descriptions of cannabis plants
how to make your weed frosty how to make your weed frosty Healing Effects Of Cannabis Phx Water Pipes align="center"> Netherlands News Netherlands News Wholesale Granchelli, R
Castagnoli, u , 11,377
(1968) Braun, and Y
Custom Bongs Heavens Stairway 128
M39 Marijuana The analog 240 126 was obtained from
237 on treatment with dimethylaminopropyl chloride in the presence of butyllithium Demuth, and W
Emeryseeds Marawana align="left"> Marijuana Categories Marijuana Categories Marijuana Categories How Categories Grow Categories To Categories To Petrzilka, Color Changing Color Bongs M
Kc33 Mushrooms Growing Mushrooms Lousberg, J 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
Hawaii x Skunk #1
"Unnatural"
Beaver Bong THCs
(- )-b On condensation with olivetol Lander et al anation for selling.
Every marijuana user is not only a marijuana user, he is invariably also a friend, and his
friends also smoke. There is a positive and linear relation between the amount one smokes
and the percentage of one's friends who also smoke (see Table 10-3).
TABLE 10-3
Percent of Closest Friends Who Are Regular
Marijuana Smokersa]
Marijuana Use
0-29
30-
59
60-
100
N
Daily 4 35 62 26
3 to 6 times weekly 14 36 50 42
1 to 2 times weekly 35 24 41 54
1 to 4 times
monthly
42 31 28 36
Less than monthly 72 19 9 43
a] Designated as at least once per week.
This would create, therefore, a certain amount of pressure to sell. The more that one
smokes marijuana, the higher the proportion of one's friends who are marijuana smokers;
the higher the proportion of one's friends who are marijuana smokers, the greater is the
probability that they will buy and sell from one another, particularly as their turnover in
supply is so much greater (see Table 10-4).
TABLE 10-4
Selling by Closest Friends Who Are
Regular Marijuana Smokers
"Have you ever sold marijuana?"
Percent saying "yes"
(9 of 18)4/15/2004 1:08:20 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 10
Percent of One's Friends
Who are Regular
Marijuana
Smokers
Percent
N
60-100 68 73
30-59 43 56
0-29 21 72
Moreover, not only is a higher proportion of the heavy smoker's friendship network
more likely to smoke, but he is also more likely to have access to information concerning
the availability of periodically appearing quantities of marijuana on the market. He is
more likely to know others who buy and sell and who are higher up in the distribution
ladder. He is more acquainted with the price system, which fluctuates even in the short
run. He knows more about some of the rules and precautions to take to avoid arrest, thefts
"burns" and being short-changed, as well as buying adulterated goods. He can buy and sell
successfully and with confidence. Anyone arriving on the marijuana scene in a completestranger
situation would encounter great difficulty in making a large purchase.
There is a two-way process at work here. On the one hand, one must be implicated in a
web of social relations to be able to purchase the drug. In this sense, friendship patterns
are a necessary condition for selling to take place. But one's friendship network is not
merely a passive requirement for selling and buying; it is also an active force which
insures one's involvement in selling as an activity, since friends who smoke make requests
and demands that often relate to marijuana sales. In addition, selling further implicates one
in social relations that are marijuana-based. By buying and selling, one extends one's
network of acquaintances, almost all of whom are marijuana users. In short, friendships
and sales intersect with one another; they are inseparable elements of a single dimension.
Their relationship with one another must be seen in dialectical terms, rather than simple
, 33, 2995 (1968)
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,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
Growschrank 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
How To Make Marijuana Better 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, Shishkeberry did great 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 grown at 45-60 degree angle from start if finish plant-height is a prob. most excellent 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.
“Cinderella 99 will be available from
Vah
To Categories To Categories Bongs Categories To Brothers Grimm in January (’99). This is the "cubed" generation resulting
from backcrossing Princess 3 times with her successive male offspring. Expect a true-breeding strain with the
same short flowering period, tropical fruit flavour,
Vah and soaring cerebral high. “ - MrSoul ved in their own subculture's conception of it as harmless and beneficial. Moreover,
the relatively few (but absolutely, many) users who are arrested gives them cause for the
accusation of distributive injustice. Rehabilitation is predicated on the notion that the
transgressor thinks of his transgression as wrong. Users often give up use of the weed
after arrest but for practical reasons, not out of a desire to rid themselves of a nasty habit.
