Video: Do you really need a grinder?

I just made a video of my popular post about grinders, because people seem to be really curious about the subject. Enjoy!

Does Marijuana Withdrawal Exist?

As the controversial new psychological diagnosis manual, the DSM-5, is being debated and discussed by prominent psychologists, many changes have been put into the limelight, including the inclusion of cannabis withdrawal as a disorder. The concept of marijuana withdrawal is a controversial one-- some say it doesn't exist, and others say that it's an important part of marijuana. If it does exist, it is certainly subtle. It seems to be that only opponents of cannabis use acknowledge its existence; actual users deny it. Are cannabis users correct by virtue of experience, or is it a denial based on bias?

In my opinion, to understand cannabis withdrawal, we must look at the reasons we smoke it in the first place. Its most widely recognized medical use is to aid chemotherapy patients in pain relief, nausea control, and appetite revival. It is also prescribed to those suffering from eating disorders (once again, to encourage appetite), anxiety disorders, and depression.

And what are the supposed symptoms of marijuana withdrawal? Irritability, anxiety, and a loss of appetite. Equal and opposite to the benefits that marijuana affords us. In my opinion, this is not withdrawal, but simply a return to sobriety. If you take something that improves your mood and your appetite, and then stop taking it, of course your mood and appetite are going to suffer. This is very different from, say, alcohol withdrawal, which produces muscle tremors and hallucinations. These symptoms (in most cases) were not present before the user became an alcoholic, and therefore, they present a new concern.

In my opinion, cannabis withdrawal is NOT a legitimate disorder and should NOT be included in the DSM-5.

Buying a Piece Part One: What kind of piece do you need?

If you're anything like the stoners that I know, you can't get enough stoner gadgets. Visions of grinders and ice catchers and colorful bongs dance through your dreams. Or maybe you don't own any yet, but your friend's bong makes your mouth water. You're interested in finding a smoking device that you love just as much. This is the post in a series about finding the right piece for you, whether you're a beginner or a veteran.

Though it is an oft-overlooked point, you should first think about who you usually smoke with. The size of the group that you toke with really affects what piece is best to use. (I will be leaving out joints & blunts, because they're not exactly gadgets that you keep around.)

If you usually smoke alone or with a small group, you should look into buying:

• Basic pipe, small bowl. This is usually people's first piece, because it is the simplest and most versatile. Most are made of glass, and small enough to be very portable. You can find varying bowl sizes, so if you smoke alone you can avoid packing a huge bowl and having it go stale when you can't finish it.
• Bubbler. Bubblers are pipes (again, usually glass) that force the smoke through water. It's healthier than some other methods but it is much less portable and stealthy.
• Vaporgenie. I reviewed this piece earlier, and it's definitely my new favorite way of smoking. It's stealthy, healthy, and doesn't create any smell. However, it's not good for large groups because the bowl is relatively small, the weed will burn if it gets too hot after multiple uses, and there is a learning curve for actually using it.
• MFLB. There's no really good reason that this CAN'T be smoked in large groups, but it's so convenient for stealthy outdoor toking that I decided to put it in this category. If used for a long period of time (like being passed along in a large group) it can sometimes get too hot for your lips.

If, however, you're popular enough to regularly smoke with a large group of friends (five or more people), some of these options might be better choices for you:

• Bong. Bongs are good for groups because you can customize them. Get a bowl that's deep so you don't have to keep re-packing it.
• Pipe with a deep bowl. Contrary to what I said about pipes above, some are constructed with deeper bowls and are better for groups.
• Volcano Vaporizer. That is, if you're super rich. They're definitely worth it, but only if you have a large income and a lot of people who would use it often. If you live in an apartment or house with multiple people, this may be a good investment to share.
• Hookah is marketed towards tobacco users, but you can certainly mix some pot in with your shisha.

Stay tuned for the rest of the series!

Racism and Marijuana Prohibition: Video Version

I made a video based on my most popular post, Why Pot Supporters Shouldn't Use the Term "Marijuana." It's slightly revised and also shows off my handsomeness and charm. ;) Watch the video and let me know what you think! :)

I'll read your comments when I'm done with my appointment with Lucy: stay tuned for a trip report, and after that an article about meeting Steve Bloom, former High Times editor. Stay stoned, psychonauts!

Protect Your Rights with the NORML Freedom Card

I think something that every drug enthusiast worries about is encounters with the police. Our good friend NORML has provided us with a solution: an information card to print out and keep in your wallet. In addition to succinctly summarizing your rights for your own information, you can hand it to the arresting officer to say which of your rights you are asserting during your arrest.

