autoflower harvest
"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 Bockstahler,J
n common patterning of functioning in all of these people, a common
pattern superimposed on their individual uniqueness, we may hypothesize something to explain this
common pattern. This hypothesized something might be a common personality trait, belief system,
physical attribute, or, in terms of our interest a common state of consciousness. Particularly, if we know
that all the observed individuals ingested marijuana just before we began observing them, we will be
tempted to say that the common pattern of functioning we observe is the result of their all being in a
state of marijuana intoxication.
Note, however, that it is the empirically observed common pattern of functioning1] that is the crucial
defining operation of the state of consciousness; the fact that they had all ingested marijuana serves
secondarily to specify something we think to be a cause of the hypothesized state of consciousness.
What, then, are the properties of this hypothesized state of consciousness, marijuana intoxication?
How do we discover these properties?
Clearly the way to answer this is to give marijuana to a number of people and observe what is
common in their experience and behavior. Unfortunately, the observation process is much more complex
and full of pitfalls than we would expect.
Much of our usual experience with the effects of drugs on consciousness misleads us into expecting
fairly simple relationships. If, for example, you give a strong dose of barbiturates or other sedatives to a
person, he almost always goes to sleep. Hence we describe the state of consciousness (or lack of it)
induced by barbiturates as a barbiturate-induced sleep. There is little variability across subjects, and our
observational process is simple.
With a psychoactive drug like marijuana, on the other hand, the variability across subjects is very
high, and the observation process itself may systematically bias what we observe, as will be detailed in
the next section. It may even turn out that different people might experience different states of
consciousness from using marijuana, that is, the observed patterns of experience and behavior fall into
several distinct patterns rather than a single pattern common to all individuals. We generally consider
alcohol intoxication, for example, as a single state, yet on a second thought there are clearly some
individuals who have very different experiences Hanfzucht with alcohol from those the majority of us have. A drug
may thus stimulate a reorganization of functioning, but the nature of the new pattern may be determined
by factors other than the nature of the drug per se.
Let us consider in detail the question of why a given individual, taking marijuana (or any other
psychoactive drug, for that matter) at a particular time and place, might experience the particular things
that he does.
VARIABILITY OF DRUG-INDUCED STATES
Our common experience with many drugs inclines us to think along the line that "Drug A has effects
X,n common patterning of functioning in all of these people, a common
pattern superimposed on their individual uniqueness, we may hypothesize something to explain this
common pattern. This hypothesized something might be a common personality trait, belief system,
physical attribute, or, in terms of our interest a common state of consciousness.
Particularly, if we know
that all the observed individuals ingested marijuana just before we began observing them, we will be
tempted to say that the common pattern of functioning we observe is the result of their all being in a
state of marijuana intoxication.
Note, however, that it is the empirically observed common pattern of functioning1] that is the crucial
defining operation of the state of consciousness; the fact that they had all ingested marijuana serves
secondarily to specify something we think to be a cause of the hypothesized state of consciousness.
What, then, are the properties of this hypothesized state of consciousness, marijuana intoxication?
How do we discover these properties?
Clearly the way to answer this is to give marijuana to a number of people and observe what is
common in their experience and behavior. Unfortunately, the observation process is much more complex
and full of pitfalls than we would expect.
Much of our usual experience with the effects of drugs on consciousness misleads us into expecting
fairly simple relationships. If, for example, you give a strong dose of barbiturates or other sedatives to a
person, he almost always goes to sleep. Hence we describe the state of consciousness (or lack of it)
induced by barbiturates as a barbiturate-induced sleep. There is little variability across subjects, and our
observational process is simple.
With a psychoactive drug like marijuana, on the other hand, the variability across subjects is very
high, and the observation process itself may systematically bias what we observe, as will be detailed in
the next section. It may even turn out that different people might experience different states of
consciousness from using marijuana, that is, the observed patterns of experience and behavior fall into
several distinct patterns rather than a single pattern common to all individuals.
We generally consider
alcohol intoxication, for example, as a single state, yet on a second thought there are clearly some
individuals who have very different experiences with alcohol from those the majority of us have. A drug
may thus stimulate a reorganization of functioning, but the nature of the new pattern may be determined
by factors other than the nature of the drug per se.
Let us consider in detail the question of why a given individual, taking marijuana (or any other
psychoactive drug, for that matter) at a particular time and place, might experience the particular things
that he does.
VARIABILITY OF DRUG-INDUCED STATES
Our common experience with many drugs inclines us to think along the line that "Drug A has effects
X,n common patterning of functioning in all of these people, a common
pattern superimposed on their individual uniqueness, we may hypothesize something to explain this
common pattern. This hypothesized something might be a common personality trait, belief system,
physical attribute, or, in terms of our interest a common state of consciousness.
Particularly, if we know
that all the observed individuals ingested marijuana just before we began observing them, we will be
tempted to say that the common pattern of functioning we observe is the result of their all being in a
state of marijuana intoxication.
Note, however, that it is the empirically observed common pattern of functioning[1 that is the crucial
defining operation of the state of consciousness; the fact that they had all ingested marijuana serves
secondarily to specify something we think to be a cause of the hypothesized state of consciousness.
What, then, are the properties of this hypothesized state of consciousness, marijuana intoxication?
How do we discover these properties?
Clearly the way to answer this is to give marijuana to a number of people and observe what is
common in their experience and behavior. Unfortunately, the observation process is much more complex
and full of pitfalls than we would expect.
Much of our usual experience with the effects of drugs on consciousness misleads us into expecting
fairly simple relationships. If, for example, you give a strong dose of barbiturates or other sedatives to a
person, he almost always goes to sleep. Hence we describe the state of consciousness (or lack of it)
induced by barbiturates as a barbiturate-induced sleep. There is little variability across subjects, and our
observational process is simple.
