Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

First of all, there are threads dicussing the legality of drugs and the "which drugs have you taken" thread, but I would like to start a thread discussing legality, risks, effects, opinions, mixing drugs, etc.

Everything there is to talk about drugs.

First of all, some myth busting.

1. Ecstasy is a very risky drug

False, 7 per million per year are ecsasy related, and most of them are due to a mix with alcohol, one of the most dangerous drugs on the planet.

2. Ketamine is a legal drug

I didn't discover Ketamine until last year, but from what I know, it is not under the misuse of drugs act in the UK. However it is illegal to use without a prescription, as it is a medical drug.

3. Smoking Cannabis is 20 times worse than smoking Tobacco

Although smoking itself is bad, the reason tobacco smoke is bad is the tar it produces in your lungs.

When smoke of any kind enters your lungs, the body has natural defenses against it, and lesions form. These are what lead to cancer, however they naturally go away once the smoke does. However, the tar in the leaves prevent them from doing this, and that is the risk.

Most cannabis smokers smoke the bud of the plant. Cannabis bud has about 33% of the risk from tobacco leaves. Cannabis smokers, although taking longer puffs, smoke a lot less.

4. Cannabis, Heroin etc. can lead to sterility

There is no evidence that any reacreational drug can affect your fertiliy.

5. Heroin is incredibly addictive

1 dose of heroin won't get you hooked. Infact, alcohol and tobacco are more addictive. However, our bodies do tend to tolerate heroin forcing higher dosage.

6. Taking LSD will make you think you can fly

Never happened. I might as well add that LSD is one of the safest drugs.

7. Speed kills

50 deaths in the world over a 30 year period. Most of them were due to injection.



Well I'm a bit lethargic now, get through to discussion.

Originally posted by lord xyz
5. Heroin is incredibly addictive

1 dose of heroin won't get you hooked. Infact, alcohol and tobacco are more addictive. However, our bodies do tend to tolerate heroin forcing higher dosage.

There's pretty much nothing that gets you "hooked" in one dose. That doesn't mean heroin doesn't deserve a reputation as being highly addictive and very hard to quit.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's pretty much nothing that gets you "hooked" in one dose. That doesn't mean heroin doesn't deserve a reputation as being highly addictive and very hard to quit. That is true. However, it's not as addictive as the media states. Once again, alcohol and tobacco are more addictive.

why lying to children about drugs is a bad idea:

when they realize you are lying they go a little overboard.

For instance, with regard to K, recent research shows potential irreversible effects with only a single does.

because something is not as bad as the propaganda says does not mean it is safe. For instance, I wouldn't make statements that make E sound benign.

Originally posted by lord xyz
That is true. However, it's not as addictive as the media states. Once again, alcohol and tobacco are more addictive.

it is impossible to "rank" how "addictive" something is, as addiction is a symptom and entails many variables.

however, opiates are far more "addictive" as in, the chemical produces dependency, far more efficiently than alcohol. Nicotine, not tobacco, may match it, but is nowhere close when it comes to withdrawal effects.

Originally posted by inimalist
why lying to children about drugs is a bad idea:

when they realize you are lying they go a little overboard.

For instance, with regard to K, recent research shows potential irreversible effects with only a single does.

because something is not as bad as the propaganda says does not mean it is safe. For instance, I wouldn't make statements that make E sound benign.



it is impossible to "rank" how "addictive" something is, as addiction is a symptom and entails many variables.

however, opiates are far more "addictive" as in, the chemical produces dependency, far more efficiently than alcohol. Nicotine, not tobacco, may match it, but is nowhere close when it comes to withdrawal effects. Some of my friends were in a K hole, and they're no different than before.

As for addiction, it really does depend on the person.

Originally posted by lord xyz
As for addiction, it really does depend on the person.

Thus it is safe for everyone to try!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Thus it is safe for everyone to try! Go ahead.

There is a differance between user and abuser.

ANYTHING can be addictive.
Sugar is more addictive than cocaine.
Fast food is more addictive than heroin.

If used moderatly, anything can be enjoyed.

The problem lies in that dealers mix cocaine and heroine with all kinds of harmful shit, like washing powder, rat poison, flour, sugar and other legal drugs like painkillers, which can be leathel.

