Hawaii X Skunk #1
“These buds are army-green colored, crystally, and evenly covered with long dark orange (almost brown) hairs.
Broken up, these buds release the scent of sweet freshly cut grass or even hay with some slightly skunky
undertones. The smoke is smooth, non-expansive and has a mild sweet taste. Although the high does not hit
you right away, it first creeps through your body making you feel stoned and then only moderately effects your
cerebrum, allowing you to concentrate on any task at hand. **” – Homepage Amsterdam how to make an air forced pipe
how to make an air forced pipe
Spronck
acrylic grafix bong prices Canada Cannabis Aurora Indica and C
Bongs And Thongs Jerome Baker Design Water Pipe Picture Salernink,
Dutch Marijuana Seeds J Piece of crap - hard to clone. I grew a few seeds from a seedbank selling Sensi BB, and I’m glad I didn’t
waste time and space with any more than 2 females. Maybe I was unlucky and didn’t score that hard to find
large producer. Dunno. the plants were grown indoors under plenty of light. They were big in circumference, with
spread out bud yield. I was expecting fatty kolas, but nope. It looked more like Holland/Canada Big Treat than
BB is supposed to be. Anyway, that’s my two cents.- dak cause and effect.
Generally, selling must be considered as part of the syndrome of use. It is not simply
that the user must purchase his drug supply from the seller to consume the drug (this
symbiotic relationship exists with heroin as well), but that the user and the seller are
largely indistinguishable; there is no clear-cut boundary between them. A large percentage
of users sell, and nearly all sellers use. In fact, the determining force behind selling is use:
heavy users are very likely to sell, while infrequent users are unlikely to do so. The fact
that a given individual sells—whether it be done once, occasionally, or frequently,
specifically for a profit—is determined mainly by his involvement in the drug, in its
subculture, with others who smoke. Selling marijuana, then, to some degree presupposes
involvement with the marijuana subculture which, in turn, implies at least a moderate
degree of use. Selling and using involve parallel activities and associations; the seller and
the user inhabit the same social universe. The difference between them is simply a matter
of degree, since selling is a surer indicator of one's involvement with the drug subculture
(10 of 18)4/15/2004 1:08:20 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 10
than is buying or, even more so, using. To think of the dealer as preying on his hapless
victim, the marijuana smoker, as profiting on his misery, is to possess a ludicrously
incorrect view of the state of affairs.
It is necessary, therefore, to abandon the conspiratorial view of the relationship between
the marijuana user and the seller—a primitive model borrowed from the world of
addiction. Rather, selling must be looked at as an index of involvement with the marijuana
subculture. At the peripheries of the marijuana scene, we find the experimenter, the
extremely infrequent user, the dabbler, the once, twice, or dozen-time user. He has few
marijuana-smoking friends, is rarely presented with opportunities for use, is curious about
its effects, and usually discontinues its use after his curiosity is satisfied. It is possible that
he is the most frequent representative of the total universe of all individuals who have ever
used the drug; if not, at any rate, he forms a sizable minority of all users.
At the lowest levels of use, the smoker does not even buy marijuana; close to threequarters
of our less than monthly smokers (71 percent) said that they never bought the
drug. He is dependent on friends who are involved with marijuana to offer him the drug
when he visits. In fact, when the drug is extended, it is not thought of as one person giving
another a material object. Generally, a joint is passed around to all present in a kind of
communal fellowship. Hence, giving marijuana away, in this specific sense, is more
common than selling. In volume, of course, marijuana is far more often sold than given
away. But more individuals have given marijuana away than have sold, since nearly every
smoke
Marijuana Seeds Naturdrogen bongs uk bongs uk
Luteyn, H “Developed in Seattle, perfected in Holland, Northern Lights has become the “State of the Art” indoor plant. A
must!
“Northern Lights #1 = Described as a true breeding strain (Stable) of Afghani origins.
Northern Lights #135A = Available commercially for just a short while (87-88) from the original Seed Bank.
Described as "a fast finishing hybrid of Northern lights and an Afghani". This sounds a lot like the forerunner of
Slyder/Chronic.” “Bank: Positronics
Supplier: Jock
Started with 10 seeds all germinated. One sprout was lagging far behind the others and it was put out of its
misery. Ended up with 1 female, 5 males, and 3 herms.
Again, like the rest of the Positronic stock grown out so far, these plants were close to identical in appearance.
They looked very much like the NL x Shiva that also came from Posi. To bad it didn’t take after the NL x Shiva
in all respects.
The one female was not very impressive grown from seed and turned herm. The buzz was acceptable but it
grew like chit. Very airy bud with little resin and a lot of leaf. The buzz made it worth keeping for a harvest from
clone one time to see if it could redeem itself. Because the buzz got better it was given one more chance even
though it still showed male flowers, not a lot but too many. The second time grown from clone it showed male
flowers again and didn’t improve much in quality or growth. So now it’s dead.
