I won the raffle!!! They pulled my ticket last night. Geneticsupply is the best!
5 Likes
HELL YES!!! CONGRATS!!! I was 7 numbers off!! lol! That is awesome you won a huge prize!!
1 Like
That’s for sure. They said it’s the largest raffle they have done! It’s close to 1000 in gear!
3 Likes
Enjoy, everything in the mix is straight fire.
1 Like
the Source Rule, which determines the legal status of a cannabinoid based on the source from which it was derived. Second, the DEA rarely takes positions on cannabis and cannabis legal issues that are favorable or helpful to the cannabis industry or cannabis consumers.
The Source Rule has been guiding the industry since 2016, and it is a crucial safeguard to the legal status of hemp and hemp products.
Under federal law, “marihuana” is defined as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin.” A seed from a marijuana plant unqualifiedly meets this definition. Marihuana “seeds” are specifically mentioned. In supporting its position that cannabis seeds are not controlled, the DEA references the legal definition of “hemp” as an exception in that it removes from control the cannabis plant and all of its parts with a D9-THC concentration no greater than 0.3% on a dry weight basis.
his makes logical sense until you consider that a seed from a marijuana plant never has an opportunity to reach the “hemp exception” stage because it is “marihuana” before it leaves the gate. Also, by definition marijuana is not and cannot be grown subject to a USDA or state hemp license. A marijuana seed is just that – marijuana.
Moreover, based on the DEA’s position, it appears that one could “launder” an illegal marijuana grow by removing/diluting the D9-THC from the crop and then possessing or selling only the parts of the plant that do not contain D9-THC concentrations that exceed the 0.3% limit. Surely this is not what the DEA means. If it does, in fact, mean this, then its position is based on an illogical reading of current cannabis laws, despite the fact that it results in a favorable outcome for the industry.
To this last point, those who claim this issue is resolved simply because “the DEA said it” should bear in mind that this way of thinking is a slippery slope. Taking the DEA’s position on this matter just because it is favorable and because the DEA “said so” suggests that the DEA’s opinion on legal issues such as this is the final word. Should we accept the DEA’s word as final on all cannabis-related issues? The DEA gets most cannabis matters wrong. In other words, before using a pronouncement by the DEA as the cornerstone of your argument on a legal point, please be aware that this places you in a compromising position. The DEA is not a good bedfellow.
In any event, and despite my disagreement with the DEA’s analysis, this article is about identifying and avoiding “traps” that could arise in light of the DEA’s position. For argument’s sake, the rest of this article assumes that the DEA is right, or at least that its position represents the current state of the law regarding the matters it addresses. With that in mind, I want to discuss two potential legal problems I see. The first is selling cannabis seeds in conjunction with marketing and otherwise making claims about their genetic characteristics. The second is selling cannabis clones.
TRAP 1- MARKETING CANNABIS SEEDS BY DISCUSSING THEIR MARIJUANA GENETICS
Cultivating or manufacturing a schedule 1 drug is a federal crime. As discussed in this FindLaw blog, “[d]rug “manufacturing,” in a criminal law setting, occurs when an individual is involved in any step of the illicit drug production process. Those who sell certain precursor chemicals, specialized equipment, or simply offer to help produce drugs also may be charged with the crime.” Possessing or selling cannabis seeds may be fine in the abstract; however, marketing and selling seeds to grow marijuana likely implicates you in a crime.
Let’s dig a little deeper into this issue. I did a quick Google search of “buy cannabis seeds” and got about 195,000 results. I randomly clicked on one of the top results and found an online retailer of cannabis seeds. Under the heading “High THC Seeds” the site states: “[with] the growing aid of technology, breeders have been able to identify ways to increase THC content in plants via cross-breeding.” The website goes on to discuss some new seed offerings: “[Redacted] is a new addition to the family and is a selection of strains bred with the highest THC content possible…. If you’re looking to collect cannabis seeds with high THC levels then we’ve made it easy for you to sort and select below.” The site offers a number of cannabis seed varieties, along with various descriptions. Here’s one I chose at random: “[This seed’s] THC content reaches 25% with less than 1% CBD.” Marketing cannabis seeds in this manner is highly risky behavior.
