Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday September 17 2015, @01:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the get-the-twinkies dept.

Researches have created a strain of yeast with THC, as well as other parts of marijuana.

In August, researchers announced they had genetically engineered yeast to produce the powerful painkiller hydrocodone. Now comes the perhaps inevitable sequel: Scientists have created yeasts that can make important constituents of marijuana, including the main psychoactive compound, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC.

Synthetic versions of THC are available in pill form under brand names like Marinol and Cesamet; they are generally used to treat nausea, vomiting and loss of appetite caused by H.I.V. infection or cancer chemotherapy. Genetically modified yeast could make THC in a cheaper and more streamlined way than traditional chemical synthesis.

Using yeast could also shed light on the clinical usefulness of cannabis-derived compounds. Marijuana is increasingly embraced as medicine, yet there is limited evidence that it is effective against many of the conditions for which it is prescribed. Researchers hoping to separate fact from wishful thinking will need much better access to marijuana's unique constituents. Modified yeast may provide them.

Why can't they just legalize cannabis, and none of this would be necessary?


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @01:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @01:20PM (#237426)

    Why can't they just legalize cannabis, and none of this would be necessary?

    Where would be the money in doing so?

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday September 17 2015, @01:40PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday September 17 2015, @01:40PM (#237435) Homepage

      Bong tax.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday September 17 2015, @01:53PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday September 17 2015, @01:53PM (#237441) Homepage Journal

      Come up with a quick and easy way to scientifically prove that someone is stoned while driving and I'm fine with it. That does need to happen though. Actively endangering others ain't cool and is not a liberty issue.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by dcollins on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:18PM

        by dcollins (1168) on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:18PM (#237462) Homepage

        If you can't prove they're stoned than they can't be dangerous.

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by M. Baranczak on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:22PM

          by M. Baranczak (1673) on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:22PM (#237464)
          Not true. Plenty of people are dangerous when they're not stoned.
        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:27PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:27PM (#237468) Homepage Journal

          Scientifically prove not a field test where you walk a line or touch your fingers to your nose. Real evidence or GTFO.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:32PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:32PM (#237544)
            Honest question - before breathalyzers existed, were you for alcohol prohibition?
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:15PM

        by sjames (2882) on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:15PM (#237567) Journal

        How about the standard blood test for people driving like they're stoned and who look stoned?

        But in general, banning something because it might make law enforcement harder is a bad policy. Shall we ban tomatoes because growers hang red Christmas balls on pot to confuse aerial sweeps?

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:28PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:28PM (#237609) Homepage Journal

          I was thinking something more akin to a breathalyzer but something akin to a blood sugar tester would be fine as well. Just so long as it can be done on the spot and doesn't require the driver be arrested on suspicion and get tested back at the station.

          Really not talking about it making law enforcement harder. I prefer it be exceedingly difficult in most cases. Creating imminent danger to the lives of others is another story though. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be pretty sacrosanct in their protections so long as you're not interfering with the same of anyone else.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:46PM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:46PM (#237621)

            Creating imminent danger to the lives of others is another story though.

            But you don't appear to be suggesting that we just ban doing this; you appear to be suggesting that we keep marijuana banned because it would be hard to catch people who drive while under its influence.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday September 17 2015, @07:31PM

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday September 17 2015, @07:31PM (#237639) Homepage Journal

              I'm more suggesting that we get the coppers hooked up with quick n easy finger stick tests as a precursor to legalizing it.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday September 18 2015, @02:17AM

                by sjames (2882) on Friday September 18 2015, @02:17AM (#237778) Journal

                That presumes that driving under the influence of pot is actually hazardous. There have been studies suggesting otherwise.

                But to get at the crux of the issue, if a stick test (or any test) was provably impossible, would you say legalize or don't?

                • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 18 2015, @11:05AM

                  by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday September 18 2015, @11:05AM (#237900) Homepage Journal

                  If a stick test were impossibly, I'd say legalize but criminalize driving while any THC was in your system.

                  Now, I'm not saying this just to be a conservative asshat. I'm saying this because I smoked a lot of pot back when I was a kid and it absolutely made me a worse driver. Worse balance, worse reflexes, narrower available focus of attention, worse give-a-shit that something bad could happen; none of these are good to have while operating a ton or two of rolling potential death.

                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday September 18 2015, @02:01PM

                    by sjames (2882) on Friday September 18 2015, @02:01PM (#237948) Journal

                    There have been studies that suggest that the imparments are very real but the stoned driver (unlike the drunk driver) is aware of the limitations and tends to drive more cautiously as a result.

