Dope...but not dopes.

July 10, 2007 7:58 PM

The Indoor Yield-O-Ramais a scientific look at how much marijuana people can expect to grow under certain conditions. No matter you think about marijuana or your country's drug laws, the level of sophistication in this statistical analysis may surprise you.
posted by mistermoore (56 comments total)

It's especially surprising after a smoking a fattie.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:20 PM on July 10, 2007

As you review Moon Doggie's analyses you'll see many references to the significance of certain data items. In fact, he's gone through the painstaking process of doing several preliminary analyses just so his final analysis can have the highest level of confidence.

Moon Doggie? Wait, is this the same Moon Doggie who wrote "Cost vs. Benefit of Culturing to the Mycelium Stage only in C. Cubensis: a Metanalysis of the Extant Literature"? Oh man, I love this guy's work!
posted by contraption at 8:21 PM on July 10, 2007 [9 favorites has favorites]

seriously, now. angelfire?
posted by kickback at 8:29 PM on July 10, 2007

seriously, now. angelfire?

From Angelfire's heart, I stab at thee...

For Tripod's sake... I spit... my last... ad... at theeeee...

*launches Genesis Geocities torpedo*

< /montalbanfilter>
posted by katillathehun at 8:45 PM on July 10, 2007 [9 favorites has favorites]

Anglefire.




duuuuuuuude
posted by The Deej at 9:21 PM on July 10, 2007

seriously, now. angelfire?

I think my stoner buddies back in High School actually created this website back in '97.

No, wait, they were way to stupid to figure this out.
posted by Avenger at 9:26 PM on July 10, 2007

OK, I'll click -- I'm not on enough government lists.
posted by Clave at 9:35 PM on July 10, 2007

I'm amazed that the site actually looks finished, and they got it together to get it hosted.
posted by mattoxic at 9:35 PM on July 10, 2007

the level of sophistication in this statistical analysis may surprise you.

Not at all. If there's anything potheads will obsess over, it's pot.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:40 PM on July 10, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

It reminds me of when I was learning to program and someone said "what sort of programs could you use, or that you do use that could be better?" or when I was a child learning to play a trumpet, and my teacher asked me what sort of music I listened to (so that we could play that).

I suppose the same goes for science: apply it to what you love or is useful to you.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 9:43 PM on July 10, 2007

Not at all. If there's anything potheads will obsess over, it's pot.

Too true, if two stoners are sharing a joint one while exhaling heavily will invariably say something like "Man, this is like that shit we got off that dude with the hat that time"

They know their shit.
posted by mattoxic at 10:11 PM on July 10, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Am I the only person here who knows pot heads that don't look or act like Jeff Spicolli stereotypes?
posted by doctor_negative at 10:40 PM on July 10, 2007

Am I the only person here who knows pot heads that don't look or act like Jeff Spicolli stereotypes?

Hard to say. Though I'd say yes.
posted by mattoxic at 10:56 PM on July 10, 2007

No surprise about details. The cash value of a good plant is way too high to not study in detail. Alas and alack, when I finally got to the point I owned a house, the risk of growing got too high (they started confiscating property, without trial, contrary to Constitutional guarantees). All that knowledge I aquired over the years, gone to pot waste.
posted by Goofyy at 11:30 PM on July 10, 2007

doctor negative, that'd be a negative.
posted by flaterik at 11:40 PM on July 10, 2007

If I didn't know any better, I'd think this was created by my daughter's boyfriend... But, he doesn't have a computer (thank god).
posted by amyms at 12:40 AM on July 11, 2007

If you don't want to wade through it, the summary is: 14,000 lumens per square foot and use a well-aerated hydroponics medium.
posted by ikkyu2 at 2:22 AM on July 11, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Not a complete derail but has there been any studies of strain developments of cannabis plants? At one point, the Vietnamese variety was listed as having the highest natural THC level but I am assuming breeders have enhanced and bred more interesting strains for the last few decades from the paper I saw on it. Any sources for this history of the plant development?
posted by jadepearl at 2:47 AM on July 11, 2007

Meh. There are a lot of drugs in the world, some have just been deemed illegal because someone paid someone else off. Thanks, DuPont. Meanwhile, several people just died of a tobacco-related illness whilst I typed this reply. Hooray for the rule of Law, eh? Go Democracy, go!