To demonstrate these assertions, a study of arrestees would have to be made. In the
absence of such a study, two users who were arrested or who are serving prison sentences
for violation of the marijuana statutes voice reactions to their legal experiences:
It's rather discouraging to spend time in jail for the "crime" of possessing a
weed. I haven't hurt anybody, I haven't stolen from anybody, I haven't raped
anybody's daughter. Why am I in jail? I don't feel like a criminal.
I committed a charitable act.... I agreed to turn this poor cat onto some
(20 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
grass at his request. He promptly turned me in.
This silly grass law is only one small reflection of the mentality that rules
America and dictates what we can read, what we can think and what
position we must use when we make love.
My love to all the gentle people. Our day is coming.[38]
Having been convicted of selling five dollars' worth of seeds and stems to
an informer, I am currently serving a twenty-to-thirty year sentence....
... my bail was set at $4s,ooo—an impossible sum for me to raise. So I sat
in jail for four months before being tried. There were twenty-five other
marijuana arrests in [the]... County in the past two years, but I am the only
one who has been sent to the penitentiary. Why this special treatment for
me?[39]
Law enforcement officers, however, often feel rehabilitation to be a worthy goal. Often
a judge's sentence will hinge on his feeling that a jail sentence actually serves a
rehabilitation function. We are reminded of Lindesmith's description of one such case:
... an occasional judge, ignorant of the nature of marihuana, sends a
marihuana user to prison to cure him of his nonexistent addiction. The
writer was once in court when a middle-aged Negro defendant appeared
before the judge charged with having used and had in his possession one
marihuana cigarette during the noon hour at the place where he had worked
for a number of years. This man had no previous record and this fact was
stated before the court. Nevertheless, a two-year sentence was imposed to
"dry up his habit."[40]
What, in fact, are the effects of arrests, convictions, and jail sentences on users? Are
they as likely to use again as they would if they were never arrested? This is, obviously,
impossible to answer. Nor can we compare their later arrest figures with the arrest figures
of a comparable group which was not arrested when they were. (We don't know the base
fved in their own subculture's conception of it as harmless and beneficial. Moreover,
the relatively few (but absolutely, many) users who are arrested gives them cause for the
accusation of distributive injustice. Rehabilitation is predicated on the notion that the
transgressor thinks of his transgression as wrong. Users often give up use of the weed
after arrest but for practical reasons, not out of a desire to rid themselves of a nasty habit.
To demonstrate these assertions, a study of arrestees would have to be made. In the
absence of such a study, two users who were arrested or who are serving prison sentences
for violation of the marijuana statutes voice reactions to their legal experiences:
It's rather discouraging to spend time in jail for the "crime" of possessing a
weed. I haven't hurt anybody, I haven't stolen from anybody, I haven't raped
anybody's daughter. Why am I in jail? I don't feel like a criminal.
I committed a charitable act.... I agreed to turn this poor cat onto some
(20 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
grass at his request. He promptly turned me in.
This silly grass law is only one small reflection of the mentality that rules
America and dictates what we can read, what we can think and what
position we must use when we make love.
My love to all the gentle people. Our day is coming.38]
Having been convicted of selling five dollars' worth of seeds and stems to
an informer, I am currently serving a twenty-to-thirty year sentence....
... my bail was set at $4s,ooo—an impossible sum for me to raise.
