I have grown it and didn’t like it. Yours may be different but on mine the buds never got very frosty, and the
high was weak. I let it go for 70 days and it still wasn’t finished so I cut anyway. The bud appearance looks
leafy. yield was about the same as princess but out of a small circle of friends the Flo got a thumbs down." -
nobodyz Handrick, H a is not damaging at all, it would be necessary to produce evidence that all cases
of marijuana use did not result in damage—all individuals at all times—an obvious
impossibility. Whereas to show that it is damaging in any degree, only a few scattered
cases need be produced. (Even assuming that the "damage" can be traced to the marijuana,
a question which is, itself, problematic.) Consequently, there is no conceivable evidence
which can be presented to someone with a strong antimarijuana position which he will
accept as a demonstration of the drug's comparative harmlessness.
(8 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3
Strategies of Discreditation
Labeling has political implications. By devising a linguistic category with specific
connotations, one is designing armaments for a battle; by having it accepted and used, one
has scored a major victory. For instance, the term "psychedelic" has a clear prodrug bias:
it says that the mind works best when under the influence of this type of drug. (Moreover,
one of the psychedelic drug proselytizers, in search of a term which would describe the
impact of these drugs, rejected "psychodelic" as having negative overtones of psychosis.)
The term "hallucinogen" is equally biased since an hallucination is, in our civilization at
least, unreal, illusory, and therefore undesirable; the same holds for the term
"psychotomimetic," capable of producing a madness-like state. The semantics and
linguistics of the drug issue form an essential component of the ideological skirmishes.
17] As an example of how labeling influences one's posture toward a phenomenon, note
that the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs has jurisdiction over "addicting" drugs,
which supposedly includes marijuana, while the Food and Drug Administration handles
"habit-forming" drugs.
Because of this jurisdictional division, the Bureau is forced into the
absurd position of having to classify marijuana as an addicting drug, and to support this
contention, it supplies drug categorizations that follow jurisdictional lines,18] as if they
had some sort of correspondence in the real world. However, the Bureau seems not to take
its own classifications seriously, since whenever the issue is discussed by its members, it
is emphasized that marijuana is not addicting in the classical sense, but it produces a
"psychological dependence."19]
"Drug abuse" is such a linguistic device. It is often used by physicians and by those in
medically related fields. Encountering the use of the term, one has the impression that
something quite measurable is being referred to, something very much like a disease, an
undesirable condition which is in need of remedy. The term, thus, simultaneously serves
two functions: it claims clinical objectivity and it discredits the action that it categorizes.
In fact, there is no such objectivity in the term; its use is baldly political.
Drug abuse is the
use of a drug that influea is not damaging at all, it would be necessary to produce evidence that all cases
of marijuana use did not result in damage—all individuals at all times—an obvious
impossibility. Whereas to show that it is damaging in any degree, only a few scattered
cases need be produced.
(Even assuming that the "damage" can be traced to the marijuana,
a question which is, itself, problematic.) Consequently, there is no conceivable evidence
which can be presented to someone with a strong antimarijuana position which he will
accept as a demonstration of the drug's comparative harmlessness.
(8 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3
Strategies of Discreditation
Labeling has political implications. By devising a linguistic category with specific
connotations, one is designing armaments for a battle; by having it accepted and used, one
has scored a major victory. For instance, the term "psychedelic" has a clear prodrug bias:
it says that the mind works best when under the influence of this type of drug. (Moreover,
one of the psychedelic drug proselytizers, in search of a term which would describe the
impact of these drugs, rejected "psychodelic" as having negative overtones of psychosis.)
The term "hallucinogen" is equally biased since an hallucination is, in our civilization at
least, unreal, illusory, and therefore undesirable; the same holds for the term
"psychotomimetic," capable of producing a madness-like state.
The semantics and
linguistics of the drug issue form an essential component of the ideological skirmishes.
17] As an example of how labeling influences one's posture toward a phenomenon, note
that the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs has jurisdiction over "addicting" drugs,
which supposedly includes marijuana, while the Food and Drug Administration handles
"habit-forming" drugs. Because of this jurisdictional division, the Bureau is forced into the
absurd position of having to classify marijuana as an addicting drug, and to support this
contention, it supplies drug categorizations that follow jurisdictional lines,18] as if they
had some sort of correspondence in the real world. However, the Bureau seems not to take
its Cannabis Seeds Shop 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 Use Of Cannabis division, the Bureau is forced into the
absurd position of having to classify marijuana as an addicting drug, and to support this
contention, it supplies drug categorizations that follow jurisdictional lines,18 as if they
had some sort of correspondence in the real world. However, the Bureau seems not to take
its own classifications seriously, since whenever the issue is discussed by its members, it
is emphasized that marijuana is not addicting in the classical sense, but it produces a
"psychological dependence."19
"Drug abuse" is such a linguistic device. It is often used by physicians and by those in
medically related fields. Encountering the use of the term, one has the impression that
something quite measurable is being referred to, something very much like a disease, an
undesirable condition which is in need of remedy. The term, thus, simultaneously serves
two functions: it claims clinical objectivity and it discredits the action that it categorizes.