I highly recommend printing one out for yourself and all your stoner friends. Stick some in the books at your college library (I'm going to). Put one in all the dubsacks you sell. Besides helping to get more people involved in NORML, which is quite possibly the most important marijuana activism organization, it can help them get out of a really sticky situation. If it ever comes in handy, they will certainly thank you.

Furthur: Best Posts of 2011

Here's a quick recap of this year's top ten posts you shouldn't have missed:

Tripping For The First Time

How To Avoid Bad Trips

Synesthesia: Part 2 (My Experience)

Trying DMT Part 2

Why Pot Supporters Shouldn't Use the Term "Marijuana"

Saying No: How and Why

Portugal's Drug Decriminalization: 10 Years Later

The Windows of the Skull

Time Flies... Or Jumps, or Skips, Or...

An Issue of Liberty

Do you really need a grinder?

The short answer is no.

After all, what does a grinder do? The simple variety does just that-- grinds up your weed into more manageable shreds. This is convenient, sure, but not particularly necessary. Grinders with more than one layer also do you the courtesy of filtering out stems. Nice, but still nothing you can't do by hand.

Never buy a one-stage grinder. They are just a waste of money.

However, I love my grinder. I use it every time I smoke, plus to store my weed (which I generally buy in small quantities at a time). That's because in addition to the grinding convenience, it has a third layer, divided by a screen, that acts as a kief catcher-- all the pollen off the weed in the upper chambers falls down through the screen, becoming a powder you can smoke on its own.

I love kief. It's like a delicacy. While it can sometimes be harsh and hard to smoke out of bowls (you have to sandwich it in between two layers of bud), it is so tasty and the high feels so clean. And a grinder is the only way to separate the figurative wheat from the chaff. It improves my mood to look in my grinder and see a sand-castle of kief piling up, which I save to smoke with my closest friends.

Only buy a multi-stage grinder, and only if you're as into kief as I am.

If you're an elitist like me, by all means buy a grinder (the multi-stage kind advertised as having a "pollen catcher"). If not, don't waste your money because you don't need it.

Additional thoughts:

• If you do decide to buy a grinder of whatever variety, don't buy one made of wood or plastic. They erode quickly and all the bits that come off your grinder go into your weed. Always go with a sturdy metal one.
• To encourage kief to fall into the bottom section, put a nickel in the middle stage (in the above picture, the empty section at the top left). This will knock the particles down so they don't mix back in with your bud.
• I find my (really really blunt) pocket knife to be a great tool to use in tandem with a grinder, as a scoop. Some grinders come with a scoop for the kief, but I bought mine second-hand and I'm not sure if it came with one in the first place. Therefore, my pocket knife serves me just as well.

Best Christmas Present Ever!

I suppose it's a little late to be buying it for any stoners on your list, but I really have to brag about this awesome Christmas present I received in a Secret Santa trading game.

No, it's not actually Dr Pepper. It's what I've dubbed the Stash Can-- it's meant to look and feel like a real, unopened can of Dr Pepper, but you can unscrew the top (as pictured below) and you can shove incriminating things in there. Like perfectly legal tobacco products.

In my opinion, this is a must-have stoner gadget, especially if you live in a communal, searchable place like a dorm. Just don't stick it in the fridge or someone might try to pop the tab and drink out of it...

An Issue of Liberty

This is a guest post by Eva from Into the Infinite. She's a wonderful writer-- check out her stuff!

There are many good reasons to legalize drugs. There is the fact that most hallucinogens are non-toxic and non-addictive, that drug addicts should be treated like patients and not like criminals (granted that they didn't commit any violent offenses), and that the "War on Drugs" puts billions of dollars directly into the pockets of organized crime. Each of these reasons on their own should be enough to make anyone change their mind about the legal status of drugs. In this post I want to talk about the issue of liberty and of freedom over your own consciousness. Taken with all the other points, it should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that there is something seriously wrong with drug prohibition.

You should have the right to decide if you want to change the state of your own consciousness. You should be allowed to explore your inner self and the amazing worlds and ideas that can be opened up through the use of hallucinogens. And even though I prefer to use such substances for more spiritually inclined purposes and have certain ideas about the best set and setting for their use, you should have the final choice in taking them how and where you want to take them, even if you just want to simply have fun.