Let’s say this particular seed seller, or any one of its competitors (there are lots and lots of them), sells a package of this particular cannabis seed to someone who likes the description and wants to grow cannabis with THC concentrations “up to 25% with less than 1% CBD”. Then let’s assume that this buyer grows marijuana and is busted by the Feds. The Feds seize everything. They discover that the seed from which the illegal marijuana crop was grown was sold by an online seed bank and that the seed involved was specifically advertised to grow high THC marijuana. The Feds charge the seed seller with the federal crime of conspiring to manufacture a schedule 1 drug. Will the DEA’s Seed Letter operate as a “get out of jail free card”? Probably not.
The seller’s intention, its mens rea, is to sell cannabis seeds to someone who will likely use them to grow high THC marijuana, which is the whole point of advertising “high THC” seeds. In other words, the cannabis seed seller in this example is one link in the manufacturing chain and could be charged with conspiring with the buyer to produce an illegal drug. The fact that the word “collectible” is sprinkled throughout the website is unlikely to make a difference since the prosecutor and the court will look to the totality of the circumstances and will almost certainly view the use of the term “collectible” in conjunction with all of the other marketing language about “growing” and “breeding” high THC cannabis. At a minimum, this is a criminal prosecution waiting to happen.
So, yes, generically selling “cannabis seeds” may be fine. But selling and marketing them based on genetics that produce high THC marijuana plants is probably not. The rub is that this is where all of the commercial activity is happening. No one wants to spend money on a generic cannabis seed. The real money is in selling good genetics, which must be advertised. And that advertisement – that marketing of “high THC” cannabis seeds – is what could land you in jail, regardless of the DEA Seed Letter.
TRAP 2- SELLING CANNABIS CLONES WITHOUT A HEMP LICENSE
Since publication of the DEA Seed Letter, I’ve been asked about selling cannabis clones. This is not a new issue. I’ve discussed it with many clients in the past. Unfortunately, you should not sell cannabis clones if you do not have a license to grow hemp. First of all, the DEA Seed Letter makes no mention of “clones”. In addition to “cannabis seeds”, it specifically references “tissue culture or any other genetic material that is derived or extracted from the cannabis plant such as tissue culture and any other genetic material that has a D9-THC concentration of not more than 0.3% on a dry weight basis meets the definition of “hemp” and thus is not controlled under the CSA.” Clones are not included.
Clones do not have D9-THC concentrations in excess of 0.3%, so selling them should also be lawful, right? Wrong. Under federal law, the only people allowed to grow cannabis are licensed hemp growers and a select few who have received DEA licenses to grow marijuana. Unfortunately, no one else is allowed to grow cannabis. Owning a clone is “growing” cannabis. If you have a hemp license, then you can sell your cannabis clones, but for similar reasons as discussed in “Trap 1”, you should only sell cannabis clones to other people or businesses with hemp production licenses in order to eliminate the possibility of being charged as a co-conspirator in a marijuana bust. Additionally, if you sell a marijuana clone to a hemp grower, then the grower will fail its pre-harvest test and will be very unhappy. If you sell the licensed grower a hemp clone, then all is well. Either way, selling marijuana clones, by which I mean a cannabis plant that will eventually produce high levels of THC, is illegal under federal law and is not sanctioned by the DEA Seed Letter.
I don’t like being the bearer of bad news, nor do I enjoy putting a damper on the party. In fact, I think the DEA’s position is laudable, if only because it appears to be favorable to the cannabis industry, regardless of whether its position is legally supported. That being said, I worry that the enthusiasm generated by the letter will lead some into trouble they do not anticipate, particularly for those who view the DEA Seed Letter as a DEA-sanctioned pass to grow and sell marijuana. Ultimately, the resolution to this whole issue is to remove marijuana from the CSA altogether. Until then, we will have to take our triumphs where we can get them while being aware that this particular triumph in cannabis could belie a trap.
8 Likes
that’s just meaningless ad copy. you need to ignore the branding and advertising, and focus on sourcing and well known breeders.
It’s poor form to recommend seed banks around the site if you don’t know if they are legit. You could be leading someone into a scam.
My genuine advice, slow down on seed buying. A bunch of cheap seeds won’t do you any good if the plants and genetics are subpar.
Find a few lines that you like from a well established breeder and seed bank, and focus on growing those for a while.
8 Likes
In general, people shouldn’t recommend seed banks until they have grown out the seeds. I often see people making a purchase, and as soon as they get the seeds, immediately posting here recommending the site or breeder.
Wait until you have grown the seeds, and know whether the plants are any good before recommending a bank or breeder.