                    That doesn't necessarily convince me that it's fine to drive stoned but it suggests that standards similar to alcohol will be more than sufficient.

        • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday September 17 2015, @09:27PM

          by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday September 17 2015, @09:27PM (#237685)

          Shall we ban tomatoes because growers hang red Christmas balls on pot to confuse aerial sweeps?

          No, we should ban them because they can be used for far more insidious [wired.com] purposes.

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:44PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:44PM (#237620)

        So you're in favor of banning something for everyone because otherwise it would be difficult to catch Bad Guys? You want to sacrifice freedom for safety, in other words. Whatever happened to 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'?

        Actively endangering others ain't cool and is not a liberty issue.

        But infringing upon people's fundamental right to control their own bodies is a liberty issue.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday September 17 2015, @07:33PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday September 17 2015, @07:33PM (#237642) Homepage Journal

          I think you just wanna argue at this point. I think it should be legal and I also think that cops need a way to make sure you get your driver's license taken away if you drive stoned. There is nothing mutually exclusive in those two ideas.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday September 18 2015, @12:20AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday September 18 2015, @12:20AM (#237722)

            "Come up with a quick and easy way to scientifically prove that someone is stoned while driving and I'm fine with it."

            That sounds to me like "First come up with a way to scientifically prove that someone is stoned, and then I'll be in favor of legalizing it." If that's not what you think, then fine, but that's how it sounded.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @11:31PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @11:31PM (#237712)

        If driving while stoned significantly alters driving ability, then why not just arrest people who drive poorly. I think there are already laws for that.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_without_due_care_and_attention [wikipedia.org]
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reckless_driving [wikipedia.org]

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 18 2015, @12:37AM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday September 18 2015, @12:37AM (#237725) Homepage Journal

          There are also laws for driving while stoned. In DWI the I means intoxicated; it does not specify alcohol. They just lack testing ability.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2015, @06:09AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2015, @06:09AM (#237845)

            I'm pretty sure THC isn't toxic. Either way the point of DUI laws are to reduce very dangerous drivers not to arbitrarily punish people who drink alcohol that would otherwise drive safely. It would be interesting to see what threshold of THC levels would be used for the law. The .08 threshold for alcohol probably had something to do with how it affects driving ability. Would the THC threshold be set at a similar impairment level as alcohol or would a new standard be used?

      • (Score: 1) by Darth Turbogeek on Friday September 18 2015, @03:06AM

        by Darth Turbogeek (1073) on Friday September 18 2015, @03:06AM (#237796)

        As a professional driving instructor at one point you might expect I am down with THC testing cause.... it's safer, right?

        It ACTUALLY turns out stoned drivers are safer than even unimpaired drivers. Why? They are well aware they are impaired and take a lot more caution as a result. No risks, actually looking at where they are going etc. The complete reverse of alcohol impairment. There is in fact a case to be made to get more stoned drivers on the roads if the research keeps coming back with this result.

      • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Friday September 18 2015, @12:08PM

        by CoolHand (438) on Friday September 18 2015, @12:08PM (#237915) Journal
        Those devices are in the works. It's a bit of a chicken and egg syndrome there. Why would companies R&D devices to test for active THC when no amount of THC was previously legal? Now that states are actively beginning to legalize, then there is a call for these devices, and development has now commenced [google.com].
        --
        Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:11PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:11PM (#237457)

      Where would be the money in doing so?

      Plenty of people are making good money in Colorado and Washington right now with legal recreational pot, plus the states are getting nice tax revenue from it.

      Of course, the real real reason cannabis isn't legal is that the Powers That Be need a good excuse to lock up all those black people and hippies. More than a few presidents (particularly Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton) have been quoted explaining this (admittedly, usually years later, and almost never in public). Particularly convenient is that because the crime is mere "possession", the items that are possessed by the defendant can be brought to the arrest by the police, making actual guilt irrelevant. To add to the "fun" of this, crooked cops can conduct illegal searches of vehicles by claiming to smell pot (a claim that is completely impossible to disprove) - a lot of cops in Colorado and Washington complained about no longer being able to do this post-legalization.

      Like most Americans, though, I'm much more concerned about the dopes that we watched debate last night than somebody else smoking dope.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:43PM (#237474)

        In school I never met a dope head with any motivation to do anything except smoke more pot.

        Do we really need a generation of even lazier fuckups?

        Alcohol is legal, and everybody is responsible with that right?