If drugs were clean, deaths statistics would look a lot different.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Sugar is more addictive than cocaine.
Fast food is more addictive than heroin.

I'd like to see any sort of basis for that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd like to see any sort of basis for that. how many people are regular users of sugar and fast food versus heroin and coke.

The other two are probably socially addictive though.

Originally posted by lord xyz
how many people are regular users of sugar and fast food versus heroin and coke.

That's not an argument for anything being addictive. Lots of people drink water too.

Everyone's looking at this from completely the wrong angle. Heroin's damage isn't caused from it's initial addictiveness. It's caused from what those peope who ARE addicted to it but cannot afford it. Social damage from drugs far outweighs the personal damage done to the user. The proof is in the fact that there are many people who function perfectly normal lives despite a heroin addiction but they can actually afford it off their own money. It's those who cannot that cause the damage and so commit crimes to feed their addiction.


Actually, a lot more deaths result from so called "clean" doses than from those with large amounts of impurities. Drugs like heroin and cocaine firstly get cheaper drugs added to them that mimic the effects of the main drug. In the case of cocaine it's things like caffine. It is then bulked with what is usually inert substances. So to say it's the other addiditves that are causing the deaths is actually false because unusually pure drugs mean a lot more people have overdoses because they are used to their old "unclean" dose. Dealers don't want to kill off their market so they don't generally add hugely harmful additives to bulk out their drug supply. The alleged rat poison stories tend to be urban legends (i know because i now test street sample drugs via gas chromatography-mass spectrometry for a living). It's far more likely to be things like cheap strawberry angel delight (makes the so called "pink champagne" version of cocaine). These things don't cause fatalities as much as pure drugs do.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd like to see any sort of basis for that.

Perhaps take some interest in researching?

hen rats were allowed to choose mutually-exclusively between water sweetened with saccharin-an intense calorie-free sweetener-and intravenous cocaine-a highly addictive and harmful substance-the large majority of animals (94%) preferred the sweet taste of saccharin. The preference for saccharin was not attributable to its unnatural ability to induce sweetness without calories because the same preference was also observed with sucrose, a natural sugar. Finally, the preference for saccharin was not surmountable by increasing doses of cocaine and was observed despite either cocaine intoxication, sensitization or intake escalation-the latter being a hallmark of drug addiction.

Our findings clearly demonstrate that intense sweetness can surpass cocaine reward, even in drug-sensitized and -addicted individuals.

-researchers at the University of Bordeaux, France

Read it here - http://www.plosone.org/home.action

Oh and here, BBC says fast food is AS addictive as heroin.
Hmmm...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2707143.stm

Originally posted by jaden101
Actually, a lot more deaths result from so called "clean" doses than from those with large amounts of impurities. Drugs like heroin and cocaine firstly get cheaper drugs added to them that mimic the effects of the main drug. In the case of cocaine it's things like caffine. It is then bulked with what is usually inert substances. So to say it's the other addiditves that are causing the deaths is actually false because unusually pure drugs mean a lot more people have overdoses because they are used to their old "unclean" dose. Dealers don't want to kill off their market so they don't generally add hugely harmful additives to bulk out their drug supply. The alleged rat poison stories tend to be urban legends (i know because i now test street sample drugs via gas chromatography-mass spectrometry for a living). It's far more likely to be things like cheap strawberry angel delight (makes the so called "pink champagne" version of cocaine). These things don't cause fatalities as much as pure drugs do.

A lot more deaths? Really?

Because unless you run a huge drug ring and are at the top, or you pick your own cocaine in the fields, access to pure cocaine is not only ridiculously difficult to access, but incomparably expensive.

On top of that, before it reaches you in England or me in Canada, cocaine has already gone through at least 2, if not more cuts.

Its ridiculous to claim that more deaths come from pure drugs which are so inaccessible to many users and abusers.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Perhaps take some interest in researching?

hen rats were allowed to choose mutually-exclusively between water sweetened with saccharin-an intense calorie-free sweetener-and intravenous cocaine-a highly addictive and harmful substance-the large majority of animals (94%) preferred the sweet taste of saccharin. The preference for saccharin was not attributable to its unnatural ability to induce sweetness without calories because the same preference was also observed with sucrose, a natural sugar. Finally, the preference for saccharin was not surmountable by increasing doses of cocaine and was observed despite either cocaine intoxication, sensitization or intake escalation-the latter being a hallmark of drug addiction.

