They are the same thing. They are cannabis. There is, in fact, only one type of cannabis, namely cannabis sativa. Simply because there are specific cultivars for industrial and medicinal use does not make hemp and marijuana anything other than local names for the same plant.
Oooh, Iâve been wanting to go see that. Baby keeps getting in the way, though.
That really depends on how far the âspecies conceptâ rabbit hole you want to go. In the âpreserving the sanity of people who donât enjoy crunching hairy geneticsâ sense, yeah, they are minor variants on the same thing. In the hardcore-genome-fanboy sense, it presumably isnât nothing that makes one variety suitable as a versatile fiber and a second variety synthesize enough THC to be recreationally viable. Certainly, if one variant wasnât the Sinister Mexican loco-weed, assassin of youth, widely used by negroes and degenerates to stoke their insatiable lust for white womanhood, nobody except botany nerds would give the distinction a second glance; but there must be one, since the two have modestly different properties.
Sure, there are differences. Just like there are over 7500 varieties of tomato. Some are not fit for commercial use like the beefsteak and some are specifically cultivated for truck farming. They are all still solanum lycopersicum. That we cultivate different varieties for different needs does not mean they are no longer the same plant.
1 Like
âEvery new law creates more outlaws.â â attributed to Moondog
Since homo sapiens seemed to be able to interbreed with homo neandertalis would that mean humans and neanderthals were âjust the same thingâ?
âInfuriatingâ is the adjective I would use to describe her performance before the subcommittee. She shouldâve been held in contempt of Congress for her obtuse denial of reality. She states âfactsâ as one might expect to hear on Fox.
1 Like
There are also cannabis indica and cannabis ruderalis.
However, genetics is not the controlling factor in the difference between industrial hemp and dank nugs. Planting seedlings close together makes them expend energy in growing taller for access to light; the more energy they use for that (or for producing seeds due to having been pollinated by male plants) the less they have to put into THC production. Tall skinny plants without a lot of branching are more suitable to be processed into fibers; short bushy ones produce more flowers.
Yep, and many if not most of the Founding Fathers grew hemp on their plantations and farms, Brooklyn and Long Island were veritable seas of waving hemp plantsâŚit was a major part of our national ethos until Hearst decided that there were just too many uppity Mexicans and Blacks in SoCal
1 Like
This seems appropriate here:
âKnowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.â
â Miles Kington
EDIT: And by that, well, you brought up tomatoes. You wouldnât just say, âHey, these two tomatoes are the same thing,â then toss some whole Beefsteaks in with your salad, slice Romas for sandwiches, and make sauce out of cherry tomatoes. Similarly, youâre going to need a joint the size of a telephone pole to get high off of hemp. Itâs bred for making fiber, not getting people high.
Honestly, I think the solution is fairly simple: issue licenses. If farmers want to grow the stuff, issue a license. Boom. The Feds are wanting to lower the deficit, right? And they want to discourage tobacco use? Have a license fee, and have/mandate that local authorities do random checks, test the plants to make sure they donât exceed some THC level threshold. And if farmers donât want to put up with the hassle, they can keep on growing tobacco or cotton.
1 Like
They didnât say they were different plants, they said they were different things. Thereâs waaaaaaay more to pretty much fucking everything than taxonomy ya know.
If I thought you didnât know what they meant Iâd feel bad for ya, but I donât feel bad for ya bro. You just need to cache some humour in yo pedantry to make it worthwhile. Youâll get there someday.
âŚand look how many brave boys in gray gave their lives defending black slavery.
âDEA headâ Did no one else notice this pun?
Thatâs akin to saying that Mules are the same as Donkeys and Horses. Mules come from 2 different species as would the offspring you describe.
Which are BOTH cannabis sativa. Same species.
You may also be interested to know there are around 45 cultivars specifically for commercial industrial use that produce very little THC.
And thatâs a useless misleading way to handle it. Cannabis is a plant that has been wrongly prohibited. Playing the name game is a stupid way to challenge the wrong headedness of prohibition. We donât need to try to classify each strain of the plant as different things. We need to end prohibition on a plant humanity has been using since the dawn of mankind.
The idea comes from people who think that you should work towards legalizing commercial âhempâ and treat the potent version of the plant differently. Thatâs a waste of time and effort since the better goal is the end to prohibition.
⌠you totally failed to insert the necessary humour that would make your explanation of your pedantry palatable.
BTW you can already get a license to grow hemp in the US, shit man you can get a license to grow marijuana at the state level in some localities.
If tomatoes were prohibited, then it would not matter if you had a beefsteak or a cherry. It would still be just as illegal. Why? Because they are the same plant. Trying to pretend they are different in order to allow the sale of one type but not the other would turn in to a bureaucratic nightmare of classification, testing, and the like. The burden on the grower to prove they are using a legal strain would be onerous. The potential for mistake and abuse would be high. It would be an unworkable system.
The same holds true for cannabis. If we go down the road of hemp and marijuana being different types of cannabis we then have to classify each and every strain and cultivar. Growers would need to prove what they were growing was legal. The bureaucracy would be immense. All for the sake of an argument that has no basis in fact and is only a distinction made by those with skin in the game. Of course, you can avoid all that nonsense by using the correct term for the plant, cannabis sativa, and legalize that.
1 Like
Happily, pleasing you is not on my list of things to do today.
You sure can. You should check out the bureaucracy and idiocy of THAT system.
EDIT: Actually, you canât. But you can get a license from several states. But a US license? No. Even though itâs been âlegalâ in some states since 2009, it was not until 2013 that a Colorado farmer harvested a crop of industrial hemp. Since 2009⌠that should give you some idea of how workable pretending âhempâ isnât cannabis is.
There is disagreement about that among botanists. Some classify them as subspecies of c. sativa, some say theyâre distinct species unto themselves. Itâs not cut & dried. (So to speak.)
2 Likes
Something like that has been tried - see Act Two - Nipped in the Bud from the This American Life - âI Was Just Trying To Help.â Itâs one of those stories that makes me want to throw things.
Dude the DEA licenses industrial hemp producers (growers), DEA is federal.
NOW WHO IS THE BETTER PEDANT M-F-A!? 
