# This is how the US Government grows weed....and lots of it...



## auxioluck (May 20, 2009)

Government runs nation's only legal pot garden - CNN.com

Jesus, that's a lot of weed. The potency analyses are what really get me. They have their shit down to a T. 

30 pounds a barrel???


----------



## Rick (May 20, 2009)

Holy shit.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 20, 2009)

Fuckers don't share, either.


----------



## Zepp88 (May 20, 2009)

....and what is the point in all this?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 20, 2009)

Thats the most neon green looking weed I have ever seen


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 20, 2009)

that's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've heard recently


----------



## Variant (May 20, 2009)

Meh... skunk ass... Government needs spend the money on creating the perfect whiskey.


----------



## sevenstringj (May 20, 2009)

Figures.


----------



## Carrion (May 20, 2009)

Only 10% THC? That is pretty shitty. Canadian bud is far superior


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 20, 2009)

marijuana is a terrible drug that is only safe in the hands of the US gov't so they can sell it to us "drug addict" degenerates for an exorbitant price, bust us for it and then rape us in fines, court fees, etc only to turn around and sell it again for an exorbitant price and keep the cycle going... 

that's probably why they won't legalize. they're already making $ off of it...

i'm sure they only grow it for "testing" and "medical facilities"... fuckers...

and if they've already agreed it's a medicine then quit being douches about it. i have friends that have gone to urgent care and lied about feeling a certain way and gotten any drug on the shelf... 

fuck this country. i'm going to the netherlands.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima (May 20, 2009)

fuckers, man. do as i say, not as i grow...


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 20, 2009)

Cyanide_Anima said:


> fuckers, man. do as i say, not as i grow...





and it's ok to give people all these anti depressants that literally turn them into emotionless zombies... or drugs that'll keep a 70 year old man's dick hard for 4 hours that runs a high risk of killing him... 

morality...?


----------



## Wi77iam (May 21, 2009)

shit, i ought to become a botanist


----------



## RenegadeDave (May 21, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> marijuana is a terrible drug that is only safe in the hands of the US gov't so they can sell it to us "drug addict" degenerates for an exorbitant price, bust us for it and then rape us in fines, court fees, etc only to turn around and sell it again for an exorbitant price and keep the cycle going...
> 
> that's probably why they won't legalize. they're already making $ off of it...
> 
> ...



It's been a while since I've seen a healthy conspiracy theory. This really isn't one, but it's close


----------



## playstopause (May 21, 2009)

Wi77iam said:


> shit, i ought to become a botanist


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 21, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> It's been a while since I've seen a healthy conspiracy theory. This really isn't one, but it's close







Wi77iam said:


> shit, i ought to become a botanist



i'm going to become a "private practice botanist" 

that's my story and i'm sticking to it!


----------



## guitarbuilder93 (May 23, 2009)




----------



## All_¥our_Bass (May 23, 2009)

I can has?


----------



## jymellis (May 23, 2009)

you guys ever heard of marinol?


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 23, 2009)

jymellis said:


> you guys ever heard of marinol?



is that that synthetic THC? i'm all about the real deal. i don't want anything synthetic engineered by Babylon.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 23, 2009)

I remember back in Chris' day this thread would be on fire by now...


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 23, 2009)




----------



## TimothyLeary (May 23, 2009)

geez, i wish i work there!! so tasty!! imagine how much those guys gain when they call some kids from the street to do a "research".


----------



## Konfyouzd (May 23, 2009)

you know... my sister texted me some number that if you call it and "cast a vote" it goes to someone on capital hill and if there are 1 million+ votes they'll legalize it. that sounds like grade A bullshit to me. i feel like calling that number could end up being a problem down the road.


----------



## Giamatti (May 23, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> you know... my sister texted me some number that if you call it and "cast a vote" it goes to someone on capital hill and if there are 1 million+ votes they'll legalize it. that sounds like grade A bullshit to me. i feel like calling that number could end up being a problem down the road.


