What's the worst strain and breeder you've dealt with?

[dolamic]

How does children come into play? That is one of those super extreme examples....

I was talking about plants.

You were the one who started talking about breeding animals.

I tried to make you see the folly of your ways.

I succeeded.

 

[Jogro]

It is not a fucking business. It is horticulture.

With due respect, horticulture is a business.

One strain cannot be owned by any one person.

The US Patent office disagrees with your "opinion":

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/plant/

What is a plant patent?

A plant patent is granted by the Government to an inventor (or the inventor's heirs or assigns) who has invented or discovered and asexually reproduced a distinct and new variety of plant, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state. The grant, which lasts for 20 years from the date of filing the application, protects the inventor's right to exclude others from asexually reproducing, selling, or using the plant so reproduced. This protection is limited to a plant in its ordinary meaning:

A living plant organism which expresses a set of characteristics determined by its single, genetic makeup or genotype, which can be duplicated through asexual reproduction, but which can not otherwise be "made" or "manufactured."
Sports, mutants, hybrids, and transformed plants are comprehended; sports or mutants may be spontaneous or induced. Hybrids may be natural, from a planned breeding program, or somatic in source. While natural plant mutants might have naturally occurred, they must have been discovered in a cultivated area.
Algae and macro fungi are regarded as plants, but bacteria are not.

Now, you may not agree that living organisms "should" be patentable, but frankly, your opinion won't stop a Federal court from legally stripping your assets in civil action should you violate one of these patents.

If you notice every other facet of gardening, no one owns a particular apple tree or cherry tree. Etc. Etc.

How is this true?

Everyone owns all the plants on their own property, just as every farmer owns their own crops. This type of plant property ownership has been recognized literally since biblical times (at the very least). See what happens if you walk onto a farm and try to take the plants growing there without permission.

If you're talking about legal ownership of plant STRAINS, that's also incorrect (see above).

Again, all sorts of plant cultivars are patented. There are all sorts of apples (just to name one of MANY examples) that you can't legally clone or sell without permission of the patent holder.

These patents are limited, but they protect breeders intellectual property, given breeders the financial ability to create new lines.

People have (to hold or maintain as a possession, privilege, or entitlement) these trees and sell or give away seeds.
They do not own (to have or possess as property; to have control over) them.
They are from that tree, not the people.

With due respect, plants are widely considered to be property just like bricks or cars, and there is a tremendous amount of legal and cultural precedent backing this up.
That you don't think this is true, doesn't make it untrue.

Would then, the bees be guilty in a court of law for taking pollen from a Barney's Farm male, and alighting on a TGA Jillybean female? If he is thusly robbing
the work of a breeder, and giving it freely to another breeder; it is obviously stealing and should be thrown in bee jail.

Straw man. Bees, obviously, can't be found "guilty" of anything in a court of law. Patent violation is also a civil (not criminal) matter.

To the point, I strongly doubt that either the Barney's farm or TGA "strains" are patented, and therefore those breeders have no legal protection should a HUMAN decide to clone or cross them.

 

[Kite High]

GW Pharmaceuticals has been getting granted US patents on mj strains and cannabinoid ratios this week at the rate of one per day...GET READY FOR FED RAIDS TO COMMENCE SOON

 

[Kite High]

With due respect, horticulture is a business.


The US Patent office disagrees with your "opinion":



Now, you may not agree that living organisms "should" be patentable, but frankly, your opinion won't stop a Federal court from legally stripping your assets in civil action should you violate one of these patents.


How is this true?

Everyone owns all the plants on their own property, just as every farmer owns their own crops. This type of plant property ownership has been recognized literally since biblical times (at the very least). See what happens if you walk onto a farm and try to take the plants growing there without permission.

If you're talking about legal ownership of plant STRAINS, that's also incorrect (see above).

Again, all sorts of plant cultivars are patented. There are all sorts of apples (just to name one of MANY examples) that you can't legally clone or sell without permission of the patent holder.

These patents are limited, but they protect breeders intellectual property, given breeders the financial ability to create new lines.


