SoilGirl's Soil Multi-Strain Grow Journal 2014

"Nasty, black, sinky stuff" - yep. that's it !!

My neighbor has some of that, which is where I had the brook experience.
Fortuitously, I had sought the protection of a staff before treading there.
Brown wizard is more a goal than a reality :) By nature and appearance, I'm more gray :rofl:

Euphoria is looking good there. :thumb:
Since she is changing to offset branching, I speculate this is a serious move towards flowering.

Since you are in a grow friendly area, do you have any concerns about pollen from upwind?
 
Your dad sounds like a hoot. :thumb: :rofl:
 
OnTheMove said:
nice all good now then :) my beauties are bushing up at the heads, in 20 mins they go to sleep in the dark cellar for their 4th night :)
Click to expand...
Yep!! Dad's home, still grumpy about his jailbreak attempt being thwarted this morning... the words, "what the hell kind of free country is this" came out a couple times, and absolutely refusing to wear his handsome neck brace :rofl: hahahaha... I'm glad he's back.
I'll be sure to stop by and see your beauties my swiss-roaming friend :)
B A R said:
Wow, I like Pops already.
Click to expand...
:laughtwo: I like him a little too. :rollit: thanks for sticking around Reg, and for the good vibes.
Radogast said:
"Nasty, black, sinky stuff" - yep. that's it !!

My neighbor has some of that, which is where I had the brook experience.
Fortuitously, I had sought the protection of a staff before treading there.
Brown wizard is more a goal than a reality :) By nature and appearance, I'm more gray :rofl:

Euphoria is looking good there. :thumb:
Since she is changing to offset branching, I speculate this is a serious move towards flowering.

Since you are in a grow friendly area, do you have any concerns about pollen from upwind?
Click to expand...
Hahahaha of course you have a staff. I do too ;) made it out of an aspen sapling, has a root knot on it too! I feel so cool when I walk with it :geek:
:rofl: it's not the color of hair that makes the wizard of the brown, but the amount of bird poop in it, jk LOL, actually the amount that they are in touch with nature, and I think there are few more worthy of the title "The Brown" than yourself ;) although you could use a few mushrooms. :hippy:

Thank you, I'm actually very proud of this specimen of Euphoria, totally falling in love with this particular plant.

I'm not too worried about pollination honestly, we're on the edge of our tiny old ranch-style neighborhood right next to a big old field of beautiful golden grasses that goes unbroken for miles. Also as to the comment of grow-friendly, this particular county of Colorado is among the least progressive and tolerant toward MJ/decriminalization. This county voted against allowing ANY MMJ or recreational dispensaries to open up shop.
There's still police intimidation tactics being used on anyone that is caught with weed or caught growing. It's a pretty much 95% conservative county to give some insight to the area, at the only nearby MMJ dispensary (I have to drive a good 20 mins or so to get out of the county for a disp, whose products I'm not very impressed by) I was chit chatting with a co-owner of the dispo, and apparently some of the store's weed is grown in the county I'm in, one time their driver got pulled over transporting the product by the sheriff...he stupidly admitted he had weed in the car without even being asked. he had several ounces, the sheriff apparently threatened to alert the feds about the grow and take him into jail for having over the limit allowed to any one medical patient or some bullshit like that, unless the guy dumped all his weed and stomped it into the ground... being scared shitless, the guy did just that and the dispensary was running low for a while. That sheriff had no grounds to do that, and I think should be fired, but the dispensary didn't want to make a big thing out of it. And I've heard other stories like this before... Not all of CO is the national image of decriminalization that Denver and Boulder have become, we have our anti-progress ass holes scattered about just like anywhere else.

I think its safe to say I'm one of the only outdoor growers around here, I'm admittedly growing a couple more plants than I am technically allowed to by law (well actually, it's illegal to grow outdoors here, or at least in a semi-legal grey area), but I think the 6-plant rule and only indoors, is stupid as hell. I'm probably not going to get as much yield out of all my outdoor plants put together as some people can get out of a single one indoors, not to mention people that can get a 20 foot/10 foot wide monster going outdoors. California's laws about 99 plants are much more fair, and they turn the other way about people growing outdoors as long as they aren't obvious to surrounding public (which mine aren't). I don't understand the limits we set, if we want to legalize it, just F*cking legalize it.

Rant complete lol. Thanks for the concern Rado :hugs:
 
Hiker said:
Your dad sounds like a hoot. :thumb: :rofl:
Click to expand...

Hahaha to say the least, yes. He can be a PITA but I love him with all my heart and I got some of the pita genes passed down from him Lol.
 
