A Provisioning Centers Answer To Cannabis Testing Centers.

[Restorium2]

Same thing for bugs?

[Norby]

Nope. Education and dead bugs are the key to pesticide free cannabis. If you think that your grower is so dumb he uses pesticides without having pests then pay for a test. We all don't need to pay for extreme ignorance.

People are right now unfortunately.  Show me the post where I said MANDATORY testing.  You are now trying to paint me as someone for mandatory testing.  not worth my time.  find someone else to play with.

[Restorium2]

Mold can happen at any time. Having a lab tell you it's mold free 'right now' is not a comprehensive way to watch for mold on your stash. If you are mold sensitive you should be always watching. 

[Norby]

So, under your plan, every patient has to test or inspect themselves and there is no way to get bad product off of the shelves.  You just use it how it is or not.  Every man for themselves. 

 

Under mine, anyone can test for anything, with a machine that prints out a report(you know the unreal ones) which can be used to get a bad product off of the shelves or give an infraction to a dispense depending on standards.  Mine encompasses yours and gives a protection if found but isn't mandatory.

 

So we have your idea on one side and mandatory testing on the other, either of which makes you not completely safe and you have mine in the middle which gives better safety without mandates and a real way to actually do something IF someone is doing something bad.  That is why I think mine is the best and most comprehensive.  Nothing mandated but a real way to get bad meds off of the shelf.  Win - win.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Norby

[Norby]

Mold can happen at any time. Having a lab tell you it's mold free 'right now' is not a comprehensive way to watch for mold on your stash. If you are mold sensitive you should be always watching. 

I just said that.

[Natesilver]

People are right now unfortunately. Show me the post where I said MANDATORY testing. You are now trying to paint me as someone for mandatory testing. not worth my time. find someone else to play with.

Sure sounds like that's what you're advocating for. Excessive, mandatory, expensively prohibitive testing requirements. Because untested marijuana kills and permanently disables so many lol

[Restorium2]

Sure sounds like that's what you're advocating for. Excessive, mandatory, expensively prohibitive testing requirements. Because untested marijuana kills and permanently disables so many lol

He's a lab advocate. Uses Iron labs and lives with a lab tech who could enjoy a job working at a lab. Other than that, he's totally unbiased. 

[Restorium2]

I'm an advocate for patients who would like to test for themselves when they feel the need. And I'm here to explain how it is done. It can be very simple and inexpensive. I thought it would be cool for the dispensaries to help with tutorial posters, instructions, and magnifiers right on hand. Who could/would be against that? 

[Norby]

He's a lab advocate. Uses Iron labs and lives with a lab tech who could enjoy a job working at a lab. Other than that, he's totally unbiased. 

She has a enough experience, you think she'd take a tech job, please.  I think she's quite happy and makes enough teaching though.  A lab job(owning or working) would be boring as hell.  That's why I was a field tech and never went into a lab. 

Why do you think we need money?  Or even care about it after the bills are paid?

Haha, lab advocate, yes, mandatory testing fascist never.  You can't see pesticides so I advocate for testing with my knowledge of people. Try again Resto.

 

Don;t mind Resto he's an escaped psych patient with paranoid delusions.    You guys are funny though, again painting me with accolades as i'm not the type to own a lab business or work there, nor is my wife, she likes teaching kids and her experiments.  That kind of work or ownership wouldn't ever appeal to either of us.  Not that we couldn't but wouldn't.   I'm an organic grower, why the hell would I want a useless fee placed on my product.  Think silly billy I don't need it.  It would subtract from my bottom line if you want to look at it that way.  Why can't you accept my views as mine only?  Their pretty fukken smart.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Norby

[Restorium2]

So, under your plan, every patient has to test or inspect themselves and there is no way to get bad product off of the shelves.  You just use it how it is or not.  Every man for themselves. 

 

Under mine, anyone can test for anything, with a machine that prints out a report(you know the unreal ones) which can be used to get a bad product off of the shelves or give an infraction to a dispense depending on standards.  Mine encompasses yours and gives a protection if found but isn't mandatory.

