Stretch
Stretch
“Bank: Positronics
Supplier: Jock
Started with 10 seeds all germinated. One sprout was lagging far behind the others and it was put out of its
misery. Ended up with 1 female, 5 males, and 3 herms.
Again, like the rest of the Positronic stock grown out so far, these plants were close to identical in appearance.
They looked very much like the NL x Shiva that also came from Posi. To bad it didn’t take after the NL x Shiva
in all respects.
The one female was not very impressive grown from seed and turned herm. The buzz was acceptable but it
grew like chit. Very airy bud with little resin and a lot of leaf. The buzz made it worth keeping for a harvest from
clone one time to see if it could redeem itself. Because the buzz got better it was given one more chance even
though it still showed male flowers, not a lot but too many. The second time grown from clone it showed male
flowers again and didn’t improve much in quality or growth. So now it’s dead.
To be fair it could be that this plant just couldn’t handle being flowered so early and freaked, doubtful but
possible." - flick
Sensi Seed Sensi Seed Lousberg, J
"GROW THE A-11 FIRST!!!, it is WORLD class smoke!!! But I have to warn you, after you have grown this cross
of Cinderella 99 and Genius, 90% of everything else you grow won't come close!!! So clone all your females, if
you let this one slip through your fingers you will be bummed!!! The bud from Apollo has a sweet fruity/citrus
taste, and a high that gives you the energy to go out and do something...even if you can't remember what it
is!!! Every one that has smoked the A (my version is the A-13, Genius crossed with Cinderella88.The A-11 is
even better then A-13 according to BG!!!) has said it is some of the best they have ever smoked!"- greenbear 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 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. Bad move! The resulting top smelled like fish and had a foul taste. will be
discussed
bol-THC acetate was converted to the
known o-epoxide S9 which was isomerized to a mixture of Cannabis Seeds Sales the allylic alcohols
60 and 61 in excellent yield
"germinate old marijuana seeds" by treatment with the lithium
"germinate old marijuana seeds"
salt of an amine in
bol·THC acetate
!SUlfurYI
Chloride
S9
t
t-Bu
I
Me3SiNLi +
61
620 R =Br
b R =Cl
63
Chart 1
crimes, as well as crimes on which there is public
support for their prohibition, the police would score a clear gain were marijuana use to be
relegalized.[47]
The damages to an individual traceable to the effects of marijuana are minimal when
compared with the damages he sustains at the hands of the legal system.48] Marijuana
use and possession probably represents—next to numerous sex crimes without victims,
such as cunnilingus—the clearest case where the penalty is incommensurate with the
seriousness of the crime. In most cases, the user suffers no damage whatsoever from the
use of this weed. In the typical case, it is a harmless activity. Arguments will often be
made, particularly by the police, that, of course, in the typical case, marijuana use is
relatively innocuous, but that is only because of the relative innocuousness of currently
available marijuana. If the user were to get his hands on really potent cannabis—North
African hashish, for instance—some serious damage would manifest itself.49] Thus,
what is being done is to punish someone for something which is essentially harmless
because if he weren't punished, he might do something which is harmful. (Even assuming
that there are such great differences in harm to users due to the varying potency different
of cannabis preparations.) To my knowledge, this principle is not applied to any other area
of law.
Moreover, no solid case has been made for the prohibition.
In 1937, not a scrap of
evidence existed for justifying the passage of the federal law. Today, over a generation
later, the fairest statement that could be made is that adequate systematic evidence
definitively testing the relative
Sensiseeds harm of this drug has simply not been gathered. And if a
deprivation of liberties is to be imposed, a conclusive case has to be made, as Justice
Goldberg declared in Griswold v. Connecticut The burden of proof is clearly on he who
would deprive liberties, not he who would exercise them.50]
It should be realized that although these "empirical" issues of public safety,
rehabilitation, and deterrence are useful for rhetorical purposes, they are not the most
powerful motives underlying the administration of the laws. The emotional and
"expressive" goals of symbolism and vengeance are far more important, in my opinion. To
someone who feels that marijuana use is evil, the laws are just no matter what their
practical result. They are an expression of a moral stance, and are beyond criticism on that
level. The question of "evil" is intrinsically unanswerable.
