Company caught selling tainted marijuana can’t trace source of contamination

VIANARCHRIS said:
But they would if their jobs depended on it. If orders are to produce a profitable cash crop or find a new way to feed your kids, they will do what it takes. I don't for a minute believe any of the LP's are following the rules. Self regulation does not work. Profit before patients. Time for Justin to announce legalization plans that include room for independent small scale producers.
Click to expand...

Those growers need to choose better on who they get in bed with. It's sad that money can make people forget their ethics. Personally I would walk if my ethics were challenged, then again I'm old school. Again painting all LP's with the same brush isn't correct, there are some good guys out there still, don't give up on humanity yet, I know it's hard, there are some real ass hats out there. Time to head for the hills and start a cult.....

Itsme.
 
itsmehigh said:
Those growers need to choose better on who they get in bed with. It's sad that money can make people forget their ethics. Personally I would walk if my ethics were challenged, then again I'm old school. Again painting all LP's with the same brush isn't correct, there are some good guys out there still, don't give up on humanity yet, I know it's hard, there are some real ass hats out there. Time to head for the hills and start a cult.....

Itsme.
Click to expand...
I think money comes before ethics more often than not, particularly when there are million$ of $ involved. I'd like to think companies claiming to be selling organic, pharmaceutical meds might actually be doing that, but I haven't met the CEO ready to throw money away if it could be fixed by 'bending the rules'. Especially if there are no repercussions. Call me cynical, but I have zero trust. Much better we have 1000's of small growers who put their name on what they grow. The corporate LP grower does not have the same investment or pride in their garden. imo.
 
VIANARCHRIS said:
I think money comes before ethics more often than not, particularly when there are million$ of $ involved. I'd like to think companies claiming to be selling organic, pharmaceutical meds might actually be doing that, but I haven't met the CEO ready to throw money away if it could be fixed by 'bending the rules'. Especially if there are no repercussions. Call me cynical, but I have zero trust. Much better we have 1000's of small growers who put their name on what they grow. The corporate LP grower does not have the same investment or pride in their garden. imo.
Click to expand...

I agree, I lose faith in humanity more every day. Your not cynical, your a realist. I would love an opportunity to produce cannabis and lead by example. I think the gov. Is afraid of that. I would like nothing more to put unscrupulous LP's out of business with my bussines model. They should be worried. Let the real growers have a chance.

Itsme.
 
itsmehigh said:
Any grower worth their salt wouldn't hesitate to cull a sick crop. Prevention is key, it's almost impossible to bring a sick crop back to health. Best to cull and start over again and cut your losses. STAY AWAY FROM LP's who have shareholders, their best interest isn't you. Do your due diligence, choose your source wisely, not all LP's are created equally.

Itsme.
Click to expand...
Agreed, except in the case of LPs.
 
doingdishes said:
yes but the cost is prohibitive to some. i think it's about $300 for testing
Click to expand...

I'd imagine the cost wouldn't be high for someone who sells to dispensaries and say has 10Lb, obviously the info could be fudged and no way a dispensary would know if the whole lot is clear or just the sample BUT considering we have real proof you can't even trust Gov licensed LP's its still better then nothing.
 
CalyxCrusher said:
A member on icmag has contacted(and already heard back) from the CSPMA(Canadian Sphagnum Peat Moss Association, if thats a thing) on Organigram saying it was a batch of peat moss that had pesticides. He posted the reply email. The plot thickens......
Click to expand...

I hope they come out and destroy Organisham with proof that what they claim is not possible. I would be happy to see them go under, they deserve nothing but the worst for willingly poisoning people to protect their profits.
 
dienowk said:
I would be shocked if any LP culled a crop without HC stepping in and making them, a for profit business is not going to willingly throw away money when they can skirt the rules and at worst get a sternly worded letter if they get caught.
Click to expand...
Do you think MMar/MMPR inspectors (if there were such a unicorn) that caught you skirting the rules,would have given you a sternly worded letter
or pulled your licence? Just curious
 
cannadan said:
Do you think MMar/MMPR inspectors (if there were such a unicorn) that caught you skirting the rules,would have given you a sternly worded letter
or pulled your licence? Just curious
Click to expand...

