FIGHT TERRORISM, AVOID ALL HARD DRUGS.
DRUGS ARE NOT THE ANSWER!
I never asked for any morphine. The first responders had asked me if I wanted some "pain killer", and I responded, "Why Not?" I was lying on the ground after having broken my right leg. Although both lower leg bones were broken, I was lucky that the fracture was not a compound fracture, so there was no bleeding. Due to traffic congestion, it had taken about 15 - 20 minutes for the paramedics to arrive. This was my first and only fracture accident, and I was probably in a state of shock already which is similar to the effect of drugs.
Frankly, after receiving the injection of "pain killer" about 20 minutes after the accident, I finally noticed about a five to ten percent reduction in the pain, so the effect was minimal. I did not yet know that I had received a shot of morphine until the bill arrived about two months later: $15.00.
Note that my tolerance to opioids was minimum since I had never chosen to use any opioids in my entire life. Therefore, I was probably already receiving effectively the maximum safe dosage. Any more would probably have killed me (I received one injection of morphine, whatever the standard dose is).
The first responders called for an ambulance, so again we waited. I did not ask for nor receive any more pain killer for the next few days spent in the hospital. I didn't need it. My endorphin system worked pretty well during the ordeal, and I never asked for any pain killer or sleeping pills, as I was able to sleep without any difficulty. I suppose the physical damage to my leg created severe fatigue.
I learned for myself that pain killers are probably going to be a waste of time and money, and have very little effect. I find it odd that anyone would ask for something that really doesn't work very well compared to the human body's built in endorphin system. On the other hand, my injuries had been minor compared to what could've occurred.
Perhaps in the West, our doctors, nurses, first repsonders, and so forth "believe" too much in pain killers that really don't work very well.
The Chinese are right: PAIN KILLERS ARE USUALLY A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.
However, at the dentist, I will probably always ask for anaesthesia.
I have always been afraid of opium. But what about all the other potentially fatal drugs out there?
NOTE: as a young person below the age of 6 years old, I once found a scary book in our house with drawings of an opium addict using some form of opium, which terrorized me at the time. I was told that the book was titled, "Confessions of an English Opium Eater", but I couldn't read yet. I could only see the drawings.
I never read much more than one or two paragraphs of the book, so I can't give you a book review.
However, don't make the deadly mistake of worrying about opiates while ignoring all the other potentially fatal drugs out there. There's a lot more of them that can kill in addition to opiates. The DEA has the list of all of them, I'm sure.
A licensed pharmacist once told me there were over 2,000 controlled substances which are legal in the USA, but I don't know how many of them can be fatal, perhaps all 2000 or so?
The legalization and constitutional change measures, as written and proposed to the voters of Colorado in 2012 and approved and passed into law, was fully supported by the N.A.A.C.P., and other black organizations.
If there are still racial disparities or other such racial problems in Colorado in 2017, these problems are not manifestations of any of the legal changes made by the legalization of marihuana back in 2012 in that state.
There have been, and still may be, opportunities for former felons to take part in marihuana businesses in Colorado, and other legal or medical marihuana states, but that window of opportunity may close as politicians do their usual, "tightening down of the thumb-screws" thing as time passes.
Don't delay if there's such opportunities out there.
FACT: Traffic Fatalities Dropped Substantially after legalization of marihuana & legalized medical: study.
NOTE: The above study does not attempt to establish causality for automobile accidents, except in terms of alcohol, but they speculate (incorrectly) that marihuana may cause accidents. However, the authors speculate that few legal weed users are driving since they would tend to use it only at home since there's no where else legal to use it.
Nothing could be further from the truth in reality. Most pot users in Colorado use weed and drive every day of their lives, though few use it in the car except perhaps when they can't use it in the house, perhaps.
In fact, on April 20 (4/20) every year the worst traffic jam imaginable occurs in the metro Denver area as thousands and thousands of tokers use their cars and trucks to head downtown for the 420 celebrations (unless they go somewhere else now), then they mostly all drive back home when it's over.
I've never seen a single aritcle about lots of accidents occurring every year on April 20th since that's not what happens when thousands and thousands of stoners hit the road all at once.
FACT: in terms of feeling the "stoned" effect from marihuana usage, some people's bodies apparently do not have the ability to do that. These people feel "nothing" from using marihuana. I don't know if they would beneift medically from it or not, depending on what ailment is being medicated. Perhaps their bodies' endocannabinoid systems were working better already.
