.JPG)
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Daily Climate reports that global warming is set to make Californian marijuana a lot stronger – if we let it happen.
According to the Daily Climate;
Global warming may give a minor twist to that classic hippie bumper sticker that quips “Acid rain: Too bad it’s not as much fun as it sounds.” Turns out a warming climate could boost the medicinal and psychoactive properties of plants including cannabis.
But that’s not all: Climate change will also open up higher elevations to growing weed clandestinely on public lands, a practice that’s putting increased strain on fragile ecosystems. Some say relaxed marijuana laws exacerbate the problem by bringing in more growers; others argue increased regulation and oversight will eventually lead to more responsible growing practices.
One prominent researcher who specializes in weed migration patterns in the face of climate change said marijuana grown outdoors will likely become stronger and require less water to thrive.
“If you go back to the times plants evolved on land, the average CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels were 1,000 parts per million; today it’s about 400,” said Lewis Ziska, a plant physiologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service.
I mean, can anyone think of an issue more likely to split the environmental movement asunder?
Yes the environmental movement care about CO2. But many of them also care deeply about ensuring people suffering severe chronic pain receive what may be a very effective treatment for their condition. Perhaps we can look forward to a change in outlook, a compromise, in which the environmental movement reluctantly embraces the possibility of a little more CO2 in the atmosphere, because of the humanitarian medical benefits it will provide.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A humanitarian environmentalist? Talk about a contradiction in terms!!
If humanitarian : humans :: vegetarian : vegetables then I’d say a humanitarian environmentalist is quite in line with the environmentalist way of thinking.
EARTH FIRST!
We’ll log the other planets later.
They are oxy morons?
Carbon dioxymorons.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
I tell you, the only thing that hasn’t been changed so far by CO2 increases in the atmosphere is Ingrowing Toenails, and it wouldn’t surprise me if a paper on that appears quite soon.
Have you searched the “scientific” literature? Are you sure, absolutely sure, that no such claim exists?
How can anyone miss the obvious? Global warming will lead to more people wearing open toed shoes or even (heaven forbid) going barefoot. Thus more bumped toes against obstacles leading to more damaged toenails… I need to get my paper out fast before I get pipped at the post… /sarc
Let’s not forget, a warm dry environment is detrimental to fungi so global warming could spell the end for toenail fungus
Wait. Note the bland identification of a critically important fact that the ice-worshippers would like to ignore:
“If you go back to the times plants evolved on land, the average CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels were 1,000 parts per million; today it’s about 400,” said Lewis Ziska, a plant physiologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service.”
In other words: the environmentalists want to continue starving plants worldwide.
You have to wonder when they want to starve plants, object to dams, delete coal-fired electricity and reject nuclear power. Do I discern an agenda?
Finally it’s revealed: the IPCC are corporate conspirators in the pay of Big Pharma commercial drug pushers with an agenda to deprive us all of the opportunity of getting our hands on more powerful pot to cure all ills.
Obviously a transparent ploy to get more Republicans to sign onto the AGW bandwagon.
If it is true, I would think that liberals would love climate change.
Governor Moonbeam says California home owners should let their lawns go brown, and die; then the State will assist them in replacing their high water lawns with low water sand and gravel and rocks; to solve the drought crisis.
I suggest that they also let their pot farms go brown and die, then when they collect The Guv’s sand and rocks, it will be a piece of cake to get stoned !
Right arm!
+1000 🙂
Wow! Mann
🙂
Pot never healed any of my pains, then again my pains healed fast on their own when in my late teens/early twenties.
Haven’t touched it since, nor do I want to.
It is not some miracle elixir, just a lot of people trying to get it legalized, by any method.
My only question is, does it impair your driving abilities ?
“My only question is, does it impair your driving abilities ?”
Drunk drivers run stop signs-stoned drivers wait for them to turn green…
Does that answer your question?
Yes it does.
From experience, ya gotta be careful mixing alcohol and pot.
Then came alcohol and high horsepower cars.
Then came alcohol and cocaine with high powered snowmobiles.
I got lucky, only lost my front teeth by being a bad “fighter”.
Could have been a lot worse.
I bought a BMW that will do 155 mph, had it up to 140 mph, once.
I don’t press my luck anymore, getting too old.
