OneHighMofo wrote: ↑Wed 26th Sep 2018 10:39 am
DeLekkersteNUGS16 wrote: ↑Wed 26th Sep 2018 09:02 am
OneHighMofo wrote: ↑Tue 25th Sep 2018 01:52 pm
That sentence could not be more factually incorrect if it tried. Cannabis Sativa (hemp) doesn't really flower in the same way that Cannabis Afghanica and Indica do. So we have to take the authors research skills and authority on the subject with a healthy dose of skepticsm.
Personally I consider this to be more of terminological bickering rather than black and white factual discrepancies, but I see your point. Still "Cannabis Sativa" can be used as an umbrella for all cannabis plants - and thus does not automatically indicate "industrial or wild hemp", and also for most varieties that wouldn't be considered "afghanica" that said:
There are very well respected botanists that have dedicated their lives to the study of the plant that would strongly disagree with you. With all due respect - I'll side with their opinion.
Taxonomy is important. As is the accuracy of language within those taxonomies. The only people that are bickering about it are the people too lazy to read and understand the science and therefore find themselves wrong, and/or those that are profiting from the continued cognitive disconnect
*edit* Sorry for the fractured response...
The classifications Afghanica and Indica were arrived at (as I understand it) purely to denote the adaptation of the putative ancestors of Cannabis Sativa into (NLD and BLD, narrow and broad leaf) drug producing cultivars.
Ok I see the merit of your points,
but (to quote Frank Underwood: "My mother always told me everything that comes before 'but' doesn't count") this is something that is still contested among (respected yes) botanists. Considering that the original taxonomic/botanical designation of the plant was indeed Cannabis Sativa, that is still ingrained in much of the way the plant is viewed and discussed.
The consideration of cannabis plants, and their further division into species and/or sub-species is something that has changed a lot over years so my point is also, what we hold today to be the word of fact-based botanical/taxonomy science may not hold true tomorrow. Taxonomy, is indeed a semi-subjective science taxonomists argue all time over what constitutes a species versus a sub-species (just like linguists argue over what constitutes a language versus a dialect) these are both concerned with the socially-constructed sciences of naming i.e. terminology, so there are bound to be divergent views and perceptions of how things should be classified.
Meaning speaking in absolutes in a 'science' such as taxonomy does not hold much weight - it is not a law of physics or some other such indisputable constant. Even if there is a say a "rubric" for judging the division of the species versus sub-species that very rubric itself is a social construct and not independently extant or factual outside of its very being as a social-construct. Unlike say Newton's laws of physics which will hold true in absolution regardless of human opinion, interpretation, interference and/or manipulation.
Finally, you're speaking to stoners not botanists, the stoner-culture (bastion of intellectualism it is) has propped up divergent use of this terminology. I studied (regrettably) Political-Science/International Relations (IR) but don't get up in arms about the word 'state' (i.e. a sovereign-nation state) being referred to as a country or nation (in political-science and IR those are not correctly applied terms), because colloquial speech has incorporated them in a slightly different manner.
So yes, I will be skeptical of skepticism - and equate this to terminological bickering, so when botanists announce tomorrow that Ruderalis isn't actually cannabis at all but an inbred cousin of the hops (or some other such scenario) I'll chalk it up to business as usual.
EDIT: I do acknowledge from an as it currently stands 'up-to-date' purely botanical and taxonomic perspective - that what you say is 100% correct, however I'm just hating on the whole 'game' rather than the 'player' if you get me.
Anyway rant over/, vape time - stay crispy my favorite debate partner!