Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sequencing the Weed Genome

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the department-of..-wait-no..-i'm-hungry dept.

Biotech 315

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.'"

cancel ×

315 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158424)

I fucking hate potheads. Somebody needs to make a version of weed that causes cancer.

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158430)

Somebody needs to make a version of weed that causes cancer

They have that. It's called tobacco.

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158434)

They do, it's called alcohol and tobacco.

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158436)

I fucking hate potheads. Somebody needs to make a version of weed that causes cancer.

Go fuck yourself and stay the hell out of other peoples business you cunt.

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA (1, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 3 years ago | (#37158446)

You girlfriend sucked my dick for an oxycontin and two vicodins.

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158480)

I think someone forgot to post anonymously. :p

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA (1)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | about 3 years ago | (#37158782)

No some people don't really care if they are known or not. They regard the ./ community as a huge army of mindless marching morons, spreading the cause of global warming, advanced faggotry, and gun control to the far reaches of the universe. To them your opinion really doesn't matter, and they are more that happy to insult you using their real fake online 'super secret' handles. This is only slash-dot, and who really gives a fuck.

I used to try and have reasonable discussions, but that didn't work, so now I just use my time to call you all a bunch of faggots. It is therapeutic.

-Ohh. Yea; I almost forgot. You are a fag!

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 3 years ago | (#37159004)

You know, I never really understood why "fag" is supposed to be an insult. I have known plenty of gay men and women and you know what? they have nicer clothes, nicer cars, better jobs, and live in nicer neighborhoods than straight folks. So what you are basically saying is "I hope you dress well and have a good job with lots of money in a nice area, so there!" it really doesn't make much sense. Douchenozzle, shitstain, hell even halo player would probably be better insults.

As for TFA and the asshole that hoped people who smoke pot get cancer? Please kill yourself. this is not a joke, the world would be a better place without you. Suck the barrel of a gun, get a rope, buy a razor, kill yourself.

Alcohol causes more deaths in a single month than pot has EVER. Alcohol causes more misery, more illness, more suffering than all the other drugs combined frankly. As part of the nearly extinct breed known as a conservative socialist whatever you do in your home? None of my damned business and frankly shouldn't be any of the state's business either.

I don't care what God you believe in, what you put in your body, whom you share your body with (or even if you choose to sell it) frankly it should be none of the government's business as long as you are over 18 and not forcing anyone else. I only hope the endless greed of both the Ds and Rs will give us the legalization of what is commonly known as "sin" crimes even if it is only so they can tax and spend on their pet projects. Then maybe we can grow the fuck up and stop treating adults like 3 years olds that need mommy government to spank them.

Oh and before someone pops up with "what about health insurance!" I'll tell you what: I'll happily sign a contract that the government pisses off and takes away the taxes on my cigarettes or anything else I put in my body and if i get cancer the ONLY treatment i'll get is morphine which is cheap, kay? But we know that won't happen because just as we have seen with social security, the tobacco settlements, and every other dime that was supposed to ONLY go for X the second the politicos get their hands on it they are blowing it on anything and everything.

I believe everyone should have a roof over their head, food in their belly, clothes on their back, and free or low cost medical care, but I'm also a realist. How many wanna bet that if Obama gets that mandatory insurance bit passed the congress will blow that money on bridges to nowhere?

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158828)

lol yup.. but it could have been a great blowjob? just saying...

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA (2)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 3 years ago | (#37158724)

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

Re:420 HEY BRO ARE MY EYES RED? HEEAHAHEHAHA (1)

WorBlux (1751716) | about 3 years ago | (#37158902)

However cannaboids themselves are implicating as reducing cancer risks, while nicotine is implicated in the sort of genetic damage that can lead to cancer. It also greatly compound the damage Radon or asbestos can do.

What about cannabis inidica? (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 3 years ago | (#37158444)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158486)

have someone syntheses it from THC via carboxylation

Re:What about cannabis inidica? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158520)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158684)

Source for D.C. sewer testing?

