Sequencing the Weed Genome

GNUman writes "Maybe soon we'll be able to genetically modify humans so that a specific action (e.g., tapping your nose, pinching your ear) triggers the release of THC directly from your own cells. From the Nature blog post: 'At last, the field of genomics has something to offer Cheech and Chong. DNA sequencing hit a new high last night with the midnight release of the Cannabis sativa genome. The raw sequence was posted on Amazon's EC2 public cloud computing service by a young company called Medicinal Genomics, which aims to explore the genomes of therapeutic plants.'"

Comments

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody needs to make a version of weed that causes cancer

They have that. It's called tobacco.

What about cannabis inidica?

[Jmc23]

I think the higher ratio of cannabinoids to thc and the specific cbd profiles would likely be more useful for medical treatment for glaucoma, arthritis, and other muscular and immune problems than sativa which is more of a cerebral psychedelic high.

i know i wish i could get natural cbd's to treat arthritis without messing up my mind.

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[Anonymous Coward]

indica has a much more pronouced sedative effect... 10 minutes after using some strong indica, you are either completely zoned out or passed out. Sativa is a much more energetic intoxication. Strong sativas come from cross breeding with indicas, but still retain the energetic intoxication.

...without messing up my mind

There is a very rapid tolerance with strong cannabis. By the third day of heavy use, you don't even notice it anymore. So the side effect of intoxication is there initially, but if you were using strong stuff daily, you'd have the medicative effects without the intoxicating side effect.

Also, THC kind of sucks by itself. There's a prescription drug called marinol that is synthetic-THC, very strong... everyone I have ever heard that has used it has said its like taking haldol, which, if you didn't know, really really sucks. There is something to the cannibinoids, CBN and others, that interact with THC that we don't understand yet... probably because cannabis is so fucking scary to the post-mccarthiests that its just too dangerous to study. Meanwhile, testing the sewage coming out of the Capital Building and the White House reveals that many someones in there are using cocaine, heroin, and narcotic prescription drugs.

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the biggest argument against medicinal pot. The THC is the psychoactive component, this is what gives you the munchies and what gets you high. But in its pure form without the other cannibinoids to fuck up the balance of cannibinoids already in the brain, the high is more "harsh".But THC in the form of Malarone does stimulate apatite and relieve pain, nobody disagrees with that. So why is smoking it a better pain reliever and apatite stimulator? It isn't! It's like prescribing whiskey to someone who is dying, because fuck, they won't live long enough to become an alcoholic. (In fact, during prohibition, doctors did exactly that.) It's backwards and primitive, the same kind of thinking that gave us heroine as a treatment for opium addiction. This isn't "the man" trying to keep dying people from their medicine. It's got no benefit vs purified form.

TFS makes ridiculous claims like you may be able to get a dose by tapping your nose or pinching your ears. I can't think of a single medicine that is administered this way and we have plenty of therapeutic genomes available. Imagine if you could, say, stimulate Factor 8 production by tapping your nose or tugging your ear? I bet the hemophiliacs would take that over constant injections. Same with diabetics and insulin. But the fact is, it doesn't work that way. This is nothing but an outlandish stoner fantasy. Really slashdot, you need a biology editor. Regardless of the position I took in the first paragraph which could be construed as opinion, the claim of someday administering medication in this manner is over the top, especially with people out there with life threatening ailments that require constant injections to stay alive. I await being modded into oblivion by the pro-pot slashdot crowd. [/rant]

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[Jmc23]

Hows the kool-aid taste? I haven't found an effective NSAID for my jra in the past 25 years. Cbd's and cbn's work but i don't want the high which is exactly why i posted what i did. Please try to not spread your ignorance.

btw, the drugs name you were looking for was marinol and it doesn't have the benefits of cannabis because it lacks cbd's/cbn's. That's precisely why the US government only allowed studies to be done with hemp laced with marinol to show that it wasn't a good medical treatment.

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[mdf356]

None of the Rx eyedrops for glaucoma are cheap.

Or nearly as effective, for that matter.

And they have more side-effects. I have a friend with glaucoma who can't use her scrip for medical marijuana since her husband works in the airline industry. She hates the drops but puts up with it for now. Her data point is that the drops are less effective and have side effects she doesn't want.

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[Jesse_vd]

And who told you it has to be smoked?

