Forums | MacLife
You are not logged in.
#51 2003-07-01 12:43 pm
- monolith94
- Member
- Registered: 2003-01-04
- Posts: 33
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
Hardly. All modern, professional and well respected journals have published articles proving that side-effects of marijuana are minimal, at most. The only times I've read that marijuana has extreme to harsh consequences have been in a) government media or b) popular magazines or newspapers. I'll trust the SCIENTISTS thank you very much.
Sweet, sweet cheeba.
Heaven is other people
Offline
#52 2003-07-01 6:10 pm
- fortysixandtwo
- Member
- From: N. Cali
- Registered: 2002-06-25
- Posts: 665
- Website
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
Hardly. All modern, professional and well respected journals have published articles proving that side-effects of marijuana are minimal, at most. The only times I've read that marijuana has extreme to harsh consequences have been in a) government media or b) popular magazines or newspapers. I'll trust the SCIENTISTS thank you very much.
Sweet, sweet cheeba.
but why would the government or media try and decieve us?!?!!??!?!?!?

"The cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day, and to them it is the holocaust.'"
Offline
#54 2003-07-01 10:35 pm
- monolith94
- Member
- Registered: 2003-01-04
- Posts: 33
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
#1 - i don't believe all of what you say. Certainly marijuana has bad effects, but since one does not smoke nearly as much marijuana as one would typically do with cigarettes (and I know of no proven connection to lung cancer) I'm not too terribly concerned.
#2 - thank you - I will. No please vote for marijuana legalization so I can do a peaceful act which does not harm society in peace, please.
I won't try to pressure you to toke up with me, you won't throw me in jail. That sound like a good deal to you?
Heaven is other people
Offline
#55 2003-07-01 11:54 pm
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
Fine, but I think you get the short end of the stick.
You get a few hours of so-called happiness. You get overloaded dopamine receptors, causing your future dopamine-related events (love, sex, good food, etc.) to be less fulfilling. You get tar in your lungs (a result of smoking anything - it's the burn products, not the specific drugs. In fact marijuana is worse in that case because it's unfiltered), leading to I believe 300%+ chance of lung cancer in the next ten years. Any toxic compound in your lungs *will* increase the risk of cancer. Fact.
Those are only the KNOWN side effects. No hypothesizing here. These, at least, are all PROVEN.
I get to miss out on a quick jolt of dopamine. Contrarily, I get none of the above effects and will probably lead a much healthier life.
Toke up if you want, but do it somewhere away from me.
Offline
#56 2003-07-02 1:38 pm
- monolith94
- Member
- Registered: 2003-01-04
- Posts: 33
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
It's not just happiness. It's a personality amplifier - you become yourself to a further extent than you already are.
"causing your future dopamine-related events (love, sex, good food, etc.) to be less fulfilling."
Hahahaha... Proof? Trust me, I love good food, love love, all that stuff just as much as I did before (I've only been high once by the way).
Tar in the lungs, eh? I still believe that smoking a little pot is healthier for the lungs because it's only the plant, whereas all the ciggarette companies jam in all sorts of additional crap. In any case, I don't think this is a big deal so long as you don't make a habit out of it.
"I believe 300%+ chance of lung cancer in the next ten years."
You believe??? I'd like to see at the very least a LINK to a reputable website which says this... Pretty please?
Well, at least you allow our peaceful existence in society now... That's nice of you. Were you always this nice, or is that just the heroin talking?
Heaven is other people
Offline
#57 2003-07-02 7:05 pm
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
It's not just happiness. It's a personality amplifier - you become yourself to a further extent than you already are.
A greater load of bullsmurf I have never heard. Please refer to this site and substitute the word "marijuana" for every occurrence of the word "alcohol", specifically #2,3,10,11,13,14. you think you're better, but you're not.
"causing your future dopamine-related events (love, sex, good food, etc.) to be less fulfilling."
Hahahaha... Proof? Trust me, I love good food, love love, all that stuff just as much as I did before (I've only been high once by the way).
Thanks for making my point. You've only been high once, you say; I don't believe if I stated it, but this is not an instantaneous effect. I cannot recall the exact date, but the AJoM published a study noticing that after significant amounts of THC had been administered, the dopamine neurons were stunted, resulting in decreased dopamine production in the future. I'm not saying that this is an immediate side effect; merely that it is a side effect of ANY drug that stimulates dopamine receptors (unlike cocaine, which blocks reuptake of dopamine and does not actually work on the neurons themselves). I will look for the site; get back to me in a few days.