With a psychoactive drug like marijuana, on the other hand, the variability across subjects is very
high, and the observation process itself may systematically bias what we observe, as will be detailed in
the next section. It may even turn out that different people might experience different states of
consciousness from using marijuana, that is, the observed patterns of experience and behavior fall into
several distinct patterns rather than a single pattern common to all individuals. We generally consider
alcohol intoxication, for example, as a single state, yet on a second thought there are clearly some
individuals who have very different experiences with alcohol from those the majority of us have. A drug
may thus stimulate a reorganization of functioning, but the nature of the new pattern may be determined
by factors other than the nature of the drug per se.
Let us consider in detail the question of why a given individual, taking marijuana (or any other
psychoactive drug, for that matter) at a particular time and place, might experience the particular things
that he does.
VARIABILITY OF DRUG-INDUCED STATES
Our common experience with many drugs inclines us to think along the line that "Drug A has effects
X,n common patterning of functioning in all of these people, a common
pattern superimposed on their individual uniqueness, we may hypothesize something to explain this
common pattern. This hypothesized something might be a common personality trait, belief system,
physical attribute, or, in terms of our interest a common state of consciousness. Particularly, if we know
that all the observed individuals ingested marijuana just before we began observing them, we will be
tempted to say that the common pattern of functioning we observe is the result of their all being in a
state of marijuana intoxication.
Note, however, that it is the empirically observed common pattern of functioning1 that is the crucial
defining operation of the state of consciousness; the fact that they had all ingested marijuana serves
secondarily to specify something we think to be a cause of the hypothesized state of consciousness.
What, then, are the properties of this hypothesized state of consciousness, marijuana intoxication?
How do we discover these properties?
Clearly the way to answer this is to give marijuana to a number of people and observe what is
common in their experience and behavior. Unfortunately, the observation process is much more complex
and full of pitfalls than we would expect.
Much of our usual experience with the effects of drugs on consciousness misleads us into expecting
fairly simple relationships.
If, for example, you give a strong dose of barbiturates or other sedatives to a
person, he almost always goes to sleep. Hence we describe the state of consciousness (or lack of it)
induced by barbiturates as a barbiturate-induced sleep.
There is little variability across subjects, and our
observational process is simple.
With a psychoactive drug like marijuana, on the other hand, the variability across subjects is very
high, and the observation process itself may systematically bias what we observe, as will be detailed in
the next section. It may even turn out that different people might experience different states of
consciousness from using marijuana, that is, the observed patterns of experience and behavior fall into
several distinct patterns rather than a single pattern common to all individuals. We generally consider
alcohol intoxication, for example, as a single state, yet on a second thought there are clearly some
individuals who have very different experiences with alcohol from those the majority of us have. A drug
may thus stimulate a reorganization of functioning, but the nature of the new pattern may be determined
by factors other than the nature of the drug per se.
Let us consider in detail the question of why a given individual, taking marijuana (or any other
psychoactive drug, for that matter) at a particular time and place, might experience the particular things
that he does.
VARIABILITY OF DRUG-INDUCED STATES
Our common experience with many drugs inclines us to think along the line that "Drug A has effects
X,
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 Beginner’s Guide to Growing Marijuana
This is a guide that I pulled off the net that puts everything in plain and simple English, and doesn’t go to deep into
advanced botany and gardening. I find this one to be the best guide out there.
Indoor Marijuana Cultivation
Introduction
Growing marijuana indoors is fast becoming an American Pastime. The reasons are varied. With the increased
interest and experimentation in houseplant cultivation, it was inevitable that people would apply their knowledge of
plant care to growing marijuana. Many of those who occasionally like to light up a joint may find it difficult to
locate a source or are hesitant to deal with a perhaps unsavory element of society in procuring their grass. There is,
of course, the criminal aspect of buying or selling grass; Growing marijuana is just as illegal as buying, selling, or
smoking it, but growing is something you can do in the privacy of your own home without having to deal with
someone you don’t know or trust. The best reason for growing your own is the enjoyment you will get out of
watching those tiny little seeds you picked out of you stash sprout and become some of the most lovely and lush of
all house plants.
Anyone Can Do It
Even if you haven’t had any prior experience with growing plants in you home, you can have a successful crop of
marijuana by following the simple directions in this pamphlet. If you have had problems in the past with marijuana
cultivation, you may find the solutions in the following chapters. Growing a marijuana plant involves four basic
steps:
1. Get the seeds. If you don’t already have some, you can ask your friends to save you seeds out of any good grass
they may come across. You’ll find that lots of people already have a seed collection of some sort and are willing
to part with a few prime seeds in exchange for some of the finished product.
2. Germinate the seeds. You can simply drop a seed into moist soil, but by germinating the seeds first you can be
sure that the seed will indeed produce a plant. To germinate seeds, place a group of them between about six
moist paper towels, or in the pores of a moist sponge. Leave the towels or sponge moist but not soaking wet.
Some seeds will germinate in 24 hours while others may take several days or even a week.
3. Plant the sprouts. As soon as the seed cracks open and begin to sprout, place it on some moist soil and sprinkle a
little soil over the top of it.
4. Supply the plants with light. Fluorescent lights are the best. Hang the lights with two inches of the soil and after
the plants appear above the ground, continue to keep the lights with two inches of the plants. It is as easy as
that. If you follow those four steps you will grow a marijuana plant. To ensure prime quality and the highest
yield in the shortest time period, however, a few details are necessary.