 

Sounds like your standard chain mail crap, but maybe that's just me being cynical...


----------



## Holy Katana (May 23, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> I remember back in Chris' day this thread would be on fire by now...




Where is Chris?


----------



## playstopause (May 23, 2009)

^

Someone is late to the goodbye party.


----------



## El Caco (May 23, 2009)




----------



## Konfyouzd (May 23, 2009)

Giamatti said:


> Sounds like your standard chain mail crap, but maybe that's just me being cynical...



yea that too. but i feel like calling a number to get weed legalized when i can't verify who's on the other end is a very bad idea.


----------



## 777timesgod (May 25, 2009)

Well i dont think obama will legalize blunts because you send an sms to the goverment but what the hell go for it. It's not my country anyway so i don't care.


----------



## jymellis (May 25, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> is that that synthetic THC? i'm all about the real deal. i don't want anything synthetic engineered by Babylon.



nope, not synthetic.


----------



## MTech (May 25, 2009)

Carrion said:


> Only 10% THC? That is pretty shitty. Canadian bud is far superior




"The highest [THC level] that I've ever seen was in excess of 30 percent," ElSohly said.


----------



## Meldville (May 29, 2009)

Yep, that's my alma matter


----------



## G0DLESSENDEAVOR (Jun 5, 2009)

Now they should make a legal resort for DMT. That will cut down the costs for medical conditions in our nations psyche.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 5, 2009)

^ DMT? i don't think they need to be giving that shit to people.


----------



## G0DLESSENDEAVOR (Jun 5, 2009)

Research has shown it helps with addictions, depression, anxiety. All that crap people pay 40.00 medications for long periods of time. I'm paying for it when I could just get a trip of a lifetime and get on with life.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 5, 2009)

777timesgod said:


> Well i dont think obama will legalize blunts because you send an sms to the goverment but what the hell go for it. It's not my country anyway so i don't care.



they most certainly will not. and there's no way in hell i'm about to send a "Hi I'm a pothead!" SMS to the fuckin' federal gov't! 



G0DLESSENDEAVOR said:


> Research has shown it helps with addictions, depression, anxiety. All that crap people pay 40.00 medications for long periods of time. I'm paying for it when I could just get a trip of a lifetime and get on with life.



so what's the difference between that and LSD other than the fact that that shit is WAY more powerful? i've seen people freak out and what looks like hallucination from taking a gravity bong rip with me. i've seen people completely break down on LSD... giving DMT to just anybody seems like a really really really really really bad idea.



jymellis said:


> nope, not synthetic.



so it's just a straight up THC pill? do you have them?


----------



## G0DLESSENDEAVOR (Jun 6, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> giving DMT to just anybody seems like a really really really really really bad idea.


 
Not just for anybody, I'm thinking about people in mental institutes. Beyond medication and therapy. Come to think of it, it probably happened already for research on DMT.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Jun 6, 2009)

Right. Sure. "Research purposes." I bet it involves human testing. 

EDIT: Now I know why nothing gets done in Congress.


----------



## G0DLESSENDEAVOR (Jun 7, 2009)

:funnypost:


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 7, 2009)

TheHandOfStone said:


> Right. Sure. "Research purposes." I bet it involves human testing.
> 
> EDIT: Now I know why nothing gets done in Congress.



like i said... those selfish fuckers... 

and @ GODLESS: DMT is NOT a good solution to ANYTHING 
it's probably fun. i'd actually like to try it, but i don't think they should give it to people. that's one of those things i think people shoud discover on their own.


----------



## G0DLESSENDEAVOR (Jun 7, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> like i said... those selfish fuckers...
> 
> and @ GODLESS: DMT is NOT a good solution to ANYTHING
> it's probably fun. i'd actually like to try it, but i don't think they should give it to people. that's one of those things i think people shoud discover on their own.


 
Yeah, thats what I mean. A Center of DMT Research. Alex Grey will be the founder of it all. People check in for help at their own risk.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 7, 2009)

oh i'm there... i'm just upset i missed the LSD research back in the day... if only i were older...


