HW: Various

[Tim]

And from what I remember, most of the $10/oz. pot we bought in the early 70s was
homegrown and probably not very strong(though strong enough!). It wasn't until it was imported in vast quantities from foreign lands that it was bred for quality & potency.
Michael \"AlIeN dReAm\" Blackman wrote:
 >
 > Especially the shit that is passed off as LSD these days.  Which - btw -
 > there really is very little real LSD anymore.  The cost of setting up a lab
 > that is as sterile and hygienic as is required (and keeping it secret)
 > forces most people to just make garbage from all sorts of poisons.  Not the
 > REAL DEAL.  Give it a miss.
 >
 >
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "M Holmes" <fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK>
 > To: <BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET>
 > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 10:11 PM
 > Subject: Re: HW: Various
 >
 >
 > > HawkFan writes:
 > >
 > > > I know people who took LSD regularly and seem to have survived with
 > > > relatively untwisted personalities. I suspect Syd Barrett was always a
 > bit
 > > > strange. Maybe the LSD pushed him off the edge and maybe he would have
 > > > fallen off anyway.
 > >
 > > Sure.  As I said, about 3% of the population can be regarded as
 > > pre-schizophrenic and LSD is one of the things that can tip those people
 > > over the edge.  While personal and family history, and to an extent
 > > psychological testing, can give a little insight into whether one is in
 > > the 3% or the 97%, it's not an edge anyone would actually want to fall
 > > over.  A lifetime on antipsychotic drugs, or sliding down the social
 > > sxale due to mental illness, is a huge price to pay for a little mental
 > > recreation.  OTOH, if I broke my neck skiing, pretty much the same would
 > > apply.
 > >
 > > What's been interesting recently is that there's been a moral panic due to
 > > some research claims that regular use of strong cannabis can induce
 > > similar effects. It's appeared in the press as "Cannabis Psychosis"
 > > stories involving "super skunk" and "marijuana ten times as strong as
 > > their parents used in the 60's". It doesn't seem to be hard to find
 > > doctors who'll say that the incidence of admission for this reason is up,
 > > and it wouldn't be exactly easy to compare the strength of cannabis now
 > > to 40 years ago. I expect there'll be a few more moral panics on this one
 > > until the research jury comes in.
 > >
 > > Then again, it turned out that the "Ecstasy swiss-cheeses your brain"
 > > researchers had been unknowingly testing speed all along. We'll probably
 > > just have to wait a decade to see whether the 20 year olds using ecstasy
 > > in the 90's turn out to be miserable 40 year olds.
 > >
 > > To be fair to researchers though, the 50 year study into doctors and
 > > smoking is one hell of a piece of work. I doubt even FOREST could argue
 > > with a straight face that it's not bad for you, and passive smoking
 > > looks to be worse than previously thought too. I'm geting optimistic
 > > that a public ban on smoking is close to arrival in Scotland. It'd be
 > > good to get my favourite drug without breathing other people's poisons.
 > >
 > > FoFP
 > >