Cannabis Info Uncategorized

Marijuana Industry Could Be Worth $35 Billion By 2020

Marijuana Industry Could Be Worth $35 Billion By 2020,

If All States And Feds Legalize It


If all 50 states legalized marijuana and the federal government ended prohibition of the plant, the marijuana industry in the United States would be worth $35 billion just six years from now. That’s according to a new report from GreenWave Advisors, a research and advisory firm that serves the emerging marijuana industry in the U.S., which found that if all 50 states and the federal government legalized cannabis, combined sales for both medical and retail marijuana could balloon to $35 billion a year by 2020.

If the federal government doesn’t end prohibition and the trajectory of state legalization continues on its current path, with more, but not all, states legalizing marijuana in some form, the industry in 2020 would still be worth $21 billion, GreenWave projects. In its $21 billion 2020 model, GreenWave predicts 12 states plus the District of Columbia to have legalized recreational marijuana (besides Colorado and Washington, which legalized it in 2012). Those states are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, according to data GreenWave provided to The Huffington Post from the full report. By that same year, the model assumes, 37 states will have legalized medical marijuana. To date, 23 states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical use.

“Our road map for the progression of states to legalize is very detailed –- our assumptions are largely predicated on whether a particular state has legislation in progress,” Matt Karnes, founder and managing partner of GreenWave as well as author of the report, told HuffPost. “We assume that once legalization occurs, it will take a little over a year to implement a program and have product available for sale. So for example, for Florida, we expect the ballot measure to pass [this year] yet our sales forecast starts in year 2016. We think the time frame will lessen as new states to legalize will benefit from best practices.”

As Karnes noted, some of these states are already considering legalization this November — voters in Oregon, Alaska and D.C. are considering measures to legalize recreational marijuana, while Florida voters will weigh in on medical marijuana legalization. GreenWave isn’t the first group to suggest the federal government may end its decadeslong prohibition of marijuana. One congressman has even predicted that before the end of the decade, the federal government will legalize weed. And as outlandish as it may sound, it’s already possible to observe significant shifts in federal policy toward pot.

Marijuana-jointThe federal government allowed Colorado’s and Washington’s historic marijuana laws to take effect last year. President Barack Obama signed the 2014 farm bill, which legalized industrial hemp production for research purposes in the states that permit it, and the first hemp crops in U.S. soil in decades are already growing. And in May, the U.S. House passed measures attempting to limit Drug Enforcement Administration crackdowns on medical marijuana shops when they’re legal in a state.

The GreenWave report also projects a substantial shift in the marijuana marketplace — the merging of the medical and recreational markets in states that have both. “In the state of Colorado, we are beginning to see the sales impact — i.e., cannibalization of medical marijuana sales by the adult-use market — when the two markets co-exist,” Karnes said. “We expect a similar dynamic to unfold in those states that will implement a dual marijuana market.”

Beginning in July, recreational marijuana sales in Colorado began to outpace medical for the first time, according to state Department of Revenue data. Karnes writes in the executive summary that just what the marijuana industry will look like in 2020 will largely depend on how the industry is regulated and how it is taxed by that time.

“Since ‘chronic pain’ is the most common ailment among medical marijuana users, it is likely that recreational users can already purchase marijuana without great difficulty in states where medicinal use is legal,” the report reads. “Accordingly, it can be argued that a merged market already exists in medical marijuana states. Less currently popular, but arguably providing more economic stimulus, would be a regulatory regime providing for only adult recreational use.”


Author: Matt Ferner

Cannabis Info Kush Clean

Taste The Kush Clean Bong Clean Difference

Taste The Kush Clean Bong Clean Difference

Cannabis User’s News



Attention Legal Medical Marijuana User’s

Taste The Best Representation of your cannabis flower by cleaning your bong with Kush Clean


Attention Medical Marijuana Users. We are more than happy to announce the development of our product Kush Clean. Born and raised in California, we had an affection to smoking the cleanest, hardest hitting, tastiest herb possible! But taste is held by two parties…. The cultivators strain/growing/curing techniques and… The Cleanliness of the bong or pipe you hit from is just as important as the cultivators experience in growing & curing. Having a clean bong is very important for flavor (if the herb is up to par). Inferior products and methods still leave an odor of smoke left in the piece. With Kush Clean you can smell the clean smell of cleanliness. Removing tars and resins not only drastically improve flavor of your smoke but… When using our exclusive product, you will find it also changes the smell in the room to an clean scent instead of fumes or resin smells. After using Kush Clean the water can finally sit against clean glass or whatever you smoke from. Instead of using inferior products which leave traces of resin or it smell leftover tainting the water and therefore disrupting the flavor your buds taste! In today’s modern Cali there is a booming Medical Marijuana industry that needs to be tended to. Prior to the legal medical marijuana (pre 1996) The scientific approach to marijuana accessories had not been established very well for consumer use. Nowadays there are many scientific glass bong & pipe manufacturers that make high end diffused and peculated bongs, included with these great skilled artists achievements in glass blowing comes an more difficult way to get into the intricate delicate parts of these newer bongs.


Weed-ManGood News – Best Tasting Herb..

– The best tasting herb will always taste best when hit from a bong or pipe that is new or like new. If you enjoy your smoking a nice flavorful strain, and want to taste the most that strain has to offer in terms of flavor on the inhale and exhale than… Choose Kush Clean – A California Product started by people who care about the flavor and ease of use, people who know!

Being raised in the California we had plenty of time to test many herbal samples and many different style pieces We literally focused on the flavor of a persons smoke after cleaning. We realized that inferior pipe cleaningproducts and inferior methods left the bong smelling smoked from still, even if mostly clean, it did not smell fresh or new-like. Often we were unsatisfied with the overall way the others performed as well.

Beware of inferior products!

Most Products that are currently sold are not even made by states that have legal medical marijuana they are made in states where Marijuana is still not allowed, So testing is definitely more difficult ! We have tested Kush Clean on Legal Medical Marijuana Resins & Tars. We have also tested our product on various tobacco products including flavored pipe tobacco, which is all the rage at hookah lounges! We are confident we can Clean your pipe, Bong, Water-pipe or Hookah with simplicity and a clean scent! What could be easier than soaking it in our product and rinsing it with warm water? It’s Easy with No Fuss and No Shaking! Don’t risk shaking and breaking your piece! Kush Clean cleans Pyrex glass, regular glass, ceramic and metal with ease. Just pour Kush Clean inside the item or leave the item soaking in Kush Clean. Kush Clean emulsifies tars and resins on contact! For more information on the Best Way To Use Kush Clean.


Kush Clean can also be used to clean a grower’s utensils like trimming scissors with ease, it will can also easily clean a person’s hands from all the THC after a harvest! So pick up you bottle of Kush Clean today and experience our versatile earth friendly product designed to remove all resins and tars associated with Rx Marijuana.



Leading the Industry!

Leading in the industry in the most effective way to date to clean today’s modern bongs, pipes or hookahs! Our product is Biodegradable and Non Toxic, not to mention lower priced than our competition!

“Effective leadership is not about making speeches or being liked; leadership is defined by results not attributes.” – Peter Drucker
Cannabis Info Uncategorized

Cannabis May Help Delay Retinal Degeneration, Vision Loss

cannabis-eyesFor years medical marijuana has been used to help treat certain conditions that can cause vision loss. The most common example of this is glaucoma, but it is not the only condition for which cannabis may be beneficial.