Me as a personal grower or me if I was an LP ?

If I was an LP, it is the same people dealing with it on the HC end so it would have likely been the same as it is now. As for personal grower, I am guessing that they would likely take your license for any infraction although I never met anyone who was inspected during the MMAR so who knows..
 
itsmehigh said:
Ok, now that makes sense. Cannabis use in teens has been linked to cognitive defects in adolescent brains. Seems to me that 40 years of cannabis use has taken its toll. Weird that 40 years of cannabis use, didn't prevent any of your illnesses.

Itsme.
Click to expand...
That was low. Shame on you to make fun of someone's medical situation @itsmehigh. We get dirty here but that was uncalled for and in the realm of " no go " to me anyway
 
itsmehigh said:
Ok, now that makes sense. Cannabis use in teens has been linked to cognitive defects in adolescent brains.
Click to expand...

Can you show me the studies that show this ?

I saw one and it was horrible. It didn't take into account the usage of other substances including ones that we know for fact cause cognitive damage, and it just seemed poorly conducted by people who clearly had bias going in. If you can show me others that actually support this that have taken everything else into account I would love to see them.

There was a study that took 789 pairs of twins, 1 who used and one who didn't over a period of 10 years and it showed no noticeable difference in their cognitive ability or iq at all http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/twins-study-finds-no-evidence-marijuana-lowers-iq-teens This article also explains some of the other reasons the other studies were terrible, and this is not from some pro cannabis site, it is a source that is respected in the scientific community.
 
Studies??? Have you not read GB's posts? Proof is in the pudding......

Google scientific research cannabis and adulesent brain development, there's many studies. Problem is you can find any result you want to prove a point on the internet. Most cannabis studies are inconclusive and anecdotal. I was being cynical and obnoxious, with the remark. Honestly, I don't blame cannabis for GB's stupidity. Some people are just ..............

http://www.sciencedirect.com/

Early-onset cannabis use and cognitive deficits: what is the nature of the association?
  • Harrison G Pope Jr
  • Amanda J Gruber
  • James I Hudson
  • Geoffrey Cohane
  • Marilyn A Huestis
  • Deborah Yurgelun-Todd
Show more
Check for full text accessPurchase $35.95Get Full Text Elsewhere
Abstract
Background: Individuals who initiate cannabis use at an early age, when the brain is still developing, might be more vulnerable to lasting neuropsychological deficits than individuals who begin use later in life. Methods: We analyzed neuropsychological test results from 122 long-term heavy cannabis users and 87 comparison subjects with minimal cannabis exposure, all of whom had undergone a 28-day period of abstinence from cannabis, monitored by daily or every-other-day observed urine samples. We compared early-onset cannabis users with late-onset users and with controls, using linear regression controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, and attributes of family of origin. Results: The 69 early-onset users (who began smoking before age 17) differed significantly from both the 53 late-onset users (who began smoking at age 17 or later) and from the 87 controls on several measures, most notably verbal IQ (VIQ). Few differences were found between late-onset users and controls on the test battery. However, when we adjusted for VIQ, virtually all differences between early-onset users and controls on test measures ceased to be significant. Conclusions: Early-onset cannabis users exhibit poorer cognitive performance than late-onset users or control subjects, especially in VIQ, but the cause of this difference cannot be determined from our data. The difference may reflect (1) innate differences between groups in cognitive ability, antedating first cannabis use; (2) an actual neurotoxic effect of cannabis on the developing brain; or (3) poorer learning of conventional cognitive skills by young cannabis users who have eschewed academics and diverged from the mainstream culture.

Itsme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top