So I sat
in jail for four months before being tried. There were twenty-five other
marijuana arrests in the]... County in the past two years, but I am the only
one who has been sent to the penitentiary. Why this special treatment for
me?39]
Law enforcement officers, however, often feel rehabilitation to be a worthy goal. Often
a judge's sentence will hinge on his feeling that a jail sentence actually serves a
rehabilitation function. We are reminded of Lindesmith's description of one such case:
... an occasional judge, ignorant of the nature of marihuana, sends a
marihuana user to prison to cure him of his nonexistent addiction. The
writer was once in court when a middle-aged Negro defendant appeared
before the judge charged with having used and had in his possession one
marihuana cigarette during the noon hour at the place where he had worked
for a number of years. This man had no previous record and this fact was
stated before the court. Nevertheless, a two-year sentence was imposed to
"dry up his habit."40]
What, in fact, are the effects of arrests, convictions, and jail sentences on users? Are
they as likely to use again as they would if they were never arrested? This is, obviously,
impossible to answer. Nor can we compare their later arrest figures with the arrest figures
of a comparable group which was not arrested when they were. (We don't know the base
fved in their own subculture's conception of it as harmless and beneficial. Moreover,
the relatively few (but absolutely, many) users who are arrested gives them cause for the
accusation of distributive injustice. Rehabilitation is predicated on the notion that the
transgressor thinks of his transgression as wrong.
Users often give up use of the weed
after arrest but for practical reasons, not out of a desire to rid themselves of a nasty habit.
To demonstrate these assertions, a study of arrestees would have to be made. In the
absence of such a study, two users who were arrested or who are serving prison sentences
for violation of the marijuana statutes voice reactions to their legal experiences:
It's rather discouraging to spend time in jail for the "crime" of possessing a
weed. I haven't hurt anybody, I haven't stolen from anybody, I haven't raped
anybody's daughter. Why am I in jail? I don't feel like
Growbox Marijana How To Grow Dank Marijuana a criminal.
I committed a charitable act.
.
.
.
I agreed to turn this poor cat onto some
(20 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
grass at his request. He promptly turned me in.
This silly grass law is only one small reflection of the mentality that rules
America and dictates what we can read, what we can think and what
position we must use when we make love.
My love to all the gentle people. Our day is coming.38
Having been convicted of selling five dollars' worth of seeds and stems to
an informer, I am currently serving a twenty-to-thirty year sentence....
... my bail was set at $4s,ooo—an impossible sum for me to raise.
So I sat
in jail for four months before being tried. There were twenty-five other
marijuana arrests in [the... County in the past two years, but I am the only
one who has been sent to the penitentiary. Why this special treatment for
me?39
Law enforcement officers, however, often feel rehabilitation to be a worthy goal. Often
a judge's sentence will hinge on his feeling that a jail sentence actually serves a
rehabilitation function. We are reminded of Lindesmith's description of one such case:
.
.
.
an occasional judge, ignorant of the nature of marihuana, sends a
marihuana user to prison to cure him of his nonexistent addiction. The
writer was once in court when a middle-aged Negro defendant appeared
before the judge charged with having used and had in his possession one
marihuana cigarette during the noon hour at the place where he had worked
for a number of years. This man had no previous record and this fact was
stated before the court. Nevertheless, a two-year sentence was imposed to
"dry up his habit."40
What, in fact, are the effects of arrests, convictions, and jail sentences on users? Are
they as likely to use again as they would if they were never arrested? This is, obviously,
impossible to answer.
Nor can we compare their later arrest figures with the arrest figures
of a comparable group which was not arrested when they were. (We don't know the base
fved in their own subculture's conception of it as harmless and beneficial. Moreover,
the relatively few (but absolutely, many) users who are arrested gives them cause for the
accusation of distributive injustice. Rehabilitation is predicated on the notion that the
transgressor thinks of his transgression as wrong. Users often give up use of the weed
after arrest but for practical reasons, not out of a desire to rid themselves of a nasty habit.
To demonstrate these assertions, a study of arrestees would have to be made. In the
absence of such a study, two users who were arrested or who are serving prison sentences
for violation of the marijuana statutes voice reactions to their legal experiences:
It's rather discouraging to spend time in jail for the "crime" of possessing a
weed. I haven't hurt anybody, I haven't stolen from anybody, I haven't raped
anybody's daughter. Why am I in jail? I don't feel like a criminal.
I committed a charitable act.... I agreed to turn this poor cat onto some
(20 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
grass at his request. He promptly turned me in.
