After bromination with PBr3
and further treatment with NaCN/DMSO it formed the nitrile, which was
debenzylated under mild hydrogenation conditions to 203 “These buds are army-green colored, crystally, and evenly covered with long dark orange (almost brown) hairs.
Broken up, these buds release the scent of sweet freshly cut grass or even hay with some slightly skunky
undertones. The smoke is smooth, non-expansive and has a mild sweet taste. Although the high does not hit
you right away, it first creeps through your body making you feel stoned and then only moderately effects your
cerebrum, allowing you to concentrate on any task at hand. **” – Homepage Amsterdam
"I believe Apollo 13 is P88 male X Genius (Princess' more indica type sister) but still a JH F2 from the same set
of seeds found at the 'Cafe in Adam. The new A11 is P94 or (C99 the more popular name) X Genius."
-Webfish
"I believe Apollo 13 is P88 male X Genius (Princess' more indica type sister) but still a JH F2 from the same set
of seeds found at the 'Cafe in Adam. The new A11 is P94 or (C99 the more popular name) X Genius."
-Webfish
homemade pipes and bongs align="right"> Acta, Graine De Cannabis Big
color changing glass bongs Big 56, 519 (1973)
at the study of a cross-section of all individuals who have tried
marijuana, or even who smoke it regularly, however regularly might be defined, will yield
very few who are high all of the time, or even more than a few hours each evening. The
facts do not support the stoned model. When the user smokes marijuana he does, indeed,
become high, or stoned. And if one observed his behavior during this period, he is often
measurably less active than normally. But to say that it is the ultimate goal of a large
proportion of users to seek this state most of the time is to distort the facts. It is only
because researchers cannot understand why anyone would want to become high in the first
place that they find it necessary to attach the label "psychological addiction" or
"habituation" to his behavior and motives. If they found use of the substance acceptable,
they would not emit this labeling behavior.
It is clear that another model is necessary. And this model, I propose, is the recreational
model. It fits the facts more faithfully than any of the previously mentioned models. And
it contains none of the moral judgments that the others are clearly guilty of. The
recreational model takes issue with these perspectives. Essential to the recreational
conception of marijuana use are the following elements: (1) it is used freely,
noncompulsively; (2) it is smoked episodically—once or several times a week or so on the
average; (3) it is experienced as pleasurable by the participants; (4) it is used in
conjunction with (and not a replacement for) other enjoyable activities; (5) its impact on
one's life is relatively superficial; (6) its use results in relatively little harm to the
individual; and (7) its use is highly social. By adopting the recreational perspective toward
marijuana use, I do not wish to imply that everyone who has ever smoked marijuana may
be described in terms of this model, nor even that a majority of all users are typified by all
of these principles. It is, however, to say that this model presents a relatively accurate
summarization of the experiences of the characteristic user, that these traits are typically
found in marijuana use. In any case, the issue is an empirical one; if the model is
ineffective, then it must be discarded. In my own research, however, the recreational
model yielded far more insights and more accurately described the reality I investigated
than did any of the traditional models. I found that most users smoke marijuana
recreationally, and I believe that any study investigating a fairly representative group of
smokers will support the same generalization. It is possible, of course, to uncover some
individuals who are motivated by compulsive forces and experience overwhelmingly
unpleasant reactions. A study based on users who visit psychiatrists will, naturally be far
more likely to be composed of users whose experiences differ from the normal everyday
user's, and therefore cannot be taken
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. Spronck and C
Homemade Pipes And Bongs
Homemade Pipes And Bongs
Homemade Pipes And Bongs
3 purge bong for sale
HOME BONGS HOME align="right">
Terlouw, W
Green Spirit is a short resiny 8 week strain that crystals up nicely and has a real bomb taste. The only
drawback I see is the mold susceptibility trait inherited from its Skunk#1 forefathers.
