# Hippie New Year!



## Guest (Apr 20, 2012)




----------



## fretboard (May 31, 2006)

View attachment 859
View attachment 860
View attachment 858


You talkin' some sorta secret code there, laristotle?


----------



## Ti-Ron (Mar 21, 2007)

Way to early to be high, isn't it?


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

FourTwenty

8)


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Like,.... uh,.... far out man.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

I made a batch of special brownies for the occasion

promised the wife i would quit smoking when our daughter was born. 3 cheers for loopholes.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

I can dig it. Far out, man.


----------



## Ti-Ron (Mar 21, 2007)

sulphur said:


> FourTwenty


Thanks for the reminder!


----------



## fretboard (May 31, 2006)

And today's Oscar goes to...

View attachment 862


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

If I hadn't seen the news I wouldn't have known what 420 was. Not that my opinion would change any minds, but I think smoking anything is ill advised. That said, there are bigger fish to fry in the legal world.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

You can eat it too Mooh!


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

sulphur said:


> You can eat it too Mooh!


I know, I came of age in the '70s. ;-)

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)




----------



## Chito (Feb 17, 2006)

mike_oxbig said:


> I made a batch of special brownies for the occasion
> 
> promised the wife i would quit smoking when our daughter was born. 3 cheers for loopholes.


Another loophole, use a vape, technically not really smoking


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Why would anyone want to kill a pile of brain cells? Perhaps there are so many dead ones it's hard to make wise decisions anymore?


----------



## Guest (Apr 21, 2012)

Ten thousand of the brain's one trillion cells die naturally in the 
course of 24 hours. Let them have some fun too. lol.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

[video=youtube;e3C9rMIRuF8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3C9rMIRuF8[/video]


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

I need to come up with a recipe for making the butter that doesn't just give me a random potency

it's now 24 hours after I ate one and I'm still a little stoned
I passed out at like 7pm yesterday after eating all the leftovers from every day this week.

Just called the other guys. no answer. I hope they didn't wake up to a scene from "the hangover"
there had better be coffee somewhere in this house


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

There were a lot of folks out in Birkenstocks last night. I forgot it was 420, makes sense now.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

laristotle said:


> Ten thousand of the brain's one trillion cells die naturally in the
> course of 24 hours. Let them have some fun too. lol.


Fortunately, these ones are also naturally replaced. They also do not interrupt the connections between synapses that happens when we kill our brain cells with drugs or overuse of alcohol.

If that is what you call fun, you should take another look at your life. You are obviously missing something.


----------



## geezer (Apr 30, 2008)

I read somewhere that the University of Sask. ran tests on rats that increased the rate of nerve cell formation in the brain by 40% when given synthetic thc over a short period of time. Of course my memory is shot ...so I can't recall where I read it.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

One theory is, like the wolf with the caribou, drugs and alcohol take out the slowest and weakest, therefore it makes the "herd" stronger and faster.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

mike_oxbig said:


> I need to come up with a recipe for making the butter that doesn't just give me a random potency
> 
> it's now 24 hours after I ate one and I'm still a little stoned
> I passed out at like 7pm yesterday after eating all the leftovers from every day this week.
> ...


Man .. call me next time ....


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2012)

Steadfastly said:


> Fortunately, these ones are also naturally replaced. They also do not interrupt the connections between synapses that happens when we kill our brain cells with drugs or overuse of alcohol.
> 
> If that is what you call fun, you should take another look at your life. You are obviously missing something.


At the end of my statement, I typed 'lol' . 
I always understood that to mean 'tongue in cheek'.
But yeah .. Drugs are bad, m'kay.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

laristotle said:


> At the end of my statement, I typed 'lol' .
> I always understood that to mean 'tongue in cheek'.
> But yeah .. Drugs are bad, m'kay.


Glad to hear you feel that way. Regards, Steadfastly


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

I dimly recall a stag we threw for a bro where someones lady had made some brownies that we ate and thoroughly enjoyed, along with the booze and entertainment. The next morning when we crawled out of whatever we'd crawled into, someone noticed a rather large fly, on it's back in the brownie crumbs, legs still twitching. He scooped it up and ate it and washed it down with a beer. Said he got a little buzz off it. I certainly killed a lot of braincells that night. It was fun.
@mike. Heat equal amounts of butter and smoke slowly and adding a little hash might level things out. Run it all through a blender and that's about it. You'll still be stoned for quite a while and still have the munchies but not as many peaks and valleys. Hmmm, strange I suddenly have the urge to eat a couple of bags of chocolate chip cookies and listen to "What A Long Strange Trip It's Been".