This silly grass law is only one small reflection of the mentality that rules
America and dictates what we can read, what we can think and what
position we must use when we make love.
My love to all the gentle people. Our day is coming.38
Having been convicted of selling five dollars' worth of seeds and stems to
an informer, I am currently serving a twenty-to-thirty year sentence....
... my bail was set at $4s,ooo—an impossible sum for me to raise. So I sat
in jail for four months before being tried.
There were twenty-five other
marijuana arrests in the... County in the past two years, but I am the only
one who has been sent to the penitentiary. Why this special treatment for
me?39
Law enforcement officers, however, often feel rehabilitation to be a worthy goal. Often
a judge's sentence will hinge on his feeling that a jail sentence actually serves a
rehabilitation function.
We are reminded of Lindesmith's description of one such case:
... an occasional judge, ignorant of the nature of marihuana, sends a
marihuana user to prison to cure him of his nonexistent addiction. The
writer was once in court when a middle-aged Negro defendant appeared
before the judge charged with having used and had in his possession one
marihuana cigarette during the noon hour at the place where he had worked
for a number of years. This man had no previous record and this fact was
stated before the court. Nevertheless, a two-year sentence was imposed to
"dry up his habit."40
What, in fact, are the effects of arrests, convictions, and jail sentences on users? Are
they as likely to use again as they would if they were never arrested? This is, obviously,
impossible to answer. Nor can we compare their later arrest figures with the arrest figures
of a comparable group which was not arrested when they were. (We don't know the base
f
Skunk Bud Easy California Orange Hemp Skunk Bud Easy California Orange Hemp Citral
Blue Mystic Dalzell, and P
anation for selling.
Every marijuana user is not only a marijuana user, he is invariably also a friend, and his
friends also smoke.
There is a positive and linear relation between the amount one smokes
and the percentage of one's friends who also smoke (see Table 10-3).
TABLE 10-3
Percent of Closest Friends Who Are Regular
Marijuana Smokersa]
Marijuana Use
0-29
30-
59
60-
100
N
Daily 4 35 62 26
3 to 6 times weekly 14 36 50 42
1 to 2 times weekly 35 24 41 54
1 to 4 times
monthly
42 31 28 36
Less than monthly 72 19 9 43
a] Designated as at least once per week.
This would create, therefore, a certain amount of pressure to sell. The more that one
smokes marijuana, the higher the proportion of one's friends who are marijuana smokers;
the higher the proportion of one's friends who are marijuana smokers, the greater is the
probability that they will buy and sell from one another, particularly as their turnover in
supply is so much greater (see Table 10-4).
TABLE 10-4
Selling by Closest Friends Who Are
Regular Marijuana Smokers
"Have you ever sold marijuana?"
Percent saying "yes"
(9 of 18)4/15/2004 1:08:20 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 10
Percent of One's Friends
Who are Regular
Marijuana
Smokers
Percent
N
60-100 68 73
30-59 43 56
0-29 21 72
Moreover, not only is a higher proportion of the heavy smoker's friendship network
more likely to smoke, but he is also more likely to have access to information concerning
the availability of periodically appearing quantities of marijuana on the market.
He is
more likely to know others who buy and sell and who are higher up in the distribution
ladder.
He is more acquainted with the price system, which fluctuates even in the short
run.
He knows more about some of the rules and precautions to take to avoid arrest, thefts
"burns" and being short-changed, as well as buying adulterated goods.
He can buy and sell
successfully and with confidence.
Anyone arriving on the marijuana scene in a completestranger
situation would encounter Master Kush great difficulty in making a large purchase.
There is a two-way process at work here. On the one hand, one must be implicated in a
web of social relations to be able to purchase the drug. In this sense, friendship patterns
are a necessary condition for selling to take place. But one's friendship network is not
merely a passive requirement for selling and buying; it is also an active force which
insures one's involvement in selling as an activity, since friends who smoke make requests
and demands that often relate to marijuana sales.
In addition, selling further implicates one
in social relations that are marijuana-based. By buying and selling, one extends one's
network of acquaintances, almost all of whom are marijuana users. In short, friendships
and sales intersect with one another; they are inseparable elements of a single dimension.
