (whatever that means) testing lab.

 

Other outlets apparently will buy overages from individual caregivers but never pursued the requirements that must be met, if any.

 

I did notice Shango had Purple Hindu Kush on display that I had bought earlier from a much smaller shop on 40th Avenue in the trendy Hollywood area. But Shango had sold out of that strain before I could compare the two.

 

Never been to a Detroit store or a MI dispensary but my lasting impression of Portland will be my encounter with a Portland cop as I left the 40th Street shop. Not sure what to expect as a seventy-yr-old white guy leaving a pot shop with an eighth in my pocket being used to living with and among SW Michigan Prohibitionists. And somewhat distracted by the whole experience, nearly walked into a police car.

 

The cop may have intuitively guessed my uncertainty. Or maybe I reminded him of his grandfather. Anyway, he just smiled and waved. And I got into my rental car and drove back to the hotel.

Edited by outsideinthecold
Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys can not seriously be alright with no required testing when we finally get an open market. Just think of the amount of residual crap that would be sold over the counter if there is not.

I must join you in your disbelief. All goods, products, and or produce are subject to some kind of testing standard. At least here in the United States, that is. Bias or not, testing is needed in the grand scheme of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cottage food law allows me to make tons of untested stuff. I can sell them to you too. Uncut fruit and vegetables don't need to be tested. Farm eggs don't need to be tested. I must have missed something, but I shop pretty local, but yeah many, many things aren't subject to testing....including that shampoo and soap that touches your body daily. That weird chemical stuff your lady puts on her face....no testing required. Boom.

 

Are you guys confusing testing for licensing or other regulation?

 

Wet

Edited by WET
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cottage food law allows me to make tons of untested stuff. I can sell them to you too. Uncut fruit and vegetables don't need to be tested. Farm eggs don't need to be tested. I must have missed something, but I shop pretty local, but yeah many, many things aren't subject to testing....including that shampoo and soap that touches your body daily. That weird chemical stuff your lady puts on her face....no testing required. Boom.

Are you guys confusing testing for licensing or other regulation?

Wet

Touche. Literally speaking I guess an absolute word like "all" is a stretch. But if we're counting pennis here, "many products aren't subject to testing"?? In relation to what? The total number of products that are? Seems like an even further stretch than "all".

 

MOST consumer goods ARE subject to some sort of standardized testing. Whether the testing is mandated by the government or it is done internally within the company, some sort of testing is done. Whether the testing accurately depicts the product is another thing, but MOST commercial enterprises do "test" their products. (And if not, they should)

 

No dynamite needed. ;)

Edited by Alleyenoisdope
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hate for the next manufacturer of my shoes, for instance, to not test them for slip resistance, dropping heavy things on the toes, and walking on pointy rocks before I put them to the test. They could be dangerous otherwise.

I hear ya, Zapp. But lets take acetaminophen, for example. I remember just not too long ago when Tylenol had to pull tons of pain meds from the shelves of stores all across the country. Was it from a lack of product testing or did someone just take an extra long break that day at the factory? Just sayin'....

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528

 

Here are 35 pharmaceuticals where testing and the FDA failed us. For profit no less.

Some were pulled in less than a year.

Humans have used cannabis safely for thousands of years.

If you want your bud tested go for it, but stay off our grass

 

1. Accutane (Isotretinoin) on the market for

27

YEARS

Use: Acne Manufacturer: Hoffman-La Roche 1982 to June 2009

Cause for recall:

increased risk of birth defects, miscarriages, and premature births when used by pregnant women; inflammatory bowel disease; suicidal tendencies

 

Over 7,000 lawsuits were filed against the manufacturer over the side effects including a $10.5 million verdict and two $9 million verdicts.

