Harmon Seaver wrote: <snip>
> > > Nope, wrong again -- well, partially right, but most of the > > >marijuana grown in north america these days is a hybred of cannabis > > >sativa and cannabis indica. > > > > Not a hybrid, just a cross. Cannabis indica and cannabis sativa are > > synonyms, the same plant according to different classification > > systems. > > I think there are plenty of botanists who would disagree with that. Some might. Some say the one is shorter than the other, they make minor distinctions. Most see the two names as synonyms, for instance James Duke: Cannabis sativa L. Syn.: Cannabis indica Lam. As Cannabis sativa has been cultivated for over 4,500 years for different purposes, many varieties and cultivars have been selected for specific purposes, as fiber, oil or narcotics. Drug-producing selections grow better and produce more drug in the tropics; oil and fiber producing plants thrive better in the temperate and subtropical areas. Many of the cultivars and varieties have been named as to the locality where it is grown mainly. However, all so called varieties freely interbreed and produce various combinations of the characters. The form of the plant and the yield of fiber from it vary according to climate and particular variety. Varieties cultivated particularly for their fibers have long stalks, branch very little, and yield only small quantities of seed. Varieties which are grown for the oil from their seed are short in height, mature early and produce large quantities of seed. Varieties grown for the drugs are short, much-branched with smaller dark-green leaves. Between these three main types of plants are numerous varieties which differ from the main one in height, extent of branching and other characteristics. - Handbook of Energy Crops, James A. Duke, 1983 Please note: "... all so called varieties freely interbreed and produce various combinations of the characters." What those who'd say they're different would not be able to do would be to draw a clear line of distinction through the existing varieties with all sativa on one side and all indicus on the other. They're crosses, not hybrids, hybrids don't breed, or don't breed true. > > >And a lot of it is pure indica. Forty years > > >ago it was all sativa, and that is the species native to this > > >hemisphere, but the problem was that the marijuana seeds (sativa) > > > > Marijuana is just the Mexican name for it, you can't differentiate > > between "marijuana" and "hemp", it's all cannabis. > > > > Sorry, I'm just using the term "hemp" as a shorthand for >"industrial hemp", and "pot" or "marijuana" to signify the stuff you >smoke. I'm well aware that marijuana is the Spanish term for it. Such shorthand doesn't lend any clarity amid confusion over whether or not they're different plants. <snip> > > > > Like Keith said, there is 0.3% THC in hemp fiber and the > > > > drug czar claimed on TV the other day that today's > > > > marijuana has up to 30%. > > > > That's right, industrial varieties have virtually zilch THC, and the > > latest psychoactive strains do get that high (sorry!). I think > > breeders in the US have achieved similar results to those in Holland > > and Europe, but I know less about the US. All the same species > > though, just different varieties, purpose-bred. > > > > > Well, I think he's full of BS, as usual, > > > > Oh really. That's a bit rich. My "BS" is here: > > http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/EdMat/SB681/whole2.html > > > > Hold on there Keith, I was talking about the drug czar, not you, >and, in fact, I'm saying exactly the same thing, there is no THC to >speak of in hemp. Depends on the "hemp". But in fact neither I nor, on this occasion at least, the drug czar was talking BS, today's marijuana does indeed have up to 30% THC. At least that - Dutch government investigations found 27% levels, and that was more than 10 years ago. Harmon: "Well, I think he's full of BS, as usual, more like a max of 13% with most being around 5-6%." That's 20 years out of date. >(snip) > > > There is no market for broadleaf, male or female. > > Maybe not where you live, I haven't investigated hemp, industrial or other, in Japan, though I know something of its traditional use here. I believe industrial hemp is licensed here. Organic farmers have told me quite a lot of people in the rural areas grow their own (they seem to disapprove). I know a few city folks who grow it on balconies and stuff, and I understand that they import the seeds, often from Holland. I'd be very surprised if they were backward about it, I doubt they'll be smoking a lot of broadleaf. >but I'll guarantee you that there's >plenty of people in the northern midwest who smoke mostly leaf. They >grow their own, outdoors, and it the season isn't long enough for it >to flower. Bit backward. If the season's long enough in Holland or Denmark, then they're not using the best variety where you are. Don't they select? Even if you're starting with an unsuitable variety for the climate, it's easy to adapt it. I mean, it's been more than 30 years now. Anyway, guys growing their own is not a market. <snip> > > > Or, as I suggested before, crank up your usenet newsreader and post > > >your theory to alt.drugs.pot.cultivation and see what kind of response > > >you'll get. > > > > Well, if they agree with you then they're way off base, and I don't > > think they are. Try telling your story in any Amsterdam cafe if you > > want to be a laughing stock. > > > ???? I guess I don't understand what you're arguing against here, >Keith. I was disputing Kris's statement that the male plant is hemp >and that the female plant is pot, i.e., that there is no THC in the >male plants, but all female plant, whether industrial hemp or no, get >you high. So are you saying he's right? No, he was wrong in his first post, but you were more wrong than he was in responding to his second post. You said it's a hybrid (not), you're wrong about the varieties, you're wrong about it not flowering in the northern US (both low- and high-THC cannabis will flower in the northern US, though southern cultivars won't), about the history of US crop development prior to Prohibition (and later, during WWII), about the success of modern breeding for THC, about content levels, the ref you gave was wrong about content levels, you're wrong about selling male plants (not for 20 years - only to a very backward market), about the types that grew "wild" (feral) in the US. Eg: > huge patch of 12-15 foot tall *female* cannabis plants -- and, they were > even in flower and had the huge buds like you see in the pictures now in > High Times. So, of course, thinking we were in hippy heaven, we dried If one type can flower, then so can any other type, once selected for local conditions. Almost certainly there will already be such locally adapted types to start with. > Hemp is hemp and pot is pot and male/female has absolutely nothing >to do with it. :-) It has a LOT to do with it, in both cases. And so on. <snip> > > Takes me back, I used to hear a lot of stuff like this in the 70s, > > loose talk. I think you need an updater Harmon. > > I doubt I need an updater at all. Harmon: "Where do you get the idea you "can't sell male plant for any price"? Back in the '60's when..." >If you want to argue that I'm >wrong because I differentiate between the non-thc stuff by calling it >hemp and the thc-bearing stuff by calling it pot or marijuana, well, >then excuse me. I'd say you're being a bit too argumentative. That's also a bit rich. Harmon: "Now here's where you are getting seriously silly, and I'm having a seriously hard time even following your logic." Anyway, never mind. Keith Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