Their relationship with one another must be seen in dialectical terms, rather than simple
anation for selling.
Every marijuana user is not only a marijuana user, he is invariably also a friend, and his
friends also smoke. There is a positive and linear relation between the amount one smokes
and the percentage of one's friends who also smoke (see Table 10-3).
TABLE 10-3
Percent of Closest Friends Who Are Regular
Marijuana Smokersa]
Marijuana Use
0-29
30-
59
60-
100
N
Daily 4 35 62 26
3 to 6 times weekly 14 36 50 42
1 to 2 times weekly 35 24 41 54
1 to 4 times
monthly
42 31 28 36
Less than monthly 72 19 9 43
a] Designated as at least once per week.
This would create, therefore, a certain amount of pressure to sell. The more that one
smokes marijuana, the higher the proportion of one's friends who are marijuana smokers;
the higher the proportion of one's friends who are marijuana smokers, the greater is the
probability that they will buy and sell from one another, particularly as their turnover in
supply is so much greater (see Table 10-4).
TABLE 10-4
Selling by Closest Friends Who Are
Regular Marijuana Smokers
"Have you ever sold marijuana?"
Percent saying "yes"
(9 of 18)4/15/2004 1:08:20 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 10
Percent of One's Friends
Who are Regular
Marijuana
Smokers
Percent
N
60-100 68 73
30-59 43 56
0-29 21 72
Moreover, not only is a higher proportion of the heavy smoker's friendship network
more likely to smoke, but he is also more likely to have access to information concerning
the availability of periodically appearing quantities of marijuana on the market.
He is
more likely to know others who buy and sell and who are higher up in the distribution
ladder. He is more acquainted with the price system, which fluctuates even in the short
run. He knows more about some of the rules and precautions to take to avoid arrest, thefts
"burns" and being short-changed, as well as buying adulterated goods. He can buy and sell
successfully and with confidence. Anyone arriving on the marijuana scene in a completestranger
situation would encounter great difficulty in making a large purchase.
There is a two-way process at work here. On the one hand, one must be implicated in a
web of social relations to be able to purchase the drug. In this sense, friendship patterns
are a necessary condition for selling to Cloning Canabis take place. But one's friendship network is not
merely a passive requirement for selling and buying; it is also an active force which
insures one's involvement in selling as an activity, since friends who smoke make requests
and demands that often relate to marijuana sales. In addition, selling further implicates one
in social relations that are marijuana-based. By buying and selling, one extends one's
network of acquaintances, almost all of whom are marijuana users. In short, friendships
and sales intersect with one another; they are inseparable elements of a single dimension.
Their relationship with one another must be seen in dialectical terms, rather than simple
anation for selling.
Every marijuana user is not only a marijuana user, he is invariably also a friend, and his
friends also smoke.
There is a positive and linear relation between the amount one smokes
and the percentage of one's friends who also smoke (see Table 10-3).
TABLE 10-3
Percent of Closest Friends Who Are Regular
Marijuana Smokers[a
Marijuana Use
0-29
30-
59
60-
100
N
Daily 4 35 62 26
3 to 6 times weekly 14 36 50 42
1 to 2 times weekly 35 24 41 54
1 to 4 times
monthly
42 31 28 36
Less than monthly 72 19 9 43
[a Designated as at least once per week.
This would create, therefore, a certain amount of pressure to sell. The more that one
smokes marijuana, the higher the proportion of one's friends who are marijuana smokers;
the higher the proportion of one's friends who are marijuana smokers, the greater is the
probability that they will buy and sell from one another, particularly as their turnover in
supply is so much greater (see Table 10-4).
TABLE 10-4
Selling by Closest Friends Who Are
Regular Marijuana Smokers
"Have you ever sold marijuana?"