 

2. Baycol (Cerivastatin) on the market for

3

YEARS

Use: Cholesterol reduction Manufacturer: Bayer A.G. 1998 to Aug. 2001

Cause for recall:

rhabdomyolysis (breakdown of muscle fibers that results in myoglobin being released into the bloodstream) which led to kidney failure; 52 deaths (31 in the US) worldwide; 385 nonfatal cases with most requiring hospitalization; 12 of the deaths were related to taking this drug in combination with gemfibrozil (Lopid)

 

3. Bextra (Valdecoxib) on the market for

3.3

YEARS

Use: NSAID (pain relief) Manufacturer: G.D. Searle & Co. Nov. 20, 2001 to Apr. 7, 2005

Cause for recall:

serious cardiovascular adverse events (like death, MI, stroke); increased risk of serious skin reactions (like toxic epidermal necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, erythema multiforme); gastrointestinal bleeding

 

The FDA determined that Bextra showed no advantage over other NSAID pain relievers on the market.

bextra prescription drug ad

Bernadette Tansey, "Hard Sell: How Marketing Drives the Pharmaceutical Industry/The Side Effects of Drug Promotion/Aggressive Ads for Painkillers Left More Patients Exposed to Risk," www.sfgate.com, Feb. 27, 2005

 

4. Cylert (Pemoline) on the market for

30

YEARS

Use: Central nervous system stimulant to treat ADHD/ADD Manufacturer: Abbott Laboratories 1975 to Oct. 2010

Cause for recall:

liver toxicity

 

The FDA added a box warning to Cylert in 1999, alerting doctors and patients to the potential of liver damage.

cylert prescription drug ad

Abbott Laboratories, "Cylert," American Journal of Diseases of Children, www.bonkersinstitute.org, 1976

 

5. Darvon & Darvocet (Propoxyphene) on the market for

55

YEARS

Use: Opioid pain reliever Manufacturer: Xanodyne 1955 to

Nov. 19, 2010

Cause for recall:

serious toxicity to the heart; between 1981 and 1999 there were over 2,110 deaths reported

 

The UK banned Darvon and Darvocet in 2005. The FDA was petitioned in 1978 and again in 2006 to ban the drug by the group Public Citizen.

darvon prescription drug ad

Christian Sinclair, "Are You Glad Darvocet Got Pulled by the FDA? Are You Sure?," www.pallimed.org, Nov. 30, 2010

 

6. DBI (Phenformin) on the market for

19

YEARS

Use: antidiabetic Manufacturer: Ciba-Geigy 1959 to Nov. 1978

Cause for recall:

lactic acidosis (low pH in body tissues and blood and a buildup of lactate) in patients with diabetes

 

7. DES (Diethylstibestrol) on the market for

31

YEARS

Use: synthetic estrogen to prevent miscarriage, premature labor, and other pregnancy complications Manufacturer: Grant Chemical Co. 1940 to 1971

Cause for recall:

clear cell adenocarcinoma (cancer of the cervix and vagina), birth defects, and other developmental abnormalities in children born to women who took the drug while pregnant; increased risk of breast cancer, higher risk of death from breast cancer; risk of cancer in children of mothers taking the drug including raised risk of breast cancer after age 40; increased risk of fertility and pregnancy complications, early menopause, testicular abnormalities; potential risks for third generation children (the grandchildren of women who took the drug) but they are unclear as studies are just beginning

 

Studies in the 1950s showed the drug was not effective at preventing miscarriages, premature labor, or other pregnancy complications.

DES prescription drug ad

Barbara Hammes and Cynthia Laitman, "Pharmaceutical Company Advertisement for DES by the Grant Chemical Company, Brooklyn, NY, Printed in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology in 1957," Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health, www.medscape.com, 2003

 

8. Duract (Bromfenac) on the market for

1

YEAR

Use: Pain killer Manufacturer: Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories July 1997 to

June 26, 1998

Cause for recall:

4 deaths; 8 patients requiring liver transplants; 12 patients with severe liver damage

 

Duract was labeled for maximum use of 10 days but patients often received/took more than 10 days worth of pills; all cases of death and liver damage involved patients taking pills for longer than 10 days.

 

9. Ergamisol (Levamisole) on the market for

11

YEARS

Use: Worm infestation; colon and breast cancers; rheumatoid arthritis Manufacturer: Janssen Pharmaceutica May 8, 1989 to 2000

Cause for recall:

neutropenia (a type of low white blood cell count), agranulocytosis (a type of low white blood cell count), and thrombotic vasculopathy (blood clots in blood vessels) which results in retiform purpura (a purple discoloration of the skin that can sometimes require reconstructive surgery)

 

Levamisole is still used to treat animals with worm infestations in the US. It is also being found in street cocaine as an adulterant to increase euphoric qualities.

