Kush friendly is not only a brand that stands for quality, but also for truth in the battle against the wrongful bans on Marijuana the world over. Many researchers have shown that in a relatively short period in America since 1936, the scientific and social foundations of the ban changed radically, amounting to nonsense shortly after each change. These changes are interesting because they refer to the phenomenon where the talk is about the survival of the culture of the ban.
A detailed overview of these old discussions in Geneva was initially discussed. Later, it was realized that they do not matter. What matters is that the ban is maintained, and that people may assume that certain goals are achieved. The people fighting against this wrong make attempts to formulate what this ban targets.
The core of the argument is that cannabis prohibition has a status that is free from rational and functional assessments. Cannabis prohibition is the reason for its own existence, and fulfills spiritual needs of a different nature than that for which it was founded. It is important to keep scientific facts in mind when discussing the issue.
If you have had the opportunity to meet people who think that good research in the field of cannabis, you will be surprised by their views. They have proven that consumption and production will affect the way in which cannabis prohibition is retained, modified, or perhaps dissolved! This recommendation aims to show that the idea claiming that cannabis prohibition has been a shield from discourse is far from scientific.
Describing the dangers and making objections to this is not the first ambition here. The defenders' aim is to give a general description of the main function of cannabis prohibition anywhere, that legitimizes to the naked eye a version of the dangers that at a certain moment came into fashion, however mistakenly that may have been. What is mean by the culture of cannabis prohibition is the system for which stories about the wickedness of cannabis keep getting manufactured.
There are similarities and differences between the responses various authorities will give you. The story about cannabis as a source of violence is only to be found in England and the USA. Of all the stories provided by the authorities, scientifically speaking, every one is either incorrect or highly questionable.
The more mundane aspects of the ban also need some contemplation. The example of organizations that benefit from the culture of cannabis prohibition comes from ongoing research into cannabis arrests in New York by Harry Levine. His thesis is that the driving force behind the arrest of large and growing number of people for the possession of cannabis in the city of New York is not the use of cannabis, or any possible increase in risks for local police.
In the early days of the ban, in the thirties, cannabis was constructed in the United States of America as a cause of violence, rape and sexual perversion, in the sixties, cannabis was constructed as one of the foundations of cultural rebellion of that era. Cannabis became blamed as a major cause of 'dropping out', the lack of enthusiasm for the dominant American culture of consumption. When you are forced to consume, do so by buying garments that prove you believe in truth and lighting up.
A detailed overview of these old discussions in Geneva was initially discussed. Later, it was realized that they do not matter. What matters is that the ban is maintained, and that people may assume that certain goals are achieved. The people fighting against this wrong make attempts to formulate what this ban targets.
The core of the argument is that cannabis prohibition has a status that is free from rational and functional assessments. Cannabis prohibition is the reason for its own existence, and fulfills spiritual needs of a different nature than that for which it was founded. It is important to keep scientific facts in mind when discussing the issue.
If you have had the opportunity to meet people who think that good research in the field of cannabis, you will be surprised by their views. They have proven that consumption and production will affect the way in which cannabis prohibition is retained, modified, or perhaps dissolved! This recommendation aims to show that the idea claiming that cannabis prohibition has been a shield from discourse is far from scientific.
Describing the dangers and making objections to this is not the first ambition here. The defenders' aim is to give a general description of the main function of cannabis prohibition anywhere, that legitimizes to the naked eye a version of the dangers that at a certain moment came into fashion, however mistakenly that may have been. What is mean by the culture of cannabis prohibition is the system for which stories about the wickedness of cannabis keep getting manufactured.
There are similarities and differences between the responses various authorities will give you. The story about cannabis as a source of violence is only to be found in England and the USA. Of all the stories provided by the authorities, scientifically speaking, every one is either incorrect or highly questionable.
The more mundane aspects of the ban also need some contemplation. The example of organizations that benefit from the culture of cannabis prohibition comes from ongoing research into cannabis arrests in New York by Harry Levine. His thesis is that the driving force behind the arrest of large and growing number of people for the possession of cannabis in the city of New York is not the use of cannabis, or any possible increase in risks for local police.
In the early days of the ban, in the thirties, cannabis was constructed in the United States of America as a cause of violence, rape and sexual perversion, in the sixties, cannabis was constructed as one of the foundations of cultural rebellion of that era. Cannabis became blamed as a major cause of 'dropping out', the lack of enthusiasm for the dominant American culture of consumption. When you are forced to consume, do so by buying garments that prove you believe in truth and lighting up.
0 comments:
Post a Comment