-McgeeGreen Spirit is a short resiny 8 week strain that crystals up nicely and has a real bomb taste. The only
drawback I Sensiseeds see is the mold susceptibility trait inherited from its Skunk1 Homegrown Fantasy forefathers.-Mcgee
Princess is a female which resulted from a seed found in a Jack Herer bud I bought in Amsterdam near the
Sensi Seed Bank at "Coffeeshop Sensi Smile". The bud came in a 2 gr. cello-pack with the Sensi logo; I
expected sinsemilla, but it had about 10 seeds so I assume she's an F2 JH. Her characteristics were so fine I
wanted to create seeds that would "replicate" this plant. She has the KILLER Haze-influenced high with the most
DELICIOUS pineapple/evil scent, 50 day maturation in 12/12, and incredible resin production, doesn’t stretch -
yet clearly Sativa-dominant! Last but not least: Never a hint of hermaphrodism after 2 years of cloning & many
different styles of grow.
drink liquor,
beer, and wine, on those very occasions in which the drinker also drinks them; drinking
alcohol and smoking pot are not disjunctive and mutually exclusive activities. The very
people who use one often use the other as well on those occasions when it may seem more
appropriate. In fact, marijuana smokers are more likely to drink alcoholic beverages than
nonsmokers are.* It is entirely possible that the legalization and widespread availability of
marijuana will not necessarily result in a greater number of total events in which people
wish to become intoxicated simply because users will continue to use pot selectively as
they presently do. They become high when they feel that the occasion calls for it and use
the same (potentially intoxicating) substances that the rest of society does, in moderation,
when they feel that the occasion calls for that as well. However, it is an empirical question
which can not be answered beforehand as to whether those specific occasions where
alcohol is now consumed without intoxication will eventually call for marijuana use. I
suspect that potsmokers will continue to follow the same sorts of patterns in liquor
consumption that their nonsmoking peers do, drinking their beer, wine, and sherry as a
pleasant companion to other pleasant activities. The appropriateness of one's agent of
choice is defined by the social group that uses it, and many occasions do not call for
getting high.
But what of the other side? What social costs do we have to consider when examining
the damages the present policy is causing? To begin with an issue most Americans assume
that they are hard-headed and pragmatic about—money and resources—we would have to
admit that the present policies are extremely costly. The deployment of huge numbers of
law enforcement officers in the effort to stop pot use and sales necessarily takes resources
away from heroin and amphetamine traffic. In this sense, the present laws encourage the
use of truly dangerous drugs.
And the court costs of processing a
Atty. Gabat single marijuana case
can be, and often are, staggering, and the number of cases handled every year in this
country are beginning to run over l00,000.
How many millions of dollars do we feel is
worth spending? In addition, the laws contribute to a great deal of resentment on both
(24 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
sides. The police realize that they are enforcing a law without ideological support from
large segments of the public. The murderer never questions the right of the police to arrest
him; the marijuana user questions the legitimacy of the law, and thus, the police and the
entire legal process. By multiplying the areas in which the police are expected to enforce
the law, a variety of paranoia develops among the police—in Jerome Skolnick's terms,46]
they begin to see "symbolic assailants" in the populace. In the sense that they would be
able to concentrate on truly dangerous drink liquor,
beer, and wine, on those very occasions in which the drinker also drinks them; drinking
alcohol and smoking pot are not disjunctive and mutually exclusive activities. The very
people who use one often use the other as well on those occasions when it may seem more
appropriate. In fact, marijuana smokers are more likely to drink alcoholic beverages than
nonsmokers are.* It Cannabis Recolte is entirely possible that the legalization and widespread availability of
marijuana will not necessarily result in a greater number of total events in which people
wish to become intoxicated simply because users will continue to use pot selectively as
they presently do. They become high when they feel that the occasion calls for it and use
the same (potentially intoxicating) substances that the rest of society does, in moderation,
when they feel that the occasion calls for that as well. However, it is an empirical question
which can not be answered beforehand as to whether those specific occasions where
alcohol is now consumed without intoxication will eventually call for marijuana use. I
suspect that potsmokers will continue to follow the same sorts of patterns in liquor
consumption that their nonsmoking peers do, drinking their beer, wine, and sherry as a
pleasant companion to other pleasant activities. The appropriateness of one's agent of
choice is defined by the social group that uses it, and many occasions do not call for
getting high.