Re:What about cannabis inidica? (0)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | about 3 years ago | (#37158802)

His pot-addled brain.

Re:What about cannabis inidica? (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 3 years ago | (#37158872)

Would love to have a link for the sewage comment.

Yes. THC is the heavy paranoid high part. Cannabinoids are the happy laughing part.

They had a cool special on BBC which had a reporter spending 30 days in Amsterdam and you got to see both. She couldn't stop laughing on the Can. But the heavy THC weed- she felt bad and went to sleep for the day.

Re:What about cannabis inidica? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158594)

Don't forget that it's a very effective treatment for sobriety!

What about cannabis synthetica? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158710)

once cannabis can be re-engineered for maximum potency, it can become the new self-perpetuating crack

Re:What about cannabis inidica? (0)

mr100percent (57156) | about 3 years ago | (#37158712)

We already have more effective stuff more useful for glaucoma (over a dozen brands of eye drops), arthritis (NSAIDs), and the other muscular and immune problems. Cannabis is popular only because of the high, not its supposedly "medicinal" qualities. If that were otherwise, you'd see everyone on Malarone (which is a purified THC pill)

Re:What about cannabis inidica? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158734)

Totally ignorant and assuming.

Cannabis is popular among legitimate medicinal users because of it being natural and effective.

Re:What about cannabis inidica? (1)

sessamoid (165542) | about 3 years ago | (#37158738)

And incredibly easy and cheap to cultivate. None of the Rx eyedrops for glaucoma are cheap. Actually, almost no Rx eye drops are cheap for anything.

Re:What about cannabis inidica? (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 3 years ago | (#37158916)

None of the Rx eyedrops for glaucoma are cheap.

Or nearly as effective, for that matter.

Re:What about cannabis inidica? (1)

mr100percent (57156) | about 3 years ago | (#37159036)

Can you please show me some peer-reviewed scientific studies of the subject to prove your claim? Studies have shown a reduction of IOP in glaucoma patients who smoke cannabis, but the effects are generally short-lived. Since it can also decrease blood flow to the optic nerve (causing a potential worsening of the condition), it's not recommended by physicians when eye drops are such low-risk. Ask any licensed pharmacist or doctor.

Re:What about cannabis inidica? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37159058)

Natural? There are no FDA-approved medications that are smoked. For one thing, smoking is generally a poor way to deliver medicine. It is difficult to administer safe, regulated dosages of medicines in smoked form. Secondly, the harmful chemicals and carcinogens that are byproducts of smoking create entirely new health problems. There are four times the level of tar in a marijuana cigarette, for example, than in a tobacco cigarette.

Re:What about cannabis inidica? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158864)

Malarone is an anti-malarial drug.While it really messed up my sleep while I was on it, it most definitely did not produce any of the effects that I associate with THC.

Re:What about cannabis inidica? (1)

mr100percent (57156) | about 3 years ago | (#37159038)

whoops, I meant to say Marinol (Dronabinol).

Re:What about cannabis inidica? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158938)

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? (5, Informative)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 3 years ago | (#37158966)

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? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37159026)

I take it you've got a medical degree, otherwise complaining about folks spreading their ignorance would be rich with irony.

If it really is as you say, then provide some sort of citation. The US is hardly the entire world, and if that's really the case then surely there's studies out of Europe that show that you're not full of it.

Somebody's going to combine this (2)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 3 years ago | (#37158454)

with the Opera gestures [opera.com] .

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

Boss coming? Minimize: down and then left.

Bad pun (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | about 3 years ago | (#37158458)

DNA sequencing hit a new high last night ...

I don't like it.

Re:Bad pun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158830)

I actually laughed because you pointed it out (didn't even read the summary).

Re:Bad pun (0)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 3 years ago | (#37158968)

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.