With due respect, plants are widely considered to be property just like bricks or cars, and there is a tremendous amount of legal and cultural precedent backing this up.
That you don't think this is true, doesn't make it untrue.


Straw man. Bees, obviously, can't be found "guilty" of anything in a court of law. Patent violation is also a civil (not criminal) matter.

To the point, I strongly doubt that either the Barney's farm or TGA "strains" are patented, and therefore those breeders have no legal protection should a HUMAN decide to clone or cross them.

Well that was a ridiculous and moot point anyway as cannabis has no insect pollinators...only wind....and yes farmers have been sued by monsanto victoriously because the wind blew their pollen from the gmo plants to farmers that did not buy gmo seed from monsanto but dna of the monsanto gmo seed was identified in the corn they produced forcing many into bankruptcy... capitalism at its finest

 

[Jogro]

I disagree with you, on these grounds.

You speak as if; I create a child then I could sell him since I created him. Right?

Wrong.
Human chattel slavery is illegal.
Selling plants or animals, not so much.
The reason is that our society views human beings as being different than lettuce plants or mice, for example.

Maybe I could get a patent on my son so that no one else could create one
like the one I created. If anyone did create a son like mine, I could sue them!

Someone else could correct me if I'm wrong, but so far as I know, there is no legal precedent on patenting human organisms.

In practice, then, *IF* you patented your son (or more precisely, his genome), *AND* said patent were later upheld (two very shaky propositions), THEN anyone later cloning your son without your explicit permission could be civilly liable for damages.

I also think organism patents only last 20 years. . .so you might have to carefully consider WHEN you want to issue this patent.

Try it and let us know how it works out for you.

 

[Jogro]

GW Pharmaceuticals has been getting granted US patents on mj strains and cannabinoid ratios this week at the rate of one per day...GET READY FOR FED RAIDS TO COMMENCE SOON

Having the patents and enforcing them are two totally different things.

If they've issued patents on what amount to "normal" cannabinoid ratios in normal drug cannabis plants, the patents will be void.

EG, they can't hold a patent on say 15% THC cannabis plants, because those plants are/were recognized to grow widely all over the planet long before this company came along to issue their patent.

If this company has bred special plants that express certain terpenes or certain esoteric cannabinoid ratios, I have ZERO problem with them issuing patents on the plants. The patents in question will only last twenty years and will protect others from commercially exploiting those plants during that time without licensing them. That won't affect anyone purchasing conventional ceeds from ceedbanks, nor growing any at home.

GW pharmaceuticals can't possibly know what I'm growing in my backyard, nor do they likely care, so long as I'm not selling the plants or the genetics.

 

[Kite High]

But the FEDS know and will shut you down for big business interests...that is why they drag their feet...not because of anything else but money...again get ready raids will commence with a fury...
the fed have and will continue to protect big business ....it is the reason mj was made illegal remember...HEARST AND DUPONT...big business big money rules
Oh and btw slavery was NOT abolished...the rules were changed...now only convicted felons can be slaves...know those plants you are growing allow them to make you into a convicted felon then a slave

 

[mytwhyt]

dolamic, If someone creates the same son you would, I'll sue you both... There are some parts of the gene pool we shouldn't be dipping into..

 

[Kite High]

oh and they care cause they want to FORCE you to buy their Sativex...legal hash oil is all it is

 

[kindnug]

I'll make sure I get the patent on that new dank strain > Dong
People will love the taste of Dong...and ofcourse the potency

 

[Jogro]

Well that was a ridiculous and moot point anyway as cannabis has no insect pollinators...only wind

I think cannabis "can" be pollinated by insects, but unlike many plants it just doesn't "need" to be.

....and yes farmers have been sued by monsanto victoriously because the wind blew their pollen from the gmo plants to farmers that did not buy gmo seed from monsanto but dna of the monsanto gmo seed was identified in the corn they produced forcing many into bankruptcy... capitalism at its finest

That's interesting. Do you have a source for this?