 

So we have your idea on one side and mandatory testing on the other, either of which makes you not completely safe and you have mine in the middle which gives better safety without mandates and a real way to actually do something IF someone is doing something bad.  That is why I think mine is the best and most comprehensive.  Nothing mandated but a real way to get bad meds off of the shelf.  Win - win.

That right there IS manditory testing, no doubt about it. If you think that dispensaries are going to put up with it and caregivers are not then you are disillusioned. What you are advocating is a total mandated laboratory inspection of everything sold. 

Edited December 16, 2014 by Restorium2

[Norby]

That right there IS manditory testing, no doubt about it. If you think that dispensaries are going to put up with it and caregivers are not then you are disillusioned. What you are advocating is a total mandated laboratory inspection of everything sold. 

Howeso?  Why couldn't a random test that shows too much pesticides on a product be used to take it off the shelves or get it tested from the facility?  Why would it only be a mandatory test that could accomplish this?

 

Umm, both would be subject to random testing if anyone did want to test and the same ramifications.  Just like if you are selling veggies that are toxic at the end of your driveway or if Meijers sold something that was above permitted levels.  There would be no difference.  I think.  How do they do it at Meijers if they buy some food and it turns out bad?  They don't test all teh food in the US, it's random.  Who would be liable or what would be the penalty for bad food?  Is it just recalled?  It's the same model as food, isn't that what you always wanted?

[Restorium2]

Howeso?  Why couldn't a random test that shows too much pesticides on a product be used to take it off the shelves or get it tested from the facility?  Why would it only be a mandatory test that could accomplish this?

 

Umm, both would be subject to random testing if anyone did want to test and the same ramifications.  Just like if you are selling veggies that are toxic at the end of your driveway or if Meijers sold something that was above permitted levels.  There would be no difference.  I think.  How do they do it at Meijers if they buy some food and it turns out bad?  They don't test all teh food in the US, it's random.  Who would be liable or what would be the penalty for bad food?  Is it just recalled?  It's the same model as food, isn't that what you always wanted?

Standards with fines is manditory testing. Very simple. 

[Norby]

And any dispensary could do a random test on teh caregivers that supply them and know who they would have to worry about and they can do a "mandatory" look over their product for mold nad bugs, right?

[Norby]

Standards with fines is manditory testing. Very simple. 

No it isn't.  I'm sorry you can't understand that, truly.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Norby

[Restorium2]

And any dispensary could do a random test on teh caregivers that supply them and know who they would have to worry about and they can do a "mandatory" look over their product for mold nad bugs, right?

You forgot about your 'fines'. That means government oversites and manditory testing for everything. I think you might not understand this issue. Or are pretending not to.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Restorium2

[Norby]

So the food you ate this morning was tested?  Then how does Ecoli get in our spinach and there are recalls if it's MANDATED to be tested?  Are you saying anyone can bring food to sell at Meijers that are above levels allowed?  Why are there standards then if there is no ramifications?  Seems kind of pointless doesn't it?

 

Maybe you don't understand my concept. Maybe you don't understand how the food system works?

[Norby]

You forgot about your 'fines'. That means government oversites and manditory testing for everything. I think you might not understand this issue. Or are pretending not to.

Gov't oversight and fines DOES NOT mean mandatory testing.  Standards mean nothing if they CAN'T be enforced.  Who would care?  Why would you worry that someone could test product and someone would be held liable?  Doesn't have to mean mandatory testing, just that you are responsible for what you sell someone.  I know it's a hard concept Resto, but try.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Norby

[Natesilver]

Yeah norby you do sound like a hack for the lab testing industry/racket

[Wild Bill]

Personally I think if the product came from a large commercial grow I would want it tested. If it came from a personal grow I would have more confidence in it. (Depending on who grew it)

 

There is more room for overlooking or ignoring problems and contamination with large grows. You rarely see bad food at farm stands but the packaged stuff on the shelves gets recalled all the time. Even the produce has e coli on it.

 

Let me stick to growing my own and I know exactly what's in it, on it and whether or not it's been flushed.

 

Here's a fairly comprehensive report on cannabis testing done by the state of Washington.

