[geggam]

Sure.

Hemp is a weed and was growing prolifically all over the US until the 1920's and 1930's, when it was outlawed. Free range cattle still is a big thing but was even larger then. Most of the beef in the nation consumed hemp, and the people consumed hemp 2nd hand by eating the domestic and wild animals that grazed on this wild growing weed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

Then you take a look at the "newly" (1990s) discovered endocannabanoid system in humans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannabinoid_system

It isn't hard to extrapolate that humans have been digesting the weed and cannabinoids for a long time and it is an integral part of the human system

Of course you can say humans and the plants evolved parallel and they arent related. I have no evidence to prove otherwise but typically when you see similar systems in the same ecosystem they are related.

[kerkeslager]

> Hemp is a weed and was growing prolifically all over the US until the 1920's and 1930's, when it was outlawed. Free range cattle still is a big thing but was even larger then. Most of the beef in the nation consumed hemp 2nd hand by eating the domestic and wild animals that grazed on this wild growing weed

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

1. The link you provided states that hemp contains varying amounts of CBD, and does not claim that cattle have ever consumed any CBD.

2. Even if cattle do/did consume CBD, the link does not claim that any of that CBD is passed down to humans consuming beef--there's no evidence in that link that beef from cattle who consume CBD contains any CBD.

> It isn't hard to extrapolate that humans have been digesting the weed and cannabinoids for a long time and it is an integral part of the human system

> Of course you can say humans and the plants evolved parallel and they arent related. I have no evidence to prove otherwise but typically when you see similar systems in the same ecosystem they are related.

1. I don't buy the claim that "typically when you see similar systems in the same ecosystem they are related". Proving such a claim would require a wide survey of a bunch of ecosystems to prove a hypothesis that doesn't really build toward any theory: in short, this isn't even a good hypothesis, let alone a hypothesis which is likely to have been tested.

2. Even if we accept hypothesis 1 is true, that doesn't show what the relation is--it doesn't show that humans have been digesting cannabinoids. There's lots of evidence that cannabinoid receptors are involved in hunger and metabolism, and while I won't claim to fully understand that, I think we can agree that humans need to eat to survive, so there are some pretty clear reasons for the cannabinoid receptor system existing in humans that have nothing to do with cannabinoids originating in plants. Also, humans aren't the only species with cannabinoid systems. It's just as possible that humans or another mammal are integral parts of cannabinoid survival than the inverse.

I can certainly appreciate the romantic aesthetic of a plant coevolving with humans to expand our minds or some such, but the fact that it's such an aesthetically pleasing hypothesis should be recognized as bias, making me doubly skeptical.

[geggam]

You should do some learning on your own and not just read what I post

https://extension.psu.edu/industrial-hemp-production

[kerkeslager]

> You should do some learning on your own and not just read what I post

> https://extension.psu.edu/industrial-hemp-production

1. You should read the links that you post.

2. You should post links that contain evidence for your claims, instead of links that don't.

I'm sorry to be glib here, but surely you can see the problem with telling ME to go find evidence for YOUR claims, when you can't even be bothered to find evidence for your own claims. Given that you aren't presenting any evidence for your claims, I think it's highly likely that no such evidence exists, and I'm not going to waste my time searching for evidence that likely doesn't exist.

Beating a dead horse a bit: the link you've posted still does not say that cannabinoids have ever been part of the human diet.

I strongly suspect that I've actually read more on this subject than you have, as you've failed to mention Michael Pollan's Botany of Desire, which actually explores the coevolutionary history of humans and marijuana. Although Pollan still doesn't make the claims you're making about CBD oil, he does at least survey some evidence for coevolution between humans and marijuana.

[geggam]

:)

So you have read enough to see but you need some sort of proof aside from the fact humans have been using it as feed for as long as history has been recorded ?

https://www.feedipedia.org/node/50

Given the fact humans didnt even know they had the endocannabanoid system until the 90's I am not surprised there isnt technical evidence showing the correlation.

Common sense should prevail here, but you are correct... even though the cannabanoid receptors are one of the most populous receptors in the brain and folks using CBD oil have been reporting all sorts of interesting reactions to it ( I personally can tell you it relieves pain from nerve damage ). Nothing in the links I posted directly correlates anything.

Odd how the money in the cotton industry lobbied and killed the hemp industry isnt it?

Trivia ... US Constitution is written on Hemp Paper

[ncmncm]

It is true that paper, and a very large proportion of fabric, were made from hemp until William Randolph Hearst orchestrated a fear campaign about "devil weed" to create a larger market for his timber holdings.

There was quite a lot of resistance to paper made of wood. It was acidic, so turned brown and crumbled in a short time, and was generally of lower quality than hemp paper. The quality problems have been addressed, since, but wood still takes quite a lot more processing to make into useful fiber.