The Truth: no one knows why this is. Also, some people who do not feel the "stoned" effect of marihuana initially, after a month or so of use, a switch permanently closes and the user may finally feel some change in awareness after usage.
Some medical usage of marihuana is not related to the "feeling stoned" effect, but I speculate that there are some medical benefits from "feeling stoned" for many.
From the so called "Shafer Commission" report, aka, "Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Part V, Implementing the Discouragement Policy, Total Prohibition, Part 2"
The fatal-flaw of the Shafer Commission was to not recommend full legality. In fact, they discouraged legalization, opening the door to the current era of decriminalization, corruption, and terrorism. Keith Stroup of NORML has repeatedly stated in the last few years that decriminalization has been a disaster.
This contrasts with the optimism of those "legalizers" from 1972 such as Senator and Presidential candidate George McGovern who I am sure thought the new-fangled "decrim." would ultimately lead to his cherished full legality. Decrim. is a new word, but no one has pointed it out that only in the U.S., the U.K., does this word really exist. In Holland, they don't call it that.
But due to the tarnished image of decriminalization policy for weed by the 1990's, as oppposed to the extreme popularity of medical marihuana currently, it has taken a few decades of youthful enthusiasm by thousands of activists since about 1995 to get the decades of opposing pessimism concerning legalization, overthrown by the more liberal medical marihuana state initiatives; full legality to follow perhaps.
Why we have decrim., then medical, instead of full legality for so long! Perhaps since McGovern was horribly whipped in the 1972 presidential race, the current era of decrim., corruption and terrorism began, more or less, around 1972 or so also. Decrim. of marihuana also began about 1967 for the U.K., and about 1972 in Ann Arbor, MI. The first major terrorist event in the current epoch was probably the Munich Olympics attack in 1972 by the PLO. (The terrorist attacks in Spain by the ETA who have now renounced violence, the various attacks by Marxist groups in Europe, and the "troubles" in the U.K. preceded the Munich attack.)
Note that former PA Gov. Raymond Shafer was a member of both the 9-11 Commission, and "Nixon's marihuana commission" which is usually referred to as "the Shafer Commission".
Note that the U.S. Constitution is primarily for the protection of the people of the USA from their own governments' tendency toward tyranny. I have copied part 2 of that section of the Shafer Commission report below:
(1971-1972) From the Shafer Commission Study:
2. Application of the Criminal Law Is Constitutionally Suspect.
The preference for individual privacy reflected in the debate over the philosophical limitations on the criminal law is also manifested in our constitutional jurisprudence. Although no court, to our knowledge, has held that government may not prohibit private possession of marihuana, two overlapping constitutional traditions do have important public policy implications in this area.
The first revolves around the concept that in a free society, the legislature may act only for public purposes. The "police powers" of the states extend only to the "public health, safety and morals." In the period of our history when the people most feared interference with their rights by the government, it was generally accepted that this broad power had an inherent limitation. For example, early prohibitions of alcohol possession were declared unconstitutional on the basis of reasoning such as that employed by the Supreme Court of Kentucky in 1915 in the case of Commonwealth v. Campbell:
It is not within the competency of government to invade the privacy of the citizen's life and to regulate his conduct in matters in which alone is concerned, or to prohibit him any liberty the exercise which will not directly injure society. Noting that the defendant was "not charged with having the liquor in his possession for the purpose of selling it, or even giving it to another," and that "ownership and possession cannot be denied when that ownership and possession is not in itself injurious to the public," the Kentucky court concluded that: The right to use liquor for one's own comfort, if they use it without injury to the public, is one of the citizen's natural and inalienable rights. . . . We hold that the police power — vague and wide and undefined as it is — has limits. . . .
Even the perceived dangers of opium were not enough to convince some members of the judiciary that the government could prohibit possession. It is historically instructive to consider these words, penned in 1890, by Judge Scott in Ah Lim v Territory:
I make no question but that the habit of smoking opium may be repulsive and degrading. That its effect would be to shatter the nerves and destroy the intellect; and that it may tend to the increase of the pauperism and crime. But there is a vast difference between the commission of a single act, and a confirmed habit. There is a distinction to be recognized between the use and abuse of any article or substance. . . . If this act must be held valid it is hard to conceive of any legislative action affecting the personal conduct, or privileges of the individual citizen, that must not be upheld. . . . The prohibited act cannot affect the public in any way except through the primary personal injury to the individual, if it occasions him any injury. It looks like a new and extreme step under our government in the field of legislation, if it really was passed for any of the purposes upon which that character of legislation can be sustained, if at all.
