sensei
Graines
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 Cannabis Information 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.
Piece of crap - hard to clone. I grew a few seeds
Sensi Seed from a seedbank selling Sensi BB, and I’m glad I didn’t
waste time and space with any more than 2 females. Maybe I was unlucky and didn’t score that hard to find
large producer. Dunno.
the plants were grown indoors under plenty Faire Du Faire Pousser of light. They were big in circumference, with
spread out bud yield. I was expecting fatty kolas, but Poison Durban nope. It looked more like Holland/Canada Big Treat than
BB is supposed to be. Anyway, that’s my two cents.- dak
"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".
–MrSoul
Site map for how to safely start growing weed for beginners and for cannabis - magazine for the latest news the best guide for growing weed is here with the. Absolute beginners - grasscity.com forums the cannabis grow bible the definitive guide to growing marijuana for recreational and medical use this book is a comprehensive growing guide for both beginners and those more. Bud seed.com - high quality marijuana and cannabis seeds for growing tip for beginners buy feminized seeds this way you will only get female plants ltlt cannabis growing guide 46 - indoor growing growing cannabis guide 28 - from seed to seedling. Cannabis seeds marijuana amp cannabis blog blog our cannabis seeds have a high germination success which will give specially for them weaposve added the section growing guides we have a special beginners guide and a rockwool guide. Acoustic guitar forum - view topic - best drug detoxification products cannabis seeds marijuana seeds from the worldaposs best and products, like top 44, are excellent for growing order info payment info shipping info disclaimer growing guide.
s more complex than most indicas. Grows short, yield
fairly low, matures from 50-60 days. There’s much variation in this strain, so grow as many as you can to
select your favorite. Be glad to answer any specific questions.
” –stix"
"“Received Sensi Star through HS, 10:10 for germination. All very uniform looking plants. Ended up with 4
females, all short, very vigorous and dense in growth. I put them into bud after 4 weeks under floros when
they were about 12-14"". All had minimal stretching under my 1000w hps and using CO2 with temps in 75-85
range. Out of my 4 females, one had a mold problem at 6 weeks and the other 3 are about 2 and a half feet
tall and ready to harvest any day. They have huge, very dense, THC covered buds. I have never seen better.
A great indoor plant that seems to have great commercial value.” -Brends"
"“This 3 way hybrid contains Early Pearl®, Skunk #1® and Northern Lights®. This hybrid is quicker and sweeter
than the Shiva Skunk®. Excellent indoor and greenhouse results. Plants exhibit frosted resinous
characteristics of the Northern Lights #5® and the sweetness and calyx-to-leaf ratio of Early Pearl / Skunk.
One of our favourites and in 1994 the winner of the mixed Indica/Sativa category."
"“My Silver Pearl is beyond wonderful! VERY HALLUCINOGENIC tastes sweet like honey, not my favorite flavor
but a great accomplishment. I sent away for silver pearl seeds from mike 12 days ago, he says they are on
the way so I’m hoping for Friday, then greenthumb at my friends house!” Damion"
"“Silver Pearl hallucinogenic? You bet it is! Never grew it (but have the golden G 13 ticket to do so, thanks mike)
had it last year grown by a friend (he purchased seed in Adam himself) I’m a heavy toker and Ill tell you, 2-3
bong hits to be high as a kite, 6 or more and you’ll start seeing what I mean. Share a blunt with friends and
enjoy an even better ride!” – Damion"
"You said that the taste of the silver pearl had no noticeable Skunk taste in it. This seems to be right on
target with the silver I’ve smoked and the Early Skunk (EPXSK#1) that I have grown.
The taste of the EP (very
sweet with almost minty undertones) seems to be the dominant trait carried by this strain. I love the taste.
The High of Cannabis
Seeds Cannabis the EP X SK #1 is kind of heady and very functional. One of my favorite ""Utility Smokes"".
Great
for the morning are a couple of hits at lunch.” - D"
"“Silver Pearl is a taller plant the stone is more up, while Super Skunk is shorter a bit heavier yield more body
stone -haven't grown either since 90 so may have changed but both were nice.” -Oldtimer1
“Old timer described the 2 perfectly: Super Skunk will give you that couch potato stone and Silver Pearl is
more energetic/hallucinatory.
I'd go with the pearl unless your growing for yield.” – DAMIONSIN"
"“I just finished super skunk and have Silver Pearl coming right behind it. the Super Skunk is really kind bud,
but nothing all that special. IMHO the silver pearl will be thes more complex than most indicas. Grows short, yield
fairly low, matures from 50-60 days. There’s much variation in this strain, so grow as many as you can to
select your favorite. Be glad to answer any specific questions.” –stix"
"“Received Sensi Star through HS, 10:10 for germination. All very uniform looking plants. Ended up with 4
females, all short, very vigorous and dense in growth. I put them into bud after 4 weeks under floros when
they were about 12-14"". All had minimal stretching under my 1000w hps and using CO2 with temps in 75-85
range. Out of my 4 females, one had a mold problem at 6 weeks and the other 3 are about 2 and a half feet
tall and ready to harvest any day. They have huge, very dense, THC covered buds. I have never seen better.
A great indoor plant that seems to have great commercial value.” -Brends"
"“This 3 way hybrid contains Early Pearl®, Skunk 1® and Northern Lights®.
This hybrid is quicker and sweeter
than the Shiva Skunk®. Excellent indoor and greenhouse results. Plants exhibit frosted resinous
characteristics of the Northern Lights 5® and the sweetness and calyx-to-leaf ratio of Early Pearl / Skunk.
One of our favourites and in 1994 the winner of the mixed Indica/Sativa category."
"“My Silver Pearl is beyond wonderful! VERY HALLUCINOGENIC tastes sweet like honey, not my favorite flavor
but a great accomplishment. I sent away for silver pearl seeds from mike 12 days ago, he says they are on
the way so I’m hoping for Friday, then greenthumb at my friends house!” Damion"
"“Silver Pearl hallucinogenic? You bet it is! Never grew it (but have the golden ticket to do so, thanks mike)
had it last year grown by a friend (he purchased seed in Adam himself) I’m a heavy toker and Ill tell you, 2-3
bong hits to be high as a kite, 6 or more and you’ll start seeing what I mean. Share a blunt with friends and
enjoy an even better ride!” – Damion"
"You said that the taste of the silver pearl had no noticeable Skunk taste in it. This seems to be right on
target with the silver I’ve smoked and the Early Skunk (EPXSK1) that I have grown. The taste of the EP (very
sweet with almost minty undertones) seems to be the dominant trait carried by this strain. I love the taste.
The High of the EP X SK 1 is kind of heady and very functional. One of my favorite ""Utility Smokes"".
Great
for the morning are a couple of hits at lunch.
” - D"
"“Silver Pearl is a taller plant the stone is more up, while Super Skunk is shorter a bit heavier yield more body
stone -haven't grown either since 90 so may have changed but both were nice.” -Oldtimer1
“Old timer described the 2 perfectly: Super Skunk will give you that couch potato stone and Silver Pearl is
more energetic/hallucinatory. I'd go with the pearl unless your growing for yield.” – DAMIONSIN"
"“I just finished super skunk and have Silver Pearl coming right behind it. the Super Skunk is really kind bud,
but nothing all that special. IMHO the silver pearl will be the
"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. Princess is a female which resulted from a seed found in a Jack Herer bud I bought in Amsterdam near the
Sensi Seed Bank at "Coffeeshop Sensi Smile". The bud came in a 2 gr. cello-pack with the Sensi logo; I
expected sinsemilla, but it had about 10 seeds so I assume she's an F2 JH. Her characteristics were so fine I
wanted to create seeds that would "replicate" this plant. She has the KILLER Haze-influenced high with the most
DELICIOUS pineapple/evil scent, 50 day maturation in 12/12, and incredible resin production, doesn’t stretch -
yet clearly Sativa-dominant! Last but not least: Never a hint of hermaphrodism after 2 years of cloning & many
different styles of grow.
ime 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 decides "IMHO a Northern Lights would be best, easiest, and have the best high. This variety has been around for
years; it has great name recognition. It is disease free, and easy to grow. The yield is above average though
not perhaps quite as great as some of the Big Bud hybrids. It can be grown using any method including SOG,
SCROG. or bushy. An all around great strain." -Kohala
Its a simple, easy and very small plant growing 30 - 50 cm, which is perfect flowering period 6 - 7 weeks harvest 8-9 week after germ stoned or high natural high Seeds Cannabis London - indica.
Discount cheap marijuana cannabis seeds specials flowering chamber this week flowering chamber earlier this week swept it out and washed the tue may 6, 2003 ganjis grow grow pot from the dutch masters two of hollandaposs cannabis. Delta-9 labs - cannabis Marijuana Cannabis Seeds seeds - dampkring nl top 44 is our fastest flowering variety which under ideal conditions can be ready in 6 weeks feminized is a strong easy to grow cannabis seeds. How to grow marijuana outdoors - guide to guides highboldtage the cannabis grow bible culture tutorial plant on what to feed it at week two diy weed growing cannabis scrog using 1212 dutch method of growing marijuana using 6 inch. Cannabis growing, flowering 6 weeks strains of marijuana cannabis often grow a darker green after flowering they will be mature in 6 to 8 weeks.
o not lead to it, but actually act as deterrents. One of the most important actions of
cannabis is to quiet and stupefy the individual so that there is no tendency to
violence..."33] A Canadian physician, H. B. M. Murphy, is quoted by Chopra as a
summary on marijuana and crime, saying, "Most serious observers agree that cannabis
does not, per se, induce aggressive or criminal activities, and that the reduction of the
work drive leads to a negative correlation with criminality rather than a positive one."34]
The Chopras seem to provide thin fodder for the argument of the criminal inducement of
cannabis.
The same cannot be said for the work of Gardikas ("Hashish and Crime").35] A police
officer and head of the Greek Criminal Service in Athens, Gardikas reviewed 379 cases of
individuals who were arrested for publicly using cannabis between 1919 and 1950. In the
sample, 117 cases were first arrested for cannabis offenses and, after their release, became
"confirmed criminals," having been arrested for a total of 420 offenses in the period
studied. The fact that they became criminal only after their involvement with hashish
demonstrates to Gardikas as well as to law enforcement officers and to various other
commentators that hashish causes crime. Over 200 cases in the sample were already
criminal prior to starting the use of hashish, and the remaining fifty-three, after their arrest
for cannabis, did not commit any nonhashish crimes later.
We are not told how these cases were selected. Are they the only cannabis offense cases
(20 of 28)4/15/2004 1:08:08 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 9
that came to Gardikas' attention? Were they gathered more or less by accident? Were they
a result of random selection? Or were they selected for the very fact that their crime rate
was so high? We have no way of knowing. And what social universe does this group
represent: All hashish smokers in Greece? Not having this information, the methodology
seems dubious.
It is a certainty that arrested cannabis smokers are different from nonarrested ones, just
as arrested violators of any law are radically different from those who also commit the
same crimes, but who do not get arrested. The class factor operates here powerfully, just
to mention a single source of variation. The middle-class violator is far more able to avoid
detection through a combination of bias and caution, as well as a number of other factors,
such as police saturation in poorer areas. Working-class patterns of crime, particularly
certain kinds of crime, such as violent ones, are very different from those of the middleclass
user. To use arrested hashish smokers as an indication of the criminal potential
inherent in the drug is fallacious.
Also, it might very well be necessary to raise the question of the criminogenic effect of
the Greek penal system. Anyone arrested once becomes subject to greater scrutiny, and
therefore, almost of necessity, his crime rate will be
"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 marijuana use; they disapprove of its use because there is
enough evidence to be able to decide on the drug's dangers—or there is enough indication
that it might be thought of
mr
mr as dangerous. "... those of us who oppose legalization are.
.
.
implacable in insisting that all cannabis preparations are potentially dangerous. The
potential dangers, to our minds, are severe."[18] As a result, "... there
Hanf Seed is overwhelming
consensus that this drug marijuana] should not be legalized, and no responsible medical
body in the world supports such action.
"19]
Marijuana, then, according to the medical profession, is a "dangerous drug." The
question, therefore, is: In what specific ways does the medical profession see its use as
dangerous? Opinion is not unanimous on the questions of what, precisely, the effects are
whether certain effects represent, in fact, a clear danger, and to what extent the danger
appears. Nonetheless, the differences within the profession should not be exaggerated.
PSYCHOLOGICAL DEPENDENCY
Without question the danger most commonly seen by physicians and psychiatrists in
marijuana is its power to engender a kind of psychological dependence in the user. No
observer of the drug scene attributes to marijuana the power of physiological addiction;
instead, psychological dependence is imputed. "Drug dependence is a state of psychic
dependence or physical dependence, or both, on a drug, arising in a person following
administration of that drug on a periodic or continued basis."[20] Each drug has its
characteristic syndrome, and each must be designated with its own specific title; we are
interested in "drug dependence of the cannabis type." Marijuana, then, produces a psychic
dependency in the user which impels him to the continued and frequent use of that
specific drug—a dependency that is similar in important respects to actual physical
(9 of 25)4/15/2004 1:04:59 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 5
addiction.
Marijuana smokers hold the lack of physiological addiction of their drug of choice to be
a powerful scoring point in its favor; many physicians, on the other hand, see this point as
trivial in view of the parallels between addiction and dependency. The dimension of
interest to us is not whether the impelling force is chemical or psychological, but whether
the user persists in his use of a substance which physicians have defined as noxious,
whose use constitutes "abuse." Thus, a person is defined as being dependent on the basis
of whether use of a drug is continued over a period of time, and is ruled undesirable by
drug experts. The imputation of undesirability is necessary to the definition, since the
repeated administration of crepe suzette21] is not labeled "dependency"—even though it
can occur with the same frequency and with the same degree of disruption in one's life.
The fact that a withdrawal syndrome does not appear upon abstinence is outside the focus
of this definition; the telling point is th marijuana use; they disapprove of its use because there is
enough evidence to be able to decide on the drug's dangers—or there is enough indication
that it might be thought of as dangerous. "... those of us who oppose legalization are...
implacable in insisting that all cannabis preparations are potentially dangerous. The
potential dangers, to our minds, are severe."18] As a result, "... there
mr
mr is overwhelming
consensus that this drug marijuana] should not be legalized, and no responsible medical
body in the world supports such action."19]
Marijuana, then, according to the medical profession, is a "dangerous drug." The
question, therefore, is: In what specific ways does the medical profession see its use as
dangerous? Opinion is not unanimous on the questions of what, precisely, the effects are
whether certain effects represent, in fact, a clear danger, and to what extent the danger
appears. Nonetheless, the differences within the profession should not be exaggerated.
PSYCHOLOGICAL DEPENDENCY
Without question the danger most commonly seen by physicians and psychiatrists in
marijuana is its power to engender a kind of psychological dependence in the user. No
observer of the drug scene attributes to marijuana the power of physiological addiction;
instead, psychological dependence is imputed. "Drug dependence is a state of psychic
dependence or physical dependence, or both, on a drug, arising in a person following
administration of that drug on a periodic or continued basis."20] Each drug has its
characteristic syndrome, and each must be designated with its own specific title; we are
interested in "drug dependence of the cannabis type." Marijuana, then, produces a psychic
dependency in the user which impels him to the continued and frequent use of that
specific drug—a dependency that is similar in important respects to actual physical
(9 of 25)4/15/2004 1:04:59 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 5
addiction.
Marijuana smokers hold the lack of physiological addiction of their drug of choice to be
a powerful scoring point in its favor; many physicians, on the other hand, see this point as
trivial in view of the parallels between addiction and dependency.
The dimension of
interest to us is not whether the impelling force is chemical or psychological, but whether
the user persists in his use of a substance which physicians have defined as noxious,
whose use constitutes "abuse." Thus, a person is defined as being dependent on the basis
of whether use of a drug is continued over a period of time, and is ruled undesirable by
drug experts.
The imputation of undesirability is necessary to the definition, since the
repeated administration of crepe suzette21] is not labeled "dependency"—even though it
can occur with the same frequency and with the same degree of disruption in one's life.
The fact that a withdrawal syndrome does not appear upon abstinence is outside the focus
of this definition; the telling point is th marijuana use; they disapprove of its use because there is
enough evidence to be able to decide on the drug's dangers—or there is enough indication
that it might be thought of as dangerous.
"... those of us who oppose legalization are...
implacable in insisting that all cannabis preparations are potentially dangerous.
The
potential dangers, to our minds, are severe."[18 As a result, "... there is overwhelming
consensus that this drug [marijuana should not be legalized, and no responsible medical
body in the world supports such action."19
Marijuana, then, according to the medical profession, is a "dangerous drug." The
question, therefore, is: In what specific ways does the medical profession see its use as
dangerous? Opinion is not unanimous on the questions of what, precisely, the effects are
whether certain effects represent, in fact, a clear danger, and to what extent the danger
appears.
Nonetheless, the differences within the profession should not be exaggerated.
PSYCHOLOGICAL DEPENDENCY
Without question the danger most commonly seen by physicians and psychiatrists in
marijuana is its power to engender a kind of psychological dependence in the user. No
observer of the drug scene attributes to marijuana the power of physiological addiction;
instead, psychological dependence is imputed. "Drug dependence is a state of psychic
dependence or physical dependence, or both, on a drug, arising in a person following
administration of that drug on a periodic or continued basis.
"20 Each drug has its
characteristic syndrome, and each must be designated with its own specific title; we are
interested in "drug dependence of the cannabis type." Marijuana, then, produces a psychic
dependency in the user which impels him to the continued and frequent use of that
specific drug—a dependency that is similar in important respects to actual physical
(9 of 25)4/15/2004 1:04:59 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 5
addiction.
Marijuana smokers hold the lack of physiological addiction of their drug of choice to be
a powerful scoring point in its favor; many physicians, on the other hand, see this point as
trivial in view of the parallels between addiction and dependency. The dimension of
interest to us is not whether the impelling force is chemical or psychological, but whether
the user persists in his use of a substance which physicians have defined as noxious,
whose use constitutes "abuse." Thus, a person is defined as being dependent on the basis
of whether use of a drug is continued over a period of time, and is ruled undesirable by
drug experts. The imputation of undesirability is necessary to the definition, since the
repeated administration of crepe suzette21 is not labeled "dependency"—even though it
can occur with the same frequency and with the same degree of disruption in one's life.
The fact that a withdrawal syndrome does not appear upon abstinence is outside the focus
of this definition; the telling point is th marijuana use; they disapprove of its use because there is
enough evidence to be able to decide on the drug's dangers—or there is enough indication
that it might be thought of as dangerous.
"... those of us who oppose legalization are...
implacable in insisting that all cannabis preparations are potentially dangerous. The
potential dangers, to our minds, are severe."18 As a result, "... there is overwhelming
consensus that this drug marijuana should not be legalized, and no responsible medical
body in the world supports such action."19
Marijuana, then, according to the medical profession, is a "dangerous drug." The
question, therefore, is: In what specific ways does the medical profession see its use as
dangerous? Opinion is not unanimous on the questions of what, precisely, the effects are
whether certain effects represent, in fact, a clear danger, and to what extent the danger
appears. Nonetheless, the differences within the profession should not be exaggerated.
PSYCHOLOGICAL
Acheter Du Cannabis DEPENDENCY
Without question the danger most commonly seen by physicians and psychiatrists in
marijuana is its power to engender a kind of psychological dependence in the user. No
observer of the drug scene attributes to marijuana the power of physiological addiction;
instead, psychological dependence is imputed. "Drug dependence is a state of psychic
dependence or physical dependence, or both, on a drug, arising in a person following
administration of that drug on a periodic or continued basis."20 Each drug has its
characteristic syndrome, and each must be designated with its own specific title; we are
interested in "drug dependence of the cannabis type." Marijuana, then, produces a psychic
dependency in the user which impels him to the continued and frequent use of that
specific drug—a dependency that is similar in important respects to actual physical
(9 of 25)4/15/2004 1:04:59 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 5
addiction.
Marijuana smokers hold the lack of physiological addiction of their drug of choice to be
a powerful scoring point in its favor; many physicians, on the other hand, see this point as
trivial in view of the parallels between addiction and dependency. The dimension of
interest to us is not whether the impelling force is chemical or psychological, but whether
the user persists in his use of a substance which physicians have defined as noxious,
whose use constitutes "abuse." Thus, a person is defined as being dependent on the basis
of whether use of a drug is continued over a period of time, and is ruled undesirable by
drug experts. The imputation of undesirability is necessary to the definition, since the
repeated administration of crepe suzette21 is not labeled "dependency"—even though it
can occur with the same frequency and with the same degree of disruption in one's life.
The fact that a withdrawal syndrome does not appear upon abstinence is outside the focus
of this definition; the telling point is th
o not lead to it, but actually act as deterrents. One of the most important actions of
cannabis is to quiet and stupefy the individual so that there is no tendency to
violence..."33] A Canadian physician, H. B. M. Murphy, is quoted by Chopra as a
summary on marijuana and crime, saying, "Most serious observers agree that cannabis
does not, per se, induce aggressive or criminal activities, and that the reduction of the
work drive leads to a negative correlation with criminality rather than a positive one."[34]
The Chopras seem to provide thin fodder for the argument of the criminal inducement of
cannabis.
The same cannot be said for the work of Gardikas ("Hashish and Crime").35] A police
officer and head of the Greek Criminal Service in Athens, Gardikas reviewed 379 cases of
individuals who were arrested for publicly using cannabis between 1919 and 1950. In the
sample, 117 cases were first arrested for cannabis offenses and, after their release, became
"confirmed criminals," having been arrested for a total of 420 offenses in the period
studied. The fact that they became criminal only after their involvement with hashish
demonstrates to Gardikas as well as to law enforcement officers and to various other
commentators that hashish causes crime. Over 200 cases in the sample were already
criminal prior to starting the use of hashish, and the remaining fifty-three, after their arrest
for cannabis, did not commit any nonhashish crimes later.
We are not told how these cases were selected. Are they the only cannabis offense cases
(20 of 28)4/15/2004 1:08:08 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 9
that came to Gardikas' attention? Were Hillbilly Dreams they gathered more or less by accident? Were they
a result of random selection? Or were they selected for the very fact that their crime rate
was so high? We have no way of knowing. And what social universe does this group
represent: All hashish smokers in Greece? Not having this information, the methodology
seems dubious.
It is a certainty that arrested cannabis smokers are different from nonarrested ones, just
as arrested violators of any law are radically different from those who also commit the
same crimes, but who do not get arrested. The class factor operates here powerfully, just
to mention a single source of variation. The middle-class violator is far more able to avoid
detection through a combination of bias and caution, as well as a number of other factors,
such as police saturation in poorer areas. Working-class patterns of crime, particularly
certain kinds of crime, such as violent ones, are very different from those of the middleclass
user. To use arrested hashish smokers as an indication of the criminal potential
inherent in the drug is fallacious.
Also, it might very well be necessary to raise the question of the criminogenic effect of
the Greek penal system. Anyone arrested once becomes subject to greater scrutiny, and
therefore, almost of necessity, his crime rate will beo not lead to it, but actually act as deterrents. One of the most important actions of
cannabis is to quiet and stupefy the individual so that there is no tendency to
violence..."33] A Canadian physician, H. B. M. Murphy, is quoted by Chopra as a
summary on marijuana and crime, saying, "Most serious observers agree that cannabis
does not, per se, induce aggressive or criminal activities, and that the reduction of the
work drive leads to a negative correlation with criminality rather than a positive one."34]
The Chopras seem to provide thin fodder for the argument of the criminal inducement of
cannabis.
The same cannot be said for the work of Gardikas ("Hashish and Crime").35] A police
officer and head of the Greek Criminal Service in Athens, Gardikas reviewed 379 cases of
individuals who were arrested for publicly using cannabis between 1919 and 1950. In the
sample, 117 cases were first arrested for cannabis offenses and, after their release, became
"confirmed criminals," having been arrested for a total of 420 offenses in the period
studied. The fact that they became criminal only after their involvement with hashish
demonstrates to Gardikas as well as to law enforcement officers and to various other
commentators that hashish causes crime.
Over 200 cases in the sample were already
criminal prior to starting the use of hashish, and the remaining fifty-three, after their arrest
for cannabis, did not commit any nonhashish crimes later.
We are not told how these cases were selected. Are they the only cannabis offense cases
(20 of 28)4/15/2004 1:08:08 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 9
that came to Gardikas' attention? Were they gathered more or less by accident? Were they
a result of random selection? Or were they selected for the very fact that their crime rate
was so high? We have no way of knowing. And what social universe does this group
represent: All hashish smokers in Greece? Not having this information, the methodology
seems dubious.
It is a certainty that arrested cannabis smokers are different from nonarrested ones, just
as arrested violators of any law are radically different from those who also commit the
same crimes, but who do not get arrested. The class factor operates here powerfully, just
to mention a single source of variation. The middle-class violator is far more able to avoid
detection through a combination of bias and caution, as well as a number of other factors,
such as police saturation in poorer areas. Working-class patterns of crime, particularly
certain kinds of crime, such as violent ones, are very different from those of the middleclass
user. To use arrested hashish smokers as an indication of the criminal potential
inherent in the drug is fallacious.
Also, it might very well be necessary to raise the question of the criminogenic effect of
the Greek penal system. Anyone arrested once becomes subject to greater scrutiny, and
therefore, almost of necessity, his crime rate will beo not lead to it, but actually act as deterrents. One of the most important actions of
cannabis is to quiet and stupefy the individual so that there is no tendency to
violence..."33 A Canadian physician, H. B. M. Murphy, is quoted by Chopra as a
summary on marijuana and crime, saying, "Most serious observers agree that cannabis
does not, per se, induce aggressive or criminal activities, and that the reduction of the
work drive leads to a negative correlation with criminality rather than a positive one."34
The Chopras seem to provide thin fodder for the argument of the criminal inducement of
cannabis.
The same cannot be said for the work of Gardikas ("Hashish and Crime").35 A police
officer and head of the Greek Criminal Service in Athens, Gardikas reviewed 379 cases of
individuals who were arrested for publicly using cannabis between 1919 and 1950. In the
sample, 117 cases were first arrested for cannabis offenses and, after their release, became
"confirmed criminals," having been arrested for a total of 420 offenses in the period
studied. The fact that they became criminal only after their involvement with hashish
demonstrates to Gardikas as well as to law enforcement officers and to various other
commentators that hashish causes crime. Over 200 cases in the sample were already
criminal prior to starting the use of hashish, and the remaining fifty-three, after their arrest
for cannabis, did not commit any nonhashish crimes later.
We are not told how these cases were selected. Are they the only cannabis offense cases
(20 of 28)4/15/2004 1:08:08 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 9
that came to Gardikas' attention? Were they gathered more or less by accident? Were they
a result of random selection? Or were they selected for the very fact that their crime rate
was so high? We have no way of knowing. And what social universe does this group
represent: All hashish smokers in Greece? Not having this information, the methodology
seems dubious.
It is a certainty that arrested cannabis smokers are different from nonarrested ones, just
as arrested violators of any law are radically different from those who also commit the
same crimes, but who do not get arrested. The class factor operates here powerfully, just
to mention a single source of variation.
The middle-class violator is far more able to avoid
detection through a combination of bias and caution, as well as a number of other factors,
such as police saturation in poorer areas. Working-class patterns of crime, particularly
certain kinds of crime, such as violent ones, are very different from those of the middleclass
user. To use arrested hashish smokers as an indication of the criminal potential
inherent in the drug is fallacious.
Also, it might very well be necessary to raise the question of the criminogenic effect of
the Greek penal system. Anyone arrested once becomes subject to greater scrutiny, and
therefore, almost of necessity, his crime rate will beo not lead to it, but actually act as deterrents.
One of the most important actions of
cannabis is to quiet and stupefy the individual so that there is no tendency to
violence..."33 A Canadian physician, H. B. M. Murphy, is quoted by Chopra as a
summary on marijuana and crime, saying, "Most serious observers agree that cannabis
does not, per se, induce aggressive or criminal activities, and that the reduction of the
work drive leads to a negative correlation with criminality rather than a positive one."34
The Chopras seem to provide thin fodder for the argument of the criminal inducement of
cannabis.
The same cannot be said for the work of Gardikas ("Hashish and Crime").
35 A police
officer and head of the Greek Criminal Service in Athens, Gardikas reviewed 379 cases of
individuals who were arrested for publicly using cannabis between 1919 and 1950. In the
sample, 117 cases were first arrested for cannabis offenses and, after their release, became
"confirmed criminals," having been arrested for a total of 420 offenses in the period
studied. The fact that they became criminal only after their involvement with hashish
demonstrates to Gardikas as well as to law enforcement officers and to various other
commentators that hashish causes crime.
Over 200 cases in the sample were already
criminal prior to starting the use of hashish, and the remaining fifty-three, after their arrest
for cannabis, did not commit any nonhashish crimes later.
We are not told how these cases were selected. Are they the only cannabis offense cases
(20 of 28)4/15/2004 1:08:08 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 9
that came to Gardikas' attention? Were they gathered more or less by accident? Were they
a result of random selection? Or were they selected for the very fact that their crime rate
was so high? We have no way of knowing. And what social universe does this group
represent: All hashish smokers in Greece? Not having this information, the methodology
seems dubious.
It is a certainty that arrested cannabis smokers are different from nonarrested ones, just
as arrested violators of any law are radically different from those who also commit the
same crimes, but who do not get arrested. The class factor operates here powerfully, just
to mention a single source of variation. The middle-class violator is far more able to avoid
detection through a combination of bias and caution, as well as a number of other factors,
such as police saturation in poorer areas. Working-class patterns of crime, particularly
certain kinds of crime, such as violent ones, are very different from those of the middleclass
user. To use arrested hashish smokers as an indication of the criminal potential
inherent in the drug is fallacious.
Also, it might very well be necessary to raise the question of the criminogenic effect of
the Greek penal system.
Anyone arrested once becomes subject to greater scrutiny, and
therefore, almost of necessity, his crime rate will be
“This Indica dominant strain was created by backcrossing a male cross of ShivaSkunk from Sensi and Princess'
brother (a JH f2) back to the ShivaSkunk mother. In "cubing" terms that would mean that your plants Magic Garden are
ShivaSkunk.75. Another grower I sent them to liked them a lot too. I'm glad you're having such excellent
success with my strains!” – MrSoul
y alcohol itself is a dangerous drug. Indeed,
marijuana's dangers... seem no greater than the documented deleterious effects of alcohol.
If the question
Fonddecrancannabis 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 wayy 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 wayy 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
seed seed 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 wayy 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
seed seed
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
Fond
mr nice Fond
mr nice Cannabis
mr nice D 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 way
This was
Mr Nice clinically confirmed by Sallan Whitewidow and co-workers? in 1975
Afoaf has a Posi Big Bud Mom Garden
plante cannabis Garden that is 70% pistils ripe, with cloudy heads in about 43-45 days and it yields real
nice. Its a real tough strain, eats ferts big time, not the strongest most devastating buzz, however it has a
long duration 4 hours, but a repeat for sure, the strain has really "grown on me." Its just an all-around good
strain, now if it took 55-60 days it Kc
Sensi
Sensi Kc would be history, its speed to harvest is a big consideration.-Budm
y 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 P Ska Cannabis 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 wayy 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
sensi seed
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 wayy 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 wayy 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
Early Girl 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 way
ng lasting cerebral high. She is tall with large girth
and giant calyxes. The aroma is spicy with a slight sandalwood taste. This girl can satisfy any connoisseurs'
taste. So wake and bake with a bud of AK.” – seedbank catalog
“These dark green buds are very resin-y and have bunches of short, red hairs throughout. Some buds are
less green with more hairs. This hydro has a very pungent, sweet, skunky green smell that will make your
mouth water and will put a smile on your face. One or two small, crystally stems to chew on are all the
non-smokables you get. The fluffy, compact buds break up nicely and will leave plenty of polleny crystals on
your fingers. The smooth, skunky smoke tastes sweet and flowery, though it is expansive in the lungs and a
bit of a cougher. Overall, the taste is outstanding. Not overly visual, a strongly mellowing high ensues that is
conducive to listening to music, watching a movie or maybe hanging out at a Coffeeshop. This bud could get
you to open your bag of Oreo's or order 'patat' on your way home. **** ” – Homepage Amsterdam"
"“Taste: Fruity freshness that feels light, with a tang. Smell: A blend oh Plantar Cannabis Himalayan alpine flowers with a hint of
the tropics. Visuals: Strong yellow hairs that are long and flat. Misty crystal structure set on a pale green bud.
Compact form with great size colas. Touch: Small sticky crystals fill this plant's flower, so the feeling is a sticky
sweetness. Stone: A very creative high. Great for a happy day. Strike the flow of new ideas in a fluid sort of
way. Family Heritage: Nepalese & No. Indian. An interesting blend of Indicas and Sativas. – Green House Seed
Co. Catalog"
"Vegetative Time: For indoors a suggested minimum of 2 – 4 weeks. For outside germinate - May or by the end
of spring. Flowering Time: For indoors a suggested time of 8 - 10 weeks.
For outside - it will be ready early
autumn.
A substantial yield will be expected. Achievements: Special for Outdoor - But a nice surprise for
the""glasshouse-grower"".” – Green House Seed Co. Catalog"
"“I sampled Himalayan Gold while in 'Dam last year. It's an extremely cerebral herb. The kind of high where you
can't control your thoughts well enough to formulate a sentence to explain how you feel!! The taste reminded
me of Colombian, kind of tawny and light, it was pale green/gold with yellow/brown pistils. Seeing as how it has
the sativa high you could guess that it would also have the sativa growth traits.” –Geronimo"
"“This variety produces an almost pure Indica with fantastic mango bouquet and savory taste. She possesses a
slight skunk influence and is delightfully fragrant. The stone is long lasting and lethargic. Great for those
non-motivational daze."
"""I have crossed a Mullimbimby Madness female to a almost pure indica male. The mother was growing
outdoors and took 13 weeks to finish budding and was huge, to big. Lucky for high fences and no nosey
neighbors. The buds were sticky long colas with a strange smell
"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".
–MrSoul"We have been working from a m39 mother plant that is from 1987. This is absolutely the most
Northern Lights 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 "Basic5"/Sk1, but I BELIEVE "Basic5" was actually NL5, but SSSC weren't allowed to say
so. You're actually looking for NL5/Sk1 which is available from Sensi Seed Bank, they call it "ShivaSkunk".
–MrSoul
-- 9/4/2010 2:00:12 PM
homegrown fantasy
I created Hanf Seed
sensi seed a 'goblet' effect outwards around Hanf Seed 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
sensi seed
one showed only small patches)- which I was
extremely pleased with. They're funny plants when it comes to cuttings. They seem to be much slower to take than most, but the huge
amount of vigor that is inherent in the breed means that the cuts don’t die- they just hang around and don't
do much. I took cuttings of my over-wintering mother which took about 3 weeks to take- during this time, the
cuts didn’t look ill, and didn’t grow, they just 'existed'. The mother plant doesn’t do well indoors- mine seemed
to get freaked out and started to flower. It flowered though most of winter, then suddenly decided to revert, I
don’t know why. While I'm not going to say that Big Bud isn't a good strain, it's not as magical as many people seem to think.
The main problem is the name, Big Bud, everyone expects massive buds. They are big, but not significantly
larger than many other top strains. The potency is good but not knock you off your feet good. There is huge
variations from plant to plant, some are killer and deserving of some of the legends, but the majority are just
typical(of high quality strains). Overall, a good plant as long as you don't expect miracles. I just finished a
bowl of it myself. “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

“Winner of the Cannabis Cup in 1989. Mostly Indica. All plants have guaranteed high yields, 25% has
something special to it. Usually the lower branches collapse under the weight of the buds. Cash cropper’s
delight. “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. “ - MrSoul ommon grow time is 3 to
4 months. All this is dependent on the strain that you choose. Pure
Sativa can run anywhere into the 6 - 9 month bracket. Indica can
flower in 6 weeks. As you can image a Sativa/Indica plant will fall into
the 2 - 4 month flowering period.
75
Figure 2.17 - Seeded bud picture by Shecky Greene.
76
Figure 2.18 - Great bushy plant picture by X3n0.
77
Chapter 3
PROPAGATION
What is propagation?
Propagation: 1 The action of breeding or multiplying by natural
processes; procreation, generation, reproduction. 2 The action of
spreading an idea, practice, etc., from place to place. 3 Increase in
amount or extent; enlargement; extension in space or time.
Propagation is 'The Grow'. However most people treat
propagation as the actual events occurring between the planting of the
seed and the transplant of that seedling to the main grow environment.
Here we will treat propagation as the entire process of growing from
seed to harvest. Propagation also includes the logistics of the grow.
So what are you going to do? Are you going to buy a batch of
10 seeds and grow them all in one go? Are you going to then kill the
males and just smoke the females? Are you going to keep the males
and produce more seeds from the females? How many seeds can a
female plant produce? Should I plant my 10 seeds in one go? What
should I do to guarantee that all my seeds will grow? These are the
questions that you should be asking before you begin to grow and this
is where propagation logistics comes into play. The answers depend
largely on the size of your grow area and what your budget is.
Let’s say we have about $200/£180 to spend on seeds. We can
78
buy an expensive strain like a G13 cross and then we can grow the
G13 and produce more seeds from it. We can get anything between
100 and 2000 seeds depending on plant size and grow conditions. If
we grow this season for 4 months and at the end produce a lot of seeds
then we may never need to buy seeds for this strain again.
There is something else we can do called - CLONING.
Figure 3.1 - Here are some clones by Slowhand.
This is a technique whereby we can grow a number of plants
and select a good female. Then we can take cuttings from that female
mother plant and grow these cuttings into new plants. Clones always
keep the same sex and vigor of the mother plant. It is also possible to
79
create a garden of plants that will last for decades through cloning
from a single female mother plant. Cloning is discussed in detail in a
later chapter
For the new grower it is advised that you buy 10 seeds and
only germinate 3 the first time followed by another 3 the following
week followed by the last 4 in two weeks after that. This will allow you
some degree of experimentation as you may fail on your first attempt
to germinate the seeds because of lack of any previous cannabis
growing experience.
For people who have germinated seeds once before in the
past, it is advised th
“
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.
y 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
seeds
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 wayy 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 wayy alcohol itself is
Faire Pousser Faire Cannabis 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
seeds 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
Legalise Cannabis Party 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 wayy 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 way
“
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 Legalise Cannabis Party one showed only small patches)- which I was
extremely pleased with.
"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
Blow-by-blow description of the generations:
P.50 = Heavy, single-cola type plants with mellow high (too much influence from the ShivaSkunk) Sweet fruity
scent/flavor. Unstable in most traits - for example, 10 days difference in fastest/slowest maturation period in a
group of 20 seedlings.
P.
75 = Plants leaning MUCH more in the direction of Princess in floral cluster and bud structure, scent/flavor
turned more "tropical" like pineapple. The stability was becoming better - two major phenotypes; short & dense
(potent too) or tall/HUGE (Not so potent).
P.
88 = Renamed Cinderella 88
early girl
when first released on the market. It grows fast and produces excellent yields of
FROSTY buds in 7 weeks! Generally uniform seedlings with
Fonddecrancannabis minor differences in floral formation and some height
variance, but the smoke is quite consistent from all plants - Dense, heavy nuggets of fruity scented & flavored
(like wild berries) and covered in resin glands, the dried buds have distinctly ORANGE pistils. containing this alkaloid is not difficult to
perform and is perhaps one of the most rewarding alchemical processes that one
can attempt. The chemicals required for this process are readily available and
their purchase arouses no suspicion or interest on the part of Government
agencies. The equipment employed is not expensive or particularly complicated
or can be constructed very easily from ordinary household items. The entire
process can be carried out in any kitchen in the matter of hours by following the
instructions below and in the final stages one can verify the success of the
procedure by actually watching the crystals of mescaline precipitate in the
solution. One kilo (2.2 lbs) of dried peyote buttons may yield between 10 and 60
grams of pure white needle crystals of mescaline depending on the potency of
the plants used. On average the yield is about 20 grams. The usual underground
price of a kilo of dried peyote ranges between $125 and $250 (25 to 50 cents per
button). From indians in the southwestern USA the price is closer to $50 (10
cents per button). The street price for a gram of pure mescaline is $20 to $30 - if
one is lucky enough to find it. One can obtain from a kilo of dried peyote $200 to
$1200 worth of mescaline. If San Pedro is employed on may anticipate a yield of
3 to 12 grams of mescaline per kilo of dried cactus. One can legally purchase a
kilo of dried San Pedro for $5 to $10 and from it extract $60 to $250 worth of pure
mescaline.
Grind a kilo of the dried cactus, place this in a large pressure cooker, cover with
distilled water, and boil for 30 minutes. Strain the liquids and save them. Return
the pulp to the pot, add more water and boil again for 30 minutes. Strain the
liquids and combine them with the first strainings. Repeat this process about five
times or until the pulp no longer has a bitter taste. Discard the pulp and reduce
the volume of the combined strainings by boiling in an open pot. Do not use
aluminum ware. When the liquids have been concentrated to the thickness of
cream (about one quart), stop the boiling and stir in 400 grams of sodium
hydroxide (lye). This makes the mescaline more soluble in benzene and less in
water. If a large separatory funnel is available pour the liquids into it and add
1600 ml of benzene. Shake the funnel well for five minutes and let it stand for two
hours. If a separatory funnel is not available the process can be carried out in a
one gallon jug with a siphon attached.
After standing for 2 hours the water layer will settle to the bottom and the
benzene layer will float to the top. Between the two layers will be a thin emulsion
layer of mixed water and benzene. Drain off the water and emulsion layers if you
are using a separatory funnel or siphon off the benzene layer if you are using the
makeshift jug-siphon apparatus. Be certain that neither the water or emulsion
layers get into the benzene layer when separating. If any of these layers d