To be fair it could be that this plant just couldn’t handle being flowered so early and freaked, doubtful but
possible." - flick , 88,
3664 (1966)
experimenter interviewed the subject about his medical history, including dizziness, fainting spells, and
so forth. A tray of drugs and medical instruments, labeled "Emergency Tray," was clearly visible in the
background. No reference was made to it unless a subject asked about it, in which case he was told that
this was one of the precautionary measures taken for the experiment and that he had nothing to worry
about.
Instructions for the four-hour experimental period, termed "sensory deprivation," were given. They
included the fact that a physician was always available should anything untoward develop, and pointed
out that if the subject couldn't take it, he could push a button, labeled "Emergency Alarm," to summon
assistance.
The subject then had his blood pressure and pulse taken to further reinforce the "medical" atmosphere
and was asked to sign a form that released the sponsoring organization, all affiliated organizations, and
their personnel from legal consequences of the experiment.
The actual experimental treatment, spending four hours in a small, well-lighted, comfortably
furnished room, had nothing to do with sensory deprivation. Except for the observation window through
which the subject could be observed, it was essentially a normal room and all that happened to the
subject was that there was no one to talk with for four hours.
A second group, the control subjects, were greeted by the same experimenter but he wore ordinary
business clothes and acted in a less officious manner. There was no "Emergency Tray" in the interview
room, nor was a medical history taken. The subject was told he was a control subject for sensory
deprivation studies. The procedures typical of such studies were described to him, such as white noise
on earphones, translucent goggles to block out all patterned vision, soft beds to reduce touch sensations,
and rules prohibiting physical movement. There was no "Emergency Alarm" button in the experimental
room.
Each control subject then spent four hours in the experimental room; experimental conditions were
thus the same except for the demands.
Both groups were interviewed after the experimental period and given various psychological tests.
The experimental group showed a number of significant changes on the psychological tests typical of
those found in sensory deprivation studies.
Further, this group reported many more classical sensory
deprivation effects than the control group, including more perceptual aberrations, feelings of intellectual
dulling, unpleasant emotions, spatial disorientation, and restlessness. Thus many of the effects
commonly attributed to a "powerful" treatment, sensory deprivation, can be obtained by the implicit
demands in experimental instructions.
I fear
bongs bowls that the
Ganga Use Of Cannabis reader who is not himself a physician or psychologist (i.e., who accepts such
experimental conditions as "normal") will find the above description of experimental conditions rather
ludicrous. How c
While I'm not going to say that Big Bud isn't a good strain, it's not as magical as many people seem to think.
The main problem is the name, Big Cannabis Marijuana Bud, everyone expects massive buds. They are big, but not significantly
larger than many other top strains. The potency is good but not knock you off your feet good. There is huge
variations from plant to plant, some are killer and deserving of some of the legends, but the majority are just
typical(of high quality strains). Overall, a good plant as long as you don't expect miracles. I just finished a
bowl of it myself.
Friend has been growing supposed BB for a while now, and let me say that the BB from Sensi I grew and
selected a perfect mother (maybe just great luck?), but mine sure is different. Much greener, tastier, more
potent, amazing. 8-10 in my opinion. But even Sensi says that 25% are "Special". So I'd advise germing the
whole batch (pack ) of seed as to give yourself a better shot at a primo Mom! Good luck dude. If you never
grew any exotics before, try an easier strain. You really kind of need to know what your doing (selection wise).”
– Bdubs
Acta, 56, 519 (1973)
crimes, as well as crimes on which there is public
support for their prohibition, the police would score a clear gain were marijuana use to be
relegalized.[47]
The damages to an individual traceable to the effects of marijuana are minimal when
compared with the damages he sustains at the hands of the legal system.[48] Marijuana
use and possession probably represents—next to numerous sex crimes without victims,
such as cunnilingus—the clearest case where the penalty is incommensurate with the
seriousness of the crime.
In most cases, the user suffers no damage whatsoever from the
use of this weed. In the typical case, it is a harmless activity. Arguments will often be
made, particularly by the police, that, of course, in the typical case, marijuana use is
relatively innocuous, but that is only because of the relative innocuousness of currently
available marijuana. If the user were to get his hands on really potent cannabis—North
African hashish, for instance—some serious damage would manifest itself.49] Thus,
what is being done is to punish someone for something which is essentially harmless
because if he weren't punished, he might do something which is harmful. (Even assuming
that there are such great differences in harm to users due to the varying potency different
of cannabis preparations.
) To my knowledge, this principle is not applied to any other area
of law.
Moreover, no solid case has been made for the prohibition. In 1937, not a scrap of
evidence existed for justifying the passage of the federal law. Today, over a generation
later, the fairest statement that could be made is that adequate systematic evidence
definitively testing the relative harm of this drug has simply not been gathered. And if a
deprivation of liberties is to be imposed, a conclusive case has to be made, as Justice
Goldberg declared in Griswold v. Connecticut The burden of proof is clearly on he who
would deprive liberties, not he who would exercise them.[50]
It should be realized that although these "empirical" issues of public safety,
rehabilitation, and deterrence are useful for rhetorical purposes, they are not the most
powerful motives underlying the administration of the laws. The emotional and
"expressive" goals of symbolism and vengeance are far more important, in my opinion. To
someone who feels that marijuana use is evil, the laws are just no matter what their
practical result. They are an expression of a moral stance, and are beyond criticism on that
level.