Now all we need is... (2, Insightful)

jonwil (467024) | about 3 years ago | (#37158460)

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... (1)

Kid Zero (4866) | about 3 years ago | (#37158474)

Great way to mess up the food system there.

Re:Now all we need is... (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 3 years ago | (#37158614)

Sorry, Monsanto has you beat to the whole destroying the food system thing.

Re:Now all we need is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158704)

Yeah, all that wild corn is majorly f*cked up now.

Re:Now all we need is... (1)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | about 3 years ago | (#37158718)

Yeah, those Bt crops needing less pesticides & containing less mycotoxins and those Ht crops needing less soil eroding & environment damaging tillage both giving higher yields are just sooooo terrible.

But in seriousness, the issue of putting a biologically active compound in a genetically modified food crop could be done reasonably safely, to a point. It just depends on the crop. If you use something that is propagated sexually and is known for outcrossing, like corn, that would be a pretty bad idea (part of the reason why, despite being as pro-GMO as they come, I have some real reservations about the so-called pharma crops that involve getting pharmaceuticals from grains). However, if you used something like a potato or a tree fruit, where propagation is virtually without exception asexual (and IIRC potatoes tend to be inbreeders like the related tomato anyway), then your chances of crossing are slim at best. Of course, it then becomes an issue of making sure it doesn't get mixed in with the rest of the potatoes or fruits. Of course, even if you did do it, then they'd just ban anything producing the THC, and all your research effort would be for nothing. All in all, it would be a lot better to just repeal the asinine prohibition bullshit.

Re:Now all we need is... (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 3 years ago | (#37158866)

The point is, if the genetic engineering is done right, it becomes impossible to find the "bad" plants unless they go around to every producer in the nation and test samples (and for that matter test every imported shipment too)

That or completly ban whatever crop has had the weed genes added to it

Re:Now all we need is... (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 3 years ago | (#37158986)

Yeah, those Bt crops needing less pesticides & containing less mycotoxins and those Ht crops needing less soil eroding & environment damaging tillage both giving higher yields are just sooooo terrible.

Yes they are, because higher yield is a myth and the plants are killing insects indiscriminately (see honeybees). Also, familiarize yourself with terminator gene [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Now all we need is... (2)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37159040)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158476)

Yeah and all laws are consistently applied today...

Re:Now all we need is... (1)

jamesh (87723) | about 3 years ago | (#37158934)

Yeah and all laws are consistently applied today...

That's the point. Once you contaminate every corn crop with this stuff, nobody will care anymore.

Re:Now all we need is... (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 3 years ago | (#37158982)

Quite the opposite - once it's figured out who's behind it the penalty will be hard. And I would hate to have permanent potheads around on the roads. There are enough stupid people on the roads these days, and we don't need them to be stoned stupid.

Re:Now all we need is... (5, Funny)

dzr0001 (1053034) | about 3 years ago | (#37158478)

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

Re:Now all we need is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158706)

OMG fucking genius! THIS MUST BE DONE FUCKING ASAP!!! or not asap, but FUCKING NOW!!!!!!

Re:Now all we need is... (1)

earls (1367951) | about 3 years ago | (#37158766)

"Back in my day, we had to smoke the weed then eat the Cheetos! IN THE SNOW!!"

Re:Now all we need is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158812)

I highly am intrigued by your plan, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

*insidious feedback loop detected!*
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"
When 'in excess' is a good starting point. (I learned from example from Keith Richards, and Iggy Pop!-)

Re:Now all we need is... (2)

FiloEleven (602040) | about 3 years ago | (#37158980)

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

With one stoner?

Re:Now all we need is... (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | about 3 years ago | (#37158488)

Too complex. They need to make algae that acts like weed. So you still get the same delivery methods, but growing it becomes a lot simpler. Go down to the pond, or use a 2L bottle in the windowsill. Not to mention that instead of a 50-80 day growing cycle you shorten it to under a week.

