“I've been growing both Shishke & Sweetooth for a while and would choose 'Sweetooth' over Shishke after
having both of them for over a year. The Sweetooth is a large yielder (50 grams a sq./ft). Sweetooth makes
large contiguous colas even on short plants. The visual of the cured bud is great. The Shishke is a heavy
yielder; I haven't quite decided if the Sweetooth can out yield the Shishke in perfect temperature conditions.
Shishke and Sweetooth are both blue berry hybrids and I notice a lot of similarities in the veg growth of the two
plants, but the Sweetooth has a sweet scent (no ozone required), and can take more stress (it gets hot where I
live). Shishke smells kinda musky, doesn't like heat. If heat stressed it will herm, clones from the same mom
in a different garden have no herms ... otherwise, very easy plant to grow and the high is strong & up. The
high from the Sweetooth is just like the SOL ad "keeps us giddy & high all day". Both plants have fairly "up"
buzz, the Shishke has a hashy taste, and the Sweetooth is sweet & berry.” - ShivaCannabicaweedstrain
tingent event. What society selects as crucial to
perceive about drugs, and what it ignores, tells us a great deal about its cultural fabric.
The scientist makes a distinction between those questions that can be answered
empirically and those wholly in the realm of sentiment. The question of whether
marijuana causes crime is answerable, but the question of whether marijuana is evil or not
is intrinsically unanswerable, within an empirical and scientific framework. It depends
completely on one's perspective. However clear-cut this distinction is in the scientist's
mind, as a tool for understanding the disputants' positions in this controversy, it is
specious and misleading for a variety of reasons.
(3 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3
The strands of value and fact intersect with one another so luxuriantly that in numerous
reasoning sequences they are inseparable. What one society or group or individual takes
for granted as self-evidently harmful, others view as obviously beneficial, even necessary.
In crucial ways, the issue of harm or danger to society as a result of the drug pivots on
moot points, totally unanswerable questions, questions that science is unable to answer
without the resolution of certain basic issues. And for many crucially debated marijuana
questions, this modest requirement cannot be met. In other words, before we raise the
question of whether marijuana has a desirable or a noxious effect, we must first establish
the desirability or the noxiousness to whom. We must concern ourselves with the
differential evaluations of the same objective consequences. Many of the drug's
effects—agreed-upon by friend and foe alike—will be regarded as reprehensible by some
individuals, desirable or neutral by others. Often antimarijuana forces will argue against
the use of the drug, employing reasons which its supporters will also employ—in favor of
its use. We have not a disagreement in what the effects are, but whether they are good or
bad. This is probably the most transparently ideological of all of the platforms of debate
about marijuana. Three illustrations of this orbit of disputation suffice.
Were marijuana use more prevalent than it is today, there would come the billowing of
a distinct aesthetic. The state of marijuana intoxication seems to be associated with, and
even to touch off, a unique and peculiar vision of the world. That the marijuana-induced
vision is distinctive seems to be beyond dispute;5] that it is rewarding or fatuous is a
matter for endless disputation. Inexplicably, the drug seems to engender a mental state
which is coming into vogue in today's art forms.
An extraordinarily high proportion of
today's young and avant-garde artists—filmmakers, poets, painters, musicians, novelists,
photographers, mixed-media specialists—use the drug and are influenced by the
marijuana high. Some of the results seem to be the increasing irrelevance of realism; the
loss of itingent event. What society selects as crucial to
perceive about drugs, and what it ignores, tells us a great deal about its cultural fabric.
The scientist makes a distinction between those questions that can be answered
empirically and those wholly in the realm of sentiment. The question of whether
marijuana causes crime is answerable, but the question of whether marijuana is evil or not
is intrinsically unanswerable, within an empirical and scientific framework. It depends
completely on one's perspective. However clear-cut this distinction is in the scientist's
mind, as a tool for understanding the disputants' positions in this controversy, it is
specious and misleading for a variety of reasons.
(3 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3
The strands of value and fact intersect with one another so luxuriantly that in numerous
reasoning sequences they are inseparable.
Canyoubuytrippystickonline What one society or group or individual takes
for granted as self-evidently harmful, others view as obviously beneficial, even necessary.
In crucial ways, the issue of harm or danger to society as a result of the drug pivots on
moot points, totally unanswerable questions, questions that science is unable to answer
without the resolution of certain basic issues. And for many crucially debated marijuana
questions, this modest requirement cannot be met. In other words, before we raise the
question of whether marijuana has a desirable or a noxious effect, we must first establish
the desirability or the noxiousness to whom. We must concern ourselves with the
differential evaluations of the same objective consequences. Many of the drug's
effects—agreed-upon by friend and foe alike—will be regarded as reprehensible by some
individuals, desirable or neutral by others. Often antimarijuana forces will argue against
the use of the drug, employing reasons which its supporters will also employ—in favor of
its use. We have not a disagreement in what the effects are, but whether they are good or
bad.
This is probably the most transparently ideological of all of the platforms of debate
about marijuana. Three illustrations of this orbit of disputation suffice.
Were marijuana use more prevalent than it is today, there would come the billowing of
a distinct aesthetic. The state of marijuana intoxication seems to be associated with, and
even to touch off, a unique and peculiar vision of the world. That the marijuana-induced
vision is distinctive seems to be beyond dispute;5] that it is rewarding or fatuous is a
matter for endless disputation. Inexplicably, the drug seems to engender a mental state
which is coming into vogue in today's art forms. An extraordinarily high proportion of
today's young and avant-garde artists—filmmakers, poets, painters, musicians, novelists,
photographers, mixed-media specialists—use the drug and are influenced by the
marijuana high. Some of the results seem to be the increasing irrelevance of realism; the
loss of itingent event. What society selects as crucial to
perceive about drugs, and what it ignores, tells us a great deal about its cultural fabric.
The scientist makes a distinction between those questions that can be answered
empirically and those wholly in the realm of sentiment. The question of whether
marijuana causes crime is answerable, but the question of whether marijuana is evil or not
is intrinsically unanswerable, within an empirical and scientific framework. It depends
completely on one's perspective. However clear-cut this distinction is in the scientist's
mind, as a tool for understanding the disputants' positions in this controversy, it is
specious and misleading for a variety of reasons.
(3 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3
The strands of value and fact intersect with one another so luxuriantly that in numerous
reasoning sequences they are inseparable. What one society or group or individual takes
for granted as self-evidently harmful, others view as obviously beneficial, even necessary.
In crucial ways, the issue of harm or danger to society as a result of the drug pivots on
moot points, totally unanswerable questions, questions that science is unable to answer
without the resolution of certain basic issues. And for many crucially debated marijuana
questions, this modest requirement cannot be met. In other words, before we raise the
question of whether marijuana has a desirable or a noxious effect, we must first establish
the desirability or the noxiousness to whom. We must concern ourselves with the
differential evaluations of the same objective consequences. Many of the drug's
effects—agreed-upon by friend and foe alike—will be regarded as reprehensible by some
individuals, desirable or neutral by others.
Often antimarijuana forces will argue against
the use of the drug, employing reasons which its supporters will also employ—in favor of
its use. We have not a disagreement in what the effects are, but whether they are good or
bad. This is probably the most transparently ideological of all of the platforms of debate
about marijuana. Three illustrations of this orbit of disputation suffice.
Were marijuana use more prevalent than it is today, there would come the billowing of
a distinct aesthetic. The state of marijuana intoxication seems to be associated with, and
even to touch off, a unique and peculiar vision of the world.
That the marijuana-induced
vision is distinctive seems to be beyond dispute;[5 that it is rewarding or fatuous is a
matter for endless disputation. Inexplicably, the drug seems to engender a mental state
which is coming into vogue in today's art forms. An extraordinarily high proportion of
today's young and avant-garde artists—filmmakers, poets, painters, musicians, novelists,
photographers, mixed-media specialists—use the drug and are influenced by the
marijuana high. Some of the results seem to be the increasing irrelevance of realism; the
loss of itingent event. What society selects as crucial to
perceive about drugs, and what it ignores, tells us a great deal about its cultural fabric.
The scientist makes a distinction between those questions that can be answered
empirically and those wholly in the realm of sentiment. The question of whether
marijuana causes crime is answerable, but the question of whether marijuana is evil or not
is intrinsically unanswerable, within an empirical and scientific framework. It depends
completely on one's perspective.
However clear-cut this distinction is in the scientist's
mind, as a tool for understanding the disputants' positions in this controversy, it is
specious and misleading for a variety of reasons.
(3 of 16)4/15/2004 1:03:47 AM
The Marijuana Smokers - Chapter 3
The strands of value and fact intersect with one another so luxuriantly that in numerous
reasoning sequences they are inseparable. What one society or group or individual takes
for granted as self-evidently harmful, others view as obviously beneficial, even necessary.
In crucial ways, the issue of harm or danger to society as a result of the drug pivots on
moot points, totally unanswerable questions, questions that science is unable to answer
without the resolution of certain basic issues.
And for many crucially debated marijuana
questions, this modest requirement cannot be met. In other words, before we raise the
question of whether marijuana has a desirable or a noxious effect, we must first establish
the desirability or the noxiousness to whom. We must concern ourselves with the
differential evaluations of the same objective consequences. Many of the drug's
effects—agreed-upon by friend and foe alike—will be regarded as reprehensible by some
individuals, desirable or neutral by others. Often antimarijuana forces will argue against
the use of the drug, employing reasons which its supporters will also employ—in favor of
its use. We have not a disagreement in what the effects are, but whether they are good or
bad. This is probably the most transparently ideological of all of the platforms of debate
about marijuana. Three illustrations of this orbit of disputation suffice.
Were marijuana use more prevalent than it is today, there would come the billowing of
a distinct aesthetic.
The state of marijuana intoxication seems to be associated with, and
even to touch off, a unique and peculiar vision of the world. That the marijuana-induced
vision is distinctive seems to be beyond dispute;5 that it is rewarding or fatuous is a
matter for endless disputation. Inexplicably, the drug seems to engender a mental state
which is coming into vogue in today's art forms. An extraordinarily high proportion of
today's young and avant-garde artists—filmmakers, poets, painters, musicians, novelists,
photographers, mixed-media specialists—use the drug and are influenced by the
marijuana high. Some of the results seem to be the increasing irrelevance of realism; the
loss
where to buy trippy stick of i
It is possible
that its main active constituent t,l-THC could become a viable drug, but it is
most likely that the marketable products will come from the synthetic analogs,
where the undesirable side effects and physical characteristics of t,l-THC have
been modified or eliminated