SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @01:20PM
Where would be the money in doing so?
(Score: 3, Informative) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday September 17 2015, @01:40PM
Bong tax.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday September 17 2015, @01:53PM
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
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
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:27PM
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
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:31PM
Yes, but only on the grounds that it tasted nasty to the child that I was. I'm only mildly old not ancient.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:15PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday September 19 2015, @02:54AM
Could always put the Mythbusters on it and find out like they did for booze vs cellphones.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday September 19 2015, @10:32PM
If nothing else, that would certainly be amusing to watch.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday September 17 2015, @09:27PM
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 18 2015, @10:56AM
The 0.8 standard was more likely set by insurance company lobbyists as low as they possibly could get it. Never try to ascribe pure motives to legislation.
I'd say a rational standard should be used after proper scientific testing to determine what it should be but, again, it will be insurance company lobbyists that will eventually set any limits we're placed under.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 18 2015, @10:56AM
Scuse me, 0.08.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Darth Turbogeek on Friday September 18 2015, @03:06AM
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 The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 18 2015, @10:57AM
Just so long as the researchers aren't partaking of the testing material...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Friday September 18 2015, @12:08PM
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
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.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 17 2015, @02:43PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
No one born who could always afford anything he wanted can have a clue what "affordability" means.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday September 17 2015, @05:20PM
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
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday September 17 2015, @06:48PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Where would be the money in doing so?
Right there. [colorado.gov]