But what of the other side? What social costs do we have to consider when examining
the damages the present policy is causing? To begin with an issue most Americans assume
that they are hard-headed and pragmatic about—money and resources—we would have to
admit that the present policies are extremely costly. The deployment of huge numbers of
law enforcement officers in the effort to stop pot use and sales necessarily takes resources
away from heroin and amphetamine traffic. In this sense, the present laws encourage the
use of truly dangerous drugs. And the court costs of processing a single marijuana case
can be, and often are, staggering, and the number of cases handled every year in this
country are beginning to run over l00,000. How many millions of dollars do we feel is
worth spending? In addition, the laws contribute to a great deal of resentment on both
(24 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
sides. The police realize that they are enforcing a law without ideological support from
large segments of the public. The murderer never questions the right of the police to arrest
him; the marijuana user questions the legitimacy of the law, and thus, the police and the
entire legal process. By multiplying the areas in which the police are expected to enforce
the law, a variety of paranoia develops among the police—in Jerome Skolnick's terms,46]
they begin to see "symbolic assailants" in the populace. In the sense that they would be
able to concentrate on truly dangerous drink liquor,
beer, and wine, on those very occasions in which the drinker also drinks them; drinking
alcohol and smoking pot are not disjunctive and mutually exclusive activities. The very
people who use one often use the other as well on those occasions when it may seem more
appropriate. In fact, marijuana smokers are more likely to drink alcoholic beverages than
nonsmokers are.* It is entirely possible that the legalization and widespread availability of
marijuana will not necessarily result in a greater number of total events in which people
wish to become intoxicated simply because users will continue to use pot selectively as
they presently do. They become high when they feel that the occasion calls for it and use
the same (potentially intoxicating) substances that the rest of society does, in moderation,
when they feel that the occasion calls for that as well. However, it is an empirical question
which can not be answered beforehand as to whether those specific occasions where
alcohol is now consumed without intoxication will eventually call for marijuana use. I
suspect that potsmokers will continue to follow the same sorts of patterns in liquor
consumption that their nonsmoking peers do, drinking their beer, wine, and sherry as a
pleasant companion to other pleasant activities.
The appropriateness of one's agent of
choice is defined by the social group that uses it, and many occasions do not call for
getting high.
But what of the other side? What social costs do we have to consider when examining
the damages the present policy is causing? To begin with an issue most Americans assume
that they are hard-headed and pragmatic about—money and resources—we would have to
admit that the present policies are extremely costly. The deployment of huge numbers of
law enforcement officers in the effort to stop pot use and sales necessarily takes resources
away from heroin and amphetamine traffic. In this sense, the present laws encourage the
use of truly dangerous drugs. And the court costs of processing a single marijuana case
can be, and often are, staggering, and the number of cases handled every year in this
country are beginning to run over l00,000.
How many millions of dollars do we feel is
worth spending? In addition, the laws contribute to a great deal of resentment on both
(24 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
sides. The police realize that they are enforcing a law without ideological support from
large segments of the public. The murderer never questions the right of the police to arrest
him; the marijuana user questions the legitimacy of the law, and thus, the police and the
entire legal process. By multiplying the areas in which the police are expected to enforce
the law, a variety of paranoia develops among the police—in Jerome Skolnick's terms,46
they begin to see "symbolic assailants" in the populace. In the sense that they would be
able to concentrate on truly dangerous drink liquor,
beer, and wine, on those very occasions in which the drinker also drinks them; drinking
alcohol and smoking pot are not disjunctive and mutually exclusive activities. The very
people who use one often use the other as well on those occasions when it may seem more
appropriate. In fact, marijuana smokers are more likely to drink alcoholic beverages than
nonsmokers are.* It is entirely possible that the legalization and widespread availability of
marijuana will not necessarily result in a greater number of total events in which people
wish to
Atty. Gabat become intoxicated simply because users will continue to use pot selectively as
they presently do. They become high when they feel that the occasion calls for it and use
the same (potentially intoxicating) substances that the rest of society does, in moderation,
when they feel that the occasion calls for that as well. However, it is an empirical question
which can not be answered beforehand as to whether those specific occasions where
alcohol is now consumed without intoxication will eventually call for marijuana use. I
suspect that potsmokers will continue to follow the same sorts of patterns in liquor
consumption that their nonsmoking peers do, drinking their beer, wine, and sherry as a
pleasant companion to other pleasant activities. The appropriateness of one's agent of
choice is defined by the social group that uses it, and many occasions do not call for
getting high.
