A new study has made some revealing discoveries about the cannabis grown at the University of Mississippi. That's the infamous and sole source of cannabis being used in federally funded cannabis research. I've written before about the numerous reports of poor quality flower, possible mold, and absurdly low THC levels.
That Ole Miss weed, which is funded by the National Institute On Drug Abuse (NIDA), is clearly not representative of what anyone in the real world is smoking/processing, and despite numerous requests to the Justice Department to expand the options for researchers to obtain cannabis from other, better sources, NIDA remains the solitary hook-up for federally funded researchers. Now we come to find they are the worst... weed dealers... ever. No, worse than the dealer who shorted your bags, or sold it wet, or was always four hours late.
Marijuana Moment shared what University of Northern Colorado researchers uncovered when seeking information on the genetics of NIDA-provided weed. Per Marijuana Moment: "The study... looked at 49 different cannabis samples, including hemp and NIDA-supplied marijuana, as well as various indica, sativa, and hybrid strains sold in the commercial market. When the samples were genetically analyzed, the researchers were surprised to find just how different NIDA’s marijuana is from the cannabis most people are consuming.... (The) research-grade cannabis from NIDA shared a closer 'genetic affinity with hemp samples in most analyses' than with commercially available marijuana."
Wait... what? What are you saying?
“Our genetic investigation adds to this previous research, indicating that the genetic makeup of NIDA cannabis is also distinctive from commercially available medical and recreational cannabis,” they wrote. “To our knowledge, this is the first genetic study to include research-grade marijuana from NIDA, and its placement with hemp samples was unexpected.”
This certainly calls into question the results of all the research that's been performed using this "weed"—not so much because of its cannabinoid content, but because of the way test subjects used and experienced it. As this subpar schwag isn't anything like what's being purchased and consumed from medical and recreational dispensaries, it's not an accurate representation of, well, anything. An argument could be made that by limiting researchers to using a vastly inferior product, NIDA could all but assure that cannabis research is inhibited, and any results are compromised in favor of prohibitionists.