Stoned drivers wait… Hilarious 🙂
In California, at least half of all drivers are already driving impaired even without medication.
So thanks; we don’t need any more impaired drivers.
And about half of those drive BMWs. No they don’t own them; they are leased in the name of their fly by night c
.ompanies
like.
But does it need more or less water?
yes
Probably the silliest post I have read here.
The Internet is full of “how to grow marijuana for better yield of THC”
Yes, use a “greenhouse” and yes increase CO2, etc. etc. etc.
Just go on campus in Denver.
This is wrong, by about an order of magnitude. Land plants evolved with an ambient CO2 much closer to 10,000 ppm than 1,000. This level has then more-or-less steadily declined, largely because of plant growth and usage (and seabed sequestration of CO2) so that plants are starved of this vital nutrient. Events create spikes and variations, but the trend is downward. And this is harmful.
Photosynthesis shuts down at levels generally between 150 and 180 ppm. We have evidently gotten close to those low levels during glaciations in the past million years or so.
We are currently, famously, at about 400 ppm of carbon dioxide. Looked at another way, plants must contend with a level of this life-sustaining gas about 1/500th of what animals have with oxygen. (Technically, plants breathe oxygen too, but we focus on their excess production of it from CO2.)
But we call atmospheric carbon dioxide a “pollutant” now. Can you imagine any other pollutant that, were its presence in the environment to decline by two-thirds, would cause nearly all life on the planet to end?
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
A very well written summary of an important fact!
It’s totally insane that the especially the Greens don’t see this simple truth…
Come on now everybody – let’s start the carbon liberation revolution !!!
When trying to start a revolution, typos are obviously inevitable… 😉
But to be clear enough, here is the (hopefully) correct version:
A very well written summary of an important fact!
It’s totally insane that especially the Greens don’t see this simple truth…
Come on now everybody – let’s start the carbon liberation revolution !!!
What struck me was the assertion that “when plants evolved on land” (which sort of doesn’t make sense, since not even the most committed Darwinist claims evolution has stopped), CO2 was 1,000 PPM, vs. only about 400 now. So…how is it that 400 PPM is a problem, again?
I suspect AGW will also substantially increase consumption of soft drinks and munchies.
Ha!
Peyton Manning (QB for Denver Broncos) owns a slew of Pappa John’s pizza places around metropolitan regions of Colorado. With legal weed, he says his shops are booming and gives a whole new name to tailgate parties at da football games.
Usually when people talk about marijuana potency, it’s a prohibitionist who’s trying to convince everyone that’s a very dangerous thing. But that’s like claiming that extra-strength aspirin should be banned because children’s aspirin contains lower levels of the drug.
In fact, there is no lethal dose of natural marijuana, so if it’s more potent, that just means that people will use less of it.
So the fact that higher CO2 levels produce a more potent crop is a boon to that industry, just like it is to all other agricultural crops.
Just look here:
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/03/third-death-in-colorado-linked-to-edible-marijuana/#.VVT_O42h2pI
Well that’s a novel departure from the usual response of blaming “easy access to guns”.
We call that lead poisoning.
People with pre-existing psychological disorders notwithstanding…
The lethal does of a drug, LD-50, is a medical term that refers to an amount that would lead to death. The DEA tried like hell to find a plausible lethal does of natural marijuana decades ago, but what they discovered was that a person would have to consume tens of thousands of marijuana cigarettes to induce death. That is, you would have to smoke 1,500 pounds of the plant in 15 minutes, which is physically impossible. In fact, the smoke (lack of oxygen) would kill you if you tried to ingest enough THC from the plant to kill you.
By the way, there is a lethal dose associated with the *legal* pharmaceutical THC pills that are manufactured in labs. It’s just the natural (and illegal) plant that won’t kill you.
Thank you, government, right?
There are concerns that some of the extremely potent types now available cause paranoia and may damage brain cells. That said, I’d rather my neighbours were smoking cannabis to excess than abusing alcohol. The alkies cause far more public nuisance, and are far more dangerous at the wheel of a car.
The main downside is that it usually involves smoking tobacco along with it. Which is extremely habit-forming, and will definitely ruin your health. That, and if you live where it’s illegal then you are taking a risk buying from dodgy dealers, whose merchandise might have anything from heroin to car body filler in it.