But what of the other side? What social costs do
Atty. Gabat we have to consider when examining
the damages the present policy is causing? To begin with an issue most Americans assume
that they are hard-headed and pragmatic about—money and resources—we would have to
admit that the present policies are extremely costly.
The deployment of huge numbers of
law enforcement officers in the effort to stop pot use and sales necessarily takes resources
away from heroin and amphetamine traffic. In this sense, the present laws encourage the
use of truly dangerous drugs. And the court costs of processing a Cannabis Oil single marijuana case
can be, and often are, staggering, and the number of cases handled every year in this
country are beginning to run over l00,000. How many millions of dollars do we feel is
worth spending? In addition, the laws contribute to a great deal of resentment on both
(24 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
sides.
The police realize that they are enforcing a law without ideological support from
large segments of the public. The murderer
3 purge bong for sale never questions the right
3 purge bong for sale of the police to arrest
him; the marijuana user questions the legitimacy of the law, and thus, the police and the
entire legal process. By multiplying the areas in which the police are expected to enforce
the law, a variety of paranoia develops among the police—in Jerome Skolnick's terms,46
they begin to see "symbolic assailants" in the populace. In the sense that they would be
able to concentrate on truly dangerous
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 Blue Mystic produces a
"psychological dependence."[19]
"Drug abuse" is such a linguistic
Extra high-yield cannabis 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 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 Recolte Cannabis 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
oward
various drugs vary tremendously from culture to culture, and this prevailing cultural climate may have a
strong effect on the user. Classical Islamic culture, for instance, prohibits the use of alcohol but
sanctions marijuana use. Our American culture as a whole believes marijuana produces undesirable and
dangerous effects, and this knowledge may very well influence an individual user at times, in spite of
subcultural support of marijuana smoking. In our culture, feelings of paranoia (e.g., fear that there may
be a policeman watching) are frequent and normal, although experienced users generally treat them
rather objectively rather than getting concerned about them in a maladaptive fashion.
Personality affects marijuana reactions. Users commonly believe, for example, that authoritarian
people, who are not open to new ways of perceiving and thinking, either get no effects at all from
smoking marijuana or have very unpleasant effects. They try to maintain their ordinary way of
perceiving and thinking against the drug effects. There is a large psychological literature on the way in
which personality factors affect reactions to a wide variety of psychoactive drugs other than marijuana.
Overall physiological functioning shows very similar patterns in healthy individuals; i.e., their bodily
reactions to a given drug are similar enough to not be important. For some drugs and/or for some
individuals, however, unique physiological factors might cause special reactions. I know of no solid
(4 of 16)4/15/2004 7:02:54 AM
On Being Stoned - Chapter 2
information on this for marijuana, but it should be kept in mind as a potential source of variability.
Learned drug skills are particularly important in marijuana intoxication. A neophyte commonly must
use marijuana several times before becoming aware of its effects; he must learn to recognize certain
subtle effects that indicate he is intoxicated (see, e.g., Becker, 1953). With increasing experience and
contact with other marijuana users, the neophyte learns of other effects that he may try to experience
himself and of techniques for controlling his intoxication experience (see Chapter 17). He may learn to
reproduce many of the usual effects of intoxication without actually using marijuana, as in "contact
highs" (feeling intoxicated just by being with intoxicated companions) or "conditioned highs" (feeling
intoxicated to some extent by the action of preparing to use marijuana).
Immediate user factors include several factors that assume particular values for hours to days before
using a drug, such as mood, expectations as to what will happen, and desires for particular happenings.