As a matter of constitutional history, a second tradition, the application of specific provisions in the Bill of Rights, has generally replaced the notion of "inherent" limitations. The ultimate effect is virtually the same, however. The Fourth Amendment's proscription of "unreasonable searches and seizures" reflects a constitutional commitment to the value of individual privacy. The importance of the Fourth Amendment to the entire, constitutional scheme was eloquently described by Justice Brandeis in 1928 in the case of Olmstead v U.S.:
The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfaction of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
Although the Fourth Amendment is itself a procedural protection, the value of privacy which it crystallizes is often read in conjunction with other important values to set substantive limits on legislative power. The Supreme Court, in the case of Griswold vs. Connecticut, held in 1965 that Connecticut could not constitutionally prohibit the use of birth control devices by married persons. Although the Justices did not agree completely on the reasons for their decision, Justice Douglas stated in the opinion of the Court:
The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means of having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedom." (citation omitted) Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.
Four years later, the Supreme Court, in Stanley v. Georgia, held that even though obscenity is not "speech" protected by the First Amendment, a state cannot constitutionally make private possession of obscene material a crime. The Court's reasoning is revealed in the following language:
[The] right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, (citation omitted), is fundamental to our free society. Moreover, in the context of this case — a prosecution for mere possession of printed or filmed matter in the privacy of a person's own home — that right takes on an added dimension. For also fundamental is the right to be free, except in very limited circumstances, from unwanted governmental intrusions into one's privacy . . .
While the judiciary is the governmental institution most directly concerned with the protection of individual liberties, all policy-makers have a responsibility to consider our constitutional heritage when framing public policy. Regardless of whether or not the courts would overturn a prohibition of possession of marihuana for personal use in the home, we are necessarily influenced by the high place traditionally occupied by the value of privacy in our constitutional scheme. Accordingly, we believe that government must show a compelling reason to justify invasion of the home in order to prevent personal use of marihuana. We find little in marihuana's effects or in its social impact to support such a determination. Legislators enacting Prohibition did not find such a compelling reason 40 years ago; and we do not find the situation any more compelling for marihuana today.
Within the past few years, Keith Stroup of NORML (U.S.) has stated that decriminalization (of marihuana) has been a disaster. I know that this quote is not easy to find at www.norml.org, but the evidence is cleary visible in that no "decrim. states" have directly transitioned from "decrim." to full legality for adults, yet. Ironically, "decrim." was always seen in many areas as a way to create "defacto legalization".
Instead the drug war industry has tried to institutionalize the association between marihuana, other illicit drugs, and organized crime, even in areas which had already decriminalized the personal possession of small amounts of marihuana.
It's obvious that decriminalization policy and organized crime work hand in hand.
In many areas since the 1980's, decrim. has become a two-faced policy that can appear to be prohibition, or near legality, depending on the way it's implemented. Some people in decrim. states are routinely allowed to use and sell marihuana, some are not. It's all about political connections, I suppose. Something went wrong with this "crime-cell" operating in Ohio.
Disaster in Ohio, a decrim. state: recent mass murders were apparently committed in Ohio against family members involved in an illicit marihuana grow operation. Only small amounts of weed for personal usage are classified as a decriminalized offense in Ohio.
It is obvious that the perpertrator(s) of this horrible series of crimes in Ohio wished for their murderous acts to be associated with such similar acts committed by persons proud of being called, TERRORISTS.
What's the difference between organized crime and terrorism? Not much. The terrorists often kill themselves after killing their intended victims. Organized crime generally doesn't commit suicide. Charles Manson and his gang were not terrorists, but rather a group aspiring to be like organized crime.
NOTE: there are all sorts of CRAP that could bind with the human body's endocannabinoid receptors, such as free radicals and various poisons. But that doesn't mean those substances are actually "cannabinoids". As time goes on, expect state and federal regulators to start shutting down and prosecuting those using the term "synthetic marijuana".
Currently, there are all sorts of dangerous chemicals currently being called "cannabinoids" by evil and unscrupulous persons and companies, just to make a quick profit. The federal, state, and local governments in the USA, and our media, have done nothing to protect the general public from this horrible fraud, other than jump on the bandwagon called "media distortion". The companies selling this fake "synthetic marijuana" are causing great injury to the unsuspecting public, and the media is mis-reporting this entire situation. I find it hard to believe that this is occurring.