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[siddesu]

Google seems to agree with GP: the query sewage drug use returns a lot of hits to research that looks legit on the surface and seems to confirm that drugs are indeed found in sewage. Nothing specifically about DC in the first few results, but it is not impossible that you find something relevant if you dig in.

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[Khyber]

THC *IS* a cannabinoid.

Elsewise, it would not interact with our endoCANNABINOID system.

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[Khyber]

We don't eat it, precisely because it's near-impossible to function once that first liver pass happens and that THC becomes even more potent.

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[reub2000]

The point is that cocaine is a highly addictive drug with limited medical usage that has for the most part been superseded by synthetic alternatives. But it's classified as CII. Cannabis is a drug with a fraction of the addiction potential and widespread use as an anti-emetic and analgesic. But it's stuck as CI.

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[mr100percent]

Yes, the marinol medication (purified THC) lasts longer in the body, but the Glaucoma Foundation says that its effects are "not impressive."

The effects of Marinol on glaucoma are not impressive.

To date, no studies have shown that marijuana— or any of its approximately 400 chemical components—can safely and effectively lower intraocular pressure better than the variety of drugs currently on the market.

Currently, there are no National Eye Institute studies in the United States concerning the use of marijuana to treat glaucoma.

The Glaucoma Research Foundation will continue to monitor the research community for any new and well-designed studies regarding the use of marijuana to effectively treat glaucoma.

Heck, even High Times came out against it:

An April 1986 product insert from Roxane warned that Marinol elicits "disturbing psychiatric symptoms," and that even patients on low doses might experience "a full-blown picture of psychosis." The latter phrase has disappeared from recent product inserts, but experts say nothing has changed.

"It's way too psychoactive," says Robert Randall, the glaucoma patient who was the first American to obtain marijuana legally from the government. "When I took Marinol, I found it anxiety-provoking and intense, like I had wandered into a short story by Flannery O'Connor."

Yet more proof that marijuana, even the purified Marinol, has far more side effects than simple effective eye drops, and is why the AMA and FDA refuse to license it.

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[mcgrew]

NSAIDs plus pot works better for arthritis than either one by itself. And many people can't take NSAIDs. Here's what NSAIDs can do -- put you in the hospital for a month leaving a scar from your breast to your belly button.

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[mcgrew]

Marijuana is carcinogenic

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

You've been lied to by the government... again. Smoking pot does increase your risk for COPD, but as the linked articl says, pot may actually help prevent cancer.

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[rtb61]

Problem is "Marinol" is just not effective medicine and is likely to be replaced by Sativex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sativex. Which in itself is still a low complexity formulation rather than yet to be fully investigated high complex natural formulation.

Everything of course is blocked by sheer unadulterated greed. Greed of drug enforcement agencies for their power and salaries and of course their partners in crime the drug dealers and their dollars influencing politics. Greed by pharmaceuticals in the form of patents over natural substances by optimally patenting a synthetic substitute and the banning the use of the naturally occurring substances, the more effective the higher the profit margin 10,000 percent profit margins is not a problem regardless of the suffering caused by denial of medical treatment due to cost.

Even the alcohol industry baulks. Hard to sell a two hundred bottle of booze, when two hundred dollars of grass will last most people a year (especially with zero for profit criminalisation).

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[reub2000]

I'm not a doctor, but I've heard that some of the compounds other than THC may have medicinal value. But such research would be hard to carry out because of it's legal status. The DEA claims that marijuana is on CI because it has no medical value, which is false.

Also, cancer is such a scary word. I mean you also get cancer from a CT scan. But I could go through some of the other scary drugs that the FDA allows. Like anti-psychotics that cause people to balloon and develop diabetes. Or pain releavers that are available over the counter that can cause you to bleed to death from your stomach.

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[Jmc23]

It really isn't my job to remove someone's ignorance. That is what pubmed and google is for, besides i don't have access to a real computer or to any of my research. So the two links below aren't the best quality.

The thing to note is that there is only one source for 'research grade' 'marijuana' in the states. They control thc levels by extracting all compounds and then adding a percentage of thc back. Note the producer has stated they have never gotten a request to produce 'marijuana' with cannabinoids or other compounds besides thc. Then again, look closely at how the orgsnization has been setup and you can see how the different layers are setup for obfuscation. Sure they've nevere received such requests because research requests of that kind have been blocked by the other organization which forwards approved research requests. They won't even look at research requests that are looking to use cannabis for medical purposes.

