More fodder for you liberals.....

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:14 am

heavycola wrote:And no, using oil-based carriers to allow ingredients to be absorbed by the skin isn't speculation, jay.

Are you saying YOU have gotten high off of canibas based oil? You would think if it were possible the oil would be a hot seller!

Its speculation.

heavycola · Post by **heavycola** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:31 am

no, we roll cannabis up and smoke it. or bake it into cookies.

why would anyone bother to leave it in olive oil for weeks and then pour it over themselves?

"Then the Lord said to Moses, "Take the following fine spices: 500 shekels of liquid myrrh, half as much of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels of qaneh-bosm, 500 shekels of cassia--all according to the sanctuary shekel--and a hind of olive oil. Make these into a sacred anointing oilâ€� (Exodus 30: 22-33).

As one shekel equals approximately 16.37 grams, this means that the THC [active ingredient in cannabis] of over 9 pounds of flowering cannabis tops were extracted into a hind, about 6.5 litres of oil. The entheogenic effects of such a solution - even when applied topically - would undoubtedly have been intense. "

From the research of Dr Sula Benet, later confirmed by the Hebrew University in jerusalem:

"In 1980, a wave of interest in Benet's work prompted numerous etymologists to agree with Benet's reinterpretation of the word qaneh-bosm in Exodus. That year, scholars at JerusalemÂ¹s Hebrew University confirmed her work, noting that the q¹aneh-bosm was mistranslated in the King James version of Exodus 30:23 as 'calamus' (Latimer, 1988). That same year, Weston La Barre also confirmed Benet's work, noting further that "the term kaneh-bosm occurs as early as both the Aramaic and the Hebrew versions of the Old Testament, hemp being used for rope in Solomon's temple and in priestly robes, as well as carried in Biblical caravans" In 1980, the slightly cynical scholar Allegro also noted that this "volatile substance in the heat of an enclosed oracular chamber would contribute to the delusion of omniscience through their intoxicating effect" (Allegro 1980)."

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:06 pm

heavycola wrote:no, we roll cannabis up and smoke it. or bake it into cookies.

why would anyone bother to leave it in olive oil for weeks and then pour it over themselves?

"Then the Lord said to Moses, "Take the following fine spices: 500 shekels of liquid myrrh, half as much of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels of qaneh-bosm, 500 shekels of cassia--all according to the sanctuary shekel--and a hind of olive oil. Make these into a sacred anointing oilâ€� (Exodus 30: 22-33).

As one shekel equals approximately 16.37 grams, this means that the THC [active ingredient in cannabis] of over 9 pounds of flowering cannabis tops were extracted into a hind, about 6.5 litres of oil. The entheogenic effects of such a solution - even when applied topically - would undoubtedly have been intense. "

From the research of Dr Sula Benet, later confirmed by the Hebrew University in jerusalem:

"In 1980, a wave of interest in Benet's work prompted numerous etymologists to agree with Benet's reinterpretation of the word qaneh-bosm in Exodus. That year, scholars at JerusalemÂ¹s Hebrew University confirmed her work, noting that the q¹aneh-bosm was mistranslated in the King James version of Exodus 30:23 as 'calamus' (Latimer, 1988). That same year, Weston La Barre also confirmed Benet's work, noting further that "the term kaneh-bosm occurs as early as both the Aramaic and the Hebrew versions of the Old Testament, hemp being used for rope in Solomon's temple and in priestly robes, as well as carried in Biblical caravans" In 1980, the slightly cynical scholar Allegro also noted that this "volatile substance in the heat of an enclosed oracular chamber would contribute to the delusion of omniscience through their intoxicating effect" (Allegro 1980)."

*takes a hit and passes it to heavycola>>>>> :roll:

mightyal · Post by **mightyal** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:37 pm

jay_a2j wrote:
heavycola wrote:And no, using oil-based carriers to allow ingredients to be absorbed by the skin isn't speculation, jay.

Are you saying YOU have gotten high off of canibas based oil? You would think if it were possible the oil would be a hot seller!

Its speculation.

Purchased, produced, smoked, got very, very high off - yes. Hash oil is a scientific fact.