14 Likes
How true !!! some times cultivators get a head of themselves
3 Likes
100% agree, ofc it’s great that you got your seeds bc when you order across the sea it’s a big luck but the point is to grow a strong plant with a good harvest
5 Likes
years go by but herbis is still the fastest, Ive got them within a couple of days here in US
1 Like
Yes and no. A purchase experience doesn’t have to have anything to do with growing out the purchased seeds.
For example, last year I made a few international orders. First time using a couple seedbanks myself. Purchases went smooth, everything and more was included and was quick to arrive. I posted about those places and would recommend them from my experience.
I haven’t grown any of those seeds out. But that doesn’t have anything to do with the purchase. Hell, they didnt make the seeds to begin with, why would the outcome of the seeds take anything away from the purchase. Unless these are unlabelled/not breeder pack seeds that could have been swapped out for aome junk, I see no reason not to give a good review to a seedbank.
Now to give a good review of said seeds without growing them? Yeah no thats silly.
4 Likes
This is exactly why. It’s become very common for seeds to be “removed” from breeder packs for shipping, which calls their validity into question.
There are also many more breeders selling directly, and seed banks with in house brands, or generic unbranded seeds labeled with recognizable strain names.
It’s not just old school seed banks like attitude etc selling sealed packs from well known brands anymore.
For example sites like crop king / rocket seeds appear to be selling breeder packs from established brands, but they have been called out by brands like blimburn for faking their packaging.
6 Likes
It still doesn’t make sense to me.
I ordered from CLTVRS.com out of Colorado i believe. I know nothing about them and had never heard of them. But it was a great buying experience.
I ordered packs Exotic Alchemy seeds. Sealed packs.
So…I shouldn’t let people know that this place was legit until I pop those packs? That doesn’t make any sense to me.
Maybe it’s different if you recieve plastic baggies with handwritten/computer generated labels.
I dont know, i get where youre coming from but it just seems too black and white to me. If the reviews don’t get put out there, then people buy from places like crap king.
1 Like
Like I said, this isn’t relevant if you are getting sealed packs that you can verify as genuine and not tampered with.
I gave a list of examples where it would be beneficial or necessary to grow the seeds in order to know if they were genuine.
@Fitzera Read the earlier posts I was responding to if you want to see the kinds of seedbanks I am referring to.
6 Likes
I still look at it differently. In your first example, they should have been reviewed and called out. Review should state “hey I ssked them for breeder packs, they didn’t respond to my request and sent me these random seeds”. Perfect reason for having said review.
I get what you’re saying 100%, but I feel we should be reviewing banks regardless if the seeds had been grown yet and lay it all out there.
“I gave these guys a shot. Never heard of them. They followed through and did this or that for me…” or “heard good of these guys before, made a purchase and got this instead of this and these and these in blank baggies, none of which I ordered”
3 Likes
You’re missing the point. It was because the user posted his experience here that we were able to tell him the seeds might not be genuine.
They shared their experience with a seed bank, and the community called out the seed bank they ordered from. This is the purpose of this thread.
You’re responding without understanding the context.
What you’re saying ‘should have happened’ is exactly what did happen. Just read the thread.
5 Likes
FWIW I ordered a couple Bodhi packs from Dagga Garden recently - they threw in a freebie Bodhi pack, and a couple freebie packs of their own, and a sample pack of mycorhizals+, and some rolling papers, and… a grove bag. Also a pack of arugula seeds. Pretty awesome haul really.
8 Likes
Me! Let’s do this!
1 Like
That my friend is a strain I would like to grow. Pine would definitely cross over and make this a terpene bomb. The Appalachian is very chem skunky with a very uplifting say more 60-40 indica even though I think it maybe more sat ? I could not figure this out at first because of lineage suggested it would be indica Dom. Found a lineage wheel that suggests a sprinkle of lemon Thai I think?
But yeah I was looking for something I would get that emulated that fizz and cantaloupe sort of things like the old skunk and shiva skunks I’ve grown or smoked. Sorry couldn’t leave out the chem dawg.
The mountain temple is supposed to be nice a manageable haze like sativa that is easier to manage than the sea of green ssh crosses apparently? There is a sprite pheno that is very sought after. I’m sort of dormant at moment but have 6 in the fridge. With so many more seed’s that I’m going to have to start sifting through them. Had some Mac 1 today really liked it although usual suspects. I’ve got a Mac 1 x I might have to fish out soon, not from bodhi though
3 Likes