Good research and documentation Hic2. Reason #896 why MJ cultivators should use organic fertilizers.
Hicountry2
Thanks iiindi. I was aware of some of information on tobacco, a google turned up the CC article and MJ, then lamonts doubts provoked my further investigation into any ties/relationship between the study and any fert compnies. I was surprised at the information that popped up and seemed readily available, yet I've still not much about it in the "mainstream" news/media. I just don't find it hard to believe big business/big money (monsanto, DOW,upjohns, ect) and tobacco companies(more big money), would have a problem getting information "swept under the rug", so to say. But like Waylon 'n Willie say.. "You can cut out all fried foods, "But you're still gonna die"
"You can jog up to heaven" "But you still gonna' die"
You can stop gettin' high" "But you're still gonna die"
ect, ect, ect...;)
Lamont Pontoon
Let me reassert where my doubts lie, I dont discredit the information found regarding tobacco, its probably all right on the money. But until you can prove with the same rigorous testing done on tobacco and the same reports in the medical journals that the same dangers are in fact a hazard with the cultivation of MJ Im not making the same imaginative leap of faith you are based on article where they sell "the cure". Until that time comes I dont intend to worry about it much the same way I give no heed to meteors falling on my head.
I dont particularly worry about those dangers since 99% of what I work with is organic, but I dont see the need to release a report based on speculative assumptions regarding MJ cultivation as tested with tobacco, thats not science, thats dookie.
smotpoker
waylon and willie
llIndigoll
My dookie tastes funny.
Hicountry2
a report based on speculative assumptions regarding MJ cultivation as tested with tobacco, thats not science, thats dookie.
...
if similar or identical fertilizers are being used on MJ, it's not such a giant.."imaganative leap of faith", to assume similar effects would be obtained as a result. I don't think there have been such "rigerous testing" done in marijuana feilds. Does that mean it's an "unreasonable" assumption??...
...watch out the sky is falling..:) You seem more interested in discrediting CC(which is fine, I'm not a big fan either), than opening your mind to the possibility/probability of the entire matter...and I'm NOT pokin' at you with a sharp stick here, just an observation..:)
Lamont Pontoon
Agreed on some points, and brings another, the credibility of any matter is subject to the source. CC is not the USDA, FDA, AMA or any other accredited establishment and should be regarded in the same light as The Star or The Enquirer is to factual and pertinent news.
Now heres where the problem lies, the transference of one set of factual and tested data to another subject based on nothing more than ifs and conjecture.
~ Ferts for MJ and tobacco fields I will assert are not identical and for that matter not even that similar. If this is the basis of the whole leap then more research needs to be done to know the difference/similarities between the ferts used by generally all MJ growers vs bulk raw ferts tobacco farmers use in their fields. Last time I checked indoor growers werent stocking up on anhydrous ammonia and the such and tobacco growers werent looking to buy 2,349 individual gallons of Budswel.
I suppose when fields of MJ become commonplace and we start farming it largescale with raw bulk ferts we should conduct a few studies then. Until then I will be thoroughly content with the infrequent prod of your stick. :)
smotpoker
Quote: from Lamont Pontoon on 3:12 pm on Mar. 3, 2005
I suppose when fields of MJ become commonplace and we start farming it largescale with raw bulk ferts we should conduct a few studies then.
i hope that day never comes. raw bulk chemical ferts are bad for watersheds, and are way more energy consuming to produce than organic based composted soil conditioners. when applied through a tea in a drip system it is economically feasable for a commerical farm too.
SD
Bob Marley died from lung cancer...
I think thats the biggest misconception about marijuana use that people dont get lung cancer from it, they do. When you inhale enough smoke into the lungs regardless of what type of smoke it is, the smoke itself contains carcinogens due to the burning of organic matter. When marijuana is burned it is no longer marijuana it has been transformed into 100s of different carcinogenic substances that didnt exist before the plant was lit on fire (with a little THC thrown in there of course
Marijuana smoke contains carcinogens which can cause cancer, smoke in general does for that matter. all depending on your genetic makeup and how much you smoke will depend on whether you get cancer or not. The plant matter thats being burned in and of itself doesnt give you cancer its what takes place when that plant matter is burned, lit a flame, a transformation takes place.
IMO thats a dangerous mind set to have. If all you smoke is marijuana and your hacking and weezing in the mornings its time to cut down. Dont let an urban legend get you killed, smoke kills. Moderation is the key.
Lamont Pontoon
Yeah inhaling burned vegitation isnt probably the best thing for you but once again the leap is made to danger by the imagination and tranference of one substance to another.
Its a misconception when there arent any facts to back your statements. Please show any of us where you can back that statement with a fact or a study or anything besides speculation on what you think Bob Marley died from.
My contention is that if people were getting lung cancer from weed the govt and the tobacco industry would be bending over backwards to show it with lots of proof. I would go even farther that they have been working on trying to establish this proof for years but havent been able to. So far their biggest weapons against weed are mental stigma based on lies. Weed is for losers, weed is the gateway drug, smoke weed and only bad things can happen. If they had the magic bullet that weed caused cancer then I think we would all see it in 60 second spots forty times a day.
When there are hospitals filling up all over for tobacco related lung cancer and theres yet to be one bonafide case of lung cancer due to weed I have to wonder what else would be considered a misconception? I have an idea though,
Its a misconception that Bob Marley died from lung cancer as related to marijuana smoking and heres a link that backs that up. I can also furnish at least twenty more links that support that theory as well. The hard links to find are the ones that claim he just died from lung cancer alone. The impossible ones to find are the ones that say he died from lung cancer due to weed smoking.