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Steadfastly said:


> Why would anyone want to kill a pile of brain cells? Perhaps there are so many dead ones it's hard to make wise decisions anymore?


Indeed! Why would anyone want to kill brain cells? Good thing no credible scientific study has ever found this to be the case with marijuana. Have a great Hippie New Year!!!


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...when it comes to legalizing marijuana, misinformation and closed minds still dominate.


----------



## fudb (Dec 8, 2010)

here's that study re: brain cell growth

here's the Wiki if you'd like to learn more

In any case, it is well documented that marijuana is several orders of magnitude safer than several readily available drugs, including; caffeine, nicotine, alcohol and many prescription and non-prescription medicines. Talking about documented effects - both positive and negative - is necessary and prudent, but enforcing a ban on it is really one of the dumbest things we do collectively as a society. And considering our track record, that's saying something...


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)




----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

1) Like anyone my age, I inhaled back in the early 70's. Didn't like the effect. Didn't add anything to my life, other than the inability to move my arms or legs. Couldn't stand the smell, either. There'll be days when I'm happily walking down Bank St. in Ottawa, suddenly go "Ewwwww!! What is that STENCH?", and my memory of rock festivals past will wake up and remind me it's THAT smell. Time has not made it any more palatable.

2) When it comes to legalizing potentially psycho-active drugs, the dividing line tends to be dictated by the extent to which the drug is used deliberately and explicitly to produce intoxicated states. Alcohol CAN produce intoxicated states but has a zillion other uses *not* directed whatsoever at intoxication - from religious sacraments to deglazing pans to cough medicine. As such, even though it would be a wonderful thing to legally prevent people from becoming alcoholic and ruining lives as a result, making alcohol illegal would be a non-starter. In contrast, with the exception of those very rare cases where it is used "medicinally" ( and even there, the medicinal use may well result from intoxication in some cases),marijuanas is used to deliberately achieve a state of intoxication. You simply don't see people toking for the purposes of enhancing the flavour of something the way an apperitif aids in digestion or complementing food flavours. people toke to get high. I'm not saying that is why it SHOULD remain illegal. I'm saying that is the specific problem it has in _becoming_ decriminalized.

3) By far the biggest obstacle to decriminalization is the "peer pressure" imposed by American law, and the fact that we share but one single border, albeit on several sides. Any substantive discrepancy between American and Canadian law, with respect to dope, and everything goes to hell in a hand-basket, with borders becoming a HUGE problem. Decriminalization in Canada would need to occur concurrently with decriminalization in the US. And because states' rights are much stronger than provincial jurisdictions, a simple handshake deal between their president and our PM wouldn't do it either. The dead weight is that of the state legislatures.

4) What makes the nervous system a *system* is that it is organized and things grow, and get connected, in organized sequence. I can shove your pockets full of currency from 25 other nations, and you are "richer", but that doesn't make it any easier to pay for things at the store if you have to keep searching for the right kind of money. So don't take what shows up in tissue slides as necessarily reflecting an_ improvement_. Sprouting of new nerve cells is separate from whether those cells ultimately get connected in ways that create chaos or improved processing. After my bypass surgery, where I was split open like a Kenny Rogers roaster, nerve cells grew back, but attached themselves to the wrong places. There's a spot in the middle of my chest where if you touch it, I feel it as my armpits being pinched. Rampant new_ misconnections _in the hippocampus would NOT be good for thinking. I'm sure if you had a spinal injury, anything that holds promise of nerve regeneration is exciting, but more nerve cells is not automatically better.


----------



## hummingway (Aug 4, 2011)

fudb said:


> here's that study re: brain cell growth
> 
> here's the Wiki if you'd like to learn more
> 
> In any case, it is well documented that marijuana is several orders of magnitude safer than several readily available drugs, including; caffeine, nicotine, alcohol and many prescription and non-prescription medicines. Talking about documented effects - both positive and negative - is necessary and prudent, but enforcing a ban on it is really one of the dumbest things we do collectively as a society. And considering our track record, that's saying something...


Personally, I think the war on drugs is a load of manure. Marijuana certainly tops the list as the first that should be legalized. Even making the opiates illegal is a non-starter in my books, creating unenforceable rules that make the sick criminal and the criminal rich is stupidity at it's most unctuous. 