WARNING: THE ITEMS BEING SOLD AROUND THE USA CALLED "SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA", are not similar to, nor in anyway related to cannabis sativa. This is fraud, plain and simple.
Actual "synthetic marihuana" is called "marinol", or "dronabinol", and has been around for decades, but contains only pure synthetic THC, and is very expensive compared to natural cannabis. Marinnol/Dronabinol is only available by prescription from licensed pharmacies.
Marinol is generally considered safe and non addictive, but is very difficult to manufacture, and will consequently likely never be competitive with the marihuana (cannabis) plant. (There have been some deaths associated with its usage; however, there may be other drugs or factors also being blamed.) Marinol/Dronabinol is not available retail without a prescription anywhere in the world. You can't buy it over-the-counter anywhere, legally; nor would it be affordable.
For years now, the media and businesses both have been erroneously calling various products "synthetic marihuana" which contain no synthetic analogs of any of the actual ingredients of natural cannabis, not even THC.
This fraud, distortion, and misinformation created by businesses and the news media makes no sense at all. The lies about "synthetic marihuana" are confusing the general public, slandering the companies which manufacture real synthetic THC, slandering the people and companies who produce actual marihuana, slandering the scientists who discovered and first synthesized THC, and probably causing deaths and other injuries to the unsuspecting general public; just to make quick buck.
The only excuse for this horrible scenario to develop is that even science knows too little about the human endocannabinoid system. The manufacturers of these poisons are calling them "cannabinoids" simply due to the fact that they bind to some receptor, or pass some scientific test, but otherwise, there is likely zero resemblance to natural cannabinnoids, or endocannabinoids; especially in terms of their effects on human life!!!!
This time, we can't blame the cannabis plant itself, but rather the ignorance and criminal component of the human race, since human knowledge about the endocannabinoid system is very recent; that system of the human body having only been discovered in the period 1988-1992. The human body also produces its own internal endocannabinoids.
Here is a link to google search information about actual synthetic marihuana, not the fake stuff. Frankly, I've only met one person in my life who liked it.
Todd McCormick said kind words about prescription synthetic THC (aka, "Marinol") to me, and he has some real conditions that are aided by the medical marihuana and/or pure synthetic THC.
Discovery of the endocannabinoid system: click here.
Fake Alcoholic Beverages: this is similar to what happens when alcohol products are banned by governments. Criminals start manufacturing products that contain much more lethal and much more dangerous forms of alcohol, and people start dying en masse. But even legal alcohol can kill.
Fake LSD: this is also similar to the situation with illicit drugs such as LSD. Criminals produce chemicals with psychedelic effects, and call them "LSD", "mescaline", or "ecstasy", etc., but upon testing by drug police, there is no indication that the substances in question are examples of any banned substance; thus, the sellers are free to go, and the substances in question are freely sold on the market without restriction.
This sort of "loophole legality" policy may vary from U.S. state to U.S. state, country to country.
NOTE: in Europe, they sometimes use the more pure expensive, fresh, and pure hashish for cooking, but it's hard to know how pure it is unless you know exactly how it was made. You might ask the seller of the hashish questions about that. The types made without solvent can also be used. In Holland, all hashish except the most expensive hashish, should probably not be used to put into oil, especially not hashish which has visible mold on it, such as some of the more cheaper types. (Just as blue cheese is blue due to some sort of mold or bacteria, there are lots of people who like this type of weed.) In the USA, there is no imported hashish to speak of, so most of it over here is probably OK unless otherwise it is known the hashish is unsuitable.
This method of making cannabis-infused cooking oil is much easier than most methods and takes about 5 to 10 minutes, total. What is needed is about 750 ml. of cooking oil, such as olive oil, and about 1 gram of shatter, wax, honey oil, or any other pure form of hashish. The hashish should be pure enough to put into edibles. I used some with measured THCA of 82.9 percent.
Needed items should all be clean and food-grade:
Put 1/2 of the oil (about 1 pint) into the clean cooking pot, then place over medium burner heat. The other approx. 1 pint of cold oil will be used soon to cool off the warmed up oil, so keep the cold oil in the original container, or pour it into the other cooking pot or heat-proof measuring cup or container.
Immediately place the 1 gram of hashish into the warming oil in the pot on the stove.