I don't have a medical degree and really it is unnecessary. In fact no other drug researchers i've ever met at conferences or visiting lecturers have medical degrees and that is because almost all real, controlled drug studies are not run by people with medical degrees. People with medical degrees are usually the ones that produce those sad clinical studies with horrible methodology and low subject counts.

What's funny about the comments of the producer is them stating that there's very few seeds and branches now with their new seperator, but these are pre-rolled joints! Nobody in there right mind would roll a joint like that for any purpose, and if there are seeds in yourr medical grade marijuana it's because you aren't producing it properly. Really, adding extra carbon and non-medicinal elements and then saying it's not good for your lungs?

n.b. canadas production isn't much better but at least we have sprays and pills that combine the other compounds with thc. http://cms.herbalgram.org/herbalgram/issue85/article3485.html http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/2770.html

Somebody's going to combine this

[Compaqt]

with the Opera gestures.

Hold your arm and move to the right for the next high.

Boss coming? Minimize: down and then left.

Now all we need is...

[jonwil]

Now all we need is for someone to take an existing food plant that is legal to grow (and that couldn't be banned) like corn and add some weed genes so that when its consumed, it gives the effects of weed (i.e. make the corn contain the THC and things that the weed contains)

No way for the cops to detect it short of chemical analysis and there is far too much corn grown in the US to make that possible.

Re:Now all we need is...

[dzr0001]

And then use the corn to make Cheetos and kill 2 birds.

Re:Now all we need is...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Weed is, if not native to the Americas, a very well naturalized visitor, and it is pretty weed-like. According to 2005 figures, well over 95% of the plants eradicated in US law enforcement operations were just wild growing weed weeds, rather than the cultivated stuff.

Re:Now all we need is...

[Angry Toad]

Dandelions. That way either - 1) They find some way of eradicating dandelions effectively, or 2) Hey, free pot dandelions everywhere. Either outcome would be acceptable.

Re:Now all we need is...

[FiloEleven]

And then use the corn to make Cheetos and kill 2 birds.

With one stoner?

Re:Now all we need is...

[fhic]

People have been doing that for many years with the common hop vine (Humulus lupulus) which is also a member of the Cannabaceae family. Grafting hop vines onto a good Cannabis rootstock yields a scion with strobili that are visually indistinguishable from an ordinary hop flower. Unfortunately, the product is not very potent-- the best outcome is maybe 1.5-2% THC (and only trace amounts of other interesting compounds) which is terrible compared to the 10-20% THC that you can get from a well-managed C. sativa or C. indica flower. Also, the graft process is very finicky, the scion does not grow as well as an ungrafted vine, and your resulting plant is annual (like Cannabis) rather than perennial (like Humulus.) The hops you get are not terribly useful for beer-making, which is pretty much the only use for hops. (Some people like to make a sedative tea from hops, though I doubt that would be a good delivery method for the THC, since it's not water-soluble.) One other major "gotcha" is that the Cannabis plant matures much faster than hops, and the production density is hundreds of times better for Cannabis than Humulus.

Interestingly, there is some published scientific literature (see Crombie) that claims this grafting process does not work. However, I wonder, because Crombie talks about the hops "leaves" even though the only useful part of the plant is the flower (or properly, the "strobile.") The research I mention above has not been published, though the "1.5-2% THC" value I quoted has been measured by GC-MS. And, of course, there are just tons of anecdotal evidence from amateur gardeners that support either opinion.

I'll let someone else do the genetic research, but I think it may eventually be possible to engineer an algae that eats sunlight and poops THC. Wouldn't that be fun!

Re:Now all we need is...

[hedwards]

Genetic engineering isn't the issue. The issue is that they do their test plots without any precautions against contaminating neighboring plants and it's been documented that the genes do end up in other fields and in some cases in weeds.

As for repealing prohibition, it's never a good idea to repeal things like this because there's a hardcore group that doesn't give a damn what the consequences to their actions are. Sure, that's ultimately the path that's going to be taken, but it's really not conducive to democracy to have allow a bunch of self centered brats undermine the system by refusing to obey the law.

This isn't like the boycotts and sit ins of the 50s and 60s for civil rights, this is because a bunch of babies doesn't feel like changing the law the right way.

Re:Now all we need is...

[Mindcontrolled]

I'd personally clone the relevant genes for cannabinoid production into intestinal bacteria and put them in an operon triggered by a readily available substance. Want a high? Eat some malt sugar...