Also, Angelfire... is not exactly going to score you points for sophistication.
posted by chuckdarwin at 3:24 AM on July 11, 2007

Did they actually determine whether spectrum was a significant factor or not? I thought chlorophyll was more responsive to specific wavelengths. Anyway, they'll probably have to redo the study for LED grow lights.
posted by BrotherCaine at 4:00 AM on July 11, 2007

GW Pharmaceutical of UK has been growing cannabis, with special permission from the UK Home Office, since 1997.

They claim,
GW's cannabis plants are grown under computer-controlled conditions in secure glasshouses at a secret location in the UK. GW has developed a highly sophisticated cultivation process to ensure plant material grown is of sufficient quality and consistency to be suitable for incorporation into pharmaceutical products.
..
GW's first consideration therefore is the cultivation of highly consistent plants with defined cannabinoid ratios. Total yield of one or other cannabinoid is relatively less important than consistency. We have a number of chemovars (varieties characterised by their chemical content) chosen for their composition and morphological traits i.e. hybrid vigour and disease resistance.

So far, the 'cultivation process' appears to be a secret.
posted by daksya at 4:23 AM on July 11, 2007

Meanwhile, several people just died of a tobacco-related illness whilst I typed this reply.

Hey, the deleterious effects of smoking marijuana are not to be denied. Right now, somewhere out there there are some some stoners who are really, really hungry.
posted by psmealey at 4:34 AM on July 11, 2007

Methinks the author does not understand the Inverse Square Law: Greater distance between light and canopy at the same intensity at the canopy gives more light deeper in, not less.
posted by froghopper at 5:08 AM on July 11, 2007

I can't wait until congress gets its act together and allows independent growers for research/medical purposes. Then there will be hiring ads in Science, Nature, and High Times for people with experience growing the most wicked bud.

In retrospect, I guess that the GW approach is more important. You want a reliable product that can be consistently dosed for similar effects every time. When you're illegal, intensity matters for the ease of concealment/shipping/exchange and minimal risk of discovery for the same profit, but when you're legal you want it somewhere moderately strong. You want the 'natural' dose (bowl? two breaths?) to be close to the intended dose.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:53 AM on July 11, 2007

The cash value of a good plant is way too high to not study in detail.

It seems to be less the case for commercial growers and more for someone growing from personal consumption. If it were legal to do so, I would probably grow some experimental hydroponic plants, just like I grow a few tomato plants every year. But that isn't going to happen in my lifetime.

In a legitimate marketplace, manufacturers seek out ways to increase productivity to give them a competitive edge, passing some of the savings on to consumers to increases sales, everybody wins. The black market has no such checks and balances. Given that it literally costs pennies (appx $4/ounce in energy costs) to produce, the price of cannabis ($200-$400/ounce) is whatever the market will bear regardless of what it costs to produce.

Take a look at that ROI. It is the major reason why drug laws are so slow to change, even though it is common knowledge they are insane. Somebody is making a metric buttload of money, and boatrocking is not allowed.

Am I the only person here who knows pot heads that don't look or act like Jeff Spicolli stereotypes?

How many more pot heads are like this guy?

It would be wryly interesting if in human history the cultivation of marijuana led generally to the invention of agriculture, and thereby to civilization.-Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden
posted by Enron Hubbard at 6:54 AM on July 11, 2007

Not to be Captain Bringdown, or harsh out the good times, but pot then is a lot different to pot today.