Merely because crime is
widespread is no indication that the laws attempting to prevent it (and failing, in a sense,
to do so) are invalid and ought to be abolished. Over 10,000 murders occur in the United
States every year; should laws against murder be nullified? There are about a half-million
auto thefts yearly in this country, and over a million burglaries. Should laws outlawing
these activities be done away with crimes, as well as crimes on which there is public
support for their prohibition, the police would score a clear gain were marijuana use to be
relegalized.47]
The damages to an individual traceable to the effects of marijuana are minimal when
compared with the damages he sustains at the hands of the legal system.48] Marijuana
use and possession probably represents—next to numerous sex crimes without victims,
such as cunnilingus—the clearest case where the penalty is incommensurate with the
seriousness of the crime. In most cases, the user suffers no damage whatsoever from the
use of this weed. In the typical case, it is a harmless activity. Arguments will often be
made, particularly by the police, that, of course, in the typical case, marijuana use is
relatively innocuous, but that is only because of the relative innocuousness of currently
available marijuana. If the user were to get his hands on really potent cannabis—North
African hashish, for instance—some serious damage would manifest itself.49] Thus,
what is being done is to punish someone for something which is essentially harmless
because if he weren't punished, he might do something which is harmful. (Even assuming
that there are such great differences in harm to users due to the varying potency different
of cannabis preparations.) To my knowledge, this principle is not applied to any other area
of law.
Moreover, no solid case has been made for the prohibition.
In 1937, not a scrap of
evidence existed for justifying the passage of the federal law. Today, over a generation
later, the fairest statement that could be made is that adequate systematic evidence
definitively testing the relative harm of this drug has simply not been gathered. And if a
deprivation of liberties is to be imposed, a conclusive case has to be made, as Justice
Goldberg declared in Griswold v. Connecticut The burden of proof is clearly on he who
would deprive liberties, not he who would exercise them.50]
It should be realized that although these "empirical" issues of public safety,
rehabilitation, and deterrence are useful for rhetorical purposes, they are not the most
powerful motives underlying the administration of the laws. The emotional and
"expressive" goals of symbolism and vengeance are far more important, in my opinion. To
someone who feels that marijuana use is evil, the laws are just no matter what their
practical result. They are an expression of a moral stance, and are beyond criticism on that
level. The question of "evil" is intrinsically unanswerable.
Merely because crime is
widespread is no indication that the laws attempting to prevent it (and failing, in a sense,
to do so) are invalid and ought to be abolished. Over 10,000 murders occur in the United
States every year; should laws against murder be nullified? There are about a half-million
auto thefts yearly in this country, and over a million burglaries. Should laws outlawing
these activities be done away with crimes, as well as crimes on which there is public
support for their prohibition, the police would score a clear gain were marijuana use to be
relegalized.47
The damages to an individual traceable to the effects of marijuana are minimal when
compared with
Seedscannabis the damages he sustains at the hands of the legal system.48 Marijuana
use and possession probably represents—next to numerous sex crimes without victims,
such as cunnilingus—the clearest case where the penalty is incommensurate with the
seriousness of the crime. In most cases, the user suffers no damage whatsoever from the
use of this weed. In the typical case, it is a harmless activity.
Arguments will often be
made, particularly by the police, that, of course, in the typical case, marijuana use is
relatively innocuous, but that is only because of the relative innocuousness of currently
available marijuana. If the user were to get his hands on really potent cannabis—North
African hashish, for instance—some serious damage would manifest itself.[49 Thus,
what is being done is to punish someone for something which is essentially harmless
because if he weren't punished, he might do something which is harmful. (Even assuming
that there are such great differences in harm to users due to the varying potency different
of cannabis preparations.) To my knowledge, this principle is not applied to any other area
of law.