Bongs How Make Make To
The question of "evil" is intrinsically unanswerable.
Merely because crime is
widespread is no indication that the laws attempting to prevent it (and failing, in a sense,
to do so) are invalid and ought to be abolished.
Over 10,000 murders occur in the United
States every year; should laws against murder be nullified? There are about a half-million
auto thefts yearly in this country, and over a million burglaries. Should laws outlawing
these activities be done away
Custom Bongs with crimes, as well as crimes on which there is public
support for their prohibition, the police would score a clear gain were marijuana use to be
relegalized.47]
The damages to an individual traceable to the effects of marijuana are minimal when
compared with the damages he sustains at the hands of the legal system.
48] Marijuana
use and possession probably represents—next to numerous sex crimes without victims,
such as cunnilingus—the clearest case where the penalty is incommensurate with the
seriousness of the crime. In most cases, the user suffers no damage whatsoever from the
use of this weed. In the typical case, it is a harmless activity. Arguments will often be
made, particularly by the police, that, of course, in the typical case, marijuana use is
relatively innocuous, but that is only because of the relative innocuousness of currently
available marijuana. If the user were to get his hands on really potent cannabis—North
African hashish, for instance—some serious damage would manifest itself.49] Thus,
what is being done is to punish someone for something which is essentially harmless
because if he weren't punished, he might do something which is harmful. (Even assuming
that there are such great differences in harm to users due to the varying potency different
of cannabis preparations.) To my knowledge, this principle is not applied to any other area
of law.
Moreover, no solid case has been made for the prohibition. In 1937, not a scrap of
evidence existed for justifying the passage of the federal law. Today, over a generation
later, the fairest statement that could be made is that adequate systematic evidence
definitively testing the relative harm of this
Terracava drug has simply not been gathered. And if a
deprivation of liberties is to be imposed, a conclusive case has to be made, as Justice
Goldberg declared in Griswold v. Connecticut The burden of proof is clearly on he who
would deprive liberties, not he who would exercise them.50]
It should be realized that although these "empirical" issues of public safety,
rehabilitation, and deterrence are useful for rhetorical purposes, they are not the most
powerful motives underlying the administration of the laws. The emotional and
"expressive" goals of symbolism and vengeance are far more important, in my opinion. To
someone who feels that marijuana use is evil, the laws are just no matter what their
practical result. They are an expression of a moral stance, and are beyond criticism on that
level.
The question of "evil" is intrinsically unanswerable. Merely because crime is
widespread is no indication that the laws attempting to prevent it (and failing, in a sense,
to do so) are invalid and ought to be abolished. Over 10,000 murders occur in the United
States every year; should laws against murder be nullified? There are about a half-million
auto thefts yearly in this country, and over a million burglaries.
Should laws outlawing
these activities be done away with crimes, as well as crimes on which there is public
support for their prohibition, the police would score a clear gain were marijuana use to be
relegalized.[47
The damages to an individual traceable to the effects of marijuana are minimal when
compared with the damages he sustains at the hands of the legal system.48 Marijuana
use and possession probably represents—next to numerous sex crimes without victims,
such as cunnilingus—the clearest case where the penalty is incommensurate with the
seriousness of the crime. In most cases, the user suffers no damage whatsoever from the
use of this weed. In the typical case, it is a harmless activity. Arguments will often be
made, particularly by the police, that, of course, in the typical case, marijuana use is
relatively innocuous, but that is only because of the relative innocuousness of currently
available marijuana. If the user were to get his hands on really potent cannabis—North
African hashish, for instance—some serious damage would manifest itself.49 Thus,
what is being done is to punish someone for something which is essentially harmless
because if he weren't punished, he might do something which is harmful. (Even assuming
that there are such great differences in harm to users due to the varying potency different
of cannabis preparations.) To my knowledge, this principle is not applied to any other area
of law.
Moreover, no solid case has been made for the prohibition. In 1937, not a scrap of
evidence existed for justifying the passage of the federal law. Today, over a generation
later, the fairest statement that could be made is that adequate systematic evidence
definitively testing the relative harm of this drug has simply not been gathered. And if a
deprivation of liberties is to be imposed, a conclusive case has to be made, as Justice
Goldberg declared in Griswold v. Connecticut The burden of proof is clearly on he who
would deprive liberties, not he who would exercise them.50
It should be realized that although these "empirical" issues of public safety,
rehabilitation, and deterrence are useful for rhetorical purposes, they are not the most
powerful motives underlying the administration of the laws. The emotional and
"expressive" goals of symbolism and vengeance are far more important, in my opinion. To
someone who feels that marijuana use is evil, the laws are just no matter what their
practical result. They are an expression of a moral stance, and are beyond criticism on that
level. The question of "evil" is intrinsically unanswerable. Merely because crime is
widespread is no indication that the laws attempting to prevent it (and failing, in a sense,
to do so) are invalid and ought to be abolished.
