marijuana-cultavation.cannabissativashop.commarijuana-cultavation.cannabissativashop.comCopyright marijuana-cultavation.cannabissativashop.commarijuana-cultavation.cannabissativashop.com RSS Generatorhttp://marijuana-cultavation.cannabissativashop.com/canabis-seed.asp?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.? - SkunkmanWed, 30 May 2007 12:00:00 PM GMThttp://marijuana-cultavation.cannabissativashop.com/eigenanbau.asp "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." -WebfishWed, 30 May 2007 12:00:00 PM GMThttp://marijuana-cultavation.cannabissativashop.com/descriptionofhimalayangoldcannabis.asp ? I created a 'goblet' effect outwards around the top of the wire-tube, and this stopped the damage. Having been eaten back to about 18" in early July, the plants reached about 6' by week-1 Oct. During the whole summer, there was no single week that they were not rained on VERY heavily, and for the last month of their lives they were in perpetual cloud/100% moisture. Only one plant showed any signs of mold (and this one showed only small patches)- which I was extremely pleased with.Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:00:00 PM GMThttp://marijuana-cultavation.cannabissativashop.com/terracava.aspGreen Spirit is a hybrid of Big Bud and Skunk #1. Was developed because Big Bud itself is not a very consistent strain, with very big differences among individual plants. By crossing Big Bud and Skunk #1, Green Spirit became quite homogeneous. Good results under artificial lights. Clear and strong high. The plants have an explosive flowering trait and are extremely resinous. Very high yield.Wed, 30 May 2007 12:00:00 PM GMThttp://marijuana-cultavation.cannabissativashop.com/big-bud-super-skunk.aspy alcohol itself is a dangerous drug. Indeed, marijuana's dangers... seem no greater than the documented deleterious effects of alcohol. If the question before us were a national referendum to decide whether we would use... either alcohol or marijuana, I might personally vote for marijuana?but that is not the question"[49] Physicians say that the damage to society following the legalization and widespread usage of marijuana would only be additive to the harm inflicted by alcohol. Whatever thousand deaths traceable to alcohol we actually experience now would be increased by a considerable number if marijuana restrictions were removed. ... the existence of alcoholism and skid rows is not an argument in favor of cannabis but one against it. If alcohol has ruined six million lives in this country, how can it possibly be an argument for permitting cannabis to do the same, or worse? Logic compels those who argue against alcohol to excuse cannabis to take another stand: they should be arguing for the control of alcohol and the elimination of its evils, not for the extension of those or similar evils to a wider segment of society. The attack on alcohol implicitly acknowledges the evils of cannabis and goes on to urge that we let two wrongs make a right.... legalization of cannabis will in no way alleviate the problems of alcoholism but is very likely to add problems of another sort.... one drug is as socially and personally disruptive as the other. The question is whether we, as a nation, can afford a second drug catastrophe.[50] A Minority Opinion Although mainstream medical opinion holds marijuana to be damaging, potentially dangerous and, on the whole undesirable, a minority of doctors demure. We have claimed (17 of 25)4/15/2004 1:04:59 AM The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 5 that the dominant view of physicians is that marijuana is a dangerous drug, capable of causing adverse psychic reactions and psychotic episodes. Yet David E. Smith, physician, toxicologist, pharmacologist, and director of the Haight-Ashbury Medical Clinic in the midst of a heavy drug-using population, writes that he has never seen a "primary psychosis" among his 30,ooo patients, and, outside the clinic, he says that he has witnessed only three cases of marijuana-induced psychosis?"extreme paranoid reactions characterized by fear of arrest and discovery."[51] I have stated that most physicians dismiss the pothead's point that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol as irrelevant. Yet, Joel Fort, a physician, claims that alcohol is the most dangerous of all drugs currently available in America, whether legally or illegally. He has developed a scheme characterizing dimensions of drug "hardness," i.e., dangerousness. Fort's feeling is that any impartial observer will arrive at least the following list of dimensions of hardness: addiction (or psychic dependency), insanity, tissue damage, violence, and death. Thus, some drugs may be hard in one wayWed, 30 May 2007 12:00:00 PM GMThttp://marijuana-cultavation.cannabissativashop.com/white-russi.aspime for any other questions. If and only if we remember two methodological qualifications will our analysis of the responses be meaningful: 1. The form of the study instrument?open-ended or forced choice?gives us results that are superficially different (the magnitude of the responses, for instance), but fundamentally the same (the order of the responses). 2. Individuals who do not mention a given effect on our open-ended question are not thereby automatically agreeing that marijuana does not have that effect on them?they just did not think of it at that moment in that situation ( although we do have a certain amount of confidence that those who did not mention the effect were (10 of 34)4/15/2004 1:07:27 AM The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 7 less likely to experience it than those who did mention it). Overviewing the responses elicited, we see that there are over 200 totally distinct effects described. (We have presented only those which ten or more subjects mentioned; there are almost 150 effects each of which was mentioned by fewer than ten respondents.) Sixty-four of these were proffered by single individuals, completely idiosyncratic responses that could not in any way be classified with other responses which were somewhat similar. For instance, one individual said that she had the feeling of "being sucked into a vortex." Another reported more regular bowel movements while intoxicated. A third said that she could feel her brains dripping out of her ears. In addition to the sixtyfour unique and therefore totally unclassifiable responses, there were twenty-eight where only two respondents agreed that marijuana had that effect on them. However valid these responses might be to the individual himself, they are not useable to us, since they are still quite idiosyncratic. Although the diversity of the responses was in itself an interesting finding, the picture was not totally chaotic. Each individual offered an average of roughly ten different effects of the drug as a description of the high. Some of these effects were offered independently by a large percentage of the interviewees although, curiously, none attracted a majority; every effect described was given by a minority of the sample. That is, in spite of the huge diversity in the responses, some agreement prevailed. Marijuana users seem to describe the effects of the drug in overwhelmingly favorable terms. Certainly the vast majority of the effects mentioned would be thought positive if the judge did not know that marijuana touched off the state in question. Let us suppose that we have been told that the list characterizes how some people react to a warm spring day; our sense would be that they think well of its effects. Thus, most of the characteristics of the marijuana high, as described by its users, would be looked at as beneficial. Yet with the knowledge that the triggering agent was marijuana, the judge reinterprets his favorable opinion and decidesWed, 14 Oct 2009 12:00:00 AM GMThttp://marijuana-cultavation.cannabissativashop.com/planting-cannabis-seeds/sea-of-green.asp?Cinderella 99 will be available from Brothers Grimm in January (?99). This is the "cubed" generation resulting from backcrossing Princess 3 times with her successive male offspring. Expect a true-breeding strain with the same short flowering period, tropical fruit flavour, and soaring cerebral high. ? - MrSoulWed, 30 May 2007 12:00:00 PM GMThttp://marijuana-cultavation.cannabissativashop.com/autoflower-grow.aspime for any other questions. If and only if we remember two methodological qualifications will our analysis of the responses be meaningful: 1. The form of the study instrument?open-ended or forced choice?gives us results that are superficially different (the magnitude of the responses, for instance), but fundamentally the same (the order of the responses). 2. Individuals who do not mention a given effect on our open-ended question are not thereby automatically agreeing that marijuana does not have that effect on them?they just did not think of it at that moment in that situation ( although we do have a certain amount of confidence that those who did not mention the effect were (10 of 34)4/15/2004 1:07:27 AM The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 7 less likely to experience it than those who did mention it). Overviewing the responses elicited, we see that there are over 200 totally distinct effects described. (We have presented only those which ten or more subjects mentioned; there are almost 150 effects each of which was mentioned by fewer than ten respondents.) Sixty-four of these were proffered by single individuals, completely idiosyncratic responses that could not in any way be classified with other responses which were somewhat similar. For instance, one individual said that she had the feeling of "being sucked into a vortex." Another reported more regular bowel movements while intoxicated. A third said that she could feel her brains dripping out of her ears. In addition to the sixtyfour unique and therefore totally unclassifiable responses, there were twenty-eight where only two respondents agreed that marijuana had that effect on them. However valid these responses might be to the individual himself, they are not useable to us, since they