First Doobie yes it's called tounge in cheek ment to make folks relize it is not a weed[ weeds have no use] a veggie has no fruit or true seed pods. IT IS amedical herb.

"a veggie has no fruit or true seed pods"

Well, this gets right to the heart of the question of prohibition---who gets to define what is what?

vegetable (n.)
mid-15c., originally any plant, from vegetable (adj.); specific sense of "plant cultivated for food, edible herb or root" is first recorded 1767.

Vegetables are plants. All plants are good, as far as I am aware. It is a modern corruption that we think of vegetables as only those cultivated for food, edible herbs and roots.

The sort of definition you're using, it is the sort of thing a University professor puts on a test, more to see if the kids have been paying attention, than because it is _necessary_. I think it is necessary to accept that it is right to call marihuana a vegetable, and it is possible that in some descriptive frameworks "vegetable" is redefined artifically to be a subset of the natural vegetables.

And I do think this is important---at every show trial for a purported marihuana crime, some University "expert" testifies, either by certificate or mouth, that the substance found was "marihuana."

Must you admit it is marihuana? Why not call it "that vegetable I eat four times a day"? Do you eat any other vegetable four times a day, or however many times you eat marihuana? And why should a University Man be able to force it to be called "marihuana"? Is that not just a circular sort of device the University people have developed, so that they can say "that's marihuana, yeah, we prohibit that."? If there were no speciation beyond "vegetable", they could hardly prohibit "vegetables", could they? Do you follow the general thrust, which is admittedly far afield from the original topic, yet somehow relevant. Speciation has its perks and drawbacks.

IMO who cares what we call it? Call it a tree, bush, veggie, or weed. Its just a name. All I care about is if it helps me feel better.
hell we call tomatoes vegetables but they are apparently a fruit, and peanuts are actually a bean, doesnt change a thing!

The only thing I have ever warned people about is to avoid getting themselves caught up in an agreement with a designated grower to receive "free" weed in exchange for their licenses, ESPECIALLY if they don't know and trust the person.

I warn patients that if complete strangers are trying to convince you that they have your best interest in mind and that they are compassionate to your needs as a patient that they, the patient, should think long and hard about the motivation behind the "compassion" being offered before signing any documents.

I warn people about making sure they go into their deals with full disclosure and understanding the implications of the deals so they aren't left standing with their mouth wide open and asking why they just had their property forfeited under the "proceeds of crime" charges.

I am not siding with Marco either. I was pointing out that a very serious allegation was being made regarding him and that perhaps it wasn't the smartest thing to be saying with an "outside voice".

I really have no idea what Marco does or doesn't do with his 120 grams per day license and I really don't care. It is none of my business and quite frankly none of yours either.


cannagirl

Man I wish I was born in Canada, seriously. Texas is so depressing. A 1 gram...check that, a .00001 gram a day limit is illegal.

Sigh.

You're "Advice" on this subject has always been "These are the people patients need to avoid" up until my last post, now it's "Patients should be WELL informed before signing one of these DG's".

Come now, which is it? or are you one of those people who's belief changes when it suits them best.

Do you tell your patients that dealing with your club is equally illegal? That they run the risk of being charged with fueling organized crime, that near the exact same implications can be made by them dealing with your club? Or is your club one of them ones that pretends to be sanctioned by Health Canada (Which would be complete BS, because NO club is sanctioned by Health Canada)



I personally don't care either, but your being very hypocritical towards individuals who are no different in terms of legal abilities kinda rubs me the wrong way.

Either stick to one belief, or change it, it can't keep changing to suit your current point.

...Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night

"I really have no idea what Marco does or doesn't do with his 120 grams per day license and I really don't care. It is none of my business and quite frankly none of yours either"

If the MMAR are being altered, and clubs are using _any_ funds generated by sale of diverted MMAR marihuana to support their lobbying effort, that is everyone's business. It is not a level-playing field. You are under no obligation to deny that this is going on, but you have said you know where your club gets its marihuana---so could you confirm for me that none of your club's marihuana is comes from diverted MMAR licensed plants?

Based strictly on a reasonable understanding of supply chain management, I would think a dispensary that did not try to court mmar-licensed growers as its suppliers would be irrational. MMAR-licensed growers mean a more secure supply chain, mean less chance of disruption, mean more money in the coffers.

I think that if the answer is "yes", the current round of MMAR consultations are tainted beyond saving, so that is why I am curious. It's not that I personally think diverting marihuana is wrong. I wish the soldiers would leave our gardens alone.

Sir Robin, you can call cannabis anything you wish, but if you want to be accurate, labeling it as a vegetable is way off target. I called it a weed as I believe it to be the best descriptor, and for no other reason. I've eaten fiddle heads, but I don't call them veggies.

While I agree that 'marijuana' has negative connotations, (we can blame the drug czars for that one), saying it is in the same category as lettuce is, imo, at the opposite end of this naming spectrum. Most people would scoff at the thought of cannabis being a veg. Fwiw, I prefer the term cannabis.

The word 'weed' also has a negative feeling to it, to most peeps, weeds are a nuisance, something to despise. Personally, I like hearing people talk about cannabis, medical marijuana, medibles, etc.

One last comment: I find my choice of terms depends on to whom I am speaking. This is not only true for cannabis, but for pretty much any topic, e.g. in a lab setting I'll use lab-related jargon, or when talking to other computer or astronomy buffs, well, you get the picture. Around here the words 'weed' and 'marijuana' are not popular. In the real world both are commonly used.

Peace

Is a flowering herb that It is edible. i get my daily dose, or even more per day,

SeaOfGreen