Our findings clearly demonstrate that intense sweetness can surpass cocaine reward, even in drug-sensitized and -addicted individuals.

-researchers at the University of Bordeaux, France

Read it here - http://www.plosone.org/home.action

In rats, mind you they even note that proper research on how rodents process cocaine as compared to primates was no conducted. Just to high light how important that can be chipmunks can drink like 15 times as much alcohol as human beings can.

Also:
Whether this effect results from a genuine preference for intense sweetness or other factors (e.g., use of a suboptimal dose of cocaine and/or lack of cocaine dependence) has not been established yet, however.

Finally the fact that some things are more addictive does not make cocaine (or anything else) less addictive.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Some of my friends were in a K hole, and they're no different than before.

thats not really what I'm saying

Originally posted by lord xyz
As for addiction, it really does depend on the person.

it depends on a lot of things

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Perhaps take some interest in researching?

hen rats were allowed to choose mutually-exclusively between water sweetened with saccharin-an intense calorie-free sweetener-and intravenous cocaine-a highly addictive and harmful substance-the large majority of animals (94%) preferred the sweet taste of saccharin. The preference for saccharin was not attributable to its unnatural ability to induce sweetness without calories because the same preference was also observed with sucrose, a natural sugar. Finally, the preference for saccharin was not surmountable by increasing doses of cocaine and was observed despite either cocaine intoxication, sensitization or intake escalation-the latter being a hallmark of drug addiction.

Our findings clearly demonstrate that intense sweetness can surpass cocaine reward, even in drug-sensitized and -addicted individuals.

-researchers at the University of Bordeaux, France

Read it here - http://www.plosone.org/home.action

Oh and here, BBC says fast food is AS addictive as heroin.
Hmmm...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2707143.stm



A lot more deaths? Really?

Because unless you run a huge drug ring and are at the top, or you pick your own cocaine in the fields, access to pure cocaine is not only ridiculously difficult to access, but incomparably expensive.

On top of that, before it reaches you in England or me in Canada, cocaine has already gone through at least 2, if not more cuts.

Its ridiculous to claim that more deaths come from pure drugs which are so inaccessible to many users and abusers.

It doesn't have to be pure though. It just has to be a cleaner sample than what is normally around. This actually happens a lot and is responsible for most heroin overdoses because people prepare their hit in terms of what they are used to taking. If the quantity is the same but the drug is more concentrated then that's when they have an overdose.

examples

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,900989,00.html?promoid=googlep

http://www.heroinaddiction2.com/user-news.htm?id=45



from

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cheap-pure-heroin-set-to-flood-britain-say-police-472972.html

Granted though. If heroin addicts were to be given pure heroin initially supervised and so got used to a pure supply, there would eventually be less deaths because of the physiologically damaging adulterants would no longer be present. But if heroin was to because practically pure over night and users were to continue to take the doses they are used to in terms of quantity then there would be a massive number of heroin deaths.

Oh and by the way. I'm in Scotland...Not England.

never tried heroin ...think thats the popular one I would not care to even try...though one that has always made me wonder is peyote...seen a couple people come back from the renaissance festival and they seemed to be like the others who were on lsd and shrooms as far as how they acted...I think...though I was innocent ahemm I never did shrooms that night I swear angel but just curious how much more intense is it than say lsd or shrooms? (provided you remove the center which I heard was stryctnine) ....anyone know?

Originally posted by inimalist
thats not really what I'm saying



it depends on a lot of things I'm saying I'm not seeing these irreversible effects.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I'm saying I'm not seeing these irreversible effects.

I assume you ran your friends on controlled tests followed by fMRI or other brain activity measuring readings?

You are actually articulating my main point in my first post. You have realized that adults were lying to you, so now you think everything is ok because it isn't instantly destructive.

Originally posted by inimalist
I assume you ran your friends on controlled tests followed by fMRI or other brain activity measuring readings?