However, I wouldn't characterize marijuana as "safe". It causes temporary temporal distortion, short term memory loss, increases the risk of mouth, throat and lung cancer when smoked and habitual use can produce a break with reality. That said I drink alcohol and sometimes to excess and the list of problems associated with it is at least as dire but it is legal and I'm well aware of the problems associated with alcohol use, at least in part because of it is legal.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

I know there's a lot to both sides of the debate, but every time I fill up my gas tank I can't help but wonder how much less they'd have to tax fuel if they were taxing the sale of weed and other drugs. I mean think about it....a naturally renewable industry based on consumption that's proven its ability to thrive within society without the help of government funding? And the government doesn't want to take their cut? am I in the twilight zone?


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

One must not forget the multiple uses for hemp fibre itself. If people are excessivley worried about misuse of hemp plants here, genetic engineering can breed the THC out of it in a few years.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Robert1950 said:


> One must not forget the multiple uses for hemp fibre itself. If people are excessivley worried about misuse of hemp plants here, genetic engineering can breed the THC out of it in a few years.



...yes, well, let's just keep that information under our toques, shall we.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

One of the things you need to ask yourself is whether decriminalization for adults, but making access prohibitted for, say, anyone under legal drinking age (which would now become "legal intoxication age") is enforceable. The huge growth in disposable income among high school students, and even middle-school students, in the past 35 years, very often goes to purchase of consumer goods. We know that kids who wrok more hours while attending school are also more likely to use controlled substances like tobacco and alcohol, even though, by law, they are not supposed to have access to them. How much do you want the average 15 year old to be stoned, just because _you_ want to be stoned at 29 or 37?

We tend to make arguents for decriminalization revolve entirely around what WE want, as adults, and what makes *our* life easier. One needs to factor in other considerations, such as the potential impact on children. Sometimes, you gotta give up stuff you like for the sake of kids.


----------



## hummingway (Aug 4, 2011)

mhammer said:


> One of the things you need to ask yourself is whether decriminalization for adults, but making access prohibitted for, say, anyone under legal drinking age (which would now become "legal intoxication age") is enforceable. The huge growth in disposable income among high school students, and even middle-school students, in the past 35 years, very often goes to purchase of consumer goods. We know that kids who wrok more hours while attending school are also more likely to use controlled substances like tobacco and alcohol, even though, by law, they are not supposed to have access to them. How much do you want the average 15 year old to be stoned, just because _you_ want to be stoned at 29 or 37?
> 
> We tend to make arguents for decriminalization revolve entirely around what WE want, as adults, and what makes *our* life easier. One needs to factor in other considerations, such as the potential impact on children. Sometimes, you gotta give up stuff you like for the sake of kids.


Those kids are already smoking it. Making it legal just means we're not turning them into criminals. The focus should be on education instead of enforcement.


----------



## geezer (Apr 30, 2008)

I doubt if whether the laws change or not will make any difference to kids using drugs . If anything it would lower drug use...if you follow what happened in Portugal when they decriminalized a list of drugs.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Health Canada has tracked tobacco use amongst teenagers for years. As price goes down, tobacco use goes up. Increasing the retail price results in decreased tobacco use...up to the point where contraband and illegal smokes becomes profitable for smugglers and black market types, at which point tobacco use among youth is no longer tied to the retail market price but to the price in illegal channels. So the retail pricepoint (and the tax levels that dictate it) is picked very judiciously bythe Feds to balance out consumption among youth with risk of illegal trade in tobacco.

For years, decriminalization of marijuana has been suggested as a means for undermining the profit to be made on the illegal sale of marijuana. I'd love just about any policy that could once again make Ciadad-Juarez a place where you could stroll down the street...and live. But is cheap dope _good_ for kids? Would it increase consumption because it is more within reach, or would it decrease consumption by virtue of not being illegal anymore? Our experience with tobacco suggest the former rather than the latter. Booze is legal but prohibitted to minors. That doesn't seem to impede its use (and abuse) among teens with money to spend. After having worked so damn hard to reduce smoking amongst youth, how badly do we want to introduce smoking unfiltered spliffs as its replacement?

This is the challenge of drafting sensible policy: you have to factor in ALL possible stakeholders groups and concerns. If the population was only single musicians between 25 and 45, drafting marijuana policy would be a no-brainer. But the world consists of more than that, so any policy RE:weed has to thread all those different needles. No one seems to have been able to do that so far. Doesn't mean its impossible, just that it's much harder to do than you think.