Mood is particularly important with a drug like marijuana, as many users report the intoxicated state
amplifies whatever mood they were in before taking the drug (see Chapter 16). If they were happy, they
may become very happy; if they were sad, they may become particularly gloomy. An experimental stu
Using a whole room at this point you turn off the fan blowing air in but you leave the door open a little. You never Cannabis Seeds Bank cut off ventilation completely because mold is a threat right up until the end. The leaves should start to get a little crisp after a week or two. If it happens sooner you may be using too much ventilation and should cut back. Along about this time you should notice SALE FOR
3 SALE PURGE a very nice
homemade pipes and bongs smell.
Chem, 14B, 449 (1976) , 545 (1972) Weissman, B Demuth, and W Handrick, H
Bubble is available for 150 NLG and has 22 seeds. This has to do with low
germination rates at the last tests and making up for that. I don't know
the one Adam sells personally, but do know that they derive from the same
genetic background. It took a while before I was pleased with the product
and there was also a personal thing involved, with the person who brought
the genetics over to Holland. I waited till that was resolved to
satisfaction." - Simon, owner of Serious Seeds, Amsterdam
Extra high-yield cannabis
Cannabis
It is interesting to
Bongs Pipe
Extra high-yield cannabis
note that Razdan et al “Northern lights #2 = originally a Hindu Kush X Thai cross. It was selectively inbred and developed into a stable
almost all Kush type cross that is mostly indica.”
“I haven't done #5, but # 2 (Oasis) was great. Most people say that the NL strains have little or no taste or
smell, but my experience with #2 was that it had an oniony, garlicky smell and taste. The buzz was it.
Couch-lock, but surprisingly psychoactive, given indica's reputation. I don't think you can go wrong with a strain
that highly touted.” - Skunkman
color changing glass bongs
Cannabis Seeds Bank Big Bongs Terlouw, and
W , 20,1508 (1977) 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, x):":4 / Pechmann
+ I t
RO d- R
~ O~OJlAR
Pyrone
(i)CH3MgI I
(ii)NH
crimes, as well as crimes on which there is public
support for their prohibition, the police would score a clear gain were marijuana use to be
relegalized.47]
The damages to an individual traceable to the effects of marijuana are minimal when
compared with the damages he sustains at the hands of the legal system.48] Marijuana
use and possession probably represents—next to numerous sex crimes without victims,
such as cunnilingus—the clearest case where the penalty is incommensurate with the
seriousness of the crime. In most cases, the user suffers no damage whatsoever from the
use of this weed. In the typical case, it is a harmless activity. Arguments will often be
made, particularly by the police, that, of course, in the typical case, marijuana use is
relatively innocuous, but that is only because of the relative innocuousness of currently
available marijuana. If the user were to get his hands on really potent cannabis—North
African hashish, for instance—some serious damage would manifest itself.49] Thus,
what is being done is to punish someone for something which is essentially harmless
because if he weren't punished, he might do something which is harmful. (Even assuming
that there are such great differences in harm to users due to the varying potency different
of cannabis preparations.) To my knowledge, this principle is not applied to any other area
of law.
Moreover, no solid case has been made for the prohibition. In 1937, not a scrap of
evidence existed for justifying the passage of the federal law. Today, over a generation
later, the fairest statement that could be made is that adequate systematic evidence
definitively testing the relative harm of this drug has simply not been gathered. And if a
deprivation of liberties is to be imposed, a conclusive case has to be made, as Justice
Goldberg declared in Griswold v. Connecticut The burden of proof is clearly on he who
would deprive liberties, not he who would exercise them.50]
It should be realized that although these "empirical" issues of public safety,
rehabilitation, and deterrence are useful for rhetorical purposes, they are not the most
powerful motives underlying the administration of the laws. The emotional and
"expressive" goals of symbolism and vengeance are far more important, in my opinion. To
someone who feels that marijuana use is evil, the laws are just no matter what their
practical result. They are an expression of a moral stance, and are beyond criticism on that
level. The question of "evil" is intrinsically unanswerable. Merely because crime is
widespread is no indication that the laws attempting to prevent it (and failing, in a sense,
to do so) are invalid and ought to be abolished. Over 10,000 murders occur in the United
States every year; should laws against murder be nullified? There are about a half-million
auto thefts yearly in this country, and over a million burglaries. Should laws outlawing
these activities be done away with , 23,1069 (1970)
Cultivation En Cannabis En En align="justify"> Granchelli, R
oward
various drugs vary tremendously from culture to culture, and this prevailing cultural climate may have a
strong effect on the user. Bongs And Pipe Classical Islamic culture, for instance, prohibits the use of alcohol but
sanctions marijuana use. Our American culture as a whole believes marijuana produces undesirable and
dangerous effects, and this knowledge may very well influence an individual user at times, in spite of
subcultural support of marijuana smoking. In our culture, feelings of paranoia (e.g., fear that there may
be a policeman watching) are frequent and normal, although experienced users generally treat them
rather objectively rather than getting concerned about them in a maladaptive fashion.