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:11 pm

jay_a2j wrote:
heavycola wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:First of all can anyone confirm by firsthand experiance that you can get high off of oil made from canibas? This seems rediculous to me. I have never gotten high after eating poppy seeds.

Opium is made from poppies, not poppy seeds, and has nothing to do with cannabis. The active ingredient in cannbis can be dissolved in oil and absorbed through the skin. How else do you think jesus and his follower dudes saw all that crazy shit?

I'll ask again for a firsthand account. This is speculation..... it would be thrown out in court.

Jay, jay jay...How do you think Nicotine patches work? Which by the way you should really check into. .

jay_a2j wrote:*takes a hit and passes it to heavycola>>>>> Rolling Eyes

In other words, he has no response, is backed into a corner (again) so he places his hands over his ears and starts singing loudly.

Just ignore the facts jay...maybe they will go away.

KoolBak · Post by **KoolBak** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 2:09 pm

Ruthless......

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:05 pm

You mean the oil, right?

KoolBak · Post by **KoolBak** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:07 pm

No I mean the savage "debate".....

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:26 pm

We haven't debated any savages, have we?

KoolBak · Post by **KoolBak** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:34 pm

*substitute noun with adjective*

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:36 pm

like... "intelligent bastard"?

KoolBak · Post by **KoolBak** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:39 pm

That sonuds more like an oxymoron or a waste of good brain power...

I believe you know I was referring to "savage" as a descriptive term for the "chitchat", not as a subject that was being debated :wink:

So are you German?

stinkycheese · Post by **stinkycheese** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:50 pm

jay_a2j wrote:I'll ask again for a firsthand account. This is speculation..... it would be thrown out in court.

Care to reply to this post?

trestain wrote:actually jay yes, after every crop we always turn the cabbage(the outer leaves stalks, anything except the bud)into cannabis oil, it is actually more potent than the bud if it is distilled properley.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:58 pm

Backglass wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
heavycola wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:First of all can anyone confirm by firsthand experiance that you can get high off of oil made from canibas? This seems rediculous to me. I have never gotten high after eating poppy seeds.

Opium is made from poppies, not poppy seeds, and has nothing to do with cannabis. The active ingredient in cannbis can be dissolved in oil and absorbed through the skin. How else do you think jesus and his follower dudes saw all that crazy shit?

I'll ask again for a firsthand account. This is speculation..... it would be thrown out in court.

Jay, jay jay...How do you think Nicotine patches work? Which by the way you should really check into. .

jay_a2j wrote:*takes a hit and passes it to heavycola>>>>> Rolling Eyes

In other words, he has no response, is backed into a corner (again) so he places his hands over his ears and starts singing loudly.

Just ignore the facts jay...maybe they will go away.

I'll reply to this one.... Nicotine patches are designed to work that way. Note: if I rub tobacco on my arm it will have no effect. :roll:

happysadfun · Post by **happysadfun** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:09 am

How did the copying in of a conservative chain letter turn into a debate over whether Jesus used marijuana?

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:06 am

happysadfun wrote:How did the copying in of a conservative chain letter turn into a debate over whether Jesus used marijuana?

They are tring to justify smoking pot by making crazy alligations that Jesus "got high" off of oil made from canibas. By doing this, they pervert who Jesus is and come off looking foolish. :wink:

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:44 pm

jay_a2j wrote:They are tring to justify smoking pot by making crazy alligations that Jesus "got high" off of oil made from canibas. By doing this, they pervert who Jesus is and come off looking foolish.

I could care less about some guy in ancient times getting high. Many herbs were used for medicinal purposes back in the day (and today).

I took issue with jay's statement: "Pot is far more dangerouse than cigarrettes".

Which is blatently false.

jay_a2j wrote:I'll reply to this one.... Nicotine patches are designed to work that way. Note: if I rub tobacco on my arm it will have no effect.

Stay on course jay! Nobody said anything about rubbing leaves on ones skin.