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Snow on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:13PM

          by Snow (1601) on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:13PM (#237484) Journal

          I smoke about an ounce a month. I smoke every day.

          I finished high school. I finished post secondary. I got a job. I make almost 90k/year. I'm married. I own my house, and we have 2 cars. This weekend me and my wife will be doing a 40km backpacking trip in the mountains (I'm not a fat slob -- well not fat anyways...).

          Most people would have no idea I smoke so much weed. It is definitely possible to be a functional pot head, and I suspect more people are doing it that you imagine.

          • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:36PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:36PM (#237503)

            Judging by the number of kids I saw who did back then, and where they are now, I'd say the majority of them are still fuckups.

            While your fairy tale life is the norm for you, for the rest it is not.
            If your "story" is true, it is likely that you possess the willpower to not let it control your life. Most do not, and even pot ruins lives.

            Personally I think you're lying through your teeth, but hey this is the internet, so tell the biggest tall tale you can.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tchuladdiass on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:40PM

            by tchuladdiass (1692) on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:40PM (#237504)

            My personal opinion is that it isn't the pot that makes people lazy screwups, it is the lazy screwups that are more attracted to smoking pot in the first place (exceptions such as yours notwithstanding).

            • (Score: 2) by Snow on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:32PM

              by Snow (1601) on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:32PM (#237543) Journal

              Yea, I would agree with that. Also, I never said that I wasn't lazy... Just that I'm not a screwup.

            • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday September 18 2015, @12:59AM

              by Immerman (3985) on Friday September 18 2015, @12:59AM (#237738)

              Or perhaps it's only the lazy screwups that don't bother to hide the fact that they're regularly consuming one of the most illegal drugs in the country?

        • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:55PM

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:55PM (#237553) Homepage Journal

          What ignorance. I worked since I was 16, spent 4 years in the Air Force, went to college, and am now comfortably retired, now I'm writing science fiction all day. I started smoking pot in 1971 and still do. I know a LOT of stoners, and all of them are either employed full-time or retired.

          So shove your bigotry up your ass, coward.

          --
          mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:20PM

          by sjames (2882) on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:20PM (#237570) Journal

          It's selection bias. You know about the dysfunctional fuck-ups drug habits, but you never see the habits of someone functional enough to hide it.

        • (Score: 1) by malloc_free on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:22PM

          by malloc_free (3034) on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:22PM (#237572) Journal
          We all have the power to make certain choices in our lives. We can choose to eat foods that are high in saturated fat and refined carbohydrates, and become overweight. We can smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, and increase the likely hood of getting lung cancer and cirrhosis. So why can we not also make the choice to get stoned? Not sure if any of the other things actually lead to a better life or not. What about gambling, that is of no real particular use for anyone except those who make money from it. What I do in my spare time is my choice, and if I am not impinging on anyone else's human rights (directly or otherwise), who has the right to say what I can and cannot do? And lets face it - prohibition is not working - economically or socially. Taxation and regulation will work out far better IMHO. However this would appear to be rational, sensible thinking, and I don't think that the generations of people that were brought up with the idea that drugs are somehow immoral (I mean, really?) will ever get over that. Too much indoctrination. Also, the crime surrounding drugs would practically disappear overnight if prohibition was lifted (admittedly I am just applying some common sense here, can freely admit I may be wrong). Plus regulation would mean that what drugs were being consumed would be of a certain standard and quality, and there would be no mystery to what a pill would contain. Then again I have a bias. My birthday 4/20. :-D
        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:48PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:48PM (#237622)

          The fundamental right to control your own body is far more important than your personal feelings about people who smoke marijuana. But it's clear that petty things like fundamental liberties don't even factor into anything you believe.

      • (Score: 2) by sudo rm -rf on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:03PM

        by sudo rm -rf (2357) on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:03PM (#237480) Journal

        To add to the "fun" of this, crooked cops can conduct illegal searches of vehicles by claiming to smell pot (a claim that is completely impossible to disprove)

        Or, as anecdotal evidence shows what seems to be a hobby of southern german police, blind you in the middle of the night with their ultra-powerful flashlight and find it suspicious when you try to shield your eyes (drug-induced light sensitivity!). And in the following search find "large amounts of cash" (in my case DM50, ca USD30) with you - drug money!! Hell, my friend even got pulled over because a cop saw him "throw a joint out of his window" from 50 meters away.
        Interestingly, I have been searched for illegal drugs (and weapons, for that matter) countless times, but I was not tested for alcohol once.