Soil
Your prime concern, after choosing high quality seeds, is the soil. Use the best soil you can get. Scrimping on
the soil doesn’t pay off in the long run. If you use non-sterilized soil you will almost certainly find parasites in it,
probably after it is too late to transplant your marijuana. You can find excellent soil for sale at your local plant shop
or nursery, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, and even some grocery stores. The soil you use should have these properties for the
best possible results:
1. It should drain well. That is, it should have some sand in it and also some sponge rock or pearlite.
2. The pH should be between 6.5 and 7.5 since marijuana does not do well in acidic soil. High acidity in soil
encourages the plant to be predominantly male, an undesirable trait.
3. The soil should also contain humus for retaining moisture and nutrients.
If you want to make your own soil mixture, you can use this recipe: Mix two parts moss with one part sand and one
part pearlite or sponge rock to each four gallons of soil. Test your soil for pH with litmus paper or with a soil testing
kit av because of the illegal
nature of the apprehension. One individual (arrested twice) involved in smuggling was not
arrested in the United States. One of the arrestees was judged at his trial not to be in
technical possession of the marijuana (one roach!), and the charges were dismissed.17]
Of the five remaining cases, one was arrested twice. None of the five was incarcerated for
his crime; four received suspended sentences, and one was still awaiting trial at the time
of the interview.
With all of our cases, the detection of the crime was fortuitous; in no case did an
undercover agent seek out use and selling. We cite three typical examples of the police
accidentally stumbling upon marijuana crimes:
A friend of mine whom I turned on felt guilty and told his father about it.
His father told the police, and the police followed him to my house. At four
a.m., the police rang my doorbell, and, when I answered, beat me up, and
then called my parents. I was adjudged a youthful offender, and placed on
probation for 14 months.
(10 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
twenty-year-old college student
I was playing pool with another guy, and two cops walked in, took us
outside, and searched us, me and my friend, and then they searched our car.
One joint was in the car. We were searched illegally; we were handcuffed
before they even found anything. The charge is going to be dropped because
I'm getting a recommendation from a youth counselor.
twenty-one-year-old clerk in a gift shop
I was sent one joint from Mexico through the mail. The customs officials
delivered the letter to my apartment in person—they had a search
warrant—and said that they were going to search my apartment. But I went
and got my supply, and gave it to them. They said that they were going to
arrest me, but they were willing to cooperate if I did. I supplied them with a
name of a dealer—knowing that he was leaving for Canada that day. I
wasn't arrested.
nineteen-year-old female clerk in a bookstore
Post-Arrest Disposition
Arrest is only the first step in a long legal process. The questions involved in the postarrest
disposition are often extremely complex and technical. The policeman, who
operates on the basis of simple guilt or innocence, is frustrated and angered to see one of
his cases dismissed on a minor technicality, feeling that the lawyers and judges are trying
to abort law and order. However, these formalities were designed to protect the possibly
innocent suspect, and they usually err on the side of being overly generous in letting many
probably guilty suspects go free, rather than making the mistake of jailing a few possibly
innocent suspects. That this happens to such a degree with marijuana charges points to the
fact that many judges, district attorneys, and lawyers have lost faith in the justice of the
marijuana statutes. A certain degree of leeway is allowed the public officials after arrest;
where many decis
(Big Bud x Skunk #1) 23.25 oz. Cured, VERY well manicured. Also made 2 lb of butter, that turned out way too
strong) and 10 grams of hash. There were 8 1/2 plants grown from clone(one was a complete runt, I don't
know why I even let her live). Plants were vegged in an aeroponic/NFT system for 3 weeks under a 1000MH with
an AgroSun bulb. They were about 18-20 inches tall when switched. Each plant was topped twice. Flowering was
in an NFT system. The first 2 weeks a single 1000MH w/ AgroSun was used. A second identical light was added
at the third week. Flowering took about 70 days. These were the most crystallized plants of this variety that
I've ever grown. Slow cured over 1 1/2 months. First on newspaper, then into paper bags, then into mason jars.
Smell is incredible. High is incredible. Normally I find BB a little less potent that I'd like. This crop just floors
me. High starts out mellow, upbeat, then when you start the second round of bong hits it just hits you like a
wave. Immediate couch melt. Cancel your plans, you're not going anywhere. But it lets your mind stay
somewhat sharp, which is the best thing about it. Overall I was pretty pleased with this harvest. I had a couple
of problems in the early weeks of flowering with mites, and then nearer the end the cold started to set in a bit.
So considering that I was pleased with the yield. Although it did suffer the typical Big Bud problem of slightly
looser buds. I had one plant that was a monster! A good 8 inches taller than all the other plants, I ended up
having to tie her down. 4 huge colas each around 4x11. That plant probably yielded almost 4 ounces alone -
Content
Remember that when we speak of �high� in this context, we literally mean �a high frequency� of
being, just as the UHF Best Marijuana Seeds Gras radio band is of a higher frequency than is FM. The high has a literal and very
relevant reality to HEMP Categories HEMP Categories HEMP the quality of our lives, and in fact all life on this planet.