In fact, a group of researchers from Spain’s University of Alicante published a study earlier this month in the journal Experimental Eye Research that supports this claim. It suggests that cannabinoids may help slow vision loss in the case of retinitis pigmentosa.

Researchers Investigate Cannabinoids, Visual Deterioration

retinitis-pigmentosaInherited from birth, retinitis pigmentosa is a condition that currently affects an estimated 100,000 people in the US. It causesphotoreceptors in the retina to die over time, resulting in severe vision and blindness if left untreated. No cure exists for the disease, but vitamin A regiments haveproven beneficial, postponing blindness by up to 10 years in some patients

“Rats treated with the THC-like structure also had 40% more photoreceptors, which play a major role in passing information about visual stimuli to the brain.”

With that said, the University of Alicante research team investigated what effects were to be had from cannabinoid treatments. Using rats as models, they were able to inhibit vision loss with a synthetic form of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

The treatment group, which received 100 mg/kg of the synthetic cannabinoid each day, performed significantly better on visual tasks when compared to the group that did not receive treatment.

This makes sense considering rats treated with the THC-like structure also had 40% more photoreceptors, which play a major role in passing information about visual stimuli to the brain.

More research will be necessary to determine the mechanisms at play, but Dr. Nicolás Cuenca, the study’s lead author, is optimistic about what lies ahead. “These data suggest that cannabinoids are potentially useful to delay retinal degeneration in retinitis pigmentosa,” he explains.


Cannabis Info

Light, Spectrum, UVB and Cannabis

Light Spectrum and Usablitly

Plants use light for several purposes, including the regulation of life processes such as the initiation of flowering. But the most amazing thing that they do with light is photosynthesis, the process that provides the foundation for most of life on Earth. Plants use photosynthesis to power the process of making sugar (C6H12O6) from water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants also use it to convert the sugars they make into starches and then into complex molecules such as cellulose. Add some nitrogen atoms, and you get nucleic acids and amino acids, the building blocks of all proteins.

Plants draw the energy they need from light across a spectrum broader than the human eye can see, from 400 nm (blue light) to 730 nm (red). Plants do different things with different wavelengths of light. Understanding the differences can help the careful cultivator ensure that the plants are getting everything they need to thrive.

For photosynthesis, light energy is captured by chlorophyll A and B primarily from the red and blue portion of the spectrums. Light absorption by chlorophyll A peaks at 430 nm in the blue band and 662nm in the red, and chlorophyll B peaks at 453 nm in the blue and 642 nm in the orange-red bands. Chlorophyll synthesis peaks at 435 nm and 445 nm in the blue spectrum and 640 and 675 nm in the red wavelengths.

Chlorophyll is not the only light-sensitive part of the plant. Carotenoids, are a group of orange pigments that capture light in the blue portion of the spectrum, primarily at about 450 nm in the blue spectrum and 475 nm in the blue-green range. Carotenoids not only contribute to photosynthesis but also protect the chlorophyll from excess light that could have destructive effects.

Anthocyanin and other flavinoid pigments also absorb blue and UV light to protect chlorophyll from photo-destruction.

Another pigment that appears to play a role in plant health is xanthophyll. This yellow pigment  captures light in the range from 400-530 nm, but is usually hidden from our view by the green of chlorophyll. If a leaf loses its chlorophyll—because of a nitrogen deficiency, for instance….xanthophyll’s bright yellow color becomes apparent. Xanthophyll has several functions. First, it acts as a light and heat regulator. At dawn, it is in its low-energy form, violaxanthin, which has peak reactions to light at 480 nm and 648 nm. As the light increases to levels that might hurt the thylakoids and lead to photo-oxidation of the chlorophyll.


Ultra-violet B light is a spectrum of light that is invisible to us but is visible to insects and some other organisms. In humans it causes suntan and sunburn and is implicated in the formation of eye cataracts. It is the light emitted by tanning bulbs.

UV-B importance – in areas of high ultraviolet radiation exposure, the UV-B (280-315 nm) absorption properties of THC may have conferred an evolutionary advantage to Cannabis capable of greater production of this compound from biogenetic precursor CBD. The extent to which this production is also influenced by environmental UV-B induced stress has been experimentally determined by Lydon et al. (1987). Their experiments demonstrate that under conditions of high UV-B exposure, drug-type Cannabis produces significantly greater quantities of THC.

UVB light also affects marijuana potency. The potency of high quality marijuana increases in direct ratio to the amount of UVB light it receives. This is very significant. In California, where the medical dispensaries operate in an unrestricted market; many dispensaries reject fall harvested outdoor material as inferior. They have found it lacks the potency of indoor crops and is a harsh smoke. However, when they were presented with marijuana grown outdoors but forced to ripen August 10, they accepted it as if it were indoor because of its high potency and lack of harshness. I think the harshness results from cool nights.

Adding UV-B light to your garden will enhance your marijuana naturally, without “special formulas” and chemicals.   The Solis-Tek 10K bulb emits a tremendous amount of UVB and measured with a specific UVB meter, the SolarMeter 6.2, it has with more PAR ususable light in the red spectrum than even a Hortilux Super HPS.  The Solis-Tek 10K  greatly surpasses any other light we tested including Hortilux blue when used for finishing of your precious flowers.

These are the newest in horticulture lighting specifically designed for electronic ballasts and us the indoor horticulturist! We choose the following 2 bulbs for their exceptional usable spectrum  SunMaster Full Nova & Solis-Tek 10K – Based on the available plant science of photosynthesis which are the spectral needs a.k.a. color needs a.k.a. nano-meter (nm) needs of light for our precious plant. Using this information we decided to give them a try and we are pleased we have changed over!

SunMaster Full Nova – Used for the Entire Grow & most of the flower cycle. We like how the Sunmaster Super Nova tops the charts with its usable blue and red, in comparison with other brands highly unusable greens and yellows, while having less than 20% usable spectrum.

Solis-Tek 10K – Last but definitely not least, we save the last 3 Weeks of flower finishing for this very unique Solis-Tek 10K with low iron glass (meaning more UVB for your Trichs!) bulb with unmatched UVB spectrum, which we measured with a SolarMeter Model 6.2 UV Meter by Solis-Tek had the highest UVB rating among all the major brands we tested. They are the only manufacturers to date that are using low iron glass – UV increase to the max!

These 2 different manufactures have their place in our garden and they should be in yours! We used to be branded (brainwashed) by the other brands out there, until we wanted more! We wanted to educate ourselves to the fullest on what our plants needed for light.  Take you time and enjoy the reading. It is up to us as the consumer to make informed educated decisions.

Below is a comprehensive list of photosynthesis measured at nano-meters

  • Chlorophyll A peaks at 430 nm blue and 662nm red
  • Chlorophyll B peaks at 453 nm blue and 642nm red
  • Chlorophyll synthesis peaks 435 nm and 445 nm blue and 640 and 675 nm red
  • Carotenoids primarily at about 450 nm in the blue and 475 nm in the blue-green range
  • Xanthophyll – 400-530 nm
  • Violaxanthin – 480 nm and 648 nm
  • UVB 280nm -315nm
  • UVA 315nm -380nm
  • 660 nm Deep Red: Best for Night Interruption
  • 730 nm Far Red: Promotes Flowering of Short-Day Plants (Not Photosynthetically Active) 

SunMaster Full Nova has the highest in the absorbed peaks in blue and red


Solis-Tek 10K  has the highest UVB output than any bulb on the market! This kick ass bulb also still has more usable reds than Hortilux Super HPS and more usable blue than Ushio!