 

http://liq.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/BOTEC%20reports/1a-Testing-for-Contaminants-Final-Revised.pdf

[Natesilver]

Personally I think if the product came from a large commercial grow I would want it tested. If it came from a personal grow I would have more confidence in it. (Depending on who grew it)

 

There is more room for overlooking or ignoring problems and contamination with large grows. You rarely see bad food at farm stands but the packaged stuff on the shelves gets recalled all the time. Even the produce has e coli on it.

 

Let me stick to growing my own and I know exactly what's in it, on it and whether or not it's been flushed.

 

Here's a fairly comprehensive report on cannabis testing done by the state of Washington.

 

http://liq.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/BOTEC%20reports/1a-Testing-for-Contaminants-Final-Revised.pdf

It's cool 4271 will legalize caregivers ability to sell overages to pc's. Not so cool if people buy into Norby's campaign of fear and have to pay a $700 testing fee to sell 2.5 oz to a PC.

[Norby]

It's cool 4271 will legalize caregivers ability to sell overages to pc's. Not so cool if people buy into Norby's campaign of fear and have to pay a $700 testing fee to sell 2.5 oz to a PC.

You know what, you can fuk off.  If you can't understand the concept, fine, but painting me the way you are is fukin rude.  If I was part of a testing facility or advocating for them you'd darn well know it. 

It seems to me you 2 just want to be able to sell any toxic crap to anyone with no one finding out and no repercussions.  See I can do it too.

 

And at least TRY and make sense with these accusations.  I grow organic and I want to sell to dispenses too dumbazz.  i grow 18 strains and would have an ounce or 2 at most per plant per week to sell to a dispense, kinda be shooting myself in the foot no?  I wouldn't eve clear the 2.5 you listed.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Norby

[Natesilver]

[quote name="Norby" post="511609" timestamp="1418753312

 

And at least TRY and make sense with these accusations. I grow organic and I want to sell to dispenses too dumbazz.

 

If this is truly the case, which I doubt, how do you fail to understand that the excessive and prohibitive regulations you are advocating for will most likely prevent the economic feasibility of doing such?

[trichcycler]

If I understand this correctly private food producers can sell roadside, at the fair, and in the church too with no government oversight, pesticide testing, or any testing at all.

 

But if they open up a storefront and sell to the general public they will be required to show product safety testing results. I'm not so sure that's a bad idea for a dispensary. These may be the first place a first time user visits and that patient should expect production and safety standards at the public sale. Expensive? you bet!, but that patient can find a caregiver for a personal boutique experience costing half as much too. Someone eating food stuff from a dispensary could expect the same right to safety and dosage labeling maybe?

 

its a great debate imo and will be interesting when resolved in real life.

[Wild Bill]

It's cool 4271 will legalize caregivers ability to sell overages to pc's. Not so cool if people buy into Norby's campaign of fear and have to pay a $700 testing fee to sell 2.5 oz to a PC.

 

Again it depends on who's it selling to them. If I know where they're getting it from then maybe I would trust it or maybe not.

 

Most if not all of the regulars on this board have an appreciation for what high quality cannabis is and take great care to achieve good results.

 

Do you think everyone is this careful? Or, could it be possible that some are only in it for the money and don't care one way or the other if it's truly high quality as long as it looks and smells good and they get good weight? Those are the one's I'm concerned about. Twenty somethings that think they're going to be living like Tony Montana because they watched a few Youtube videos and are now expert growers.

 

Here's one of the concerns brought out in the Washington report.

 

As a high value crop,Cannabis will no doubt prompt some growers to use any and all measures to maximize yields, regardless of burdens or risks placed on employees, customers, or their surroundings. This should be prevented by appropriate registrations, inspection, and residue analysis.

 

Can you envision a scenario where one of these clowns spills some Avid on already cured meds and thinks, "I don't want to lose my investment I'll just sell it to that dispensary across town"?

Edited December 16, 2014 by Wild Bill

[Norby]

If this is truly the case, which I doubt, how do you fail to understand that the excessive and prohibitive regulations you are advocating for will most likely prevent the economic feasibility of doing such?

I'm not advocating for excessive and prohibitive regulations.  I'm advocating a way to punish people who would harm patients to make a buck.  If you can't see the difference I feel bad for you.  And since you don't believe I grow organic there is no reason to continue this conversation because if you can't even believe that then why should I even reply?  Have a nice day.