The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Comments on specific shops. Use search to find the topic for a shop.

Rate The Plug (formerly Utopia)

I like The Plug
242
90%
I don't like The Plug
27
10%
 
Total votes: 269

User avatar
OneHighMofo
Posts: 1720
Joined: Wed 25th Feb 2015 06:04 pm

Re: The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Post by OneHighMofo »

TwoCanucks wrote: Tue 25th Sep 2018 09:57 am This was a really great read. Have a much better understanding of PGRs. Thanks OHMF, has opened my eyes, I already find myself looking at bud differently. Once I was blind.... cheers
You're very welcome sir. We're all better off for good information. I should point out though that the article - while well balanced, is out and out wrong in at least one place.
Genetically some strains are naturally more dense than others, Cannabis indica for example is known to be more dense than Cannabis sativa
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.

Also:
Perhaps also you have noticed a potent fuel/gas aroma when presented with imported or visually impressive "high grade". These are usually telltale signs that the cannabis may have been grown using plant growth regulators (PGRs).
Hmmmm. OR - maybe you have some bomb-ass OG or Diesel?

Also:
Image

I don't think that image is a particulary good example (and may even be compeltey false) of what a 'PGR bud' would look like. We shouldn't start being paranoic about dense and compact cannabis now we're armed with some warnings from a bunch of only partly-reputable sources. I've seen lots of bud that I can 100% attest to being clean that many would consider contains traits similar to product grown using PGR. So there aren't any totally dependable and clear cut visual indicators. Unfortunately being 100% confident is going to purely be the domain of the breeder/farmer with good experience of any given strain... Especially where dense, round and compact nugs are a known property of the varietal.

Key take-away: If you're concerned. Buy from trusted sources, idealy small-batch organically farmed craft-cannabis. Or - GYO.


User avatar
krupinska
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue 28th Aug 2018 03:09 pm

Re: The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Post by krupinska »

Like i said the stem started to mold imo. Just looked and smelled like some albanian weed with some chemical spray. I may now avoid shops with bad light.
DeLekkersteNUGS16 wrote: Mon 24th Sep 2018 06:57 pm
krupinska wrote: Fri 21st Sep 2018 03:39 pm Got the Z3 from them, wasn't that good. Smelled a bit chemical and the stem started to mold...
Do tell more. All hail the Plug thread the phoneix from the ashes of this forum
User avatar
WLow
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri 4th Dec 2015 08:03 pm

Re: The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Post by WLow »

234 vote for the plug lmao

more active members for acd :mrgreen:
FODSmith
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed 6th Jun 2018 01:58 pm

Re: The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Post by FODSmith »

WLow wrote: Wed 26th Sep 2018 01:08 am 234 vote for the plug lmao
Yes, that's rather misleading, isn't it? Those votes were for Utopia. How many of those who liked it would have voted it up in it current incarnation?
User avatar
Nuggz
Posts: 1413
Joined: Tue 2nd Jun 2015 08:49 pm

Re: The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Post by Nuggz »

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:
Perhaps also you have noticed a potent fuel/gas aroma when presented with imported or visually impressive "high grade". These are usually telltale signs that the cannabis may have been grown using plant growth regulators (PGRs).
All credibility here is immediately thrown out the window, so we're on the same page about the sheer stupidity of the above statement.


Key take-away: If you're concerned. Buy from trusted sources, idealy small-batch organically farmed craft-cannabis. Or - GYO.
Agreed 100%
User avatar
OneHighMofo
Posts: 1720
Joined: Wed 25th Feb 2015 06:04 pm

Re: The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Post by OneHighMofo »

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.
User avatar
Nuggz
Posts: 1413
Joined: Tue 2nd Jun 2015 08:49 pm

Re: The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Post by Nuggz »

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!
User avatar
OneHighMofo
Posts: 1720
Joined: Wed 25th Feb 2015 06:04 pm

Re: The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Post by OneHighMofo »

DeLekkersteNUGS16 wrote: Wed 26th Sep 2018 11:46 am 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!
A worthy answer to that would require
a) me to 100% know the literature and history which I don't.
Or.
b) me to copy/paste large swaths of academic level data.
Or
C) you could just read the fucking science :wink:

But the short version is - I think you're wrong in that you're assuming that there's debate among botanists. As I understand it that's not the case and that the current accepted narrative is a concensus of opinion based on multi-disciplinary research on ethno-botany, archaeology and 'harder' data from gene sequencing. Rather it's 'the community' that have misinterpreted a mistake (and therefore spent years 'debating' from a position based on a fallacious premise :lol: :roll: :mrgreen: ) made by the botanist that created the original taxonomy called Richard Evans Schultes. This has since been dis-spelled by the McPartland research:
“McPartland was the first researcher to look at the genetic markers on the three subspecies of cannabis using the plant’s genome to conclusively identify where it originated. He also proved conclusively that they are all the same species, just different subspecies. As it turns out, cannabis Sativa should have been identified as cannabis Indica, because it originated in India (hence indica) and cannabis Indica should have been identified as cannabis Afghanica, because it actually originated in Afghanistan. Finally, it seems that cannabis Ruderalis is actually what people mean when they refer to cannabis Sativa”

It has been determined by using “DNA barcodes” that cannabis Indica and cannabis Sativa are not separate species, they are both subspecies, separate varieties of one cannabis species.
User avatar
Nuggz
Posts: 1413
Joined: Tue 2nd Jun 2015 08:49 pm

Re: The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Post by Nuggz »

OneHighMofo wrote: Wed 26th Sep 2018 01:40 pm But the short version is - I think you're wrong in that you're assuming that there's debate among botanists. As I understand it that's not the case and that the current accepted narrative is a concensus of opinion based on multi-disciplinary research on ethno-botany, archaeology and 'harder' data from gene sequencing.
OneHighMofo wrote: Wed 26th Sep 2018 01:40 pm C) you could just read the fucking science :wink:
Well to that I say:
Dr. Russo: Botanical taxonomists never agree on anything
for very long!
To paraphrase and expropriate an
old Yiddish expression: 12 botanical taxonomists, 25
different opinions. Many classical botanists would
argue for Cannabis as one polymorphic species based
on the ability of all its types to interbreed. However,
if this were true, hundreds of neotropical gesneriads
(Gesneriaceae, members of the African violet family)
would all be one species since they readily hybridize
and produce fertile offspring. It is clear that there are
many chemotypes of Cannabis: THC predominant,
CBD predominant, and mixed types. This is a good
basic classification, but it has also been possible to selectively
breed for other chemotypes expressing high titers
of THCV, cannabidivarin, cannabichromene, and
even ones producing 100% of its cannabinoids as cannabigerol,
or others with no cannabinoids at all. The
debate continues. Some espouse Cannabis as a single
species, while others describe up to four: Cannabis sativa,
Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalis, and Cannabis
afghanica (or kafiristanica).6, (Russo et al, p. 45; 2015)
#lawyered #statementredacted #notreallythough #staycrispybro

EDIT: Obligatory https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... .29003.ebr #CiteSources
User avatar
OneHighMofo
Posts: 1720
Joined: Wed 25th Feb 2015 06:04 pm

Re: The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Post by OneHighMofo »

Great response - Ethan Russo would certainly be one of the men you might ask for an authorative answer. He's one of the founding fathers of GW pharmaceutical. Regardless the detail of the classification history. I think we (and Dr Russo - see below) can both agree on one key point:

The effects and plant growth properties attributed to the terms Sativa and Indica by 'the community' are 100% bullshit and that taxonomy should be abandoned. For a myriad of reasons. It might have once been useful. But they're now demonstratably wrong.

This position is either supported by the McPartland research. Or the conclusion can be drawn from the opposing viewpoint you offer; Cannabis classificaion isn't simple, clear-cut or definitive. So by extrapolation - niether can any effects attributed to a shifting taxonomy.

In this extraction from the article you quoted; Russo sums it up nicely.
CCR: Some users describe the psychoactive effects ofCannabis indicaandsativaas being distinctive, even opposite. But are they really? Beyond self-reports from users, is there any hard evidence for pharmacologically different species of Cannabis?

Dr. Russo: There are biochemically distinct strains of Cannabis, but the sativa/indica distinction as commonly applied in the lay literature is total nonsense and an exercise in futility. One cannot in any way currently guess the biochemical content of a given Cannabis plant based on its height, branching, or leaf morphology. The degree of interbreeding/hybridization is such that only a biochemical assay tells a potential consumer or scientist what is really in the plant. It is essential that future commerce allows complete and accurate cannabinoid and terpenoid profiles to be available.

CCR:Sativais often described as being uplifting and energetic, whereasindicaas being relaxing and calming. Can you speculate on what could be the basis for these perceived differences?

