Monday, June 26, 2017 8:50:37 AM Grossiste De Graines De Canabis En Gros
ublished study of 131 marijuana smokers (24 percent were daily smokers and
6 percent smoked marijuana less than weekly) two law school students, Lloyd Haines and
Warren Green asked the users' subjective views on the dangers of several commonly used
drugs. Ratings of one (least harmful) to five (most harmful) were given to each substance.
About 80 percent rated marijuana one, or least harmful, in terms of physical damage; none
rated marijuana four or five. On the other hand, a majority rated the other drugs very
harmful, physically. Two-thirds rated cigarettes (63 percent) and stimulants (68 percent)
four or five on the physical damage scale, and over half rated alcohol (55 percent) and
LSD (56 percent) either four or five. In terms of psychological harm, only two
respondents rated marijuana either four or five, and about go percent rated it one or two.
Cigarettes were not seen as a particularly great psychological threat; only 24 percent
considered it four or five in this category of harm. However, stimulants (amphetamines),
LSD and, to some extent, alcohol, were seen as capable of harming the individual
psychologically. Two-thirds for the stimulants and LSD (66 percent for both) and not
quite half for alcohol (46 percent) were rated in the two most harmful categories.
These data point to two clear facts: marijuana users vigorously deny that the drug is
harmful in any significant degree, and smokers are capable of making clear-cut
distinctions among various drugs as to danger. Overall, amphetamines (speed) of all the
drugs on the Haines and Green list were seen as the most dangerous, with alcohol and
LSD contending for second place.
Often explanations for a somewhat puzzling activity are unduly complex; subterranean
and insidious interpretations are presented where the participant explains it more simply:
"I like it." It seems that we find it necessary to search deeper when we cannot identify
with the reason supplied. If it does not seem conceivable that anyone would actually "like
it," whatever the activity or substance, then a more plausible theory, often invoking a
pathology, must be summoned from the deep. To the critically inclined, "I like it" is
insufficient, merely a rationalization.
Yet marijuana's severest critic must recognize the fact that users overwhelmingly
describe the effects of the drug in positive terms. (See the chapter on "Effects.") The fact
that the high is thought of as largely favorable cannot be ignored in understanding the
justification that smokers use. "It's fun" and "I like it" are organic fixtures of the rhetoric
for marijuana use. Yet, so elastic is the real world that this very trait, often cited by users
themselves, is actually wielded by the cannabis critics to condemn the drug. Donald
Louria, in summing up his critique of the question of legalization, writes: "The arguments
for legalization of marijuana are based on pure hedonism—the proponents want the legal
right to use the
With regards to natural selection the environment may cause
a problem with a section of plants. If this section does not survive then
they will not be able to make a contribution to the gene pool. If this is
the case and if selections are made so that other plants do not make a
contribution then we know that trait frequencies can be controlled to a
And the ability to control the frequencies of a trait is
what BREEDING IS ALL ABOUT.