“Never argue with an idiot, they will lower you to their level and beat you by experience!” – Joe Fresh – ICMAG

Proudly Made In USA

Cannabis Info Uncategorized

UVB and THC Production

UVB and THC Production

Pate, D.W., 1994. Chemical ecology of Cannabis. Journal of the International Hemp Association 2: 29, 32-37.

The production of cannabinoids and their associated terpenes in Cannabis is subject to environmental influences as well as hereditary determinants. Their biosynthesis occurs in specialized glands populating the surface of all aerial structures of the plant. These compounds apparently serve as defensive agents in a variety of antidessication, antimicrobial, antifeedant and UV-B pigmentation roles. In addition, the more intense ambient UV-B of the tropics, in combination with the UV-B lability of cannabidiol, may have influenced the evolution of an alternative biogenetic route from cannabigerol to tetrahydrocannabinol in some varieties.

Ultraviolet radiation

Another stress to which plants are subject results from their daily exposure to sunlight. While necessary to sustain photosynthesis, natural light contains biologically destructive ultraviolet radiation. This selective pressure has apparently affected the evolution of certain defenses, among them, a chemical screening functionally analogous to the pigmentation of human skin. A preliminary investigation (Pate 1983) indicated that, in areas of high ultraviolet radiation exposure, the UV-B (280-315 nm) absorption properties of THC may have conferred an evolutionary advantage to Cannabis capable of greater production of this compound from biogenetic precursor CBD. The extent to which this production is also influenced by environmental UV-B induced stress has been experimentally determined by Lydon et al. (1987). Their experiments demonstrate that under conditions of high UV-B exposure, drug-type Cannabis produces significantly greater quantities of THC. They have also demonstrated the chemical lability of CBD upon exposure to UV-B (Lydon and Teramura 1987), in contrast to the stability of THC and CBC. However, studies by Brenneisen (1984) have shown only a minor difference in UV-B absorption between THC and CBD, and the absorptive properties of CBC proved considerably greater than either. Perhaps the relationship between the cannabinoids and UV-B is not so direct as first supposed. Two other explanations must now be considered. Even if CBD absorbs on par with THC, in areas of high ambient UV-B, the former compound may be more rapidly degraded. This could lower the availability of CBD present or render it the less energetically efficient compound to produce by the plant. Alternatively, the greater UV-B absorbency of CBC compared to THC and the relative stability of CBC compared to CBD might nominate this compound as the protective screening substance. The presence of large amounts of THC would then have to be explained as merely an accumulated storage compound at the end of the enzyme-mediated cannabinoid pathway. However, further work is required to resolve the fact that Lydon’s (1985) experiments did not show a commensurate increase in CBC production with increased UV-B exposure.

This CBC pigmentation hypothesis would imply the development of an alternative to the accepted biochemical pathway from CBG to THC via CBD. Until 1973 (Turner and Hadley 1973), separation of CBD and CBC by gas chromatography was difficult to accomplish, so that many peaks identified as CBD in the preceding literature may in fact have been CBC. Indeed, it has been noted (De Faubert Maunder 1970) and corroborated by GC/MS (Turner and Hadley 1973) that some tropical drug strains of Cannabis do not contain any CBD at all, yet have an abundance of THC. This phenomenon has not been observed for northern temperate varieties of Cannabis. Absence of CBD has led some authors (De Faubert Maunder 1970, Turner and Hadley 1973) to speculate that another biogenetic route to THC is involved. Facts scattered through the literature do indeed indicate a possible alternative. Holley et al. (1975) have shown that Mississippi-grown plants contain a considerable content of CBC, often in excess of the CBD present. In some examples, either CBD or CBC was absent, but in no case were plants devoid of both. Their analysis of material grown in Mexico and Costa Rica served to accentuate this trend. Only one example actually grown in their respective countries revealed the presence of any CBD, although appreciable quantities of CBC were found. The reverse seemed true as well. Seed from Mexican material devoid of CBD was planted in Mississippi and produced plants containing CBD.

Could CBC be involved in an alternate biogenetic route to THC? Yagen and Mechoulam (1969) have synthesized THC (albeit in low yield) directly from CBC. The method used was similar to the acid catalyzed cyclization of CBD to THC (Gaoni and Mechoulam 1966). Reaction by-products included cannabicyclol, delta-8-THC and delta-4,8-iso-THC, all products which have been found in analyses of Cannabis (e.g., Novotny et al. 1976). Finally, radioisotope tracer studies (Shoyama et al. 1975) have uncovered the intriguing fact that radiolabeled CBG fed to a very low THC-producing strain of Cannabis is found as CBD, but when fed to high THC-producing plants, appeared only as CBC and THC. Labeled CBD fed to a Mexican example of these latter plants likewise appeared as THC. Unfortunately, radiolabeled CBC was not fed to their plants, apparently in the belief that CBC branched off the biogenetic pathway at CBD and dead ended. Their research indicated that incorporation of labeled CBG into CBD or CBC was age dependent. Vogelman et al. (1988) likewise report that the developmental stage of seedlings, as well as their exposure to light, affects the occurrence of CBG, CBC or THC in Mexican Cannabis. No CBD was reported.


Ultra-violet B light is a spectrum of light that is invisible to us but is visible to insects and some other organisms. In humans it causes suntan and sunburn and is implicated in the formation of eye cataracts. It is the light emitted by tanning bulbs.

UVB light also affects marijuana potency. The potency of high quality marijuana increases in direct ratio to the amount of UVB light it receives. This is very significant. In California, where the medical dispensaries operate in an unrestricted market; many dispensaries reject fall harvested outdoor material as inferior. They have found it lacks the potency of indoor crops and is a harsh smoke. However, when they were presented with marijuana grown outdoors but forced to ripen August 10, they accepted it as if it were indoor because of its high potency and lack of harshness. I think the harshness results from cool nights.

Indoors, under fluorescent and HPS lamps, gardens receive little UV-B light. Metal halides emit a bit more. However, there are ways of supplying your garden with UV-B light. Tanning lamps work, that is, lamps that tan people, because of the UV-B light they emit. Using tanning lamps will increase the THC content of the crop. Reptiles and lizards require the spectrum to stay healthy. So the spectrum usually comprises about 10 percent of their output. If you want to try tanning lamps they are available on the Internet. Use between 5-10 percent of your total wattage to these lamps. For a 1000-watt garden use 100 watts of special lighting. The Solis-Tek 10K metal halide bulb emits a tremendous amount of UVB and measured with a specific UVB meter, the SolarMeter 6.2,

Adding UV-B light to your garden will enhance your marijuana naturally, without “special formulas” and chemicals.


Although the chemistry of Cannabis has come under extensive investigation, more work is needed to probe the relationship of its resin to biotic and abiotic factors in the environment. Glandular trichomes are production sites for the bulk of secondary compounds present. It is probable that the cannabinoids and associated terpenes serve as defensive agents in a variety of antidessication, antimicrobial, antifeedant and UV-B pigmentation roles. UV-B selection pressures seem responsible for the distribution of THC-rich Cannabis varieties in areas of high ambient radiation, and may have influenced the evolution of an alternate biogenetic pathway from CBG to THC in some of these strains. Though environmental stresses appear to be a direct stimulus for enhanced chemical production by individual plants, it must be cautioned that such stresses may also skew data by hastening development of the highly glandular flowering structures. Future studies will require careful and representative sampling to assure meaningful results.