In Monsanto vs Schmeiser (which is the famous test case of this), the defendant Schmeiser could produce no evidence that his growing Monstanto's GMO canola was accidental, and in fact, just the opposite was true. . .he deliberately selected their Roundup resistant canola for growth on his own farm and fully admitted doing so and propagating multiple generations of ceeds from these strains.

He claimed that since the original genetic material was blown onto his farm, he owned it and could use it as he pleased.

Monsanto disagreed, saying that they didn't care if some of his plants made GMO ceeds because of wind pollination, but that didn't give him the right to isolate that trait and create his own line using their patented genes (which is, by his own admission, is what he did). The Canadian judge sided with Monsanto, saying that the patent protected the gene in question, regardless of how the farmer obtained it.

Whether or not that "should" be the case is debatable, but I think its not a "crazy" decision inconsistent with patent law.

 

[kindnug]

What if some1 had one of the strains they patented before the patent was issued?
Are they strains they specifically bred and don't release to anyone?
Just curious

 

[kindnug]

I'm talking about the MJ plants not corn

 

[Kite High]

Having the patents and enforcing them are two totally different things.

If they've issued patents on what amount to "normal" cannabinoid ratios in normal drug cannabis plants, the patents will be void.

EG, they can't hold a patent on say 15% THC cannabis plants, because those plants are/were recognized to grow widely all over the planet long before this company came along to issue their patent.

If this company has bred special plants that express certain terpenes or certain esoteric cannabinoid ratios, I have ZERO problem with them issuing patents on the plants. The patents in question will only last twenty years and will protect others from commercially exploiting those plants during that time without licensing them. That won't affect anyone purchasing conventional ceeds from ceedbanks, nor growing any at home.

GW pharmaceuticals can't possibly know what I'm growing in my backyard, nor do they likely care, so long as I'm not selling the plants or the genetics.

http://www.gwpharm.com/cultivation.aspx

 

[Kite High]

I'm talking about the MJ plants not corn

• http://www.gwpharm.com/cultivation.aspx​
  
  
  But they need not even worry about suing you...the feds will come raid you confiscate all your stuff and make you into a slave...and if you still have money and the weed you had has gw's genetic markers they will take the rest of your money thast the feds didn't

 

[brotherjericho]

Not been doing this long, but I've had very few bad grows since getting through my first successful full grow. Almost every strain I've tried has been pretty good, and I don't count failed germinations as "bad" because I typically only pop one strain at a time. So I've been happy with Female Seeds Pure AK, Neville's Haze, and C99. Same with Sweet Seeds Green Poison, Dinafem PPP, WoS AKxS (even with a partial reveg in flower!), and Delicious Fruity Chronic Juice.

I have some G13 Pineapple Express in cure alongside of some Seedism Big Red, not bad grows but I let the PE dry out to much before jarring so I had to drop a leaf in to inject moisture. I hate that. I was more careful with the Big Red and they are in the jars at 60-61%. I didn't care for the yield on the Big Red, but it looks very nice and is very chunky and sticky. Fortunately I cloned both and I changed some things up for the clones.

The worst I've run into thus far is Holy Smoke Nepali Rhukum, total shit, and Cali Con Buddha Tahoe OG (hermied 15-17 days into 12/12, only one I've ever had). The BToG looked nice, however, so I zapped it with reverse and put it outdoors. We had way too much rain and the plant was way too tight noded from growing inside so it suffered bud rot.

 

[Jogro]

But the FEDS know and will shut you down for big business interests

Please explain to me how the Feds can possibly know which genetics I'm growing.
I'd really like to hear this.

Oh and btw slavery was NOT abolished...the rules were changed...now only convicted felons can be slaves...know those plants you are growing allow them to make you into a convicted felon then a slave

I said "chattel slavery" (look it up) was illegal.
I didn't say it doesn't exist.

oh and they care cause they want to FORCE you to buy their Sativex...legal hash oil is all it is

Unlike hash oil, Sativex is a pharmaceutically controlled product. . .ie every dose of it contains precise amounts of specific cannabinoids.