Over 10,000 murders occur in the United
States every year; should laws against murder be nullified? There are about a half-million
auto thefts yearly in this country, and over a million burglaries. Should laws outlawing
these activities be done away with crimes, as well as crimes on which there is public
support for their prohibition, the police would score a clear gain were marijuana use to be
relegalized.47
The damages to an individual traceable to the effects of marijuana are minimal when
compared with the damages he sustains at the hands of the legal system.48 Marijuana
use and possession probably represents—next to numerous sex crimes without victims,
such as cunnilingus—the clearest case where the penalty is incommensurate with the
seriousness of the crime. In most cases, the user suffers no damage whatsoever from the
use of this weed. In the typical case, it is a harmless activity. Arguments will often be
made, particularly by the police, that, of course, in the typical case, marijuana use is
relatively innocuous, but that is only because of the relative innocuousness of currently
available marijuana. If the user were to get his hands on really potent cannabis—North
African hashish, for instance—some serious damage would manifest itself.49 Thus,
what is being done is to punish someone for something which is essentially harmless
because if he weren't punished, he might do something which is harmful. (Even assuming
that there are such great differences in harm to users due to the varying potency different
of cannabis preparations.) To my knowledge, this principle is not applied to any other area
of law.
Moreover, no solid case has been made for the prohibition. In 1937, not a scrap of
evidence existed for justifying the passage of the federal law. Today, over a generation
later, the fairest statement that could be made is that adequate systematic evidence
definitively testing the relative harm of this drug has simply not been gathered. And if a
deprivation of liberties is to be imposed, a conclusive case has to be made, as Justice
Goldberg declared in Griswold v. Connecticut The burden of proof is clearly on he who
would deprive liberties, not he who would exercise them.50
It should be realized that although these "empirical" issues of public safety,
rehabilitation, and deterrence are useful for rhetorical purposes, they are not the most
powerful motives underlying the administration of the laws. The emotional and
"expressive" goals of symbolism and vengeance are far more important, in my opinion.
To
someone who feels that marijuana use is evil, the laws are just no matter what their
practical result. They are an expression of a moral stance, and are beyond criticism on that
level. The question of "evil" is intrinsically unanswerable. Merely because crime is
widespread is no indication that the laws attempting to prevent it (and failing, in a sense,
to do so) are invalid and ought to be abolished. Over 10,000 murders occur in the United
States every year; should laws against murder be nullified? There are about a half-million
auto thefts yearly in this country, and over a million burglaries.
Should laws outlawing
these activities be done away with Pitcher, and R “The Big Bud was the same as usual. The buds are large for sure, but this strain just doesn’t do it for me. They
reached about 15 inches in height and yielded at least an ounce each. I've grown this strain 2 times before
and to be honest I thought it came out poorly originally because they were my first crops, but even this latest
batch, which was grown and dried as perfect as I have ever done, still pales as far as potency goes. This will be
the last time I take up space with this strain.” – James Hetfield
and informants. Many effects deal with
(1 of 7)4/15/2004 7:05:25 AM
On Being Stoned - Chapter 5
areas of knowledge that are not generally well known even among scientists, such as those concerning
meditation or ostensible paranormal phenomena, so I have given literature references to guide the reader
seeking more understanding. I have tried to avoid speculation and interpretation as much as possible and
to stick to the basic findings.
Each chapter also contains a section on additional effects, a ranking of effects according to increasing
minimal levels of intoxication, a summary of background factors modulating the effects, and a general
summary.
Terminology
It is impossible to write about these phenomena in a readable style without using descriptive adjectives.
To avoid the ambiguity usually inherent in quantity adjectives, I have used a standard set of them, which
are defined in Table 5-1. Whenever other adjectives than those defined are used, I am speaking generally
rather than describing the exact form of the data.
To illustrate: if an intoxication effect is described as "very characteristic" and "primarily beginning to
occur at Moderate levels," this indicates that more than 50 percent of the users rated this effect as
occurring Very Often or Usually when they have been intoxicated in the last six months, and my
judgment of the distribution of responses on minimal levels of intoxication is that the Moderate ("Fairly
Stoned") level is the most representative2] level indicated.