 

10. Hismanal (Astemizole) on the market for

11

YEARS

Use: Antipsychotic Manufacturer: Janssen Pharmaceutica 1988 to

Aug. 13, 1999

Cause for recall:

slowed potassium channels in the heart that could cause torsade de pointes (TdP; a heart condition marked by a rotation of the heart's electrical axis) or long QT syndrome (LQTS; prolonged QT intervals)

 

11. Lotronex (Alosetron) on the market for

0.8

YEAR

Use: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in women Manufacturer: Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Feb. 9, 2000 to Nov. 28, 2000

Cause for recall:

49 cases of ischemic colitis (inflammation and injury of the large intestine); 21 cases of severe constipation (10 requiring surgery); 5 deaths; mesenteric ischemia (inflammation and injury of the small intestine)

 

Lotronex was reintroduced to the US market in 2002 with restricted indication.

lotronex prescription drug ad

Irritable Bowel Syndrome Self Help and Support Group, "Lotronex," www.ibsgroups.org (accessed Jan. 6, 2014)

 

 

12. Meridia (Sibutramine) on the market for

13

YEARS

Use: Appetite Suppressant Manufacturer: Knoll Pharmaceuticals Nov. 1997 to

Oct. 2010

Cause for recall:

increased cardiovascular and stroke risk

 

FDA reviewer Dr. David Graham listed Meridia with Crestor, Accutane, Bextra, and Serevent as drugs whose sales should be limited or stopped because of their danger to consumers in Sep. 30, 2004 testimony before a Senate committee, calling the drugs "another Vioxx."

 

13. Merital & Alival (Nomifensine) on the market for

3

YEARS

Use: Antidepressant Manufacturer: Hoechst AG (now Sanofi-Aventis) 1982 to 1985

Cause for recall:

haemolytic anemia; some deaths due to immunohemolytic anemia

 

14. Micturin (Terodiline) on the market for

2

YEARS

Use: Bladder incontinence Manufacturer: Forest Labs Aug. 1989 to

Sep. 13, 1991

Cause for recall:

QT prolongation and potential for cardiotoxicity

 

15. Mylotarg (Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin) on the market for

10

YEARS

Use: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML, a bone marrow cancer) Manufacturer: Wyeth May 2000 to

June 21, 2010

Cause for recall:

increased risk of death and veno-occlusive disease (obstruction of veins)

 

16. Omniflox (Temafloxacin) on the market for

0.3

YEAR

Use: Antibiotic for pneumonia, bronchitis, and other respiratory tract infections; prostatitis and other genitourinary tract infections; skin ailments Manufacturer: Abbot Laboratories Jan. 31, 1992 to June 5, 1992

Cause for recall:

3 deaths; severe low blood sugar; hemolytic anemia and other blood cell abnormalities; kidney disfunction (half of the cases required renal dialysis); allergic reactions including some causing life-threatening respiratory distress

 

17. Palladone (Hydromorphone hydrochloride, extended-release) on the market for

0.5

YEAR

Use: Narcotic painkiller Manufacturer: Purdue Pharma Jan. 2005 to

July 13, 2005

Cause for recall:

high levels of palladone could slow or stop breathing, or cause coma or death; combining the drug with alcohol use could lead to rapid release of hydromorphone, in turn leading to potentially fatally high levels of drugs in the system

 

18. Permax (Pergolide) on the market for

19

YEARS

Use: Parkinson's disease Manufacturer: Valeant 1988 to Mar. 29, 2007

Cause for recall:

valve regurgitation (a condition that causes the valves to not close tightly, which allows blood to flow backward over the valve) in the mitral, tricuspid, and aortic heart valves, which can result in shortness of breath, fatigue, and heart palpitations

 

Permax is still available in the U.S. for veterinary use, specifically for pituitary pars intermedia hyperplasia or equine Cushing's Syndrome (ECS) in horses.

 

19. Pondimin (Fenfluramine) on the market for

24

YEARS

Use: Appetite suppressant Manufacturer: Wyeth-Ayerst 1973 to

Sep. 15, 1997

Cause for recall:

30% of patients prescribed the drug had abnormal echocardiograms; 33 cases of rare valvular disease in women; 66 additional reports of heart valve disease

 

Pondimin is better known as "Fen-Phen" when prescribed with Phentermine.