Moreover, no solid case has been made for the prohibition.
In 1937, not a scrap of
evidence existed for justifying the passage of the federal law. Today, over a generation
later, the fairest statement that could be made is that adequate systematic evidence
definitively testing the relative harm of this drug has simply not been gathered. And if a
deprivation of liberties is to be imposed, a conclusive case has to be made, as Justice
Goldberg declared in Griswold v. Connecticut The burden of proof is clearly on he who
would deprive liberties, not he who would exercise them.[50
It should be realized that although these "empirical" issues of public safety,
rehabilitation, and deterrence are useful for rhetorical purposes, they are not the most
powerful motives underlying the administration of the laws. The emotional and
"expressive" goals of symbolism and vengeance are far more important, in my opinion. To
someone who feels that marijuana use is evil, the laws are just no matter what their
practical result. They are an expression of a moral stance, and are beyond criticism on that
level. The question of "evil" is intrinsically unanswerable. Merely because crime is
widespread is no indication that the laws attempting to prevent it (and failing, in a sense,
to do
Archiv Cannabis so) are invalid and ought to be abolished. Over 10,000 murders occur in the United
States every year; should laws against murder be nullified? There are about a half-million
auto thefts yearly in this country, and over a million burglaries. Should laws outlawing
these activities be done away with crimes, as well as crimes on which there is public
support for their prohibition, the police would score a clear gain were marijuana use to be
relegalized.47
The damages to an individual traceable to the effects of marijuana are minimal when
compared with the damages he sustains at the hands of the legal system.48 Marijuana
use and possession probably represents—next to numerous sex crimes without victims,
such as cunnilingus—the clearest case where the penalty is incommensurate with the
seriousness of the crime.
In most cases, the user suffers no damage whatsoever from the
use of this weed. In the typical case, it is a harmless activity. Arguments will often be
made, particularly by the police, that, of course, in the typical case, marijuana use is
relatively innocuous, but that is only because of the relative innocuousness of currently
available marijuana. If the user were to get his hands on really potent cannabis—North
African hashish, for instance—some serious damage would manifest itself.49 Thus,
what is being done is to punish someone for something which is essentially harmless
because if he weren't punished, he might do something which is harmful. (Even assuming
that there are such great differences in harm to users due to the varying potency different
of cannabis preparations.
) To my knowledge, this principle is not applied to any other area
of law.
Moreover, no solid case has been made for the prohibition. In 1937, not a scrap of
evidence existed for justifying the passage of the federal law. Today, over a generation
later, the fairest statement that could be made is that adequate systematic evidence
definitively testing the relative harm of this drug has simply not been gathered.
And if a
deprivation of liberties is to be imposed, a conclusive case has to be made, as Justice
Goldberg declared in Griswold v. Connecticut The burden of proof is clearly on he who
would deprive liberties, not he who would exercise them.
50
It should be realized that although these "empirical" issues of public safety,
rehabilitation, and deterrence are useful for rhetorical purposes, they are not the most
powerful motives underlying the administration of the laws. The emotional and
"expressive" goals of symbolism and vengeance are far more important, in my opinion. To
someone who feels that marijuana use is evil, the laws are just no matter what their
practical result. They are an expression of a moral stance, and are beyond criticism on that
level. The question of "evil" is intrinsically unanswerable. Merely because crime is
widespread is no indication that the laws attempting to prevent it (and failing, in a sense,
to do so) are invalid and ought to be abolished. Over 10,000 murders occur in the United
States every year; should laws against murder be nullified? There are about a half-million
auto thefts yearly in this country, and over a million burglaries. Should laws outlawing
these activities be done away with Northern Lights
“pure Indica 88/89/90
An absolute must for the indoor grower! For the last couple of years the Northern Lights® has dominated the
various Harvest Festivals. Through selective breeding we have succeeded in producing one of the most powerful
plants in the world. On top of that, we have developed a strain highly adapted for indoor growing: compact,
powerful with a good yield and exceptional resin production. The most lucrative plant for the indoor grower.
Flowering: 45-50 days.
Height: 100-125 cm.
Yield: up to 125 gr.” – Sensi Seed Bank catalog
"AFOAF grew some (Apollo) recently and got an indica phenotype that finished around 50 days, and a Durban
phenotype that took 60 days.
The indica phenotype is very resinous, clear high. Not racy nor paranoid. Dense buds, low odor.
The Durban phenotype has a stronger high than pure Durban, very clear, very racy, even paranoid. Buds very
fluffy, and they flop over from their own weight. Definitely a creeper phenotype in the gene pool (Durban).
The mom of A-11 is Genius, an F2 of Jack Herer crossed to an unknown male (likely a Durban imho). The dad
of A-11 is Cinderella.
Genius expresses the NL and Skunk side of the gene pool. Cindy expresses the Durban and haze side.
imho, for the A-11 to have 2 phenotypes in the F1, one of which is fluffy, sweet, and floppy like Durban, means
that the Durban gene is in both Apollo and Cindy." - Zorro
"Regarding Early Girl, Ed Rosenthal says he knows (it was) developed by Cultivators' Choice in California in the
70's.”
“Early Girl - This is a mostly Indica early variety developed in Northern California. The plants are compact and
very sturdy, and will tend to grow to one main stem. Very potent, medium yield, with a hashy taste and aroma.
Inbred for 4 generations and carefully selected for quality and earliness. Early Girl is an outstanding choice for
growers seeking an early Indica-type. Chem, 14B, 449 (1976)
Cultivo Cannabis Korte, Tetrahedron Lett
I grew EP last year for the first time. I didn’t get them to maturity, because of three or four major fukups by
me, along with a VERY wet autumn, so my yield was almost nil. I planted out on June-1, they suffered a couple
of frosts during which some purple showed. I planted them out after sexing on 12/12, which I wouldn't do now,
because once these plants start to flower, they don’t like re-vegging, so a confused bunch of semi-flowering
plants was the result. Water soluble slug pellets resulted in the plants being eaten to one foot tall bare stems
soon after. I reverted to my other type of (non-soluble) slug-pellet and the damage stopped. One plant
re-grew in veg form, the others continued in semi-flower. Something odd happened then- which you should
take note of- I had 18" to 2' chicken wire fences around each plant, but somehow some bastard rabbits ate the
newly growing plants (this was early July)- rabbits that could CLIMB FENCES!. ur
puka-bufeos pink dolphins], blowing their sorcery upwards.
In the background is the noble fairy Amet on a carriage pulled by winged horses
A vermilion horse with white wings and a two-headed horse called ishcayuma two
heads] escort her. She is about to arrive in an enchanted city called Thodz, the
dwelling place of great gurus and sumis.
To the left we see the giant Liborim with a magical flying dagger he uses against
his enemies. Behind him there are three flying saucers coming from Andromeda to
influence those learning magical sciences with their enigmatic vibrations.
In front of the flying saucer is the house where several curanderos are in the midst
of these beautiful ayahuasca visions.
VISION 3
AYAHUASCA AND CHACRUNA
This painting represents the two plants necessary in preparing the ayahuasca brew.
Out of the ayahuasca vine comes a black snake with yellow, orange, and blue
spots, surrounded by a yellow aura. There is also another snake, the chacruna
snake, of bright and luminous colors. From its mouth comes a violet radiation
surrounded by blue rays. The chacruna snake penetrates the ayahuasca snake,
producing the visionary effect of these two magic plants.
To the left we see the teacher and his disciples covered by the radiation of the
ayahuasca and chacruna plants. The effect on the nervous system is felt in the tip
of the toes and fingers, in the ears, lips, eyes, and nose. This is why those parts are
red. The combined effect of these plants is esoteric: due to their supernatural
properties, psychic bodies are created that the eyes have never perceived before, so
that one is overwhelmed by this strange new dimension. This world penetrates the
top of the head so that the aura stimulates a gland between the eyebrows.
At the top left we see a bird called rompe-mortajas an owl] that has been
transformed from a tobacco leaf Below we see a great queen with a golden sceptre.
Her name is Mariquita Toe'. She is a doctor with great knowledge. Below her is the
legendary fairy Quetfael, who knows about medicine and paranormal beauty.
Behind the chacruna serpent we see the great sylph Resfenel, the guardian of
several constellations. We see him here surrounded by meteors and bright sapphires
which illuminate his clothes. To the right we see the great gardener with a golden
stick and a pipe shaped like a snake. This being has the rank ofsatrapa pito'nico,~
and always cares for the ayahuasca plant. The cricket we see near him cries in
alarm when anybody cuts a piece of this plant without first making an offering. If
the offering is made, it listens to the prayers: when ayahuasca is ingested it gives
positive effects. The skulls here show that those who do not withstand the effect of
ayahuasca may die. One has to prepare one's body properly before taking this plant.
VISION 4
THE SPIRITS OF MOTHERS OF THE PLANTS
In this vision we see Shipibo vegetalista in a trance. One of the shamans is being
overwhelmed by “Well it started with six beans via HS (Excellent Service:-)) 3 females, Veg total of 50days 24/0 400mh, in 2gal
pots BCGA "Super Soil" recipe "Bio-Blend" organic two part ferts for "Soil application. Flowered under 400hps
12/12, and after 50 days of 12/12, today 2 Rom ladies 404grams un-cured buds. Nice 75-80% brow hairs, 50%
resin heads cloudy under 30x mag.
CANNABIS EXPO The height was about 23-31" tall. About 30% of the bud material was left
on plant in hopes of continued ripening.
So each one should finish with over 2oz's each. Being the first grow, It
says volumes about the strain, Romberry is outstandingly vigorous, and is a fantastic yielder. I really thought
to achieve a solid top cola 11' and 3" in diameter and as dense as any dank, would surely take a 1000watt
lamp. But this was accomplished with a 400hps.
And early quick try samples are awesome! The Romberry
withstood a couple of abuses of rookiness, and really came through with big dense, stalked trichome frosty
colas that really lend credence to the fact that this strain does not need vast amount of light to produce
impressive colas. I guess that my extreme-joy is in the fact that I read "Don’t Expect Centerfold Colas on Your
First grow" and I took it to heart, and the Roms surprised me (Thanks to a lot of help from the great people
here and at BCGA’s board) cause I have four main colas between 46-79gramms that I think are worthy of a
photograph, they are really impressive.Budm
"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
Stretch Lebinas 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 Cannabis Seeds Bank creeper phenotype in the
Stretch Lebinas gene pool (Durban).
The mom of A-11 is Genius, an
Stretch Lebinas F2 of Jack Herer crossed to an unknown male (likely
Stretch Lebinas a Durban imho).
The dad
of A-11 is Cinderella.
Stretch Lebinas
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
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 type; In 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 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
Bongs And Pipe , 11,377
(1968)
cause and effect.
