The International Cannabis Sativa Society

  • Thread starter Thread starter JessE
  • Start date Start date
Panacea said:
Whoa, if Monsanto really have taken legal actions against growers who had their crops pollinated (polluted!) by their (Monsanto's) strains, it's obviously a huge scandal or maybe I should say immoral action. Can you (or someone else) please give some source to that? I really want to read more about the matter. I knew Monsato's evil, but that openly? I don't mistrust you (haven't read enough posts by you yet to determine wether you're trustworthy or not.) ;) (I've been lurking around here now and then for a couple of years maybe but I'm a newly registered member.)

Anyways, I find it hard to see how they could take legal actions towards smalltime growers who don't (atleast not openly) sell their product.
They would probobly take action against growers who sell their product though.
Click to expand...

This is the case that set the precendent for Monsanto to shut down small farmers all across the country, by simply contaminating their fields with monsanto GMOs.


In Schmieser versus Monsanto, the small farmer was actually busted for growing his own seed in his own field, because it was cross pollinated by a patented monsanto strain from a neighboring field, owned by a different farmer. This is a timeline of the landmark case.

http://www.historycommons.org/timel...s_legal_actions=seeds_legalMonsantoVSchmeiser

Here is a wickapedia summary.

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
guys there are so many parrallels with sensi and wine. isn't this an avenue worth looking into. the past 30 years canada has instituted their own quality control system for wines called the vqa (vinters quality alliance), not unlike the french Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée (AOC) system. These are based on the concept on terroir or "the best grapes grow in the best places".Well without this system in place wineries could claim to be bourdeuax or burgundy and sell their products under the assumed quality of these areas.....well to tell ya the truth i only skimed the meat of the thread but this is what dawned on me (Granted i just smoked a bowl of some burmese from my bc mail order company:) not too much longer canada!!!!)
but yeah could it be possible to some how develop a quasi terroir /genetic systems, even taking into account dog breeding and breed certifacation....i remeber nevil mentioning something about dog breeding in relation to plant breeding....i dunno, food for though, what do you all think

sorry if i hijacked the thread in any direction....im sure we ALL know of the sativa thought spikes
damn i wrote a book lol

:P
 
Last edited:
That i was read here is very sad . I Hope we all can save real psychoactive cannabis who is alive from centuries . All the best , just keep breeding and makeing seeds in this way you dont need to buy .;)
 
Last edited:
+1

Count me in!

This was part of the BS which lead me to find the only place to be a long time ago! Not just because of the genetics but like minded folks who want to do something about it.

In search of land races & pure lines to fulfill what I missed, I accepted what was left for man kind to work with.

An idea came to me once & I called it Alexandria!

Call it whatever you want but it needs to EXIST!

I don't know how I can help but will be paying more attention & contributing all possible.

Great info by the way to all!
Good looking out Jesse!

-SD
 
Count me in on this..

Having taken a break then coming back after 2 years and seeing the state of the seed industry it is destroying to see for an old skwl med/stoner like me.
 
Hi all,
As we have previously discussed, Sam the Skunk Man (Dave watson) and his long time associate, R.C. Clarke, both significant figures in the marijuana industry, have a long history with GW Pharmaceuticals. Including, but not limited too, supplying some of the most fundamental strains in the cannabis industry to GW Pharmaceuticals who have previously discussed patenting," certain inventions throughout the growing, extraction and manufacturing process." A significant portion of today's modern gene pool can be traced to these exact strains supplied to GW Pharmaceuticals. With a quick glance at how other genetic patents in related agricultural industries have played out, chiefly Monsanto, the possibility of a very real problem is out on the horizon.

Below is a link on a related note, where GW Pharmaceuticals is allegedly tied into an attempt to patent a long standing cannabis based drink known as Bhang. This news in and of itself is quite troubling, and is exactly the precept behind the founding of The International Cannabis Sativa Society.


http://www.mrnice.nl/forum/3-daily-...oil-uk-firms-plan-patent-bhang.html#post97841



 
Hi all,
Below is an article which, if my memory serves me correctly, was originally posted here some time ago by another member. At the time it reminded me quite a bit of related discussion's on the subject and made me curious if the author was not a frequent observer at our forum? None the less, it outlines a story, though obviously tongue in cheek, which is frightening. The names and subject matter should sound vaguely familiar to some of you who have paid attention.

Subsidi-Farm Granted USDA Contract to Develop Seedless Pot
Posted on March 06, 2010.