I might also note that there are, at present, no cost-effective, legally permissible, _reliable_ roadside tests for overconsumption of THC that would permit enforcement of impaired driving charges. Cops can currently nail you for possession if you had an accident while stoned (or look the other way if you were stoned bu the accident were very clearly the other driver's fault and no one was hurt), but they would have little way of fostering safer use of weed by drivers, were it decriminalized.

Again, simple decriminalization doesn't answer the many questions of how we would want and NOT want weed to be used within society.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

When did the price of tobacco ever go down? Never, in my experience.

When prohibition of alcohol was introduced, the criminal element went up.
All it did was create an underground network because it was deemed illegal.

You're going to have some teenagers getting their hands on intoxicants legal, or otherwise, regardless.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

It was cheaper in the early 90's or late 80's. When the post-tax retail price went up in the early 90's, there was rampant smuggling, mostly across Cornwall ON and similar places. The price was dropped to find the sweet spot between elevated adolescent use and smuggling activity, and it's been there pretty much since. I guess my memory on this goes back further than yours.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I was in northern Manitoba then.

The only thing cheap up there was the women. 8)

Not doubting you Mark, I just never remember the cost of smokes going down.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

I'm blown away that 4/20 can't be celebrated without it turning into a rather somber and/or cautionary concern in a GUITAR FORUM!!!! Our present federal government loves to talk about unreported crime' To the extent that this "phenomenon"underpins our dire need for their omnibus crime bill. I wonder if they'd be willing to acknowledge the laughable stats on how many Canadians smoke pot as "under-reported"' Or is this where StatsCan got it right? Hmmmm


----------



## geezer (Apr 30, 2008)

This whole controversy started from corporate greed . Big business brainwashed the public because cannabis would have a huge impact on the oil , chemical , forest and tobacco industries . Liquor , tobacco and oil companies fund hundreds of millions of dollars a year to anti- drug agencies , while there are a 1/2 million deaths from tobacco and 1/2 million a year from alcohol and not one death attributed to cannabis...ever.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

OK, I finally have to pipe in here.

In my 45 years of experience with cannabis, both personal and anecdotal, I have never experienced, seen or heard of anybody having any kind of bad experience with it except for disliking it.

It is quite clear that the criminalization of marijuana has been brought about through historical corporate and political manipulation of the legal system. To lump marijuana in with narcotics and hallucinogens defies logic and wastes billions in time and resourses for our policing agencies. Nobody robs banks just to fuel their marijuana lifestyle.

Marijuana is a non-addictive, benign drug that may have positive benefits for the person imbibing in it and zero negative effects on the people and world around him or her. Any kind of addiction or negative effects are more indicative of an inherent personality disorder than anything else. People get addicted to chocolate and gum too.

Scientific studies are prone to bias toward the company or institution funding them or their results interpreted toward many different outcomes. Not to mention the perameters and methods employed by some. Anyone can do a study. Anyone can be a biased idiot. You have to research every study, funding source and researcher if you want to quote any study's validity.

In reality, I have experienced both the pleasure and medicinal benefits of THC for my chronic back pain. I know several others with the same testimony. I wish I could get that without being a criminal. *BTW Medicinal marijuana is next to impossible to get.

P.S. I love my Cannabis Rex speakers...

P.P.S. What business is it for the government if I want to get ripped and play my guitar therough my hemp cone beauties. One Love!


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

geezer said:


> This whole controversy started from corporate greed . Big business brainwashed the public because cannabis would have a huge impact on the oil , chemical , forest and tobacco industries . Liquor , tobacco and oil companies fund hundreds of millions of dollars a year to anti- drug agencies , while there are a 1/2 million deaths from tobacco and 1/2 million a year from alcohol and not one death attributed to cannabis...ever.


Drug prohibition was also a result of racial bias. People of colour from the Central and South America, the Middle East, Asia and Africa were bringing their pleasures with them and the prudish descendents of Western Europeans who bore "White Man's Burden" saw fit to outlaw the pleasures of these (sometimes unwilling) immigrants for their own good.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

And I will maintain that there IS no corporate or political conspiracy that stands in the way of decriminalization. Hell, I'm sure the tobacco manufacturers would LOVE to have another product to market (and they may well be surreptitiously subsidizing pro-marijuana advocates, if you want to go really conspiratorial). But it is just an absolute *bugger* to draft policy on, plain and simple. I'm sure that half the folks in Parliament could care less if you watched the Stanley Cup playoffs drunk or stoned or both. They ARE concerned with how to legislate things so that:

a) there is some degree of coherence between American, Mexican, and Canadian policy/law, as well as coherence between provinces;
b) there is some sort of sensible and enforcible legal framework for keeping access to intoxicants and carcinogens out of the reach of minors;
c) there is some basis for enforcible quality standards (not unless you insist on taking chances);
d) there is some basis for determining, and monitoring safe use with respect to the workplace and vehicular use.