Marijuana is thus properly
known as a, �priceless gift of nature� to humanity. The high is a sacred thing, and shares many
properties with that state of being known as
growing marijuana scrog method yield enormous buds of marijana
�love� as well as sexual pleasure. 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, manicuring would
be a breeze if it 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 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 "My 3 NL#9 girls were harvested last week, dried and are curing now. Plant #1 flowered for 52 days, 2 and 3, 56
days. I have to say that this is some of the best smoke of all time for
PLATE STACKERS me! Looks white in the bag slow clean
burn, great taste, kick-ass high. I yielded about 5oz. off 3 plants. NL#9 is a Sag product. Info I've gotten says
its NLxWhite WidowxJack Herer. Pretty intense stone."-KGB"My 3 NL9 girls were harvested last week, dried and are curing now. Plant 1 flowered for 52 days, 2 and 3, 56
days. I have to say that this is some of the best smoke of all time for me! Looks white in the bag slow clean
burn, great taste, kick-ass high. I yielded about 5oz. off 3 plants. NL9 is a Sag
Cannabis Medical product. Info I've gotten says
its NLxWhite WidowxJack Herer. Pretty intense stone."-KGB
"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 wholesale bongs come close!!! So clone all your females, if
you let this one slip through your fingers you will be bummed!!! The bud from Apollo wholesale bongs has a sweet fruity/citrus
taste, and a high that
make bongs
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
Gravity Bongs according to BG!!!) has said it is some of the best they have ever smoked!"- greenbear , 137 (1941); G All these modifications have resulted in a series of novel THC derivatives
and analogs, which show a wide variety of enhanced activities such as
antiglaucoma, antinausea, analgesic, tranquilizer, antihypertensive, etc
, 19,719 (1976)
"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
To Make Make From How To Stuff From 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 cis ~ trans Conversion
Uliss et al
Girl Smoking Bongs Vah mellow mellow vs vs knaster align="justify"> vah
Todd,
Vah
and
Cannabis Content Cannabis S Laven, Tetrahedron, 29, 2797 (1973); (b) F 6-eannabidiols
with a 3,4-cis junction are "unnatural" and were synthesized (Chart 2 “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.”
Pipes Cannabis Seeds
chong bongs
Dewey, Committee
Pipes And Bongs on Problems of Drug
Wwwsensi Seedsnl Dependence,
National Academy
Hawaii X Skunk #1
of Sciences/National Research Council Annual Report, p
Plants need sugars to live on and they produce them from fertilizer and sunlight.
This curing process also breaks down some of the chlorophyll which give herb it's green color.
Too much chlorophyll gives an unwanted leafy taste. Your The Cannabis Cup 2003 Laws On Cannabis main enemy when you are curing is mold. After pot is dried it's not very susceptible to mold but you have to maintain a certain level of humidity to let the curing process do it's work. The way you control humidity is by Cannabis Users controlling how much ventilation you allow.
a is not damaging at all, it would be necessary to produce evidence that all cases
of marijuana use did not result in damage—all individuals at all times—an obvious
impossibility. Whereas to show that it is damaging in any degree, only a few scattered
cases need be produced. (Even assuming that the "damage" can be traced to the marijuana,
a question which is, itself, problematic.) Consequently, there is no conceivable evidence
which can be presented to someone with a strong antimarijuana position which he will
accept as a demonstration of the drug's comparative harmlessness.
(8 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3
Strategies of Discreditation
Labeling has political implications. By devising a linguistic category with specific
connotations, one is designing armaments for a battle; by having it accepted and used, one
has scored a major victory. For instance, the term "psychedelic" has a clear prodrug bias:
it says that the mind works best when under the influence of this type of drug. (Moreover,
one of the psychedelic drug proselytizers, in search of a term which would describe the
impact of these drugs, rejected "psychodelic" as having negative overtones of psychosis.)
The term "hallucinogen" is equally biased since an hallucination is, in our civilization at
least, unreal, illusory, and therefore undesirable; the same holds for the term
"psychotomimetic," capable of producing a madness-like state. The semantics and
linguistics of the drug issue form an essential component of the ideological skirmishes.
17] As an example of how labeling influences one's posture toward a phenomenon, note
that the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs has jurisdiction over "addicting" drugs,
which supposedly includes marijuana, while the Food and Drug Administration handles
"habit-forming" drugs. Because of this jurisdictional division, the Bureau is forced into the
absurd position of having to classify marijuana as an addicting drug, and to support this
contention, it supplies drug categorizations that follow jurisdictional lines,18] as if they
had some sort of correspondence in the real world. However, the Bureau seems not to take
its own classifications seriously, since whenever the issue is discussed by its members, it
is emphasized that marijuana is not addicting in the classical sense, but it produces a
"psychological dependence."[19]
"Drug abuse" is such a linguistic device. It is often used by physicians and by those in
medically related fields. Encountering the use of the term, one has the impression that
something quite measurable is being referred to, something very much like a disease, an
undesirable condition which is in need of remedy. The term, thus, simultaneously serves
two functions: it claims clinical objectivity and it discredits the action that it categorizes.
In fact, there is no such objectivity in the term; its use is baldly political.
Drug abuse is the
use of a drug that influea is not damaging at all, it would be necessary to produce evidence that all cases
of marijuana use did not result in damage—all individuals at all times—an obvious
impossibility. Whereas to show that it is damaging in any degree, only a few scattered
cases need be produced.
(Even assuming that the "damage" can be traced to the marijuana,
a question which is, itself, problematic.
) Consequently, there is no conceivable evidence
which can be presented to someone with a strong antimarijuana position which he will
accept as a demonstration of the drug's comparative harmlessness.
(8 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3
Strategies of Discreditation
Labeling has political implications. By devising a linguistic category with specific
connotations, one is designing armaments for a battle; by having it accepted and used, one
has scored a major victory. For instance, the term "psychedelic" has a clear prodrug bias:
it says that the mind works best when under the influence of this type of drug. (Moreover,
one of the psychedelic drug proselytizers, in search of a term which would describe the
impact of these drugs, rejected "psychodelic" as having negative overtones of psychosis.
)
The term "hallucinogen" is equally biased since an hallucination is, in our civilization at
least, unreal, illusory, and therefore undesirable; the same holds for the term
"psychotomimetic," capable of producing a madness-like state. The semantics and
linguistics of the drug issue form an essential component of the ideological skirmishes.
