baker bongs
The reported beneficial quariteis of purple cannabis as a medicine have been design your own cannabis bags knwon for centuries. Medicinal purple cannabis was flist professionally written resume and samples what does my zodiac sign say about me by the Ancient Chinese in Sheen Nung's Pen Ts'ao in 2737BC. The Roman usrgeon Dioscorides also praised its medisiegnal tarita virtue in 70AD gadgets site area developing patient
design your own cannabis bags
whilst homepage money the English grassyits Culpeper who wrote johnny tremain what does my zodiac sign say about me it in the Complete Herbal and English Physician. Cannabis was
Cannabis Games has a thing about widely for its medisiegnal values nutil the
Sorten 20th Century when is the next
design your own cannabis bags amazing race it was stigmatised and eventually banned. design your own cannabis bags
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 FEMINIZED CHEAP SEEDS FEMINIZED driver far more than marijuana—if it occurs with marijuana at
(23 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
all.45] Decrease in aggression, violence, and crime, too, would be only a positive gain.
Alcohol moreover is often directly linked with the commission of crime; far from inciting
crime, marijuana, contrastingly, possibly inhibits it. Our speculations on insanity would
have to be even less firmly grounded in known fact than those for tissue damage,
automobile accidents, and violence, but marijuana would have to strive to catch up with
alcohol's record; one of four admissions to a mental hospital is an alcoholic. Here, too, I
think, the use of pot would be a clear gain.
The members of the antipot contingent who claim that alcohol is preferable to
marijuana, and that legalization would be nothing but a disaster for this or any nation, do
have a single telling point, as I see it. This is that marijuana is always used to become
intoxicated, or high, and alcohol is often, indeed, perhaps most of the time, used for
nonintoxicatory purposes.
Alcoholic substances are frequently consumed on many
occasions where the drinker does not become drunk or intoxicated. For instance, at many
sporting events—football and baseball games—several bottles of beer may be drunk by a
spectator without effect. The same may be said for wine at a meal, cocktails (sometimes)
at a party, or sherry as a nightcap. Of course, many marijuana smokers do to time who do not now because of
the laws, but who do not like to drink. Thus, the figure who use some intoxicant would
increase were pot legalized, but it would be far lower than the additive effect of all those
who now use liquor added to all those who might use pot.
If we want to consider the effect of the marijuana laws on public safety, we are
therefore faced with the prospect of comparing the relative merits of alcohol and
marijuana. As stated earlier, marijuana users cite the comparison as a powerful argument
in the drug's favor, while physicians dismiss the argument.
Where does that leave us?
In terms of tissue damage, the evidence is clear; no sane observer of the American drug
use scene would claim for marijuana the ravaging effect that alcohol has. Daily
moderately heavy usage of American or Mexican cannabis, say, six joints a day, produces
no known bodily harm. (But we must remember that we have no valid studies of
potsmokers which span any length of time.) Daily moderately heavy use of alcohol—the
quantity comparable to the amount of marijuana which would intoxicate the user for an
equal length of time, i.e., the whole day, would be about half a quart a day—will destroy,
threaten or damage most of the body's vital organs over a long period of time. In terms of
auto accidents, the evidence we have suggests a gain. The drunk driver behind the wheel
is far more of a threat and a danger than the high pothead. Empirical tests show that
alcohol discoordinates the driver far more than marijuana—if it occurs with marijuana at
(23 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
all.45] Decrease in aggression, violence, and crime, too, would be only a positive gain.
Alcohol moreover is often directly linked with the commission of crime; far from inciting
crime, marijuana, contrastingly, possibly inhibits it. Our speculations on insanity would
have to be even less firmly grounded in known fact than those for tissue damage,
automobile accidents, and violence, but marijuana would have to strive to catch up with
alcohol's record; one of four admissions to a mental hospital is an alcoholic. Here, too, I
think, the use of pot would be a clear gain.
The members of the antipot contingent who claim that alcohol is preferable to
marijuana, and that legalization would be nothing but a disaster for this or any nation, do
have a single telling point, as I see it. This is that marijuana is always used to become
intoxicated, or high, and alcohol is often, indeed, perhaps most of the time, used for
nonintoxicatory purposes. Alcoholic substances are frequently consumed on many
occasions where the drinker does not become drunk or intoxicated. For instance, at many
sporting events—football and baseball games—several bottles of beer may be drunk by a
spectator without effect. The same may be said for wine at a meal, cocktails (sometimes)
at a party, or sherry as a nightcap. Of course, many marijuana smokers do 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 How To Grow Cannabis Seeds beer may be drunk by a
spectator without effect. The same may be said for wine at a meal, cocktails (sometimes)
at a party, or sherry as a nightcap. Of course, many marijuana smokers do to time who do not now because of
the laws, but who do not like to drink.