You are actually articulating my main point in my first post. You have realized that adults were lying to you, so now you think everything is ok because it isn't instantly destructive. No, not at all.

But they are absolutelty no different. Yeah, I don't know how well their lymphatic system works, but in terms of attitude and behaviour, nothing's changed.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, not at all.

But they are absolutelty no different. Yeah, I don't know how well their lymphatic system works, but in terms of attitude and behaviour, nothing's changed.

indeed, but nobody rational has ever claimed that a single use will lead to radical observable behavioural changes (though I know people who single uses of drugs has caused this in).

K wont kill you, likely. K will **** UP your memory. If I remember correctly (and I apologize for not having the citation) the study found irreversible changes in declarative memory. K is also physically addictive.

lol, look, I love K, it is just important to have a rational idea of what it is you are doing to yourself. "My friends are ok" is probably not the best measure, nor is what the government tells you. It is unfortunate your high school probably has no access to real research, but even just search stuff on pubmed (you will probably only get to read the abstracts). There are serious people doing good research into this stuff. Unfortunately, science doesn't try to be political most of the time, so neither side becomes aware of it, because it wont serve their propaganda.

EDIT: oops

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, but nobody rational has ever claimed that a single use will lead to radical observable behavioural changes (though I know people who single uses of drugs has caused this in).

K wont kill you, likely. K will **** UP your memory. If I remember correctly (and I apologize for not having the citation) the study found irreversible changes in declarative memory. K is also physically addictive.

lol, look, I love K, it is just important to have a rational idea of what it is you are doing to yourself. "My friends are ok" is probably not the best measure, nor is what the government tells you. It is unfortunate your high school probably has no access to real research, but even just search stuff on pubmed (you will probably only get to read the abstracts). There are serious people doing good research into this stuff. Unfortunately, science doesn't try to be political most of the time, so neither side becomes aware of it, because it wont serve their propaganda. http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/ketamine/addiction.htm

Seems to say otherwise.

Originally posted by lord xyz
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/ketamine/addiction.htm

Seems to say otherwise.

They are clearly unbiased and peer reviewed.

Actually on further examination they do seem pretty good. Though, for a site with no political agenda they seem to have one hell of a political agenda.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Some of my friends were in a K hole, and they're no different than before.

As for addiction, it really does depend on the person. Yeah disregard that.

The assholes were lying.

Originally posted by lord xyz
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/ketamine/addiction.htm

Seems to say otherwise.

indeed, what I said about K being physically addictive seems to be wrong

just asking again about peyote since my post was a page behind..lol

Originally posted by Jack Daniels
just asking again about peyote since my post was a page behind..lol Never experienced or seen anyone on peyote.

Well drugs are only bad if miss used, like a woman took pills but she only died because she drank to much water and drowned her self. Most things in life is bad for you if you miss use it. To much chocolate you could get diabetes. Fruit rots your teeth. I admit heroin is bad but if you say no don't do it people wont learn if they want to mess there life up it up to them, life is one big learning curve. Cannabis yes is addictive but no one has OD on it or died from just taking it it is the mixing of drugs and miss using them which makes it bad.

This is only my opinion though and I do not want to influence anyone. Everyone is aloud an opinion, as every one has the right to do what they want to there body.

If this has offended anyone i am sorry

zart22

Originally posted by zart22
Well drugs are only bad if miss used, like a woman took pills but she only died because she drank to much water and drowned her self. Most things in life is bad for you if you miss use it. To much chocolate you could get diabetes. Fruit rots your teeth. I admit heroin is bad but if you say no don't do it people wont learn if they want to mess there life up it up to them, life is one big learning curve. Cannabis yes is addictive but no one has OD on it or died from just taking it it is the mixing of drugs and miss using them which makes it bad.

This is only my opinion though and I do not want to influence anyone. Everyone is aloud an opinion, as every one has the right to do what they want to there body.

If this has offended anyone i am sorry

zart22 marijuana is not addictive, physically atleast. Infact, the UK department of health states:

"Cannabis is a weakly addictive drug but does induce dependence in a significant minority of regular users."