Tar in the lungs, eh? I still believe that smoking a little pot is healthier for the lungs because it's only the plant, whereas all the ciggarette companies jam in all sorts of additional crap. In any case, I don't think this is a big deal so long as you don't make a habit out of it.
Agreed. A little pot is better than a lot of tobacco. But equal amounts of pot (in a Mol/Mol ratio) vs. equal amounts of tobacco will produce the same toxic burn products. The little bits of compounds (ammonia, U235, polonium salts, etc.) are negligible.
"I believe 300%+ chance of lung cancer in the next ten years."
You believe??? I'd like to see at the very least a LINK to a reputable website which says this... Pretty please?
From cancer.org:
Marijuana contains more tar than cigarettes. Marijuana is also inhaled very deeply and the smoke is held in the lungs for a long time. Marijuana is smoked all the way to the end where tar content is the highest. Many of the cancer-causing substances in tobacco are also found in marijuana. Because marijuana is an illegal substance, it is not possible to control whether it contains fungi, pesticides, and other additives. Medical reports suggest marijuana may cause cancers of the mouth and throat.
From a UCLA study, http://www.cancer.mednet.ucla.edu/newsm … 1898.html:
Researchers at UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center have proved for the first time that the same kinds of pre-cancerous conditions caused by smoking tobacco can result from smoking marijuana or crack cocaine, according to a paper published today (Aug. 19) in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute....
"Most of us think only of tobacco when we think of drugs that can cause lung cancer. We often don't think of marijuana or crack cocaine in the same light," Barsky said. "We need to change the way we perceive these mood-altering drugs and remember that people who habitually smoke marijuana or crack cocaine are not less predisposed to lung cancer than tobacco smokers."
I can't remember where the 300% figure came from. I believe it is the generally accepted figure for cancer risk increase following use of a burned/smoked drug. I just have a tendency to remeber things like that.
Well, at least you allow our peaceful existence in society now... That's nice of you. Were you always this nice, or is that just the heroin talking?
I never spoke against our co-existence in society. Please point out to me where I said that, and I will happily apologize for it. The comment about heroin is entirely unrelated.
Offline
#58 2003-07-02 8:09 pm
- LKS_Rocky
- Member
- Registered: 2003-02-25
- Posts: 781
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
making it legal would be good. then it won't cost so much and you wouldn't hear as much about peopel stealign for drugs. Also as long as theres a demand its always gonna coem in.
however I read in the New York Times that it can cause perminet brain damage. i can't find the article though.
Offline
#59 2003-07-03 1:43 am
- fortysixandtwo
- Member
- From: N. Cali
- Registered: 2002-06-25
- Posts: 665
- Website
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
It's not just happiness. It's a personality amplifier - you become yourself to a further extent than you already are.
A greater load of bullsmurf I have never heard. Please refer to this site and substitute the word "marijuana" for every occurrence of the word "alcohol", specifically #2,3,10,11,13,14. you think you're better, but you're not.
First, i'd like to ask you how you would know what monolith94 said was bullsmurf if you have never smoked weed before. I believe what he's talking about is how one will view things differently. When you are high, you can appreciate things a lot more than when your sober. This isnt just a "oooh look a glowstick" type thing. When I am high, for example, I appreciate art immensely, not just looking at it, but creating it as well. I draw many times better when I am stoned than when I am sober, and I have been drawing my whole life. Sure im no master artist, but there is a signifigantly noticeable difference in my high drawings and my sober drawings. also, when being sober i dont much care for actualy viewing art, but sometimes high i will look at online art galleries for hours, enjoying and trying to interpret every bit of the art. Music as well is like this, but i wont go into it.
Now, there are a number of problems with simply replacing "alcohol" with "marijuana" in those jokes. effects of alcohol and marijuana are completly different. That would be like saying since childrens tylonal relieves headaches, that vicodin is just the same. it relieves pain too, doesnt it? So they are one in the same? Lets take a look at the list(ive got plenty of time to kill, so lets go into some detail:P):
1 WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to wake up with breath that could knock a buzzard off a smurf truck at 100 yards.
Hrm, well im sure smoking a bowl could give you nasty weed smell breath for a while, but not nearly the same as alcohol. People who drink reek of alcohol long after drinking. but as shortly as 10 minutes after smoking, there is little chance you will smell like bud.