Begin to lightly stir the oil as it heats up on the stove. Watch as the hashish dissolves into the oil at about the temperature that the oil can no longer be comfortably touched with the human finger. This is at about 130 degrees F. or so. If there is suspicion that the oil or hash is not clean, then maybe the oil should now be heated up to the boiling point of water for long enough to kill bacateria, but this will destroy some of the active ingredients in the hashish also. If to be used for cooking, this will also be accomplished during the cooking process.
Or, as soon as the oil can no longer be touched comfortably, cut off the heat, but continue to stir the heated oil as the hashish dissolves.
If using honey oil packaged in small round plastic container with lid, first make sure the container itself is completely clean on the outside. Then place the opened plastic container, with the lid also if it has hash on it, into the warming oil being stirred, so that the warm to hot oil can dissolve the honey oil, leaving none in the container or on the lid. Do not try to pour or spoon out the honey-oil from small plastic containers. As soon as the honey oil is dissolved completely into the hot oil, remove the opened plastic container and lid from the cooking pot with a spoon, tongs, or fork.
When the hashish or honey-oil is completely dissolved into the hot oil, only then, pour the warm/hot oil back into the original container or into the other cooking pot or container with the cool oil. This will cool off the hot oil so that it can be used nearly immediately. Then carefully pour back into the original oil container.
Use like regular cooking oil in edibles of all sorts. The potency can be adjusted by increasing or decreasing the amount of oil per gram of hashish. The above recipe makes oil with the approx. potency that 1 ml. of this oil contains slightly more than 1 mg. of THCA. One tablespoon contains slightly more than 15 mg. of THCA using wax of 82.9% THCA. content. (830 mg. of THC distributed into 750 ml. of cooking oil. This is slightly less than a quart.)
Amazingly, I randomly bought some brownie mix that uses 2/3 cup of oil to make 16 brownies. I've calculated that this oil just made contains about 175 mg. of THCA in 2/3 of a cup, which distributed into 16 brownies means each brownie has about 10.9 mg. of THC per serving, the maximum dosage allowed in one state from commercial edibles is 10 mg. of THC per serving. Oops. (This is not a law, but a regulation for commercial bakers of cannabis edibles in one U.S. state.)
At the 2014 High Times Cannabis Cup, the cops in Amsterdam in projecting new policies from city hall, and presumably the mayor's office, issued an edict against "dabbing", and also, an edict against "sharing of cannabis" in the coffee shops.
First of all, what is "dabbing"?
Dabbing is a new way to consume or smoke the hashish-like and usually semi-liquid concentration of the active ingredients of marihuana called "honey-oil" (which contains no actual oil, though it seems to be oily in consistency) usually using an appliance called a "titantium nail". Other types of marihuana concentrates may also be "dabbed" or smoked with varying results in various ways, including traditional hashish pipes. Don't put oily substances in these new smoking devices.
In other words, it's essentially no different than smoking hashish, as opposed to the cruder version, marihuana itself. There were already 2 or 3 types of hashish already being smoked normally in pipes or mixed with weed or tobacco, and smoked like a joint, before "dabbing" was invented which is just a new method of smoking a more pure form of hashish, really. Nothing more.
Note that "honey-oil", and "hash-oil" are not the same thing. So called "hash-oil" contains added oil, usually cooking oil. "Honey-oil" and most other newer types of hashish and marihuana concentrates do not contain any actual added oil at all, though honey oil appears to be oily.
I really don't see what the fuss about dabbing is really all about once the facts are known, as hashish has been in use in Holland for decades. However, some of the titantium nail smoking devices look extreme and bizarre, which can hurt legalization efforts. Some "nails" are heated up using a LPG blow torch, while others are heated using electricity, either from the AC wall outlet, or from batteries.
The electric devices don't look that odd.
However, the LPG blow-torch heated nails, look extreme and possibly hazardous.
They also may be afraid that cannabis consumption activity in the marihuana coffee-shops will slump when dabbing catches on in Europe, as one "dab-puff" is very strong, reducing traditional hashish and marihuana consumption activities.
Medical marihuana users are also advocates of the titantium nail/honey-oil method of using marihuana and marihuana concentrates.
The following source explores the entire issue of "hard-drug" rehab., especially heroin addiction.
The authors of the book do not seem to have any confidence in any rehab. of heroin or opium addicts; but they would like to steer people away from opiates in the first place. On the other hand, is there any discussion in this book of the usual pathway to pain-killer addiction?