The mental health ramifications of heavy cannabis use amongst young people, especially teenage girls is quite stark
posted by mattoxic at 7:25 AM on July 11, 2007

mattoxic writes "Not to be Captain Bringdown, or harsh out the good times, but pot then is a lot different to pot today. "

Do you have something to contribute other than your distaste and propaganda?
posted by krinklyfig at 8:52 AM on July 11, 2007

mattoxic has a point, sadly. They've made it so strong these days that it's gone well beyond being a 'mellow' experience. Not that I ever smoke, but if I were to, I'd only have a couple of puffs these days.
posted by chuckdarwin at 8:55 AM on July 11, 2007

Do you have something to contribute other than your distaste and propaganda?

Duuuuude. Just 'cuz somebody brings up an unpleasant point that doesn't automatically mean it's propaganda.

For what it's worth, my older pot-partaking friends have said something similar. (I've never done the stuff, so I'd have no clue, but they've got the pipes and those boxes and various other marijuana accessories, so I take it they know these things).
posted by katillathehun at 9:07 AM on July 11, 2007

The mental health ramifications of heavy cannabis use amongst young people, especially teenage girls is quite stark

Do you mean like the study in the first link that comes up from your search where the main author says this?

But the problem has been we’re not sure what the chicken and the egg is here. Is it the cannabis use causes depression? Does depression cause cannabis use, or is there some other factor?
posted by Bort at 9:15 AM on July 11, 2007

katillathehun writes "Duuuuude. Just 'cuz somebody brings up an unpleasant point that doesn't automatically mean it's propaganda. "

Regardless, this type of comment: "I'm amazed that the site actually looks finished, and they got it together to get it hosted" isn't really useful, especially when he says basically the same thing over and over. And the original post wasn't about the health effects. We can discuss that, but it's a rather involved discussion, and he fails to mention that alcohol and tobacco are far more harmful. But I get it. Mattoxic doesn't like pot. Fine. Let's move on.
posted by krinklyfig at 9:16 AM on July 11, 2007

Gilligan bought pot from Mary Anne. Who knew?
posted by yoga at 9:49 AM on July 11, 2007

Showtime has been showing a good documentary about medical marijuana: In Pot We Trust.
posted by homunculus at 10:26 AM on July 11, 2007

They've made it so strong these days that it's gone well beyond being a 'mellow' experience. Not that I ever smoke, but if I were to, I'd only have a couple of puffs these days.

Well that's the point isn't it - just because weed may be 5x stronger than in the 70s it doesn't necessarily follow that people will get 5x as fucked up. It's not like people drink pints of whisky.
posted by influx at 10:45 AM on July 11, 2007

It's not like people drink pints of whisky.

Speak for yourself.
posted by enn at 11:35 AM on July 11, 2007

Better that weed incapacitate completely (enjoy the visions, kids) than people think that it's acceptable to toke a bit then go out driving around or to work or whatever stoners do when they make a daily habit out of smoking.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:40 AM on July 11, 2007

"whatever stoners do when they make a daily habit out of smoking."

Watch the movies they got from the library while sober?

Just sayin'...

(That John Carpenter's The Fog kinda sucked...)
posted by klangklangston at 12:58 PM on July 11, 2007

It's way stronger in the UK now for sure, precisely because of things like the FPP article. For years and years hash imported from Afghanistan, Pakistan & Morocco was by far the most common type you could buy. Not too strong, not too weak.

