Messages

121

Off Topic / Re: The Rec. Drug Thread - FAQ, Q&A, and general information.

« on: June 09, 2011, 10:43:03 PM »

In a nutshell, drugs are for sadsacks who have nothing to do with their lives but wish they could be useful and have to chemically induce themselves into thinking they're happy and actually end up more or less ruining their lives. Idiots, basically.

What a dumb person. Ignored everything I said in the OP and went right ahead and made a really handicapped post. Congratulations.

To everyone else: Stop arguing philosophical ideologies about why someone does/should/shouldn't do drugs, this isn't the loving place. This thread is for intelligent discussion and Q&A, not richardwaving.

122

Off Topic / Re: Misconceptions About Satanism

« on: June 09, 2011, 01:04:43 PM »

LeVeyan Satanism is really neat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Satanism the absorption of knowledge and self respect, as if in defending yourself, self preservation and working hard?

Damn. This made me change of what I think of Satanism.

It also has a set of rules about being polite:

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth
Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
When in another’s home, show them respect or else do not go there.

Do not take that which does not belong to you, unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved.

Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
Do not harm young children.
Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them.

There's two rules I left out because they're batstuff and about magic and being an starfish.

123

Off Topic / Re: The Rec. Drug Thread - FAQ, Q&A, and general information.

« on: June 09, 2011, 01:00:37 PM »

posting about doing it here should be like the piracy rule

Discussing illegal drugs isn't illegal. The ATF/DEA aren't going to shut down the forums.

124

Off Topic / Re: The Rec. Drug Thread - FAQ, Q&A, and general information.

« on: June 09, 2011, 12:37:48 PM »

no
I just said that drugs like LSD and weed are illegal

grats on knowing that

125

Off Topic / Re: The Rec. Drug Thread - FAQ, Q&A, and general information.

« on: June 09, 2011, 12:35:16 PM »

but Cannabis can be addictive.

That's not an argument, anything can be psychologically addictive.

and many do use it as a crutch.

Like who?

There's also the part that it might lead to use of other drugs/addictive substances.

Studies show that Cannabis is not a gateway drug, you don't chase a higher high after smoking Cannabis, it doesn't work that way.

Also, I still can't believe that 4 decades have passed without any change in government views on drugs. If the "anti-drug" side is losing, why isn't the government filled with pro-drug people? The government doesn't work that way. The government are the people, not a separate body. If 40 years can pass with little improvement, I find it hard to believe that the pro-drug 'side' is 'winning'.

Our side isn't "winning". Look at LGBT rights; Conservatives do everything they can to hang on to the old world view of the past 40 years, and it was the same in the 1950's with racial segregation. The problem is that there are more stupid people than reasonable people. Nowadays, legislation is passing, though. It's starting with Medical usage, states are passing laws making dispensaries legal, and in around 15 states, Marijuana is decriminalized greatly. Change is coming, albeit slowly, but at least it's coming at all.

Cannabis is psychologically addictive, but not by much. When used to treat disorders it can become addictive because of the huge sense of relief that users may crave, even if they're not abusing. You won't have withdrawls or physical cravings, but I bet some time in yukis life he's thought "Man, I really wish I could smoke a bowl right now." I wouldn't really call it a craving, but it's definitely positively reinforced.

EVERYTHING IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY ADDICTIVE. LITERALLY ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.

Of course if you quit you'd miss doing it, but you could say the same about videogames, soda, television, or using your computer. Psychological addiction is unhealthy, for anything - just look at WoW addicts. Of course I've thought "Hey it'd be great to smoke a bowlski right now", but I've thought the same about a billion other things, like "Hey, wish I had some Iced Tea right now". I don't understand why you brought that up as some sort of example or argument, saying that people are prone to getting addicted to things isn't really relevant because it can happen with anything.

Common Name: DXM
Chemical Name: Dextromethorphan
Class Of Drugs: cough supressant
Legality: Legal.
Effects/Experience: Well. I can tell you this. Drink a whole bottle and some grapefruit juice.. and you're loving walking on cake.
Why'd You Do It? My friends were doing it. I did it too. ;]
Would You Do It Again? Depends on the situation. If nobody could possibly get hurt.. forget yes.

Goddamn DXM. I've gotten high off of it twice. It's not something you want to do a lot, but it's not exceptionally dangerous. Protip: It's easier to swallow if you chase it immediately with Orange Juice or Apple Juice.

126

Off Topic / Re: The Rec. Drug Thread - FAQ, Q&A, and general information.

« on: June 09, 2011, 01:27:30 AM »

I'm still confused. If marijuana is so safe, why is it illegal? Aren't laws enacted for a reason?

Nope, the Legal System is far from perfect. Cannabis laws exist solely due to the failing war on drugs (originally banned over xenophobia as well). It doesn't matter that it's not dangerous, the government (and a lot of stupid people) absolutely CLING to the "war on drugs". It's ignorance is all.

We should clearly be focusing more on why people do these harmful drugs in the first place, and prevention of it than throwing them in dumps for the rest of their lives.

Rehab over imprisonment is always favorable.

The thing is, that's what so many people say when they're asked about their drug habits. Correct me if I'm wrong about him, but I remember Yuki talking about how his mother was dying and he did it a lot. It's an easy (and most likely addictive) way to relieve stress.

No, you interpreted that ENTIRELY incorrectly. I didn't start using as a way to ease the pain of my mother dying. By the time I actually started, I was already pretty solid. My mother wasn't around for the last few months, being in the hospital, so we had already unfortunately got used to living without her there. No one begins using Cannabis as a crutch, it's just not how it works. Cannabis is naturally a social drug, it's fun to get high and talk about things and listen to music, it's a peaceful and semi-spiritual experience, not one for avoiding reality - abusers turn to harder drugs like coke, meth, and heroin for that.