Legal prescription pain killers is where it usually begins. This book, in my opinion, does not explore that scenario enough.
Many persons get in trouble smoking weed in their apartment. Although marihuana is legal in some areas for some people, landlords and neighbors can also be a problem if your smoking amounts to harrassment of neighbors. This is actually not necessary. It is actually very easy to avoid detection.
if you're in a larger apartment building (or hotel) with a central exhaust vent system, you can just smoke in the bathroom with the door closed where the vent is usually located.
You can also get some sandalwood incense which virtually eliminates magically the smell of cannabis almost instantly if burned after smoking in the same room. The air purifier called OZIUM has also been touted as a way to nearly eliminate cannabis smell, but sandalwood incense seems to work better if you ask me.
Make sure there's a good exhaust fan.
First of all, don't open all the windows wide. Instead, close them. Cut on the new or existing exhaust fan assuming it vents air reliably into the air outside your apartment; preferably on the roof if it's a townhouse style apartment. Many larger apartment buildings already have vents installed in all the bathrooms in all the units. Check to make sure the exhaust fan actually vents to the outside of the building. This can be difficult or easy. Some apartment buildings already have a huge exhaust fan system that pulls air through all the units up into a common air-exhaust system. In many cases, this vent is located in the bathroom or the kitchen. If it's an exhaust fan, you can tell if it's an exhaust fan by placing small sections of toilet paper over the grill to see if there's any suction.
If you find a fan or vent grill, and it's the type that does not vent air to the outside, it will not help anything. Some of these types have two separate grill sections separated by a blank-plastic-panel that does not have any grillwork or holes between the two grill sections, then it is probably the useless type. (There are other useless types as well. In a moment, we will test your exhaust fan.) This type of useless exhaust vent simply circulates air around inside the room it is installed in.
To check what type of fan or vent you have, turn it on, or open it, and try to place short sections of dry toilet paper upon the different grill sections to see which way the air is blowing, and if there is enough suction to hold the paper without falling. This is just a suction test. The useless type will suck in air through one area or section, and blow it out through another area or section of the grill work of the exhaust fan.
TEST ONE. Assuming you have the proper type, once you THINK you have all the windows, doors, and other openings closed and the exhaust fan running, you can then go around and check to see how sealed up your apartment really is in terms of air flow. With the exhaust fan running, check this by barely opening any particular window to the outside air. Place your hand near the opening and check for air briskly flowing into the apartment through the barely opened window (less than 1/4 inch open). If the apartment is well sealed, when you open the window while the exhaust fan is running, air should be noticable as it flows in quickly.
If airflow is NOT noticable flowing into the apartment through the small opening, then you are NOT safe from detection.
If airflow is flowing strongly into the apartment through the small opening, then you are probably safe from detection.
DO NOT OPEN ANY MORE WINDOWS WHILE YOU SMOKE. The exhaust fan will suck the smell and smoke out of the apartment as long as you DO NOT open any other doors or windows other than that one which is barely opened. If you open one or two windows completely, or more, the exhaust fan is no longer "in control" of the air flow. We want a controlled flow of air into, and out of the apartment. We also want air flowing into the apartment through every possible crack in the entire apartment so that smoke does NOT flow out of the apartment through these outlets. The only outlet that should have cannabis smoke and odor coming out of it, should be the exhaust fan outlet.
These procedures and tests should keep you safe and secret except in one unfortunate scenario. Some exhaust fans have not been installed correctly, and vent into a large attic for numerous units where smells can easily migrate to other units through the attic. This is the most difficult situation to detect unless you actually can get into the attic to check the ductwork.
Note that if the exhaust air system, or exhaust fan system vents into the attic or other semi-enclosed crawl areas instead of the outside air, there could already be a mold problem in such an attic or crawl space. This is probably against most building codes as the building may already be rotting away!
In that case, move to a properly designed and built abode that is less prone to rot and trouble, and make sure you burn the sandalwood incense in the room where you just smoked.
I am writing in to express my support in the reconsideration of the Schedule I designation of the cannabis plant under international conventions. To be more accurate, I join the large group of persons who feel that cannabis should be totally descheduled.
Schedule I is the most restrictive designation that exists for controlled substances and it is generally reserved for only the most dangerous drugs, such as heroin. Maintaining cannabis in this or even less severe designations, is improper and is in conflict with the available science.