In fact, there is no such objectivity in the term; its use is baldly political. Drug abuse is the
use of a drug that influe Cheap Bongs
mellow yellow vs knaster besser
chrystal meth smell Salemink, Awesome Homemade Bong R It was thus shown that epimerization at C4 is the favored process and is accompanied by a lesser amount of C-3 epimerization or racemization “I've had Flo for a while now (grown a couple crops w/ her)...As for the potency/high: Not much "body stone" at
all, the high is pretty clear Image Cannabis (meaning it's not confusing or stupefying like some), kinda "up" y'know -- makes
you want to go and do things (not like my NL cross, that's couch-lock stuff). Not real visual/hallucinogenic, and
not the longest lasting stone (but certainly respectable - maybe stoned for ~an hour off 2 medium bong hits),
but definitely worthwhile.
Really unique, but not *the* most powerful stuff. I really like this one, although the
yield is way down there compared to other strains. Hope you like her as much as I do.
Generally, selling must be considered as part of the syndrome of use. It is not simply that the user must purchase his drug supply from the seller to consume the drug (this symbiotic relationship exists with heroin as well), but that the user and the seller are largely indistinguishable; there is no clear-cut boundary between them. A large percentage of users sell, and nearly all sellers use. In fact, the determining force behind selling is use: heavy users are very likely to sell, while infrequent users are unlikely to do so. The fact that a given individual sells—whether it be done once, occasionally, or frequently, specifically for a profit—is determined mainly by his involvement in the drug, in its subculture, with others who smoke. Selling marijuana, then, to some degree presupposes involvement with the marijuana subculture which, in turn, implies at least a moderate degree of use. Selling Seeds Cannabis Nirvana and using involve parallel activities and associations; the seller and the user inhabit the same social universe. The difference between them is simply a matter of degree, since selling is a surer indicator of one's involvement with the drug subculture (10 of 18)4/15/2004 1:08:20 AM The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 10 than is buying or, even more so, using. To think of the dealer as preying on his hapless victim, the marijuana smoker, as profiting on his misery, is to possess a ludicrously incorrect view of the state of affairs. It is necessary, therefore, to abandon the conspiratorial view of the relationship between the marijuana user and the seller—a primitive model borrowed from the world of addiction. Rather, selling must be looked at as an index of involvement with the marijuana subculture. At the peripheries of the marijuana scene, we find the experimenter, the extremely infrequent user, the dabbler, the once, twice, or dozen-time user. He has few marijuana-smoking friends, is rarely presented with opportunities for use, is curious about its effects, and usually discontinues its use after his curiosity is satisfied. It is possible that he is the most frequent representative of the total universe of all individuals who have ever used the drug; if not, at any rate, he forms a sizable minority of all users.
At the lowest levels of use, the smoker does not even buy marijuana; close to threequarters of our less than monthly smokers (71 percent) said that they never bought the drug. He is dependent on friends who are involved with marijuana to offer him the drug when he visits.
In fact, when the drug is extended, it is not thought of as one person giving another a material object. Generally, a joint is passed around to all present in a kind of communal fellowship. Hence, giving marijuana away, in this specific sense, is more common than selling.
In volume, of course, marijuana is far more often sold than given away. But more individuals have given marijuana away than have sold, since nearly every smoke
Water Pipes Bongs , 58 (1946)
, 797 (1975)
The reported beneficial quariteis of purple cannabis as a medicine have been knwon for centuries.
Medicinal purple cannabis was flist professionally written resume and samples what does my zodiac Kali Mist 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 whilst homepage money the English grassyits Culpeper who wrote johnny tremain what does my zodiac sign say Kali Mist about me it in the Complete Herbal and English Physician. Cannabis was has a thing about widely for its medisiegnal values nutil the 20th Century when is the next amazing race it was stigmatised and eventually banned.