Over 70 million in America have admitted using the drug, and 2 million are regular users. Doing the maths, that's 2.8% of possible addicts.

Originally posted by lord xyz
marijuana is not addictive, physically atleast. Infact, the UK department of health states:

"Cannabis is a weakly addictive drug but does induce dependence in a significant minority of regular users."

Over 70 million in America have admitted using the drug, and 2 million are regular users. Doing the maths, that's 2.8% of possible addicts.

doing the math would indicate weak addictive properties

actually, Canada did some stats, and it is like less than 10% of users consume more than a gram a week, and less than 10% of that used daily. Blah, I might actually look that one up

also, from the other drug thread:

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, "most addictive substance" is a very difficult, and largely empty, statement to make. For instance, research recently showed that addiction to marijuana is worse as far as withdrawl symptoms (subjectively described) than cigarettes, yet nobody would, in their right mind, claim that marijuana is as addictive as nicotine.

Like anything with drugs, the statistics can be put in different ways in order to make whatever point you want, and imho, there is a significant lack of empirical research into drugs that isn't focused on saying "this will do X to you, oooooooh scary" or "this is how to treat addiction to X". Seratonin and LSD, something that is on the cusp of neuro-chemical research, is an example of the way all drugs need to be studied, as, again imho, they offer something akin to repetable and controlled lesions, which are one of the cornerstones of brain research. As it stands now, when the Lancet, one of the world's most trusted medical journals, published independent rankings of the harms of drugs (to compare them to the classification system of the British gvt), the opinions of clinical psychologists about the harms of drugs were more important than strict neuroscientific evidence in their rankings.

lol, to rant some more, and hopefully tie this all up, saying "heroin is more addictive than meth" is largely pointless, most significantly because there is not agreement in what consitiutes "addiction" (DSM classifaction vs behavioural measures like withdrawl effects), but even further, because people use different drugs for different reasons. That most ravers have done meth in pills or at a party for a buzz is much different than those in poverty who use heroin as a form of escapism.

imho, the environment of people is far more of an influence for addiction than the chemical substance in itself.

talking about addiction is in a lot of ways a red herring. A person can be more addicted to marijuana than another is to heroin.

mary jane is not physically addictive bottom line...............mentally depends on your stress level..lol..some folks need it...I wish it was legal I wouldnt be killing myself with booze..current : watching jay leno with kevin bacon...said its okay to cut his throat open for the movie but not showing him smoking a joint..wtf?

Originally posted by Jack Daniels
mary jane is not physically addictive bottom line...............

depends how you define "physical" and which definition of "addiction" you are using.

Originally posted by inimalist
doing the math would indicate weak addictive properties

actually, Canada did some stats, and it is like less than 10% of users consume more than a gram a week, and less than 10% of that used daily. Blah, I might actually look that one up

also, from the other drug thread:



talking about addiction is in a lot of ways a red herring. A person can be more addicted to marijuana than another is to heroin. The way I measure addiction is by how desperate they are to get it once it's taken away.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The way I measure addiction is by how desperate they are to get it once it's taken away.

according to scientific research, pot would then be more addictive than cigarettes, as those who quit after heavy daily usage report more withdrawal symptoms in general and stronger negative withdrawal symptoms when quitting pot than cigarettes.

full article:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2214670

summation:

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/marijuana-withdrawal-bad-withdrawal-cigarettes-15309.html

and a quote from the abstract:



EDIT: and not to make this personal story time, but back when I was living with a couple of my friends, we were HURTING. It was like a day to day "How am I going to eat? How am I going to get high?" The plan for most days was the mission where we went to go pick up weed. Quite honestly, we would find like 7 dollars, and it would be like "**** ya, a 5 piece and a 2 dollar slice from city pizza". When smart, logical and mature individuals can spend over 50% of their budget, forgoing food, for a drug, it is really obvious it has addictive qualities.

If that isn't what life is like for you, good, don't let it get like that. Getting up every day wondering how it is you will get high (and that being the most important consideration all day) is not a fun life, and something many cannabis users go through.

That shot me down.


Maybe pot is more addictive, I'd definately rather smoke a joint than a cigarette.

But the scientific studies say no, so I don't know.

Originally posted by lord xyz
That shot me down.


