Melinda Misuraca
Member since Aug 29, 2012
Recent Comments
Re: “The Straight Dope”
Hello Hapless Farmer,
The general characteristics of Sativas and Indicas you referenced are indicative of the complexity of plant profiles with their varying amounts not only of THC and CBD but also of individual terpenes and flavonoids. To correct a long-held assumption, high CBD cannabis does not make one lethargic, nor does it cause red eyes and a stoned effect. On the contrary, many people find it rather stimulating and appropriate for functional daytime usage. Also, high CBD strains have been found among Indicas and Sativas alike. Again, a cannabis plant's overall biological effect is influenced not only by its CBD-to-THC ratio, but also its mix of flavonoids and terpenes, which vary from plant to plant and have individual modulating and/or enhancing effects on phytocannabinoids as well as acting upon the body's cannabinoid receptors.
Re: “The Straight Dope”
Given that this article explores marijuana’s history and culture, criticizes the federal government’s policy against cannabis and speaks avidly about the use of WHOLE PLANT CBD-RICH CANNABIS as opposed to isolated cannabinoids, I am confused how it could be misinterpreted as favorable to Big Pharma. But to get down to what really is bothering Anon-E, it appears he/she is unhappy about the way I portrayed the majority of dispensaries in the North Bay. I investigated a fair number of dispensaries and found an intriguing similarity among most of them, which I chose to highlight (albeit with humor) in my piece. I also chose to interview folks in one dispensary which actively keeps up with the science. Just about everyone I had interviewed in this industry acknowledged the blurry line between medicinal and recreational usage--especially with regards to dispensaries--a subject which could fill a whole article by itself. This commenter claims to have “friends who work in dispensaries,” so I assume he/she is very aware of this phenomenon.
Re: “The Straight Dope”
In case you didn't read the actual patent you are referencing, Saavy, it does not patent cannabis, but patents research towards a specific delivery system of isolated cannabinoid molecules (and the patent has since expired). And while I do find it wholly disingenuous of the Fed Govt to classify cannabis as a Schedule I drug while behind the curtain it (in conjunction with pharmaceutical companies) funds research into cannabis' medical properties , this is not news. Just look at the disaster known as Marinol.
I'm just curious: Exactly what statement(s) in the article inspired you to make the claim that it is proto-Feds/Big Pharma?