Washington, D.C. – In what was hailed as a “good news, bad news” story today out of Washington, Subsidi-Farm, one of the nation’s largest agricultural companies, has been granted a federal contract to develop seedless, irradiated pot, which, among other things, will have a distinct yellow coloration to its leaves. Although seedless, the pot offers the same or better medicinal properties as that grown by private cultivators, due to the fact that all the plants processed will be female.


The good news is that the federal government is giving the green light to Subsidi-Farm to develop this particular strain of seedless marijuana for purposes of supplying it to government storehouses and eventually distributing it to the hundreds of marijuana dispensaries popping up in states that have passed legislation legalizing medical marijuana. The weed is said be far superior to any grown by private farms and remains completely safe for consumption by card-carrying medical marijuana users. In addition, the irradiation process ensures purity and total consistency without producing any long-term ill effects for its users.


The bad news for private cultivators is that this particular marijuana plant, known as SF-MM151, will become the only legal marijuana in the United States. The government reiterated that the plant will be strictly controlled. USDA is expected to hire and train several hundred cannabis specialists to regularly inspect medical marijuana dispensaries and “smoke houses” throughout the United States, with the sole purpose of confiscating any marijuana that does not bear the trademark Subsidi-Farm bright yellow hue.


http://glossynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Mellow-yellow.jpgMellow Yellow Marijuana


Medical marijuana dispensaries will be required to obtain both federal and state certification, akin to liquor licenses, in order to dispense the government pot. Licenses are expected to run in the tens of thousands of dollars; however, when compared to the enormous amount of revenues expected to be generated by medical marijuana dispensaries, the licensing fees should not create any protests.



Already, growers in California and Washington State are attempting to duplicate Subsidi-Farm’s patented plants, dubbed “mellow yellow,” but none have been successful. A Subsidi-Farm spokesperson told us that the process whereby ordinary pot such as California Bud or Maui Waui is irradiated and colored naturally involves a top-secret technology; it is virtually impossible to duplicate by even the most sophisticated pot growers.


What this means for the future of medical marijuana is that folks can stop fighting over their rights to use it. Smoke houses and marijuana cafes can stay open to dispense the product in an environment free from harassment by local police, providing, of course, they follow the strict FDA, DEA, USDA and local government guidelines for obtaining and dispensing mellow yellow from their storefronts. The distinct coloration of the pot will make it easy for agents to distinguish whether dispensary owners are trying to pass off artificially-colored pot for the irradiated Subsidi-Farm variety.


Some Republican congressmen, especially those in states that have laws legalizing medical marijuana, see this as an attempt by the Obama administration to use socialist methods to control yet another aspect of American life. Conversely, most Democrats see it as a logical step in the right direction: a solution to a problem that not only makes the majority of Americans happy but also lines the government’s pockets with much-needed regulatory revenues that can fund other social and educational programs hard hit by recent budget cuts.


President Obama is said to be quite proud of the fact that Subsidi-Farm and the U.S. Government can work together toward a well thought-out compromise on the medical marijuana issue, freeing state governments to focus their attention on more pressing matters, such as health care.
Click to expand...
http://glossynews.com/science-and-t...ranted-usda-contract-to-develop-seedless-pot/
 
JessE said:
A significant portion of today's modern gene pool can be traced to these exact strains supplied to GW Pharmaceuticals. With a quick glance at how other genetic patents in related agricultural industries have played out, chiefly Monsanto, the possibility of a very real problem is out on the horizon.
Click to expand...


You need to read up on patent law and undertstand the concept of prior use. There's simply no problem here as you lay it out. There's many other problems associated with GW Pharma, imo, but worrying about GW and patents for plants we already have in our possession, and have been using for decades is not one of them.


How exactly is the International Cannabis Sativa Society going to help with lawsuits against GW Pharmaceuticals or the like? Is the ICCS more than a concept at this point? Who, other than you JessE, is on board, and what have you done so far?

Respectfully,
-Chimera
 
re: subsifarm.... good luck on that one. I can't see courts excluding the cultivation of medicinally significant individuals from being grown. It certainly won't happen here in Canada.

1 variety or clonavar is simply not enough to fill the needs of medicinal cannabis users. The courts will side with the patients, if it ever comes to that.... I doubt it will.