2 WARNING: Consumption of alcohol is a major factor in dancing like an smurf.
Perhaps if we were talking about ecstacy, this might make sense, but I have never seen anyone stoned that dances like someone thats wasted.
3 WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may lead you to believe that ex-lovers are really dying for you to telephone them at 4 in the morning.
Again, not sure where you got this idea but ive never been stoned at 4 in the morning because most stoners would probably be passed out cold at 4 in the morning, not to mention when your stoned, the desire to "smurf everything that moves" isnt as big as an issue as it is when you are wasted.
4 WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to tell the same boring story over and over again until your friends want to smash your head in.
I have to admit, this one is true. But hey, as long as your buddies are stoned too it doesnt matter, its entertaining for them anyway. And a sock in the arm will get em to remember not to tell it again.
5 WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to thay things like thish.
A baked individual might go on and on and not really have a point to what hes saying, but at least he's understandable. Even when you are incredibly baked, you are still able to make intelligble conversation. Not so with alcohol though.
6 WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to tell the boss what you REALLY THINK while photocopying your butt at the office Christmas party.
Stoners are generaly a lot more intelligent than drunks (while intoxicated); someone who's lit isnt going to drop their pants and run around screaming, they know how to act in social situations while being under the influence.
7 WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may leave you wondering what the hell ever happened to your pants (panties) anyway.
See number 6.
8 WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause you to roll over in the morning and see something really scary (whose species and/or name you can't remember).
No, you don't smurf everything you see when you are stoned. Your sexuality doesnt much change while being high, aside from the fact that sex itself feels a lot more incredible, but the desire is not much different than when sober.
9 WARNING: Consumption of alcohol is the leading cause of inexplicable rug burn on the forehead.
Im guessing by this they mean you fall down a lot? Ive fallen down many times while wasted, but never fallen down stoned.
10 WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher, more handsome, and smarter than some really, really, really big biker guy named "Big Al."
Ok, this is just plain silly. Anyone who has ever smoked weed in their life knows that being stoned makes you incredibly passive. If someone pushes you around when you are stoned, you will most likely take it and accept it. If you were drunk on the other hand, youd fight back, no matter how bad the odds were. I know real hardasses that get real stoned and dont even want to just box with gloves. Bottom line: you dont feel like a hardass when you're stoned.
11WARNING: consumption of alcohol may make you think you are whispering when you are not.
I'll admit sometimes I can't figure out how loud i am talking, but most of the time its not much louder (or quieter) than when sober. When im drunk, sure i shout all the time without even noticing, but when Im stoned, i prefer not to draw attention to myself.
12WARNING: consumption of alcohol may make you think you can logically converse with other members of the opposite sex without spitting.
Now, being stoned doesnt impare your ability to speak as much as alcohol, though it can. Usualy the spitting is not a problem because most people get cottonmouth when smoking; therefore there is nothing to spit while talking. Sure it goes away after 20 minutes or so, but even then 8 out of 10 times (at least) i would be able to hold a conversation without smurfing up and making an idiot out of myself. And as my incredibly shallow friend once said:
"Dude, when you are stoned, you can talk to a chick for hours and not even listen to what they say, but its cool."
That was after talking to a girl he wanted to go out with for about 45 minutes. Obviously he was successful if he could talk for 45 minutes without her thinking he was an idiot and hanging up.
13WARNING: consumption of alcohol may lead you to believe you are invisible.
Not really sure what is meant by this...I've never felt "invisible" while high, or drunk for that matter, so I won't comment.
14WARNING: consumption of alcohol may lead you to think people are laughing WITH you.
But as long as you think they're laughing with you, what does it matter? Ive been told I do the funniest smurf when high. They dont not like me for it, in fact they like seeing what crazy and zanny hijinks ill do next.
15 WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause an influx in the time-space continuum, whereby small (and sometimes large) gaps of time may seem to literally disappear.
Hehe, very true with alcohol. But you don't forget that much unless you say, smoked an 1/8th of an ounce of weed to your head, by yourself. But most people can't smoke so much they forget, where as many people can drink themselves to the point of not remembering hours of their day.