Re:Now all we need is...

[ChromeAeonium]

Yes they are, because higher yield is a myth

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong I could dig up more from my bookmarks, but it's late here and you get the point. You might be thinking of the study titled 'Failure to Yield' a study claiming that GMOs actually had lesser yield (although it was based on data showing an increase). Actually, yield gains in developed countries are relatively low, only like 3-5%. But that is because pesticides already pushed yields to the limit. If you replace pesticides with resistant GMOs, it isn't that much difference (but make no mistake there still is a difference). Where Bt GMOs really shine is in developing countries where they might not always have access to pesticides. There, the difference can be dramatic. And of course in the case of viral resistant GMOs or fungal resistant GMOs they can make the difference between an industry continuing to exist or disappearing (without GMOs there would be no Hawaiian papaya industry and I've read some very promising information about GMOs with anti-fungal proteins).

the plants are killing insects indiscriminately (see honeybees)

The cry proteins used in the Bt GMOs are actually very specific, much more so than the pesticides they replaced. Do you have any evidence (besides some anti-GMO nutter's rantings) that Bt plants are in any way responsible for CCD, which need I remind you occures even in countries where GM crops are banned?

Also, familiarize yourself with terminator gene

I've done genetic engineering before, so I'm already pretty familiar with that thanks. Terminator technology was developed to prevent unwanted gene transfer. You know, that thing the anti-GMO groups are always complaining about. ISo, a safeguard to prevent that would make them happy, right? Ha! These people are harder to please than anti-vaxxers. They just put a nasty spin on it and freaked out even more! In other words, damned if you do and damned if you don't.I know what you (the agricultural layman) must be thinking: how horrible to keep farmers from saving seed. But you miss something very important: no one really does that anyway (besides those growing heirloom crops, the smae people the terminator gene would protect). Back in the early 1900's pretty much every farmer realized that if you use hybrids, superior crops but whose seeds do not possess genetic uniformity (making them unsuitable for seed saving), you could get higher yields. The gain was so much that it justified the cost of buying new seed every year. So, ever since then, farmers bought their seed from seed companies. Almost a hundred years later, GMOs get the blame. Makes no sense, but that's the anti-GMO movement for you. As an aside, some people are working on GMOs with apomixis traits, meaning the seeds are basically clones and as such the hybrid vigor would be preserved thus eliminating the need for seed vendors. But anyway, the terminator trait, despite the ill will directed toward it, is more misunderstood than dangerous. Course you could say the same thing of every other GM crop.

Re:Now all we need is...

[Khyber]

Hi, I do horticultural research for a living.

That higher yield doesn't man shit when an heirloom cultivar with a smaller fruit contains more nutrition than TWO larger GMO fruits combined.

And it's been that way for 50 years and steadily declining.

Sources:
University of Texas news release, Dec. 1, 2004.

Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999,Vol. 23, No. 6, 669-682 (2004).

Mother Earth News, Industrial Farming is Giving us Less Nutritious Food, June/July 2009.

HealthDay News Service, Vitamin D Good for Breast Cancer Patients, Oct. 9, 2009.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Pyramid and nutrition content; Jane Higdon, Ph.D., LPI Research Associate Linus Pauling Institute Research Report, Oregon State University.

Consumer Reports on Health, Preserve Your Nutrients, October 2009.

Re:Now all we need is...

[Khyber]

Whomever rated this informative needs some extra information, here.

First off - Australian Bastard Cannabis - a crossbreeding of hops and cannabis, is quite potent, actually, and doesn't look like cannabis due to the rounded leaves. Well, it doesn't look like it until it flowers, then you aren't mistaking the cannabis buds. And you've never had beer until you have had it made from ABC.

THC is not ENTIRELY water soluble (saturation at 2% concentration in water) but is quite soluble in ethanol - why use hops if you aren't making a brew?

Re:Now all we need is...

[Khyber]

"How many vegetable crops are GMO?"

In the world? More than you just listed, by far. Rices, Potatoes, Fruit cultivars, and much, much more.

Easiest way is to check every crop protected under the plant patent act. Thousands of listed crop species there with GMO modification.

And in reality, plenty of heirloom cultivars last AS LONG as their GMO counterparts in shelf-life. It's breeding for mechanical picking that begins the real fuckups.

I know these things already, and I also know that half of what you've said is pretty wrong.

Re:why is this on here?

[wadeal]

Because luckily Slashdot isn't written for you.

