The Hacker Project - a free online game

Hacker Project Caf => Whatever => Topic started by: HJ on July 18, 2008, 06:56:34 AM



Title: Drugs
Post by: HJ on July 18, 2008, 06:56:34 AM
Anyone here but me do them? I can't say that I'm proud to admit it, but I regularly (multiple times per day) smoke marijuana. I live in Vancouver, Canada, and it's accepted here. It also helps prevent some major hereditary diseases in my family. I've also been struggling with some broken bones lately, and it really helps with pain.

I've also tried all of the following at least once (And please don't judge, I had the mentality of "wanting to do EVERYTHING" when I was a teenager. These days are long gone.) Anyways, here we go:

(NOTE: I DO NOT ADVISE THAT ANYONE TRY ANY OF THESE DRUGS AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT TRYING TO BRAG, OR BREAK ANY RULES. I'M SIMPLY VOICING MY STORIES WHILE EXPERIMENTING WITH THESE DRUGS IN THE PAST)

- Psilocybin mushrooms (Magic Mushrooms, hallucinogenic - make you see things.)
- Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD, Acid hallucinogenic - make you see things. Also makes you laugh constantly.)
- Ecstacy (Makes you happy, everyone's friend, you love everything, everything feels really good when you touch it.)
- Ketamine (Makes you happy, everyone's friend, you love everything, everything feels really good when you touch it.)
- Mescaline (Hallucinogenic - make you see things.)
- Crack Cocaine (Ewww. Not even going there.)
- Speed (Makes you really fast, and happy)
- Salvia (Hallucinogenic - make you see things. Only lasts about 10-30 minutes. Legal in most countries.)


Anyone have stories to tell, or are we good kids here?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: BobbyBob on July 18, 2008, 07:19:22 AM
I'm a good kiddie :D


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Noseedam on July 18, 2008, 10:15:23 AM
i'm a good person too >.> However!!!! that doesn't mean i don't know things i shouldn't :P

there's a weird drug you're supposed to be able to make with banana's............


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Vintermark on July 22, 2008, 07:46:41 AM
Yeah its a famous urban legend, If you peal the threads of the bana fruit and roast them in the oven you get some kind of drug.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ZacQuicksilver on July 22, 2008, 11:35:55 PM
No addictive substances here. I get a lot of skepticism around that (Caffeine is addictive, so no coffee, and as few sodas as possible), but I've managed it so far, and plan to until I die.

Not something I force on others though: I have no problem with people using caffeine, tobacco, or alcohol in my presence (though, since Marijuana is illegal here in the States, I prefer to avoid that), so long as there is no pressure for me to use the substance in question.


It all comes from a camping trip I took when I was young. My mom couldn't enjoy the trip because she was dealing with Caffeine withdrawal, and I never wanted to be that miserable.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Nemo on July 23, 2008, 08:03:20 AM
Anyone here but me do them? I can't say that I'm proud to admit it, but I regularly (multiple times per day) smoke marijuana. I live in Vancouver, Canada, and it's accepted here. It also helps prevent some major hereditary diseases in my family. I've also been struggling with some broken bones lately, and it really helps with pain.

I've also tried all of the following at least once (And please don't judge, I had the mentality of "wanting to do EVERYTHING" when I was a teenager. These days are long gone.) Anyways, here we go:

(NOTE: I DO NOT ADVISE THAT ANYONE TRY ANY OF THESE DRUGS AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT TRYING TO BRAG, OR BREAK ANY RULES. I'M SIMPLY VOICING MY STORIES WHILE EXPERIMENTING WITH THESE DRUGS IN THE PAST)

- Psilocybin mushrooms (Magic Mushrooms, hallucinogenic - make you see things.)
- Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD, Acid hallucinogenic - make you see things. Also makes you laugh constantly.)
- Ecstacy (Makes you happy, everyone's friend, you love everything, everything feels really good when you touch it.)
- Ketamine (Makes you happy, everyone's friend, you love everything, everything feels really good when you touch it.)
- Mescaline (Hallucinogenic - make you see things.)
- Crack Cocaine (Ewww. Not even going there.)
- Speed (Makes you really fast, and happy)
- Salvia (Hallucinogenic - make you see things. Only lasts about 10-30 minutes. Legal in most countries.)


Anyone have stories to tell, or are we good kids here?

Shame
On
You
!

Walking around calling marihuana a drug :P And Salvia? Not a drug either.. It's au naturel, dude :P

I smoke a lot of weed, skunk, hash, nol - basicly everything comming from Cannabis Sativa..

Salvia is sometimes used in my coven, when we have religious acts, but I don't use that every now and then...



-----------------

And yes, I bet you can make a "drug" out of bananas.. Most stuff out in the nature has some kind of poison, originately given to it so it has better chance to survive.. However, most of those poisons are only strong enough to kill a mosquito or two, but if you find a way to concentrate it, you cna get high of it... I know that 200 legal plants that can give you "drug"-experiences grow here in Skandinavia..