        • (Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:02PM

          by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:02PM (#237520)

          I've always heard the polizei were really aggressive and if they couldn't stay busy doing legit work they would invent some.

          --
          SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:18PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:18PM (#237528)

            Been living in Germany for the last ten years, and have no idea what kind of BS you're pushing.

            Maybe you're mistaking the LAPD and how they deal with black people with how police work in civilized countries.

            • (Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:44PM

              by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:44PM (#237548)

              I was born in a small Bavarian town and spent most of my teens around Stuttgart. You know, southern Germany. I have yet to visit Los Angeles.

              --
              SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
            • (Score: 2) by sudo rm -rf on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:26PM

              by sudo rm -rf (2357) on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:26PM (#237574) Journal

              I suppose you don't live in a "Zollgrenzbezirk", i.e. an area of about 30 km (at least) from the nearest border. Also bavarian police is well known for their hit first, ask later policy and very often moved to other federal states (e.g 1st Mai Berlin, NATO/G8 summits etc.) for riot control. Baden-Würtemberg police does not stand behind [spiegel.de] in this regard.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:58PM

        by TheGratefulNet (659) on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:58PM (#237516)

        the existing BUSINESSES (the prisons, the cops, the dea, all of the feds) make big bucks on the backs of those who engage in activities that are not imoral or risky but currently labeled as 'illegal'.

        so, there is a money aspect to it that earns a LOT of people a huge income. threaten a man's income and you are picking a big fight. so that's reason #1.

        #2 is about established burned-in (sorry, lol) ideas that would be embarrassing to have to repeal. we, as a country, spent decades telling people that 'Drugs are bad!' and we defined exactly which drugs were Drugs and which ones were ok. no scientific basis in that line between the d and the D, but once drawn, it would require an admission that you were, in the past, WRONG, and that simply is not done in US politics.

        #3 is about religious dig-in. some religions seem to be offended when people enjoy themselves in ways that the 'establishment' does not currently engage in or approve of. alcohol? ok! pot? you are a bad person! its very simple and the churches continue to go out of their way to drill this into their people, just like they, to this day, continue to drill into their people that LGBT lifestyle is 'sinful' and not valid.

        its not hard to understand all this. what's hard is to change it over time. good news is that we're seeing huge change in this country, in this topic, and I honestly never expected to see this during my lifetime. but lets be honest, the ONLY reason we're seeing change is due to the money aspect of it. locales can get up to 25% of the sale price in taxes and they see dollar signs! that mostly trumps all and its the only way that could have changed hearts and minds. and so, we're getting change for the wrong reasons, but I'll take change that is positive, no matter how it gets here. its about time, anyway!

        --
        "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:42PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:42PM (#237584) Journal

      Where would be the money in doing so?

      Right there. [colorado.gov]

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Thursday September 17 2015, @01:41PM

    by M. Baranczak (1673) on Thursday September 17 2015, @01:41PM (#237436)
    Who thought it was a good idea to use a pill to treat vomiting?
    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @01:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @01:57PM (#237443)

      Who says you take it orally?

      • (Score: 1) by redneckmother on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:04PM

        by redneckmother (3597) on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:04PM (#237593)

        That reminds me of a story a pharmacist told me. He decided to modify a doctor's instructions for labeling from "Take as directed" to "Insert rectally as directed" after a customer asked if he had a substitute for a suppository that didn't "taste quite so bad".

        --
        Mas cerveza por favor.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2015, @12:24AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2015, @12:24AM (#237723)

        Actually this is more correct than you realize. I complained about this to my doctor as well and he informed me that the most common prescription-only antiemetic, Zofran (Ondansetron), is delivered sublingually (under the tongue). Personally I think even that isn't enough. The fastest way to the brain is via inhalation (its even faster than IV), so why don't pharmaceutical companies focus on making antiemetic inhalers? If they could offer me a Zofran inhaler I might not need the marijuana.

  • (Score: 2) by chewbacon on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:02PM

    by chewbacon (1032) on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:02PM (#237447)

    May need to coin a new term, but the same pathology would come without a hangover.

  • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:28PM

    by LoRdTAW (3755) on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:28PM (#237469) Journal

    Please tell me they can make pizza dough with this.

    • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:42PM

      by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:42PM (#237472)

      Great idea in theory (and pizza companies would love it, eat out pizza, get buzzed, order more pizza! Repeat!), but you probably wouldn't want to. I known people who have had to take those synthetic THC pills for chemo nausea and they said it was not like smoking pot, but really really harsh instead. It worked for what it was supposed to do but it wasn't something you would want to use recreationally.

