3 ms·

The most important outcome of decriminalization would seem to me the restoration of the right to grow it yourself as organically as you like, especially in your

The most important outcome of decriminalization would seem to me the restoration of the right to grow it yourself as organically as you like, especially in your own home or garden just like any other vegetable or landscape plant. Nobody should lose sight of this objective, any progress is a step in the right direction but momentum must not be lost if the type of freedom that made America great is to be recovered. Too bad your 21st century technologists were so proud of their expensive equipment and low detection levels achieved somewhat through past environmental "concerns" and one-upsmanship that the consensus resulted in regulations too close to the MDL to be more economically feasible for all concerned. In the 20th century when urine became regulated, the newer labs having the lowest MDL's instead deferred to the older operators having earlier generations of equipment and MDL's about 10x as high, in order to respect their desire to continue to stay in business without an unsurmountable capital expenditure. This approach has proven better in 20/20 hindsight. Regardless, pesticides do make possible commercial operations that would otherwise not be feasible, and you can at least wash other types of vegetables before use.

outlet 9y ago
If it wasn't clear from my original comment, I agree that the action levels should not have been set that way, and it should be noted that the instruments we use are also used for many non-envionmental applications. The idea that labs would want pesticide action levels set too low is silly, we benefit from as much product moving through the system as possible; the most desirable outcome for us is always a boring non-detect. Every lab has taken calls from clients swearing on their mother's grave that they didn't use XYZ banned pesticide, even in the face of results we've verified and sent to a second or even third lab. What we actually want are sensible rules that strike a balance between protecting the cannabis consumer and allowing the industry to grow, especially for craft producers. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to grow their own cannabis, and the honor system isn't enough. Besides, none of this affects your ability to grow cannabis at home with as much or as little pesticides as you like.

outlet 9y ago

If it wasn't clear from my original comment, I agree that the action levels should not have been set that way, and it should be noted that the instruments we use are also used for many non-envionmental applications. The idea that labs would want pesticide action levels set too low is silly, we benefit from as much product moving through the system as possible; the most desirable outcome for us is always a boring non-detect. Every lab has taken calls from clients swearing on their mother's grave that they didn't use XYZ banned pesticide, even in the face of results we've verified and sent to a second or even third lab. What we actually want are sensible rules that strike a balance between protecting the cannabis consumer and allowing the industry to grow, especially for craft producers. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to grow their own cannabis, and the honor system isn't enough. Besides, none of this affects your ability to grow cannabis at home with as much or as little pesticides as you like.