There is likely racial bias in the extent to which drug use is _prosecuted_, but there should be no racial bias in the manner that drug access is provided, or the degree of quality assurance. So, if weed were decriminalized or legalized so that you could buy it like smokes or beer or Robaxacet (and pay sales tax on it), you would need to assure that it would not be unavailable in certain neighbourhoods because the pharmacist or vendor didn't want to carry it. And if there are quality assurance standards that need to be met for Robaxacet or beer, then there should be enforcible quality standards for weed, rather than met expectations for stuff from the brewing and pharmaceutical industry and you-pays-your-money-you-takes-your-chances for weed. Or is the working assumption that you should be able to hold other types of manufacturers liable for substandard or even dangerous products, but nobody really cares what happens to them with weed. When people argue for legalization are they simply insisting that everybody leave them alone and not get in their face, or are they asking for weed to take a legitimate place in the retail market alongside spirits and tobacco?

You guys seem to think ONLY in terms of scoring some off a friend and kicking back. If that was the only forseeable circumstance, it would be a no-brainer. But the reality is that drafting policy that works well, for something as complex as this is likely to be, is BLOODY HARD. It's harder than figuring out what the sales tax on toilet paper should be. It's harder than figuring out how to purchase fighter jets. Heck, it's probably harder than figuring out whether or not there ought to be a pipeline to the west coast, and if so where it ought to go. Basically, it is what some folks in political science and public administration like to call a "wicked problem" (i.e., something for which there is no easy answer).


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

The problem of protecting our children from the modern world by the government is similar to asking to, well, to protect our children from the modern world by our government. Wrong question. Wrong answer.

It is a brave new world and our approaches to societal problems need to be re-thunk. Nothing has been the same as it ever was since the media and social implosion of the sixties. I don't want to rely on our governments to protect our children. They never do a good job.

Granted, it has been made to become a complex political hot issue, but the drug problem is is definitely one that has to be revisited for the global world we now live in. Drug problems are a social and health issue and should be treated as such.

And marijuana needs to be seperated from narcotics and hallucinagens in the real world.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)




----------



## geezer (Apr 30, 2008)

My point was how pot became demonized in the first place.William Hearst's family owed a paper company and vast timberlands and stood to loose billions to hemp. Dupont patented processes to make plastic from oil...hemp would have ruined their business . Hoover's sec. of the treasury and Dupont's primary investor appointed his future nephew in law , Anslinger to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Heast also owned newspapers and ran stories of the evil weed. I don't believe their is another plant on earth with as many beneficial uses ...biodegradable plastic , high protein seeds , fuel, fiber medicine ect....and recreational . And of course Canada went along with it . Although hemp is used legally now for a multitude of products , it slowed our progress , and it's still underutilized.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

bluzfish said:


> I don't want to rely on our governments to protect our children. They never do a good job.


Nope. Neither do parents. Neither do grandparents. Neither do neighbours. Neither do friends. Neither do teachers. YOU NEED ALL OF THEM TO HOLD UP THEIR END.

You rely on a parent to teach a kid not to open up or swallow what's in that bottle with the childproof cap. You rely on the manufacturer to design a childproof cap, and you rely on the government to make damn sure that if the kid doesn't listen to you, and opens the damn bottle, that what's inside the bottle doesn't have, say, melamine in it ( Melamine - Chemical Contaminants - Food Safety - Health Canada )

Cheech and Chong used to have a bit in the early 70's about why pot would never become legal. And their contention was that it was because the loudest advocates for pot legalization were usually the very last people you wanted as spokespersons. It was a public service spot in which Tommy Chong would say (in typical Chong drawl) "A lotta people, man, say that pot wrecks your.....................................................your................................................ummm....................................................................................................memory. Well I gotta say about that, man, is that those people are F***ED!!"

Yep, not the most persuasive of arguments.

Geezer, point taken. I was thinking more in terms of psychoactive aspects than fabric and industrial use.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

I agree totally. What is required is the voice of reason among the loud voices of fanatics on either side.

And if you can't control your kids, who will?


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)




----------



## fretboard (May 31, 2006)

Wonder how many places use 4/21 for this;

View attachment 896


----------