TABLE 5-1
DEFINITION OF TERMS
TERM DEFINITION
Frequency of Occurrence Terms
"Rare" >/=75% indicate Never, Rarely
"Infrequent" >/=50% indicate Never, Rarely
"Fairly Frequent" /=50% indicate Sometimes, Very Often, Usually
"Very Common" >/=75% indicate Sometimes, Very Often, Usually
"Characteristic" 50% indicate Very Often, Usually
"Characteristic" Bottom third of distribution
"More Characteristic"
Middle third of distribution
"Very Characteristic"
(2 of 7)4/15/2004 7:05:25 AM
On Being Stoned - Chapter 5
"Most Characteristic"
Top third of distribution
"Extremely Characteristic"
Levels of Intoxication Terms
"Low" Questionnaire term Just
"Moderate" Questionnaire term Fairly
"Strong" Questionnaire term Strongly
"Very Strong" ("Very High") Questionnaire term Very Strongly
"Maximum" ("Very High") Questionnaire term Maximum
a. Infrequent and Fairly Frequent are not always identical in practice
because of variable numbers of users skipping particular questions.
Linking
Many pairs or sets of question called for statistical comparison because of obvious similarity or because
they described converse effects. This was always done by a chi-square test of the distributions. I have
usually presented graphical results when they would be illustrative, as well as the probability figures.
Many other links exist that I have not analyzed in the text. The reader interested in part and informants. Many effects deal with
(1 of 7)4/15/2004 7:05:25 AM
On Being Stoned - Chapter 5
areas of knowledge that are not generally well known even among scientists, such as those concerning
meditation or ostensible paranormal phenomena, so I have given literature references to guide the reader
seeking more understanding. I have tried to avoid speculation and interpretation as much as possible and
to stick to the basic findings.
Each chapter also contains a section on additional effects, a ranking of effects according to increasing
minimal levels of intoxication, a summary of background factors modulating the effects, and a general
summary.
Terminology
It is impossible to write about these phenomena in a readable style without using descriptive adjectives.
To avoid the ambiguity usually inherent in quantity adjectives, I have used a standard set of them, which
are defined in Table 5-1. Whenever other adjectives than those defined are used, I am speaking generally
rather than describing the exact form of the data.
To illustrate: if an intoxication effect is described as "very characteristic" and "primarily beginning to
occur at Moderate levels," this indicates that more than 50 percent of the users rated this effect as
occurring Very Often or Usually when they have been intoxicated in the last six months, and my
judgment of the distribution of responses on minimal levels of intoxication is that the Moderate ("Fairly
Stoned") level is the most representative2] level indicated.
TABLE 5-1
DEFINITION OF TERMS
TERM DEFINITION
Frequency of Occurrence Terms
"Rare" >/=75% indicate Never, Rarely
"Infrequent" >/=50% indicate Never, Rarely
"Fairly Frequent" /=50% indicate Sometimes, Very Often, Usually
"Very Common" >/=75% indicate Sometimes, Very Often, Usually
"Characteristic" 50% indicate Very Often, Usually
"Characteristic" Bottom third of distribution
"More Characteristic"
Middle third of distribution
"Very Characteristic"
(2 of 7)4/15/2004 7:05:25 AM
On Being Stoned - Chapter 5
"Most Characteristic"
Top third of distribution
"Extremely Characteristic"
Levels of Intoxication Terms
"Low" Questionnaire term Just
"Moderate" Questionnaire term Fairly
"Strong" Questionnaire term Strongly
"Very Strong" ("Very High") Questionnaire term Very Strongly
"Maximum" ("Very High") Questionnaire term Maximum
a.
Infrequent and Fairly Frequent are not always identical in practice
because of variable numbers of users skipping particular questions.
Linking
Many pairs or sets of question called for statistical comparison because of obvious similarity or because
they described converse effects. This was always done by a chi-square test of the distributions. I have
usually presented graphical results when they would be illustrative, as well as the probability figures.
Many other links exist that I have not analyzed in the text. The reader interested in part and informants. Many effects deal with
(1 of 7)4/15/2004 7:05:25 AM
On Being Stoned - Chapter 5
areas of knowledge that are not generally well known even among scientists, such as those concerning
meditation or ostensible paranormal phenomena, so I have given literature references to guide the reader
seeking more understanding. I have tried to avoid speculation and interpretation as much as possible and
to stick to the basic findings.
Each chapter also contains a section on additional effects, a ranking of effects according to increasing
minimal levels of intoxication, a summary of background factors modulating the effects, and a general
summary.
Terminology
It is impossible to write about these phenomena in a readable style without using descriptive adjectives.
To avoid the ambiguity usually inherent in quantity adjectives, I have used a standard set of them, which
are defined in Table 5-1. Whenever other adjectives than those defined are used, I am speaking generally
rather than describing the exact form of the data.
To illustrate: if an intoxication effect is described as "very characteristic" Growers Guide Marijuana Seeds White Widow and "primarily beginning to
occur at Moderate levels," this indicates that more than 50 percent of the users rated this effect as
occurring Very Often or Usually when they have been intoxicated in the last six months, and my
judgment of the distribution of responses on minimal levels of intoxication is that the Moderate ("Fairly
Stoned") level is the most representative[2 level indicated.
