Vah
Remember that when we speak of �high� in this context, we literally mean �a high frequency� of
being, just as the UHF radio band is of a higher frequency than is FM. The high has a literal and very
relevant reality to the quality of our lives, and in fact all life on this planet. Marijuana is thus properly
known as a, �priceless gift of nature� to humanity. The high is a sacred thing, and shares many
properties with that state of being
How To Make Homemade Drugs known as �love� as well as sexual pleasure.
, 795 (1972) Bubble is available for 150 NLG and has 22 seeds. This has to do with low
germination rates at the last tests and making up for that. I don't know
the one Adam sells personally, but do know that they derive from the same
genetic background. It took a while before I was pleased with the product
and there was also a personal thing involved, with the person who brought
the genetics over to Holland. I waited till that was resolved to
satisfaction." - Simon, owner of Serious Seeds, Amsterdam Acta, 56, 519 (1973) All these modifications have resulted in a series of novel THC derivatives
and analogs, which show a wide variety of enhanced activities such as
antiglaucoma, antinausea, analgesic, tranquilizer, antihypertensive, etc 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 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 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
Cannabis Health 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
Bongs For Sale 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
Weed Bongs
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
home made bongs ,
Serious Serious 88,
3664 Hollands Hope (1966) 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
“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. 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, Psilocybe Cubensis Cannabis Users 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 gabat gabat really came through with big dense, stalked trichome frosty
colas Bongs Sale Sale that really lend credence to the fact that this strain does not need vast amount of light to produce
impressive Misty 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
at the study of a cross-section of all individuals who have tried
marijuana, or even who smoke it regularly, however regularly might be defined, will yield
very few who are high all of the time, or even more than a few hours each evening. The
facts do not support the stoned model. When the user smokes marijuana he does, indeed,
become high, or stoned. And if one observed his behavior during this period, he is often
measurably less active than normally. But to say that it is the ultimate goal of a large
proportion of users to seek this state most of the time is to distort the facts. It is only
because researchers cannot understand why anyone would want to become high in the first
place that they Swiss Swiss find it necessary to attach the label "psychological addiction" or
"habituation" to his behavior and motives. If they found use of the substance acceptable,
they would not emit this labeling behavior.
It is clear that another model is necessary. And this model, I propose, is the recreational
model. It fits the facts more faithfully than any of the previously mentioned models. And
it contains none of the moral judgments that the others are clearly guilty of. The
recreational model takes issue with these perspectives. Essential to the recreational
conception of marijuana use are the following elements: (1) it is used freely,
noncompulsively; (2) it is smoked episodically—once or several times a week or so on the
average; (3) it is experienced as pleasurable by the participants; (4) it is used in
conjunction with (and not a replacement for) other enjoyable activities; (5) its impact on
one's life is relatively superficial; (6) its use results in relatively little harm to the
individual; and (7) its use is highly social. By adopting the recreational perspective toward
marijuana use, I do not wish to imply that everyone who has ever smoked marijuana may
be described in terms of this model, nor even that a majority of all users are typified by all
of these principles. It is, however, to say that this model presents a relatively accurate
summarization of the experiences of the characteristic user, that these traits are typically
found in marijuana use. In any case, Marijuana For For Marijuana the issue is an empirical one; if the model is
ineffective, then it must be discarded. In my own research, however, the recreational
model yielded far more insights and more accurately described the reality I investigated
than did any of the traditional models. I found that most users smoke marijuana
recreationally, and I believe that any study investigating a fairly representative group of
smokers will support the same generalization. It is possible, of course, to uncover some
individuals who are motivated by compulsive forces and experience overwhelmingly
unpleasant reactions. A study based on users who visit psychiatrists will, naturally be far
more likely to be composed of users whose experiences differ from the normal everyday
user's, and therefore cannot be taken
Spronck and C 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
Luteyn, H
Winner of several Pic Of Bongs harvest festivals, and "High Times" Cannabis Cup. Skunk #1 (75% Sativa, 25% Indica) was
originally a cross between 25% Afghani, 25% Mexican Acapulco Gold and 50% Colombian Gold. Inbred since
1978, now a stabilized homogeneous strain. Blooms with long, thick buds, varying in color from light green to
golden.
Very high flower to leaf ratio.
Soft and sweet aroma and a very strong "up" high. Excellent variety for
indoor growing or greenhouse with Como Cultivar Cannabis darkening system.
Very high yields. Easy to manicure. This variety serves as
a standard against which others can be measured.Winner of several harvest festivals, and "High Citral Times" Cannabis Cup. Skunk 1 (75% Sativa, 25% Indica) was
originally a cross between 25% Afghani, 25% Mexican Acapulco Gold and 50% Colombian Gold. Inbred since
1978, now a stabilized homogeneous strain. Blooms with long, thick buds, varying in color from light green to
golden. Very high flower to leaf ratio. Soft and sweet aroma and a very strong "up" high. Excellent variety for
indoor growing or greenhouse with darkening system. Very
Not For Weed Bongs
high yields. Easy to manicure. This variety serves as
a standard against which others can be measured. “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
How To Grow A Marajawana Plant
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
Image Cannabis 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
About Cannabis Psychedelic How To Make A One Hitter Mold On Marijana align="right"> Lousberg, J
“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 water bongs
water bongs Kc Brains Petrzilka and W
Medical: multiple sclerosis “This state of the art Indica is the result of over 20 years of select inbreeding. Bred
for vigorous growth, high yield, and superb high. A must for growers who prefer short bushy plants. The buds
have an extremely frosted, resinous appearance and the yield is high.
"NL#5 is NL with another plant crossbred. Part indica, part sativa. Grows great outdoors, flowers quickly and has
a pretty good yield. I know a few that have grown it. Call it the "Christmas tree" bud, the plant looks like one..
Thumbs up to it, it is a great strain." -V
“Bank: Positronics
Supplier: Jock
Started with 10 seeds all germinated. One sprout Northern Light x Haze was lagging far behind the others and it was put out of its
misery.
Ended up Calyx Hairs In Marijuana with 1 female, 5 Hairs home Hairs home Calyx home Calyx 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
Northern Light x Haze
even
though it still showed male flowers,
Aurora Indica not a lot but too many. The second time grown from clone it showed male
flowers again and
Top 44
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 Zitko, Tetrahedron Lett Medical: multiple sclerosis “This state of the art Indica is the result of over 20 years of select inbreeding. Bred
for vigorous growth, high yield, and superb high. A must for growers who prefer short bushy plants. The buds
have an extremely frosted, resinous appearance and the yield is high.
"NL#5 is NL with another plant crossbred. Part indica, part sativa. Grows great outdoors, flowers quickly and has
a pretty good yield. I know a few that have grown it. Call it the "Christmas tree" bud, the plant looks like one..
Thumbs up to it, it is a great strain." -V , 97, 185 (1978); (j) 1 Korte, Tetrahedron Lett
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 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
bongs pipe 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
cannabis (drug) how to grow 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.
Cheap Marijuana Seeds Feminized (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
Pot Bongs Pipe 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
Uliss et Cannabis Recipes Harvesting Cannabis al Cannabis Bongs Killer Can Marijuana Resin Get You High , 11,377
(1968) Dalzell, and P
"I believe Apollo 13 is P88 male X Genius (Princess' more indica type sister) but still a JH F2 from the same set
of seeds found at the 'Cafe in Adam. The new A11 is P94 or (C99 the more popular name) X Genius."
-Webfish
Growing Magic Mushrooms Spronck Ephedra Cannabis Marijuana and C
as well as to an
entire tradition in marijuana commentary. Yet such a conclusion is difficult to avoid. The
marijuana user appears to be more active socially than the nonuser. He has more friends
and socializes more. He is engaged in a larger number and a greater variety of activities
than the nonuser—aesthetic appreciation and creation, political activism, and social
welfare, for instance. (Of course, some other human endeavors, such as traditional and
formal religious participation, are less often the object of marijuana users' interests.)
The zero-sum notion assumes that the two realms, the straight and the stoned, are
antagonistic and incompatible, enjoyed by a wholly different and distinct personnel. In
reality, most potsmokers do not rob their straight life to pay their stoned existence. More
commonly, the two enrich each other. Thus, any
Scrog Marawana Clones Cannabis model based on the assumption that by
using marijuana those activities which society values will typically or necessarily
deteriorate in the lives of users has to be faulty. In the average user, no such process takes
place. (It will, of course, be a relatively simple matter to uncover exceptions.) The average
marijuana smoker utilizes his drug of choice as an adjunct and an enhancer of many of the
activities that the ordinary law-abiding citizen participates in.
The dire predictions of what happens when someone takes to the weed do not seem to
happen.
It is said that although marijuana is not technically addicting, it does generate a
kind of psychological addiction (thus, the stoned model), and that once legal restrictions
are relaxed, huge numbers of persons will be stupefied most of their waking hours. When
we look at the facts, this argument evaporates. Most marijuana users smoke the weed
occasionally. The truly committed "head," the smoker who is high the whole day, day in
and day out, is a relative rarity, perhaps comprising 1 or 2 percent of everyone who has
ever smoked marijuana. And yet it
College Home College is from this rarefied upper reaches of the world of
potsmoking that society's model of marijuana use is borrowed.
We will, of course, be able to locate specific individuals who are, in fact, high a great
proportion of their waking hours. But the difference between marijuana and any of the
physiologically addicting drugs—including alcohol—in this respect is so great as to be a
(6 of 9)4/15/2004 1:08:52 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 12
difference of kind, and not simply a matter of degree. It is only because the medical
profession views marijuana use by definition pathological and abnormal ("abuse" is
defined as taking a drug outside a medical context) that any use of marijuana has to be
viewed, medically, as a kind of habituation, or psychological addiction.
Something
anomalous, puzzling, and disturbing must be labeled pathological. But in less moralistic
terms—and it is only on moral grounds that the medical label makes any sense at all—it is
necessary to face the fact th
“Developed in Seattle, perfected in Holland, Northern Lights has become the “State of the Art” indoor plant. A
must!
“Northern Lights #1 = Described as a true breeding strain (Stable) of Afghani origins.
Northern Lights #135A = Available commercially for just a short while (87-88) from the original Seed Bank.
Described as "a fast finishing hybrid of Northern lights and an Afghani". This sounds a lot like the forerunner of
Slyder/Chronic.
”“Developed in Seattle, perfected in Holland, Northern Lights has become the “State of the Art” indoor plant. A
must!
“Northern Lights 1 = Described as a true breeding strain (Stable) of Afghani How To Make Homemade Drugs origins.
Northern Lights 135A = Available commercially for just a short while (87-88) from the original Seed Bank.
Described as "a fast finishing hybrid of Northern lights and an Afghani". This sounds a lot like the forerunner of
Slyder/Chronic.”
KUSH X KC 33 X @ 2/9/2010 8:24:12 AM