Re:Now all we need is... (4, Insightful)

Angry Toad (314562) | about 3 years ago | (#37158700)

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... (1)

milkmage (795746) | about 3 years ago | (#37158502)

HIGH fructose corn syrup
(sorry)

Re:Now all we need is... (1)

mikelieman (35628) | about 3 years ago | (#37158506)

Ok Blofeld, we'll get right on that...

Re:Now all we need is... (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | about 3 years ago | (#37158512)

How about adding THC to actual, native weeds? Make it so everyone in the whole city has some hallucinogenic plant growing in their backyard, whether they want it or not.

In any case, being impossible to adequately enforce hasn't stopped them from trying so far.

Re:Now all we need is... (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#37158652)

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

Obligatory, it seems... (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 3 years ago | (#37158852)

I just can't help myself.
Ontopic (sort of), and funny, IMHO.

Real, or not, still funny. [youtube.com]

Re:Now all we need is... (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 3 years ago | (#37158932)

How about adding THC to actual, native weeds?

Weeds, hell. Add it to lawn grass, and make it aggressive, so it takes over the lawn in no time. :)

"Leroy, what'choo doin' out there?"

"Mowin' the lawn, ma!"

"Agin????"

"Needs mowin', ma. Really, really needs mowin. Could you make me a snack?"

Re:Now all we need is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158524)

I think you under estimate the wastefulness and the stupidity of cops.

Re:Now all we need is... (1)

swinefc (91418) | about 3 years ago | (#37158540)

Isn't this Kassa from Stargate?

aka Evil Orville Redenbacher

Get all the population jonesing for space corn.

Re:Now all we need is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158562)

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.

That would be a good use of GM crops instead of just making GM crops that are resistant to roundup.

Re:Now all we need is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158648)

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.

That would be a good use of GM crops instead of just making GM crops that are resistant to roundup.

resistant = laced with

sorry had to make the correction

Re:Now all we need is... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 3 years ago | (#37158636)

Or just tweak a flu virus to inject the gene into your body, so that you get the flu and are perpetually high ever after. Cut out the middle man.

Or even better (1)

aepervius (535155) | about 3 years ago | (#37158642)

Add it to yeast. Houblon or Sugar + Yeats = Mari jeanne. And you don't need a field.

Re:Now all we need is... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#37158656)

Pfft. I will not be satisfied until genetic engineers produce psychoactive, smokeable DEA agents!

Re:Now all we need is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158668)

What a pipe dream! Are you still considering 1800's technology..

"No way for the cops to detect it... LMFAO

Re:Now all we need is... (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 3 years ago | (#37158834)

The cops would be unable to detect the difference between regular corn and weed corn without analysis of the plants somehow (either by taking it to the lab or by using portable kit) because regular corn and weed corn would look the same to the naked eye.

Means they cant simply fly in their helicoptors all over the place looking for plants like they do now.

Re:Now all we need is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158832)

the assholes of the world will still require you to take a piss test before they hire you...

The "legend" of Nanofsky's trippy oranges (2)

Gopal.V (532678) | about 3 years ago | (#37158842)

This is stuff of urban legends - Nanofsky's trippy oranges [fleeb.com] .

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

Re:The "legend" of Nanofsky's trippy oranges (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37159056)

Hemp cloth isn't banned nor has it ever been banned. I know this because I can go to the local mall and buy items that are made with hemp without having to use code words and the package itself says that it's made from hemp.

Now, if you're talking about cultivation, that's a completely different matter. Either way, you shouldn't be spreading that sort of misinformation.

Mmmmm, corn (1)

cultiv8 (1660093) | about 3 years ago | (#37158900)

French fries would be better.

Re:Now all we need is... (4, Informative)

fhic (214533) | about 3 years ago | (#37159008)

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... (2)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 3 years ago | (#37159060)

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...