Personality affects marijuana reactions. Users commonly believe, for example, that authoritarian
people, who are not open to new ways of perceiving and thinking, either get no effects at all from
smoking marijuana or have very unpleasant effects. They try to maintain their ordinary way of
perceiving and thinking against the drug effects. There is a large psychological literature on the way in
which personality factors affect reactions to a wide variety of psychoactive drugs other than marijuana.
Overall physiological functioning shows very similar patterns in healthy individuals; i.e., their bodily
reactions to a given drug are similar enough to not be important. For some drugs and/or for some
individuals, however, unique physiological factors might cause special reactions. I know of no solid
(4 of 16)4/15/2004 7:02:54 AM
On Being Stoned - Chapter 2
information on this for marijuana, but it should be kept in mind as a potential source of variability.
Learned drug skills are particularly important in marijuana intoxication. A neophyte commonly must
use marijuana several times before becoming aware of its effects; he must learn to recognize certain
subtle effects that indicate he is intoxicated (see, e.g., Becker, 1953). With increasing experience and
contact with other marijuana users, the neophyte learns of other effects that he may try to experience
himself and of techniques for controlling his intoxication experience (see Chapter 17). He may learn to
reproduce many of the usual effects of intoxication without actually using marijuana, as in "contact
highs" (feeling intoxicated just by being with intoxicated companions) or "conditioned highs" (feeling
intoxicated to some extent by the action of preparing to use marijuana).
Immediate user factors include several factors that assume particular values for hours to days before
using a drug, such as mood, expectations as to what will happen, and desires for particular happenings.
Mood is particularly important with a drug like marijuana, as many users report the intoxicated state
amplifies whatever mood they were in before taking the drug (see Chapter 16). If they were happy, they
may become very happy; if they were sad, they may become particularly gloomy. An experimental stu
Afoaf has a Posi Big Bud Mom that is 70% pistils ripe, with cloudy heads in about 43-45 days and it yields real
nice. Its a real tough strain, eats ferts big time, not the strongest most devastating buzz, however it has a
long duration 4 hours, but a repeat for sure, the strain has really "grown on me." Its just an all-around good
strain, now if it took 55-60 days it would be history, its speed to harvest is a big consideration.-Budm 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
drink liquor,
beer, and wine, on those very occasions in which the drinker also drinks them; drinking
alcohol and smoking pot are not disjunctive and mutually exclusive activities. The very
people who use one often use the other as well on those occasions when it may seem more
appropriate.
In fact, marijuana smokers are more likely to drink alcoholic beverages than
nonsmokers are.* It is entirely possible that the legalization and widespread availability of
marijuana will not necessarily result in a greater number of total events in which people
wish to become intoxicated simply because users will continue to use pot selectively as
they presently do. They become high when they feel that the occasion calls for it and use
the same (potentially intoxicating) substances that the rest of society does, in moderation,
when they feel that the occasion calls for that as well. However, it is an Bowls And Bongs empirical question
which can not be answered beforehand as to whether those specific occasions where
alcohol is now consumed without intoxication will eventually call for marijuana use. I
suspect that potsmokers will continue to follow the same sorts of patterns in liquor
consumption that their nonsmoking peers do, drinking their beer, wine, and sherry as a
pleasant companion to other pleasant activities. The appropriateness of one's agent of
choice is defined by the social group that uses it, and many occasions do not call for
getting high.