are still quite idiosyncratic. Although the diversity of the responses was in itself an interesting finding, the picture was not totally chaotic. Each individual offered an average of roughly ten different effects of the drug as a description of the high. Some of these effects were offered independently by a large percentage of the interviewees although, curiously, none attracted a majority; every effect described was given by a minority of the sample. That is, in spite of the huge diversity in the responses, some agreement prevailed. Marijuana users seem to describe the effects of the drug in overwhelmingly favorable terms. Certainly the vast majority of the effects mentioned would be thought positive if the judge did not know that marijuana touched off the state in question. Let us suppose that we have been told that the list characterizes how some people react to a warm spring day; our sense would be that they think well of its effects. Thus, most of the characteristics of the marijuana high, as described by its users, would be looked at as beneficial. Yet with the knowledge that the triggering agent was marijuana, the judge reinterprets his favorable opinion and decidesThu, 17 Sep 2009 12:00:00 AM GMThttp://marijuana-cultavation.cannabissativashop.com/hashish/blueberry-canabis.aspime for any other questions. If and only if we remember two methodological qualifications will our analysis of the responses be meaningful: 1. The form of the study instrument?open-ended or forced choice?gives us results that are superficially different (the magnitude of the responses, for instance), but fundamentally the same (the order of the responses). 2. Individuals who do not mention a given effect on our open-ended question are not thereby automatically agreeing that marijuana does not have that effect on them?they just did not think of it at that moment in that situation ( although we do have a certain amount of confidence that those who did not mention the effect were (10 of 34)4/15/2004 1:07:27 AM The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 7 less likely to experience it than those who did mention it). Overviewing the responses elicited, we see that there are over 200 totally distinct effects described. (We have presented only those which ten or more subjects mentioned; there are almost 150 effects each of which was mentioned by fewer than ten respondents.) Sixty-four of these were proffered by single individuals, completely idiosyncratic responses that could not in any way be classified with other responses which were somewhat similar. For instance, one individual said that she had the feeling of "being sucked into a vortex." Another reported more regular bowel movements while intoxicated. A third said that she could feel her brains dripping out of her ears. In addition to the sixtyfour unique and therefore totally unclassifiable responses, there were twenty-eight where only two respondents agreed that marijuana had that effect on them. However valid these responses might be to the individual himself, they are not useable to us, since they are still quite idiosyncratic. Although the diversity of the responses was in itself an interesting finding, the picture was not totally chaotic. Each individual offered an average of roughly ten different effects of the drug as a description of the high. Some of these effects were offered independently by a large percentage of the interviewees although, curiously, none attracted a majority; every effect described was given by a minority of the sample. That is, in spite of the huge diversity in the responses, some agreement prevailed. Marijuana users seem to describe the effects of the drug in overwhelmingly favorable terms. Certainly the vast majority of the effects mentioned would be thought positive if the judge did not know that marijuana touched off the state in question. Let us suppose that we have been told that the list characterizes how some people react to a warm spring day; our sense would be that they think well of its effects. Thus, most of the characteristics of the marijuana high, as described by its users, would be looked at as beneficial. Yet with the knowledge that the triggering agent was marijuana, the judge reinterprets his favorable opinion and decidesWed, 30 May 2007 12:00:00 PM GMThttp://marijuana-cultavation.cannabissativashop.com/cannabis-dans-le-sang.asp"We have been working from a m39 mother plant that is from 1987. This is absolutely the most powerful strain I have ever come across. I have purchased & grown many of the newer bragged on strains and still am looking for something that will even come close to this strain. I'm not saying that this variety is the most potent, just that in my over 15 yr. search this is what I've found to be the strongest so far."-Clone "M39 by SSSC was "Basic#5"/Sk#1, but I BELIEVE "Basic#5" was actually NL#5, but SSSC weren't allowed to say so. You're actually looking for NL#5/Sk#1 which is available from Sensi Seed Bank, they call it "ShivaSkunk". ?MrSoulWed, 30 May 2007 12:00:00 PM GMT