-Chimera
 
Chimera said:
You need to read up on patent law and undertstand the concept of prior use.
Click to expand...
Hi Chimera :)
Thanks for stopping in. I was actually thinking of you earlier, trust that you are well? Would you care to cite the specific patent law you're referring too? I would be happy to discuss this subject, and would welcome others to join in and participate. Because this is something I believe the entire community needs to understand and be aware of.

Chimera said:
How exactly is the International Cannabis Sativa Society going to help with lawsuits against GW Pharmaceuticals or the like? Is the ICCS more than a concept at this point?
Click to expand...
That is a pretty simple question to answer, the ICCS is nothing more than a concept at this point. There is not enough support as of yet for anything to get off the ground. That may or may not change with the future, it is in the community's hands whether they want to stand up for the future of the plant. Without all of us coming together, as Shanti said, it could very well spell disaster later down the road.

Chimera said:
Who, other than you JessE, is on board, and what have you done so far?

Respectfully,
-Chimera
Click to expand...

As you likely may have read in the first post, Shantibaba had initially expressed the idea, and after some private discussion, it was suggested that I lead the way. After some deliberation, the very basic idea was formulated and what you see in this thread thus far is the culmination of those efforts. As previously touched on before, without support, who knows what the future brings? As for who else is on board, I hope every last one of you. You included Chimera.
 
Chimera said:
You need to read up on patent law and undertstand the concept of prior use. There's simply no problem here as you lay it out. There's many other problems associated with GW Pharma, imo, but worrying about GW and patents for plants we already have in our possession, and have been using for decades is not one of them.
Click to expand...
Chimera,
It has been said that, "money talks, and bullshit walks" in this world. And nowhere else is that more true than in the political world. As I have mentioned previously before, studying lobbyist such as Jack Abramoff and his efforts to make things happen in Washington, some of them which got him sent to prison, and others the majority do not even know about, opens up an entire world not initially seen from the perspective of the average Joe citizen.

I would presume you are not a lawyer Chimera, and not being one myself, we are honestly not particularly qualified to discuss patent law. But I can tell you that in the world of law, what you see written, is not always what it seems. A perfect example would the United States Constitution, known as the law of the land by some, a document the United States was founded on, and the basis for U.S law today. However just the first amendment in itself, commonly called the freedom of speech amendment, is not as obvious as it reads on the Constitution itself. By reading the words in the document, one would be under the impression you are free to say whatever you like in the United States. However, the United States Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. There are a number of exceptions to the freedom of speech amendment, which says enough right there.

So ultimately, law is a completely different language, which ultimately is based off the interpretations of those who enforce it. It is not uncommon in the United States for one court to to make a decision, and for it to be appealed to a higher court, where yet another decision is rendured based on the exact same evidence, facts and arguments from both sides. So there are a number of variables to consider in any debate concerning law. Sometimes even police officers get the law wrong, and it ultimately lays in the hands of the courts. And as you can see from above, it can go too a few different systems should the issue be pushed enough.

Below is a quote which outlines perhaps the basic reasoning behind the subject in question, however as the discussion may progress, there are plenty more reasons to fear genetic patent in the marijuana industry. And relying on assumptions, hopes and dreams is not going to make me sleep better at night. And none of you should allow this to occur either.

As you're all aware, Dave Watson is in fact Sam the Skunk Man.

Patent.jpg

Marijuana and medicine: assessing ... - Google Books
 
People who can establish prior use over a newly patented technology or life form are not able to be be pursued legally for its use. Patent law is long and complex, so people can check it out for themselves if they wish to.... I'm not interested in spoon-feeding. People can google it for themselves.

My point is that we're not in any danger of having GW or any pharma/agri firm from patenting cannabis and excluding us from using what we already have in our possession, and have established prior use of.

I've already started a DNA `fingerprint` database of clones and seedlines, that establishes prior use, in addition to a reference of authenticity for future use. When our license renewal comes in, I will be creating a suspension culture tissue database... a tissue culture library of all clones of medicinal or agricultural significance that are available. This is being done in a country where cannabis is cultivated legally and under license, so the chance of losing the library is extremely small.

We will likely allow registration of clonavars from other interested parties. Tissue donors will potentially be allowed to make 'withdrawals' from non-protected or proprietary genetics. This is all subject to the contracts that are being created to protect innovators and their genetic improvements.