Are people going to make mistakes? Are they going to use drugs and have bad experiences, or maybe take them when they are not in a proper mindset? Yes, the truth is that they will. But just because people make mistakes and don't always make the right choices, doesn't mean that those choices should be stripped from them and that the government should have the final say on what is and isn't right for you.

Are there going to be addicts and drug abusers? Yes, just like they exist, and are never going to go away in the current system. And the crazy thing is that while we treat alcoholics as patients and not like criminals, victimless drug addicts can expect to face the same, or worse punishments as convicted rapists. (And not only drug addicts, cannabis smokers and dealers can find themselves in the same boat).

Another thing to consider is that if the drug laws were to change, everyone won't suddenly run off to do heroin just because it is legal, as Ron Paul says here:

The idea that the government should get out of people's personal lives is one that I can not stress enough.

It needs to stay out of people's bedrooms, out of their personal choices, and out of their consciousness. You, as a smart, rational, thinking person are much more qualified to decide what sort of substances you are going to put in your body than some elected official who knows nothing about you and believes the propaganda of the War on Drugs.

Now, is everybody a smart, rational, thinking human being? No, of course not. It doesn't take much looking around to realize that. But do we take away people's freedoms and control their mind just because they aren't very intelligent? Do we take away the freedom of everyone else who happens to know how to use drugs responsibly?

People can also be stupid with alcohol, and with a whole host of everyday things from forks to baseball bats. I could smack someone over the head with my laptop. I probably fry my brain more staring at my laptop screen more than I ever do by using cannabis or taking LSD.

For people to have let their liberty and control over their own consciousness be taken away like this is astounding, and I am convinced that they would never have let it happen were it not for the propaganda surrounding drug prohibition. It is quite telling that the people who started the War on Drugs never actually told the truth, because if they did, they knew they wouldn't get away with it. They painted cannabis as this super dangerous drug that made you go insane. When the sad truth is that the history of cannabis criminalization is riddled with racism.

And while I do like to think that the war on drugs would have never started if people knew the truth, I get this sense when I look around now that the sheep-like people wouldn't care even if they did. They would just keep eating up new lies told to them by those in power, who would just scramble to find new reasons to continue the War on Drugs and keep big pharma happy. In this following video, while not completely about drugs, Ron Paul does a good job at outlining how complacent people are while they lose their liberty.

You don't have to agree with everything he says, but I think no one can argue that people nowadays seem too complacent and uncaring about what is done with their rights. The fact that there is not mass outrage over the War on Drugs illustrates this perfectly, and taking back the rights over our consciousness would be a great first step in affirming our rights and liberty.

"There can be no more intimate and elemental part of the individual than his or her own consciousness. At the deepest level, our consciousness is what we are - to the extent that if we are not sovereign over our own consciousness then we cannot in any meaningful sense be sovereign over anything else either. So it is highly significant that, far from encouraging freedom of consciousness, our societies in fact violently deny our right to sovereignty in this intensely personal area, and have effectively outlawed all states of consciousness other than those on a very narrowly defined and officially approved list. The "War on Drugs" has thus unexpectedly succeeded in engineering a stark reversal of the true direction of Western history by empowering faceless bureaucratic authorities to send armed agents to break into our homes, arrest us, throw us into prison, and deprive us of our income and reputations simply because we with to explore the sometimes radical, though always temporary, alterations in our own consciousness that drugs facilitate."- Graham Hancock

You may not agree with the legalization of all drugs, and several nuances and arguments may surround the issue. I for one would have no qualms about taking certain deadly pharmaceuticals off the shelves. We can get into discussions about which drugs should be legalized verses which should just be decriminalized, but the bottom line should be one of liberty and the fact that you should have sovereignty over your own consciousness. If you are not hurting others, then you should not be treated as a criminal because of your personal choice to ingest a substance and change your state of consciousness.

Saying "No": How & Why

A lot of anti-drug propaganda focuses on how to say "no" to drugs, but saying "no" to drugs isn't any harder than saying "no" to playing a game of kickball, or saying "no" to a food you don't like.

I skimmed a book recently, on how to get kids to avoid drugs, and it got me thinking. Propaganda often treats drug users as evil fiends who hand out drugs just to ruin people's lives. This is blatant hysteria: the motives of those that offer aren't examined. Some people probably will offer you addictive drugs and then make sure that they're your connect, which is obviously of questionable morality, but many are just well-meaning friends trying to be polite. (If you get made fun of or pressured, your "friends" are immature and playing a power game. Say "More for you!" and go hang out with someone who isn't a douchebag.) Also included was a list of ways to say no. Surprisingly, many were actively hostile, like "I don't want to. End of discussion." or "Are you crazy?" That bristly hostility is just plain rude, and often directed at someone who wasn't meaning any harm. This just passes the hysteria along to children, who think of a drug offer like an offer to be an accomplice in a murder. They ignore drug use as a legitimate choice, and though I don't expect that sort of reasoning from propaganda, it still bothers me.