16 WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may actually CAUSE pregnancy
I know, I know, there was that oh so realistic comercial about a girl getting raped because she was high. Now, if that guy was drunk, theres the problem. But if a stoned guy and a stoned girl are together, and the stoned girl tells the guy to smurf off, he probably will. This goes along with number 10. Passiveness. At my school, dozens of girls have been raped while drunk, dozens have been raped while on ecstacy, dozens have been raped SOBER, but in the 3 years ive been going there, there has yet to be a case where a girl was high and was raped. (note there are 3000 kids that attend my highschool) Sure, thats not enough to base a real case on, but just think about it. I guess you could get high and want to have sex with a guy, but you could also not smoke or drink or do anything and still want to have sex with a guy, so its not really relevent. This has a lot more to do with ecstacy then weed.
"causing your future dopamine-related events (love, sex, good food, etc.) to be less fulfilling."
Hahahaha... Proof? Trust me, I love good food, love love, all that stuff just as much as I did before (I've only been high once by the way).Thanks for making my point. You've only been high once, you say; I don't believe if I stated it, but this is not an instantaneous effect. I cannot recall the exact date, but the AJoM published a study noticing that after significant amounts of THC had been administered, the dopamine neurons were stunted, resulting in decreased dopamine production in the future. I'm not saying that this is an immediate side effect; merely that it is a side effect of ANY drug that stimulates dopamine receptors (unlike cocaine, which blocks reuptake of dopamine and does not actually work on the neurons themselves). I will look for the site; get back to me in a few days.
I have never heard this, and after smoking for almost 2 years, I still love to eat, love my women, and still love everyone in my family just the same as before smoking. I know a kid who has smoked weed since he was 9 years old, and every time I hang out with him, all he wants to do is go get buritto supremes at taco bell. I suppose it could be long term, but I dont know. I would like to see the site though.
Tar in the lungs, eh? I still believe that smoking a little pot is healthier for the lungs because it's only the plant, whereas all the ciggarette companies jam in all sorts of additional crap. In any case, I don't think this is a big deal so long as you don't make a habit out of it.
Agreed. A little pot is better than a lot of tobacco. But equal amounts of pot (in a Mol/Mol ratio) vs. equal amounts of tobacco will produce the same toxic burn products. The little bits of compounds (ammonia, U235, polonium salts, etc.) are negligible.
I'd like to point out that people who smoke cigs smoke a lot more of them than people who smoke weed. I saw a comercial I think that said how much harmful one joint was as oposed to one cig. Well how many cigs does an average smoker smoke in one day? Just one, maybe two? The average pothead probably doenst smoke more than two joints a day, and most likely is sharing with a friend or more. And of course smoking anything is bad for your lungs, but realisticaly, smoking weed for 20 years is not going to be as harmful as smoking cigs for 20 years. Especialy if you take breaks, which I do quite often. Your lungs can heal up. Sometimes if i smoke a lot, I get short of breath and my lungs hurt. If i quit for a week, by the end of the week I can run for 20 minutes without any dificulty breathing. Of course there is tar in my lungs but it doesnt impare my ability to breath, unlike smokers who get out of breath walking up 12 stairs.
Anyhow, I think my post has gone on long enough. I should probably go do something more productive than this....I know, I'll go smoke some pot.
(no actualy, i will go sleep) 
"The cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day, and to them it is the holocaust.'"
Offline
#60 2003-07-03 1:52 am
- monolith94
- Member
- Registered: 2003-01-04
- Posts: 33
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
"The comment about heroin is entirely unrelated."
It's a joke. It's alot more effective than the supposed jokes you linked to there on evula's site. I was going to go into it alot more, but fortysixandtwo pretty much covered the points I wanted to talk about... And he covered them well. Looks to me like a pretty good case study in how pot smoking does not cause brain damage.
Also, if someone habitually smokes CRACK COCAINE they've got ALOT BIGGER PROBLEMS than cancer!!! That stuff's insane. (Hmmm, is this proof that marijuana isn't a 'gateway' drug?
Heaven is other people
Offline
#61 2003-07-03 4:10 am
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
One guy got really strung out on LSD and pulled out his eyeball (still attached to the optic nerve though) so he could get a look at it.
![]()
Another person on PCP clawed his eyeball out with a ballpoint pen because he thought it was evil.
Aw man, thats nasty. I think I'm gonna be sick.
hello
Offline
#62 2003-07-03 10:03 am
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
"The comment about heroin is entirely unrelated."