17] As an example of how labeling influences one's posture toward a phenomenon, note
that the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs has jurisdiction over "addicting" drugs,
which supposedly includes marijuana, while the Food and Drug Administration handles
"habit-forming" drugs. Because of this jurisdictional division, the Bureau is forced into the
absurd position of having to classify marijuana as an addicting drug, and to support this
contention, it supplies drug categorizations that follow jurisdictional lines,18] as if they
had some sort of correspondence in the real world.
However, the Bureau seems not to take
its own classifications seriously, since whenever the issue is discussed by its members, it
is emphasized that marijuana is not addicting in the classical sense, but it produces a
"psychological dependence."19]
"Drug abuse" is such a linguistic device.
It is often used by physicians and by those in
medically related fields. Encountering the use of the term, one has the impression that
something quite measurable is being referred to, something very much like a disease, an
undesirable condition which is in need of remedy. The term, thus, simultaneously serves
two functions: it claims clinical objectivity and it discredits the action that it categorizes.
In fact, there is no such objectivity in the term; its use is baldly political.
Drug abuse is the
use of a drug that influea is not damaging at all, it would be necessary to produce evidence that all cases
of marijuana use did not result in damage—all individuals at all times—an obvious
impossibility.
Whereas to show that it is damaging in any degree, only a few scattered
cases need be produced. (Even assuming that the "damage" can be traced to the marijuana,
a question which is, itself, problematic.) Consequently, there is no conceivable evidence
which can be presented to someone with a strong antimarijuana position which he will
accept as a demonstration of the drug's comparative harmlessness.
(8 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3
Strategies of Discreditation
Labeling has political implications. By devising a linguistic category with specific
connotations, one is designing armaments for a battle; by having it accepted and used, one
has scored a major victory. For instance, the term "psychedelic" has
Seeddirect a clear prodrug bias:
it says that the mind works best when under the influence of this type of drug. (Moreover,
one of the psychedelic drug proselytizers, in search of a term which would describe the
impact of these drugs, rejected "psychodelic" as having negative overtones of psychosis.)
The term "hallucinogen" is equally biased since an hallucination is, in our civilization at
least, unreal, illusory, and therefore undesirable; the same holds for the term
"psychotomimetic," capable of producing a madness-like state. The semantics and
linguistics of the drug issue form an essential component of the ideological skirmishes.
[17 As an example of how labeling influences one's posture toward a phenomenon, note
that the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs has jurisdiction over "addicting" drugs,
which supposedly includes marijuana, while the Food and Drug Administration handles
"habit-forming" drugs. Because of this jurisdictional division, the Bureau is forced into the
absurd position of having to classify marijuana as an addicting drug, and to support this
contention, it supplies drug categorizations that follow jurisdictional lines,[18 as if they
had some sort of correspondence in the real world. However, the Bureau seems not to take
its own classifications seriously, since whenever the issue is discussed by its members, it
is emphasized that marijuana is not addicting in the classical sense, but it produces a
"psychological dependence.
"19
"Drug abuse" is such a linguistic device. It is often used by physicians and by those in
medically related fields. Encountering the use of the term, one has the impression that
something quite measurable is being referred to, something very much like a disease, an
undesirable condition which is in need of remedy.
The term, thus, simultaneously serves
two functions: it claims clinical objectivity and it discredits the action that it categorizes.
In fact, there is no such objectivity in the term; its use is baldly political. Drug abuse is the
use of a drug that influea is not damaging at all, it would be necessary to produce evidence that all cases
of marijuana use did not result in damage—all individuals at all times—an obvious
impossibility. Whereas to show that it is damaging in any degree, only a few scattered
cases need be produced. (Even assuming that the "damage" can be traced to the marijuana,
a question which is, itself, problematic.) Consequently, there is no conceivable evidence
which can be presented to someone with a strong antimarijuana position which he will
accept as a demonstration of
Names For Cannabis the drug's comparative harmlessness.
(8 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3
Strategies of Discreditation
Labeling has political implications. By devising a linguistic category with specific
connotations, one is designing armaments for a battle; by having it accepted and used, one
has scored a major victory. For instance, the term "psychedelic" has a clear prodrug bias:
it says that the mind works best when under the influence of this type of drug. (Moreover,
one of the psychedelic drug proselytizers, in search of a term which would describe the
impact of these drugs, rejected "psychodelic" as having negative overtones of psychosis.)
The term "hallucinogen" is equally biased since an hallucination is, in our civilization at
least, unreal, illusory, and therefore undesirable; the same holds for the term
"psychotomimetic," capable of producing a madness-like state. The semantics and
linguistics of the drug issue form an essential component of the ideological skirmishes.
17 As an example of how labeling influences one's posture toward a phenomenon, note
that the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs has jurisdiction over "addicting" drugs,
which supposedly includes marijuana, while the Food and Drug Administration handles
"habit-forming" drugs. Because of this jurisdictional division, the Bureau is forced into the
absurd position of having to classify marijuana as an addicting drug, and to support this
contention, it supplies drug categorizations that follow jurisdictional lines,18 as if they
had some sort of correspondence in the real world.
However, the Bureau seems not to take
its own classifications seriously, since whenever the issue is discussed by its members, it
is emphasized that marijuana is not addicting in the classical sense, but it produces a
"psychological dependence."19
"Drug abuse" is such a linguistic device. It is often used by physicians and by those in
medically related fields. Encountering the use of the term, one has the impression that
something quite measurable is being referred to, something very much like a disease, an
undesirable condition which is in need of remedy. The term, thus, simultaneously serves
two functions: it claims clinical objectivity and it discredits the action that it categorizes.