  • Abel E., 1980. Marihuana: The first 12,000 years. Plenum Press, New York.
  • Adams R. and C.K. Caine, W.D. McPhee and T.N. Wearn, 1941. Structure of cannabidiol. XII. Isomerization to tetrahydro-cannabinols. Journal of the American Chemical Society 63: 2209-2213.
  • Adams Jr., T.C. and L.A. Jones, 1973. Long chain hydrocarbons of Cannabis and its smoke. Agr. Food Chemistry 21: 1129-1131.
  • Bazzaz F.A., D. Dusek, D.S. Seigler and A.W. Haney, 1975. Photosynthesis and cannabinoid content of temperate and tropical populations of Cannabis sativa. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 3: 15-18.
  • Binder M., 1976. Microbial transformation of (-)-delta-3,4-trans-tetrahydrocannabinol by Cunninghamella blakesleena Lender. Helvetica Chimica Acta 63: 1674-1684.
  • Binder M. and A. Popp, 1980. Microbial transformation on cannabinoids. Part 3: major metabolites of (3R, 4R)-delta-1-tetrahydrocannabinol. Helvetica Chimica Acta 2515-2518.
  • Boucher F., L. Cosson, J. Unger and M.R. Paris, 1974. Le Cannabis sativa L.; races chemiques ou varietes. Pl. Med. Phytotherap. 8: 20-31.
  • Bouquet J., 1950. Cannabis. UN Bulletin on Narcotics 2: 14-30.
  • Braut-Boucher F., 1980. Effet des conditions ecophysiologiques sur la croissance, le developpement et le contenu en cannabinoides de clones correspondant aux deux types chimiques du Cannabis sativa L. originaire d’Afrique du Sud. Physiol. Veg. 18: 207-221.
  • Brenneisen R., 1984. Psychotrope Drogen II. Bestimmung der Cannabinoid in Cannabis sativa L. und in Cannabisprodukten mittels Hochdruckflussigkeitschromatographie (HPLC). Pharm. Acta Helv. 59: 247-259.
  • Briosi G. and F. Tognini, 1894. Anatomia della canapa. Parte prima: Organi sessuali. Atti. Ist. Bot. Pavia Ser. II. 3: 91-209.
  • Charles,V. and A. Jenkins, 1914. A fungous disease of hemp. J. Agric. Res. 3: 81-85.
  • Coffman C.B. and W.A. Gentner, 1975. Cannabinoid profile and elemental uptake of Cannabis sativa L. as influenced by soil characteristics. Agronomy Journal 67: 491-497.
  • Dayanandan P. and P.B. Kaufman, 1976. Trichomes of Cannabis sativa L. (Cannabaceae). American Journal of Botany 63: 578-591
  • De Faubert Maunder M.J., 1970. A comparative evaluation of the tetrahydrocannabinol content of Cannabis plants. J. Ass. Pub. Anal. 8: 42-47.
  • De Faubert Maunder M.J., 1976. The forensic significance of the age and origin of CannabisMed. Sci. Law 16: 78-89.
  • De Meijer E.P.M., H.J. Van der Kamp and F.A. Van Eeuwijk. Characterization of Cannabis accessions with regard to cannabinoid content in relation to other plant characters. Euphytica 62: 187-200.
  • De Pasquale A., G. Tumino and R.C. De Pasquale, 1974. Micromorphology of the epidermic surfaces of female plants of Cannabis sativa L. UN Bulletin on Narcotics 26: 27-40
  • De Zeeuw R.A., Th. M. Malingre and F.W.H.M. Merkus, 1972a. Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, an important component in the evaluation of Cannabis products. J. Pharm. Pharmacology 24: 1-6.
  • De Zeeuw R.A., T.B. Vree, D.D. Breimer and C.A.M. Van Ginnekin, 1973a. Cannabivarichromene, a new cannabinoid with a propyl side chain in CannabisExperientia 29: 260-261.
  • De Zeeuw R.A., J. Wijsbek, D.D. Breimer, T.B. Vree, C.A. Van Ginneken and J.M. van Rossum, 1972b. Cannabinoids with a propyl side chain in Cannabis. Occurence and chromatographic behavior.Science 175: 778-779.
  • De Zeeuw R.A., J. Wijsbek and Th.M. Malingre, 1973b. Interference of alkanes in the gas chromatographic analysis of Cannabis products. J. Pharm. Pharmacology 25: 21-26.
  • Eisner T., 1970. Chemical defense against predation in arthropods. Page 127 in E. Sondheimer and J.B. Simone, eds., Chemical ecology, Academic Press, New York.
  • ElSohly M.A. and C.E. Turner, 1976. A review of nitrogen containing compounds from Cannabis sativa L. Pharmaceutisch Weekblad III: 1069-1075.
  • ElSohly H., C.E. Turner, A.M. Clark and M.A. ElSohly, 1982. Synthesis and antimicrobial properties of certain cannabichrome and cannabigerol related compounds. Journal of the Pharmaceutical Sciences71: 1319-1323.
  • Emboden W.A., 1972. Ritual use of Cannabis sativa L.: a historical-ethnographic survey. Page 224 in P. Furst, ed., Flesh of the gods, Praeger Press, New York.
  • Fairbairn J.W., 1972. The trichomes and glands of Cannabis sativa L. UN Bulletin on Narcotics 24: 29-33.
  • Farkas J., and E. Andrassy, 1976. The sporostatic effect of cannabidiolic acid. Acta Alimentaria 5: 57-67.
  • Ferenczy L., 1956. Antibacterial substances in seeds of CannabisNature 178: 639.
  • Ferenczy L., L. Grazca and I. Jakobey, 1958. An antibacterial preparation from hemp (Cannabis sativa L.). Naturwissenschaften 45: 188.
  • Fetterman P.S., N.J. Doorenbos, E.S. Keith and M.W. Quimby, 1971a. A simple gas liquid chromatography procedure for determination of cannabinoidic acids in Cannabis sativa L. Experientia 27: 988-90.
  • Fetterman P.S., E.S. Keith, C.W. Waller, O. Guerrero, N.J. Doorenbos and M.W. Quimby, 1971b. Mississippi-grown Cannabis sativa L.: Preliminary observation on chemical definition of phenotype and variations in tetrahydrocannabinol content versus age, sex, and plant part. Journal of the Pharmaceutical Sciences 60: 1246-1249.
  • Fetterman P.S. and C.E. Turner, 1972. Constituents of Cannabis sativa L. I. Propyl homologs of cannabinoids from an Indian variant. Journal of the Pharmaceutical Sciences 61: 1476-1477.
  • Gal I.E. and O. Vajda, 1970. Influence of cannabidiolic acid on microorganisms. Elelmez. Ipar. 23: 336-339.
  • Gaoni Y. and R. Mechoulam, 1966. Hashish, VII. The isomerization of cannabidiol to tetrahydrocannabinols. Tetrahedron 22: 1481-1488.
  • Gaoni Y. and R. Mechoulam, 1971. The isolation and structure of delta-1-tetrahydrocannabinol and other neutral cannabinoids from hashish. Journal of the American Chemical Society 93: 217-224.
  • Garrett E.R. and C.A. Hunt, 1974. Physico-chemical properties, solubility and protein binding of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Journal of the Pharmaceutical Sciences 63: 1056-1064.
  • Gellert M., I. Novak, M. Szell and K. Szendrei, 1974. Glycosidic components of Cannabis sativa L. I. Flavonoids. UN Document ST/SOA/SER.S/50 Sept. 20.
  • Gill E.W., 1971. Propyl homologue of tetrahydrohcannabinol: Its isolation from Cannabis, properties and synthesis. Journal of the Chemical Society p. 579-82.
  • Gill E.W., W.D.M. Paton and R.G. Pertwee, 1970. Preliminary experiments on the chemistry and pharmacology of CannabisNature 228: 134-136.
  • Grlic L. and A. Andrec, 1961. The content of acid fraction in Cannabis resin of various age and provenance. Experientia 17: 325-326.
  • Hakim H.A., Y.A. El Kheir and M.I. Mohamed, 1986. Effect of climate on the content of a CBD-rich variant of CannabisFitoterapia 57: 239-241.