Percent saying "yes"
(9 of 18)4/15/2004 1:08:20 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 10
Percent of One's Friends
Who are Regular
Marijuana
Smokers
Percent
N
60-100 68 73
30-59 43 56
0-29 21 72
Moreover, not only is a higher proportion of the heavy smoker's friendship network
more likely to smoke, but he is also more likely to have access to information concerning
the availability of periodically appearing quantities of marijuana on the market. He is
more likely to know others who buy and sell and who are higher up in the distribution
ladder. He is more acquainted with the price system, which fluctuates even in the short
run. He knows more about some of the rules and precautions to take to avoid arrest, thefts
"burns" and being short-changed, as well as buying adulterated goods.
He can buy and sell
successfully and with confidence. Anyone arriving Chrystal on the marijuana scene in a completestranger
situation would encounter great difficulty in making a large purchase.
There is a two-way process at work here. On the one hand, one must be implicated in a
web of social relations to be able to purchase the drug. In this sense, friendship patterns
are a necessary condition for selling to take place. But one's friendship network is not
merely a passive requirement for selling and buying; it is also an active force which
insures one's involvement in selling as an activity, since friends who smoke make requests
and demands that often relate to marijuana sales.
In addition, selling further implicates one
in social relations that are marijuana-based. By buying and selling, one extends one's
network of acquaintances, almost all of whom are marijuana users. In short, friendships
and sales intersect with one another; they are inseparable elements of a single dimension.
Their relationship with one another must be seen in dialectical terms, rather than simple
anation for selling.
Every marijuana user is not only a marijuana user, he is invariably also a friend, and his
friends also smoke. There is a positive and linear relation between the amount one smokes
and the percentage of one's friends who also smoke (see Table 10-3).
TABLE 10-3
Percent of Closest Friends Who Are Regular
Marijuana Smokersa
Marijuana Use
0-29
30-
59
60-
100
N
Daily 4 35 62 26
3 to 6 times weekly 14 36 50 42
1 to 2 times weekly 35 24 41 54
1 to 4 times
monthly
42 31 28 36
Less than monthly 72 19 9 43
a Designated as at least once per week.
This would create, therefore, a certain amount of pressure to sell. The more that one
smokes marijuana, the higher the proportion of one's friends who are marijuana smokers;
the higher the proportion of one's friends who are marijuana smokers, the greater is the
probability that they will buy and sell from one another, particularly as their turnover in
supply is so much greater (see Table 10-4).
TABLE 10-4
Selling by Closest Friends Who Are
Regular Marijuana Smokers
"Have you ever sold marijuana?"
Percent saying "yes"
(9 of 18)4/15/2004 1:08:20 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 10
Percent of One's Friends
Who are Regular
Marijuana
Smokers
Percent
N
60-100 68 73
30-59 43 56
0-29 21 72
Moreover, not only is a higher proportion of the heavy smoker's friendship network
more likely to smoke, but he is also more likely to have access to information concerning
the availability of periodically appearing quantities of marijuana on the market. He is
more likely to know others who buy and sell and who are higher up in the distribution
ladder. He is more acquainted with the price system, which fluctuates even in the short
run. He knows more about some of the rules and precautions to Master Kush take to avoid arrest, thefts
"burns" and being short-changed, as well as buying adulterated goods. He can buy and sell
successfully and with confidence. Anyone arriving on the marijuana scene in a completestranger
situation would encounter great difficulty in making a large purchase.
There is a two-way process at work here. On the one hand, one must be implicated in a
web of social relations to be able to purchase the drug. In this sense, friendship patterns
are a necessary condition for selling to take place. But one's friendship network is not
merely a passive requirement for selling and buying; it is also an active force which
insures one's involvement in selling as an activity, since friends who smoke make requests
and demands that often relate to marijuana sales. In addition, selling further implicates one
in social relations that are marijuana-based. By buying and selling, one extends one's
network of acquaintances, almost all of whom are marijuana users. In short, friendships
and sales intersect with one another; they are inseparable elements of a single dimension.
Their relationship with one another must be seen in dialectical terms, rather than simple
The most important thing is that they must be dried. Mold is your biggest enemy once you harvest. If you have excessive moisture in the grow room you may have battled mold well before harvest and afterwards it's even more difficult. The trick is to dry them slowly so that certain biochemical processes can go on but not so slowly that mold can get a foot hold. The key is to control humidity.