It's a joke. It's alot more effective than the supposed jokes you linked to there on evula's site. I was going to go into it alot more, but fortysixandtwo pretty much covered the points I wanted to talk about... And he covered them well. Looks to me like a pretty good case study in how pot smoking does not cause brain damage.![]()
Also, if someone habitually smokes CRACK COCAINE they've got ALOT BIGGER PROBLEMS than cancer!!! That stuff's insane. (Hmmm, is this proof that marijuana isn't a 'gateway' drug?
OK, the jokes were lame. I couldn't come up with an effective comeback to that one, since I have in fact never been high on marijuana. Spending time around people who were high at the time does not allow me to understand exactly how they feel, but it does give me a good idea of how they appear to a sober person (the jokes - not funny, but see above - were an attempt at giving an outside voice to some of the exact things I notice. One person I know simply starts babbling incoherently before puking wherever he is, and attempting to pick up women). I also recognize that not everyone is affected in the same way by various drugs; I therefore don't think that any of us can make a judgement on this aspect one way or another.
I'm sure the researchers did in fact understand that if "someone habitually smokes CRACK COCAINE they've got ALOT BIGGER PROBLEMS than cancer!!!. However, the study was on lung cancer, not any greater problems. Another unrelated comment.
Please explain the comment about gateway drugs; I don't get it. I see no proof that marijuana is not a gateway drug (although I though it was understood that it generally was not).
Offline
#63 2003-07-03 2:30 pm
- monolith94
- Member
- Registered: 2003-01-04
- Posts: 33
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
"One person I know simply starts babbling incoherently before puking wherever he is, and attempting to pick up women"
This dude should seriously reconsider smoking pot then... that's not normal, or cool. You sure he hadn't been drinking as well?
"Please explain the comment about gateway drugs; I don't get it."
I meant to imply that my vehement reaction against the idea of doing crack showed that just because I had gotten high, I hadn't been lured into doing drugs of a higher intensity... the point was supposed to be that the vast majority of marijuana users see cocaine as a very, very scary drug. I would never touch the stuff.
Heaven is other people
Offline
#65 2003-07-04 12:41 am
- monolith94
- Member
- Registered: 2003-01-04
- Posts: 33
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
You'd actually be surprised about that... I've seen a few rich white suburbanites think they were invincible and get into the stuff. Definitely extremely hazardous materials...
Heaven is other people
Offline
#66 2003-07-11 4:37 pm
- hjohns
- Member
- Registered: 2001-02-25
- Posts: 161
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
a few excerpts taken from http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/c … lth2.shtml in order to prove my point.
initially, the effects of tobacco:
"According to U.S. Surgeon General C. Everette
Koop (on national television, 1990) radioactivity, not tar,
accounts for at least 90% of all smoking related lung cancer.
Tobacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by law
with phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils have
a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two long
lived 'daughter' elements -- lead 210 and polonium 210. These
radioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to the
fine hairs on tobacco leaves.
Studies have shown that lead 210 and polonium 210 deposits
accumulate in the bodies of people exposed to cigarette smoke.
Data collected in the late 1970's shows that smokers have three
times as much of these elements in their lower lungs as non
smokers. Smokers also show a greater accumulation of lead 210 and
polonium 210 in their skeletons,though no studies have been
conducted to link these deposits with bone cancer. Polonium 210 is
the only component of cigarette smoke which has produced tumors by
itself in inhalation experiments with animals.
When a smoker inhales tobacco smoke, the lungs react by
forming irritated areas in the bronchi. All smoke produces this
effect. However, although these irritated spots are referred to as
'pre-cancerous' lesions, they are a perfectly natural defense
system and usually go away with no adverse effects. Insoluble tars
in tobacco smoke can slow this healing process by adhering to
lesions and causing additional irritation. In addition, tobacco
smoke causes the bronchi to constrict for long periods of time,
which obstructs the lung's ability to clear itself of these
residues.
Polonium 210 and lead 210 in tobacco smoke show a tendency to
accumulate at lesions in specific spots, called bifurcations, in
the bronchi. When smoking is continued for an extended period of
time, deposits of radioactivity turn into radioactive 'hot spots'
and remain at bifurcations for years. Polonium 210 emits highly
localized alpha radiation which has been shown to cause cancer.