  • Hammond C.T. and P.G. Mahlberg, 1973. Morphology of glandular hairs of Cannabis sativa from scanning electron microscopy. American Journal of Botany 60: 524-528.
  • Hammond C.T. and P.G. Mahlberg, 1978. Ultrastructural development of capitate glandular hairs of Cannabis sativa L. (Cannabaceae). American Journal of Botany 65: 140-151.
  • Hammond C.T. and P.G. Mahlberg, 1994. Phloroglucinol glucoside as a natural constituent of Cannabis sativaPhytochemistry 37: 755-756.
  • Haney A. and F.A. Bazzaz, 1970. Discussion in The botany and chemistry of Cannabis. Joyce, C.R.B. and S.H. Curry, eds. Churchill, London.
  • Haney A. and B.B. Kutscheid, 1973. Quantitative variation in chemical constituents of marihuana from stands of naturalized Cannabis sativa L. in east central Illinois. Economic Botany 27: 193-203.
  • Haney A. and B.B. Kutscheid, 1975. An ecological study of naturalized hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) in east-central Illinois. American Midland Naturalist 93: 1-24.
  • Hanus I., 1975a. The present state of knowledge in the chemistry of substances of Cannabis sativa L. III. Terpenoid substances. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis Facultatis Medicae 73: 233-239.
  • Hanus I., 1975b. The present state of knowledge in the chemistry of substances of Cannabis sativa L. IV. Nitrogen containing compounds. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis Facultatis Medicae73: 241-244.
  • Hanus I., 1976a. The present state of knowledge in the chemistry of substances of Cannabis sativa L. V. Addendum to part I-IV. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis Facultatis Medicae 76: 153-166.
  • Hanus I., 1976b. The present state of knowledge in the chemistry of substances of Cannabis sativa L. VI. The other contained substances. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis Facultatis Medicae76: 167-173.
  • Harvey O.J., 1976. Characterization of the butyl homologs of delta-1-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol in samples of Cannabis by combined gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 28: 280-285.
  • Hendricks H., T.M. Malingre, S. Batterman and R. Bos, 1975. Mono- and sesquiterpene hydrocarbons of the essential oil of Cannabis sativaPhytochemistry 14: 814-15.
  • Holley J. H., K.W. Hadley and C.E. Turner, 1975. Constituents of Cannabis sativa L. XI. Cannabidiol and cannabichromene in samples of known geographical origin. Journal of the Pharmaceutical Sciences 64: 892-895.
  • Honma S., H. Kaneshima, M. Mori,and T. Kitsutaka, 1971a. Cannabis grown in Hokkaido. 2. Contents of cannabinol, tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol in wild CannabisHokkaidoritsu Eisei Kenkyushoho 21: 180-185.
  • Honma S., H. Kaneshima, M. Mori and T. Kitsutaka, 1971b. Cannabis grown in Hokkaido. 3. Variation in the amount of narcotic components of Cannabis and its growth. Hokkaidoritsu Eisei Kenkyushoho21: 186-190.
  • Hood L.V.S., M.E. Dames and G.T. Barry, 1973. Headspace volatiles of marijuana. Nature 242: 402-403.
  • Isbell H., 1973. Research on Cannabis (marijuana). UN Bulletin on Narcotics 25: 37-48.
  • Kabelik J., Z. Krejci and F. Santavy, 1960. Cannabis as a medicament. UN Bulletin on Narcotics 12: 5-23.
  • Kaneshima H., M. Mori and N. Mizuno, 1973. Studies on Cannabis in Hokkaido (Part 6). The dependence of Cannabis plants on iron nutrition. Hokkaidoritsu Eisei Kenkyusho 23: 3-5.
  • Khare B.P., S.B. Gupta and S. Chandra, 1974. Biological efficacy of some plant materials against Sitophilus oryzae Linneaeous. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 8: 243-248.
  • Kimura M. and K. Okamoto, 1970. Distribution of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid in fresh wild CannabisExperientia 26: 819-20.
  • Krejci Z., 1970. Changes with maturation in amounts of biologically interesting substances of Cannabis. Page 49 in The botany and chemistry of Cannabis. Joyce, C.R.B. and S.H. Curry, eds. Churchill, London.
  • Lanyon V.S., J.C. Turner and P.G. Mahlberg, 1981. Quantitative analysis of cannabinoids in the secretory product from captitate-stalked glands of Cannabis sativa L. (Cannabaceae). Botanical Gazette142: 316-319.
  • Latta R.P. and B.J. Eaton, 1975. Seasonal fluctuations in cannabinoid content of Kansas marijuana. Economic Botany 29: 153-163.
  • Ledbetter M.C. and A.D. Krikorian, 1975. Trichomes of Cannabis sativa as viewed with scanning electron microscope. Phytomorphology 25: 166-176.
  • Lentz P.L., C.E. Turner, L.W. Robertson and W.A. Gentner, 1974. First North American record for Cercospora cannabina, with notes on the identification of C. cannabina and C. cannabisPlant Disease Reporter 58: 165-168.
  • Levin D.A., 1973. The role of trichomes in plant defense. Quarterly Review of Biology 48: 3-16.
  • Lydon J., 1985. The effects of Ultraviolet-B radiation on the growth, physiology and cannabinoid production of Cannabis sativa L. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland.
  • Lydon J. and A.H. Teramura, 1987. Photochemical decomposition of cannabidiol in its resin base. Phytochemistry 26: 1216-1217.
  • Lydon J., A.H. Teramura and C.B. Coffman, 1987. UV-B radiation effects on photosynthesis, growth and cannabinoid production of two Cannabis sativa chemotypes. Photochemistry and Photobiology 46: 201-206.
  • Mahlberg P.G. and E.-S. Kim, 1992. Secretory vesicle formation in glandular trichomes of Cannabis sativa (Cannabaceae). American Journal of Botany 79: 166-173.
  • Malingre T.N., H. Hendricks, S. Batterman, R. Bos and J. Visser, 1975. The essential oil of Cannabis sativa.Planta Medica 28: 56-61.
  • Marshman J., C.D. Yawney and R.E. Popham, 1976. A note on the cannabinoid content of Jamaican ganja. UN Bulletin on Narcotics 28: 63-68.
  • Martin L., D.M. Smith and C.G. Farmilo, 1961. Essential oil from fresh Cannabis sativa and its use in identification. Nature 191: 774-776.
  • Masoud A.N. and N.J. Doorenbos, 1973. Mississippi grown Cannabis sativa L. III. Cannabinoid and cannabinoic acid content. Journal of the Pharmaceutical Sciences 62: 313-315.
  • McCain A.H. and C. Noviello, 1985. Biological control of Cannabis sativa. Pages 635-642 in Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on biological control of weeds. Delfosse, E.S., ed. Agricultural Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
  • McPartland J.M., 1984. Pathogenicity of Phomopsis ganjae on Cannabis sativa and the fungistatic effect of cannabinoids produced by the host. Mycopathologia 87: 149-154.
  • Mechoulam R., 1970. Marijuana chemistry. Science 168: 1159-1166.
  • Mechoulam R. and Y. Gaoni, 1965. Hashish IV. The isolation of cannabinolic, cannabidiolic and cannabigerolic acids. Tetrahedron 21: 1223-1229.
  • Merkus F.W.H.M., 1971. Two new constituents of hashish. Nature 232: 579-580.
  • Mikuriya T.H., 1969. Marijuana in medicine: past, present and future. California Medicine 110: 34-40.