You know here at WUWT we don’t usually like claims unsupported by evidence I have not been able to find any evidence at all that supports a scientific bases for the belief that pot is less dangerous than alcohol, so if you have that evidence please provide it. Even if true it sure isn’t a reason to legalize pot. A punch in the face maybe less dangerous than a knife in the heart, but that is not an argument in favor of legalizing punching people in the face.
@ur momisugly Ian,
Whatever the pot was that filtered into my suburb in the 70’s, it certainly caused paranoia and obviously killed many brain cells (why else would you pay for it).
The paranoia was the reason I quit it (I think I’m some kind of sociopath).
That and the threat of “car body filler” caused me to see the light.
Alcohol.
No drug is harmless, but the harm caused by marijuana consumption is generally due to the fact that is often smoked.
In any case, alcohol is far more harmful than marijuana.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/chart-drugs-that-cause-the-most-harm-2013-9
I have a chronic disease that, among other things, plays havoc with my sleep. Where I live, I am entitled to grow and use pot. I hesitated for a very long time, because of my memories of “paranoia” — a mislabeling of anxiety and depression — I’d experienced when I smoked during high school and college. I’ve only been back to marijuana for about a year.
This effect varies considerably between strains and between broad types. “Sativa” tends to be anxiety-producing for those of us who are susceptible to that problem from marijuana, while “Indica” tends not to produce anxiety. This isn’t true across the board, but it generally works. Also generally true is that “sativa” produces an effect that leaves the user relatively energetic, while “indica” tends to be more soporific.
Prior to very cautiously dipping my toe back in the water, I knew nothing about the differences between strains and types. To me, “marijuana” was an undifferentiated commodity. In practical reality, that’s simply not true. It varies a lot more in effect than alcohol, whose impact is mediated almost entirely by blood alcohol level and secondarily (mostly the nastiness of a hangover) by the varying “congeners” in, say, Scotch malt as opposed to vodka.
There’s a lot of hype within the, ahem, “cannabis community.” For example, the idea that so-called “CBD” pot doesn’t get you high is just wrong. I just had some “high-CBD/low-THC” pot a few days ago. You definitely get high on the stuff. It’s simply a high similar in effect to indica — very soporific.
I can testify here that an “overdose” of pot, while certainly no fun at all, is less harmful than an overdose of alcohol in a similar degree. One night a couple months ago, I used 4-5 times as much as usual. I had mis-estimated the strength of some cookies I made, and ate way too many of them. The result was being stoned for about 15 hours, with another 10 or so hours of the marijuana version of a hangover. Had I overdosed to the same degree on alcohol, I probably would’ve died from alcohol poisoning.
I say all of this not to advertise or otherwise glorify marijuana, but strictly in the interest of being factual. I use this stuff like someone else would use a sleeping pill. It gets me through the night, and I’m glad to have it.
When mixed with gasoline in suitable proportions it can become quite lethal. So if you don’t mind, I think I will stay of that Colorado campus.
A story in a local silicon valley daily paper (today) describes the trial of a woman charged with killing a husband and wife on a pedestrian crossing; by running them down, drunk as a skunk in her automobile (not a BMW). Elderly couple from Asia.
The driver is defending herself; to demonstrate the accuracy of the assertion that “he who represents himself in court, has a fool for a client.”
Quoth the woman on the stand, in her own defence. “I knew it was safe to drive drunk, because I have done it before.”
Alcohol; pot; not a jot of difference; everybody who does it, just knows it is safe for them to do.
g
Yes. “I have done it before”.
Great post.
This is how to get the under-25 crowd onto the skeptical band wagon. Bring on the heat, bring on the CO2 – bring on the good stuff…
Sure, get this crowd.
Remember the crowd of Occupy Wall Street?
Remember how they left the space? Do you think it was green?
Forget it.
The absolute most stupid post here and by Eric Worrall.
“putting increased strain on fragile ecosystems.”
What about on regular ecosystems?
I betcha ecosystems can’t feel strain.
The idea that marijuana plants “strain” an ecosystem is absurd. Growers tend the plants by adding nutrients and additional water, and they generally avoid hazardous pesticides because they mean to ingest the plants.