It's all skunk now, all home grown under lights in controlled conditions and all as fresh as it can get within constraints of it being sold dry. The good news is you can't thin out a bit of plant with used engine oil and boot polish to make it go further, as was the case with nearly all of the hash. The bad news is your sense of moderation is probably fscked.
posted by vbfg at 1:03 PM on July 11, 2007

No, wait, apparently it was a remake... That also sucked...
posted by klangklangston at 1:04 PM on July 11, 2007

If it's too strong.. you just add more tobacco to your mix. You don't normally drink vodka neat, do you?
posted by Freaky at 1:46 PM on July 11, 2007

Freaky, USians don't typically smoke that way. They just cram a bowl full and light it...no mixing with tobacco.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:57 PM on July 11, 2007

Mostly because we can get actual bud. Mixing it with tobacco's for Europeans who're lucky to get a chunk of Lebonese blond every now and then. (Which isn't necessarily a knock— when I was in Spain, I loved the hash'n'tobacco thing).
posted by klangklangston at 4:35 PM on July 11, 2007

There is an association between cannabis use and depression? That's hard to dispute since the term, "association," is so broad. The author of the British study mattoxic linked to even admits to this uncertainty up front:

A large part of the focus has been on the link between cannabis use and schizophrenia, but we’ve also known that there’s an association with depression. But the problem has been we’re not sure what the chicken and the egg is here. Is it the cannabis use causes depression? Does depression cause cannabis use, or is there some other factor?

In other words, this is one step above astrology. Don't get me wrong. Knowing if someone is a fire horse can go a long way in explaining and anticipating behavior, and I can see similar value in what these kinds of studies demonstrate, but associating cause from these facts is tenuous.

The evaluation of risk and response needs to be measured against the overall effects rather than isolating one bad effect and framing the issue by that alone. Cannabis has zero toxicity (or close enough that it makes lethal dosages virtually impossible). Even considering the highly potent strains around today. It will knock you out before you can fatally overdose (if that is even possible). It has low risk of addiction, low reinforcement, and low dependence. And even if addicted, treatment is very likely the easiest of all addcition treatments, and mostly composed of therapy.

Despite my overall distate for the Controlled Substances Act, I am willing to accept that reform will require baby steps, and the first and easiest step will be decriminalization of marijuana. It is an issue which could easily gain populist momentum if not for the brick wall of government entrenchment that is inevitably encountered.

Nonetheless, I still see it as a very achievable tipping point. And then we can start thinking about dealing rationally with the rest of the CSA. Like dealing with addiction as a biological condition rather than a character flaw. Positive results of drug tests should result in treatment, not termination and possible imprisonment.

/end rant
posted by effwerd at 4:58 PM on July 11, 2007

Ah, you poor sheep. Nice to see our tax dollars going to good use. Pot 2.0 (now 5 times stronger! -- watch out parents) is the latest attempt by the ONDCP to afford aging boomers a nice soundbite to combat their cognitive dissonance about their own past cannabis use and reconciling the advocation of a drug-free lifestyle to their children.

After all, if you increase the strength of a harmless drug what will happen? Nothing! It is not a feat of ratiocination to discover that, if anything, this is a wonderful thing for everyone. You need to smoke less to achieve the same (harmless) high.

But that's the beauty of this type of groupthink. It eliminates the need for one to reason.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 5:27 PM on July 11, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Sorry krinklyfig, bummer.
posted by mattoxic at 7:25 PM on July 11, 2007

If you speak with any mental health professional they will tell you that heavy cannabis use coupled with a preexisting disorder can be seriously detrimental.

New studies are now showing that the increasing use and greater strength of cannabis grown with hydroponics are now having the same effect on teens without a preexisting disorder.

It's not propaganda, nor it is some great anti stoner conspiracy, it's a valid hypothesis.

Who would I trust on the subject? My money would be on the mental health professional rather than some twenty-something with overly baggy jeans and the munchies.
posted by mattoxic at 7:57 PM on July 11, 2007

The original post here reminded me that Michael Pollan's The Botany of Desire is a pretty good book; one section of it is about marijuana.
posted by hattifattener at 9:50 PM on July 11, 2007

There are about eight people in my life with PhDs, six with MDs, three counselors, a social worker, two nurses, and a few teachers. Every one of them smokes pot.

There are also two professional athletes (one current, one former), an Olympian, a bunch of marathoners, and little old me the occasional 5K winner. We all smoke or have smoked pot.