  • Mobarak Z., D. Bieniek and F. Korte, 1974a. Studies on non-cannabinoids of hashish. Isolation and identification of some hydrocarbons. Chemosphere 3: 5-8.
  • Mobarak Z., D. Bieniek and F. Korte, 1974b. Studies on non-cannabinoids of hashish II. An approach to correlate the geographical origin of Cannabis with hydrocarbon content by chromatographic analysis.Chemosphere 3: 265-70.
  • Muller W.H. and R. Hauge, 1967. Volatile growth inhibitors produced by Salvia leucophylla: effect on seedling anatomy. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 94: 182-190.
  • Muller C.H., W.H. Muller and B.L. Haines 1964. Volatile growth inhibitors produced by aromatic shrubs. Science 143: 471-73.
  • Murari G., S. Lombardi, A.M. Puccini and R. De Sanctis, 1983. Influence of environmental conditions on tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC) in different cultivars of Cannabis sativa L. Fitoterapia 54: 195-201.
  • Novotny M., M.L. Lee, C.-E. Low and A. Raymond, 1976. Analysis of marijuana samples from different origins by high-resolution gas-liquid chromatography for forensic application. Analytical Chemistry 48: 24-29.
  • Ohlsson A., C.I. Abou-Chaar, S. Agurell, I.M. Nilsson, K. Olofsson and F. Sandberg, 1971. Cannabinoid constituents of male and female Cannabis sativaUN Bulletin on Narcotics 23: 29-32.
  • Ono M., M. Shimamine and K. Takahashi, 1972. Studies on Cannabis. III. Distribution of tetrahydrocannabinol in the Cannabis plant. Eisei Shikenjo Hokoku 90: 1-4.
  • Paris M., F. Boucher and L. Cosson, 1975a. The constituents of Cannabis sativa pollen. Economic Botany 29: 245-253.
  • Paris R.R., E. Henri and M. Paris, 1975b. O c-flavonoidima Cannabis sativa L. Arh. Farmaciju 25: 319-28.
  • Paris R.R. and M.R. Paris, 1973. Sur les flavonoides du chanvre (Cannabis sativa L.). Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. Ser. D. 277: 2369-71.
  • Pate D.W., 1983. Possible role of ultraviolet radiation in evolution of Cannabis chemotypes. Economic Botany 37: 396-405.
  • Radosevic A., M. Kupinic and Lj. Grlic, 1962. Antibiotic activity of various types of Cannabis resin. Nature 195: 1007-1009.
  • Robertson L.W., M.A. Lyle and S. Billets, 1975. Biotranformation of cannabinoids by Syncephalastrum racemosum.Biomedical Mass Spectroscopy 2: 266-271.
  • Rothschild M., M.G. Rowen and J.W. Fairbairn, 1977. Storage of cannabinoids by Arctia caja and Zonocerus elegans fed on chemically distinct strains of `Cannabis sativa. Nature 266: 650-651.
  • Rothschild M. and J.W. Fairbairn, 1980. Ovipositing butterfly (Pieris brassicae L.) distinguishes between aqueous extracts of two strains of Cannabis sativa L. and THC and CBD. Nature 286: 56-59.
  • Sharma G.K., 1975. Altitudinal variation in leaf epidermal patterns of Cannabis sativaBulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 102: 199-200.
  • Shoyama Y., H. Hirano and I. Nishioka, 1984. Biosynthesis of Propyl Cannabinoid Acid and Its Biosynthetic Relationship with Pentyl and Methyl Cannabinoid Acids. Phytochemistry 29: 1909-1912.
  • Shoyama Y., M. Yagi, I. Nishioka, and T. Yamauchi, 1975. Biosynthesis of cannabinoid acids. Phytochemistry 14: 2189-2192.
  • Shukla D.D. and V.N. Pathak, 1967. A new species of Ascochyta on Cannabis sativa L. Sydowia Annals of Mycology 21: 277-278.
  • Small E. and H.D. Beckstead, 1973. Common cannabinoid phenotypes in 350 stocks of CannabisLloydia 36: 144-165.
  • Smith G.E. and A. Haney, 1973. Grapholitha tristrigana (Clemens) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on naturalized hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) in east-central Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Sciences 66: 38-41.
  • Srivastava S.L. and S.C. Naithani, 1979. Cannabis sativa Linn., a new host for Phoma sp. Current Science of India 48: 1040-1005.
  • Stannard L.J., J.R. Dewitt and T.C. Vance, 1970. The marijuana thrips, Oxythrips cannabensis, a new record for Illinois and North America. Transactions of the Illinois Academy of Sciences 63: 152-156.
  • Steinberg S., J. Offermeier, B.I. Field and F.W. Jansen Van Ryssen, 1975. Investigation of the influence of soil types, environmental conditions, age and morphological plant parts on the chemical composition ofCannabis sativa (Dagga) plants. South African Medical Journal 45: 279.
  • Turner C.E., M.A. ElSohly and E.G. Boeren, 1980. Constituents of Cannabis sativa L. XVII. A review of the natural constituents. Journal of Natural Products 43: 169-234.
  • Turner C.E. and K. Hadley, 1973. Constituents of Cannabis sativa L. II. Absence of cannabidiol in an African variant. Journal of the Pharmaceutical Sciences 62: 251-255.
  • Turner C.E., K. Hadley and P.S. Fetterman, 1973a. Constituents of Cannabis sativa L. VI: Propyl homologs in samples of known geographic origin. Journal of the Pharmaceutical Sciences 62: 1739-1741.
  • Turner C.E., K.W. Hadley, P.S. Fetterman, N.J. Doorenbos , M.W. Quimby and C. Waller, 1973b. Constituents of Cannabis sativa L. IV: Stability of cannabinoids in stored plant material. Journal of the Pharmaceutical Sciences 62: 1601-1605.
  • Turner J.C., J.K. Hemphill and P.G. Mahlberg, 1978. Cannabinoid composition and gland distribution in clones of Cannabis sativa L. (Cannabaceae). UN Bulletin on Narcotics 30: 55-65.
  • Turner J.C. and Mahlberg, P.G., 1988. In vivo incorporation of labeled precursors into cannabinoids in seedlings of Cannabis sativa L. (Cannabaceae). Pages 263-270 in Chesher, G., P. Consroe and R. Musty, eds. Marihuana. Australian Government Publications, Canberra.
  • Van Klingeren B. and M. Ten Ham, 1976. Antibacterial activity of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek Journal of Microbiology and Serology 42: 9-12.
  • Vogelmann A.F., J.C. Turner and P.G. Mahlberg, 1988. Cannabinoid composition in seedlings compared to adult plants of Cannabis sativa. Journal of Natural Products 51: 1075-1079.
  • Vree T.B., D.D. Breimer, C.A.M. Van Gienneken and J.M. Rossum, 1971. Identification of methyl and homologs of CBD, THC and CBN in hashish by a new method of combined gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Acta Pharm. Sue. 8: 683-84.
  • Vree T.B., D.D. Breimer, C.A.M. Van Gienneken and J.M. Rossum, 1972a. Identification of cannabicyclol with a pentyl or propyl side-chain by means of combined gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.Journal of Chromatography 74: 124-127.
  • Vree T.B., D.D. Breimer, C.A.M. Van Gienneken and J.M. Rossum, 1972b. Identification in hashish of tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol and cannabinol analogs with methyl side-chain. J. Pharm. Pharmacol.24: 7-12.
  • Yagen B. and R. Mechoulam, 1969. Stereospecific cyclizations and isomerizations of cannabichromene and related cannabinoids. Tetrahedron Letters 60: 5356-5363.
Cannabis Events Cannabis Info Kush Clean