Additionally, Cannabis is not addictive. You can stop using it any time you'd like, you don't suffer cravings or withdrawal effects. If I was told I had to stop using right now, it'd be no problem. Of course I'd miss the experience, but I wouldn't be exceptionally bothered, and it's the same for just about everyone I've smoked with.

127

Off Topic / Re: The Rec. Drug Thread - FAQ, Q&A, and general information.

« on: June 08, 2011, 09:44:16 PM »

Water vapor is obviously a vapor. A vapor qualifies as smoke, regardless of the solid particulates contained in it. I never said I was a reliable source of information, I said that that particular bit of information was reliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke

Here:

No, it isn't. The reason smoke would be bad for you is because it can carry carcinogens and other dangerous chemicals. Water vapor (a basic form of smoke) isn't dangerous to inhale.

That's not the reason smoke is "bad for you". It's because it's hot particulate matter coming into contact with your sensitive lung tissue. Sure, carcinogens and chemicals are a danger, but the reason smoke is dangerous at all is simply due to its nature of being particulate and not a gas - which is what makes vapor better than smoke. Water vapor can still carry chemicals (case-in-point Cannabis vaporizers) regardless.

128

Off Topic / Re: The Rec. Drug Thread - FAQ, Q&A, and general information.

« on: June 08, 2011, 09:38:18 PM »

Smoke: Something resembling this, as vapor or mist, flying particles, etc.

Water vapor is a visible vapor.

Water vapor is vapor it is liquid, smoke is particulate, it's solid. Arguing technicalities, but that wasn't why I said you were an unreliable source of information in any case. I'll dissect your post if you want, though I didn't do it because I thought it was obvious as to why.

129

Off Topic / Re: The Rec. Drug Thread - FAQ, Q&A, and general information.

« on: June 08, 2011, 09:32:38 PM »

The information I provided was reliable. I was using smoke as a general term for combusted material. Not tobacco or marijuana smoke. If you're talking about such, specify.

Smoke is particulate matter. Water vapor is not smoke.

130

Off Topic / Re: The Rec. Drug Thread - FAQ, Q&A, and general information.

« on: June 08, 2011, 09:14:18 PM »

That stuff must hurt.
Like, really hurt.

Yeah, and it won't even get you the slightest bit intoxicated with anything. You'd feel the effects more if you were to just drink the facking kool-aid, it's just sugar.

131

Off Topic / Re: The Rec. Drug Thread - FAQ, Q&A, and general information.

« on: June 08, 2011, 09:13:43 PM »

Also, I've heard you can get high from secondhand marijuana smoke. Is this true?

Oh god yes. The smoke still contains THC even after it's been through someone's lungs, so if you're present at a clambake, you can (and most likely will) get high just from breathing the smoke. As for breathing someone's smoke as you walk down the street, no, not so much. There's not enough THC to get you high unless you're breathing secondhand for an extended period of time.

I do gummy bear vitamins every day. They are legal and you can get them at pretty much any store with a pharmacy. I take usually 2-3 a day, anything more is supposedly not safe and you can OD.

You can't OD on vitamins, your body just flushes out unused vitamins. Too much can cause painful buildups though.

132

Off Topic / Re: The Rec. Drug Thread - FAQ, Q&A, and general information.

« on: June 08, 2011, 09:04:29 PM »

Legal Highs

I guess, but legal highs are actually dangerous. K2 is a THC synthetic you can buy legally, for example, but I don't mess with synthetics.

133

Off Topic / Re: The Rec. Drug Thread - FAQ, Q&A, and general information.

« on: June 08, 2011, 09:00:47 PM »

So you think inhaling smoke isn't bad for you...?

That's not what I said; I said it was trivial. Drinking soda is bad for you, but you still do it. Eating deep-fried foods is bad for you, but you still do it. The damage caused by moderated cannabis smoking is trivial in the same way that ingesting caffeine or fast food is. Don't get me wrong, smoking cannabis is a bit more detrimental than either fast food or soda (you're inhaling burning plant matter, after all), but the benefits outweigh the negatives, and the negatives are absolutely trivialized.

No, it isn't. The reason smoke would be bad for you is because it can carry carcinogens and other dangerous chemicals. Water vapor (a basic form of smoke) isn't dangerous to inhale.

This person is not a reliable source of information.

The smoke you inhale while smoking is generated by a combustion reaction of organic compounds. The two products always present in this reaction are water and carbon dioxide. However, when burning organic compounds, not all of the carbon turns into carbon dioxide. Some of it turns into carbon monoxide. Inhaling carbon monoxide is bad.

Carbon Monoxide is not toxic, it just cannot be processed. People who die due to Carbon Monoxide actually suffocate. It's merely that the CO replaces the O2 we need to breathe, so while they were inhaling gasses, they weren't inhaling enough O2 and passed out/died because of it.

134

Games / Re: Halo 4

« on: June 08, 2011, 07:33:13 PM »

Yes, looking at the wiki. What was the second battle?

Actually I knew that offhand, but the second battle if you don't count the planet glassings was the Battle of Chi Ceti according to the wiki.

135

Games / Re: Halo 4

« on: June 08, 2011, 07:06:38 PM »

Reach was the very first battle.

Yes it was.

Nope. The Battle of Reach is a later battle in the War. The attack on Harvest was the first armed conflict with the Covenant. Reach was pivotal, but it was not the first by a longshot.

The war started in 2525 (Battle of Harvest), but the Battle of Reach wasn't until 2552. I'm not sure how you deduced that Reach was the "first" battle, but you're entirely wrong. In-fact, it was one of the last.