Hemp=Pot(What's the deal guys?)

[M House]

Okay after researching a ton of "government" stuff. They are already aware of bunchies of potentially good things and plenty of bad about your pot. God, you can go thru pubmed for hours on cannabinoids. I'm pretty sure there's a single damn reason Hemp is illegal and it's so hard to get it and related chemicals....you. They know if they allow Hemp, you or someone smarter than you will be able to breed marijuana strains.

-I never wanna hear again how it's not Hemp (Cannabis Sativa) is often gen. 1 breeding stock. Many strains come straight from it alone. Since you can chemically change it's sex and smuggle a variety of plants in to breed with it, they know it's a potential problem. Single read through some information from weedworld.co.uk explains in detail how the drug comes out.

note: I've had many stoner tell me this wasn't the case. That's just perpetuating a lie... and no better than anyone else who does this. I'm sure some are innocent other people know plenty about it, considering heavy users have told me this over and over again. I'm sure you can see some irony in these tactics. Even the wiki page is bit inaccurate...and won't directly state this connection.

-Plenty of research is pretty blunt about mechanisms involved. I'm pretty sure one of the reason this arguments comes up so much is you want your pot fix, not anything else. You do not want a single other benefit from it.

-It has never cured cancer but it might suppress growth of certain tumors due to immune suppression. I'm pretty sure that study was even government funded since I ran into it on pubmed.

They know due to the mechanisms involved it can probably be highly addictive. I find it amazing that they tested it to repeatedly stimulate paths in common with Heroin, Amphetamines, and Cocaine, but rarely mention any possible implications of this. Seriously I can find a study that marks Amphetamines as addictive cuz of its meso limbic dopamine release but THC, na...?

Though it does last for ridiculously forever in comparison, little withdraw I suppose. Due to the way it works I bet the only way you could become addicted to it is if you put some effort into trying. Aka, smoking it very regularly. Denial is part of the problem, too, if you are a bit hooked on it I’d bet you’d probably be very aware. Knowing how the FDA and doctors are I'm sure they do not want the legal responsibly of dealing with this. Thus the only thing they were even willing to pass here was a Synth(it should be chem. same, fishy) THC at Schedule III for very limited uses. Why would they emphasize that probably so you don’t go out and try to abuse it…sad. After reading about that doesn't look like they put much effort into giving it too many fair tests on things it'd actually have a significant impact. Looking at your responses some have contributed alot to the problem as well. Response to that drug was poor... with limited sales.


So even other cannabinoid meds probably will not or will take forever to get accepted here. Hemp is will remain illegal as well. And you are either a tool or a user. Reading the pot growers descriptions of their strains you can smell a lot of BS too, I’m sure the majority of them did not go into war torn countries to find a magical shrub that can grown in most any climate.

The USA is not California or your drug kingdom. I’m sick of this, it’s not fair to anyone.

[0zzy]

so..what just happened?
you hate pot?

[steve005]

reading your post was the biggest waste of time, what are you even saying? Go out and expereince things, instead of thinking so much about the crap

[Dr.3D]

You are attacking a plant that has been used for more than 3000 years as a medicine. It has only been in the past 100 years, it has been restricted from use.

[pinkmandy]

Reefer Madness (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6696582420128930236)

It's a dangerous world out there. :cool:

[hillertexas]

Whoa...what's with the chip on your shoulder?


Okay after researching a ton of "government" stuff. They are already aware of bunchies of potentially good things and plenty of bad about your pot.
WTF is that supposed to mean?



And, addictive?! Puuuullleeeaaazzeee.

Try researching non "government" stuff. Hell, just use the search function on this forum as it has been discussed ad nauseam.

[Dr.3D]

And, addictive?! Puuuullleeeaaazzeee.


Yeah, really, tobacco is more addictive and alcohol to some people is also more addictive.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Alright, let's assume pot is as bad as they claim. Let's say it's the most voraciously community and mind destroying substance on the planet.

You still can't fucking stop me. Eat it.

[amonasro]

Oh this is gonna be good. Where do we start? Sounds like you jumped into some advanced reading without really understanding what marijuana is and how it works.

To understand how THC and other compounds in marijuana you must understand what the endocannabinoid system is and how it regulates your body. A quick google search reveals a basic definition.


The endocannabinoid system refers to a group of neuromodulatory lipids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid) and their receptors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptor_%28biochemistry%29) that are involved in a variety of physiological processes including appetite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appetite), pain-sensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nociception), mood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mood_%28psychology%29), and memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory). It is named for endocannabinoids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannabinoid), the endogenous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous) lipids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid) that bind cannabinoid receptors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptors) (the same receptors that mediate the psychoactive effects of cannabis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_%28drug%29)).

Basically, the psychoactive compounds in THC are cannabinoids which "activate" all those millions of endocannabinoid receptors in your body. In your brain, it makes you feel "high" but in your body it can give you a heavier feeling or other sensations unique to whatever strain you're ingesting. So it goes without saying that the outward effects of the drug are well understood, but the inward effects on the endocannabinoid system is just beginning to be understood.

All of the health benefits gained by cannabis are because mammals have an endocannabinoid system. Cannabis was created by nature for our use through this specific system--no other drug can boast that.

http://www.endocannabinoid.net/

[M House]

Um thanks for the info on "the endocannabinoid system"? I learned a bit about it in my school class on neurobiology and stuff, no offense to your well done description but could you elaborate. You're right the reading was bit over my head and I'm trying to piece quite a few things together. You seem like incredibly smart and well informed so who knows maybe you are...

Since "the endocannabinoid system" regulates your appetite and all could you break it down into simple language to me like CB1 and CB2 receptor antagonism and agonism. Last time I checked that was part of that amazing "endocannabinoid system". I might not be up to date do they classify them differently? Do you know are their some other types or sub-types to look into? I'm a bit puzzled how it actually regulates digestive hormones. We know it seems to reduce a bit of gastric motility vagus, CCK perhaps?

[dannno]

Yeah, really, tobacco is more addictive and alcohol to some people is also more addictive.

Completely true.

[brandon]

Okay after researching a ton of "government" stuff. They are already aware of bunchies

THEY ALREADY KNOW ABOUT BUNCHIES???? HOW DID THEY FIND OUT?? WAS HE MOSSAD THIS WHOLE TIME?


ll

[Kotin]

reading your post was the biggest waste of time, what are you even saying? Go out and expereince things, instead of thinking so much about the crap

+1776

[dannno]

Reading the pot growers descriptions of their strains you can smell a lot of BS too, I’m sure the majority of them did not go into war torn countries to find a magical shrub that can grown in most any climate.


Actually the kush varieties come from india and the middle east, namely the Hindu Kush Mountain Range. Those are pure indica strains. There are sativas from South Africa, such as Durban Poison that are local to that area. There are sativa dominant strains from Hawaii, such as "Maui Wowie". The native americans had indicas as well as sativas. The majority of strains are hybrids because the highs from pure sativas are mostly cerebral and generally don't last very long while the highs from indicas last longer but are too exausting for the body. When you mix them, you can come up with some interesting varieties that affect the user in vastly different ways.

I recommend picking up a cannabible and reading up. There is plenty of information out there about the various strains. I know many strains came out of war-torn vietnam, and some strains came from the Coast Guard picking up thai sticks and whatnot back in the 70s. The Coast Guard was able to smuggle strains in from around the world before they cracked down, so for you to be so presumptuous isn't very tactful.

[gls]

TBH pot is so avaliable, cheap, and high-quality right now that I'm not sure if I would even want them to legalize it. Why mess with a good thing?

http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/uploads/1369550-kalimist.jpg

That's the strand I'm currently enjoying, called Kali Mist. Mmmm....it tastes soooo good.

[Kotin]

TBH pot is so avaliable, cheap, and high-quality right now that I'm not sure if I would even want them to legalize it. Why mess with a good thing?

http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/uploads/1369550-kalimist.jpg

That's the strand I'm currently enjoying, called Kali Mist. Mmmm....it tastes soooo good.

it would be 300% cheaper if it were decriminalized(see Black Markets and their effects on Price)

[gls]

it would be 300% cheaper if it were decriminalized(see Black Markets and their effects on Price)

Maybe. Or maybe they'd tax it so much that the prices wouldn't come down at all. The money would just go to the criminals who run the government instead of someone providing an actual useful service (like my dealer).

Also in all liklihood they would put limits on the amount of THC the buds could contain, doing away with the "dangerous" strands like the one pictured above.

[dannno]

TBH pot is so avaliable, cheap, and high-quality right now that I'm not sure if I would even want them to legalize it. Why mess with a good thing?

Cause I already know how to make it that good myself.

If I can't grow it myself, then it's not "legal" yet.




That's the strand I'm currently enjoying, called Kali Mist. Mmmm....it tastes soooo good.


Arguably the top sativa strain available today.
With 90% sativa genetices, Kali Mist grows into tall, running, classically sativa plants with very few leaves.
This strain produces dense clusters of full fluffy buds, producing much higher yields than you would expect.
The plant structure and few leaves allow the light to pass all the way to lower branches, allowing bottom buds to develop fully.

When planted outside early in the year this plant can grow very tall.
Expect spiraling flowers with a high resin content and a delightfully spicy scent.
Kali Mist is often the choice of experts for their own stash grows.
Also, particularly women seem to like this strain, next to the sheer pleasure of smoking it, we received several reports that it works great against menstrual cramps.

We are proud to announce that Kali Mist was improved in 2000 to produce bigger yields.

In Spain it proved to be very mold resistent, even outside during bad weather.
This strain has flavor and subtle cerebral effect that gave it a Cannabis Cup first prize in 1995 (Hydro Cup) and again (with this new and improved version) in 2000 (Seed Company Sativa Cup)!
Without a doubt the choice for connoisseur stash.
Gives a very strong, clear and energizing High

http://www.cannabis-seeds.co.uk/products/445/kali-mist.html

[acptulsa]

it would be 300% cheaper if it were decriminalized(see Black Markets and their effects on Price)

Impossible. It would be taxx-ed all that and more.

Of course, if you taxx the hell out of it and simultaneously trim the War on Drugs budget, you could well go a long way toward supporting the War on the World currently stuck in Iraq...

...but as the Revenooers and Moonshiners proved after the end of prohibition, the War wouldn't end right away. It would just move into the phase of corralling the tax evaders.

[LibertyEagle]

MHouse, I think you're missing the point. The argument is not how good or bad pot or hemp is. The argument is that it should be none of government's business what I choose to put in my own body, as long as I do not infringe on someone else's liberty.

[M House]

I don't like the fact people aren't representing the issue very fairly on either side. I also think this pro hemp shit's disingenuous. I also don't like the fact, I've been lied to so much especially from the people who use it themselves. It doesn't take a genius there's a bit of pro and con.

Yeah what I read that makes a bit of sense I figured the Indica would be from that area naturally. For Danno I can respect that you do seem to know alot about it actually. Atleast what you say seems match what I've read. I think it's alittle sad all this efforts spent on tooling a plant into drug for a high. I think the majority of the strains are actually hybrids cuz what exactly do you do to feminize the stains? My guess it's something done during development. The plant can polyploid as well so there's probably there's quite a bit of method involved to use this advantage. Corn crops are often done this way for yield. But I don't like this front not having Hemp cuz it cures stuff, and I kinda think not being able to have natural Sativa here is a great loss.

All the plants have the great compounds and but there's sadly little variety of application to humans. Even a single cannabinoid can be broken down who knows how many ways. I also think it's a bit two sided for people to condemn the FDA for allowing certain drugs but not allowing them theirs.

Well for Danno, I'm not sure I care so must about the other opinions. Like I said there's no point in using the same tactic used against you. So whatever you seem to have a bit of info so from what I understand there's another cannabis...
Cannabis Sativa
Cannabis Sativa Indica(if classified as subvariety)
1. What's the other one?
2. Got any info on the chem. mix other than the high from Indica hybrids they seem to vary a bit quite a bit from either parent.

[acptulsa]

Well, why wouldn't someone sick of this goofy neo-prohibition also mention the benefits of hemp we are not enjoying? Seems a valid follow-up argument to me. I mean, no small part of the end of prohibition was predicated not on the idea that people should have a right to drink, but on the true fact that we were shooting ourselves in the foot with it.

[dannno]

I think the majority of the strains are actually hybrids cuz what exactly do you do to feminize the stains? My guess it's something done during development.

Feminizing: http://www.420source.com/post/82

I don't think feminizing has anything to do with the strains, but seed production for sale, generally from seed banks. Historically, growers have simply separated the male plants from the female plants so that the females produce "sensimilla" which are buds that do not contain seeds, so they therefore put more of their energy into producing the oils which contain the THC and CBDs. This is the goal of the cannabis growers, and there are many methods to achieving this. Essentially, any sort of stress, like a cool climate (you will see this referred to in a minute). Depriving the female plants of sex is very stressful, as one could imagine. This type of "tooling" as you call it is beneficial to smokers because it creates a more pure medicine. That means we don't have to smoke as much plant material while getting the same amount of medication. This means less smoke and healthier lungs.




Well for Danno, I'm not sure I care so must about the other opinions. Like I said there's no point in using the same tactic used against you. So whatever you seem to have a bit of info so from what I understand there's another cannabis...
Cannabis Sativa
Cannabis Sativa Indica(if classified as subvariety)
1. What's the other one?
2. Got any info on the chem. mix other than the high from Indica hybrids they seem to vary a bit quite a bit from either parent.


Cannabis Sativa:
These plants are characterized by long thin flowers and spiky leaves. They originate from equatorial regions where the growing season is hotter. They are not generally used for outdoor cultivation in colder climates, although some hybrids can produce good yields in such conditions. Cannabis sativas have more of a high than Cannabis indica buds.

Cannabis Indica:
These plants originated in the Hindu-kush areas of Central Asia, where the weather is changeable and growing conditions can be harsh. Hardy plants, they mature early and are characterized by broad, short leaves and heavy, tight flowers. Cannabis indica varieties are ideal for indoor and outdoor cultivation in cooler climates.

Cannabis Ruderalis: Cannabis ruderalis is a variety of cannabis that grows wild in parts of Eastern Europe and Russia. It is characterized by its early flowering, with some plants starting irrespective of the photo-period. Cannabis ruderalis is ideal for cultivation in cooler climates and areas where conditions are harsh. There are Dutch hybrid varieties available that combine Cannabis ruderalis and Cannabis indica.

http://blog.dopies.com/marijuana-horticulture/11/Cannabis-Varieties---Sativa,-Indica,-and-Ruderalis

[M House]

Alotta what you do is simple propaganda picking and choosing anything you can find and editing the result, same as them.

[M House]

Good info Danno, I'll check some more stuff with that.

[dannno]

Alotta what you do is simple propaganda picking and choosing anything you can find and editing the result, same as them.

That's a pretty collectivist view, however, I would also ask you two important questions:

1. Who started it?

2. Who is right?


Answer:

1. They did.

2. According to the principles of liberty and freedom and the constitution, we are right.


Instead of complaining about the half-truths, why not try to get the word out on what you think is the real truth, based on the principles of liberty and freedom??

[M House]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Considering some of the novel effects cannabinoids w/ fairly safe profile it would have been a huge benefit for a variety of people to get to try something synth or non. Whatever I did start looking up this stuff, I think part of the unpopularity of the synth wasn't it's ineffectiveness but it's compounding. It was a close THC with no additional components. Seems you guys like a bit of complexity and particularly that CBD seems to have a more regulated effect on the CB receptors.

[dannno]

1. Who started it?

2. Who is right?


Answer:

1. They did.

2. According to the principles of liberty and freedom and the constitution, we are right.




Two wrongs don't make a right.


This reminds me of a South Park episode. The Feds may be "right" in a few areas for the "wrong" reasons. The legalizers may be "wrong" in a few areas for the right reasons.

In the South Park episode, it was about gays in the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scout advocates argued that a gay Boy Scout leader may end up sexually molesting the scouts, so they should be able to ban it. On the contrary, "straight" men are more likely to molest children than gay men, so the gays sued the Boy Scouts because they thought they should have a right to be Boy Scout leaders. The truth is that the Boy Scouts are a private organization and should be able to choose whoever they want to be in their organization. Ultimately, however, the Boy Scouts were "wrong" for the right reasons, and the gays were "right" for the wrong reasons.


Still, though, I would argue that the Feds use a lot more disinformation than the legalizers.

[amonasro]

Hope ya don't mind if I jump in again :)


I don't like the fact people aren't representing the issue very fairly on either side. I also think this pro hemp shit's disingenuous. I also don't like the fact, I've been lied to so much especially from the people who use it themselves. It doesn't take a genius there's a bit of pro and con.

What misinformation have you been given from someone who has used it? I would agree there are cons to marijuana use but they are not unreasonable cons--it really is a very harmless drug. In my experience, the users who spread lies about it use it as a scapegoat for their own laziness or screwed-up lives.


Yeah what I read that makes a bit of sense I figured the Indica would be from that area naturally... I think it's alittle sad all this efforts spent on tooling a plant into drug for a high.Indicas, originating in the middle east, produce a relaxing body high, much like a heavy narcotic. Sativas originate from all over the world but grow best outdoors in equatorial climates. They produce a cerebral high (sometimes psychedelic), although some produce a body high also. The distance from the equator actually plays a role in the type of cannaboids present in each strain, so sativa strains vary greatly--from relaxing and giggly to fearsomely psychedelic.

People who "tool" marijuana for high, taste and other desirable traits are no different than people who make different kinds of beer, or create different kinds of wine or liquor. Medical caregivers in states where it's legal to grow breed plants for medicinal purposes, so I don't think it's sad at all.


I think the majority of the strains are actually hybrids cuz what exactly do you do to feminize the stains? My guess it's something done during development. The majority of strains today are almost all hybridized to some extent. Pure sativas have flowering times between 8-12 weeks while indicas can mature in as little as 40 days. Indicas also grow better indoors (more hardy, shorter) so it's in breeders' best interests to hybridize to shorten flower times and improve vigor. It's pretty rare to get a 100% pure indica or sativa. That's why breeders prize landrace strains, i.e. strains that come directly from the country they originated from.

Feminization is a breeding techique that involves stressing a female plant, forcing it to hermaphrodite (produce male flowers) so the resulting pollen is feminine. Using it to pollinate another plant will produce seeds that develop into female plants.

Propagation of a specific strain is done through clones, however. A grower will keep mother plants that never get flowered, take cuttings, root the cuttings, grow them out and do it all over again. That way he can produce the exact same plant forever if he wants without planting new seeds.


and I kinda think not being able to have natural Sativa here is a great loss.I would agree with you ;) Landrace sativas are no joke though and can be too racy for some people. Actually much of the "schwag" coming across the border from Mexico is grown in Columbia and is pure, outdoor, equatorial sativa. Even though the overall quality is poor, the quality of the high is not!


All the plants have the great compounds and but there's sadly little variety of application to humans. Even a single cannabinoid can be broken down who knows how many ways. I also think it's a bit two sided for people to condemn the FDA for allowing certain drugs but not allowing them theirs.Actually we are still learning about cannabinoids and some haven't been identified yet. And there is a LARGE body of evidence supporting application in humans. Problem with the FDA is that they can't patent a plant, so they won't support marijuana research unless they can produce a synthetic version they can profit from. Which they have, it's called Marinol, and used for treating the side-effects of chemotherapy. It's not about health with them, it's about money.


Cannabis Sativa
Cannabis Sativa Indica(if classified as subvariety)
1. What's the other one?
2. Got any info on the chem. mix other than the high from Indica hybrids they seem to vary a bit quite a bit from either parent.Cannabis Sativa is the scientific name for the plant, but three psychoactive subvarieties are recognized: sativa, indica and ruderalis.

Ruderalis is not very potent so it's not used except for breeding because of its autoflowering traits.

I'm not sure what you mean about the "chemical mix" in an indica hybrid. A plant can vary from its parents, but probably because it's expressing recessive traits or the combination produces something unique not present in the parents.

[M House]

From what I could tell Marinol is a straight Delta 9 THC same as the plant, though there are other THCs and metabolites from it. Why it's said to be synthetic, I don't know and it's strange. I feel it could be same or some trick with the wording. Like Nicotinic Acid=Niacin=Vitamin B3, but Vitamin B3 can equal Nicotinamide does that mean Niacin can be it as well? Yeah, your guess would be as good as mine. Chemo therapy I doubt would benefit so well from the slowly absorbed version of the stronger immune affecting compounds.

[lucius]

Hope ya don't mind if I jump in again :)



What misinformation have you been given from someone who has used it? I would agree there are cons to marijuana use but they are not unreasonable cons--it really is a very harmless drug. In my experience, the users who spread lies about it use it as a scapegoat for their own laziness or screwed-up lives.

Indicas, originating in the middle east, produce a relaxing body high, much like a heavy narcotic. Sativas originate from all over the world but grow best outdoors in equatorial climates. They produce a cerebral high (sometimes psychedelic), although some produce a body high also. The distance from the equator actually plays a role in the type of cannaboids present in each strain, so sativa strains vary greatly--from relaxing and giggly to fearsomely psychedelic.

People who "tool" marijuana for high, taste and other desirable traits are no different than people who make different kinds of beer, or create different kinds of wine or liquor. Medical caregivers in states where it's legal to grow breed plants for medicinal purposes, so I don't think it's sad at all.

The majority of strains today are almost all hybridized to some extent. Pure sativas have flowering times between 8-12 weeks while indicas can mature in as little as 40 days. Indicas also grow better indoors (more hardy, shorter) so it's in breeders' best interests to hybridize to shorten flower times and improve vigor. It's pretty rare to get a 100% pure indica or sativa. That's why breeders prize landrace strains, i.e. strains that come directly from the country they originated from.

Feminization is a breeding techique that involves stressing a female plant, forcing it to hermaphrodite (produce male flowers) so the resulting pollen is feminine. Using it to pollinate another plant will produce seeds that develop into female plants.

Propagation of a specific strain is done through clones, however. A grower will keep mother plants that never get flowered, take cuttings, root the cuttings, grow them out and do it all over again. That way he can produce the exact same plant forever if he wants without planting new seeds.

I would agree with you ;) Landrace sativas are no joke though and can be too racy for some people. Actually much of the "schwag" coming across the border from Mexico is grown in Columbia and is pure, outdoor, equatorial sativa. Even though the overall quality is poor, the quality of the high is not!

Actually we are still learning about cannabinoids and some haven't been identified yet. And there is a LARGE body of evidence supporting application in humans. Problem with the FDA is that they can't patent a plant, so they won't support marijuana research unless they can produce a synthetic version they can profit from. Which they have, it's called Marinol, and used for treating the side-effects of chemotherapy. It's not about health with them, it's about money.

Cannabis Sativa is the scientific name for the plant, but three psychoactive subvarieties are recognized: sativa, indica and ruderalis.

Ruderalis is not very potent so it's not used except for breeding because of its autoflowering traits.

I'm not sure what you mean about the "chemical mix" in an indica hybrid. A plant can vary from its parents, but probably because it's expressing recessive traits or the combination produces something unique not present in the parents.

Very nice--thanks! I speculate you would be a great neighbor. :)

[LibertyEagle]

I also think it's a bit two sided for people to condemn the FDA for allowing certain drugs but not allowing them theirs.

Give me a break. They refuse to lift a finger to keep the melamine out of the food and products from China and THEY KNOW that is extremely harmful to us. And it's not like we can just avoid everything from China (as if we even could, because the law is not enforced such that we can tell where our food is coming from), in that even if something says it is "made in America", we currently have no way of knowing how many of the ingredients came from China. So, the buyer beware thing really can't work it's magic.

But, they've got the pot and hemp thing down. :rolleyes:

[Charles Wilson]

Okay after researching a ton of "government" stuff. They are already aware of bunchies of potentially good things and plenty of bad about your pot. God, you can go thru pubmed for hours on cannabinoids. I'm pretty sure there's a single damn reason Hemp is illegal and it's so hard to get it and related chemicals....you. They know if they allow Hemp, you or someone smarter than you will be able to breed marijuana strains.

-I never wanna hear again how it's not Hemp (Cannabis Sativa) is often gen. 1 breeding stock. Many strains come straight from it alone. Since you can chemically change it's sex and smuggle a variety of plants in to breed with it, they know it's a potential problem. Single read through some information from weedworld.co.uk explains in detail how the drug comes out.

note: I've had many stoner tell me this wasn't the case. That's just perpetuating a lie... and no better than anyone else who does this. I'm sure some are innocent other people know plenty about it, considering heavy users have told me this over and over again. I'm sure you can see some irony in these tactics. Even the wiki page is bit inaccurate...and won't directly state this connection.

-Plenty of research is pretty blunt about mechanisms involved. I'm pretty sure one of the reason this arguments comes up so much is you want your pot fix, not anything else. You do not want a single other benefit from it.

-It has never cured cancer but it might suppress growth of certain tumors due to immune suppression. I'm pretty sure that study was even government funded since I ran into it on pubmed.

They know due to the mechanisms involved it can probably be highly addictive. I find it amazing that they tested it to repeatedly stimulate paths in common with Heroin, Amphetamines, and Cocaine, but rarely mention any possible implications of this. Seriously I can find a study that marks Amphetamines as addictive cuz of its meso limbic dopamine release but THC, na...?

Though it does last for ridiculously forever in comparison, little withdraw I suppose. Due to the way it works I bet the only way you could become addicted to it is if you put some effort into trying. Aka, smoking it very regularly. Denial is part of the problem, too, if you are a bit hooked on it I’d bet you’d probably be very aware. Knowing how the FDA and doctors are I'm sure they do not want the legal responsibly of dealing with this. Thus the only thing they were even willing to pass here was a Synth(it should be chem. same, fishy) THC at Schedule III for very limited uses. Why would they emphasize that probably so you don’t go out and try to abuse it…sad. After reading about that doesn't look like they put much effort into giving it too many fair tests on things it'd actually have a significant impact. Looking at your responses some have contributed alot to the problem as well. Response to that drug was poor... with limited sales.


So even other cannabinoid meds probably will not or will take forever to get accepted here. Hemp is will remain illegal as well. And you are either a tool or a user. Reading the pot growers descriptions of their strains you can smell a lot of BS too, I’m sure the majority of them did not go into war torn countries to find a magical shrub that can grown in most any climate.

The USA is not California or your drug kingdom. I’m sick of this, it’s not fair to anyone.

How in hell can one person be so misinformed in this day and age? Hemp was outlawed because of greed and ignorance. FYI: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/king-hemp-part-i-from-dea-deadly-birdseed-toward-power-to-the-people-by-rand-clifford/

[dannno]

How in hell can one person be so misinformed in this day and age? Hemp was outlawed because of greed and ignorance. FYI: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/king-hemp-part-i-from-dea-deadly-birdseed-toward-power-to-the-people-by-rand-clifford/

Has M House looked at the Shaefer Commission Report yet??


http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm



The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding

Commissioned by President Richard M. Nixon, March, 1972

Table of Contents
The Report

Letter of Transmittal

Introduction

I. Marihuana and the Problem of Marihuana

* Origins of the Marihuana Problem
o Visibility
o Perceived Threats
o Symbolism
* The Need for Perspective
o Historical Perspective
o Cultural Perspective
+ The Search for Meaning
+ Skepticism
+ The Limits of Rationality
* Formulating Marihuana Policy
o Scientific Oversimplification
o Philosophical Oversimplification
o Sociological Oversimplification
o Legal Oversimplification
* The Report

II. Marihuana Use and Its Effects

* The Marihuana User
* Demographic Characteristics
* Patterns of Use
* Profiles of Users
o Experimental Users
o Intermittent Users
o Moderate and Heavy Users
o Very Heavy Users
* Becoming a Marihuana User
o Parental Influence
o Situational Factors and Behavioral Correlates
o Social Group Factors
o The Dynamics of Persistent Use
* Becoming a Multidrug User
o Epidemiologic Studies
o Profiles and Dynamics
o Sociocultural Factors
* Effects of Marihuana on the User
o Botany and Chemistry
o Factors Influencing Drug Effect
+ Dosage
+ Method of Use
+ Metabolism
+ Set and Setting
+ Tolerance
+ Reverse Tolerance
+ Duration of Use
+ Patterns of Use
+ Definition of Dependence
* Effects Related to Pattern Use
* Immediate Drug Effects
o Subjective Effects
o Body Function
o Mental Function
o The Intoxicated State
o Unpleasant Reactions
o Anxiety States
o Psychosis
o Conclusions
* ShortTerm Effects
* Long Term Effects
* Very Long Term Effects
o Tolerance and Dependence
o General Body Function
o Social Functioning
o Mental Functioning
o Motivation and Behavioral Change
* Summary

III. Social Impact of Marihuana Use

* Marihuana and Public Safety
o Marihuana and Crime
+ The Issue of Cause and Effect
+ Marihuana and Violent Crime
+ Marihuana and Non Violent Crime
+ A Sociocultural Explanation
o Marihuana and Driving
* Marihuana, Public Health and Welfare
o A Public Health Approach
+ The Population at Risk
+ Confusion and Fact
* Assessment of Perceived Risks
o Lethality
o Potential for Genetic Damage
o Immediate Effects
o Effects of LongTerm, Heavy Use
o Addiction Potential
o Progression to Other Drugs
* Preventive Public Health Concerns
o Summary
* Marihuana and the Dominant Social Order
o The Adult Marihuana User
o The Young Marihuana User
* The World of Youth
* Why Society Feels Threatened
o Dropping Out
o Dropping Down
o Youth and Radical Politics
o Youth and the Work Ethic
* The Changing Social Scene

IV. Social Response to Marihuana Use

* The Initial Social Response
* The Change
* The Current Response
o The Criminal Justice System
+ Law Enforcement Behavior
+ Law Enforcement Opinion
o The Non Legal Institutions
+ The Family
+ The Schools
+ The Churches
+ The Medical Community
+ Summary
* The Public Response

V. Marihuana and Social Policy

* Drugs in a Free Society
o Drugs and Social Responsibility
* A Social Control Policy for Marihuana
o Approval of Use
o Elimination of Use
o Discouragement or Neutrality
* Implementing the Discouragement Policy
o The Role of Law in Effective Social Control
o Total Prohibition
o Regulation
o Partial Prohibition
o Recommendations for Federal Law
http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncrec1_12.htm
o Recommendations for State Law
http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncrec1_13.htm
o Discussion of Federal Recommendations
o Discussion of State Recommendations
o Discussion of Potential Objections
* A Final Comment

Addendum

Ancillary Recommendations

Legal and Law Enforcement Recommendations

Medical Recommendations

Other Recommendations

Index of Contributors, Contractors and Consultants
The Appendix

The Technical Papers of the First Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, March, 1972

Letter of Transmittal

Members and Staff

Preface
Part One -- Biological Aspects
I. History of Marihuana Use: Medical and Intoxicant

* History 0f the Medical Use
* The 19th Century
* Medical Uses in the 20th Century
* History of the Intoxicant Use

II. Biological Effects of Marihuana

* Botanical and Chemical Considerations
* Factors Influencing Psychopharmacological Effect
o Dose-Response Relationship
o Dose-Time Relationship
o Route of Administration
o Quantification of Dose Delivered
o Effect of Pyrolysis on the Cannabinoids
o Set and Setting
o Tolerance
o Reverse Tolerance
o Metabolism
o Pattern of Use
o Amount of Drug Consumed
o Duration of Use
o Interaction With Other Drugs
* Acute Effects of Marihuana (Delta 9 THC)
o Subjective Effects
o Lethality
o Physiological Effects
o Effects on Mentation and Psychomotor Performance
o The Intoxicated Mental State
o Unpleasant Reactions - Too Stoned and Novice Anxiety
o Acute Psychoses
o Persistent Effects After Acute Dose
o Effects of Marijuana on Concomitant Behavior
* Effects of Short-Term or Subacute Use
o Animal Studies
o Human Experiments
* Effects of Long-Term Cannabis Use
o Dependence And Tolerance
o Physiological Effects
o Genetics and Birth Defects
o Organic Brain Damage
o Psychosis
o Amotivational Syndrome
o Recurrent Phenomenon
* Investigations of Very Heavy, Very Long-Term Cannabis Users
o Greece
o Jamaica
o Afghanistan
o Summary
o References

III. Behavioral and Biological Concomitants of Chronic Marihuana Smoking by Heavy and Casual Users
Part Two -- Social Aspects
I. Marihuana Use in American Society

* Surveys of Marihuana Use
* The Incidence and Prevalence of Marihuana Use
* The Future of Marihuana
* Why People Use Marihuana
* Becoming a Marihuana User
* Circumstances of First Marihuana Use
* The Marihuana User
* The Patterns of Marihuana Use
* Marihuana Use and the User: 1972

II. Marihuana and the Use of Other Drugs

* Empirical Data on the Escalation Process
* Youth Drug Use Survey
* Summary

III. Marihuana and Public Safety

* Problems in Assessing the Effects of Marihuana
* Marihuana and Violence
o The Violent and Criminogenic Effects of Marijuana
o Marihuana and Violent Crime - The Evidence
o Opinions About Marihuana and Aggressiveness
* Marihuana and Sexual Behavior
* Marihuana and (Non-Violent) Crime
o Public and Professional Opinion
o Studies of Offender Populations
o The Relationship Between Marihuana and Crime
o Excerpts from Marijuana Use and Crime - Preface
o The Effects of Marijuana
o Crimes Under the Influence
o Who Commits Crime and Who Doesn't?
o Marijuana Use and Crime - Causal or Spurious
o Summary and Conclusions
* Summary and Conclusions: Marihuana and Crime
* Marihuana and Driving
o The Current State of Knowledge
o Statistical Studies
o Experimental Studies
o References

Part Three -- Legal Aspects
I. Control of Marihuana, Alcohol and Tobacco

* History of Marihuana Legislation
o State Prohibition - 1914-1930
o The Uniform Narcotic Drug Act
o Drafting the Uniform Act
o Enacting the Uniform Act By the States
o Enactment of the Marihuana Tax Act
o Tightening The Law
o 1960-1970 New Legislative Approach
o References
* History of Alcohol Prohibition
o 1650 - 1750: The First Hundred Years
o 1750-1825: Temperance Stirrings
o 1825-1870: The Pledge
o 1870-1913: Toward A National Conscience
o 1913-1933: National Prohibition - Prologue and Finish
o Prohibition in Perspective
o References
* History of Tobacco Regulation
o Regulation of Production
o Regulation for Revenue
o Tobacco Revenues
o Regulation of Consumption
o State Regulation
o The Impetus for Federal Regulation
o The Health Warning Requirement
o The Fairness Doctrine
o The Ban on Advertising
o Consumption Trends
o Tobacco: Economics and Politics
o Conclusion
o References

II. The Legal Status of Marihuana

* International Control
* The Control of Marihuana Under Federal Law
* Control of Marihuana at the State Level
* The Role of Ancillary Offenses and Constructive Possession in Controlling Marihuana
* Marihuana Control at the Local Level
* Analysis of Statutes Requiring Physicians to Report Drug Addiction

III. Trafficking Patterns of Marihuana and Hashish

* Marihuana Traffic From Mexico
* Marihuana Traffic From Jamaica
* The Growing Hashish Traffic

Part Four -- Response of the Criminal Justice System to Marihuana Use
Introduction
I. Enforcement Behavior at the State Level
Enforcement Behavior at the Federal Level

* General Trends
* Federal Enforcement of the Marihuana Laws: 1970

III. Opinion Within the Criminal Justice System

* Prosecutorial Opinion
* Opinion of Court Officials

Part Five -- National Survey
I. A Nationwide Study of Beliefs, Information and Experiences

* Main Report
* Methods and Procedures

Part Six -- Social Policy Aspects
I. The Constitutional Dimensions of Marihuana Control

* Substantive Limitations on the Criminal Law
* Federal Preemption of Marihuana Control

II. Models and Statutory Schemes for Controlling Marihuana

* Law and Social Policy
* Legal Implementations of Marihuana Control Policies
* Formulating a Legal Scheme
* Implementation of Alcohol Prohibition

Marihuana and Education

* Drug Programs in American Education
* State Departments of Education Survey
* Commission Visits
* Drug Education Programs of Special Interest
* Marihuana Education in State Programs
* Surveys of College Drug Courses
* The Federal Government and Drug Education

Research Needs and Directions

* Biomedical
* Psychosocial
* Legal and Law Enforcement



Nixon proceeds to completely ignore his own commissioned report findings and makes the substance a Schedule I substance with no medicinal value.

[Bruno]

In the words of the DEA's top law judge, after reviewing cannabis for 2 years:

"Marijuana is one of the safest substances known to man, safer than sugar"

[Working Poor]

M House-

What is the real reason you are afraid for pot to be legal?

It's been around for 5000 years it's been illegal for less than a century. If the world did not come a part at the seams when it was legal what makes you think it would be such a bad thing now for it to be legal.

How do we know that pot is not something that is actually a holy substance and that evil is holding it hostage because it knows something about pot that the rest of us may not know or remember. Perhaps something has been removed from our own history books to keep us from knowing the truth.

[pinkmandy]

What gives one adult the right to tell another adult what he/she can put in his/her own body? Really? Isn't that what it all basically comes down to? The "right" to tell another adult that he/she cannot smoke a weed- which affects no one else? In a free society it doesn't matter if you like it or not, disagree with it or not! If Joe getting high doesn't affect the rights of other people then it's nobody's freaking business.

FFS PEANUTS are a bigger health threat than pot. They actually do kill people. So do shrimp. Do we need a war on nuts and seafood? :D

[dannno]

Do we need a war on nuts and seafood?

That sounds like a really bad porno starring Condomleeza Rice and Dick Chainy :eek:

[Working Poor]

//

[M House]

The Shaefer Commission Report's alot to go thru I started reading a bit of it today. I haven't really read anything that seems very inaccurate, if you got a specific claim or statement it makes and you want me to look at it in some detail go ahead and point it out. Much of the stuff is pretty outdated I bet. Especially the biological effects and stuff.

[M House]

O yeah to other couple responses, um I said I think it has many good qualities and felt it should be legal. I feel alot of the reason it's not is you. It's reasonably safe but yeah you guys act like you can see no bad. Hemp is illegal cuz you can creatively breed it into what you need. It's probably much harder to breed some strains into it but whatever do you really think they care when they know you'll spend so much effort to get around it. That link explains little and all one need to do is take a trip to a growers website to read a bit how the process works. It's just more partial truth propaganda, stop.

[Bruno]

O yeah to other couple responses, um I said I think it has many good qualities and felt it should be legal. I feel alot of the reason it's not is you. It's reasonably safe but yeah you guys act like you can see no bad. Hemp is illegal cuz you can creatively breed it into what you need. It's probably much harder to breed some strains into it but whatever do you really think they care when they know you'll spend so much effort to get around it. That link explains little and all one need to do is take a trip to a growers website to read a bit how the process works. It's just more partial truth propaganda, stop.

You really have no idea what you are a talking about.

Unfettered wild Iowa hemp, remnants of patriotic farmers growing for the war effort in 1942 . Law enforcement ignores it because it is benign, and no one has tried to breed it into different strains in 68 years.

http://i34.tinypic.com/112gc53.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/b9c3du.jpg

[M House]

And um so? Some here have poor reading comp. I just said many strains probably are really hard to breed into it. I'm interested in whoever's checked out that Shaeffer report and wants perhaps a better look at some of the points it brings up.

[Bruno]

And um so? Some here have poor reading comp. I just said many strains probably are really hard to breed into it. I'm interested in whoever's checked out that Shaeffer report and wants perhaps a better look at some of the points it brings up.

Pot calling the kettle black. Poor grammer and syntax calling out poor reading comp. :rolleyes:


O yeah to other couple responses, um I said I think it has many good qualities and felt it should be legal. I feel alot of the reason it's not is you. It's reasonably safe but yeah you guys act like you can see no bad. Hemp is illegal cuz you can creatively breed it into what you need. It's probably much harder to breed some strains into it but whatever do you really think they care when they know you'll spend so much effort to get around it. That link explains little and all one need to do is take a trip to a growers website to read a bit how the process works. It's just more partial truth propaganda, stop.

64 years and no one has bothered to do so. Where's the "so much effort" you speak of?

besides, farmer who would be allowed to grow hemp would not want to destroy their livelyhood by crossing it with other strains. That type of activity would be very easy to detect and measure. The characteristic differences between hemp and cannabis sativa/indica are night and day.

The reality is that hemp grows all over Iowa and other states, since it was used successfully to supply hemp for the war effort when the Japanese cut off the Manilla Hemp trade route.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne9UF-pFhJY

The fact that it does so well on its own, without pesticides or herbicides, and that the youth of today aren't out there trying to cross it with high-THC strains (why bother?) proves that it could once again be a valuable crop. There are tens of thousands of plants growing along side major highways, interstates, and country roads. I've seen it growing in front of police stations, hospitals, suburban shopping malls, and schools. People just either ignore it or have no idea what it is.

[M House]

I'm not gonna get in a pissing match about grammar on the internet.
In addition, I'm not sure how accurate all that information is and well doesn't sound like people don't try at all.

Looks pretty detailed I'll give a report when I read thru this link
http://www.budlife420.com/pg3/v2e6index.html

In fact I read in another location DEA is very specific in what to look for to eliminate in wild hemp(marijuana). If anyone has more information on this it would be cool to know for sure.

[M House]

From http://www.budlife420.com/pg3/v2e6index.html

"I safely rolled down into the bottom or the creek. Jimmy just kept driving with his suspicious California license plates in these remote Iowa farm lands. Once I was safely in the river bottom and out of sight, I stood up to survey all our free marijuana. In awe, I was standing in a hemp forest with thousands of 6 to 8 foot tall plants. Then I started plucking the tops off this free Iowa Hemp. Free Iowa weed was true and I knew that my year in history class would pay off. Standing in a forest of hemp, I was amazed that all of this free weed was real."

"Outside the car I sprayed Hartz Mountain Dog Off on the outside of the 8 bags. We then re-bagged our free marijuana, with the dog off bags on the inside. These bags we placed into our empty luggage, and out of sight. Then we re-loaded the luggage bags into the VW bug and drove off for the Kansas City, Airport. This was a few hours drive, but we knew that we had scored some valuable green treasure. We bragged to each other about all our plans and how they had worked out. We tried to estimate how much dry weed we would have and how much summer vacation money we would end up with. All the Iowa free marijuana stories I had heard about from my brother were true. Thus far our free marijuana trip had been a success."

-I could use a quick translation... since they haven't posted part 3 yet.

[Bruno]

I'm not gonna get in a pissing match about grammar on the internet.
In addition, I'm not sure how accurate all that information is and well doesn't sound like people don't try at all.

Looks pretty detailed I'll give a report when I read thru this link
http://www.budlife420.com/pg3/v2e6index.html

In fact I read in another location DEA is very specific in what to look for to eliminate in wild hemp(marijuana). If anyone has more information on this it would be cool to know for sure.

I read the article. That's hilarious. Reminds me of when me and my buddies dried plants years ago. We smoked joints the size of cigars and didn't even get dizzy.

First, the story talks about guys selling hemp as-is, not trying to cross it with other strains as you mentioned above.

The whole story is partly believeable, but I doubt it seriously happened.

Wild hemp does not grow in large enough patches to be "baled". No farmer would bail hemp. I am very familiar with that area, and the hemp that grows there. As with other parts of Iowa, it only really grows along fence rows, creeksides, and an occasional patch or two. Not any areas really large enough for baling, and there would be no prudent reason to do so anyway (unless you live in Canada.)

If they really took a flight with hundreds of pounds of wet hemp, I fear for our security. Even though not high-grade, it is very pugnant and anyone would know somethings was in those bags if they smelled it.

The fact that they dried it in their ovens is also suspect, because that is a poor way to dry bud. But I'll give them that for stupidity. Wild hemp also is 90% seed in the bud, there is hardly any plant matter. Look back at the pictures in my post, those are near-maturity and not very dense at all. I find it hard to believe that in the heart of San Fran anyone would fall for such a low-grade, highly-seeded, poorly dried bud. I have held this stuff wet and dry in my hands, and if you are anything but a first-time user, you would not buy fall for the stuff. Additionally, anyone smoking that "free bud" would not have gotten high. Believe me, me and many people I know tried it as teens. Its harmless.

The money they supposedly made on the plant further improves that argument that the sellers would not have gotten ripped off were it not for the black market. If these folks had prescriptions like so many others in CA, they could have purchased quality bud.

These guys should make sure to not show their faces on those streets they peddled that hemp on. I'm sure they didn't make too many friends that day selling hemp bud as cannabis.

[M House]

I'm getting alittle fucking tired of being attacked and don't find it funny at all more like extremely sad. Since they clipped the top parts of the plants, and the plants are often hermaphroditic, I'm sure they knew a bit about what they were doing. I'm sure there is more to this and I look forward to reading more about it in Part 3.

[pcosmar]

I'm getting alittle fucking tired of being attacked and don't find it funny at all more like extremely sad. Since they clipped the top parts of the plants, and the plants are often hermaphroditic, I'm sure they knew a bit about what they were doing. I'm sure there is more to this and I look forward to reading more about it in Part 3.
Then quit talking out your ass.
You very obviously don't have any idea what you are talking about.
This is apparent to anyone that actually 'Has a clue". :rolleyes:

[Bruno]

I'm getting alittle fucking tired of being attacked and don't find it funny at all more like extremely sad. Since they clipped the top parts of the plants, and the plants are often hermaphroditic, I'm sure they knew a bit about what they were doing. I'm sure there is more to this and I look forward to reading more about it in Part 3.

Who's attacking you? Sorry if you felt attacked, that was not my intent. I was just contradicting their story and finding flaws in it, as well as their intent to rip people off. They didn't know what the hell they were doing except ripping people off.

I know what I'm talking about, and these plants are not "highly hermaphroditic." I have inspected hemp plants personally, and those pictures above were taken by me. Its an interest of mine. Hermaphroditic only means that the plant has female and male traits and can pollinate itself. It has nothing to do with THC levels. And by their own admission, they just drove along until the found a patch. It wasn't like they had tested that area before, or were sure they stuff would get you high when they smoked it. The picture above with the house in fact shows female plants in green, with paler, yellowish dying males at the right side of the picture. No hemaphradites.

I have never met a single person who felt they got high on Iowa hemp. I live here in Iowa, grew up here, and have talked to many people who have said, "yeah, I tried that when I was a teen, too. We tried to dry the stuff and smoke it, and it didn't do a thing"

[M House]

This is what I understand you're welcome to correct it.

After looking it up the top part is what some even consider the Marijuana itself. The sexual elements are here and since those contain the higher cannabinoids levels people seek it also sense. The plants are hermaphroditic or sexually differentiated. In farming they take a great deal of to "weed" out plants with a variety of characteristics that lead to a strong female sex path and higher THC.

Wild there's no control makes sense as well....

Anyway the plants genetically either
2N monoecious(combined male female plant with flowers) these are typically the "ind. hemp" strains
2N dioecious(separate male and female plants)

Now it gets weird you can chemically alter its sexual development,
Agriculture research already looked into this.
Seems you can chemically create Tetraploids (4N) and a Triploid(3N) as well. Who knows what all that could possibly mean jeez.

[dannno]

The Shaefer Commission Report's alot to go thru I started reading a bit of it today. I haven't really read anything that seems very inaccurate, if you got a specific claim or statement it makes and you want me to look at it in some detail go ahead and point it out. Much of the stuff is pretty outdated I bet. Especially the biological effects and stuff.

The main point is in bold. It is that the commission recommended decriminalization, and Nixon ignored it. So when you ask "Why is hemp/marijuana illegal?" that is the answer. The President appointed a commission to study it, they recommended decriminalization, and Nixon ignored it and made it illegal anyway because he hates hippies and Jews (see Nixon tapes re: marijuana).

[Kotin]

house seriously.. your stubborn ignorance gives me a headache.

[M House]

I didn't find anything in the report, that blatantly states that all....? They look at a couple potential positives and negatives. Much like as was trying to do. I would've kinda hoped you could have maybe pointed me to a statement or something to tackle. It's fair to say Nixon's reaction doesn't make much sense...but I'm not sure the report's purpose was to tell him to just go ahead and legalize it.

"We ask the reader to set his preconceptions aside as we have tried to do, and discriminate with us between marihuana, the drug, and marihuana, the problem. We hope that our conclusions will be acceptable to the entire public, but barring that, we hope at the least that the areas of disagreement and their implications will be brought into sharper focus."

[dannno]

I'm getting alittle fucking tired of being attacked and don't find it funny at all more like extremely sad. Since they clipped the top parts of the plants, and the plants are often hermaphroditic, I'm sure they knew a bit about what they were doing. I'm sure there is more to this and I look forward to reading more about it in Part 3.

I imagine part 3 went something like this:

"We each rolled a fatty blunt and smoked it to our domes. Nothing happened, so we smoked a bowl from my parents stash that they hide in their bedroom, got pretty stoned, and listened to Pink Floyd the rest of the night."


You're right about the "tops", that is the valuable part, but it's really the female "flower" that is the valuable part. The flowers are not always just at the top but grows along the stock. The flower at the top of the stock is generally the most potent.

[dannno]

High quality

On plant:

http://www.londonseedcentre.co.uk/acatalog/Violator_Kush.jpg

http://www.vancouverseedbank.ca/catalog/images/Grapefruit%20Kush.JPG


Drying:

http://www.stonerforums.com/lounge/attachments/hash-buds/643d1177821436-master-kush-100_1224.jpg

(most leaves are trimmed prior to drying)


Done:


http://www.reschedulecannabis.com/bubba-kush.jpg

http://images.google.com/url?q=http://mehemp.tv/cms/images/stories/gallery/bubba-kush-og-kush01.jpg&usg=AFQjCNHdROZSIKDXw6Z8FP7qWVr_JUpyng

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z209/str510/GrandDaddyPurplexHinduKush.jpg

[Bruno]

This is what I understand you're welcome to correct it.

After looking it up the top part is what some even consider the Marijuana itself. The sexual elements are here and since those contain the higher cannabinoids levels people seek it also sense. The plants are hermaphroditic or sexually differentiated. In farming they take a great deal of to "weed" out plants with a variety of characteristics that lead to a strong female sex path and higher THC.

Wild there's no control makes sense as well....

Anyway the plants genetically either
2N monoecious(combined male female plant with flowers) these are typically the "ind. hemp" strains
2N dioecious(separate male and female plants)

Now it gets weird you can chemically alter its sexual development,
Agriculture research already looked into this.
Seems you can chemically create Tetraploids (4N) and a Triploid(3N) as well. Who knows what all that could possibly mean jeez.

First, any bud on the plant is smokeable on a cannabis sativa/indica, not just the top part. The "sexual parts" are all over the plant, from the smallest twigs at the bottom to the more desireable dense bud at the top (mostly for shape and density, not for THC content persay) And of course only females bud, males only have pollen sacks and are not used for smoking purposing. The top part of the plant may or may not have slightly higher amounts of THC, but the THC levels are determined by genetics, not the area of the plant on which the buds are found.

Wild hemp in the U.S. has less than 1% THC, not smokeable to produce a high.

Additionally, as mentioned in my previous post, the picture clearly shows female plants (dark green) with dying paler male plants. Here's another below. Look at the pale male plant on the right. This disputes the fact that hemp has both sex organs as your research found.

Hermaphrodites are a great lucky genetic find for cannabis growers, because all the resulting seeds are female, not a 50/50 mix like usual. That is the only real benefit.

http://i38.tinypic.com/vhuhio.jpg

[Bruno]

Bless you, danno :)

[Bruno]

Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record.
Francis L. Young, DEA’s own Administrative Law Judge, 1988

[Kotin]

Bless you, danno :)

+1

[LibertyEagle]

I'm thinkin' Bruno knows his stuff. :)

[M House]

After reading thru a bit of the Shaffer report, I'm kinda wondering why bother. From the report itself...

"Generally, these very heavy users consume high amounts of very potent preparations continually throughout the day so that they are rarely drug-free. These individuals evidence strong psychological dependence on the drug, requiring compulsive drug-taking. Clear-cut behavioral changes occur in these extreme cases. The very heavy User tends to lose interest in all activities other than drug use. A common element of the behavioral pattern is lethargy and social deterioration."

Yeah and I had the balls to say smoking alot of it's probably not so great.

"For those who continue use, psychosocial factors are important determinants of the use patterns. Many marihuana users are strongly committed to traditional society in which they desire to rise socially. They have chosen to participate fully in the traditional adult-oriented activities and the formal achievement-reward system. Their peer groups consist primarily of similarly oriented individuals. The infrequent use of marihuana by these persons is a social activity for fun and satisfies curiosity."

"Those individuals who continue to use marihuana more frequently appear to be different types of people and oriented toward a different part of the social system. Most of them maintain stable career orientations and continue to function within the broader society. But they feel more burdened by the traditional system of social controls and more removed from contemporary society's institutions. These individuals tend to turn away from more traditional adult-oriented reward systems and intensify their peer-group orientation. Their interests and activities emphasize an informal "in-crowd," out-of-school or work orientation. The meaning of marihuana use by this peer group emphasizes the ideological character of usage. In contrast to the infrequent type of user, these individuals seem to build their self-identity around the marihuana-using peer group."

Wonder why the kinda obnoxious attitudes people who support it so strongly don't seem to help in getting anyone to listen?

It's just a general screw over the way I see it, I'll probably just post a bit more but what am I supposed to say?

1. Marijuana users just want it their way and can't counter or use the material at their finger tips.
2. Most of the behavior and attitude around reinforces it's illegality.
3. What's the point of presenting material that can't be supported or countered. Or attempts to make people look stupid and vindictive.

You could probably tackle the arguments but whatever. It's not really worth it.

[Bruno]

"Generally, these very heavy users consume high amounts of very potent preparations continually throughout the day so that they are rarely drug-free. These individuals evidence strong psychological dependence on the drug, requiring compulsive drug-taking. Clear-cut behavioral changes occur in these extreme cases. The very heavy User tends to lose interest in all activities other than drug use. A common element of the behavioral pattern is lethargy and social deterioration."

Sounds like you just described television. lol

But what about the other points I raised about hemp, THC levels, hemaphrodization, etc? I did refute that argument with pictures.

[dannno]

After reading thru a bit of the Shaffer report, I'm kinda wondering why bother.


The main point is in bold. It is that the commission recommended decriminalization, and Nixon ignored it. So when you ask "Why is hemp/marijuana illegal?" that is the answer. The President appointed a commission to study it, they recommended decriminalization, and Nixon ignored it and made it illegal anyway because he hates hippies and Jews (see Nixon tapes re: marijuana).

:)

[M House]

U were sorta rightish without painting the entire picture. I could criticize it but who cares. Whatever you said is 100 percent correct by default. Not gonna bother to either looking at the sheer amount of information that's been known since the 70's.

[M House]

"I -- marihuana and the problem of marihuana

Formulating Marihuana Policy

Present symbolism, past implications, and future apprehensions all combine to give marihuana many meanings. These diverse notions of what marihuana means constitute the marihuana problem. In this atmosphere, the policy-maker's position is precarious insofar as no assumption is beyond dispute. Accordingly, the Commission has taken particular care to define the process by which a social policy decision should be reached.

In studying the arguments of past and present observers to justify a particular kind of marihuana policy, we conclude that a major impediment to rational decision-making in this area is oversimplification. As suggested earlier, many ingredients are included in the marihuana mix-medical, legal, social, philosophical, and moral. Many observers have tended to isolate one element, highlight it and then extrapolate social policy from that one premise. In an area where law, science and morality are so intertwined, we must beware of the tendency toward such selectivity."

[Bruno]

"I -- marihuana and the problem of marihuana

Formulating Marihuana Policy

Present symbolism, past implications, and future apprehensions all combine to give marihuana many meanings. These diverse notions of what marihuana means constitute the marihuana problem. In this atmosphere, the policy-maker's position is precarious insofar as no assumption is beyond dispute. Accordingly, the Commission has taken particular care to define the process by which a social policy decision should be reached.

In studying the arguments of past and present observers to justify a particular kind of marihuana policy, we conclude that a major impediment to rational decision-making in this area is oversimplification. As suggested earlier, many ingredients are included in the marihuana mix-medical, legal, social, philosophical, and moral. Many observers have tended to isolate one element, highlight it and then extrapolate social policy from that one premise. In an area where law, science and morality are so intertwined, we must beware of the tendency toward such selectivity."

I think you've actually heard dozens of elements in this thread, rather than one. There are countless reasons why it should be decriminalized, and no arguable reasons it should not.

Here's the Iowa Hemp report from 2004.

http://www.hempreport.com/2004/07/wild-marijuana.html

The THC level in ditchweed it really low, too. I have a copy of a lab analysis of 50 ditchweed plants and the results show that the THC level is less than 0.1% and the CBD level is 2.6%. So, obviously ditchweed is feral (a. Existing in a wild or untamed state. b. Having returned to an untamed state from domestication).

[M House]

Grabbing for straws it's about decriminalization now, not how you're unfairly representing the argument? The commission was as far as I can tell a good example of a balanced debate on an issue. The fact you're now grabbing at the decriminalization is sad.

I was completely baffled about the claim made that recommended action was legality then I got it. Once again one sided argument. Here's what the entire concluding page says....

"Chapter V

marihuana and social policy

A Final Comment

In this Chapter, we have carefully considered the spectrum of social and legal policy alternatives. On the basis of our findings, discussed in previous Chapters, we have concluded that society should seek to discourage use, while concentrating its attention on the prevention and treatment of heavy and very heavy use. The Commission feels that the criminalization of possession of marihuana for personal is socially self-defeating as a means of achieving this objective. We have attempted to balance individual freedom on one hand and the obligation of the state to consider the wider social good on the other. We believe our recommended scheme will permit society to exercise its control and influence in ways most useful and efficient, meanwhile reserving to the individual American his sense of privacy, his sense of individuality, and, within the context of ail interacting and interdependent society, his options to select his own life style, values, goals and opportunities.

The Commission sincerely hopes that the tone of cautious restraint sounded in this Report will be perpetuated in the debate which will follow it. For those who feel we have not proceeded far enough, we are reminded of Thomas Jefferson's advice to George Washington that "Delay is preferable to error." For those who argue we have gone too far, we note Roscoe Pound's statement, "The law must be stable, but it must not stand still."

We have carefully analyzed the interrelationship between marihuana the drug, marihuana use as a behavior, and marihuana as a social problem. Recognizing the extensive degree of misinformation about marihuana as a drug, we have tried to demythologize it. Viewing the use of marihuana in its wider social context, we have tried to desymbolize it.

Considering the range of social concerns in contemporary America, marihuana does not, in our considered judgment, rank very high. We would deemphasize marihuana as a problem.

The existing social and legal policy is out of proportion to the individual and social harm engendered by the use of the drug. To replace it, we have attempted to design a suitable social policy, which we believe is fair, cautious and attuned to the social realities of our time."

In fact they suggested many potential alternative laws in it some you'd like some you wouldn't. I suggest reading those. Maybe you could debate the issue better.

[Bruno]

Grabbing for straws it's about decriminalization now, not how you're unfairly representing the argument? The commission was as far as I can tell a good example of a balanced debate on an issue. The fact you're now grabbing at the decriminalization is sad.

I was completely baffled about the claim made that recommended action was legality then I got it. Once again one sided argument. Here's what the entire concluding page says....

"Chapter V

marihuana and social policy

A Final Comment

In this Chapter, we have carefully considered the spectrum of social and legal policy alternatives. On the basis of our findings, discussed in previous Chapters, we have concluded that society should seek to discourage use, while concentrating its attention on the prevention and treatment of heavy and very heavy use. The Commission feels that the criminalization of possession of marihuana for personal is socially self-defeating as a means of achieving this objective. We have attempted to balance individual freedom on one hand and the obligation of the state to consider the wider social good on the other. We believe our recommended scheme will permit society to exercise its control and influence in ways most useful and efficient, meanwhile reserving to the individual American his sense of privacy, his sense of individuality, and, within the context of ail interacting and interdependent society, his options to select his own life style, values, goals and opportunities.

The Commission sincerely hopes that the tone of cautious restraint sounded in this Report will be perpetuated in the debate which will follow it. For those who feel we have not proceeded far enough, we are reminded of Thomas Jefferson's advice to George Washington that "Delay is preferable to error." For those who argue we have gone too far, we note Roscoe Pound's statement, "The law must be stable, but it must not stand still."

We have carefully analyzed the interrelationship between marihuana the drug, marihuana use as a behavior, and marihuana as a social problem. Recognizing the extensive degree of misinformation about marihuana as a drug, we have tried to demythologize it. Viewing the use of marihuana in its wider social context, we have tried to desymbolize it.

Considering the range of social concerns in contemporary America, marihuana does not, in our considered judgment, rank very high. We would deemphasize marihuana as a problem.

The existing social and legal policy is out of proportion to the individual and social harm engendered by the use of the drug. To replace it, we have attempted to design a suitable social policy, which we believe is fair, cautious and attuned to the social realities of our time."

In fact they suggested many potential alternative laws in it some you'd like some you wouldn't. I suggest reading those. Maybe you could debate the issue better.

I'm not even sure what you are asking for now. Every time I countered or corrected information above, you just changed the subject and referred to a different aspect of the report.

In regards to my comment above, I mistook the bold statement from the report as coming from you, not the report, and was stating that you have received countless reasons why it should not be illegal.

The DEA law judge who studied it for years came up with a simpler conclusion:
Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record.
Francis L. Young, DEA’s own Administrative Law Judge, 1988

(double-post)

Now, how was I "unfairly representing the argument"? :confused: Please help, I don't know what you're referring to.

Edit - nevermind. I just read your original post and none of that made much sense either.

[hillertexas]

House:

You don't find it telling that you cannot find one person to agree with you here?

In all honesty, I can't figure you out...or your intentions.

What EXACTLY are you asking? Try asking it in one sentence (for us ignoramuses who can't figure out what the hell you are talking about...i mean, it can't be you. It must be us, who brains have been melted by the demon weed.) Step away from the thesaurus and articulate yourself in a way that us simple folk can understand.

And I agree with Bruno, you are not making sense. Literally. I also will associate myself with Kotin's remark. Your ignorance is very stubborn. Why? The "pro-legalization" people are understandably emotional about the subject. Where is your emotion coming from? Are you really interested in being "enlightened" on the subject?

So, what do you want to know? You started this thread and then appear upset that we all disagree with you (I think...depends on what you are asking...and what your intentions are).

Psssst...It just might be that you are the problem. Is that a possibility?

And again, I suggest using the "search" function on the forum as there is an abundance of information. Also try the "Health Freedom" subforum. Did you ever think that maybe some of us are sick of re-explaining ourselves? I know that is why I haven't contributed much, if anything, to this thread.

[Wendi]

Chemotherapy drugs are far more dangerous than pot, should we ban them from being used even by people who need them for medical purposes?

Opiate pain medications have the potential to be addictive, should we ban them from being used even by people who suffer greatly from severe pain that could be medically treated with these drugs?

[Kotin]

the bottom line, House, is that none of this should have ever been in the Government's hands.

they have no right to tell me what it is I decide to put in my body.

and you cannot repudiate that with any study or complicated words.

[dannno]

M House, you are digging too deep with the Schaefer Commission Report..

I wasn't saying that the Schaefer Commission was the Ultimate truth, I was just saying that they were a commission authorized by the government to study marijuana and they came back with the recommendation to allow individuals to have marijuana in their own household. Nixon went against this and banned the drug from even being able to be used as a medicine because he hates Jews and hippies. You keep saying there is a good reason why it's illegal, and I keep telling you that the reason it is illegal is because Nixon hates Jews and hippies. That is why it is illegal. Not because it is addictive or bad for you.


V. Marihuana and Social Policy

* Drugs in a Free Society
o Drugs and Social Responsibility
* A Social Control Policy for Marihuana
o Approval of Use
o Elimination of Use
o Discouragement or Neutrality
* Implementing the Discouragement Policy
o The Role of Law in Effective Social Control
o Total Prohibition
o Regulation
o Partial Prohibition
o Recommendations for Federal Law
http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncrec1_12.htm
o Recommendations for State Law
http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncrec1_13.htm
o Discussion of Federal Recommendations
o Discussion of State Recommendations
o Discussion of Potential Objections
* A Final Comment

[Charles Wilson]

M House you are overly concerned about the harmful/criminal aspect resulting from the use of "the weed". If a small percentage of your concern about marijuana use was accurate we would be living in a drug crazed society. FYI: http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr4/5Supply.html.

[M House]

I am crazy concerned about losing the actual "benefits" of it cuz of this garbage.

And no, no more I'm tired of this. If all you did was say, yes, I understand there's risk/benefit and present it as a valid drug; I don't know maybe you'd have it. Presenting it as a hip cool high is actually one of the concerns in the report. And why would you show me it and then tell me to disregard and not read it?

It says possession should be decriminalized. It also says you shouldn't drive on it($1000 fine) and growing, imp, exp should remain a felony. This isn't too different from some of today's laws. Hemp growers aren't gonna be happy and I'm sure if you used your brain you could come up with something better. This all or none though gets no where fast.

edited:
Alright since no one agrees with me, and I figured out the problem. I was wrong. So to make it up to you...

-Hemp can never be marijuana it's like impossible
-They are only distantly like 3rd tri cousins or something
-Farmers of Hemp like growing exclusively 2N Monoecious plants and eliminating certain plants cuz they are special and while it's time consuming it can be fun.
-Hemp fiber is good for your lungs ask Ukrainian hemp farmers
-Seriously it can cure cancer
-The more frequently you smoke the better it is, why wouldn't it be?
-Encourage kids to smoke as early and frequently as possible, it's good for them, cures ADD, helps improve brain development, memory, and coordination
-Smoke frequently when pregnant, seriously you need it at all stages of development

I know there are more benefits around but why should I mention them, those are like part of the mysterious endocannabinoid system and I would be conceited to claim to know anything about that?

[William2012]

Cannabis is good for many things.
Medicine, Clothes, Fuel, Food, Paper, Plastic, list goes on and on.

Most of all its fun as hell.

[dannno]

Ahh man, I think M House needs a bong toke :eek::cool:

[M House]

Ah naw I was crazy for not thinking Nixon and anti jewish character made him ban marijuana. Stupid bastard. I'm actually alot more content now I understand the truth. Though, I think I might need the hit now to put it all together.

[Danke]

Ah naw I was crazy for not thinking Nixon and anti jewish character made him ban marijuana. Stupid bastard. I'm actually alot more content now I understand the truth. Though, I think I might need the hit now to put it all together.

M House, I mean Milhouse, shut up!!!

http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/wallpapers/Milhouse_1024.gif

[M House]

Huh? Most of that stuff didn't come from a book? Anyway I edited the truth for acceptance and win. Still don't like it? Personally I think Nixon's watching me right now. Sick Bastard.

[Roxi]

TBH pot is so avaliable, cheap, and high-quality right now that I'm not sure if I would even want them to legalize it. Why mess with a good thing?

http://forums.cannabisculture.com/forums/uploads/1369550-kalimist.jpg

That's the strand I'm currently enjoying, called Kali Mist. Mmmm....it tastes soooo good.

i wish you could fed ex me some of that ;)

[Kotin]

Huh? Most of that stuff didn't come from a book? Anyway I edited the truth for acceptance and win. Still don't like it? Personally I think Nixon's watching me right now. Sick Bastard.

did you get raped by a hemp plant or something?


do you need to talk about it?

[M House]

Nope don't like reading someone's Shaffer Drug Report and then have then having them act, like I was supposed to read a sentence and have them then dictate the truth to me. But like I said I wasn't getting the picture and my attitude changed. So I smoked a bowl and realized Nixon had lied to me. He's dead and didn't write the report but since he hates jews it makes alot of sense actually.

[M House]

O yeah cute plant why would anyone wanna legalize and mess up a good thing like that? Wouldn't want to have actual cannabis meds and some workable ind. hemp would we?

[dannno]

Nope don't like reading someone's Shaffer Drug Report and then have then having them act, like I was supposed to read a sentence and have them then dictate the truth to me. But like I said I wasn't getting the picture and my attitude changed. So I smoked a bowl and realized Nixon had lied to me. He's dead and didn't write the report but since he hates jews it makes alot of sense actually.

I never said the Schaeffer Commission wanted the laws the way that I want them, but that doesn't mean that you can go around saying that the laws they recommended are so similar to what they are today..


POSSESSION IN PRIVATE OF MARIHUANA FOR PERSONAL USE WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE.

DISTRIBUTION IN PRIVATE OF SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIHUANA FOR NO REMUNERATION OR INSIGNIFICANT REMUNERATION NOT INVOLVING A PROFIT WOULD NO LONGER BE AN OFFENSE.

That is a complete attitude shift as far as personal privacy goes. This would make the majority of cannabis users non-criminals. Currently they are ALL seen as criminals. And yes, it is because Nixon hated Jews and hippies. It's all on the Nixon tapes.

[M House]

It would keep marijuana growing, imp, export, as a felony. There's legal restrictions on how much you can have. Looking at the responses above does it matter? It's really just about showing whoever you can screw over whoever you want for a fix. That's government bullshit tactics. It clearly states it wants to discourage recreational and heavy individual use. The way I see it that argument against legalization has been fed to death on this thread. And ironically when you brought up the legit medical aspect you had strongest argument.

[dannno]

Nat Geo is doing a hit piece on this stuff RIGHT NOW!! ATTN!!

[M House]

I wouldn't know anything about that it mentions endocannabinoids, anti-inflammatory response, CB1s and THC Delta 9. It's government probably and it's a lie. O well I don't know anything about those systems so where's that guy who can translate?

[Kotin]

I wouldn't know anything about that it mentions endocannabinoids, anti-inflammatory response, CB1s and THC Delta 9. It's government probably and it's a lie. O well I don't know anything about those systems so where's that guy who can translate?
:rolleyes:

[William2012]

Theres something wrong when people are afraid of a flowering plant.

ALL FEAR THE FLOWERING PLANT:eek:

[M House]

Was the 1st part better cuz the second half totally sucked. National geo has a good article here though http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080624-marijuana_2.html .

[dannno]

You are right. They didn't mention a thing about the cannabinoid receptors or get into any of the good medicinal aspects. It was a hit piece designed to be entertaining enough for cannabis smokers and offensive enough to most drug war proponents.

I wish they would have spent more time on the researcher from Israel, they only covered one of his patients.

[M House]

Fuels both sides of the argument while giving substance to none, you check out the link? If they actually did something on that it would be excellent.

[M House]

O yeah did they even mention his fucking name, I would've loved to actually looked him up instead of hearing about that stupid high dude.

[dannno]

I'm all for drugs derived from cannabis that don't get you 'high'. Just don't ban the friggin plant, because that not only stifles the process, but there are all sorts of medicinal benefits from the parts that do.

[dannno]

O yeah did they even mention his fucking name, I would've loved to actually looked him up instead of hearing about that stupid high dude.

Emery is a genius. A genius on a hit piece by Nat Geo. What did you expect?

[M House]

If I remember correctly you were even against that Sativex they were trying to get here. Totally agree with you about Cannabis Sativa. But remember one of the arguments against legalization was the promotion of heavy and recreational use. Looking at the National Geo video about how differently would you feel if you were say arguing for legalization in Israel vs. the legalization in the US? Though maybe that is a bit of a jew conspiracy, they do seem to get alot of good research for free aka weapons. Anyway alot of it's in the presentation, if you can't fight an old stupid argument against it.

[Andrew Ryan]

Sorry, but u is stoopid.

[M House]

Sorry, but u is stoopid.

Guess I am,
Danno anyway you could think of to address that IBD/Ulcerative Colitus, Crohn's disease [all are somewhat related inflammation of the intestinal tract], after reading about it in like an oral(capsule, liquid) cannabinoid mix? I gotta couple ideas maybe something could be put together on that.

[dannno]

I have no problem with any drugs derived from cannabis, but there is no excuse to make the plant itself illegal.

I think it would be great if people who had Crohn's disease had available a cannabis based medicine that didn't get them 'high', but call me skeptical, don't take away their ability to use the plant on it's own.

Western medicine is so entranced in isolating compounds to use for specific purposes (driven by a certain state of mind as well as $$), that they don't consider that there may be a reason for the complexity in the original substance. It needs to be available in natural form.

[M House]

Actually wasn't really getting at that do you know a way to break down some cannabis plants into a oral liquid or capsule?

[Bruno]

Actually wasn't really getting at that do you know a way to break down some cannabis plants into a oral liquid or capsule?

5 second internets search

http://www.420magazine.com/forums/420-kitchen/47071-thc-pills.html

http://forum.grasscity.com/seasoned-tokers/265466-thc-pills.html

http://forum.grasscity.com/real-life-stories/151917-how-i-make-thc-pills.html

http://www.marijuana.com/medicinal-marijuana/98863-thc-pills-how-do-you-feel-about-them.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_do_THC_pills_stay_in_your_system

http://www.mountainbiofuel.com/freshlybaked/recipes/viewrecipe.cfm?Recipe=THC+PILLS

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/475910

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080303155632AAx2e0n

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/mmjcsdp.cfm

[M House]

Anybody got any experience comparing the various options? Sativex the new prescription as far as I can tell it's just a measured mix of refined plant compounds THC/CBD and oils in a solution of ethanol, propylene glycol, and peppermint oil. Not even shitting you it's that simple. In this form it seems readily absorbed.

[M House]

http://www.mountainbiofuel.com/freshlybaked/recipes/viewrecipe.cfm?Recipe=THC+PILLS.... without trying it this looks promising. Taking even some hemp would do for a good bit of CBD maybe. You could also blend a more benign mix of nat. Hemp to Marijuana strain too.

[constituent]

Okay after researching a ton of "government" stuff. They are already aware of bunchies of potentially good things and plenty of bad about your pot. God, you can go thru pubmed for hours on cannabinoids. I'm pretty sure there's a single damn reason Hemp is illegal and it's so hard to get it and related chemicals....you. They know if they allow Hemp, you or someone smarter than you will be able to breed marijuana strains.

-I never wanna hear again how it's not Hemp (Cannabis Sativa) is often gen. 1 breeding stock. Many strains come straight from it alone. Since you can chemically change it's sex and smuggle a variety of plants in to breed with it, they know it's a potential problem. Single read through some information from weedworld.co.uk explains in detail how the drug comes out.

note: I've had many stoner tell me this wasn't the case. That's just perpetuating a lie... and no better than anyone else who does this. I'm sure some are innocent other people know plenty about it, considering heavy users have told me this over and over again. I'm sure you can see some irony in these tactics. Even the wiki page is bit inaccurate...and won't directly state this connection.

-Plenty of research is pretty blunt about mechanisms involved. I'm pretty sure one of the reason this arguments comes up so much is you want your pot fix, not anything else. You do not want a single other benefit from it.

-It has never cured cancer but it might suppress growth of certain tumors due to immune suppression. I'm pretty sure that study was even government funded since I ran into it on pubmed.

They know due to the mechanisms involved it can probably be highly addictive. I find it amazing that they tested it to repeatedly stimulate paths in common with Heroin, Amphetamines, and Cocaine, but rarely mention any possible implications of this. Seriously I can find a study that marks Amphetamines as addictive cuz of its meso limbic dopamine release but THC, na...?

Though it does last for ridiculously forever in comparison, little withdraw I suppose. Due to the way it works I bet the only way you could become addicted to it is if you put some effort into trying. Aka, smoking it very regularly. Denial is part of the problem, too, if you are a bit hooked on it I’d bet you’d probably be very aware. Knowing how the FDA and doctors are I'm sure they do not want the legal responsibly of dealing with this. Thus the only thing they were even willing to pass here was a Synth(it should be chem. same, fishy) THC at Schedule III for very limited uses. Why would they emphasize that probably so you don’t go out and try to abuse it…sad. After reading about that doesn't look like they put much effort into giving it too many fair tests on things it'd actually have a significant impact. Looking at your responses some have contributed alot to the problem as well. Response to that drug was poor... with limited sales.


So even other cannabinoid meds probably will not or will take forever to get accepted here. Hemp is will remain illegal as well. And you are either a tool or a user. Reading the pot growers descriptions of their strains you can smell a lot of BS too, I’m sure the majority of them did not go into war torn countries to find a magical shrub that can grown in most any climate.

The USA is not California or your drug kingdom. I’m sick of this, it’s not fair to anyone.




lay off the f*n crack.

[Moffaka]

If I can't grow (http://napasechnik.com) it myself, then it's not "legal" yet.
If no one knows about it, then this can not be illegal;)

[Danke]

If no one knows about it, then this can not be illegal;)

Hmmm...