Why Aren’t Women at Home in the World of Weed?

Why Aren’t Women at Home in the World of Weed?

I was driving down the 110 last weekend when I saw a billboard: KUSH EXPO. Then, in slightly smaller type, HOT KUSH GIRL CONTEST. I tried to imagine the contenders: tattooed women in green string bikinis posing with suggestively large bongs, looking like they would be equally at home on the playa at Burning Man and in the pages of Maxim. The words “kush girl” did not evoke mental images of women I know who are enthusiastic about marijuana — women who are likely to smoke slouched on their sofas at home, bra-less in the not-sexy-just-comfortable way, while watching Netflix Instant on a laptop. My interest was piqued, so I ordered tickets to the Expo as soon as I got home.

I live in Southern California, the spiritual stoneland of the American weed enthusiast. Medical marijuana has been legal here since 1996, and socially acceptable since long before that. There is little risk or stigma associated with being a casual pot smoker if you’re not someone who is already likely to be targeted by the police (read: it’s cool if you’re white and relatively wealthy). While California does not have the country’s most liberal marijuana laws — Colorado and Washington states voted to decriminalize it in 2012 — we probably have the most developed weed culture; many Californians don’t just smoke marijuana but actively identify as a participant in the industry around it, as a peer of people who use it, or as an activist for its legalization. And, as Wendy Chapkis, a professor of sociology at the University of Southern Maine, writes in a new academic article, “contemporary cannabis culture is at once delightfully libertine and deeply sexist.”

In regard to the Kush Expo, it makes a certain amount of sense that, even here in California, a public gathering of self-identified stoners would be catering explicitly to straight men. Twice as many men as women say they use marijuana more than once a week. But that stat may not reflect women’s actual usage. “I actually work at a dispensary in L.A. and can tell you there is no question that 80 to 90 percent of customers are men,” writes a reader of Andrew Sullivan’s blog. “I am equally certain that most of them smoke with their girlfriends when they get home.”

So, even though I know plenty of women who are enthusiastic smokers, I end up heading to the Kush Expo with three men. As we drive the 45 minutes down to Anaheim, we discuss the more bro-y aspects of weed culture. They’ve all had friends recommend certain dispensaries based on the hot “bud tenders” at the front counter. An employee at a Denver dispensary recently told GQ, “We prefer female bud tenders. Females just sell a lot more weed. Guys like to buy their weed from females. And girls like to buy their weed from females.”

Photo: Nathaniel Wood

Indeed, when I put out a call on Twitter asking women weed smokers to chat with me about their experiences, a few of them echoed my male friends’ observations about this gender dynamic. One San Franciscan complained that there’s “so much boobage” at certain dispensaries. “Most other female stoners I know are super low-key, and it makes you wonder where these magical, spandex-wearing boob fairies came from.” But the increasing social acceptance and legality of weed may be bringing more women out of the cannabis closet. “In the early aughts, when I started smoking, I noticed that a lot of women smoked out of glass and eschewed rolling joints or blunts. These girls usually smoked in some kind of secret, perhaps because, as my mom tells me, marijuana is unladylike,” a Californian wrote me. “But with legalization and a cultural shift, I’ve seen a lot of women become weedheads.”

If there is a shift, it’s certainly not reflected in pop culture. When movies and TV shows feature women smoking pot, it’s almost always as an act of rebellion or breaking character, and every once in a while you’ll get a Meet the Fockers–style mockable hippie-mom type. There are a few depictions of women smoking at home as a way to blow off some steam and bond with each other. In 9 to 5, a film released back in 1980, Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, and Dolly Parton’s characters get stoned together and fantasize about how they will exact revenge on their boorish boss. The 2012 lady-bromance For a Good Time Call features heroines who regularly smoke. But the examples are few and far between.

In pop culture, “stoner” and “slacker bro” are practically synonymous. The modern slacker-stoner, Chapkis writes, “resists the conventional expectations of manhood” to be an ambitious breadwinner, as well as the sixties political, countercultural associations with weed. He’s just kinda … hanging out. “The slacker attitude relies on a mismatch between expectation and condition; this is why it is most available to white heterosexual men with some measure of class privilege,” Chapkis writes. “The slacker’s refusal to work hard and assume ‘adult’ responsibilities doesn’t function quite the same way for people of color and women who are already saddled with a stereotype of dependency.”

This is perhaps why so many women are hush-hush about their kush. Most women I spoke with said they didn’t feel they could publicly own up to their marijuana use, even in cases where it was truly for medicinal purposes. “I do not feel part of a ‘weed culture,’” a Canadian woman wrote me. “I am not someone you would ever suspect smokes pot. I’ve always been kind of proud of that fact. I have my shit together.” This sentiment was covered in a great 2009 Marie Claire feature on “stiletto stoners,” women who dominate in the workplace and opt for weed over white wine when it’s time to unwind at home. “One in five women who admitted to indulging in the previous month lives in a household earning more than $75,000 a year,” according to the article.

The fact that lady stoners are playing against type is something that can offer a veneer of protection. “As a white lady within the context of Chicago, I feel safe carrying weed and will smoke discretely and openly in the outside parts of the city I frequent,” one woman replied to me. “This is definitely due to the racial problems that the city has. I’m privileged in that I am not at all what they are looking for.” But even with racial profiling on her side, she still feels most comfortable smoking with other women. “I have a handful of girlfriends locally and we can smoke in front of each other freely, but I don’t have that level of comfort in all settings or mixed company,” she wrote. “It makes you seem like super-cool laid-back dudebro if you’re doing it, but I’m not sure that assumption carries over to women.”