What I'm saying is, I've already made up my mind.

Duuuude...did I just derail my own thread?
posted by mistermoore at 9:53 PM on July 11, 2007

Who would I trust on the subject? My money would be on the mental health professional rather than some twenty-something with overly baggy jeans and the munchies.

Okay, AFTER we get past the ridiculous and insulting stereotypes- the day someone posts a guide to homebrewing beer and somebody comes in to remind us all that alcohol is addictive, THEN you will have some sort of point. Or when someone counters a post about baking with a STRONG connection between eating cake every day and obesity. DUH being high all the time probably isn't good for you, which is exactly why 99% of pot-smokers I have met- even those who would identify as "potheads"- don't smoke every day.
Perhaps the reason people get riled up whenever someone busts out a study that states that it can make no firm determinations about cause and effect, and then claims that it's a smoking gun, is because:
a) Ain't nobody's business if I do, and
b) This is the exact same sort of ridiculous propaganda that leads to thousands upon thousands of harmless pot-smokers clogging prisons and wasting tax dollars.
posted by 235w103 at 11:13 PM on July 11, 2007

There are about eight people in my life with PhDs, six with MDs, three counselors, a social worker, two nurses, and a few teachers. Every one of them smokes pot.

And lots of Catholic priests have sex with little boys. So?
posted by psmealey at 12:16 AM on July 12, 2007

And lots of Catholic priests have sex with little boys. So?

Oh my god, are you kidding me? Did you really compare infrequent, harmless and entirely personal drug use to raping children? I mean, it's possible that I'm misreading that, but...but...wow.

In case I'm not getting it...no, wait, I'm getting it. You just...wow.
posted by mistermoore at 1:01 AM on July 12, 2007

OK, psmealey, I'm thinking I was maybe unfair. My bad if you're really one of the allies.

To address your actual question: SO, my point is that our sometime drug use affects neither our stations in life nor our abilities to be productive and high-minded (ha) members of society. Using marijuana is, to me, like using any other social lubricant/introspection enabler -- reflective of the person using it.

As my old constant-pot-smoking, day-sleeping, disc-golf-playing, modern-furniture-collecting neighbor often said: "Yeah, I smoke pot and hang out on the couch. But don't give the pot the credit; I'd be on the couch anyway."
posted by mistermoore at 1:25 AM on July 12, 2007

I was actually trying to make a quasi godwinesque point that sometimes, in fact a lot of the time, intelligent, respected people do things that are really, really bad for themselves and others. Just because you happen to know a lot of smart, respectable and ambitious people that smoke dope doesn't really mean anything at all.

From my own experience, I have many friends that are PhD's, college professors, lecturers, etc., and they'll be the first to tell you that they chose that career path to avoid responsibility, not to embrace it. But that's definitely beside the point.
posted by psmealey at 5:37 PM on July 12, 2007

I don't begrudge people that smoke weed however. I did a fair bit in my younger days, but stopped when I realized I wasn't enjoying the catatonia brought on by the strong and stronger stuff that kept coming our way.

I swear, some of the stuff I tried left you feeling like you were on psycho-strength pharmaceuticals. I'll leave that shit to depressed housewives, I'm wayy to much of a lightweight.

That said, if people want to do it (and not drive or otherwise operate heavy machinery), I have no problem with it.
posted by psmealey at 5:43 PM on July 12, 2007

klangklangston: Um, the skunk I occasionally get certainly seems pretty.. buddy to me. I just prefer the more mellow experience of smoking a joint. I like neat vodka too, but I don't knock back shorts all that often because I like not wanting to die in the morning.
posted by Freaky at 10:05 AM on July 13, 2007

The nation's top anti-drug official said people need to overcome their "reefer blindness" and see that illicit marijuana gardens are a terrorist threat to the public's health and safety, as well as to the environment.
posted by homunculus at 2:13 PM on July 13, 2007