Especially because I fully support the choices of those that don't do drugs. Of course, I still pass them the bowl to be polite, but I would never pressure anyone into doing anything they didn't want to. I like to correct people's incorrect D.A.R.E. ideas about the drugs that I do, but if they know the truth and still don't want to join me, I leave them alone. In fact, occasionally I actively support their decisions. I have one friend who everyone thinks smokes pot, because she dresses like a hippie, has synesthesia, is spacey, and eats vegan. But her veganism is exactly why she doesn't do drugs: she's very interested in nutrition and exactly what she puts in her body, so she likes to be extra careful with any chemical that goes past her lips. She likes to investigate the health, political, and moral implications of everything she ingests, and I really respect that. I also try to dissuade my friends with mental health issues (like addictive personalities, depression, or schizophrenic tendencies) from doing drugs, or at least try to supervise them and make sure they're careful. Some people shouldn't, or don't want to, do drugs at all, and I support them in their decision.

To say "no" to drugs, all you have to do is say "No, thanks" and pass the pipe along. Learning to say no to drugs shouldn't be a campaign in itself, because anyone who has the self-esteem to say "no" to anybody, about anything, can say "no" to drugs.

The Emperor Wears No Clothes

The legalization of hemp is generally viewed as a human rights issue, a constitutional issue, or a crime issue. Jack Herer presents it as an economic and environmental issue as well, in his history of hemp usage The Emperor Wears No Clothes. In it, he implores us to be like the innocent little boy from the fairy tale and expose the lies that the Drug War is built upon. In addition to supporting what I said here, he gives us lots of fun facts like:

• The word "Cannabis" has its roots in the world's first languages.
• The widespread use of hemp would solve many problems: it's more renewable than trees for paper, it lessens the need for petrochemicals as fuel, and it would provide jobs and preserve family farms.
• Before it was banned, cannabis was listed in marriage guides as an aphrodisiac.
• Ganja as a force for peace began as anti-communist propaganda. At first, weed was banned because of the supposed violence and disobedience it incited in racial minorities, but during the Red Scare it was treated as a communist plot to make us all indolent.
• Hemp seeds are one of the single most nutritious foods on the planet, and could be used like soy is now. Gruel is traditionally made from mashed-up hemp seeds.
• Chillums have their origin with Hindu priests.
• The fact that we have chemical receptors to which THC binds evidences an ancient symbiosis with this plant that humans have been using for 10,000 years.
• Temperance organizations, during the prohibition movement, recommended hashish as a substitute for the evil alcohol.
• Army tests administered over a span of two years show that soldiers who regularly smoke pot do not lose any performance or motivation.

Though this book was maybe a little dry, its nontraditional stance on the legalization of marijuana makes it an indispensable read.

Why Pot Supporters Shouldn't Use The Term "Marijuana"

This is a belief I've held for a while, although obviously I often slip and use the more common term. Unfortunately, I can't remember what I read that first provided me with this information, so I had to re-research everything to make sure my facts are straight. Most of it was gleaned from this article.

Hemp was the major staple of George Washington's garden. Hemp was sold in American pharmacies. Hemp was required to be grown by colonial farmers. So why, now that it's illegal, is it referred to as marijuana? The term marijuana has a short history in America, filled with racism and political intrigue.

Although the middle east has a history of hashish use, hemp wasn't really smoked recreationally in America until Mexican immigrants brought the practice with them into the western states around the 1930s. California was the first to ban the "preparation" of hemp, after Mexicans were observed doing it, and many western states followed. This was happening right at the time of the prohibition of alcohol, and the government was testing how far it could go banning mind-altering substances. Apparently, it found that it could go quite far.

Not okay.

In the east, the racism was directed at the black Jazz musicians. Their weed-smoking habits formed a central part of their musical sub-culture. Since they were seen as immoral and dangerous, this terrified the populace. Henry Anslinger, the rightly-reviled crusader against weed and the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, is alleged to have made many racist statements, including “…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races" and “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” No matter what the time period, these are not appropriate statements for a public figure to make.