What greenies are probably wringing their hands over is the fact that the growers would clear a patch of ground before planting their seeds. Of course, as soon as they abandon the plot of land, the ecosystem would almost instantly revert back to its previous natural state.
As George Carlin famously stated, environmentalism is the most arrogant BS around.
http://youtu.be/EjmtSkl53h4
So do we count increased Marijuana potency as a cost of climate change, or a benefit?
.. and some of them just think strong weed will make chicks hornier. As I said, it’s a tough call.
Sure.
And where does Eric Worrall gets that “many of them also care deeply about ensuring people suffering from severe chronic pain receive what may be a very effective treatment for their condition”
Anywhere? He did a survey?
But I now for sure, just like you do, that it does make chicks……Yes tough call.
So the difference between the greenhouse CO2 and atmospheric CO2 is slightly reduced. I guess that’s good for one publication on a vita and another notch toward promotion.
Even Iguanas can benefit!
A recent study reported on the raio hear stated that pot had been being bred for its psyhcoactive feature, and, consequently its medicinal value had been declining sharply over the last couple years. So, if CO2 makes it “stronger”, will that improve its medicinal value?
Just like for the last 18 years CO2 has made the temperature stronger, it will make the medicinal value stronger. Perfect correlation between the two.
Well, I doubt it will hurt your spelling.
…maybe your typping more than yor speling,
I suffer from a chronic disease that, among other things, plays havoc with my sleep. Where I live, this entitles me to grow marijuana. I use a small amount every night to fall asleep and stay that way. As a result, I have become increasingly familiar with the “how to” of all this.
The medicinal value of marijuana, for me (and for a lot of others) is mainly in a few areas: Better sleep, and relief of pain, the latter either directly or by inducing sleep, which helps people deal with their pain. From what I’ve observed, today’s marijuana is much more potent than what I used a long time ago. Part of this is because, when I was younger, dealers sold not just the flowers (“bud”) but the ordinary leaves (“shake”), the latter being far less potent.
As for the psychoactive part, I actually think the trend might be in the other direction. In the old days, most pot was cannabis sativa, a variety that tends to induce a combination of racing thoughts, anxiety, and depression that goes by the rather inaccurate term, “paranoia.” Today’s pot is rarely pure sativa, and is much more often partly or entirely cannabis indica, which tends to produce a soporific effect. So called “high-CBD” pot is quite soporific in my experience.
Bottom line: Be careful about what you believe. Just because someone says it on a radio broadcast doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about.
Sorry, “radio” not “raio”.
If you go right down there to the end he says,
Sounds like he’s advocating more responsible watering practices from the Mexican nationals trespassing in national forests.
Either that or he’s moving to Colorado. Didn’t want to come right out and say it.
Well, if you want to read to the end, he also said:
“Marijuana doesn’t produce psychotropic compounds such as THC just so people can smoke it, Ziska explained. It’s a pest repellant. “Plants aren’t mobile, they can’t get up and move around, so they have to produce these chemicals to fight off pests and disease.”
So, go ahead and smoke a pesticide!
Sounds like it has a practical use after all! Perhaps it might be added to pyrethrins to make them more effective, or DNA extracted to make GM beans and corn that resist beetles, worms and borers. I had never heard that about cannabinoids and was under the impression (from my visits to Jamaica) that it has to be cured properly and then incinerated or heated to have any psycho-active effect. Otherwise consuming it is non-effective and only gives you a bellyache. That is what Peter Tosh’s cousin told me (if he is anything of an expert).
THC isn’t a pesticide, or a repellant. It protects plants by the property of being extremely sticky, making its leaves and flowers into a kind of fly paper.
Reblogged this on Starvin Larry and commented:
“Turns out a warming climate could boost the medicinal and psychoactive properties of plants including cannabis.”
This means that all the leftover hippies in Northern Commiefornia should be happy about a “global warming” and higher CO2 levels booting the potency of the weed they’re growing all over N. Commifornia-they should be ecstatic about this news and stop protesting about everything,and just relax and smoke their higher potency weed.
Oh No! As if what they’re already smoking isn’t already too strong!
Just look at the post above.
It is not too strong, it is a pesticide!
They don’t call it “dope” for no reason.
So it’s a pesticide is it ?
So it is being properly used then.
But as I have often said of cigarettes; they should make them much more potent, and sell them to kids; before they get to breeding age.