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

itsmehigh

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

itsmehigh

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

CalyxCrusher

Well-Known Member
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.
Agreed, except in the case of LPs.
 

CannaReview

Well-Known Member
yes but the cost is prohibitive to some. i think it's about $300 for testing
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.
 

dienowk

Well-Known Member
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......
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.
 

cannadan

Well-Known Member
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.
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
 

dienowk

Well-Known Member
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
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..
 

The Hippy

Well-Known Member
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.
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
 

dienowk

Well-Known Member
Ok, now that makes sense. Cannabis use in teens has been linked to cognitive defects in adolescent brains.
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.
 

itsmehigh

Well-Known Member
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.
 
Top