Maybe pot is more addictive, I'd definately rather smoke a joint than a cigarette.

But the scientific studies say no, so I don't know.

the problem is that you are only defining addiction in 1 way. Addiction is not a quality of a substance, but a personality disposition mixed with context. Can something be physically addictive, sure, but EVERYTHING can be physically addictive because of dopamine release in the hippocampus.

I'm way happier to smoke weed than cigarettes, but I would only be lying to you if I said I wasn't addicted. The cause of that addiction could be debated, and the contribution of some chemical vs social contextual issues is important.

don't miss the EDIT above though

As far as I understand it, broadly speaking, nicotine is both mentally and physically addictive; pot is mentally addictive only.

I've never smoked cigs, so I can't speak from experience on that. But as far as mary jane goes, whenever I wasn't able to resupply, it was annoying and I got bored (until I rebooted other parts of my brain), but I was never in physical discomfort, let alone pain. In fact, sometimes the break was nice.

Originally posted by Mindship
As far as I understand it, broadly speaking, nicotine is both mentally and physically addictive; pot is mentally addictive only.

what does that mean though?

and shopping or tanning can be "addictive", because of dopamine mediated connections. How is that not a "physical" addiction?

Originally posted by inimalist
what does that mean though?

and shopping or tanning can be "addictive", because of dopamine mediated connections. How is that not a "physical" addiction? Significantly physical, to where I'm feeling it in a major bodily way. When I was on mj hiatus, there was no problem other than sometimes getting bored.

Yeah In, that would be quite shit. Drugs are only for parties or hanging out imo, where a group of friends want a good time.

i know anecdotal evidence doesn't amount to much but since this is the current topic of discussion i figure what the hell:

i quit smoking cold turkey on the 14th, about a week and a half ago. i didn't cut down at all in advance, smoked consistently right up until the hour i had to quit.

at first i just felt like having a smoke, like little things that usually prompt me to smoke would remind me that i couldn't smoke, and it was slightly annoying but easy to get over by occupying my mind with something else.

by the 2nd/3rd day i couldn't sleep and spent all night taking robotussin (i was sick) and watching richard dawkins documentaries on youtube. that's about when i started to feel strong physical cravings, like i had a knot in my stomach or like the feeling of terror you feel in the pit of your stomach if someone were to be holding a knife to you.

it basically just makes you feel like punching somebody.

but shortly afterwards these physical cravings subsided and its back to a mental battle of trying to forget all the little things that remind you to smoke. as of now i have successfully fought off the temptations though it still seems to be affecting my sleep. i've had 3 different dreams about smoking in the last 2 nights.



about two years ago, i used to smoke weed daily and had to abruptly quit one day in the same manner, and i have to say that i never felt any strong craving for weed.

i know what it's like to be around the stuff and try not to smoke, which is hard, but as soon as i removed myself from that element (moved a couple states away) it wasn't so bad.

although the funny part is that i never smoked cigarettes until i had to quit smoking weed and just felt like having something in my hand to smoke, so i guess i just traded addictions (though i wouldn't say it was a fair trade, kind of a rip off)

Originally posted by red g jacks
(though i wouldn't say it was a fair trade, kind of a rip off) Haha, yeah. Why the hell is that one legal?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Haha, yeah. Why the hell is that one legal?

Profit?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Profit? Could that have been a more rhetorical question?

Originally posted by lord xyz
That shot me down.


Maybe pot is more addictive, I'd definately rather smoke a joint than a cigarette.

But the scientific studies say no, so I don't know. everyday stoned

Originally posted by lord xyz
Could that have been a more rhetorical question?


. . .


Profit?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
. . .


Profit? Don't you mean:

????

Profit

In short, Drugs suck, except for alcohol

nah

Originally posted by Ultimate Wil
In short, Drugs suck, except for alcohol You sound just like Uncle Sam.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yeah In, that would be quite shit. Drugs are only for parties or hanging out imo, where a group of friends want a good time.

don't get the wrong impression

I was going paycheck to paycheck, never robbed anyone, never missed rent/utilities. When there was cash, it was good, you know. Just more, when an expense comes up and you have to make it Tues to Friday with no cash sort of thing.