TABLE 5-1
DEFINITION OF TERMS
TERM DEFINITION
Frequency of Occurrence Terms
"Rare" >/=75% indicate Never, Rarely
"Infrequent" >/=50% indicate Never, Rarely
"Fairly Frequent" /=50% indicate Sometimes, Very Often, Usually
"Very Common" >/=75% indicate Sometimes, Very Often, Usually
"Characteristic" 50% indicate Very Often, Usually
"Characteristic" Bottom third of distribution
"More Characteristic"
Middle third of distribution
"Very Characteristic"
(2 of 7)4/15/2004 7:05:25 AM
On Being Stoned - Chapter 5
"Most Characteristic"
Top third of distribution
"Extremely Characteristic"
Levels of Intoxication Terms
"Low" Questionnaire term Just
"Moderate" Questionnaire term Fairly
"Strong" Questionnaire term Strongly
"Very Strong" ("Very High") Questionnaire term Very Strongly
"Maximum" ("Very High") Questionnaire term Maximum
a. Infrequent and Fairly Frequent are not always identical in practice
because of variable numbers of users skipping particular questions.
Linking
Many pairs or sets of question called for statistical comparison because of obvious similarity or because
they described converse effects. This was always done by a chi-square test of the distributions.
I have
usually presented graphical results when they would be illustrative, as well as the probability figures.
Many other links exist that I have not analyzed in the text. The reader interested in part and informants. Many effects deal with
(1 of 7)4/15/2004 7:05:25 AM
On Being Stoned - Chapter 5
areas of knowledge that are not generally well known even among scientists, such as those concerning
meditation or ostensible paranormal phenomena, so I have given literature references to guide the reader
seeking more understanding. I have tried to avoid speculation and interpretation as much as possible and
to stick to the basic findings.
Each chapter also contains a section on additional effects, a ranking of effects according to increasing
minimal levels of intoxication, a summary of background factors modulating the effects, and a general
summary.
Terminology
It is impossible to write about these phenomena in a readable style without using descriptive adjectives.
To avoid the ambiguity usually inherent in quantity adjectives, I have used a standard set of them, which
are defined in Table 5-1. Whenever other adjectives than those Homemade Bongs defined are used, I am speaking generally
rather than describing the exact form of the data.
To illustrate: if an intoxication effect is described as "very characteristic" and "primarily beginning to
occur at Moderate levels," this indicates that more than 50 percent of the users rated this effect as
occurring Very Often or Usually when they have been intoxicated in the last six months, and my
judgment of the distribution of responses on minimal levels of intoxication is that the Moderate ("Fairly
Stoned") level is the most representative2 level indicated.
TABLE 5-1
DEFINITION OF TERMS
TERM DEFINITION
Frequency of Occurrence Terms
"Rare" >/=75% indicate Never, Rarely
"Infrequent" >/=50% indicate Never, Rarely
"Fairly Frequent" /=50% indicate Sometimes, Very Often, Usually
"Very Common" >/=75% indicate Sometimes, Very Often, Usually
"Characteristic" 50% indicate Very Often, Usually
"Characteristic" Bottom third of distribution
"More Characteristic"
Middle third of distribution
"Very Characteristic"
(2 of 7)4/15/2004 7:05:25 AM
On Being Stoned - Chapter 5
"Most Characteristic"
Top third of distribution
"Extremely Characteristic"
Levels of Intoxication Terms
"Low" Questionnaire term Just
"Moderate" Questionnaire term Fairly
"Strong" Questionnaire term Strongly
"Very Strong" ("Very High") Questionnaire term Very Strongly
"Maximum" ("Very High") Questionnaire term Maximum
a. Infrequent and Fairly Frequent are not always identical in practice
because of variable numbers of users skipping particular questions.
Linking
Many pairs or sets of question called for statistical comparison because of obvious similarity or because
they described converse effects. This was always done by a chi-square test of the distributions. I have
usually presented graphical results when they would be illustrative, as well as the probability figures.
Many other links exist that I have not analyzed in the text. The reader interested in part
Pitcher, and R Piece of crap - hard to clone. I grew a few seeds from a seedbank selling Sensi BB, and I’m glad I didn’t
waste time and space with any more than 2 females. Maybe I was unlucky and didn’t score that hard to find
large producer. Dunno. the plants were grown indoors under plenty of light. They were big in circumference, with
spread out bud yield. I was expecting fatty kolas, but nope. It looked more like Holland/Canada Big Treat than
BB is supposed to be. Anyway, that’s my two cents.- dak
"GROW THE A-11 FIRST!!!, it is WORLD class smoke!!! But I have to warn you, after you have grown this cross
of Cinderella 99 and Genius, 90% of everything else you grow won't come close!!! So clone all your females, if
you let this one slip through your fingers you will be bummed!!! The bud from Apollo has a sweet fruity/citrus
taste, and a high that gives you the energy to go out and do something...even if you can't remember what it
is!!! Every one that has smoked the A (my version is the A-13, Genius crossed with Cinderella88.The A-11 is
even better then A-13 according to BG!!!) has said it is some of the best they have ever smoked!"- greenbear
"AFOAF grew some (Apollo) recently and got an indica phenotype that finished around 50 days, and a Durban
phenotype that took 60 days.