Undesirable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158470)

Right, because what humanity really needs right now is the ability for the next generation to get high, whenever they want, from birth. It'd be like masturbation, but only this time it would actually affect brain development and social ability. In any case, I didn't see anything in the primary article relating to a connection between some sort of kinesthetic macro-action and THC release, so I don't see why it's included in the summary. Yay for decriminalization, but at least with smoking it there's some sort of limitation relating to resource production and regularity of use.

Don't tell me (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158596)

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.

Re:Undesirable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158654)

Right, because what humanity really needs right now is the ability for the next generation to get high, whenever they want, from birth. It'd be like masturbation....

I was circumcised at birth you insensitive clod.

Re:Undesirable. (1)

earls (1367951) | about 3 years ago | (#37158920)

Good thing, otherwise your social ability would be affected.

Re:Undesirable. (1)

gearloos (816828) | about 3 years ago | (#37158780)

But Dude! think of all the cheesy poofs they'll sell!

why is this on here? (-1, Offtopic)

ThorGod (456163) | about 3 years ago | (#37158482)

I'm not reading "high times", I'd rather not see this sort of junk.

Re:why is this on here? (1)

ferrisoxide.com (1935296) | about 3 years ago | (#37158538)

Umm.. science?

Re:why is this on here? (2)

wadeal (884828) | about 3 years ago | (#37158568)

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:why is this on here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158574)

I'm not reading "high times", I'd rather not see this sort of junk.

I'm sorry, did this story get caught on your hang-ups?

Re:why is this on here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158740)

I don't mind the story; it's interesting, and THC can have some beneficial medicinal properties.

Now, some of the comments are irritating and juvenile... kind of like high-schoolers talking about beer. Those can be ignored, though.

Re:why is this on here? (1, Insightful)

Nyder (754090) | about 3 years ago | (#37158640)

I'm not reading "high times", I'd rather not see this sort of junk.

Then grow some thick skin and ignore it.

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 this. It's science and it's news.

Oh, and oddly enough, a lot of people smoke weed and don't see any problems with it. I know that hurts ya, but deal with it.

Re:why is this on here? (2)

artor3 (1344997) | about 3 years ago | (#37158944)

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:why is this on here? (1)

gearloos (816828) | about 3 years ago | (#37158778)

I'm sorry, I didn't notice I was reading slashdot , Thorgod edition. dam where was I....

Hey man, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158504)

Is Dave there?

Re:Hey man, (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 3 years ago | (#37158752)

You were stoned when you heard it, so it's not your fault.

Re:Hey man, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158758)

Dave's not here, man...

Re:Hey man, (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 3 years ago | (#37158950)

...Dave?

War on Genes (1)

subreality (157447) | about 3 years ago | (#37158646)

Unfortunately, I foresee a new kind of prohibition. How long before the US Congress legislates to make a gene illegal?

Does this mean Kona Gold and Maui Wowee is bk? (1)

gearloos (816828) | about 3 years ago | (#37158770)

Does this mean Kona Gold and Maui Wowee is bk? Cool Bro, sign me up!

Just to check (1)

John Allsup (987) | about 3 years ago | (#37158850)

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.

Re:Just to check (2)

WorBlux (1751716) | about 3 years ago | (#37158956)

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 (5, Informative)

jamesh (87723) | about 3 years ago | (#37158992)

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.

I wonder if this will catch on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158884)

4:20 was four and a half hours ago, man. it's almost 8:21...roll another one!

Bitcoin Pyramid! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37158952)

Pretty damn anonymous too...

http://bitcoinpyramid.com/r/472

Clone Humphrey Bogart while you're at it. (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 3 years ago | (#37158976)

Then he can Bogart the weed with out actually bogarting the weed.

real smokers (1)

Maegashira (738950) | about 3 years ago | (#37159010)

I want to inform you that all the real smokers already know that Nate Dogg was passing nuthin but dope indeed.

hopey changey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37159032)

could this be a "gateway" to the falsely promised "science over ideology?"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>