Personally I think it's pretty cool the potential to create natural THC in other plants or even in our own cells. It goes from being something you have to smoke which has an association with cancer in peoples minds to something scientists can show they understand and can deliver to those in need of therapeutic THC in a form a little more friendly.

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA

[Lord Kano]

Smoke from any burning organic matter is a carcinogen.

The thing is that people inhale less marijuana smoke than they do tobacco smoke so there's no definite link between the amount of smoke that even heavy potheads inhale and cancer.

LK

The "legend" of Nanofsky's trippy oranges

[Gopal.V]

This is stuff of urban legends - Nanofsky's trippy oranges.

It's not true, of course - but even if it were, they'd just ban all oranges, like they did to hemp cloth.

Re:why is this on here?

[artor3]

Oh, I'm sorry, did you think I give a fuck that you don't give a fuck? Why don't you just grow a thick skin and ignore comments you don't like.

While you might think the world evolves around you, it doesn't. In fact, most of us don't even care what you think.

Sorry, did that hurt?

Seriously though, i don't give a fuck that you don't care about him not caring. This isn't on Slashdot because it's science (there's a lot more that goes unreported). It's here because hurr, I could get high by scratching my nose! Of course there's no science supporting that lead-in statement, but hey, pot!

Oh, and oddly enough, a lot of people disagree with you and don't see your point of view. I know that hurts ya, but deal with it.

PS: the difference between me and you is that instead of getting all sanctimonious and pretending to actually wound someone with my words, I'm just engaging in outright mockery. One is a sign that you actually do care, the other is a good way to show someone you don't.

Re:Just to check

[WorBlux]

1. Genes are by definition the unit of inheritance. 2. No, RNA can be used as well. Really F'd up stuff at that. Some plants can restore copies of genes from their grandparents but were not in thier parents. Copies are kept in cytoplasmic RNA and can be triggered by environmental conditions, or even just randomly turn back on. 3. Depends on what you're looking for. It can be quite usefull if your looking for a biological explanation.

Re:Just to check

[jamesh]

that they have verified that

1.) They are certain that heredity is solely controlled by genes.
2.) They are certain that DNA is the sole mechanism for passing on genes.
3.) That looking at DNA sequences is a productive method of finding causes of things.

Personally I believe that they are uncertain in (1), uncertain in (2) and that (3) is not true. DNA is a waste of time with regards to 99.99999% of human behaviour.

WTF have you been smoking? Even if 1 and 2 are not completely true, there is enough about us programmed into our genes that it's still a useful thing to know. Human behaviour is part nature part nurture, not exclusively one or the other, and I bet the nature part is more than the 0.00001% figure you cite. Understanding the nature part can help us understand the nurture part better, so it's not a waste of time.

Re:Don't tell me

[bky1701]

what I can and cannot put in my body.

It's not your fucking business, or anybody else's.

Take the goddamn safety labels off of everything, for fucks sake.

I'm not sure how these arguments are related, but I like my "High Voltage" and "Corrosive" labels, thank you very much. Some warnings exist for a reason.

The issue with drugs is that, when legalized in large quantities, they tend to lead to the same situation that happened with opium. That is not good for society as a whole. Alcohol is bad enough, but putting hallucinogens and other drug chemicals into plants that do not naturally have them is a bad thing. At best it makes drugs far too easily availabe, at worst it brings the country to its knees.

Drugs are a complicated issue, as I would like to think that freedom to choose is always best, but the simple fact is that a vast majority of people will abuse the privilege. People still smoke and even choose to start smoking, despite the warnings, despite the taxes, despite all common sense to the contrary.

I have seen the damage that even "weak" drugs can do when they become the center of someone's life. We need to end all the "War on X"s, but blanket legalization is not a good thing. Maybe pot should be legal, but with crack and heroin, that is never going to happen. There needs to be some balance, and as it stands, we're far too much towards the prohibition side. The administrative costs (police, court, prison, appeals, legislation, investigation...), the infringements upon civil rights, and the seriously questionable gain is just too much. However, THC-laced vegetables is far too much towards the stoned-out society side.

Like I said, it's not a simple issue, and trying to make it into one by running around saying "your fucking business" isn't going to convince anyone. That's the kind of attitude that causes pot to be so stigmatized in US politics. Learn civility, it's the only way you'll ever get what you want in life.