You're right that there are big business interests that will push to have this be the only legal medical cannabinoid, but bluntly, the trend in the USA is going against it. If "recreational" cannabis is legal, then any particular formulation for medical purposes will also be legal.

If you're a doctor and you're going to "prescribe" a cannabinoid, do you want to prescribe some shaky hash oil made with lighter-grade butane in someone's garage, or are you going to prescribe the consistent pharmaceutical grade product made by a recognized drug company? For the good of your patients, I think the latter is the ONLY appropriate choice, assuming its functionally equivalent.

As a parallel to that, "if" Sativex is approved for domestic medical use in the USA (which may happen in the next few years) that will also open up the door to all sort of OTHER cannabinoid based pharmaceuticals too. So Sativex wouldn't be the "only game in town" for long.

 

[Kite High]

I think cannabis "can" be pollinated by insects, but unlike many plants it just doesn't "need" to be.


That's interesting. Do you have a source for this?

In Monsanto vs Schmeiser (which is the famous test case of this), the defendant Schmeiser could produce no evidence that his growing Monstanto's GMO canola was accidental, and in fact, just the opposite was true. . .he deliberately selected their Roundup resistant canola for growth on his own farm and fully admitted doing so and propagating multiple generations of ceeds from these strains.

He claimed that since the original genetic material was blown onto his farm, he owned it and could use it as he pleased.

Monsanto disagreed, saying that they didn't care if some of his plants made GMO ceeds because of wind pollination, but that didn't give him the right to isolate that trait and create his own line using their patented genes (which is, by his own admission, is what he did). The Canadian judge sided with Monsanto, saying that the patent protected the gene in question, regardless of how the farmer obtained it.

Whether or not that "should" be the case is debatable, but I think its not a "crazy" decision inconsistent with patent law.

I'll try to dig it up...most were offered to contract to monsatan to buy their seed solely and the suits dropped upon that criteria

There are no sugars or nectar to attract pollinaters so they wont bother...that and the attraction colors are not correct for them to notice cannabis

 

[Jogro]

http://www.gwpharm.com/cultivation.aspx

That's EXTREMELY interesting.

So GW has complete genetic control over plant cannabinoids and can create any strain it likes to create cannabinoids in any ratio it likes.

This is fawesome.

Its probably cost them millions of dollars and years of research to do that. Why *shouldn't* they have a patent on any lines they've created this way? Good for them.

So long as the patent is properly limited to 20 years (or some other reasonable time period) I don't have a problem with this at all.

 

[Kite High]

Please explain to me how the Feds can possibly know which genetics I'm growing.
I'd really like to hear this.


I said "chattel slavery" (look it up) was illegal.
I didn't say it doesn't exist.



Unlike hash oil, Sativex is a pharmaceutically controlled product. . .ie every dose of it contains precise amounts of specific cannabinoids.

You're right that there are big business interests that will push to have this be the only legal medical cannabinoid, but bluntly, the trend in the USA is going against it. If "recreational" cannabis is legal, then any particular formulation for medical purposes will also be legal.

If you're a doctor and you're going to "prescribe" a cannabinoid, do you want to prescribe some shaky hash oil made with lighter-grade butane in someone's garage, or are you going to prescribe the consistent pharmaceutical grade product made by a recognized drug company? For the good of your patients, I think the latter is the ONLY appropriate choice, assuming its functionally equivalent.

As a parallel to that, "if" Sativex is approved for domestic medical use in the USA (which may happen in the next few years) that will also open up the door to all sort of OTHER cannabinoid based pharmaceuticals too. So Sativex wouldn't be the "only game in town" for long.

First the FEDS dont care what the dna is...MJ CULTIVATION IS A FED FELONY..you only need its presence regardless of strain

GW will be king for 20 years

Sativex looking to be approved THIS YEAR...they have been being "investigated " in the application process by the FDA for years now...FDA stated approval "likely "

Du Pont and Freon changing was nothing to do with fluorocarbons but rather the patent on r22 ran out..Now the new patented version is the ONLY one ..so GW could pull the same bs and keep the monopoly

This is the reason the FED wont change mj laws and they dont give a fuck about the state laws you know