Marijuana Law Means Whiff Is Not Enough

So sad your local cops are so vigilante. And that your community supports that.

In Massachusetts, the supreme court BEFORE medical marijuana made it very clear that a police officer, even if they see you smoking joint, cannot ask if you have more marijuana in your pockets and cannot search. When two college kids were parked on Commonwealth Ave (one of the larger streets in town) with smoke totally filling their car and leaking out into the street, the court reprimanded the cop for knocking on the window.

In state supreme court arguments, one of the justices stated there is no such thing as "cause" to search for a substance that is not criminal, because there is no crime to give cause.

A related Massachusetts article from before MMJ law.
 
Radogast said:
Marijuana Law Means Whiff Is Not Enough

So sad your local cops are so vigilante. And that your community supports that.

In Massachusetts, the supreme court BEFORE medical marijuana made it very clear that a police officer, even if they see you smoking joint, cannot ask if you have more marijuana in your pockets and cannot search. When two college kids were parked on Commonwealth Ave (one of the larger streets in town) with smoke totally filling their car and leaking out into the street, the court reprimanded the cop for knocking on the window.

In state supreme court arguments, one of the justices stated there is no such thing as "cause" to search for a substance that is not criminal, because there is no crime to give cause.

A related Massachusetts article from before MMJ law.
Click to expand...
I followed that link and I think that's very admirable of your state supreme court. Colorado also wouldn't tolerate this particular sheriffs actions as a state were it widely known what he's done, reardless of the county's sentiments. I also think that the county, while against having any local dispensaries, wouldn't support this sheriff sticking his nose in business that doesn't hurt anyone, after all, conservatives do hate government. As a state, the rules are similar to your state's, there is virtually no way to get through any court here on small marijuana charges, and I think part of the fault in the situation I mentioned goes to the driver who admitted to transporting it without being asked. I mean have some common sense, not all police are there to do good.
But, the thing about smell, doesn't go here. If police smell weed in your car and pulled you over for not driving well, chances are you're getting a DWI. This goes even if you're just sitting in your car with the keys in the ignition. However I've never had any problems driving high, been pulled over a couple times for my tail light being out, and been asked if I've smoked or drank, but I said no (lied) and was just fine.

Colorado is trying to come up with better ways to consistently classify people who are driving high, and I think its as dumb as can be. A lot of heavy stoners develop such a tolerance that there's no difference between their driving while medicated and driving while sober, in fact I KNOW that some people drive better when stoned because they're too anxious and easily distracted when sober. The state set some ridiculous blood content limit for THC while driving and I think its obnoxious, its not like alcohol where if you have .08 or more, you're truly impaired. I've never had anyone complain about my driving while stoned. I have seen plenty of people complain and freak over someone driving drunk though, myself among them, and its just, different. period.

I admit, there's people that can't handle driving on weed though, I've been in the car with some of those people and it was a nightmare. I just don't think that we can generalize who is impaired and who isn't impaired, because weed affects everyone differently.
 
Did CO set a blood content limit?

I haven't heard anything about a rash of cases here in WA, but I thought that part of our law was really messed up. They are basically saying that regular cannabis users cannot legally drive. I think most folks here in WA don't realize what this law did. Sure, now the cop can't bust you for having your stash with you, but if he sees it, he is almost guaranteed you will fail the blood test. 5 picograms?!?!?! wtf? they pulled that # out of their ass. :blalol:
 
Hiker the 5 nanograms in the blood it the stupidest thing I ever heard of. If I didn't smoke or anything for a month i would probably have that in my blood. I voted for legalization but had to think about it for a long time. I just read where a Seattle cop just got reprimanded for busting to many pot smokers. He has 80% of all busts since the first of the year. I think it said he's sitting at a desk now. That at least sounds like something positive.
 
I do like that story. Are you in WA?

I'm way out in the east side of the state. Attitudes are veerrrrrrrry different out here. :blalol:
I'm technically legal, but I still operate with 100% stealth/discretion.

5 picograms is total BS. If I stopped smoking now, I'm sure I would still have that in my system a week from now.
 
Hiker I live on the west side just east of Seattle. I'm retired and thinking about moving over the eastside within a couple of years. Now they want to take away the 15 plant limit and make it 6. grrrrr
 
15 plant limit? Is that the 'other' med cert?