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA

[dryeo]

I hate to say it but citation needed.
Remember, people have actually evolved being exposed to burning organic matter. IIRC Homo Erectus had fire.
I have seen studies that show tobacco smokers who also smoke pot to have less of an incident of cancer then smokers who only smoke tobacco.
The studies I've seen on pot smokers and cancer have been inconclusive though there was a trend to show that smoking pot was as bad as taking an airplane flight, very minimal and within the error bars.

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA

[Frnknstn]

IIRC Homo Erectus had fire.

Homo Erectus were also lucky if they hit the ripe old age of twenty-five years old. Cancer was the least of their worries.

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA

[Opportunist]

Homo erectus also died a long time before cancer could kill him.

You know why cancer is the big killer today? Because we eliminated everything else that could kill us before cancer gets us.

Re:What about cannabis synthetica?

[Opportunist]

Once you can get it to the addictiveness of crack, or at least a fraction thereof, you might have a case. 'til then, sorry, won't work.

Natural? uranium is 'natural'... weak argument

[fantomas]

I think this argument that something is worth taking because it is 'natural' is a weak position, not well though out. There are a lot of things out there that occur naturally but are downright poisonous and will kill you. There are many synthetic products that are really helpful. I'd like to see a more rigorous discussion of the difference between 'natural' and 'unnatural/synthetic'. I have this suspicion that there are many borderline products and preferring 'natural' is just a psychological position that comforts people rather has medical benefits. Interested to hear further evidence....

Re:Natural? uranium is 'natural'... weak argument

[biodata]

You could make an evolutionary argument that a medicine which has coevolved with our species, been ingested by billions of people over millions of years, and has been taken by people from most different genetic groups around the world, has been better tested, and proven safer, than something someone came up with in a lab and tried out on a few mice, and wants to push on consumers for profit.

Re:Don't tell me

[Nasajin]

I think that process is unofficially in practice (at least where I'm from) due to the fact that the amount of paperwork that the police have to go through when dealing with a charge, they're not about to bust a person smoking weed in their own home, or with a small amount of weed on their person, but if they suspect that they've found a dealer then its more worth their while.

Re:Bad pun

[shoehornjob]

And I would call that a new low - is there any way we can moderate down articles? People genetically altered to be potheads is incredibly stupid.

If they did find a way to alter people to no longer be receptive to THC and other similar substances, and also completely allergic to nicotine then we would have something that could let us get rid of all smokers. Let it be distributed through a virus like the flu virus and we can be pretty sure to get rid of all potheads and smokers.

Just continue and render other illegal drugs ineffective too and the world may be a better place.

Not everyone that smokes MJ want's to sit on the couch and play video games all day.

Re:Find a way to turn off the THC reaction?

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

"an individual is getting high and receives a call that their friend or family member was in an accident or some other tragedy. They are in a need to get to that friend/family member. If they could do something to suppress the high affect, they would have less "problems" getting to their friend."

Have you ever been high? If you are in a high adreneline situation, you sober right the fuck up pretty quick. Weed isn't that hardcore of a drug that you can just get lost in like heroin or ketamine. Even when drunk, i have "scared" myself sober in emergency situations.

So I think your hypothetical situation is a very silly justification for massaging this incredebile find to your own ends.

Also FYI, every animal on this planet, down to the lowliest sea slug has canabanoid receptors.

Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111905007067

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=sea+slug+endocannabinoid+system&btnG=Search

For more information, I highly recomend the Horizon documentary Cannibis the Evil Weed which has the above as well as more information.

Gotta love authoritarians

[PotatoHead]

...or hate them. Depends right?

Seriously, haven't you ever had a bad week? I have. Haven't you ever gathered with friends, looking for a evening of social antics? I have.

One of the basic, simple pleasures in this world is a nice buzz, and there are many different kinds, some good eats, entertainment, and friends. Have a nice long chat, tickle the senses, and just wash away lots of painful things for a while, happy to just be, love, do, share.

Anything good can be abused. That goes with simple food.

I like a nice high once in a while. Lots of ways to get it too. Write some brilliant code, skydive, pot, opiates (poppy tea is particularly nice), booze (hate it generally), etc...

Before you expound on "those illegal drugs", maybe you should consider more fully why some are illegal and some are not, plug that into your AM radio morals, and get back to me.

Re:Don't tell me

[Oakey]

Portugal. It has been quite successful

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA

[LanMan04]

Actually weed is already known to be carcinogenic.

Nope:

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection