ok i have weed thats in like a fine powder, any good suffestions of how i can use it.. i'd rather smoke it but i dont know if its possible since its pretty much a powder
Powder weed??
- Thread starter ivegotquestions
- Start date
dillute in petroleum ether or butane (no flame). filter to petrie dish. allow complete evaporation. scrape tar onto zig-zag papers. fold the papers. place papers in a mailing envelope and send to me. I'll post the results. Thank god we live in a country that respects the privacy of its citizens.
"After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned into a bat."
- Pharmacologist Dr James Munch, expert witness of Harry J Anslinger
"After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned into a bat."
- Pharmacologist Dr James Munch, expert witness of Harry J Anslinger
Re: RE: Powder weed??
RESPONSE: Mark Emory is an advocate for protecting basic rights in Canada. He first gained notoriety for defending freedom of the press. He is the publisher of Cannabis Culture, a 'counter-culture' magazine often critical of the power elite in Canada. He is an advocate for the end of prohibition of cannabis and seeks the end of prosecution (and persecution) of marihuana users. He is a financial contributer to the Marihuana Party, a recognized political party. Up until his arrest he also ran a seed catalogue business. He paid full taxes on this business and the Canadian government knew full well that he distributed cannabis seeds by mail. Health Canada has actually directed 'medical marijuana' users to his web site as a source of seeds to meet their medical needs.
Based on three charge sheets filed by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) - The U.S. lead agency in its War against Drugs, Irwin Cuttler (Federal Minister of Justice under the Liberals), allowed for the issue of an Arrest Warrant for Emory and two of his associates. Emory's Warrant was executed by the RCMP under the watchful eye of DEA agents, as he attended a speaking engagement in Nova Scotia. He was later released on a huge bail and now must face a financially crippling extradition trial.
This prosecution is clearly politically motivated. Marc, Michelle and Greg are political activists who spread a message that the US federal government disagrees with. That is why they are being singled out for extradition.
Sending them to face draconian US punishment is unjust. Canadian sentences would likely be minor, likely probation if a Peace Officer even decided to make an arrest. In the US they would face 10 years to life, with the DEA speculating that 20 years would be likely. That should shock the conscience of all Canadians.
This type of US directed prosecution should be seen as an affront to Canadian independence. A Canadian citizen charged for activities inside of Canada by a foreign government. What's next? pepperspraying orderly protesters?
These fascist bastards who rule us depend on the ignorance / compacency of Canadians to maintain their power.
get the lowdown at cannibisculture.com
cortez said:
RESPONSE: Mark Emory is an advocate for protecting basic rights in Canada. He first gained notoriety for defending freedom of the press. He is the publisher of Cannabis Culture, a 'counter-culture' magazine often critical of the power elite in Canada. He is an advocate for the end of prohibition of cannabis and seeks the end of prosecution (and persecution) of marihuana users. He is a financial contributer to the Marihuana Party, a recognized political party. Up until his arrest he also ran a seed catalogue business. He paid full taxes on this business and the Canadian government knew full well that he distributed cannabis seeds by mail. Health Canada has actually directed 'medical marijuana' users to his web site as a source of seeds to meet their medical needs.
Based on three charge sheets filed by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) - The U.S. lead agency in its War against Drugs, Irwin Cuttler (Federal Minister of Justice under the Liberals), allowed for the issue of an Arrest Warrant for Emory and two of his associates. Emory's Warrant was executed by the RCMP under the watchful eye of DEA agents, as he attended a speaking engagement in Nova Scotia. He was later released on a huge bail and now must face a financially crippling extradition trial.
This prosecution is clearly politically motivated. Marc, Michelle and Greg are political activists who spread a message that the US federal government disagrees with. That is why they are being singled out for extradition.
Sending them to face draconian US punishment is unjust. Canadian sentences would likely be minor, likely probation if a Peace Officer even decided to make an arrest. In the US they would face 10 years to life, with the DEA speculating that 20 years would be likely. That should shock the conscience of all Canadians.