-Chimera
 
JessE,

no I am not a lawyer, but did study patent law as it pertains to Plant Variety Patents, Plant Patents, and Utility patents at a post graduate level in university. Im also working with a patent lawyer in Canada`... so while I may not be an expert, Ì have what I would consider a pretty good working understanding of the limitations of a these types of patents as it applies to cannabis.

As youve laid it out before us with your previous posts, there is simply no threat from Hortipharm, GW Pharmaceuticals, Monsanto, or Sam Skunkman for the genetics we already have, and use, in our possession.

-Chimera
 
Chimera said:
People who can establish prior use over a newly patented technology or life form are not able to be be pursued legally for its use. Patent law is long and complex, so people can check it out for themselves if they wish to.... I'm not interested in spoon-feeding. People can google it for themselves.
Click to expand...

Hi Chimera :)
I have provided at least one example already to support my position, and honestly that is just the tip of the ice berg, as there is a great deal that has went into the ultimate driving force behind this idea. You had initially suggested that I read up on patent law, I was under the impression that perhaps you had a reason for saying so and could provide examples to support your position. Generally, when one takes an authoritative position, as you had initially, comments made with confidence are expected to be enforced with some kind of context behind them. If you change your mind, and are willing to elaborate further on your position, please do feel free to come back and discuss the subject. As this is not something I take lightly, and neither should you in my humble opinion. The future of the plant is a very serious topic.

Also, as you may have read in the initial post, there are a number of angles in which The International Cannabis Sativa Society will ultimately be geared into adopting surrounding the plant itself. From the seed makers, to the customers, there needs to be a regulatory system established that prevents abuses from one or more parties. Some of whom we may not even be able to fully understand yet, as things are changing at a very rapid pace in the cannabis world. We must be vigilant in pursuing forward, otherwise we could be left holding the ticket while the bus passes right on by.

Thanks for stopping in. :)
 
Last edited:
JessE said:
Hi Chimera :)
I have provided at least one example already to support my position, and honestly that is just the tip of the ice berg, as there is a great deal that has went into the ultimate driving force behind this idea.....
Click to expand...


I'm not seeing how the posts you've made support your position that we are in danger from pharmaceutical firms, Sam Skunkman, Monsanto et al.

Can you please clarify how your posts support your position?

-Chimera
 
Last edited:
Chimera said:
I'm not seeing how the posts you've made support your position that we are in danger from pharmaceutical firms, Sam Skunkman, Monsanto et al.

Can you please clarify how your posts support your position?

-Chimera
Click to expand...

Chimera,
Lets slow down, and start from the beginning. You initially have came to the thread and stated a position which you have been unable to defend thus far with any kind of legitimate sources. Once I demonstrated a link to support my position, which is honestly just the beginning of why I have mentioned patents, you are now attempting to circumvent the obvious.

Below are some vague comments from various sources, that when looked at in their totality, leaves one wondering exactly what Hortapharm and G.W Pharmaceuticals are contemplating.

As you mention above, you feel that we are not in danger from Pharmaceutical companies or Sam the Skunk Man. Do you think the comments below are akin to an invitation to the Christmas party?

"It looks like dope, but really it's hope," explains the proprietor, American entrepreneur David Watson. What he means is that many of these plants have been specifically bred not to produce an intoxicating resin or hashish. Indeed, HortaPharm hopes to thwart the aims of the average recreational user.
Click to expand...

Cannabis: a year that changed minds - News - The Independent

There is no question that GW plans to enforce its patents on Sativex, which is a precisely dosed medicine. Warns Guy: “To protect our extensive investment, we have sought to identify and patent certain inventions throughout the growing, extraction and manufacturing process. My comments to Mr. Lucas were made as a friendly and, hopefully, helpful gesture as I did not wish him to invest a great amount of effort into obtaining approval for a product as a prescription medicine only to find that he did not have the freedom to operate in the first place.”
Click to expand...

The Walrus » medical marijuana activist » Corporate Cannabis » medicine

As you can see, they do not elaborate on anything too far. But I am not liking the picture which is developing already, and I am only getting started. However this is a subject, which is broad in scope, and considering the fact much about the plant is unknown, including its future, due to the laws governing the plants existence, what tomorrow brings can be anyone's guess. But being prepared for any possible scenario, with a proper response plan and taking the correct kind of positions, will be key in any effort to head off whatever avenue ultimately develops.
 
