Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
rg:
genetically modified seeds

Somehow I doubt that Monsanto et. al. have had the cannabis seed under the microscope (if they had, all the second-generation seeds would probably be sterile). What we are looking at (or smoking, in some cases) is a triumph of good, old-fashioned plant breeding.

None of which addresses FPS Doug's larger point, which is that the GWOD is a massive and manifest failure (not to mention hideously expensive and extremely corruption-inducing), and that we need to radically rethink how we approach intoxicants.

On that note, has anyone ever noted whether a substance is permitted or proscribed bears little relation to its harmfulness? I mean, where is the logical argument for allowing nicotine and alcohol and prohibiting LSD and cannabis?

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt št gmail dotcom) on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 07:10:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What we are looking at (or smoking, in some cases) is a triumph of good, old-fashioned plant breeding.

I'm working on second-hand info here, but I was told that you can now buy seeds that are guaranteed female--not sure how they do that, but that's the kind of thing I mean.

That the GWOD is a massive failure is clear to everyone except those who think drugs are dangerous and should therefore be made illegal.  That alcohol and nicotine are still legal is, for them (I think), the next challenge.  That is why I think the key issue at present is to inform the public, pace Turambar's most excellent comment, that the illegality causes violence and (my point) more dangerous products (no non-illegal quality control).  Because there is still a belief that some drugs "should be illegal" because of their harmful effects, so the need is to show that the harmful effects of making substances illegal--and my position here would be that you need to have a range, such that 80% proof alcohol may be illegal but that only works because substances up to a certain % aren't.  The example with mary jane would be to limit THC (say) to 8% active ingredient (or somesuch, as I say I am not an expert and have been told that there are 2 main ingredients and that the current crops are heavily into the more schizoid one, a kind of super-trippy joint...so a % of the other ingredient too...that kind of thing--I would make opium legal and then render substances with over a certain level of morphine (or suchlike) "under medical supervision only" etc...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 07:40:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
'm working on second-hand info here

I'd like to get info. from anyone/someone with more direct knowledge/information

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 07:42:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Working from an admittedly disjointed memory from a conversation with a man in a kilt, the different sex seeds are a niticeably different shape, so it is relatively easy process to sort them.

never having attempted to grow the afformentioned, I don't realy know however, so YMMV, take with pinch of salt.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 08:52:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've never heard that. As far as I know, any sativa seed can become a male or female plant depending on the circadian rhythm it is exposed to at the early seedling stage.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 08:08:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly, so when you plant them you might get five males and no useful crop--hence the new seeds or experiments into new seeds, I don't know the details, as I said, I am not an expert but I know an iguana who knows a panda if you know what I mean.  This iguana also told me that the "super strength" is a product of the artificial lights--the plants are always "on".  The mellower, more rounded smoke, used to come from Africa (ya know, the whole mediterranean belt and beyond kinda thing) but because of the import risks (it's illegal!) the home-grown "artificial" grass is now the market (unless you have very good contacts.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 08:17:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If this is so, then obviously you'd get faster growing times to maturity.

Finnish pandas are remarkably shy at the moment with a dirth of brown bamboo. But the salamanders ply their craft under all sorts of rocks in a hydroponic context.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 08:42:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On a serious note, have you heard the same things from your animal friends?  I mean that the market is turning "hard"--and "soft" is losing out?  Coz maybe it's just a UK phenomenon.

I can see a potential market (at least in the UK) for "soft" (grow old gracefully!), but I wish oh wish that these markets didn't have prison sentences hanging over them like blades--all that illegality is hard--I think...hmmm...this hardening, this intensifying is symptom and cause....I cannae explain it well but there's something about the ratcheting up such that the mellow drug becomes tougher, dirtier, more paranoic--which feeds the "they're too dangerous to legalise" narrative, which creates the tension...a negative feedback loop.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 08:51:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe the link is that in both cases (the arguments for keeping drugs illegal and the drugs themselves) there is a loss of distributed quality and therefore subtlety...I dunno...there's something tying the two sides together (abolitionists--drug mafias)..the rush to judgement/profit...the rush...I dunno...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 09:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, not at all. It is a very soft market that combines both organic and synthetic dance. There are a few powdery movers and shakers found in VIP club,s but it is a very small circle as far as I know. Chinese eyes are only found around the Russian mobsters and their doll servants - I've never met a Finn with a habit, though I am sure they exist.