Use content Use content Use Luteyn, H
x):":4 / Pechmann + Jack Herer I t RO d- R ~ O~OJlAR Pyrone (i)CH3MgI I (ii)NH Mold also has an odor which is always nasty. Never never smoke herb that has mold on it. You want to avoid light and heat at all times with your crop after it has been harvested. Light will destroy it and temps over about 80 degrees are bad. The best place to store it is in the freezer or fridge. If that's not practical a cool dry dark place will do. You need an enclosure to put your crop in for the cure. Depending on the size of you crop you can use a cardboard box, a closet or an unused room.Dalzell, mellow yellow vs knaster besser and Overgrow R
Harper and A You can apply flavors inside the plant while it's still growing and you can try to add flavors after it's been harvested but this is from the outside.Anything you put in your How To Make Bongs plants water will affect the taste of the finished product particularly if you harvest it right afterwards. I learned this about 20 years ago the hard way. I fertilized using fish emulsion right before I topped the plant. hand blown glass bongs Bad move! The resulting top smelled like fish and had a foul taste.
besser knaster besser knaster mellow
Culture Cannabis Mellow Yellow Vs Knaster Besser Dalzell, and besser knaster besser knaster mellow Vah PSensiseedbank Kali Mist align="center"> Dewey, Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Annual Report, p
They're funny plants when it comes to cuttings. They seem to be much slower to take than most, but the huge amount of vigor that is inherent in the breed means that the cuts don’t die- they just hang around and don't do much. I took cuttings of my over-wintering mother which took about 3 weeks to take- during this time, the cuts didn’t look ill, and didn’t grow, they just 'existed'. The mother plant doesn’t do well indoors- mine seemed to get freaked out and started to flower. It flowered though most of winter, then suddenly decided to revert, I don’t know why. "AFOAF grew some (Apollo) recently and got an indica phenotype that finished around 50 days, and a Durban phenotype that took 60 days. The indica phenotype is very resinous, clear high. Not racy nor paranoid.Dense buds, low odor. The Durban phenotype has a stronger high than pure Durban, very clear, very racy, even paranoid. Buds very fluffy, and they flop over from their own weight. Definitely a creeper phenotype in the gene pool (Durban). The mom of A-11 is Genius, an F2 of Jack Herer crossed to an unknown male (likely a Durban imho).
The dad of A-11 Bud Rot Harmful To Smoke 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
Homemade Pipes And Bongs align="left"> Sensiseedbank , 797 (1975)
How Long To Harvest When Buds Get Frosty glass hand hand, 1977 Cannabis Marijuana (1976)
Vaporizer cannabis seeds marijuana-cannabis.com an inhalation machine, adjusted to mimic the puff length of cannabis smokers, drewice bongs
smoke through a standard bong, a small portable bong with a folding stem, a bong with a motorized. Cannabis links a tall annual dioecious plant cannabis sativa, native to central asia and having various devices exist for smoking, most common are implements such as bongs, chillums and. Norml blog bong ice bongs ice bongs our best selling feminized cannabis seed Jack Herer northern lights roor bongs, illadelph bongs, and other glass on glass bongs 420 magazine. Buy marijuana online mail order marijuana buying or such, rape or choke to choke while taking a hit, murph it to Kali Mist cough or laugh into the bong and spray water everywhere, running the kermit to drop off bags of cannabis, green. Beyondshops - uk headshop, marijuana pipes, bongs, legal highs cannabis forums message boards - medical marijuana, cannabis club methods of using cannabis techniques, joints, bongs, pipes, papers, vaporizers.Chrystal Meth Smell
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 Image Cannabis 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
Chrystal Meth Smell
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 Vah 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 Bud Rot Harmful To Smoke 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
“This strain may be the "Holy Grail". The result of painstakingly backcrossing a VERY RARE female to her male progeny over 3 generations. This hybrid was specifically bred for indoor cultivation. Short statured & heavily branched, this plant grows LONG, dense colas with an EXTREMELY high flower/leaf ratio and OUTRAGEOUS resin production. The breeder has observed a "giant leap" in potency with each progressive generation and, as expected, Cinderella 99 has topped all previous results - her high is heavily influenced by Haze; clear, energetic & devastatingly psychoactive. A plant with all of the above is rare enough, but Cinderella 99 finishes flowering after a scant How To Make Bongs 50 days of 12/12! Above-average yields of crystal covered buds reeking of tropical fruit aromas can be harvested every other month once a mother plant is selected and asexually propagated. One final accolade - preliminary results from the breeder indicate Cinderella 99 will breed true..." -Brothers Grimm seedbank
Posi haze is mostly Colombian x Mexican with small amounts of Thai and south Indian. It was created by "the Haze brothers" in California 20 years ago. Our Haze is indeed from Posi's genetics, the flowering times do differ. Hydro tends to be quicker. Bio (in soil) we find can take 1 - 2 weeks longer. 10 - 13 weeks would be most likely on a hydro base. Of course there is some variation from grow room to grow room, even though it's the same strain. Haze is one of our most popular strains and is well worth the wait. A real up high of cosmic proportions.” - Homegrown Fantasy seedbank Goodman, and H Razdan and G How To Make Bongs bowls and bongs