Obviously I've just described huge social influence, as being broke as **** is pretty stressful, and I wasn't telling a story in order to be like "Marijuana is so bad", more just to illustrate my point.

Drugs are good at parties... Maybe I just like to party

Originally posted by Mindship
Significantly physical, to where I'm feeling it in a major bodily way. When I was on mj hiatus, there was no problem other than sometimes getting bored.

I actually quit cigs with no withdrawal or cravings, so I get that different people have different vices. I can't say I get extremely "physical" type reactions when I don't get high, so maybe it is all psychological. I don't know though, the people in my immediate circle of friends are all just as heavy users, and we go through very similar things.

There are days where everyone I know is dry, and they aren't that bad. I think there has to be some cognitive thing where, if its available it becomes important, or whatever. LOL, go my screwed up life.

Originally posted by inimalist
don't get the wrong impression

I was going paycheck to paycheck, never robbed anyone, never missed rent/utilities. When there was cash, it was good, you know. Just more, when an expense comes up and you have to make it Tues to Friday with no cash sort of thing.

Obviously I've just described huge social influence, as being broke as **** is pretty stressful, and I wasn't telling a story in order to be like "Marijuana is so bad", more just to illustrate my point.

Drugs are good at parties... Maybe I just like to party



I actually quit cigs with no withdrawal or cravings, so I get that different people have different vices. I can't say I get extremely "physical" type reactions when I don't get high, so maybe it is all psychological. I don't know though, the people in my immediate circle of friends are all just as heavy users, and we go through very similar things.

There are days where everyone I know is dry, and they aren't that bad. I think there has to be some cognitive thing where, if its available it becomes important, or whatever. LOL, go my screwed up life. Not if the party is with people who suck and shitty music. Most parties involve alcohol as well, which is just bad. You feel dizzy and people hate you.

Gigs and just hanging out are totally better in my experience.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Not if the party is with people who suck and shitty music. Most parties involve alcohol as well, which is just bad. You feel dizzy and people hate you.

Gigs and just hanging out are totally better in my experience.

pfft, you haven't gone to any rave festivals then

but no, I hear you, I don't really do hallucinogens in big crowds any more. Not that it is always a bad time, just that I am a HUGE introvert when I'm tripping.

actually, I find as you get older, alcohol becomes a little cooler, as people don't just want to get shitface drunk anymore. A beer with some friends is siiiiiiick!

Originally posted by inimalist
pfft, you haven't gone to any rave festivals then

but no, I hear you, I don't really do hallucinogens in big crowds any more. Not that it is always a bad time, just that I am a HUGE introvert when I'm tripping.

actually, I find as you get older, alcohol becomes a little cooler, as people don't just want to get shitface drunk anymore. A beer with some friends is siiiiiiick! Oh yeah, nothing like having a pint or a drink with friends. I still prefer weed though.

Just say no kids

Say yes, to weed

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't really do hallucinogens in big crowds any more. Not that it is always a bad time, just that I am a HUGE introvert when I'm tripping. When I was in grad school, after tripping a few times with friends or at parties, I realized how much better it was tripping alone. No distractions, I could really get into it.

**sigh**

Cannabis destroys brain cells








...probably








...probably not as much as alcohol

Originally posted by Ultimate Wil
In short, Drugs suck, except for alcohol LOL, if you think so.

Anywhoo I just heard that MJ will be legal in CA. Not a smoker of that though myself.

Big revenues...and yeah, not good for you in the long run brain cell worth. Short memory ...oh yeah, short memory stuff and stuff like that. LOL

Did I mention the reven;ues?



mayo and anything tastes really good. *gathers leaves*

Originally posted by Deja~vu
LOL, if you think so.

Anywhoo I just heard that MJ will be legal in CA. Not a smoker of that though myself.

Big revenues...and yeah, not good for you in the long run brain cell worth. Short memory ...oh yeah, short memory stuff and stuff like that. LOL

Did I mention the reven;ues?



mayo and anything tastes really good. *gathers leaves*

Seems like the perfect plan. Make everyone stupid then take their money.

Sounds like a plan...OH, but serve munchies.