 

20. Posicor (Mibefradil) on the market for

1

YEAR

Use: Calcium channel blocker (used to treat hypertension) Manufacturer: Roche Laboratories June 1997 to

June 1998

Cause for recall:

fatal interactions with at least 25 other drugs (ex: common antibiotics, antihistamines, and cancer drugs) including astemizole, cisapride, terfenadine, lovastatin, and simvastatin

 

Posicor was found by the FDA to offer no significant benefit over other anti-hypertensive or antianginal drugs, which made the risks of drug interactions "unreasonable." Patients immediately switching from Posicor to another calcium channel blocker were at increased risk of going into shock within 12 hours of the drug switch.

 

21. Propulsid (Cisapride) on the market for

7

YEARS

Use: Severe nighttime heartburn associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) Manufacturer: Janssen Pharmaceutica 1993 to July 14, 2000

Cause for recall:

more than 270 cases of serious cardiac arrythmias (including ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, torsades de pointes, and QT prolongation) reported between July 1993 and May 1999, with 70 being deaths.

 

Propulsid is also banned in India (2011) and available for limited use in Europe. It is still available for use in animals in the US and

Canada.

 

22. PTZ & Metrazol (Pentylenetetrazol) on the market for

48

YEARS

Use: Convulsive therapy for schizophrenia and other psychiatric conditions Manufacturer: not known 1934 to 1982

Cause for recall:

uncontrollable seizures; pulled muscles; fractured bones; spine fractures in as many as 42% of patients

 

23. Quaalude [Marketed as: Optimal, Sopor, Parest, Somnafac, and Bi-Phetamine T] (Methaqualone) on the market for

23

YEARS

Use: Sedative and hypnotic Manufacturer: William H. Rorer Inc. & Lemmon Company 1962 to 1985

Cause for recall:

mania; seizures; vomiting; convulsions; death

 

Methaqualone was originally tested in India as a malaria treatment (it was ineffective). The drug is now a schedule 1 drug in the United States (like heroin, marijuana, and LSD).

quaalude prescription drug ad

Res Obscura, "From Quacks to Quaaludes: Three Centuries of Drug Advertising," www.resobscura.blogspot.nl, June 11, 2012

 

24. Raplon (Rapacuronium) on the market for

2

YEARS

Use: Non-polarizing neuromuscular blocker (used in anesthesia Manufacturer: Organon Inc. 1999 to

Mar. 27, 2001

Cause for recall:

bronchospasms and unexplained deaths

 

25. Raptiva (Efalizumab) on the market for

6

YEARS

Use: Psoriasis Manufacturer: Genentech 2003 to

Apr. 8, 2009

(completely withdrawn by

June 8, 2009)

Cause for recall:

progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML; a rare and usually fatal disease that causes inflammation or progressive damage of the white matter in multiple locations of the brain)

 

26. Raxar (Grepafloxacin) on the market for

2

YEARS

Use: Antibiotic for bacterial infections Manufacturer: Glaxo Wellcome 1997 to

Nov. 1, 1999

Cause for recall:

cardiac repolarization; QT interval prolongation; ventricular arrhythmia (torsade de pointes)

 

27. Redux (Dexfenfluramine) on the market for

1

YEAR

Use: Appetite suppressant Manufacturer: Wyeth-Ayerst 1996 to Sep. 15, 1997

Cause for recall:

30% of patients prescribed the drug had abnormal echocardiograms; 33 cases of rare valvular disease in women; 66 additional reports of heart valve disease

 

Redux is better known as "Fen-Phen" when prescribed with Phentermine.

 

28. Rezulin (Troglitazone) on the market for

3.25

YEARS

Use: Antidiabetic and anti-inflammatory Manufacturer: Parke-Davis/Warner Lambert (now Pfizer) Jan. 29, 1997 to Mar. 21, 2000

Cause for recall:

at least 90 liver failures; at least 63 deaths

 

About 35.000 personal injury claims were filed against the manufacturer (Pfizer).