My WA MMJ recommendation has no plant limit, but based on fed law, I won't go over 99. I doubt I would ever get to 99, but 15 isn't enough to make infusions and extracts. I'm going to try making some oil, sort of RSO style, after this harvest. I want to treat my wife with cannabis, but she doesn't like being high. It takes a LOT of material to make enough oil to treat serious illness. 15 plants might not be enough for even a single patient depending on how big your plants are. As soon as I told my doc I preferred to make butter, she recommended the higher level recommendation.
 
Hiker said:
Did CO set a blood content limit?
Click to expand...
Yep. 5 nanograms per mL of thc in blood. Which is total bull. I haven't smoked for days, and I GUARANTEE that I have that in my blood. Its as bad a policy as they come, based off ignorance to punish the innocent, pushed through state legislation mostly by police despite the obvious fact that THC stays in the body for a whole month after smoking, but that doesn't F*cking mean you're high, completely inconclusive. I think it has a lot to do with public opinion comparing marijuana usage to alcohol usage -.- but alcohol goes away quickly, meaning that you actually are impaired if you have alcohol in your system...
just another WTF moment in the long journey to decriminalization.
 
I don't believe it's states on the cert the amount of plants you can have. The state law is 15 for MMJ patients. If you both have cards then it's 30 plants.
 
Good day weed SoilGirl. The nano thing is just crazy. I know they have mouth swab that they can check to see if you have been smoking but I guess it's not very accurate. It's at least has to show that you haven't been smoking. Sad part about our law it was written by a lawyer. Go figure
 
I agree SG. I think they put in there for 2 reasons. One to help it get passed. This addressed concerns about 'stoned drivers' on the road. I think it was really put in there to make things worse for users. You would think these laws passing signal a change in society, but this is going to turn cannabis users into a second class citizen.

I'm a firm believer that you shouldn't drive impaired. Sure, you can do whatever you like. Right up until it starts to infringe on my ability to do whatever I like. Should your impaired driving kill me, I'd call that infringement. :biglaugh: Like you said though, the 5 picograms (you said nano, is it different in CO or do I have it wrong in WA?) threshold is ridiculous. Every study so far has been inconclusive. I think it's a newbie dose vs a regular user. I'm sure I can't "feel" 5 picograms :rofl:

Bill, your cert doesn't say? I'm pretty sure mine says unlimited, but I'm actually unsure where it is right this second.
 
beemerbill said:
Good day weed SoilGirl. The nano thing is just crazy. I know they have mouth swab that they can check to see if you have been smoking but I guess it's not very accurate. It's at least has to show that you haven't been smoking. Sad part about our law it was written by a lawyer. Go figure
Click to expand...

Right back at you Bee :passitleft::ciao:
Agreed about the 5 nano bs. I wish they'd just cut the crap about generalizing who's impaired on MJ. If someone really can't drive on it, its obvious to any trained officer with eyes, ears and nose, so IMO the whole thing is a colossal waste of time and breath bound to screw many innocent users. Its crap like that that makes people not want to cooperate with police.
 
Hiker said:
I agree SG. I think they put in there for 2 reasons. One to help it get passed. This addressed concerns about 'stoned drivers' on the road. I think it was really put in there to make things worse for users. You would think these laws passing signal a change in society, but this is going to turn cannabis users into a second class citizen.

I'm a firm believer that you shouldn't drive impaired. Sure, you can do whatever you like. Right up until it starts to infringe on my ability to do whatever I like. Should your impaired driving kill me, I'd call that infringement. :biglaugh: Like you said though, the 5 picograms (you said nano, is it different in CO or do I have it wrong in WA?) threshold is ridiculous. Every study so far has been inconclusive. I think it's a newbie dose vs a regular user. I'm sure I can't "feel" 5 picograms :rofl:

Bill, your cert doesn't say? I'm pretty sure mine says unlimited, but I'm actually unsure where it is right this second.
Click to expand...
Absolutely 100% agree with your first paragraph, well said.

And I totally agree you shouldn't drive impaired, but what exactly is impaired may I ask you? When it comes to cannabis usage, its hard to be black and white.
I'd say 80% of the times I've driven since I passed my driver's license final driving test at 16, 5 years ago, (which I was stoned for, and passed with flying colors) I was either stoned, semi-stoned, or had been stoned very recently. That said, I've only gotten 1 ticket in my life (I did an illegal U-ey because my mom told me to Lol), and been in one crash in a parking lot that was their fault for not looking before they pulled out right in front of me. Every time I've been pulled over, the police have said something along the lines of, "you've been driving fine, but- your tail light is out, your tags are expired, etc." and even when I reeked of weed, like literally had been smoking in the car (parked) 5 mins before I was pulled over, the cop just said, "I know you're high, but you can go. I've been following you since 104th and you haven't swerved, gone a mile per hour over the speed limit, or missed a signal." Which was one of the coolest things I've ever heard. Even some police know that being high doesn't necessarily mean you are too impaired to drive safely and be aware about what you are doing.