----------



## jjjsssxxx (Jun 8, 2009)

"inexperienced or young marijuana users may be more prone to overdose"

what the fuck? has anybody _ever_ overdosed on weed?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 8, 2009)

^ no... but i've smoked a whole lot and fell asleep before.


----------



## alex103188 (Jun 9, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> like i said... those selfish fuckers...
> 
> and @ GODLESS: DMT is NOT a good solution to ANYTHING
> it's probably fun. i'd actually like to try it, but i don't think they should give it to people. that's one of those things i think people shoud discover on their own.




It's probably the coolest thing you'll ever experience.

Crazy thing is that you produce it in your pineal gland when you sleep!


----------



## Holy Katana (Jun 10, 2009)

alex103188 said:


> It's probably the coolest thing you'll ever experience.
> 
> Crazy thing is that you produce it in your pineal gland when you sleep!



I heard about that. That might explain my often utterly bizarre dreams.


----------



## G0DLESSENDEAVOR (Jun 10, 2009)

^Konfyouzd still thinks its a bad idea, its very natural, just like marijuana.

Check out Rick Strassmans' work on DMT.


----------



## HamBungler (Jun 12, 2009)

G0DLESSENDEAVOR said:


> ^Konfyouzd still thinks its a bad idea, its very natural, just like marijuana.
> 
> Check out Rick Strassmans' work on DMT.



Its quite a high dose at once, and you're not asleep either  I'm also in the camp that I'd like to try it some day.

Load universe into cannon, aim at brain, fire. That's quite a pill to swallow, good buddy.


----------



## metal_head666 (Jun 16, 2009)

Weed will never become legalized. Hell, now they're practically banning tobacco. Good bye snus. .


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 16, 2009)

G0DLESSENDEAVOR said:


> ^Konfyouzd still thinks its a bad idea, its very natural, just like marijuana.
> 
> Check out Rick Strassmans' work on DMT.



i'm all for psychedelics... but i've also seen what they do to people and i don't think it's a good thing to give the most powerful one out. i just don't. most people can't deal with that. i think weed is a little easier to manage. i've seen shroom, lsd, even motion sickness medicines literally break people down. i find it hard to believe DMT couldn't completely cripple some people. i think that one just needs to stay underground.


----------



## HamBungler (Jun 19, 2009)

metal_head666 said:


> Weed will never become legalized. Hell, now they're practically banning tobacco. Good bye snus. .



Because tobacco's actually, y'know, bad for you? Weed can be legalized simply for the fact that it has a lot more and safer uses than tobacco.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Jun 23, 2009)

Neal said:


> "inexperienced or young marijuana users may be more prone to overdose"
> 
> what the fuck? has anybody _ever_ overdosed on weed?


Depends if they classify throwing a whitey as overdosing or not


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 23, 2009)

what's throwing a whitey?


----------



## Leec (Jun 24, 2009)

It's when you smoke too much, turn pale as all the colour drains from your face, and start to feel heavily sick and out of order. I maintain that a whitey is just about the worst experience in the entire universe.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 25, 2009)

i'm not familiar with this...


----------



## HamBungler (Jun 26, 2009)

Leec said:


> It's when you smoke too much, turn pale as all the colour drains from your face, and start to feel heavily sick and out of order. I maintain that a whitey is just about the worst experience in the entire universe.



Its not that bad, usually you throw up, catch a breather and you're fine within 10 minutes or feel like passing out and waking up the next day fine, I've had this happen to a couple friends and if they're making a big deal out of something like that, they're just looking for excuses.


----------



## Joose (Jul 17, 2009)

I feel that all of us who smoke AND pay the taxes that fund this garden deserve free samples!


And on the current note: I threw a whitey a few months ago. It's not the worst thing in the world, but it definitely sucks ass. Especially when everyone else who smoked is just happier than a motherfucker! While you just sit there feeling like you're going to puke your small intestine right the fuck out.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Jul 18, 2009)

metal_head666 said:


> Hell, now they're practically banning tobacco.