This type of US directed prosecution should be seen as an affront to Canadian independence. A Canadian citizen charged for activities inside of Canada by a foreign government. What's next? pepperspraying orderly protesters?
These fascist bastards who rule us depend on the ignorance / compacency of Canadians to maintain their power.
get the lowdown at cannibisculture.com
wow- sometimes i feel as if im living in a liberal hypocrisy rather tha liberal democrasy
i think the pepper spray thing has already happened
thanks for the info
calling these people bastards is insulting to bastards
fascist sounds about right
ill check that site out, thanks
i think the pepper spray thing has already happened
thanks for the info
calling these people bastards is insulting to bastards
fascist sounds about right
ill check that site out, thanks
Re: RE: Powder weed??
Welcome to Bat Country ... Unlike Ashley, I say smoke em if ya got em!
PoisonPete2 said:
Welcome to Bat Country ... Unlike Ashley, I say smoke em if ya got em!
since you folk are interested in the history of prohibition of marjuana I suggest you read up on the reasons why the US implemented is ban originally that includes both protection of the cotton plantations and an excuse to arrest and deport mexicans without trial. American politics is fascinating and frightening.
Sounds like Angel Dust.... Kiss the left wing of the cathedral good bye!
Canadian Culture? Sure, it's called; "North Slope Thunder F**K"!
Only in Canada, Eh??
Canadian Culture? Sure, it's called; "North Slope Thunder F**K"!
Only in Canada, Eh??
I saw a show on Marc Emory on either 60 Minutes or Dateline. I really hope someone tells the US to stick their archaic marijuana laws somewhere and leave these people alone.
No Retreat On Cannabis
The Guardian (London, England), March 22, 2005
Guardian Leader
If ever a government had an early warning of one front it needs to defend in this election campaign, it is Labour's downgrading of cannabis. On the eve of ministers reclassifying cannabis from category B to the less harmful category C about 14 months ago, the ever-opportunistic Michael Howard declared a Conservative government would reverse it. He condemned the government's drugs strategy as "absurd", which serious policy-makers thought "shameless". Now, 14 months on, ministers are behaving "absurdly", not by referring new evidence about the drug to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but with their failure to set out the robust reasons behind their decision last year.
Charles Clarke, the home secretary, asked the advisory council to say whether it would change their mind as a result of "emerging evidence" of a link between cannabis consumption and deteriorating mental health.
It is unlikely that they will. The advisory council - along with the Royal College of Psychiatrists' working party and a Police Foundation's independent committee of inquiry - were all aware of the risks that cannabis posed to people vulnerable to mental illness when they made their recommendations to reclassify.
But certainly the two studies specifically mentioned by Mr Clarke should be referred to the council. The New Zealand study, according to Mr Clarke, "considered how regular cannabis use increased the risk of developing psychotic symptoms later in life".
The conclusion of the Dutch study, published in the British Medical Journal three months ago, repeats findings of earlier research that "cannabis use moderately increases the risks of psychotic symptoms in young people but has a much stronger effect in those with evidence of predisposition for psychosis".
Much fuss has been aired in the red-top papers about these two studies, but with few quotes from the researchers.
Yet the professor who led the New Zealand project told the New Zealand Herald: "These are not huge increases in risk and nor should they be, because cannabis is by no means the only thing that will determine if you suffer these symptoms."
Professor Jim van Os, one of the authors of the Dutch study, was even more robust. He told the Guardian that the fact that cannabis could trigger psychosis in a small minority of people was a good reason to legalise it, not ban it.
This would allow governments to promote advice and information and control more dangerous forms like skunk.
Packets could carry how much THC, the most dangerous compound, the drug contained, along with how much CBD, the compound believed to provide beneficial effects.
Dame Ruth Runciman, who chaired the influential Police Foundation study, rightly reminded ministers that even with its downgrading, cannabis still carried one of the the highest penalties compared with the rest of Europe: up to two years in prison for possession and 14 years for trafficking. She went on: "A law which is credible to young people is more valuable to education than a law palpably at odds with their experience."