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Nemo on July 23, 2008, 08:06:41 AM
No addictive substances here. I get a lot of skepticism around that (Caffeine is addictive, so no coffee, and as few sodas as possible), but I've managed it so far, and plan to until I die.

Not something I force on others though: I have no problem with people using caffeine, tobacco, or alcohol in my presence (though, since Marijuana is illegal here in the States, I prefer to avoid that), so long as there is no pressure for me to use the substance in question.


It all comes from a camping trip I took when I was young. My mom couldn't enjoy the trip because she was dealing with Caffeine withdrawal, and I never wanted to be that miserable.


Ehm...

1 advice for you? Enjoy life dude.. Relax.. Try alcohol, coffee and smokes!

Almost everything is addictive? You're addicted to meat, since your brainsoil is filled with B12.. If you stopped eating meat, you would go through a cold turkey..


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ZacQuicksilver on July 23, 2008, 12:54:10 PM

Ehm...

1 advice for you? Enjoy life dude.. Relax.. Try alcohol, coffee and smokes!

Almost everything is addictive? You're addicted to meat, since your brainsoil is filled with B12.. If you stopped eating meat, you would go through a cold turkey..


I do enjoy my life. I just do it my own way: I enter other realities through the use of my own imagination and games, rather than using drugs.



And since you nitpick, my promise to myself is as follows:

"I promise not to use any non-essential addictive substance, nor to participate in any addictive behavior other than gaming"

It's enough that I understand the intent of it, which is that I not have to deal with withdrawal in any form (I've had to deal with withdrawal-like problems from several behaviors I've had).

And honestly, I've been doing it so long (the Camping trip happened when I was about 10-12, and I'm in my early 20s now) that I don't think about it most of the time. As mentioned, I fill my life with gaming, both digital and analog, and that does enough for me.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Noseedam on July 23, 2008, 02:24:50 PM
O.o i stick with computers, and every time i find a good book my family labels it as my "crack", i don't put book down unless i have to (for gaming or dinner, few other things rouse me from books!)

i don't do much analog gaming.......... i'm comp nerd through and through...........


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: H4T0R on July 23, 2008, 03:02:52 PM
I'm only a smoker  :12:


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on July 24, 2008, 09:28:26 AM
- Ketamine (Makes you happy, everyone's friend, you love everything, everything feels really good when you touch it.)

*vomit* I had one terrible experience with Ket, made me never want to try it again.  My friend gave me two lines of it for my 20th birthday. He'd done it a bunch of times when he was younger so I trusted his dosage. I wound up in a k-hole for the next hour or so, not pleasant at all. I'd try it again at a lower dose, but you have to be a masochist if you enjoy k-holes.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Haxory on July 25, 2008, 03:17:39 AM
I'm a good kiddie :D

Im a script kiddie.. jk i am script writer :))


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: noob school on August 20, 2008, 03:28:29 AM
i smoked pot a few times,wasnt as good as every1 says but it was relaxing.i got cought and grounded....yeah im a kid.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: neo alpha on August 20, 2008, 08:49:51 AM
i don't smoke , don't drink alchool or use any kind of drugs...


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Andreas on August 20, 2008, 09:22:22 AM
The only drug Ive ever used was caffein in coke. The coke you drink and not snort. And that was a long time last time.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Adramalech on August 20, 2008, 12:47:59 PM
I don't do drugs, (no problem with cafene etc.),

fascinating what biology teaches you about the working of cigarettes and drugs :)


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Andreas on August 21, 2008, 09:33:04 AM
Did you know that 5mg of nicotine is lethal? I think a cigarette contains 3mg. Im not sure about how much there is in a cigarette. But 5mg is lethal. Crazy. Thats about how much a drop contains.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on August 21, 2008, 10:29:42 AM
[sarcasm] Then I should probably be dead a couple times over.   :21: [/sarcasm]

Edit: Sorry, forgot the tags.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Adramalech on August 21, 2008, 10:45:39 AM
BUT, if there is 3mg in a ciggarete, and 5 mg nicotine IN YOUR BLOOD is lethal, almost everything burns up or something, only a tiny bit really reaches your blood.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Andreas on August 21, 2008, 10:53:00 AM
Then I should probably be dead a couple times over.   :21:

Your not dead because you havent drunk 5mg. Youve only got a few tenths of a mg in your lungs where it only affects your ability to breath. But ofcourse it isnt lethal so I cant say that you shouldnt stop smoking because of that. No matter its slowly destroying your lungs until you die or have to quit because itll make your lungs collapse.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Adramalech on August 21, 2008, 12:38:48 PM
nicotine has nothing to do with lungs dying, it's the tar in ciggarettes that kills your lungs.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on August 21, 2008, 12:50:08 PM
P.S. Dent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

The LD50 of nicotine is 50 mg/kg for rats and 3 mg/kg for mice. 4060 mg (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) can be a lethal dosage for adult humans.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Witcher on August 21, 2008, 12:50:27 PM
Arthur a piece of advice. Don't believe everything you read.