The indica phenotype is very resinous, clear high. Not racy nor paranoid. Dense buds, low odor.
The Durban phenotype has a stronger high than pure Durban, very clear, very racy, even paranoid. Buds very
fluffy, and they flop over from their own weight. Definitely a creeper phenotype in the gene pool (Durban).
The mom of A-11 is Genius, an F2 of Jack Herer crossed to an unknown male (likely a Durban imho). The dad
of A-11 is Cinderella.
Genius expresses the NL and Skunk side of the gene pool. Cindy expresses the Durban and haze side.
imho, for the A-11 to have 2 phenotypes in the F1, one of which is fluffy, sweet, and floppy like Durban, means
that the Durban gene is in both Apollo and Cindy." - Zorro and informants. Many effects deal with
(1 of 7)4/15/2004 7:05:25 AM
On Being Stoned - Chapter 5
areas of knowledge that are not generally well known even among scientists, such as those concerning
meditation or ostensible paranormal phenomena, so I have given literature references to guide the reader
seeking more understanding. I have tried to avoid speculation and interpretation as much as possible and
to stick to the basic findings.
Each chapter also contains a section on additional effects, a ranking of effects according to increasing
minimal levels of intoxication, a summary of background factors modulating the effects, and a general
summary.
Terminology
It is impossible to write about these phenomena in a readable style without using descriptive adjectives.
To avoid the ambiguity usually inherent in quantity adjectives, I have used a standard set of them, which
are defined in Table 5-1. Whenever other adjectives than those defined are used, I am speaking generally
rather than describing the exact form of the data.
To illustrate: if an intoxication effect is described as "very characteristic" and "primarily beginning to
occur at Moderate levels," this indicates that more than 50 percent of the users rated this effect as
occurring Very Often or Usually when they have been intoxicated in the last six months, and my
judgment of the distribution of responses on minimal levels of intoxication is that the Moderate ("Fairly
Stoned") level is the most representative2] level indicated.
TABLE 5-1
DEFINITION OF TERMS
TERM DEFINITION
Frequency of Occurrence Terms
"Rare" >/=75% indicate Never, Rarely
"Infrequent" >/=50% indicate Never, Rarely
"Fairly Frequent" /=50% indicate Sometimes, Very Often, Usually
"Very Common" >/=75% indicate Sometimes, Very Often, Usually
"Characteristic" 50% indicate Very Often, Usually
"Characteristic" Bottom third of distribution
"More Characteristic"
Middle third of distribution
"Very Characteristic"
(2 of 7)4/15/2004 7:05:25 AM
On Being Stoned - Chapter 5
"Most Characteristic"
Top third of distribution
"Extremely Characteristic"
Levels of Intoxication Terms
"Low" Questionnaire term Just
"Moderate" Questionnaire term Fairly
"Strong" Questionnaire term Strongly
"Very Strong" ("Very High") Questionnaire term Very Strongly
"Maximum" ("Very High") Questionnaire term Maximum
a. Infrequent and Fairly Frequent are not always identical in practice
because of variable numbers of users skipping particular questions.
Linking
Many pairs or sets of question called for statistical comparison because of obvious similarity or because
they described converse effects. This was always done by a chi-square test of the distributions. I have
usually presented graphical results when they would be illustrative, as well as the probability figures.
Many other links exist that I have not analyzed in the text. The reader interested in part I grew EP last year for the first time. I didn’t get them to maturity, because of three or four major fukups by
me, along with a VERY wet autumn, so my yield was almost nil. I planted out on June-1, they suffered a couple
of frosts during which some purple showed. I planted them out after sexing on 12/12, which I wouldn't do now,
because once these plants start to flower, they don’t like re-vegging, so a confused bunch of semi-flowering
plants was the result. Water soluble slug pellets resulted in the plants being eaten to one foot tall bare stems
soon after. I reverted to my other type of (non-soluble) slug-pellet and the damage stopped. One plant
re-grew in veg form, the others continued in semi-flower. Something odd happened then- which you should
take note of- I had 18" to 2' chicken wire fences around each plant, but somehow some bastard rabbits ate the
newly growing plants (this was early July)- rabbits that could CLIMB FENCES!. I grew it, or at least something called Early Girl, that I got from Holland in the late '80s. It was pretty average
all
Grafix Bongs the way around in my opinion. About average yield, high, and everything else. I got some California Orange
at the same time and liked it a little better. That was a
Water Bong while back, though. They might have improved it in
recent years.” – Been There
, Canadian Cannabis Seeds Cbay huge bongs 795 (1972)
Kraatz, and F
Ben-Zvi et al Acta, 56, 519 (1973) Blow-by-blow description of the generations:
P.50 = Heavy, single-cola type plants with mellow high (too much influence from the ShivaSkunk) Sweet fruity
scent/flavor. Unstable in most traits - for example, 10 days difference in fastest/slowest maturation period in a
group of 20 seedlings.