What was missing from the minister's response was a public reminder of why the drug was reclassified.
It followed expert advice from professionals - medics, pharmacologists, police officers - not red-top papers. It freed a wide swathe of police officers to pursue serious drug barons, rather than trivial offenders. No wonder polls show 60% believe the drug should be decriminalised.
If ministers needed to add a political message, they could have asked Mr Howard why he wanted to wage war on 50% of young people, ensure tens of thousands of them be given criminal records and some prison sentences, for an activity that more than 2 million of them engage in quite safely during the year.
http://www.csdp.org/news/news/guard_cannabis_032205.htm
The Guardian (London, England), March 22, 2005
Guardian Leader
If ever a government had an early warning of one front it needs to defend in this election campaign, it is Labour's downgrading of cannabis. On the eve of ministers reclassifying cannabis from category B to the less harmful category C about 14 months ago, the ever-opportunistic Michael Howard declared a Conservative government would reverse it. He condemned the government's drugs strategy as "absurd", which serious policy-makers thought "shameless". Now, 14 months on, ministers are behaving "absurdly", not by referring new evidence about the drug to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but with their failure to set out the robust reasons behind their decision last year.
Charles Clarke, the home secretary, asked the advisory council to say whether it would change their mind as a result of "emerging evidence" of a link between cannabis consumption and deteriorating mental health.
It is unlikely that they will. The advisory council - along with the Royal College of Psychiatrists' working party and a Police Foundation's independent committee of inquiry - were all aware of the risks that cannabis posed to people vulnerable to mental illness when they made their recommendations to reclassify.
But certainly the two studies specifically mentioned by Mr Clarke should be referred to the council. The New Zealand study, according to Mr Clarke, "considered how regular cannabis use increased the risk of developing psychotic symptoms later in life".
The conclusion of the Dutch study, published in the British Medical Journal three months ago, repeats findings of earlier research that "cannabis use moderately increases the risks of psychotic symptoms in young people but has a much stronger effect in those with evidence of predisposition for psychosis".
Much fuss has been aired in the red-top papers about these two studies, but with few quotes from the researchers.
Yet the professor who led the New Zealand project told the New Zealand Herald: "These are not huge increases in risk and nor should they be, because cannabis is by no means the only thing that will determine if you suffer these symptoms."
Professor Jim van Os, one of the authors of the Dutch study, was even more robust. He told the Guardian that the fact that cannabis could trigger psychosis in a small minority of people was a good reason to legalise it, not ban it.
This would allow governments to promote advice and information and control more dangerous forms like skunk.
Packets could carry how much THC, the most dangerous compound, the drug contained, along with how much CBD, the compound believed to provide beneficial effects.
Dame Ruth Runciman, who chaired the influential Police Foundation study, rightly reminded ministers that even with its downgrading, cannabis still carried one of the the highest penalties compared with the rest of Europe: up to two years in prison for possession and 14 years for trafficking. She went on: "A law which is credible to young people is more valuable to education than a law palpably at odds with their experience."
What was missing from the minister's response was a public reminder of why the drug was reclassified.
It followed expert advice from professionals - medics, pharmacologists, police officers - not red-top papers. It freed a wide swathe of police officers to pursue serious drug barons, rather than trivial offenders. No wonder polls show 60% believe the drug should be decriminalised.
If ministers needed to add a political message, they could have asked Mr Howard why he wanted to wage war on 50% of young people, ensure tens of thousands of them be given criminal records and some prison sentences, for an activity that more than 2 million of them engage in quite safely during the year.
http://www.csdp.org/news/news/guard_cannabis_032205.htm
If you wonder why most Towns, Cities, or Villages etc. don't have adequate policing it's because of the "War On Drugs" policy consumes most of the Policing Budget. It's true, and year after year the Police ask for more money to expand the War on Drugs. I would rather those funds were put to better use on my war "The War on Crimes' against the Individuals". The war on drugs is not working, it's time to change course and re-think this policy.