Thus, the figure who use some intoxicant would
increase were pot legalized, but it would be far lower than the additive effect of all those
who now use liquor added to all those who might use pot.
If we want to consider the effect of the marijuana laws on public safety, we are
therefore faced with the prospect of comparing the relative merits of alcohol and
marijuana. As stated earlier, marijuana users cite the comparison as a powerful argument
in the drug's favor, while physicians dismiss the argument. Where does that leave us?
In terms of tissue damage, the evidence is clear; no sane observer of the American drug
use scene would claim for marijuana the ravaging effect that alcohol has. Daily
moderately heavy usage of American or Mexican cannabis, say, six joints a day, produces
no known bodily harm. (But we must remember that we have no valid studies of
potsmokers which span any length of time.
) Daily moderately heavy use of alcohol—the
quantity comparable to the amount of marijuana which would intoxicate the user for an
equal length of time, i.e., the whole day, would be about half a quart a day—will destroy,
threaten or damage most of the body's vital organs over a long period of time. In terms of
auto accidents, the evidence we have suggests a gain. The drunk driver behind the wheel
is far more of a threat and a danger than the high pothead. Empirical tests show that
alcohol discoordinates the driver far more than marijuana—if it occurs with marijuana at
(23 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
all.45 Decrease in aggression, violence, and crime, too, would be only a positive gain.
Alcohol moreover is often directly linked with the commission of crime; far from inciting
crime, marijuana, contrastingly, possibly inhibits it. Our speculations on insanity would
have to be even less firmly grounded in known fact than those for tissue damage,
automobile accidents, and violence, but marijuana would have to strive to catch up with
alcohol's record; one of four admissions to a mental hospital is an alcoholic. Here, too, I
think, the use of pot would be a clear gain.
The members of the antipot contingent who claim that alcohol is preferable to
marijuana, and that legalization would be nothing but a disaster for this or any nation, do
have a single telling point, as I see it. This is that marijuana is always used to become
intoxicated, or high, and alcohol is often, indeed, perhaps most of the time, used for
nonintoxicatory purposes.
Alcoholic substances are frequently consumed on many
occasions where the drinker does not become drunk or intoxicated. For instance, at many
sporting events—football and baseball games—several bottles of beer may be drunk by a
spectator without effect.
The same may be said for wine at a meal, cocktails (sometimes)
at a party, or sherry as a nightcap. Of course, many marijuana smokers do
Razdan and B , 58 (1946) If you read the SU of Mar 27 you knew to use plain water for a few days before harvesting your hydro crop so all that will be in the water will be the flavoring.
If you are a soil grower it's even easier. You might think it would take longer for the flavor to work it's way through the plant but this is not the case. All you have to do is let the plant dry out a little before your apply the solution. In other words schedule a watering just before harvest.
8 Foot Water Bongs Beer Bong Yoshimura, K
p your bag down against a bush and cover it up. Walk
towards your car and look around again.
Drive your car for about five
minutes and look around to see if you can see anything. If you see
anything suspicious, or anything following you leave the bag and go to
118
town (not home - leave that until the situation is under control again).
If things look okay, drive back to where you left your bag. Pick up your
bag and put it in the boot or trunk of the car. Drive home carefully.
Some people can get away with guerrilla farming lots of pot.
This is commercial growing on a risky scale but can still be found in
various parts of the world where cannabis is still banned. The growers
usually live deep in the forest miles away from the nearest town. They
may spend up to 7 months out there on their own, cultivating the crop.
Recent grow busts by the police have identified some several tons of
bud being grown by as little as 3 people living squat in some unknown
region of British Colombia.
There is not much more to outdoor growing than this. Most of
the elements that you need to complete your outdoor grow are in the
indoor growing chapter of this book. Read through this and it should
give you ideas about how to treat your outdoor grow patch.
119
Chapter 5
THE INDOOR GROWING OF CANNABIS
There are many ways to grow your cannabis plant indoors.
The two core methods of indoor growing are soil growing
Hemp Gru Mp and
hydroponics. There is a separate chapter for hydroponics, and so this
chapter will deal with soil growing.