But what of the other side? What social costs do we have to consider when examining
the damages the present policy is causing? To begin with an issue most Americans assume
that they are hard-headed and pragmatic about—money and resources—we would have to
admit that the present policies are extremely costly. The deployment of huge numbers of
law enforcement officers in the effort to stop pot use and sales necessarily takes resources
away from heroin and amphetamine traffic. In this sense, the present laws encourage the
use of truly dangerous drugs. And the court costs of processing a single marijuana case
can be, and often are, staggering, and the number of cases handled every year in this
country are beginning to run over l00,000. How many millions of dollars do we feel is
worth spending? In addition, the laws contribute to a great deal of resentment on both
(24 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
sides. The police realize that they are enforcing a law without ideological support from
large segments of the public. The murderer never questions the right of the police to arrest
him; the marijuana user questions the legitimacy of the law, and thus, the police Bongs
Homemade And
Homemade and the
entire legal process. By multiplying the areas in which the police are expected to enforce
the law, a variety of paranoia develops among the police—in Jerome Skolnick's terms,46]
they begin to see "symbolic assailants" in the populace. In the sense that they would be
able to concentrate on truly dangerous drink liquor,
beer, and wine, on those very occasions in which the drinker also drinks them; drinking
alcohol and smoking pot are not disjunctive and mutually exclusive activities. The very
people who use one often use the other as well on those occasions when it may seem more
appropriate. In fact, marijuana smokers are more likely to drink alcoholic beverages than
nonsmokers are.* It is entirely possible that the legalization and widespread availability of
marijuana will not necessarily result in a greater number of total events in which people
wish to become intoxicated simply because users will continue to use pot selectively as
they presently do. They become high when they feel that the occasion calls for it and use
the same (potentially intoxicating) substances that the rest of society does, in moderation,
when they feel that the occasion calls for that as well. However, it is an empirical question
which can not be answered beforehand as to whether those specific occasions where
alcohol is now consumed without intoxication will eventually call for marijuana use. I
suspect that potsmokers will continue to follow the same sorts of patterns in liquor
consumption that their nonsmoking peers do, drinking their beer, wine, and sherry as a
pleasant companion to other pleasant activities.
The appropriateness of one's agent of
choice is defined by the social group that uses it, and many occasions do not call for
getting high.
But what of the other side? What social costs do we have to consider when examining
the damages the present policy is causing? To begin with an issue most Americans assume
that they are hard-headed and pragmatic about—money and resources—we would have to
admit that the present policies are extremely costly.
The deployment of huge numbers of
law enforcement officers in the effort to stop pot use and sales necessarily takes resources
away from heroin and amphetamine traffic. In this sense, the present laws encourage the
use of truly dangerous drugs. And the court costs of processing a single marijuana case
can be, and often are, staggering, and the number of cases handled every year in this
country are beginning to run over l00,000. How many millions of dollars do we feel is
worth spending? In addition, the laws contribute to a great deal of resentment on both
(24 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
sides. The police realize that they are enforcing a law without ideological support from
large segments of the public. The murderer never questions the right of the police to arrest
him; the marijuana user questions the legitimacy of the law, and thus, the police and the
entire legal process. By multiplying the areas in which the police are expected to enforce
the law, a variety of paranoia develops among the police—in Jerome Skolnick's terms,46]
they begin to see "symbolic assailants" in the populace. In the sense that they would be
able to concentrate on truly dangerous drink liquor,
beer, and wine, on those very occasions in which the drinker also drinks them; drinking
alcohol and smoking pot are not disjunctive and mutually exclusive activities. The very
people who use one often use the other as well on those occasions when it may seem more
appropriate. In fact, marijuana smokers are more likely to drink alcoholic beverages than
nonsmokers are.* It is entirely possible that the legalization and widespread availability of
marijuana will not necessarily result in a greater number of total events in which people
wish to become intoxicated simply because users will continue to use pot selectively as
they presently do. They become high when they feel that the occasion calls for it and use
the same (potentially intoxicating) substances that the rest of society does, in moderation,
when they feel that the occasion calls for that as well. However, it is an empirical question
which can not be answered beforehand as to whether those specific occasions where
alcohol is now consumed without intoxication will eventually call for marijuana use. I
suspect that potsmokers will continue to follow the same sorts of patterns in liquor
consumption that their nonsmoking peers do, drinking their beer, wine, and sherry as a
pleasant companion to other pleasant activities.
The appropriateness of one's agent of
choice is defined by the social group that uses it, and many occasions do not call for
getting high.
But what of the other side? What social costs do we have to consider when examining
the damages the present policy is causing? To begin with an issue most Americans assume
that they are hard-headed and pragmatic about—money and resources—we would have to
admit that the present policies are extremely costly. The deployment of huge numbers of
law enforcement officers in the effort to stop pot use and sales necessarily takes resources
away from heroin and amphetamine traffic. In this sense, the present laws encourage the
use of truly dangerous drugs. And the court costs of processing a single marijuana case
can be, and often are, staggering, and the number of cases handled every year in this
country are beginning to run over l00,000.
How many millions of dollars do we feel is
worth spending? In addition, the laws contribute to a great deal of resentment on both
(24 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
sides. The police realize that they are enforcing a law without ideological support from
large segments of the public. The murderer never questions the right of the police to arrest
him; the marijuana user questions the legitimacy of the law, and thus, the police and the
entire legal process. By multiplying the areas in which the police are expected to enforce
the law, a variety of paranoia develops among the police—in Jerome Skolnick's terms,46
they begin to see "symbolic assailants" in the populace. In the sense that they would be
able to concentrate on truly dangerous drink liquor,
beer, and wine, on those very occasions in which the drinker also drinks them; drinking
alcohol and smoking pot are not disjunctive and mutually exclusive activities. The very
people who use one often use the other as well on those occasions when it may seem more
appropriate. In fact, marijuana smokers are more likely to drink alcoholic beverages than
nonsmokers are.* It is entirely possible that the legalization and widespread availability of
marijuana will not necessarily result in a greater number of total events in which people
wish to become intoxicated simply because users will continue to use pot selectively as
they presently do. They become high when they feel that the occasion calls for it and use
the same (potentially intoxicating) substances that the rest of society does, in moderation,
when they feel that the occasion calls for that as well. However, it is an empirical question
which can not be answered beforehand as to whether those specific occasions where
alcohol is now consumed without intoxication will eventually call for marijuana use. I
suspect that potsmokers will continue to follow the same sorts of patterns in liquor
consumption that their nonsmoking peers do, drinking their beer, wine, and sherry as a
pleasant companion to other pleasant activities. The appropriateness of one's agent of
choice is defined by the social group that uses it, and many occasions do not call for
getting high.
But what of the other side? What social costs do we have to consider when examining
the damages the present policy is causing? To begin with an issue most Americans assume
that they are hard-headed and pragmatic about—money and resources—we would have to
admit that the present policies are extremely costly. The deployment of huge numbers of
law enforcement officers in the effort to stop pot use and sales necessarily takes resources
away from heroin and amphetamine traffic. In this sense, the present laws encourage the
use of truly dangerous drugs. And the court costs of processing a single marijuana case
can be, and often are, staggering, and the number of cases handled every year in this
country are beginning to run over l00,000.
How many millions of dollars do we feel is
worth spending? In addition, the laws contribute to a great deal of resentment on both
(24 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
sides. The police realize that they are enforcing a law without ideological support from
large segments of the public. The murderer never questions the right of the police to arrest
him; the marijuana user questions the legitimacy of the law, and thus, the police and the
entire legal process. By multiplying the areas in which the police are expected to enforce
the law, a variety of paranoia develops among the police—in Jerome Skolnick's terms,46
they begin to see "symbolic assailants" in the populace. In the sense that they would be
able to concentrate on truly dangerous
Atty. Gabat @ 7/30/2010 8:49:09 AM