One can only hope 

Vile substance.


----------



## groph (Jul 24, 2009)

Hahaha. They said that the weed is analyzed by a computer or something like that, a solution is added and the whole thing is gasified, something to that effect. I digress.

I just couldn't help but picture a room full of computers passing a blunt around.






Stay away, kids.


----------



## 777timesgod (Aug 4, 2009)

Cheesebuiscut said:


> One can only hope
> 
> Vile substance.





nothing good about smoking. makes you weak and causes trouble. there are better ways to be happy.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 4, 2009)

HamBungler said:


> Because tobacco's actually, y'know, bad for you? Weed can be legalized simply for the fact that it has a lot more and safer uses than tobacco.





Cheesebuiscut said:


> One can only hope
> 
> Vile substance.



It's good that banning substances because they were bad for people works out so well, and never leads to anything like dangerous black markets and organized crime surges...

If you don't want to smoke/chew/snort/inject/whatever, just don't do it. My health is not up to you, there are positive aspects to responsible tobacco use, and regulation just doesn't work.

Jeff


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Aug 4, 2009)

JBroll said:


> If you don't want to smoke/chew/snort/inject/whatever, just don't do it. My health is not up to you, there are positive aspects to responsible tobacco use, and regulation just doesn't work
> 
> Jeff


----------



## stuz719 (Aug 4, 2009)

JBroll said:


> It's good that banning substances because they were bad for people works out so well, and never leads to anything like dangerous black markets and organized crime surges...



Except, of course, if there were a free market then these would be legitimate markets and legitimate businesses... so you are blaming the government for forcing people to turn to criminal activity by seeking to control (and thus creating the idea of criminality), for example, the supply of carcinogens, explosives, bacterial weapons and radioactive material?



JBroll said:


> If you don't want to smoke/chew/snort/inject/whatever, just don't do it. My health is not up to you, there are positive aspects to responsible tobacco use, and regulation just doesn't work
> 
> Jeff



Positive aspects to "responsible" tobacco use? "Responsible" as in not burning it as a treatment for children with asthma? "Positive" in what way? As insulation? Fuel?


----------



## IDLE (Aug 4, 2009)

*"THUG LIFE!"*


----------



## JBroll (Aug 4, 2009)

stuz719 said:


> Except, of course, if there were a free market then these would be legitimate markets and legitimate businesses... so you are blaming the government for forcing people to turn to criminal activity by seeking to control (and thus creating the idea of criminality), for example, the supply of carcinogens, explosives, bacterial weapons and radioactive material?



This is a product in very high demand whose ban has only led to even greater profit for the suppliers. Also, unlike explosives (which are far easier to purchase), bacterial weapons (which are not as well-controlled as we'd hope, given how well some places lock up their bio labs), and radioactive material (which can be purchased), drugs don't have 'harming others' as one of their primary purposes.



stuz719 said:


> Positive aspects to "responsible" tobacco use? "Responsible" as in not burning it as a treatment for children with asthma? "Positive" in what way? As insulation? Fuel?



'Responsible' as in 'not letting it control your life', 'positive' as in 'helping to offset other problems (stress and right hand tremors - and the possible evidence that it helps against the onset of Parkinson's, which I'm at high risk for and may be showing symptoms of already, doesn't hurt) and improve mood or outlook'.

Jeff


----------



## sami (Aug 4, 2009)

Hey, why don't they sell their stash to help take down the National Debt? Oh wait, nevermind....


----------



## El Caco (Aug 4, 2009)

JBroll said:


> there are positive aspects to responsible tobacco use, and regulation just doesn't work.



WTF

What is wrong with Tobacco regulation? Do you think that it should be sold to minors? Do you think it is unfair to tax smokers to cover the cost to the government and economy caused by smoking? Or do you think that smokers should be allowed to smoke anywhere they wish, do you think non smokers should be forced to breathe smoke and smell ashtrays? Do you think that butt litter looks nice?

I was a smoker, I quit early this year but I did have some cigars last weekend, that was my first time smoking since I quit. I am able to empathise with both smokers and non smokers, I think tobacco regulation is a good thing and an example of drug regulation that works. There are improvements that could be made but it would be crazy to think that deregulation of tobacco would be better for society then the current regulation.

As for "positive aspects to responsible tobacco use", what are these positive aspects you speak of? I know it is believed 1 cigarette per day it can be medically beneficial but how many people do you know who are able to limit themselves to 1-2 smokes per day? Have you ever met anyone capable of smoking 1-2 cigarettes per day, no more no less. The closest thing to responsible tobacco use that exists is the person who occasionally smokes in celebration (usually cigars) but I can't think of any positive aspects.

EDIT:



JBroll said:


> 'Responsible' as in 'not letting it control your life', 'positive' as in 'helping to offset other problems (stress and right hand tremors - and the possible evidence that it helps against the onset of Parkinson's, which I'm at high risk for and may be showing symptoms of already, doesn't hurt) and improve mood or outlook'.



 There was a time when I justified smoking by saying it helped me deal with other medical conditions. This is addict speak, unfortunately the only way I think you would see it that way would be if you quit smoking.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 4, 2009)

I meant our current regulation on drugs, I should clarify the earlier post.

As for 'capable of smoking 1-2 a day' I'm squarely in that category. I don't find it easy to be addicted to anything, and nicotine is kept under control very easily.

Jeff


----------



## El Caco (Aug 4, 2009)

If you really only smoke 1-2 cigarettes per day, that is very impressive. I have a hard time believing that you do not smoke more then that regularly. Even those people (like myself) that are not easily addicted to anything, who manage to moderate their smoking for an extended period of time, even they usually smoke more then 2 smokes when smoking. 

If you do smoke only 1-2 smokes per day every day and never more or less then good for you, there are some questionable studies that suggest it may be beneficial for you. However keep in mind you do not represent the average person and as a statistical anomaly it would be irresponsible to use you as an example to base regulation on.

I still believe you are addicted. I have no doubt about the strength of your will, it is apparent in most your posts. That strength of will means you are better then average at managing addiction but your comments here sound like those of an addict and I don't believe for a second that you do not feel at least minor withdrawal systems and cravings if you go for a period without nicotine.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 5, 2009)

I go periods without anything potentially addictive just because I want to make sure I still have the willpower I want to have (with caffeine it's a different story, because I function *orders of magnitude* better after a few cups of coffee) but there have been a few occasions where I thought I might have a problem with it and just stopped. I didn't get any sorts of cravings for it (and as someone who went from about 1g of caffeine a day to a third of that, I know what cravings are) and can still go days or weeks without it. Under heavy stress (like today, where relationship troubles popped up and I've had three, or when I'm around a lot of people - which drives me into panic attack territory if I don't get my space and some time alone) it'll go up, but at the same time I go without smoking easily. (It's also *much* easier to handle finer tobaccos that haven't been treated with insane additives designed solely to keep people hooked.)

I may enjoy cigarettes, booze, and coffee a lot, but when I feel like I'm losing control of *anything* I just cut it out entirely.

Jeff


----------



## stuz719 (Aug 7, 2009)

JBroll said:


> drugs don't have 'harming others' as one of their primary purposes.



Debatable. To say the least.

Perhaps we should give crack and crystal meth to schoolkids, as obviously the harmful side effects are just plain unfortunate, seeing as they are unintentional.



JBroll said:


> 'Responsible' as in 'not letting it control your life', 'positive' as in 'helping to offset other problems (stress and right hand tremors - and the possible evidence that it helps against the onset of Parkinson's, which I'm at high risk for and may be showing symptoms of already, doesn't hurt) and improve mood or outlook'.
> 
> Jeff



"Positive" as in carcinogenic including to passive smokers and potentially causing chromosomal damage, psychosis, nausea and birth defects in users?

"Possible evidence" is a stretch, too. You're the one making a positive claim here, the onus on you is to provide _actual_ evidence.



JBroll said:


> I may enjoy cigarettes, booze, and coffee a lot, but when I feel like I'm losing control of *anything* I just cut it out entirely.
> 
> Jeff



Because obviously you are a better man than all those weak-willed idiots who think they are actually _addicted_ to the stuff out there, huh?

Funny how you keep going back to cigarettes, booze and coffee if you're not addicted, eh?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 7, 2009)

Why is being addicted to something so bad? I'm addicted to SS.org and I love it. 

Just wanted to lighten the mood a bit. 

But on a more serious note:

I can understand people's reasons for smoking. It has obvious health risks, but if it helps you get through the day, then whatever. I smoke cigs on and off from time to time. They're mainly filler if I don't have/can't find pot. 

One could easily argue that I'm addicted to marijuana and I'm kind of okay with that.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 7, 2009)

stuz719 said:


> Debatable. To say the least.
> 
> Perhaps we should give crack and crystal meth to schoolkids, as obviously the harmful side effects are just plain unfortunate, seeing as they are unintentional.



Right, because there's such an easy jump to be made between what I said and giving those substances to children who can't make the decision on their own. 

Is this serious? When was the last time you met a pothead or LSD user who did drugs just to hurt others?



stuz719 said:


> "Positive" as in carcinogenic including to passive smokers and potentially causing chromosomal damage, psychosis, nausea and birth defects in users?



"Possible evidence" is a stretch, too. You're the one making a positive claim here, the onus on you is to provide _actual_ evidence.

You know perfectly well that I'm not considering those positive, so where the hell are you getting this attitude? If you're going to be sarcastic, at least do so in a way that runs a slight chance of being amusing - this is just outright stupid.

Since it's not actually hard to find (Wikipedia has citations from proper journals on it) I didn't think citing it was absolutely necessary. Look there.



stuz719 said:


> Because obviously you are a better man than all those weak-willed idiots who think they are actually _addicted_ to the stuff out there, huh?
> 
> Funny how you keep going back to cigarettes, booze and coffee if you're not addicted, eh?



No, because I constantly test myself to see what I'm capable of - I limit my intake (with the exception of caffeine) and remove it outright when I think I might be developing a dependence, but I have yet to get into a situation where I lost control.

It's also funny how I keep fucking, bathing, reading, playing the guitar, and wearing pants, so I *must* be addicted to those too! Oh, help me, save me from the cargo pants that have ruined my life!

(Please tell me this whole post was a joke. This was so awful that I honestly cannot let myself believe otherwise.)

Jeff


----------



## estabon37 (Aug 7, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Oh, help me, save me from the cargo pants that have ruined my life!


 
Jesus, you too?! I thought I was the only one!


----------



## mnemonic (Aug 8, 2009)

cargo pants are pretty bad, tbh


----------



## Sp3ktral (Aug 8, 2009)

when I saw this pic I seriously did the same move as Dave Chappelle does in Half Baked when he signs for the pound of weed at the lab. 

the caption reads:
Marijuana "manicured" to remove seeds and stems is kept in barrels in a temperature-controlled vault.


----------



## stuz719 (Aug 9, 2009)

JBroll said:


> (Please tell me this whole post was a joke. This was so awful that I honestly cannot let myself believe otherwise.)
> 
> Jeff



Thanks for the neg rep, man. It adds real weight to your arguments, and really emphasises your view that the rights of others to express themselves shouldn't be impinged upon.


----------



## El Caco (Aug 9, 2009)

JBroll said:


> It's also funny how I keep fucking



Wilderbeasts don't count and can be counted as a negative side affect. 



stuz719 said:


> Thanks for the neg rep, man. It adds real weight to your arguments, and really emphasises your view that the rights of others to express themselves shouldn't be impinged upon.



Not that I thought it deserved a neg rep but it was a pretty piss poor post.

This thread has run its course


----------