Hi all,
Below is some more information, originally posted on the first page, which goes a long with the discussion at hand. Of particular note are the people involved, (Clarke of Hortapharm, a long time associate with Dave Watson aka Sam the Skunk Man). Quite alarming to see the date on this information below, and then actually seeing how both Clarke and Watson maneuvered in the '90s to put themselves into a position to carry through on their ideals.


Clarke (1981) wrote the following:

Does the slight recombination of a plant's genetic material by a breeder give him the right to own that organ- ism and its offspring? Despite public resistance voiced by conservation groups, the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 was passed and currently allows the patenting of 224 vegetable crops. New amendments could grant patent holders exclusive rights for 18 years to distribute, import, export and use for breeding purposes their newly developed strains. Similar conventions worldwide could further threaten genetic resources. Should patented varieties of Cannabis become reality it might be illegal to grow any strain other than a patented variety, especially for food or medicinal uses. Limitations could also be imposed such that only low-THC strains would be patentable. This could lead to restrictions on small-scale growing of Cannabis; commercial growers could not take the chance of stray pollinations from private plots harming a valuable seed crop. Proponents of plant patenting claim that patents will encourage the development of new varieties. In fact, patent laws encourage the spread of uniform strains devoid of the genetic diversity which allows improvements. Patent laws have also fostered intense competition between breeders and the suppression of research results which if made public could speed crop improvement. A handful of large corporations hold the vast majority of plant patents. These conditions will make it impossible for cultivators of native strains to compete with agribusiness and could lead to the further extinction of native strains now surviving on small farms in North America and Europe. (pg.4)


R.C Clarke (1981) wrote in Marijuana Botany: An Advanced Study:

At this time it seems unlikely that a plant patent would be awarded for a pure-breeding strain of drug Cannabis. In the future, however, with the legalization of cultivation, it is a certainty that corporations with the time, space, and money to produce pure and hybrid strains of Cannabis will apply for patents. Itmay be legal to grow only certain patented strains produced by large seed companies. Will this be how Government and industry combine to control the quality and quantity of "drug" Cannabis? (pg.38)


zone-gnostik.org
Click to expand...
And as I have previously mentioned, this is still only touching the very base of why I have included patents in the discussion. What if a patent was obtained for Skunk #1? Consider that the few strains of marijuana that have already been patented, did not appear out of the thin blue air. So where exactly did they come from? Do we know what their genetic make up is, and what plants they are based off of?

What if there is a chance there is a good reason Sam the Skunk Man has made such an issue about Skunk #1 being his creation? And has attempted to claim responsibility for so many more? Discussion's surrounding Sam's feelings of being compensated for Skunk # 1 are hardly a thing of secrecy. Consider his efforts with Hortapharm and G.W Pharmaceutical's for just for one split second. If you do not believe money is on their mind, I personally would beg to differ.

Originally posted by Sam_Skunkman
08-01-2008, 11:22 PM
If a person spends a lot of time money and energy creating intellectual property, like skunk #1 the first true breeding indica x sativa hybrid, a process that took years of seed searching in 3rd world countries, and then takes the time to find superior examples, then hybridizes them and makes them true breeding before release, a process that took years and years, you really think the work should not be protected? That anyone should be able to buy a package of skunk #1 and make their own skunk #1 seeds and sell them? That is sad…
Click to expand...
If they would attempt to patent bhang, what will they NOT attempt to patent? Do you think Sam the Skunk Man attempting to take credit for not only Skunk #1, but many other varieties, is all simply a case just to look good? Or is there perhaps quite a bit more behind his efforts to take credit for so much? As you see above, he uses the word protected, when we start to put the pieces together what picture is developing for you? Protected sounds an awful lot like a patent to me. And if a patent was obtained for Skunk #1, this would not be a good thing for anyone. And as I have pointed out with already pre-existing genetic patent cases, chiefly with Monsanto and their patented Round Up Ready varieties, that could get ugly fast. If farmers are being sued, who had their own crops, but which were accidentally or otherwise pollinated by Round ‘Up Ready strains, which are patented, what does this mean for our own industry? An industry heavily based off Skunk #1, perhaps the variety Skunk Man is most vocal about and which is quite plentiful in today’s market.

If we work off assumptions, hopes and dreams that these things may not happen, instead of heading them off out right, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot.

Chimera, I was hoping you would respond back. We do not have to discuss genetic patents if you do not like, though I am open to that discussion at any time. As you can see above, I have posted several reasons why I have mentioned patents, and some of my chief concerns. I would be most curious about your own worries about potential problems with in the industry as the future creeps ever closer.