 

29. Selacryn (Tienilic acid) on the market for

3

YEARS

Use: blood pressure Manufacturer: SmithKline May 2, 1979 to 1982

Cause for recall:

hepatitis; 36 deaths; at least 500 cases of severe liver and kidney damage

 

Anphar Labs (which developed the drug in France and sold rights to sell in US to SmithKline) sent a report to SmithKline in Apr. 1979 (translated in May 1979 to English from French) stating Selacryn damaged livers. On Dec. 13, 1984, SmithKline Beckman plead guilty to "14 counts of failing to file reports with the drug agency of adverse reactions to Selacryn and 20 counts of falsely labeling the drug with a statement that there was no known cause-and-effect relationship between Selacryn and liver damage"

 

30. Seldane (Terfenadine) on the market for

13

YEARS

Use: Antihistamine Manufacturer: Hoechst Marion Roussel (now Sanofi-Aventis) 1985 to

Feb. 1, 1998

Cause for recall:

life-threatening heart problems when taken in combination with other drugs (specifically erthromycin (an antibiotic) and ketoconazole (an antifungal)

 

Seldane was not considered an imminent threat. The FDA pulled Seldane from the market because Allegra and Allegra D were produced by the same company and were deemed safer by the FDA.

 

31. Trasylol (Aprotinin) on the market for

15 (48)

YEARS

Use: antifibrinolytic to reduce blood loss during surgery Manufacturer: Bayer 1993 (but used since the 1960s) to Nov. 5, 2007 (marketing suspension request to phase it out of the market);

May 14, 2008 (manufacturer announced complete removal from market)

Cause for recall:

increased chance of death, serious kidney damage, congestive heart failure, and strokes

 

On Feb. 8, 2006, the FDA issued a public heath advisory to surgeons who perform heart bypasses, alerting them of possible fatal side effects.

 

32. Vioxx (Rofecoxib) on the market for

5.3

YEARS

Use: NSAID (pain relief) Manufacturer: Merck May 20, 1999 to Sep. 30, 2004

Cause for recall:

increased risk of heart attack and stroke; linked to about 27,785 heart attacks or sudden cardiac deaths between May 20, 1999 and 2003

 

Ads for Vioxx features Olympic gold medalists Dorothy Hamill and Bruce Jenner. Vioxx was prescribed to more than 20 million people.

vioxx prescription drug ad

Today's Seniors Network, "This Is Patient Education?," www.todaysseniorsnetwork.com (accessed Jan. 7, 2014)

 

 

33. Xigris (Drotrecogin alfa (activated)) on the market for

10

YEARS

Use: Severe sepsis and septic shock Manufacturer: Eli Lilly & Company Nov. 2001 to

Oct. 25, 2011

Cause for recall:

no survival benefit

 

34. Zelmid (Zimelidine) on the market for

0

YEARS

Use: Anti-depressant Manufacturer: Astra AB (now AstraZeneca) 1982 to 1982 (withdrawn by the FDA before being released in the US market)

Cause for recall:

Guillain–Barré syndrome; higher risk of suicide

 

35. Zelnorm (Tegaserod maleate) on the market for

4.6

YEARS

Use: irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) and chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) in women younger than 55 Manufacturer: Novartis July 24, 2002 to Mar. 30, 2007

Cause for recall:

higher chance of heart attack, stroke, and unstable angina (heart/chest pain)

 

The FDA permitted restricted use of Zelnorm on an emergency basis (with prior case-by-case authorization from the FDA) on July 27, 2007.

zelnorm prescription drug ad

Adforum.com, "Zelnorm - 'N/A' - Deutsch NY," www.adforum.com (accessed Feb. 7, 2014)

Edited by beourbud
Link to post
Share on other sites

Touche. Literally speaking I guess an absolute word like "all" is a stretch. But if we're counting pennis here, "many products aren't subject to testing"?? In relation to what? The total number of products that are? Seems like an even further stretch than "all".

MOST consumer goods ARE subject to some sort of standardized testing. Whether the testing is mandated by the goverment or it is done internally within the company, some sort of testing is done. Whether the testing accurately depicts the product is another thing, but MOST commercial enterprises do "test" their products.

No dynamite needed. ;)

'many' is a bigger stretch than 'all'? Are you a lawyer or something? Haha ;). I have a bit of a twisted view of the world, so I see things sort funny like. I think it's safe to say that things are often regulated, which includes some testing perhaps, but not always. Let me see if I can explain without hurting myself.

