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: 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