Photo: Nathaniel Wood

I don’t expect to find many women who look like me taking bong rips under the fluorescent lights of the Anaheim Convention Center. And I’m not surprised. Turns out the Kush Expo is like any other convention centered around what’s seen as primarily a male interest: Lots of booths, lots of booth babes. One of them, CJ Hensley, is sporting a tiny shredded shirt with a pot leaf on it and a black lace bra peeking through. There is a wreath of plastic pot leaves around the band of her bikini bottom. “Dressing up is part of the fun,” she tells me. Hensley has been at the Kush Clean booth, selling pipe-cleaning products and anti-bacterial wipes to germophobic social smokers, for three years now — ever since she turned 18, “got a medical card and became a proud stoner.” I ask her if men are always hitting on her. “Yeah,” she says, rolling her eyes, “but I kind of ask for it. They’re usually too stoned and happy to do anything weird.”

I decide to seek out a few non-bikinied booth proprietors. Miranda Baskharoon, who owns a couple of cigar shops in Southern California, is selling glass pipes and mini-vaporizers. She says she gets a lot of women customers at her booth. “They approach me when they see a woman standing back here,” she says. “I don’t feel that my bikini or my body sells the product. I don’t need to sell my body.”

Baskharoon introduces me to Stephanie, another vendor who’s selling THC-infused cupcakes she bakes herself. She has long, wavy blonde hair and is wearing a spaghetti-strap sundress in a purple-paisley print. She and her husband, Buddy, have been selling their potent snacks at various weed conventions for about a decade. Last year at Kush Expo, they won first and second place for best edibles and concentrates. “Call us Mr. and Mrs. Nuggets,” she says, “because of the federal scrutiny.” Many of her customers are women who don’t fit the stoner stereotype — breast-cancer survivors and people with arthritis. Slowly but surely more public-facing venues for weed culture, like the Kush Expo, are starting to reflect that cohort. “As the years have gone by, the maturity has gone up,” Stephanie says. “I think the frat-party-ness has faded away.”

But even as the culture grows up and the industry becomes more professionalized, the sexism remains entrenched. The leaders of most major drug-policy-reform groups are men — some of whom have a history of harassment. In a new research paper on the gender dynamics of the marijuana-growing community in Northern California, sociologist Karen August found that “nearly all” business transactions were made by men, while women are “heavily involved” in work like tending plants and making edibles. She references Craigslist ads with titles like “Girl Trimmer Needed” and “lady trimmers wanted.” Several of the ads are overtly sexual: “Need a good looking trimmer that is Dtf.” Or, “looking for new help, topless extra.” “There are a few successful women growers,” August writes, “but more numerous are the smaller marijuana-related cottage industries operated by women” selling paraphernalia, clothing, posters, and other knickknacks with marijuana themes. Precisely the sort of thing on sale at the Kush Expo.

As I look around, I see far more nearly naked women than female small-business owners. I approach Amber Kidd and Jennifer Rodriguez, two tattooed girls with heavy eyeliner and metallic hot pants who are handing out stickers, and ask if they’re participating in tomorrow’s Hot Kush Girl competition I saw on the billboard, which is advertising a $1,000 cash prize. Their shake their heads no — not because it’s sexist but because they think it’s rigged. “I don’t participate,” Rodriguez says. “You get up there half-naked and do whatever they tell you, and in the end someone’s girlfriend wins.” Even when you’re a hot kush girl, you don’t quite belong. source

Cannabis Info Uncategorized

World’s Oldest Pot Stash Found

ancient-pot-stashWhen archaeologists opened the tomb of a Gushi shaman in northwest China, they found his stash. The 2,700 year-old corpse had been buried with just under a kilo of marijuana, the oldest known use of cannabis for purposes other than food or clothing. And researchers believe that he was entombed with the plant so he could enjoy its psychoactive properties in the afterlife.

A paper published this week in Britain’s Journal of Experimental Botany reports the find in China’s Xinjiang region, where many modern strains of cannabis are thought to have originated. In addition to 789 grams of marijuana, the tomb contained bridles, archery equipment, and a harp, apparent provisions for the afterlife. Unlike other early examples of cannabis use, the research team believes that the marijuana was included for its psychoactive properties. Said the lead researcher, neurologist Ethan Russo:

“It was common practice in burials to provide materials needed for the afterlife. No hemp or seeds were provided for fabric or food. Rather, cannabis as medicine or for visionary purposes was supplied.”

Russo studies the effects of cannabis on the brain, including its use in pain management for multiple sclerosis and cancer patients. He and other researchers have been conducting a battery of tests on the ancient weed, such as attempting to measure the levels of THC and germinate the seeds found in the cache, in an attempt to better understand ancient uses of the plant.

The cache of cannabis is about 2,700 years old and was clearly “cultivated for psychoactive purposes,” rather than as fiber for clothing or as food, says a research paper in the Journal of Experimental Botany.  The 789 grams of dried cannabis was buried alongside a light-haired, blue-eyed Caucasian man, likely a shaman of the Gushi culture, near Turpan in northwestern China.  The extremely dry conditions and alkaline soil acted as preservatives, allowing a team of scientists to carefully analyze the stash, which still looked green though it had lost its distinctive odor.  “To our knowledge, these investigations provide the oldest documentation of cannabis as a pharmacologically active agent,” says the newly published paper, whose lead author was American neurologist Dr. Ethan B. Russo.  Remnants of cannabis have been found in ancient Egypt and other sites, and the substance has been referred to by authors such as the Greek historian Herodotus. But the tomb stash is the oldest so far that could be thoroughly tested for its properties.

The 18 researchers, most of them based in China, subjected the cannabis to a battery of tests, including carbon dating and genetic analysis. Scientists also tried to germinate 100 of the seeds found in the cache, without success.  The marijuana was found to have a relatively high content of THC, the main active ingredient in cannabis, but the sample was too old to determine a precise percentage.  Researchers also could not determine whether the cannabis was smoked or ingested, as there were no pipes or other clues in the tomb of the shaman, who was about 45 years old.  The large cache was contained in a leather basket and in a wooden bowl, and was likely meant to be used by the shaman in the afterlife.  “This materially is unequivocally cannabis, and no material has previously had this degree of analysis possible,” Russo said in an interview from Missoula, Mont.

“It was common practice in burials to provide materials needed for the afterlife. No hemp or seeds were provided for fabric or food. Rather, cannabis as medicine or for visionary purposes was supplied.”  The tomb also contained bridles, archery equipment and a harp, confirming the man’s high social standing.

Russo is a full-time consultant with GW Pharmaceuticals, which makes Sativex, a cannabis-based medicine approved in Canada for pain linked to multiple sclerosis and cancer.  The company operates a cannabis-testing laboratory at a secret location in southern England to monitor crop quality for producing Sativex, and allowed Russo use of the facility for tests on 11 grams of the tomb cannabis.

Researchers needed about 10 months to cut red tape barring the transfer of the cannabis to England from China, Russo said.  The inter-disciplinary study was published this week by the British-based botany journal, which uses independent reviewers to ensure the accuracy and objectivity of all submitted papers.  The substance has been found in two of the 500 Gushi tombs excavated so far in northwestern China, indicating that cannabis was either restricted for use by a few individuals or was administered as a medicine to others through shamans, Russo said.  “It certainly does indicate that cannabis has been used by man for a variety of purposes for thousands of years.”