Ray Walley

Aren't you the one who stormed off mumbling "blocked"? The very same who constantly touts modern "high thc" and "psychosis", but then simultaneously provides claims of "psychosis" as a result of 3% THC? Yet again cites U. Miss, when their own documentation is their patients complained of having to smoke "dozens" of cigarettes provided to "not get high", and have headaches of 3-4% material (dozens), but yet again simultaneously claiming the U.S population were consuming the same material for decades "getting high" (were they also smoking "dozens" of joints for zero effects and headaches?), despite the well documented industry history of THC milestones and genetic availability to cultivators clearly displaying 20%+ was widely available as early as 1974? Which followed your own (incorrect) statements about the very same patent, which you were incorrect in stating THC was not included when it clearly referenced throughout as possessing the same antioxidant and neuroprotective benefits of CBD? Disingenuous you say? Yes, you certainly are. But in fairness, it's typical of the opposition. (Actually, you stated 2006, but it was 99'-03') Have you ever met Mechoulam, Guzman/Sanchez, Melamede and others? Interacted with anyone in the industry? Interacted with patients/consumers? Even ever seen an actual plant? Once again, you clearly display zero understanding of the plant, it's history, the industry, (be that U.S or globally), it's consumers/patients, or the 50+ yr. old body of research.