Since the polonium 210 has a half life of 21.5 years (Due to the
presence of lead 210), it can put an ex-smoker at risk for years
after he or she quits. Experiments measuring the level of polonium
210 in victims of lung cancer found that the level of 'hot spot'
activity was virtually the same in smokers and ex-smokers even though
the ex-smokers had quit five years prior to death."
now, more about nicotine:
Nicotine, the active ingredient in tobacco smoke, has long
been known to be highly addictive. In fact, doctors and
pharmacologists are not in consensus as to which is more addictive
-- nicotine, or heroin. Physical addiction occurs when a chemical
becomes essential for the body or metabolism to function. In other
words, a substance is said to be physically addictive if extended
use results in a build up of tolerance in the body to the extent
that discontinuing use of the substance results in negative side
effects. Called "withdrawal symptoms," these consequences can
include anxiety, stress, trauma, depression and physical conditions
such as shakes or nausea. It is to avoid these consequences that
an addict will keep using his or her substance.
In addition to being addictive, nicotine is also a toxin (i.e.
lethal if ingested in sufficient quantities.) Nicotine has been
shown to have a negative effect on the heart and circulatory
systems, causing a constriction in veins and arteries which may
lead to a stroke or heart attack. In fact, nicotine is so
poisonous that smokers who ignore their doctor's advice and
continue to smoke while using dermal nicotine patches have managed
to overdose and die of heart seizure.
finally, about cannabis:
For example the Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the
late 1970's concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times as
carcinogenic as tobacco." This finding was based solely on the
tar content of cannabis leaves compared to that of tobacco, and
did not take radioactivity into consideration. (Cannabis tars do
not contain radioactive materials.) In addition, it was not
considered that:
1) Most marijuana smokers smoke the bud, not the leaf, of
the plant. The bud contains only 33% as much tar as tobacco.
2) Marijuana smokers do not smoke anywhere near as much as
tobacco smokers, due to the psychoactive effects of cannabis.
3) Not one case of lung cancer has ever been successfully
linked to marijuana use.
4) Cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not cause any narrowing of
the small air passageways in the lungs.
there's quite a bit more in that article that i could've copy/pasted, but i think you all get the idea. i encourage anyone interested to read it.
Offline
#67 2003-07-11 4:55 pm
- hjohns
- Member
- Registered: 2001-02-25
- Posts: 161
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is: Infinite. --William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
several people have written about how they view the world differently (i.e. a greater appreciation for art, music, etc) whilst high. this is a common effect of any psychoactive substance: opening "doors of perception," as blake calls them.
in his book "heaven and hell" in which aldous huxley experimented with LSD, he discussed that, while tripping, everything shone with a certain brilliance of istigkeit (german for is-ness); everything he looked at appeared more vivid and was significant in and of itself and this is something we obviously don't see day to day, and then refers to the socratic idea of the worlds of being ("ideal" versions of each object; ones that shine in their own brilliance) and becoming (our physical world that is far more dull and not the "true" world). the human brain, he says, is like a filtering mechanism which, through evolution and aging, was forced to become more efficient in order to survive, thereby filtering out much of the true world. by opening of the doors of perception, one can "see the light" in everything (that phrase also happens to be a reference to the socratic allegory of the cave, in which the world of being vs world of becoming is outlined). he then argued that certain beautiful objects, such as gems, gold, etc. that have this shining brilliance remind the subconscious of the istigkeit (which it experienced as a child), and this is why such items are coveted worldwide. he goes on to argue that lsd would open up doors of perception in the mind which allows the user to explore the uncharted areas of the mind, and draws an analogy to the time in history during which africa was a mysterious, largely unexplored land.
a very fascinating argument...i'd suggest reading first socrates' "allegory of the cave" and then huxley's "doors of perception" and "heaven and hell" if you want more info...
hope this clears things up for those of you who don't know what all of these people meant... 
Offline
#68 2003-07-11 7:33 pm
- monolith94
- Member
- Registered: 2003-01-04
- Posts: 33
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
Hey Howard, looks like that college education is paying off!
(this is John)
Heaven is other people
Offline
#69 2003-07-11 8:32 pm
- fortysixandtwo
- Member
- From: N. Cali
- Registered: 2002-06-25
- Posts: 665
- Website
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
Very good posts hjohns. I will definitely have to check out those books you recommended. I myself find drugs fascinating, though personaly I only use Marijuana.
Again, thanks for those book recommendations...maybe ill run to the local bookstore and see if they have it...though im sure they dont 
"The cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day, and to them it is the holocaust.'"