For example, what are your stances on patient fee's for their medicine? Perhaps on a related note, should there be a standardized method of cultivation for which patients ultimately receive their wares? What role will cannabis seed breeders play in the future? How much should they be compensated? Should some companies receive more, than others? There is an infinite list of potential issues which would need to be addressed, and who are we going to allow to look out for our interest as cannabis enthusiast? The government, or those who cherish this plant the most? I do not think we are short on topics to cover, and from my position they are all very serious and need to be addressed. Simply over looking them is not going to make the issue(s) go away. Our industry is marching forward, but to the beat of whose drum?
 
Last edited:
Hi all,
As Shanti had mentioned, a union of seed producers, seed sellers, resellers etc. is a necessary step in acquiring, as Ive said before, a voice loud enough to be heard. The cannabis land scape is opening up in the United States, though interestingly in other parts of the world where cannabis was once more openly tolerated, things are on the decline. We all need common ground to stand on, and beneath all of our feet will be a carpet made up of marijuana. Despite everyone's directional arrow, the common thread with all involved is the plant.

One of many of my concerns, is the prominence of the Feminized Seed industry. Chiefly, the spreading of inter-sexed plants far and wide, which is posing a great threat to the genetic pool at large. For the last five to six years, the popularity of the Feminized Seed trend has grown tremendously. Imagine on any given day, how many orders for feminized seed have went through the mailboxes of Gypsy Nirvana? Dr. Chronic? These lines destined for the grow rooms of growers just like ourselves, all over the world. Lines which are well known to show intersexed traits, pollinate their siblings, and ultimately make its way to other growers who find the seed, perhaps even cherish it, and further perpetuate the cycle. Which is what I refer to as the bouncing effect, of how just once purchase of feminized seed could potentially enter the hands on many based off simple marijuana economics alone. Mulitply that by the thousands, tens of thousands of orders filled a year. From multiple companies? For over a decade? With the last few years, having the propaganda campaign really step up in marketing? I think the saturation of the worlds cannabis gene pool as already begun, with varieties which show inter-sexual proneness, and are exactly the opposite of what should be used in anything remotely resembling a responsible breeding program. Even on the most minute of scales, the use of intersexed/hermaphroditic varieties should not be something any of us condone.

Unfortunately, many of those who would be essential in accepting this fundamental ideology, are very happy to continue riding the economic wave the feminized seed trend has created. Some varieties, long available in common form, are no longer available in anything but the feminized form now. There are companies who cater only to the feminized crowd, and the prices are almost always more than that of the commonly bred counter part(s). An interestingly phenomena, when one considers there are many of us out there who would not allow a feminized variety into their grow rooms period. Yet others, are more than willing to pay extra-ordinary prices for seed which could very well ruin their sensi -dreams. People are so willing to pay the extra money, because they believe they are acquiring an all female product. With no male plants to weed through. On the surface, a wonderful marketing concept. But when one knows the prone ness of these lines to show intersexual/hermaphroditic tendencies, they start to appear anything but the best candidates for the job at hand. Going back to the "old school days" of selecting a fine mother plant, from great breeding stock, and propagating her a-sexually ad infinity starts to seem like a much better idea...

Only if the current trend continues, few will be offering a non feminized product. And all that will be available are plants which may or may not herm on you the first season, but their resulting off spring may later down the line. Thus, you will be reliant on those small handful of seed companies to acquire your seed year after year. Because you're dealing with plants that not only suffer from poor "breeding" techniques, that are inter-sexually prone, but which are also opening the door for inbreeding depression and genetic bottle necking down the line.

Many of the plants today that all of the consumers are after, are in fact Skunk #1, Northern Lights, Haze, White Widow, Hindu Kush etc. hybrids. That is, there are a very small handful of foundational building blocks in the cannabis industry that nearly all varieties are based off of in one form or another. If these varieties are only found in feminized form, as the trend we see today has already moved towards, growers will be forced to return to a small handful to acquire their needs season after season.

Irresponsible breeding practices should not be something anyone condones, and I would like to see a shift in the industry away from this practice and start to move towards a more responsible role in assuring the genetic fields of tomorrow. But the damage has already been done, and it will only continue to grow as the popularity of feminized seed moves forward and more and more of these varieties are perpetuated in clone form in mass to the medical dispensaries of the world, which in turn make their way to many growers, both medicinal and recreational users, and the problem only perpetuates further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top