P.75 = Plants leaning MUCH more in the direction of Princess in floral cluster and bud structure, scent/flavor
turned more "tropical" like pineapple. The stability was becoming better - two major phenotypes; short & dense
(potent too) or tall/HUGE (Not so potent).
P.88 = Renamed Cinderella 88 when first released on the market. It grows fast and produces excellent yields of
FROSTY buds in 7 weeks! Generally uniform seedlings with minor differences in floral formation and some height
variance, but the smoke is quite consistent from all plants - Dense, heavy nuggets of fruity scented & flavored
(like wild berries) and covered in resin glands, the dried buds have distinctly ORANGE pistils.
Clone flowered under a 400watt, 42watts/sq.ft. Grown organically in a soilless medium, 1:1:1 ratio of GOOD
potting mix, perlite, & worm castings. Finished about 16"-18" tall. Nice high flower to leaf ratio, Northern Light X Haze manicuring would
be a breeze if it Sensi didn't have so much resin globbed all over it. Nugs were dense for a 400watt, but not tight like
they are under the big lights.
I flowered for 53 days, last 24 buy bongs hours no light. I alternated Big Bloom & Hi-P fishes
(Neptune’s Harvest) for food. Total yield about 15gm of very frosty & very potent well manicured buds. Good
flavor, but a STRONG smoke. Very "up" high. I can get a lot done instead of just vegging. By far the best I've
grown. No shit.” – Bill Clinton
experimenter interviewed the subject about his medical history, including dizziness, fainting spells, and
so forth. A tray of drugs and medical instruments, labeled "Emergency Tray," was clearly visible in the
background. No reference was made to it unless a subject asked about it, in which case he was told that
this was one of the precautionary measures taken for the experiment and that he had nothing to worry
about.
Instructions for the four-hour experimental period, termed "sensory deprivation," were given. They
included the fact that a physician was always available should anything untoward develop, and pointed
out that if the subject couldn't take it, he could push a button, labeled "Emergency Alarm," to summon
assistance.
The subject then had his blood pressure and pulse Dutch Marijuana Seeds taken to further reinforce the "medical" atmosphere
and was asked to sign a form that released the sponsoring organization, all affiliated organizations, and
their personnel from legal consequences of the experiment.
The actual experimental treatment, spending four hours in a small, well-lighted, comfortably
furnished room, had nothing to do with sensory deprivation.
Except for the observation window through
which the subject could be observed, it was essentially a normal room and all that happened to the
subject was that there was no one to talk with for four hours.
A second group, the control subjects, were greeted by the same experimenter but he wore ordinary
business clothes and acted in a less officious manner. There was no "Emergency Tray" in the interview
room, nor was a medical history taken. The subject was told he was a control subject for sensory
deprivation studies.
The procedures typical of such studies were described to him, such as white noise
on earphones, translucent goggles to block out all patterned vision, soft beds to reduce touch sensations,
and rules prohibiting physical movement. There was no "Emergency Alarm" button in the experimental
room.
Each control subject then spent four hours in the experimental room; experimental conditions were
thus the same except for the demands.
Both groups were interviewed after the experimental period and given various psychological tests.
The experimental group showed a number of significant changes on the psychological tests typical of
those found in sensory deprivation studies. Further, this group reported many more classical sensory
deprivation effects than the control group, including more perceptual aberrations, feelings of intellectual
dulling, unpleasant emotions, spatial disorientation, and restlessness. Thus many of the effects
commonly attributed to a "powerful" treatment, sensory deprivation, can be obtained by the implicit
demands in experimental instructions.
I fear that the reader who is not himself a physician or psychologist (i.e., who accepts such
experimental conditions as "normal") will find the above description of experimental conditions rather
ludicrous. How c
Using a whole room at this point you turn off the fan blowing air in but you leave the door open a little. You never cut off ventilation completely because mold is a threat right up until the end. The leaves should start to get a M39 photos M39 little crisp after a week or two. If it happens sooner you may be using too much ventilation and should Growbox Marijana How To Grow Dank Marijuana cut back. Along about this time you should notice a very nice smell.
"We have been working from a m39 mother plant that is from 1987. This is absolutely the most powerful strain
I have ever come across. I have purchased & grown many of the newer bragged on strains and still am looking
for something that will even come close to this strain. I'm not saying that this variety is the most potent, just
that in my over 15 yr. search this is what I've found to be the strongest so far."-Clone
"M39 by SSSC was "Basic#5"/Sk#1, but I BELIEVE "Basic#5" was actually NL#5, but SSSC weren't allowed to say
so. You're actually looking for NL#5/Sk#1 which is available from Sensi Seed Bank, they call it "ShivaSkunk".
–MrSoul
marijuana bongs @ 3/12/2010 9:40:05 PM