Let me refresh your memory. We were talking about macerating herbs, particularly Marijuana, in oil. Which when applied to the skin would give the user the drugs effects. You doubted this would work. I stated this is in fact how Nicotine patches work...then you post THAT left-turn post. :roll:

Jay...if you were to take Tobacco, soak the leaves in oil, then rub that oil onto your skin, you would indeed have made your own low-potency nicotine patch.

Since you have no reply, feel free to ignore this post as you usually do.

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:22 pm

happysadfun wrote:How did the copying in of a conservative chain letter turn into a debate over whether Jesus used marijuana?

Conservatives dont know how to direct debate.

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:38 pm

Backglass wrote:I could care less about...etc

This is completely irrelevant, but this still disorientates me. I assume "I could care less" in America means the same as "I couldn't care less" in Britain? Why do you people have it precisely the wrong way around?

If you could care less, presumably you DO care?

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:39 pm

Stopper wrote:
Backglass wrote:I could care less about...etc

This is completely irrelevant, but this still disorientates me. I assume "I could care less" in America means the same as "I couldn't care less" in Britain? Why do you people have it precisely the wrong way around?

If you could care less, presumably you DO care?

I like that.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:40 pm

Stopper wrote:
Backglass wrote:I could care less about...etc

This is completely irrelevant, but this still disorientates me. I assume "I could care less" in America means the same as "I couldn't care less" in Britain? Why do you people have it precisely the wrong way around?

If you could care less, presumably you DO care?

In America the two terms are interchangeable and mean the same thing. It all boils down to personal preference at that point.

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:47 pm

vtmarik wrote:
Stopper wrote:
Backglass wrote:I could care less about...etc

This is completely irrelevant, but this still disorientates me. I assume "I could care less" in America means the same as "I couldn't care less" in Britain? Why do you people have it precisely the wrong way around?

If you could care less, presumably you DO care?

In America the two terms are interchangeable and mean the same thing. It all boils down to personal preference at that point.

It works both ways. I am still trying to figure out exactly what a "sod" is or what one is doing while "sodding". In the US, sod is what you put down in front of your house to make a nice lawn. :lol:

SOD

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:03 pm

Backglass wrote:
vtmarik wrote:
Stopper wrote:
Backglass wrote:I could care less about...etc

This is completely irrelevant, but this still disorientates me. I assume "I could care less" in America means the same as "I couldn't care less" in Britain? Why do you people have it precisely the wrong way around?

If you could care less, presumably you DO care?

In America the two terms are interchangeable and mean the same thing. It all boils down to personal preference at that point.

OK...I'll accept that, though I'm not convinced I've seen an American say "couldn't" on the internet before...Hmmm... It's just I've this feeling that, like so many other US expressions, I'm gonna find myself adopting this in everyday speech, and I won't remember why...lol

Backglass wrote:It works both ways. I am still trying to figure out exactly what a "sod" is or what one is doing while "sodding". In the US, sod is what you put down in front of your house to make a nice lawn.

SOD

Yes, well, here, there's probably a sod or two I'd like to see put down, but I'll probably do sod all about it. :wink:

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 7:45 pm

Backglass wrote:It works both ways. I am still trying to figure out exactly what a "sod" is or what one is doing while "sodding". In the US, sod is what you put down in front of your house to make a nice lawn.

SOD

Sod is a nice way of saying f*ck, and it has about as many uses.

f*ck Off <-> Sod Off
You fucking f*ck! <-> You Sodding sod!

The only one that doesn't work is f*ck you <-> sod you.

Did I get it right Stopper?

DogDoc · Post by **DogDoc** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:08 pm

Stopper wrote:
Backglass wrote:I could care less about...etc

This is completely irrelevant, but this still disorientates me. I assume "I could care less" in America means the same as "I couldn't care less" in Britain? Why do you people have it precisely the wrong way around?

If you could care less, presumably you DO care?

Precisely. This is one of my pet peeves as well. It should be "I couldn't care less." Also, people really need to get "its" and "it's" straight. Its is a possessive pronoun. It's is a contraction for it is. And alright is not all right. And what the hell does "irregardless" mean, anyway? Regardless, it's regardless, dammit. I could go on but will let you Brits take over as the English language police from here.