 

You start a business selling roasted coffee beans. To begin you roast them in your kitchen and sell them at the local farmers market. Right now, zero "testing" is required and zero government contact. However, you decide to start serving fresh cups at your spot. Okay, now you need a food service license or a processing facility license. The latter requires some special equipment and the inspection of that equipment but no actual inspection of product. The food service license requires you to simply call your local health inspector and work out a deal. Still, nobody is coming to physically inspect each product. At this point, still no oversight of individual batches or individual cups, however, you mihht now have a license and may have talked briefly with a health inspector. Now, let's go another step and become a national coffee seller. So now you have the processing facility and therefore a license. Certain states require insurance and yada yada...minor stuff. You get insurance, get your ein, hire a guy and hang up a osha poster. bunny muffin is getting crazy. Dept of agriculture has jurisdiction, mich Dept of ag, lara, and whoever the hell esle.

 

Okay, we've gone from rags to riches, and there is only one guy that could arguably test your product for safety. And let me tell you, having dealt with health inspectors, they aren't there to test anything but the dials on the grill and on the line.

 

So, now I'm an international seller and the only thing tested and inspected is my oven. Not a single product was ever tested. Not once.

 

That's just one example, but MANY products get this treatment. Are there examples of products that undergo rigorous testing, yes. But think about what those are. I bet they are all incredibly dangerous. Is it about safety or limiting liability? Are we skydiving or consuming a dried herb? I don't believe that most testing is intended to protect me. Most of it is to keep insurance premiums down and to limit liability. In the case of cannabis, testing is another layer of cake job for some rich donkey rectum to make a fortune on. I'm sure our legislature already has a list of friends ready for the gig. They are called 'interested parties' in the news.

 

I see through the interested party bs and I think we all should. Imagine the price of apples if the farmer had to send out an apple from each tree for testing.

 

Wet

Edited by WET
Link to post
Share on other sites

'many' is a bigger stretch than 'all'? Are you a lawyer or something? Haha ;). I have a bit of a twisted view of the world, so I see things sort funny like. I think it's safe to say that things are often regulated, which includes some testing perhaps, but not always. Let me see if I can explain without hurting myself.

 

You start a business selling roasted coffee beans. To begin you roast them in your kitchen and sell them at the local farmers market. Right now, zero "testing" is required and zero government contact. However, you decide to start serving fresh cups at your spot. Okay, now you need a food service license or a processing facility license. The latter requires some special equipment and the inspection of that equipment but no actual inspection of product. The food service license requires you to simply call your local health inspector and work out a deal. Still, nobody is coming to physically inspect each product. At this point, still no oversight of individual batches or individual cups, however, you mihht now have a license and may have talked briefly with a health inspector. Now, let's go another step and become a national coffee seller. So now you have the processing facility and therefore a license. Certain states require insurance and yada yada...minor stuff. You get insurance, get your ein, hire a guy and hang up a osha poster. bunny muffin is getting crazy. Dept of agriculture has jurisdiction, mich Dept of ag, lara, and whoever the hell esle.

 

Okay, we've gone from rags to riches, and there is only one guy that could arguably test your product for safety. And let me tell you, having dealt with health inspectors, they aren't there to test anything but the dials on the grill and on the line.

 

So, now I'm an international seller and the only thing tested and inspected is my oven. Not a single product was ever tested. Not once.

 

That's just one example, but MANY products get this treatment. Are there examples of products that undergo rigorous testing, yes. But think about what those are. I bet they are all incredibly dangerous. Is it about safety or limiting liability? Are we skydiving or consuming a dried herb? I don't believe that most testing is intended to protect me. Most of it is to keep insurance premiums down and to limit liability. In the case of cannabis, testing is another layer of cake job for some rich donkey rectum to make a fortune on. I'm sure our legislature already has a list of friends ready for the gig. They are called 'interested parties' in the news.

 

I see through the interested party bs and I think we all should. Imagine the price of apples if the farmer had to send out an apple from each tree for testing.

 

Wet

Excellent info.  And to think some of us have been consuming cannabis from a third world country half of our lives. That in itself should prove we don't absolutely need testing. The commercial cannabis wanna bees are promising people who would be the testers the world. Like it's going to be the next gold rush; testing everyone's cannabis. If they could somehow force us to have it tested we would just find a way around that dam. We are really good at that, busting dams around our cannabis supply. Just think about that poor Mexican lugging that burlap sack of cannabis on his back for 100 miles and then swimming a river and going another 50 miles in a foreign country. That's how far things will go to get around testing to just make some folks rich. It's just not going to happen with cannabis. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...