Last edited by Sammy Ambrose (2013-08-19 12:46:20)

Saw Culture live a few years ago, btw, back in my reggae days.  (It was when Joseph Hill was still alive.) Very nice show.

Don't get me wrong - if you want to get stoned in this day and age, then unless you have good connections and possibly money to burn too (natural ganja is often overpriced compared to skunk, which isn't exactly cheap either), skunk is your only option.  And it won't kill you.

There is nothing unnatural about hybridising two varieties of the same species

It happens in the natural world all the time.

No I did mean endogenous.  But having looked at it it appears the correct term is endocannabinanoids. So I apologise for the confusion.

Our Cannabinoid Receptors are there to receive Endocannabinanoids but they also act as receptors for exogenous Cannabinoids.

Interestingly it seems the discovery of Cannabinoids led directly to the discovery of the receptors,  then to the realisation that Endocannabinanoids must exist and then their discovery. Fascinating stuff.

Im not sure I do ive just watched documentaries and half remembered them

The artificial growing conditions (hydroponics and hot lights) are primarily to increase the yield from each plant not to increase the potency of the Cannabis produced.

Skunk could and would grow naturally in the right climate but it would not grow like it does in the artificial conditions I think you're talking about.

The higher THC levels in skunk were brought about by selective breeding. This is not an unnatural process and man has been doing it with food crops (and livestock) for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years.

If you're talking about the artificial conditions the plants are grown in are unnatural then I'd probably have to agree with you. But I'd disagree that the THC levels in Skunk could not naturally occur in wild plants.

At what point does selective breeding make something 'unnatural'?

First generation, tenth generation or when people 'cannot tolerate it'?

What is an 'intolerance' to wheat?

You can work this out by reading post #54.

Man has been selectively breeding cereal crop longer than anything else. Thousands of years.

An intolerance to a certain crop is simply an adaptation in the plant (which may be beneficial to the plants survival if it were growing wild and it would then remain a component of the plants physiognomy) that humans need to adapt to themselves.

It's no coincidence that 'in recent decades' man has 'developed' so many 'food intolerances'.

The truth is man has ALWAYS had food intolerances. A plant adapts to protect itself (makes you feel sick, maybe kills you) and then over time man adapts to this intolerance and it's no longer an issue.

Of course we won't get over these intolerances so easily.  Not because of the plants being unnatural but because we behave unnaturally and medicate, overcome by unnatural means and basically make a mockery of the process of natural selection.

Why didn't we hear about food intolerances before say 50 years ago? Because they weren't recognised or understood. We're back at receptors again now...

What is choosing a mate based on looks and intellect if not selective breeding?

Are we unnatural because of our selectivity?

Yuca and Liam. A good argument. Keep it up.

Has anyone ever noticed that there are so many experts around here that we could make our own A-Team and have catwalk-shows in our latest creations (cloth by the LL and Crompie); stoned models in bespoke shoes and make a fortune in the process. We might even be able to cobble together a rocket to the moon; chase the dragon around Venus, and land in Hawaii before heading home to Croydon to catch-up on AAAC and Style ForeStreet.

I'll agree that Skunk grown in the 'artificial conditions' you mentioned is unnatural in terms of yield but I cannot accept that Cannabinoid levels in Skunk are affected by these same growing techniques.

I also do not accept that selective breeding is unnatural, because it isn't. That's not really up for discussion. Natural evolutionary adaptation works exactly the same way in nature and external factors do naturally influence the successive evolution of other species. It's all natural.

'Ganja' is also the result of selective breeding.

There's also a difference between Skunk and the Cow's that you mentioned.

These cow's are given hormones, manipulated mechanically and chemically and their natural calving cycle is interrupted. It's also to do with milk yield.  So not a good comparison with Skunk and THC levels.

Selective breeding isn't the issue there at all. What I describe above though is an unnatural, and awful, process.

Selectively bred animals are not necessarily mutants. Mutation is the most natural of processes.  Without mutation we'd All just be green sludge.

I'm playing devils advocate in the Cannabis Psychosis argument anyway.  I'm guessing it is a growing problem and new strains of Cannabis do make the threat of it more likely.

What I really take issue with is the idea that it was Scientists who produced some 'mutant' plant that's causing it.

Cannabis Psychosis in very basic terms is just the plant playing an absolute blinder. It's fucking the user up permanently.

Imagine that was a browsing animal which happened upon our thought experiment Skunk. The browsing animal eats the Skunk, has a very bad experience, maybe has permanent damage (which will be a death sentence in a healthy ecosystem). He won't be eating the Skunk again.

The Skunk will flourish. 

Then one day a browsing animal again will come along. But watch out Skunk this one's a mutant (don't worry it can walk fine) and it eats the Skunk. The Slunk has no effect! No damage at all.

The browsing animal passes in his mutation and they flourish.

And so on and so on. It's all a natural process.

Sorry if I went off on a tangent there.