Generally, selling must be considered as part of the syndrome of use. It is not simply
that the user must purchase his drug supply from the seller to consume the drug (this
symbiotic relationship exists with heroin as well), but that the user and the seller are
largely indistinguishable; there is no clear-cut boundary between them. A large percentage
of users sell, and nearly all sellers use. In fact, the determining force behind selling is use:
heavy users are very likely to sell, while infrequent users are unlikely to do so. The fact
that a given individual sells—whether it be done once, occasionally, or frequently,
specifically for a profit—is determined mainly by his involvement in the drug, in its
subculture, with others who smoke. Selling marijuana, then, to some degree presupposes
involvement with the marijuana subculture which, in turn, implies at least a moderate
degree of use. Selling and using involve parallel activities and associations; the seller and
the user inhabit the same social universe. The difference between them is simply a matter
of degree, since selling is a surer indicator of one's involvement with the drug subculture
(10 of 18)4/15/2004 1:08:20 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 10
than is buying or,
Seed Hemp 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
Bowls
mp3 aghani monasa Bowls
mp3 aghani monasa Bongs align="right"> Petrzilka and W
Seed Sensi Cultivo Cannabis
Seedscannabis x):":4 / Pechmann
+ I t
RO d- R
~ O~OJlAR
Pyrone
(i)CH3MgI I
(ii)NH
Cannabis Seeds Bank Cannabis Seeds Bank
Kuppers, C Salemink, R
8
Diels-Alder Reaction
An entirely Handblown Glass Bongs different approach, which utilized a Diels-Alder reaction on an
appropriately
stretch lebinas substituted cinnamic acid derivative(Chart 1
I grew it, or at least something called Early Girl, that I got from Holland in the late '80s. It was pretty average
all the way around in my opinion. About average yield, high, and everything else. I got some California Orange
at the same time and liked it a little better. That was a while back, though. They might have improved it in
recent years.” – Been There
222 The Total Synthesis of Cannabinoids
A
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 * 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 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 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.
blue autoflowering autoflowering mystic , 83,
Stats Stats
Blue Mystic
245
stretch
stretch
(1949);
"germinate old marijuana seeds"
Kc Brains Cannabis College H among professional criminals for profit. How we
characterize marijuana selling depends on what level the transaction takes place. This
might lend sustenance to the ideologically involved contestants, since they may, without
distortion, portray dealing in a fashion which pleases their biases.
Just how involved the large-scale dealer is in marijuana selling is obliquely determined
by the size of the seizures of imports from Mexico. In terms of the number of these
smuggling attempts, clearly the overwhelming majority are of relatively insignificant
quantities—under a pound. The largest recent border seizure was about a ton of marijuana.
An operation of this size obviously requires organization: a micro-bus, middlemen in
Mexico, drivers and high-level dealers for distribution. This is not Cosa Nostra
organization, but it is organization. If we mean by "organized crime," a syndicate
involving thousands of tightly knit, lifelong committed gangsters whose entire livelihood
derives from illegal activities, then marijuana probably is not sold, never has been sold,
and never will be sold by professional criminals. If, however, we mean an independent
operation involving a score of individuals whose activities are coordinated, and who will
earn their living for a few years from marijuana sales, then it is true that marijuana is often
sold by professional criminals. Just how much of the total of marijuana consumed derives
from this kind of source is impossible to determine.
This is why a consideration of the level at which a deal takes place is important. The
importer is often a criminal: his livelihood is importing grass; he is a capitalist who sells
an illegal product with no particular commitment to marijuana as an agent of mindtransformation,
an element in a subculture, or a catalyst in social change. He probably
does not smoke marijuana. The unsystematic business practices of "head" dealers created
a vacuum into which he stepped. The multi-kilogram top-level dealers to whom he sells
are also primarily profit seekers. The crucial difference between the importer and his dealcustomers
is that the dealer sells to consumers as well as to other dealers and is very likely
(14 of 18)4/15/2004 1:08:20 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 10
to be a consumer himself. Next to the consumer, friendship transactions are common.
Thus, to say that marijuana is a business is both true and false. At some levels it is; at
some, it is not. To say that it is big business is misleading. A monthly take of a quarter of
a million dollars, split twenty ways, might represent the very top of the profession. Lower
down, even dedicated hustling brings in what an unskilled factory worker might make.
Below that, the profit motive breaks down entirely.
A commonly encountered argument against the use of marijuana employs the
differential association theory: by using the drug, one is thrown into association with the
criminal underworld and, therefore, at Dalzell, and R This has posed many synthetic problems
because during chemical reactions the more stable derivatives of trans-ts6·THC
(2) are mostly formed 24) in low yield
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
seedscannabis 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. Acheter Du Cannabis 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
blue mystic autoflowering stats 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 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
Venus @ 7/30/2010 8:07:52 AM