Rumors began circulating linking marijuana use to murder and violent behavior, but it was obviously unfounded speculation based on the fear of other races. For example, newspaper tycoon William Randoph Hearst writes, "“Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim’s life in Los Angeles?… THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES — that is a matter of cold record.” It's important to note that Hearst had much to gain, since the sensationalism sold newspapers and the use of wood-based paper over hemp-based assured him profits from his investments.

As soon as hemp was in non-white hands, it was labeled with the exotic term "marijuana," which the layman did not know was the same plant. William C. Woodward, of the American Medical Association, cited this as a reason to reject the bill proposing its prohibition. In the article I linked to above, the author writes,

"At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people’s minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren’t even aware of it."

Unfortunately, he was ignored and the bill was passed.

Though the term marijuana has lost its racist connotations for the most part, its history is largely ignored. It's important for weed smokers (just like anybody) to realize the implications of the terms that they use, and choose one that fits what they mean. In my opinion, "hemp" is the best term because of its historical use and its harmless connotations, but "weed" and "pot," though vague, are a little less formal and work just as well.

Sight-seeing for stoners in Rochester!

This weekend I was sight-seeing in Rochester, NY with Boyfriend and decided to go see a Pink Floyd laser light show at the Strasenburgh Planetarium. If you ever find yourself in Rochester, you need to check it out.

We went high on a bowl that was almost entirely headies-kief, and the show blew my mind. I honestly wasn't sure how cool it would be, being at a place of learning that can often be really dry, but it was really cool. In addition to the regular star projector doing background things (like constellations and flying money), they had lasers (duh) doing some really cool effects, including flying parabolas, spinning mandala-type patterns, and fields of menacing gears. One effect that they did to death was to spin the stars one way and the laser patterns the other way, to increase the dizziness, but even that was really cool when paired with a tunnel to make it look like you were traveling through a worm-hole in space. I had to constantly keep myself from yelling in my enthusiasm, and it was a tough battle. I was also pleased with their music choice; instead of being Pink Floyd's most popular, it was a good mix of the most popular and the best, including a track off The Division Bell, which is my favorite album. I told Boyfriend that I now consider him ready for acid. :) Here's the link to the Planetarium's schedules page, if you want to see what's up. They apparently have a different laser show going on each month. Pink Floyd is only going until the end of the month, but in July they're doing the Beatles!

Other fun places to go non-sober in Rochester include the Strong Museum of Play. Boyfriend and I went sober, unfortunately, because the security near the museum was unfortunately very present. We spent hours playing like children, touring fantasylands, driving planes, playing guitar hero, and pretending to be superheroes. I wish I had the foresight to drop some acid before I went, particularly because of the butterfly garden. It was so special walking through a path decorated in over a thousand living butterflies, some the size of your hand. Unfortunately, butterflies apparently freak out Boyfriend so we had to leave after like five minutes. :/

Also, if it's the right time of the year, the Lilac Festival is really cool. It's outside, free, and the park is huge and beautiful. I used to smoke/trip there a lot-- the appeal is undeniable.

Pro-Legalization Politicians

I've always been really interested in politics, especially when it comes to researching social issues and forming intelligent opinions on them (partially because I'm bad at keeping up with current events). Now that I've I recently turned old enough to vote, my political thinking has become even more important to me. I have a tough time allying myself with any major political party because I disagree with most of what they say, but I definitely lean towards the left. This is partially because of my dad, who is a self-described Communist (although in practice he really isn't), a proud union man, and a supporter of the underdog (i.e. Ralph Nader, every goddamn election). However, until recently I never gave much thought to who wanted to legalize marijuana, because I figured none of them did. I guess I was wrong!

Here's a list of politicians to support:

• Gary Johnson, the governor of New Mexico & possible presidential candidate in 2012. He's a libertarian who supports legalization from a fiscal point of view. Unfortunately, he was denied a chance to speak at a recent Republican conference, supposedly from a lack of scheduling space. Unless somebody better comes along, he's my vote!
• Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City. This one only sort of counts, because pro-legalization is not part of his platform, but he has admitted to smoking weed and liking it. He's certainly a step up from those that deny "inhaling." His quote was featured on a slew of ads by NORML, which he didn't approve of but didn't make a big deal about either. He gets points in my book just for being honest.
• Ron Paul, congressman of Texas and 2008 presidential candidate. He's pro-legalization as an extension of States Rights. High Times apparently wrote an article about him in their November 1988 issue