At least your parents didn't waste money on your educations. You can Google and read. A little life experience has told me that the most dangerous doper is a speed freak. Meth addiction makes one lose all morals and compassion for ones fellow man. I have seen people not eat or sleep for 5 to 7 days and start hallucinating and lose all touch with reality. Had a speeder tell me about a purple narc dog that was following him around but not to worry because he was smarter than the dog. Had a speeder fall asleep in my shower standing up with the water running for 3 hours once because that is where he ran out of gas. Hollow teeth, weight loss, general illness due to malnutrition and then the willingness to do anything for another fix. Watched a speed freak pick through the carpet and pick up all the white chunks and melt them and inject them because that is where he did his dope so he assumed everything that fell on the floor there was dope. It can easily be cooked in any room but the ingredients are kind explosive and these braintrusts aren't certified lab techs or chemists so once in a while it goes boom. Life ain't always pretty.

Been there, done that. Too many are too weak to walk away.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
LOL, if you think so.

Anywhoo I just heard that MJ will be legal in CA. Not a smoker of that though myself.

Big revenues...and yeah, not good for you in the long run brain cell worth. Short memory ...oh yeah, short memory stuff and stuff like that. LOL

Did I mention the reven;ues?



mayo and anything tastes really good. *gathers leaves* i wouldn't count on it. on the off chance that the bill were to somehow pass, the feds would just override their decision. same way they did in colorado not too long ago.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Cannabis destroys brain cells








...probably








...probably not as much as alcohol i dont think it does, no

I've been smoking pot everyday for the past year, maybe longer, and i smoke a lot of it.

I feel exactly the same still. With the occasional, where did i put my damn keys?! oh they are in my pocket.

but that always happened.

Does your Probation officer know about this???

You know.

Drugs are bad, mmkay?

Drugs are bad, mmkay?

Originally posted by lord xyz
2. Ketamine is a legal drug

I didn't discover Ketamine until last year, but from what I know, it is not under the misuse of drugs act in the UK. However it is illegal to use without a prescription, as it is a medical drug.

Ketamine is a class C drug.

Originally posted by HoldenCaulfield
Ketamine is a class C drug. Yes, yes it is.

I know that now.

no addictive drugs are ok as long as they arent too strong. e.g. cannabis {no reason it shudnt be legal in a society which allows alcohol}

lsd and dmt and X shud be allowed only in controlled envioirnments and being on job or driving on being around children while on them shud be criminalised.alcohol should only be allowed in doses which do not get people wasted{yes it varies greatly but im just giving the ideal} too much problems with dependancy and promoting violence etc{doesnt apply to all but still} , meth/oxycontin/cocaine/heroin should be banned because not only can the last three be crippling, they are extremely damaging to the health as well as causing severe dependance. salvia/nitrogen i dont know enough about.

as for ketamine its a ****ed up tranquilizer, i dont know why any1 wud wanna do it. physical numbness seems to be faaaar greater than any mental numbness which can cause euphoria. one dug that IS a lot of fun though, injected adrenaline . wow.

When it comes to Ketamine, what is the "K-hole" people talk about?

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
When it comes to Ketamine, what is the "K-hole" people talk about? When you take a high dose of ketamine you virtually don't move and have an out of body experience. It's due to the brain chemistry, the movement part is impaired, whilst the awareness part is elevated. It's called this because you feel like you're in a hole, I've heard. Be careful though, ket is an anaesthesia as well as a disassociative, so a bit more will put you to sleep.

to many bong hits do that too..so I've heard

Speaking of Jack Daniels, alcohol is a lot more damaging and stupid than cannabis.

I remember when I was in school, we were talking about getting drunk and the teacher was all like, yeah, drinking, that's okay, but as soon as I said I prefered weed, she was like, "oh my god, that's stupid". I couldn't believe how bad their reaction was. Cannabis is the best drug ever!

Injected adrenaline? Wouldn't that have ZERO unintended side effects (it is naturally occurring) and an incredible risk of OD?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Injected adrenaline? Wouldn't that have ZERO unintended side effects (it is naturally occurring) and an incredible risk of OD? I don't know, I would assume that quite a lot would have to be injected for an OD, or it could be like you said, an incredible risk.