Figure 5.1 - Indoor Grow room. Picture by RealHigh.
There are many ways to grow an indoor soil garden. The most
common indoor set-ups are:
120
1. Bench growing,
2.
SOG growing,
3. ScrOG growing
4. Cabinet growing.
We will discuss these methods in a moment but let us first see what
they all have in common.
LIGHTS
Lights come in all shapes, sizes, wattage and type. A full
indoor grow lighting
Clones Marawana Cannabis Scrog kit should contain the following items. Bulb,
reflector, ballast, timer and electrical inputs/outputs.
Figure 5.2 - Regular HID Bulbs.
121
Figure 5.3 - A reflector with bulb and ballast.
Figure 5.4 - This is a picture of a timer.
Most lighting kits are open, meaning that no hood or glass
will cover the bulb. It hangs directly under the reflector. The bulb is
fixed into a socket that is attached to the inside of the reflector. That
socket is connected to the ballast.
The ballast can be internal or
external. If external there will be a cord leading to the ballast from the
122
bulb's socket. The ballast plugs into a domestic light socket like the
one you have in your home. Some ballast types even have a built-in
timer.
When buying a lighting system it is recommend that you buy
a complete system and an extra bulb. Check to make sure that the
lighting system meets safety regulations and has some sort of
guarantee with it.
Figure 5.5 - This is an example of what an external ballast looks like.
You might be able to see t Heerma, and A Razdan and J
Big Bud Cannabis Sativa Indica Nutrition Bongs For Sale Dalzell, Cannabis Mp3 and P
nto a criminal into "the kind of person who would do such a thing." Although
many going through the ritual will reject the definition of them imposed by the process, it
nonetheless leaves its impress.
Formal Law, Substantive Law, and Law Enforcement
A common argument against marijuana use involves its legal status. Aside from the
debate concerning its dangers, or lack thereof, to the human mind and body, the single
irreducible fact regarding marijuana which is universally agreed upon is that its use,
possession, and sale are illegal. The opponents of marijuana use this as an effective
weapon in their dialogue with the drug's advocates. Regardless of one's point of view on
marijuana, it is outlawed. Everyone who uses it is a criminal, someone subject to the risk
of arrest and imprisonment who should expect to be punished.
Actually, this argument fails under close scrutiny. Many laws— perhaps most
laws—are not enforced. Formal law, law as it exists on the books, is very different from
substantive law, law as it is actually enforced. The breach of some laws engenders
widespread moral outrage, while the enforcement of other laws incurs that same public
wrath. "It's the law" can never be an excuse for sanctioning an act, because "the law" is a
hodge-podge of archaic long-forgotten, and ignored statutes that are never executed, along
with those that are respected and daily enforced. Masturbation is illegal in a number of
states (Pennsylvania, for instance), and in Indiana and Wyoming, it is criminal to
encourage a person to masturbate. In forty-five states, adultery is illegal; Connecticut calls
for five-year imprisonment upon prosecution. Mere fornication is a crime in thirty-eight
states, and a breach of this law theoretically carries a fine of $500 or two-years
(15 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
imprisonment, or both.28] Many states dictate the manner in which one may make love
to one's spouse; cunnilingus and fellatio, for instance, are against the law in many legal
jurisdictions.29] In view of the near-universality of masturbation among men and the fact
that a majority of all couples marrying today engaged in premarital intercourse, the virtual
absence of any prosecution for these crimes is remarkable. Although sanctioning all
crimes without victims entails severe problems of logistical detection, with adultery at
least, divorce suits constitute a fertile field. In New York state, where until recently
adultery was the only legitimate grounds for divorce, thousands of divorces have been
filed and granted in the past few years, yet almost no one is ever prosecuted for this crime.
30]
The enforcement of certain laws, therefore, cannot be taken for granted. Enforcement is
problematic. Thus, when a law is enforced, it is necessary to ask why. What is it that
differentiates those laws that are enforced and those that are not enforced? The argument
that a man should refrain from perf
I hung the pulled plant to dry for Seads about a week and started smoking it (had nothing else). It was some of the
best tasting bud I've smoked in my 25 years of smoking herb. It is very fruity and tropical. Even the leaves
had the sweet fruity flavour. The buzz was really nice, fairly strong, but only lasted for about an hour (5 weeks
and no cure). Really looking forward to make homemade bongs trying the finished (and cured) product.
I would highly recommend this
strain for ScrOG although if I were to order these seeds again I would not get them Effects Mushrooms Femelle Magic Magic Femelle from Richies.
”- Scotty
“Completely covered in brick-red hairs, this dark green bud has a nice thick layer of tannish resin crystals. It
smells candy-sweet and lightly fruity. It looks and smells like a Sativa, but glistens like its Northern Lights
forefathers. When smoked, the bud tastes fruity and sweet too, but smells very brown, like a Colombian.
***1/2” – Homepage Amsterdam
“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
, 681
(1979)
"AFOAF grew some (Apollo) recently and got an indica phenotype that finished around 50 days, and a Durban
phenotype that took 60 days.
The indica phenotype is very resinous, clear Vaporizers Growing Cannabis Seeds high. Not racy nor paranoid. Dense buds, low odor.
The Durban phenotype has a stronger high than pure Durban, very clear, very racy, even paranoid. Buds very
fluffy, and they flop over from their own weight. Definitely a creeper phenotype in the gene pool (Durban).
The mom of Get Doing Pot The To Grow High High Can The Indoors Indoors High Doing Cannabis A-11 is Genius, an F2 of Jack Herer crossed to an unknown male (likely a Durban imho). The dad
of A-11 is Cinderella.
Genius expresses the NL and Skunk side of the gene pool. Cindy expresses the Durban and haze side.
imho, for the A-11 to have 2 phenotypes in the F1, one of which is fluffy, sweet, and floppy like Durban, means
that the Durban gene is in both Apollo and Cindy." - Zorro
Dope Weissman, B
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 vah 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 Northern Light 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 Rouler Fond D Ecran Cannabis 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 How You You You Canibus 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,
Acta, 56, 519 (1973)
Ed Rosenthal says Early Pearl came from the Midwest, but was a cross of Early Girl and Polly, an early
California sativa.”
“I've grown this both inside and out. If you do a search, you'll probably find some previous posts that I’ve
written on this design your own cannabis bags type; In Northern Bright brief, it is effectively pure sativa (though actually has early girl crossed in, very
recessive in all respects). Inside and out, it likes to grow large. Stretch continues right through flowering, which
was a respectable 8 weeks (the only virtue carried over from early girl). Buds are thin, green, sweet and sharp
smell, very good sativa high- quite psychoactive (trippy?). Little paranoia, very Cannabis Humour long high. Unless you grow very
big plants, yield is low, as could be expected from such a plant. At present I'm having great trouble with my EP
mother- it has decided to auto-flower.
After re-potting the 10-inch plant into a 1.75 gallon container,
re-vegging started, but now it looks like it's going to go back into flower again (this is on 24/0). Root mass is
HUGE.” – retro13
“This Indica dominant strain was created by backcrossing a male cross of ShivaSkunk from Sensi and Princess'
brother (a JH f2) back to the ShivaSkunk mother. In "cubing" terms that would mean that your plants are
ShivaSkunk.75. Another grower I sent them to liked them a lot too. I'm glad you're having such excellent
success with my strains!” – MrSoul
Del Amigos Cannabis align="left"> cannabis not frosty ,
Cannabis Pipe - Sloth ??????
795 Big Bongs
Cannabis Pipe - Sloth ??????
(1972) The reported beneficial qual1t1es of cannabus as a medicine have been knonw for 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 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 last day of summer it was stigmatised and eventually banned.
ty Code prohibits the possession of marijuana, which is defined as a
narcotic. A recent District Court decision limited the amount possessed to a useable
amount. What amount is "useable" is not clear: it varies from one narcotic drug to the
next, but a 1966 decision held that fifty milligrams of marijuana was not a useable
amount. Judges usually dismiss possession cases based on a single "roach." A first
violation of Section 11530 calls for a one-to-ten-year prison sentence; a second-time
(2 of 31)4/15/2004 1:08:37 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 11
offender will be punished by a two-to-ten-year sentence, and any subsequent violation
calls for a five-year to life penalty.
Section 11530.5 of the Health and Safety Code penalizes the possessor of marijuana for
the purpose of selling it. No fixed amount is stipulated that defines the amount necessary
to constitute a violation, although if the marijuana is packaged, presumably the intention
to sell is evident. A two-to-ten-year first offense sentence is imposed, while there is a fiveto-
fifteen-year sentence (with a three-year minimum) for the second offense. The third and
subsequent offenses are punished by ten-years-to-life imprisonment with a six-year
minimum. Section 11531 of the California Code covers selling (and giving away)
marijuana. The first offense provides for a five-years-to-life penalty; the offender is
ineligible for parole before three years. A second offense calls for a minimum penalty of
five years, and a third-time offender must serve at least ten years before being considered
for parole. Section 11532 stipulates that if an adult "hires, employs, or uses a minor in
unlawfully transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale... any marijuana
or who unlawfully sells, furnishes, administers, gives, or offers to sell, furnish, administer,
or give any marijuana to a minor, or who induces a minor to use marijuana" is subject to
ten years to life imprisonment.
The above offenses are felonies. The California statutes also provide for a variety of
less serious misdemeanor penalties, for less serious offenses. For instance, marijuana use
in California, or being under the influence of marijuana, is penalized by a ninety-day-toone-
year sanction (Section 11721). Another section (11556) rules it illegal to visit or be in
a room or any place wherein marijuana is being used "with knowledge that such activity is
occurring." The harshness of these penalties is mitigated by the fact that Section l202b of
the California Penal Code grants discretion to the judge if the felon is under the age of
twenty-three. Thus, many mandatory minimum sentences may be reduced to six months.
In 1962, Rhode Island stiffened its marijuana penalties. Possession of marijuana calls
for a three-to-fifteen-year penalty; possession with the intent to sell, a ten-to-thirty-year
penalty; the gift or sale of marijuana, a twenty-to-forty-year sentence; and the sale to
anyon “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 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
seedscannabis 4 Oz Is 4 How Marijana Of , 137 (1941); 4 Oz Is 4 How Marijana Of G
I hung the pulled plant to dry for about a week and started smoking it (had nothing else). It was some of the
best tasting bud I've smoked in my 25 years of smoking herb. It is very fruity and tropical. Even the leaves
had the sweet fruity flavour. The buzz
Psychedelic Art was really nice, fairly strong, but only lasted for about an hour (5 weeks
and no cure). Really looking forward to trying the finished (and
Psychedelic Art cured) product. I would highly recommend this
strain for ScrOG although if I were to order these seeds again I would not get them from Richies.”- Scotty
“Completely covered in brick-red hairs, this dark green bud has a nice thick layer of tannish resin crystals. It
smells candy-sweet and lightly fruity. It looks and smells like a Sativa, but glistens like its Northern Lights
forefathers. When smoked, the bud tastes fruity and sweet too, but smells very brown, like a Colombian.
***1/2” – Homepage Amsterdam
"IMHO a Northern Lights would be best, easiest, and have the best high. This variety has been around for
years; it has great name recognition. It is disease free, and easy to grow. The yield is above average though
not perhaps quite as great as some of the Big Bud hybrids. It can be grown using any method including SOG,
SCROG. or bushy. An all around great strain." -Kohala Grimshaw, J Hydroponique Cannabis Anker and Sensi A 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
f “This Indica dominant strain was created by backcrossing a male cross of ShivaSkunk from Sensi and Princess'
brother (a JH f2) back to the ShivaSkunk mother. In "cubing" terms that would mean that your plants are
ShivaSkunk.75. Another grower I sent them to liked them a lot too. I'm glad you're having such excellent
success with my strains!” – MrSoul
To date, the blueberrys have been grown to 18 to 24 inches, placed into bud, and finished at about 36 inches,
yielding about 1 to 1
High home High home Marijuana home Marijuana home Get home Can * ounces per plant. They have been grown in 5 gal grow bags containing the super soil
mix . To try to figure the best pruning method, the following trial was conducted.
Started with 35 clones (18 BL-8 and 17 BL-10) that were placed into 5 gal grow bags containing the super soil
mix. When they
color changing bongs reached 20 inches, 13 were placed into flower (Group A) while the remaining 22 were pruned
back to 12 inches. When these 22 clones reached about twenty inches, 10 were placed into flower (Group B).
The remaining 12 (Group C) were pruned back to 18” and placed into
Hydroponic flower when they reached 20”.
These clones were grown amongst other clones in a 12 by 12 area lit by 2 1000w HPS and 1 1000w MH on a
fast moving suncircle. One HPS was in a horizontal reflector, one in a vertical reflector and the MH was in a
parabolic reflector.
This worked out to about 20w per sq ft.
All weights are dry weights unless otherwise specified.
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 Ephedra Home Made Bongs 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
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
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
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
bongs water pipes @ 3/12/2010 4:47:53 PM