    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:46PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:46PM (#237549) Homepage Journal

      Just mix real pot in with the tomato paste.

      --
      mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:11PM (#237565)

        See Dad, I told you it was a bag of Oregano.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday September 18 2015, @11:34AM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday September 18 2015, @11:34AM (#237908) Homepage
        Yay - it's Friday! Tonight I'm go out and get completely pestoed!
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by The Archon V2.0 on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:14PM

    by The Archon V2.0 (3887) on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:14PM (#237487)

    > Why can't they just legalize cannabis, and none of this would be necessary?

    To quote the paragraph DIRECTLY ABOVE THIS ONE:

    > Marijuana is increasingly embraced as medicine, yet there is limited evidence that it is effective against many of the conditions for which it is prescribed. Researchers hoping to separate fact from wishful thinking will need much better access to marijuana's unique constituents. Modified yeast may provide them.

    Legalizing would remove some roadblocks but if you are going to sit here and tell me that refinement and controlled doses aren't needed once everyone can grow it in their back yard, I'm going to have to ask you to leave and go post on a site for - no pun intended - herbal medicine.

    • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:17PM

      by opinionated_science (4031) on Thursday September 17 2015, @04:17PM (#237527)

      The UK has funded some "de-THC'd" compounds to test for efficacy...

      On the biochemistry of this article, the making of compound X is not the problem. Isolation and refinement is.

  • (Score: 1) by UncleSlacky on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:34PM

    by UncleSlacky (2859) on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:34PM (#237500)

    This could do wonders for Marmite sales...

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by tchuladdiass on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:43PM

    by tchuladdiass (1692) on Thursday September 17 2015, @03:43PM (#237507)

    I would love to see Dandelions that produce THC -- but for a different reason than you'd expect. I want the DEA to pay for the lawn care / weed killer treatments.

    • (Score: 2) by arulatas on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:35PM

      by arulatas (3600) on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:35PM (#237581)

      Two words. Dandelion wine.

      --
      ----- 10 turns around
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by sjames on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:33PM

    by sjames (2882) on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:33PM (#237579) Journal

    Maranol contains just the THC. Meanwhile, there is a suggestion that THC is the part that can trigger psychosis but that in the plant, CBD counters the effect. That would make Maranol the most dangerous possible form.

    Given the outrageous mark-up on pharmaceuticals, it would be a travesty to make the extract of pot legal but not the easily grown plant that , but for the war on some drugs, would be quite inexpensive.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by EQ on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:20PM

    by EQ (1716) on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:20PM (#237605)

    Why can't they just legalize cannabis, and none of this would be necessary?

    Because you're wrong in your premise - It is necessary regardless of recreational legality. Instead of anecdotal "evidence" of most junk science, medical science needs controlled studies and clinical trials to prove efficacy and safety. Medicinal use requires objective evidence from far more rigorous study than simply getting high and talking about the subjective effects. Also consider that, medically speaking, what is wanted is specificity of treatment for nausea, vomiting, appetite and so on, without the psychoactive effects (generally undesirable when treating illness).

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday September 17 2015, @07:42PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 17 2015, @07:42PM (#237651) Journal

      They'd still do better to purify various fractions of grass. I agree with your assertion, but wish to point out that there are LOTS of potential fractions that need to be examined, and breeding strains of yeast one by one is not only rediculously expensive, you're nearly guaranteed to miss something. MAYBE it won't be important.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday September 17 2015, @10:52PM

    by Pslytely Psycho (1218) on Thursday September 17 2015, @10:52PM (#237702)

    And not one Vegimite joke?

    --
    Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2015, @02:37AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2015, @02:37AM (#237786)

      psst [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday September 18 2015, @06:59AM

        by Pslytely Psycho (1218) on Friday September 18 2015, @06:59AM (#237853)

        Missed that...

        --
        Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
      • (Score: 1) by Osamabobama on Friday September 18 2015, @05:59PM

        by Osamabobama (5842) on Friday September 18 2015, @05:59PM (#238047)

        It's my experience that if you put a Brit and an Aussie in the same room with both Vegemite and Marmite, they will always invite other English speakers to participate in a contest to decide which one is better. The loser, of course, would be the group of hapless participants who are coerced into eating both products.

        Of course, they would both deny equivalence of the two...

        --
        Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 19 2015, @04:37AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 19 2015, @04:37AM (#238333)

    Because science.