Cannabis clearly does not share the ‘high’ abuse potential associated with other Schedule I substances like heroin, or even other legal substances like alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, or prescription opiates. According to a comprehensive review by the United States National Academy of Sciences, cannabis’ dependence liability is similar to that of caffeine (7 percent) or anxiolytics (9 percent), and is far lower than the dependence liability associated with other substances like alcohol (15 percent) and tobacco (32 percent).
My personal experience with cannabis and coffee, however, leads me to opine that coffee, tea, and other caffeine containing substances are much more dependency producing than cannabis for myself. Regular cannabis usage is often rationally chosen and undertaken by users such as myself, due to the alleviation of various common and pre-existent medical symptoms, later to be confused with alleged cannabis withdrawal symptoms. However, if the so-called withdrawal symptoms were already present in the lives of the future cannabis user before they began using cannabis, then these were not withdrawal symptoms since no cannabis was being used as of yet, when the medical symptoms were originally noted and communicated to doctors or other healthcare providers, as in my case.
For example, I had suffered for over 15 years from insomnia, and had tried many over-the-counter remedies and techniques for insomnia reduction, without success before I discovered cannabis worked for me; however, I never tried barbituates or other much more severe narcotics out of simple fear of the dangers of such things.
Furthermore, it is also apparent that cannabis possesses an acceptable and known safety profile compared to so many other more dangerous drugs. Unlike most therapeutics, cannabis possesses no known risk of lethal overdose. Further, the acute toxicity of cannabis is very low, and it is recognized that “there are no cases of fatal cannabis poisoning in the human medical literature.”
There exist numerous FDA-approved controlled trials assessing the safety and efficacy of cannabis in various patient populations. A scientific review of several of these trials concludes: “Based on evidence currently available the Schedule I classification is not tenable. It is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking.”
Finally, it is illogical to opine that cannabis “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment.” Several countries – such as Canada, Jamaica, and the Netherlands – as well as over two-dozen US states recognize the therapeutic use of cannabis by statute. It is now estimated that over 1.2 million Americans are using cannabis as a legal medicine under state law.
Rather than continuing to keep cannabis misplaced in Schedule I, a better option would be to deschedule it – in other words, to remove it completely from the international drug conventions – so that nations may regulate its commercial production and retail sale in a manner similar to alcohol or tobacco. Numerous nations, like Canada and Uruguay, have already moved in this direction and I encourage regulators to give serious consideration to this policy change.
I also call your attention to the U.S. Government's own 1971 "Shafer Commission", also known as "the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse", which opined that recreational marijuana usage was essentially harmless and easy to control. In this study, there is no mention whatsoever of there being any withdrawal symptoms caused by regular recreational marijuana usage.
At this time in 1971, medical usage was virtually unmentioned altogether along with any withdrawal symptoms. I personally still feel that this U.S. Goverment commissioned study released in 1971 remains the best final word on the subject.
Please recall that marijuana in 1971 was never regularly available to anyone inside the USA.
In 1971, virtually no marijuana was being produced inside the USA nor Canada, and the supply from nearby foreign countries such as Mexico, Jamaica, and Columbia was often intermittent and sporadic, which constantly produced self-evident proof that lack of cannabis did not produce any serious discomfort or withdrawal symptoms for anyone who wished to use it everyday. From this well known historical fact, we can conclude that the term "withdrawal symptom" for cannabis only came into existence when medical usage became widespread quite recently, but this medical usage scenario also tends to confuse withdrawal symptoms for pre-existing medical symptoms; pre-existent to cannabis usage altogether.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this effort to return cannabis to a more common-sense regulatory scenario under local and state control, which would shift national and local drug control resources more to controlling truly deadly drugs such as barbituates and opiates.
THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT, BUT WAS NOT CLEARLY REALIZED UNTIL AFTER THE ABOVE LETTER WAS SENT TO NORML USA:
Note that in 1971, "marihuana" was very difficult to smuggle into the USA in large and profitable amounts without detection. It was then of much lower potency, and thus, much more bulky than the cannabis of 2018. The borders of the USA in 1969-1972, although more porous than today, were still being watched closely, and authorities actually succeeded in greatly reducing the flow of this "weed" into the USA in 1969 with "Project Intercept", and also later probably 1971-1972. We can conclude that supplies were successfully interrupted and unreliable, creating the perfect scenario to study alleged "withdrawal symptoms" just in time for the Shafer Commission. This report was officially released in 1972, but numerous reliable leaks to the news media in the Fall of 1971 were observed by everyone.