The big scourge is speed. I don't know how widespread it is, but I have certainly come up against it in the music biz, and a fantastic guitarist I know is on his way to jail for badly beating up his girlfriend. Though that has been after a decade or so of abuse when his career collapsed and he was living in Sweden. Speed appears to be one of those drugs that you pay for all the highs with an equal amount of lows. It's a disappearing act drug as opposed to an enhancer, with a definite negative loop attached. I can understand why it is attractive to guitarists though, just as I can understand why the Peruvian cocoa is attractive to anyone who is selling any type of bullshit for a living.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 09:08:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
just as I can understand why the Peruvian cocoa is attractive to anyone who is selling any type of bullshit for a living.

Ah, you just hit the note!

Yeah, there's a speedy edge to the scuzz-live circuit--poor artiste's cocaine I thought (nicotine as the working man's cocaine), but I don't know that circuit really.  So yeah, a UK phenomenon maybe?  Or maybe it's more local than that?  Other reports much appreciated!

(btw, I can see speed and the cold and dark going together...)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 09:12:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do know someone who during the 60's to the 90's mixed in the chemical circles and the one thing he was absolutely adamant about was that no speed was to happen anywhere near him, he was of the opinion that it messed far too many people up too badly, and was worse than cocaine and herouine put together.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 09:17:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would agree. I've never heard a good word about it.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 09:28:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Which 'speed' would this be? Because the illegality of amphetamine can arguable be said to have moved the market into methamphetamine, which is a very, very different beast. (meth is easier to make in your average bathroom lab than amph.) With amphetamine it depends a lot on where you are on the dosage curve as well. 5-10mg will bring some greater energy without that hard speedy edge, and has a much more gentle comedown than large doses. That said, even for larger amph doses, I have seen very few bad reactions, and this stuff was very, very common (in its prescribed, pharmaseutical form, one big yay for ADHD, big, big 'epedemic' of this 'disease'...) in some of my former circles. Some people got dependent on the effects for daily function (as they were prescribed a daily dose, and some thought, hey, why not...), but the vast, vast majority of even those had not much difficulty quitting the habit, by well, quitting the habit. A few weeks of grumpy discomfort perhaps, but no cataclysmic horror. So, if anything, I'd say, legalize amph, keep meth illegal, and see a move to the 'softer side' of speed with an accompanying reduction in harm?
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 10:14:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm relating purely anecdotal evidence and only about the stimulant amphetamine. You may be right. I have not heard of meth in Finland. It's use is on the decline in Europe according to Drugscope, but worldwide usage more than double that of e (2004).

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 10:48:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
dvx:

None of which addresses FPS Doug's larger point, which is that the GWOD is a massive and manifest failure

It's not a manifest failure.

The CIA is running a regular coke supply line from Columbia, just as it did back in the happy Reagan days. The GWOD has never been about ending drug use, any more than the GWOT has been a serious attempt to hunt down Bin Laden.

Heroin supply is up after Afghanistan. Turkey and Pakistan are both major supply routes.

Someone has a finger in those pies, and it's not the Salvation Army or the local Rotary Club.

Social destabilisation? Black people in prisons? Middle class people acting like snow-driven self-absorbed wankers? This is a problem for who?

Drugs won't be decriminalised as long as drugs are a useful tool for profit and abusive social engineering. There isn't any more happening here.

Marijuana may be decriminalised now that it's become a cottage industry and there's no longer a useful monopoly on sales. But heroin and coke? Not any time soon.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 11:10:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is the key point, from which ANY discussion of drugs HAS to radiate, around which ANY discussion of the War On Drugs TM HAS to revolve:  

The War on Drugs is not a failure; it is a success:  It is doing pretty much what its designers WANT it to do.  Social devastation, impoverishment, criminal gangs, ubiquitous uncontrolled police activity--these are all DESIRED OUTCOMES.  

And, mainly, it is making money hand-over-fist.  The money from illegal drug-running is a key support underneath many governments, and not just places like Afghanistan, but more importantly places like the USA.  The merger between government, corporate, and criminal enterprise began in the last quarter of the 20th century (arguably the last third) and has reached the point where they are essentially the same thing.  

BTW, I am not sure Naomi Klein mentions the War on Drugs in her book Shock Therapy, but once you see how Disaster Capitalism (a strategy of neo-liberalism) works you see that illegalized drug traffic is just another venue for its operation.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Fri Jan 4th, 2008 at 07:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't buy the WoD being planned: anything they do plan they fuck up.

I do buy that the WoD - as evolved - is too useful to shut down.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Jan 5th, 2008 at 03:34:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Apparently, the "elites", are far smarter than we are and are capable of predicting the consequences of their actions over the very long term in way you or I could never imagine. <sigh>
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 5th, 2008 at 05:19:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, we are dumber, seemingly by choice.  

After Prohibition ANYONE could have predicted the main effects of the War On Drugs.  

We did not predict the SCALE, but as Chris says, this thing has grown and evolved.  After all, it started in the early days of the merger.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sat Jan 5th, 2008 at 03:26:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series