I concede that some people, can not do it. Just can't. I rode a nightmare ride with this one girl that we literally had to take the keys out at a stop light and take over the car after a single joint we smoked between 4 people because she had swerved off the road like half a dozen times and was just laughing about it uncontrollably. But I'm not one of those people, and I know many others that can drive entirely competently after smoking some weed. I don't think there's any one size fits all generalization for cannabis impairment, it isn't alcohol where a few drinks will definitely impair judgement and cognitive abilities. But I totally respect that you prefer not to drive high, and discourage it in others. I think it crosses a line when it becomes dangerous as well, but not everyone is a dangerous driver when high, and I'm 1000% confident that were I to take a driving test sober, and then a driving test high, there would only be minuscule discrepancy, if any, between the two results. But that's me, that doesn't mean if you pick someone off the streets it would be the same; I just think it should be something better understood and taken into consideration before enacting a policy that threatens to wrongly imprison perfectly safe drivers.

And yes its 5 nanograms, looked it up haha. I bet I could smoke a single hair off my harvest when it comes, without having smoked for a month, and still have 5 nanograms afterwards :laughtwo: ... how dumb.
 
Hiker said:
I do like that story. Are you in WA?

I'm way out in the east side of the state. Attitudes are veerrrrrrrry different out here. :blalol:
I'm technically legal, but I still operate with 100% stealth/discretion.

5 picograms is total BS. If I stopped smoking now, I'm sure I would still have that in my system a week from now.
Click to expand...

As, far, as I know, nobody knows whether you would have picograms, nanograms, or sonograms.
There had been a do no testing regime for so long that the usa has no data to judge.

Pulled out of their a## to keep the red meat crowd from going crazy.
 
SoilGirl said:
Yep. 5 nanograms per mL of thc in blood. Which is total bull. I haven't smoked for days, and I GUARANTEE that I have that in my blood. Its as bad a policy as they come, based off ignorance to punish the innocent, pushed through state legislation mostly by police despite the obvious fact that THC stays in the body for a whole month after smoking, but that doesn't F*cking mean you're high, completely inconclusive. I think it has a lot to do with public opinion comparing marijuana usage to alcohol usage -.- but alcohol goes away quickly, meaning that you actually are impaired if you have alcohol in your system...
just another WTF moment in the long journey to decriminalization.
Click to expand...



the did a test with three drivers in washington.

one that didnt smoke much at all (gram a month)

one that smoked moderately (around a gram a week)

one that smoked daily (gram or more a day)

the one that smoked daily and had for years did ok but started messing up driving after smoking 3 full bowls before she finally started messing up.

only reason i bring this to anyones attention is because if i ever wiggle my way into one of those tests which i would love to do (im a washingtonian btw ;) ) haha i will smoke a blunt before driving and one while driving and there will be no difference in my driving.

now this isnt compared to the (im not to drunk i can drive still) ive had cops follow me while i was currently smoking and was just smoking minutes before i got into the car and the cops have never pulled me over. this has gone on for around 10 years and still have only been pulled over once in my life of 10 years driving and that was for a busted tail light. not to be bragging and not to be encouraging it at all but i smoke and drive daily so the point they want to say we cant is like saying who can eat fast food and not get obese doing so.

i will start ranting if i dont close this soon so to end this, i will continue to smoke and drive and if i ever end up in front of a judge i will make sure the video played from the cop car is used in court and show me doing backflips as well as walking a perfectly straight line while smoking a blunt in my hand.

i work 60+ hrs a week and manage a buisness while still having a family be able to function while im "not low" the entire time.

like you said soil girl, after several days of not smoking u will still have the illegal limit in your system. by "their" limit of what we are "high" at, i havent came down from being high for about 10 years straight then.
dear jah.

I&i
 
i did have a patient awhile back come in here and tell me he got pulled over earlier that day and the cop had him leave his vehicle for the dui tests (were the same as alcohol tests) he passed all of them with no sweat joking the entire time he said with the officer and the cop let him go with a warning and a speeding ticket.

just so you all know, if you get pulled over and they question if you can drive, state that you would like to do one of those dui tests and if you pass then have them let you blow your smoke through their exhaust pipe and say "see ya"
that last bit is a jk, dont make em mad be nice to the trying to be peace officers.

I&i ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom