Marinol

[rangrz]

See here is the problem, you need to become more informed... If you think there is still genes to explore in the drug gene pool, then youre a newb.

So I take that to mean, we have a complete and accurate genomic sequence for the plant, with a full understanding of what each gene does, at a molecular level? Well, there are some genomes, Harm van Bakel et al released a genome sequence in 2011, and there are few others.

The gene pool is finite. It is not HUGE AND IMMENSE, rather it is comparitively SMALL against the genetic diversity of many other species in this world.

According to our friends above, it has about 30,000 coding genes, making it appreciably larger then the human genome. On diversity they noted "However, single nucleotide variant analysis uncovered a relatively high level of variation among four cannabis types" According to work by a private research group "Medicinal Genomics" of Mass. USA, the variance between two strains was 1% or roughly 10 times that found between different populations of humans. Not a particularly small genome, nor all that bottle necked. But I am guessing a cutting edge molecular biologist, or perhaps a geneticist, like yourself was already aware of this work, seeing as you claim to be a specialist in cannabis genetics, I trust you read the literature when it was published.

I understand gene dominance and phenotype just fine. Do you understand that the new phenotypes that arise in F2 did not arise because of NEW GENES? You are not producing new GENES

Then I should not need to mention co-dominance, variable penetrance,pleiotropism and epistasis? You are actually familiar with the idea of "new" genes I hope. You know.. mutations. Case in point, Harm Van Bakel, et al found that at some point a "new" gene occurred due to artificial selection which changed the ancestral hemp into cannabis, namely: in Cannabis, THC is the result of an enzyme called "Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase" which appears to have mutated from "cannabidiolic acid synthase". More generally, I trust you, with your keen interest in these matters, are familiar with Richard. Lenski at U Michigan, showing complete evolution of new genes in E.Coli strains. Again, I would not need to remind you of why E.Coli are relevant to Cannabis.

Modern breeders AS A WHOLE need to get over this idea that they CAN produce ACTUAL SEEDLINE IMPROVEMENTS with their poor methods when they simply cannot.
Basically, (again) What it comes down to is this: You dont have enough resources -in seed form and in legality-, nor the requisite breeding facilities open acreage, plus other
controlled environments) to even MAINTAIN germplasm properly, let alone improve it.

Really? There seems to plenty of chance for drug research with controlled substances. Seeing as the Federal Government here contracts a company to grow it, I don't see legality with requisite licenses being a phenomenal challenge. Aside from standard breeding, there is induced mutagenesis. One can use ionizing radiation to a VERY large number of seeds and select for those that seem interesting. [Just like how pink grapefruit was made!] Let alone the newer work with recombinant DNA technology, including the obvious ability to make transgenic organisms.

nor does it reflect the historic use of indigenous cannabis by indigenous peoples.

That is an appeal to tradition, generally considered a logical fallacy. It has no genuine relevance to the question of "Can modern and systemic research be useful re: Cannabis as medicine"

But to go from that to claiming that this breeding was actually inventing, and that it was done by scientists instead of cannabis-growers, is a bit too much.

Science is not about INVENTING, that is more applicable to engineering. Science is attempts to understand the physical world, using the general guidelines of the scientific method, with an emphasis on methodological naturalism, and formulating TESTABLE hypothesis and predictions about that area. A "Cannabis grower" who uses rigorous and logical methodology is still a scientist. A professional scientist however, maybe have access to resources not widely available and hence can generally contribute significantly to a field.

May I ask why a scholar such as your self took to such handsome use of ad hominem attacks in your reply?

 

[Artificial Emotion]

The DEA love marinol, it's their 'solution' to the medical cannabis issue. But they don't realize they're actually shooting themselves in the foot because they're essentially tacitly admitting cannabis has medical value. I mean of all the substances they could have used, why would they take the main psychoactive cannabinoid present in cannabis, delta-9-THC? Why would uncle sam go to such trouble to move this THC drug down to schedule 3 when they're hell bent on suppressing, discrediting and dismissing all research into medical cannabis?

As for it being recreational, well not really in my opinion. Not if you enjoy being anxious, paranoid and generally feeling awful, but then again there are those that say they get high on things like trazadone so who knows. Likewise for medical purposes it's pretty useless compared to the real thing. It takes hours to kick in and when it does the effects are often to powerful and very unpleasant. Add to that the cost and the fact it often doesn't do what it says on the tin and you'll understand why it's such a joke.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

So I take that to mean, we have a complete and accurate genomic sequence for the plant, with a full understanding of what each gene does, at a molecular level? Well, there are some genomes, Harm van Bakel et al released a genome sequence in 2011, and there are few others.


According to our friends above, it has about 30,000 coding genes, making it appreciably larger then the human genome. On diversity they noted "However, single nucleotide variant analysis uncovered a relatively high level of variation among four cannabis types" According to work by a private research group "Medicinal Genomics" of Mass. USA, the variance between two strains was 1% or roughly 10 times that found between different populations of humans. Not a particularly small genome, nor all that bottle necked. But I am guessing a cutting edge molecular biologist, or perhaps a geneticist, like yourself was already aware of this work, seeing as you claim to be a specialist in cannabis genetics, I trust you read the literature when it was published.


Then I should not need to mention co-dominance, variable penetrance,pleiotropism and epistasis? You are actually familiar with the idea of "new" genes I hope. You know.. mutations. Case in point, Harm Van Bakel, et al found that at some point a "new" gene occurred due to artificial selection which changed the ancestral hemp into cannabis, namely: in Cannabis, THC is the result of an enzyme called "Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase" which appears to have mutated from "cannabidiolic acid synthase". More generally, I trust you, with your keen interest in these matters, are familiar with Richard. Lenski at U Michigan, showing complete evolution of new genes in E.Coli strains. Again, I would not need to remind you of why E.Coli are relevant to Cannabis.

Really? There seems to plenty of chance for drug research with controlled substances. Seeing as the Federal Government here contracts a company to grow it, I don't see legality with requisite licenses being a phenomenal challenge. Aside from standard breeding, there is induced mutagenesis. One can use ionizing radiation to a VERY large number of seeds and select for those that seem interesting. [Just like how pink grapefruit was made!] Let alone the newer work with recombinant DNA technology, including the obvious ability to make transgenic organisms.


That is an appeal to tradition, generally considered a logical fallacy. It has no genuine relevance to the question of "Can modern and systemic research be useful re: Cannabis as medicine"


Science is not about INVENTING, that is more applicable to engineering. Science is attempts to understand the physical world, using the general guidelines of the scientific method, with an emphasis on methodological naturalism, and formulating TESTABLE hypothesis and predictions about that area. A "Cannabis grower" who uses rigorous and logical methodology is still a scientist. A professional scientist however, maybe have access to resources not widely available and hence can generally contribute significantly to a field.

May I ask why a scholar such as your self took to such handsome use of ad hominem attacks in your reply?

Best post I've seen in a while. Wish we had more people like you around.

 

[THC2LSD]

I always hear how marinol sucks or isn't recreational. But with no tolerance 5mg generic marinol bit open and held under the tongue gave me a pleasant buzz in 30 minutes. I was surprised how good it was, a lot like weed. My only beef is how the government requires that synthetic, rather than extracted THC, has to be used. It drives the price way up. It'd be cheaper to just buy weed at taxed black market prices.

What happened to the petition to allow extracted THC without sesame seed oil?A lot of generic manufactures wanted to just use weed in regular pills.

 

[Rawket]

wrong

Wickedflames- maroinol is a prescription medicine prescribed simply to help users trying to get off thier marijuana use. i know it sounds rediculous, but some people actually need help quitting pot. well, that's what this pill is for. they still get a little thc in thier system, just enough so they get some effects, and don't feel the need to smoke.

hope that helps.

No, it's for cancer patience going through chemo and for HIV patience and also to increase appetite. It definitely gets you high because I've done them before. You dont get high the first time you have to take them a day or two in a row before you get high from them and then when you do it's a good 6-8 hour high just like smoking really good weed.

 

[Rawket]

I have taken marinol and they are usually 50 cents to a dollar and 4 will get you high for a whole day if they're the 10 mg ones, I've got some 5mg one's now I'm see how they do. People they say it doesn't get you high or that maybe it does but you might not be able to tell cause it's so subtle is either lying or just plain stupid. Now I will say if you take them and it's your first time you may not feel anything at all, but if you take them regular for about 3 days, that is when you start getting the full effects of it and IT IS A REALLY GOOD high, no anxiety or any of that other nonsense. I know, I've done it, those are the answers.

 

[Uncadollas]

I've taken them. Kind of like an edible. Way to expensive and not covered by insurance usually. It's pure THC, no Cannabinoids.8)