Dr. Russo: We would all prefer simple nostrums to explain complex systems, but this is futile and even potentially dangerous in the context of a psychoactive drug such as Cannabis. Once again, it is necessary to quantify the biochemical components of a given Cannabis strain and correlate these with the observed effects in real patients. Beyond the increasing number of CBD predominant strains in recent years, almost all Cannabis on the market has been from high-THC strains. The differences in observed effects in Cannabis are then due to their terpenoid content, which is rarely assayed, let alone reported to potential consumers. The sedation of the so-called indica strains is falsely attributed to CBD content when, in fact, CBD is stimulating in low and moderate doses! Rather, sedation in most common Cannabis strains is attributable to their myrcene content, a monoterpene with a strongly sedative couch-lock effect that resembles a narcotic. In contrast, a high limonene content (common to citrus peels) will be uplifting on mood, while the presence of the relatively rare terpene in Cannabis, alpha-pinene, can effectively reduce or eliminate the short-term memory impairment classically induced by THC.2,8

CCR: How do you think one could address thesativa/indicadichotomy in a scientifically sound manner?

Dr. Russo: Since the taxonomists cannot agree, I would strongly encourage the scientific community, the press, and the public to abandon the sativa/indica nomenclature and rather insist that accurate biochemical assays on cannabinoid and terpenoid profiles be available for Cannabis in both the medical and recreational markets. Scientific accuracy and the public health demand no less than this.
User avatar
Nuggz
Posts: 1413
Joined: Tue 2nd Jun 2015 08:49 pm

Re: The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Post by Nuggz »

Oh make no mistake despite me being as stubborn and contentious a cunt as ever, I do agree that most of the stoner rhetoric surrounding the Indica-Sativa paradigm is quite indeed utter bullshit, and also I've always been of the opinion that cannabis encompasses one single botanical species and its variant subspecies.

I guess I was propping up the dated use of cannabis sativa as being an umbrella term for cannabis, though I better grasp the error of my ways there, thanks to your schooling it up. Regarding the finicky nature of Botanical-taxonomy I still stand firmly by that - it seems to be a field which constantly makes objections, concessions and amendments to its own findings.

Edit: interesting though, I knew about entourage effect and terpenes, but I've seen it come up more and more in such discussion. All hail the almighty terps brooooos!!!!
User avatar
WLow
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri 4th Dec 2015 08:03 pm

Re: The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Post by WLow »

Latest Menu is hilarious, if i counted right there is 68 strains on the list :lol:
If you really have all thoses strain together how you even can keep up, it's ridiculous.

Some of the cali listed in the past is now regular priced like gelato for 15e, does it magicaly became dutch now? :mrgreen:
User avatar
Nuggz
Posts: 1413
Joined: Tue 2nd Jun 2015 08:49 pm

Re: The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Post by Nuggz »

WLow wrote: Wed 14th Nov 2018 04:36 pm Latest Menu is hilarious, if i counted right there is 68 strains on the list :lol:
If you really have all thoses strain together how you even can keep up, it's ridiculous.

Some of the cali listed in the past is now regular priced like gelato for 15e, does it magicaly became dutch now? :mrgreen:
The "Cali" strains that under the regular section of the menu are just those stains purportedly grown here.
User avatar
WLow
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri 4th Dec 2015 08:03 pm

Re: The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Post by WLow »

Before Gelato 33 had the 35e price tag, now it's 15e. The Gelato 41 is still 35e and also sold at 15e, this menu doesn't make sense at all...

There is a bunch of other 10e gr strains , it's like he get's every single batch of whatever and let it on the menu even if it's finished, how could you reasonably supply 68 strains for a shop!? Really puts me of to strain hunt here...
User avatar
Nuggz
Posts: 1413
Joined: Tue 2nd Jun 2015 08:49 pm

Re: The Plug (formerly Utopia)

Post by Nuggz »

WLow wrote: Wed 14th Nov 2018 10:00 pm Before Gelato 33 had the 35e price tag, now it's 15e. The Gelato 41 is still 35e and also sold at 15e, this menu doesn't make sense at all...

There is a bunch of other 10e gr strains , it's like he get's every single batch of whatever and let it on the menu even if it's finished, how could you reasonably supply 68 strains for a shop!? Really puts me of to strain hunt here...
Seriously, what is so difficult to grasp that doesn't make sense, one is Euro grown, the other US grown. Surely you can't be that dense....

If you look at the normal priced Gelato versus the "Cali" Gelato the difference will be quite plain. Not that I would buy either at this point.
Post Reply