Offline
#70 2003-07-13 1:55 am
- hjohns
- Member
- Registered: 2001-02-25
- Posts: 161
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
Hey Howard, looks like that college education is paying off!
$30k/year to argue for smoking..hehe, i'm sure my parents would be proud
(this is John)
yeah, i figured it was you...i was bored one day and searched for "grinnell" for no particular reason and found your post in the college thread. how's your summer going? ready to get back to the cornfields yet? 
Offline
#71 2003-07-13 2:12 pm
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
I imagine Mac users do less drugs than PC users, as Mac users typically comes from better homes and have higher education.
Jesus smurfing christ. Ok, lets think about this for a moment. I live in Vancouver. You know what? 20%+ of the heroin addicts downtown came from very wealthy familes. Here, the private schools have more major drug problems becaues newsflash, drugs are expensive.
What a stupid comment.
Hello, I am a signature virus. Please add me to the bottom of your sig and help me take over the world! Resistance is futile.
Offline
#72 2003-07-13 2:14 pm
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
I refer you all to this thread, it was quite interesting before it got locked.
http://www.themacmind.com/index.php?nam … ight=drugs
Hello, I am a signature virus. Please add me to the bottom of your sig and help me take over the world! Resistance is futile.
Offline
#73 2003-07-13 2:39 pm
- hjohns
- Member
- Registered: 2001-02-25
- Posts: 161
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
I refer you all to this thread, it was quite interesting before it got locked.
http://www.themacmind.com/index.php?nam … ight=drugs
sounds like entmoof (from that thread) has MANY more issues to deal with than anyone i know of who's smoked some weed.
he wants us all to believe that the first bit of thc entering your body will cause you to grow hair on your palms, curve your spine, and make the country lose the war on terrorism. 100% unadulterated ignorance at its best! 
Offline
#74 2003-07-14 3:04 am
- KeilwerthSX90
- Member
- From: Somewhere around Barstow
- Registered: 2000-04-07
- Posts: 3041
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
At some point, most people figure out that recreational drugs are a complete waste of time.
Get a load of this, though, it's fascinating: The newest drug "the kids" are using, leak, has to be the most ridiculous street drug concoction ever. The previous winner was "wet," which is plain old enbalming fluid stolen from funeral homes (some say drained straight from corpses, boo!) and smoked on a cigarette.
(I'd post a link, but the newspaper I clipped this from only leaves their articles up for 2 weeks. Lucky for you I kept a copy in my e-mail.)
Here's a fun fact. That story is mostly bullsmurf, coming from street slang for a solution containing PCP for dipping joints into. Embalming fluid does not contain embalming fluid.
That said, PCP is just about the worst drug you can do, other than Datura (Jimson Weed or Loco Weed, found along almost any country road).
Edit: Oh my God, LOL for real!
The acronym PCP is said to have stemmed from the term "peace pill," which was the drug's street name in the 1960s.
It was never called that. It wasn't really used as a recreational drug amongst hippies in the sixties. It gained popularity in the late sixties, but not among people who would dig calling a drug "peace pill". PCP stands for Phenyl Cyclohexyl Piperidine, the drug's real name. It originated as an anasthetic.
Excellent journalistic standards there. Where did you dig that smurf up?
Edit, part II: Wet is also another name for the solution known as embalming fluid (the PCP solution for joints, not cigarettes), and, as such, contains no embalming fluid.
Third and final edit: Clipped out BS article, as it took to much room on the page.
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.
- HST
Offline
#75 2003-07-14 3:16 am
- KeilwerthSX90
- Member
- From: Somewhere around Barstow
- Registered: 2000-04-07
- Posts: 3041
Re: Drugs v. 2.0
I found two more stories in the papers to accentuate he one about the girl/heroin/spiders....
One guy got really strung out on LSD and pulled out his eyeball (still attached to the optic nerve though) so he could get a look at it.![]()
Another person on PCP clawed his eyeball out with a ballpoint pen because he thought it was evil.
Let's hear geekgirl the trillionaire's opinion on this topic!
Those both are actually not true. These stories start in local newspapers, made up by small-town conservative editors, as story to "keep the kids safe". The funniest part is how they get recycled. The guy pulling out his eye on LSD in particular has resurfaced at least once every decade since the sixties.
How do I know? I cruise legalization sites that trace obviously BS stories like these back to the original fabricators, who "heard of something similar" from a "friend in law enforcement".
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity.
- HST
Offline