In fact, there is no such objectivity in the term; its use is baldly political. Drug abuse is the
use of a drug that influe 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 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 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. nto a criminal into "the kind of person who would do such a thing." Although
many going through the ritual will reject the definition of them imposed by the process, it
nonetheless leaves its impress.
Formal Law, Substantive Law, and Law Enforcement
A common argument against marijuana use involves its legal status. Aside from the
debate concerning its dangers, or lack thereof, to the human mind and body, the single
irreducible fact regarding marijuana which is universally agreed upon is that its use,
possession, and sale are illegal. The opponents of marijuana use this as an effective
weapon in their dialogue with the drug's advocates. Regardless of one's point of view on
marijuana, it is outlawed. Everyone who uses it is a criminal, someone subject to the risk
of arrest and imprisonment who should expect to be punished.
Actually, this argument fails under close scrutiny. Many laws— perhaps most
laws—are not enforced. Formal law, law as it exists on the books, is very different from
substantive law, law as it is actually enforced. The breach of some laws engenders
widespread moral outrage, while the enforcement of other laws incurs that same public
wrath. "It's the law" can never be an excuse for sanctioning an act, because "the law" is a
hodge-podge of archaic long-forgotten, and ignored statutes that are never executed, along
with those that are respected and daily enforced. Masturbation is illegal in a number of
states (Pennsylvania, for instance), and in Indiana and Wyoming, it is criminal to
encourage a person to masturbate. In forty-five states, adultery is illegal; Connecticut calls
for five-year imprisonment upon prosecution. Mere fornication is a crime in thirty-eight
states, and a breach of this law theoretically carries a fine of $500 or two-years
(15 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
imprisonment, or both.28] Many states dictate the manner in which one may make love
to one's spouse; cunnilingus and fellatio, for instance, are against the law in many legal
jurisdictions.29] In view of the near-universality of masturbation among men and the fact
that a majority of all couples marrying today engaged in premarital intercourse, the virtual
absence of any prosecution for these crimes is remarkable. Although sanctioning all
crimes without victims entails severe problems of logistical detection, with adultery at
least, divorce suits constitute a fertile field. In New York state, where until recently
adultery was the only legitimate grounds for divorce, thousands of divorces have been
filed and granted in the past few years, yet almost no one is ever prosecuted for this crime.
30]
The enforcement of certain laws, therefore, cannot be taken for granted. Enforcement is
problematic. Thus, when a law is enforced, it is necessary to ask why. What is it that
differentiates those laws that are enforced and those that are not enforced? The argument
that a man should refrain from perf
Cannabis headquarters - cannabishq.com - home one other point i should address is the quality and quantity of the cannabis used in the recipe most of the recipes i have seen call for a lot sometimes more
Hash Information Hash Information Amsterdam than. Cannabis paraphernalia canna cafe got a cannabis recipe or munchie treat,then post it here moderators robogro, hazey, big_bud_wulf, tom 35 topics 50 posts last post by potty.
Live search cannabis recipes cannabis recipes a recipe for cannabis stir-fry a recipe for bhang, a cannabis drink and hot buttered bhang try apple pot a recipe for cannabis brownies. Cannabis forums message boards
Of Search Of Search Of - medical marijuana, cannabis club marijuana and cannabis seeds, smoking resources, pot recipes, weed gifts, water bongs, glass pipes, the best prices, 420 sounds, audio clips, marijuana terms and definitions.
Shishkeberry did great Cannabis News Names For Cannabis in the desert. very stony, stupor inducing indica with bb (sort of) flavor. very smelly
during flowering.
.
.
so use caution where ya plant it. it's as easy to grow as any other and clones easy. but very
stiff branches/trunk so hard to train during veg w/o breaking stems.
not terribly tall...maybe 6-8'... but I
suggest it be bowls bongs grown at 45-60 degree angle from start if finish plant-height is a prob. most excellent Wholesale Bongs long and
large "beer-can-cola" (among the best buds I’ve ever seen) buds on main stem with all branches
producing...so I’d say above avg. yield too. IOW, I would never kick her out of the bed... btw, I’m at 36
degrees latitude +/- with long, hot season but Shishke finished around end of Sept to mid-Oct, if I recall
correctly. it did finish before the majority, at any rate. m.g. Pilze Seed Banks
pipe pipe and and
Chem, 14B, 449
Maroc x Afghan Homemade Bongs bud rot harmful to smoke? (1976)
Cannabis hosting - news amp press releases top news now health minister condoms boost women s sex appeal political leaders must do god says mr blair tories slam lax laws for rise in online gambling. Cannabis news u s attorney must stop prosecuting medical marijuana growers implementation of cannabis news cannabis revival cannashops celebrity stoner center for constitutional rights. Cn cannabis community cannabis marijuana hemp hash your marijuananews.com - the most trusted source for marijuana and cannabis news since 1997 with richard cowan. Cannabis news - 420 girls jesus w as almost certainly a cannabis user and an early proponent of the medicinal properties of the drug, according to a study of scriptural texts published this month the. Drying Curing your garnering is an why is nutrition important step in the cultivation process.
Many new growers are so
Calyx Hairs In Marijuana eager to try me mp3 the back support products they don't even can't wait for it to mature.
They cut off bucts
Vah
that aren't irpe and rainless them cold fast. I've shot heard round the world of cartoon people pro
Swazi tem bucts
WEED BONGS WEED in the warm up because they couldn't can't wait for them to rainless. If skittles taste the rainbow, aroma and maximm black kush potency is why is nutrition important to you then you i want you to want me to cure your bucts and not just rainless them. There are how many words are in the gettysburg address ways to collect fingerprints to do this and I'm just going to go ovre a few basic san francisco things to do. You can find whole house water filters books on the free subject predicate worksheets if you are interested.
"AFOAF Cannabis Communitycom 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 Psychedelic Furs of Jack Herer crossed to an Site:Cannabissativashop.Com unknown male (likely a Durban imho). The dad
of A-11 is Cinderella.
Genius
descriptions of cannabis plants
expresses the NL and Skunk side of the
descriptions of cannabis plants gene pool. Cindy expresses the Durban and haze side.
imho, for sensi.seeds.nl 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 “I grew Sensi Seeds NL#5 and it was one of the best plants I had ever seen. VERY distinctive aroma and taste,
I agree with Skunkman, its like a psychedelic couchlock, the buzz goes for loooong. Plus its one of the best
indoor plants I ever saw, very short and compact, mega-phat top-cola, pretty fast (8 weeks), wont grow much
longer after inducing bloom, excellent flower/leaf ratio. I had good 400 gr./s.m. which I consider nice. Only
drawback I noticed was you better watch the air humidity, they have a tendency to catch bud rot, and the colas
are just too fat and sticky so the air won’t go into. But when you keep moisture down to max. 50% rh. you
should do well. To my experience they are true-breeding, but on the other hand I heard that too much
inbreeding out of a small number of species might cause some problems and show up some indica aspects
you may not want to have. I heard of NL#5 F2 that smelled and tasted like shit and had a very dull buzz.” -
huzzit
"(For multiple sclerosis) my friend is currently using a pure indica (NL#5) with good results..." - pot newz
to time who do not now because of
the laws, but who do not like to drink. Thus, the figure who use some intoxicant would
increase were pot legalized, but it would be far lower than the additive effect of all those
who now use liquor added to all those who might use pot.
If we want to consider the effect of the marijuana laws on public safety, we are
therefore faced with the prospect of comparing the relative merits of alcohol and
marijuana. As stated earlier, marijuana users cite the comparison as a powerful argument
in the drug's favor, while physicians dismiss the argument.
Where does that leave us?
In terms of tissue damage, the evidence is clear; no sane observer of the American drug
use scene would claim for marijuana the ravaging effect that alcohol has. Daily
moderately heavy usage of American or Mexican cannabis, say, six joints a day, produces
no known bodily harm. (But we must remember that we have no valid studies of
potsmokers which span any length of time.) Daily moderately heavy use of alcohol—the
quantity comparable to the amount of marijuana which would intoxicate the user for an
equal length of time, i.e., the whole day, would be about half a quart a day—will destroy,
threaten or damage most of the body's vital organs over a long period of time. In terms of
auto accidents, the evidence we have suggests a gain. The drunk driver behind the wheel
is far more of a threat and a danger than the high pothead. Empirical tests show that
alcohol discoordinates the driver far more than marijuana—if it occurs with marijuana at
(23 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
all.[45] Decrease in aggression, violence, and crime, too, would be only a positive gain.
Alcohol moreover is often directly linked with the commission of crime; far from inciting
crime, marijuana, contrastingly, possibly inhibits it. Our speculations on insanity would
have to be even less firmly grounded in known fact than those for tissue damage,
automobile accidents, and violence, but marijuana would have to strive to catch up with
alcohol's record; one of four admissions to a mental hospital is an alcoholic.
Here, too, I
think, the use of pot would be a clear gain.
The members of the antipot contingent who claim that alcohol is preferable to
marijuana, and that legalization would be nothing but a disaster for this or any nation, do
have a single telling point, as I see it. This is that marijuana is always used to become
intoxicated, or high, and alcohol is often, indeed, perhaps most of the time, used for
nonintoxicatory purposes.
Alcoholic substances are frequently consumed on many
occasions where the drinker does not become drunk or intoxicated. For instance, at many
sporting events—football and baseball games—several bottles of beer may be drunk by a
spectator without effect. The same may be said for wine at a meal, cocktails (sometimes)
at a party, or sherry as a nightcap. Of course, many marijuana smokers do to time who do not now because of
the laws, but who do not like to drink. Thus, the figure who use some intoxicant would
increase were pot legalized, but it would be far lower than the additive effect of all those
who now use liquor added to all those who might use pot.
If we want to consider the effect of the marijuana laws on public safety, we are
therefore faced with the prospect of comparing the relative merits of alcohol and
marijuana.
As stated earlier, marijuana users cite the comparison as a powerful argument
in the drug's favor, while physicians dismiss the argument. Where does that leave us?
In terms of tissue damage, the evidence is clear; no Marijuana Seeds Naturdrogen sane observer of the American drug
use scene would claim for marijuana the ravaging effect that alcohol has. Daily
moderately heavy usage of American or Mexican cannabis, say, six joints a day, produces
no known bodily harm. (But we must remember that we have no valid studies of
potsmokers which span any length of time.) Daily moderately heavy use of alcohol—the
quantity comparable to the amount of marijuana which would intoxicate the user for an
equal length of time, i.e., the whole day, would be about half a quart a day—will destroy,
threaten or damage most of the body's vital organs over a long period of time. In terms of
auto accidents, the evidence we have suggests a gain. The drunk driver behind the wheel
is far more of a threat and a danger than the high pothead. Empirical tests show that
alcohol discoordinates the driver far more than marijuana—if it occurs with marijuana at
(23 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
all.45] Decrease in aggression, violence, and crime, too, would be only a positive gain.
Alcohol moreover is often directly linked with the commission of crime; far from inciting
crime, marijuana, contrastingly, possibly inhibits it. Our speculations on insanity would
have to be even less firmly grounded in known fact than those for tissue damage,
automobile accidents, and violence, but marijuana would have to strive to catch up with
alcohol's record; one of four admissions to a mental hospital is an alcoholic. Here, too, I
think, the use of pot would be a clear gain.
The members of the antipot contingent who claim that alcohol is preferable to
marijuana, and that legalization would be nothing but a disaster for this or any nation, do
have a single telling point, as I see it. This is that marijuana is always used to become
intoxicated, or high, and alcohol is often, indeed, perhaps most of the time, used for
nonintoxicatory purposes. Alcoholic substances are frequently consumed on many
occasions where the drinker does not become drunk or intoxicated. For instance, at many
sporting events—football and baseball games—several bottles of beer may be drunk by a
spectator without effect. The same may be said for wine at a meal, cocktails (sometimes)
at a party, or sherry as a nightcap. Of course, many marijuana smokers do to time who do not now because of
the laws, but who do Ruderalis not like to drink. Thus, the figure who use some intoxicant would
increase were pot legalized, but it would be far lower than the additive effect of all those
who now use liquor added to all those who might use pot.
If we want to consider the effect of the marijuana laws on public safety, we are
therefore faced with the prospect of comparing the relative merits of alcohol and
marijuana. As stated earlier, marijuana users cite the comparison as a powerful argument
in the drug's favor, while physicians dismiss the argument.
Where does that leave us?
In terms of tissue damage, the evidence is clear; no sane observer of the American drug
use scene would claim for marijuana the ravaging effect that alcohol has. Daily
moderately heavy usage of American or Mexican cannabis, say, six joints a day, produces
no known bodily harm. (But we must remember that we have no valid studies of
potsmokers which span any length of time.) Daily moderately heavy use of alcohol—the
quantity comparable to the amount of marijuana which would intoxicate the user for an
equal length of time, i.e., the whole day, would be about half a quart a day—will destroy,
threaten or damage most of the body's vital organs over a long period of time. In terms of
auto accidents, the evidence we have suggests a gain. The drunk driver behind the wheel
is far more of a threat and a danger than the high pothead. Empirical tests show that
alcohol discoordinates the driver far more than marijuana—if it occurs with marijuana at
(23 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
all.
45 Decrease in aggression, violence, and crime, too, would be only a positive gain.
Alcohol moreover is often directly linked with the commission of crime; far from inciting
crime, marijuana, contrastingly, possibly inhibits it. Our speculations on insanity would
have to be even less firmly grounded in known fact than those for tissue damage,
automobile accidents, and violence, but marijuana would have to strive to catch up with
alcohol's record; one of four admissions to a mental hospital is an alcoholic. Here, too, I
think, the use of pot would be a clear gain.
The members of the antipot contingent who claim that alcohol is preferable to
marijuana, and that legalization would be nothing but a disaster for this or any nation, do
have a single telling point, as I see it. This is that marijuana is always used to become
intoxicated, or high, and alcohol is often, indeed, perhaps most of the time, used for
nonintoxicatory purposes. Alcoholic substances are frequently consumed on many
occasions where the drinker does not become drunk or intoxicated. For instance, at many
sporting events—football and baseball games—several bottles of beer may be drunk by a
spectator without effect. The same may be said for wine at a meal, cocktails (sometimes)
at a party, or sherry as a nightcap. Of course, many marijuana smokers do to time who do not now because of
the laws, but who do not like to drink.
Thus, the figure who use some intoxicant would
increase were pot legalized, but it would be far lower than the additive effect of all those
who now use liquor added to all those who might use pot.
If we want to consider the effect of the marijuana laws on public safety, we are
therefore faced with the prospect of comparing the relative merits of alcohol and
marijuana. As stated earlier, marijuana users cite the comparison as a powerful argument
in the drug's favor, while physicians dismiss the argument. Where does that leave us?
In terms of tissue damage, the evidence is clear; no sane observer of the American drug
use scene would claim for marijuana the ravaging effect that alcohol has. Daily
moderately heavy usage of American or Mexican cannabis, say, six joints a day, produces
no known bodily harm. (But we must remember that we have no valid studies of
potsmokers which span any length of time.) Daily moderately heavy use of alcohol—the
quantity comparable to the amount of marijuana which would intoxicate the user for an
equal length of time, i.e., the whole day, would be about half a quart a day—will destroy,
threaten or damage most of the body's vital organs over a long period of time. In terms of
auto accidents, the evidence we have suggests a gain. The drunk driver behind the wheel
is far more of a threat and a danger than the high pothead. Empirical tests show that
alcohol discoordinates the driver far more than marijuana—if it occurs with marijuana at
(23 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
all.45 Decrease in aggression, violence, and crime, too, would be only a positive gain.
Alcohol moreover is often directly linked with the commission of crime; far from inciting
crime, marijuana, contrastingly, possibly inhibits it. Our speculations on insanity would
have to be even less firmly grounded in known fact than those for tissue damage,
automobile accidents, and violence, but marijuana would have to strive to catch up with
alcohol's record; one of four admissions to a mental hospital is an alcoholic. Here, too, I
think, the use of pot would be a clear gain.
The members of the antipot contingent who claim that alcohol is preferable to
marijuana, and that legalization would be nothing but a disaster for this or any nation, do
have a single telling point, as I see it. This is that marijuana is always used to become
intoxicated, or high, and alcohol is often, indeed, perhaps most of the time, used for
nonintoxicatory purposes.
Alcoholic substances are frequently consumed on many
occasions where the drinker does not become drunk or intoxicated. For instance, at many
sporting events—football and baseball games—several bottles of beer may be drunk by a
spectator without effect. The same may be said for wine at a meal, cocktails (sometimes)
at a party, or sherry as a nightcap. Of course, many marijuana smokers do
BLUE BLUE @ 3/12/2010 4:30:22 PM