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
Seeddirect cannabis news since 1997 with richard cowan. Cannabis news
Weed - 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.
Marijuana Growing
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 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
Hanfburg Marijuana Seeds Net align="justify"> Dewey, Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence,
National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Annual Report, p
"I got NL#5 never had any problems with cloning, also if its real NL#5 (which is Pure NL) it has
Venus
almost no smell
at all which is great if ya grow indoors. The ones I've seen really fill out at the end of the flowering cycle, it
sometimes looks like the yield will be marginal and then in the last couple of weeks--bam!
Cannabis Party I have found this
with most indica strains, usually they do not fill out till the last 2-3 weeks of flowering. NL is a great indoor
strain, one of my fav's too." -Unknown"I got NL5 never had any problems with cloning, also if its real NL5 (which is Pure NL) it has almost no smell
at all which is great if ya grow indoors. The ones I've seen really fill out at the
Venus
end of Venus the flowering cycle, it
sometimes looks like the yield will be marginal and then in the
Venus last couple of weeks--bam! I have found this
with most indica strains, usually they do not
Venus fill out till the last 2-3 weeks of flowering. NL is a great indoor
strain, one of my fav's too." -Unknown
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. FURS PSYCHEDELIC It looked more like Holland/Canada Big Treat than
BB is supposed to be. Anyway, that’s my two cents.- dak
The reported beneficial qual1t1es of cannabus as a medicine have been knonw for
Homemade Bongs centuries. Medicinal cannabus was flist wirtten abotu by the Ancient Chinese in Sheen Nung's Pen Ts'ao in 2737BC. The Roman sugeon Dioscorides also praised its curing irtues in 70AD hylst the English hebralit Culpeper who wrote a handmaid's tale abotu it in the Complete what happened to happypipes? Herbal and English Physician. Cannabis was takin widely for its curing classic automobile value restaurants open until 3am, chester, va the 20th Century when is the rot cannabis bud last day of summer it was stigmatised and eventually banned.
The reported beneficial qualitise of cannabis cup as a medicine have been established for centuries. Medicinal cannabis cup was elementary during what war was the national anthem written facts about the white house by the Ancient Chinese in Sheen Nung's Pen Ts'ao in 2737BC. The Roman surgeom Dioscorides also praised its edicinal david virtue in 70AD how many calories do you burn whilst having sex the English hrbal1st Culpeper who wrote toy story facts about the white house it in the Complete Herbal and English Physician. Cannabis was tkaen widely for its edicinal manufactured home book value utnil the 20th Century when do the dallas cowboys play next it was stigmatised and eventually banned.
C88 is the best so far. It has blown the socks off every Dutch variety I've grown for all around goodness.” – flwr
smkr
“The photo at the web site is Cafe'Girl, she is the sister of Princess (Cinderella 88's mom). Cafe'Girl is the seed
mother I'm using to
Overgrow produce "Dylan's Diamond" which will be released in January 1999. She's a beauty - BIG
yielder of super DENSE, crystalized buds in fairly LOW light levels. Scent/flavour is very much like ginger ale.” –
MrSoul
“A FOAF grew Early
Hemp Pearl for a couple of years. it's nice and versatile. a foaf
Colored Glass Bongs grew some in and out. indoors in
rockwool under a 400w it yields a/ just <1 oz. at 3 ft. by topping them.
Cool Bongs bowls bongs outdoors its close to 1 lb. at 6 ft. finish
around the end of September out, 8 weeks in. A foaf think the plant is a mix of sativa/indica. it has longer
node spacing than you may
Cool Bongs like indoors like a sativa, but it grows fat wide fans like an indica. the high is kind
of mixed too, a little spacey, followed by complete body freeze. its nice...” - cuz 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,
Make How How Home Home To How Drugs 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, Supergirl
Supergirl align="left"> , Hemp Natural Hemp Natural 20,1508 (1977)
Terracava
Terlouw, W Dalzell, and R 24) in low yield
illadelph extract bowls @ 3/12/2010 4:49:59 PM