Especially NOT if it comes from Wikipedia. (which this may or may not have done)

True a cigarette can contain the amounts you quoted (note - can - usually it doesn't)

The LD 50% in human is estimated to be around 50 mg ... estimated but never proven except...

Guess what? There are nicotine patches out there which contain 24 mg of nicotine. Now what does that mean? I slap a couple of those on you while you sleep and BLAM you die? Er... no. If that was the case people like the FDA would not let them out for people to play with...

Or consider this ... a batch of ground beef had been released which was contaminated with 300 mg/kg of nicotine. Sure it made some people sick... but no one died. If the LD 50% was 50 mg you would have seen several deaths. Particularly in children.

And yeah - picking tobacco actually makes some people sick under certain conditions, probably due to nicotine (nicotine transfers very well through skin... hence the nicotine patch!)

So... sorry your numbers are waaaaaaaaaaay off. I am not a fan of tobacco and I have grown cells under nicotine stress and I'd be the first to say it's not good for you, but there is no need to be an alarmist.

(BTW : LD 50% is the lethal dose which would cause half (50%) of a population to die).

Another funny fact - (which you should be aware of Arthur as I believe that it's a common thing in your part of the world) how much nicotine do you think people who *chew* tobacco get in their system anyhow? Tobacco paste (or whatever it's called) contains more nicotine than a cigarette, it doesn't get burned and... guess what? People don't die of that either!!!

So... yeah I would say don't smoke. It's bad for you. Heck we all know that - every smoker I have met knows that... But we have to die of something right?  :12: (no I don't smoke irl but I don't have a problem with people who do so politely)


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Andreas on August 21, 2008, 01:00:26 PM
Nicotine is corrosive and affects the lungs helping to kill them. But yes, your right, its the tar that is worst. Its the bad guy breaking down the filters that normally keeps dust and other matter to enter the lungs. Youd be amazed if you knew what happens to a drowning person. She breaths water which literally tores the lungs apart. However a person drowning dont have enough ime to actually rip them to pieces. The same process happens when you smoke because the smoke allows stuff to easier enter the lungs. Not very nice and Ive not started to talk about cancer.

The LD50 of nicotine is 50 mg/kg for rats and 3 mg/kg for mice. 40–60 mg (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) can be a lethal dosage for adult humans.
Wrong in my memory. It was a long time ago I read about it. 50 or 5. Hard to remember what.

And Witcher; I said it was lethal to drink clean of. Not by mixing it in a steak or what you whatever said. In those ways you mentioned high doses it was never concentrated. Its lethalness depends on how it is mixed.

I was reading about it and the facts came from a chemestry/biology professor so Ill take it as granted that its true.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Adramalech on August 21, 2008, 01:29:44 PM
it's funny to know, everytime you inhale, your cells are mutating because of the stuuf in  the cigarette, and if the mutation is in the control part of your genes, you get cancer :) so you never know, kinda looks like gambling...

@the chewing tobacco,
the nicotine travels with your spit down to your stomache, almost everything of it is destroyed by  the acid inside your stomache, so not mmuch harm caused..

p.s question:
anyone knows how fast nicotine gets filtered out of your blood? (because i don't know, and would like to know.)


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Witcher on August 21, 2008, 04:58:30 PM
And Witcher; I said it was lethal to drink clean of. Not by mixing it in a steak or what you whatever said. In those ways you mentioned high doses it was never concentrated. Its lethalness depends on how it is mixed.

I was reading about it and the facts came from a chemestry/biology professor so Ill take it as granted that its true.

Really? So by your reasoning arsenic mixed with salt is no longer toxic? I don't recommend you try that... Take it from someone who knows. (really I know). It is true that the lethality of a toxin depends on the method of delivery - thus an ingested toxin will have a different LD50 than the same toxin inhaled or that same toxin absorbed through skin or injected intravenously, or elsewhere (subcutaneously, intraperitoneally, or if you want to be really nasty into the CNS)

However the concentration of the toxin is entirely irrelevant. If the LD50 of a toxin is 50 mg, it doesn't matter if you drink the 50 mg in a thimble or in a 2 litre bottle - it will still have 50% chance of killing you. There is a (slight) difference with toxins administered with certain foodstuffs - but generallly this is only the case for foodstuffs which are capable of inactivating or sequestering the toxin such as high roughage content food (which could bind to the toxin and make it unavailable - for instance muesli... don't try lacing muesli with arsenic though!) or substances which contain a significant amount of fat particles which could again sequester the toxin resulting either in activation or delayed release. (for instance... milk!) However in the case cited above the carrier was readily digestible (meat!) and therefore most of the nicotine would have been available as expected. (With the exception of that destroyed in the cooking process). In the case of tobacco chewing the nicotine becomes available directly into the saliva - in that case there is really NO physiological difference between drinking the stuff and chewing the tobacco.

I'll tell you another thing about chemistry professors - and I generally like the guys, spent enough time around them! - They are not always right (nor is anyone else). Trust yourself and check everything you are told. You'll find inconsistencies now and then but by resolving them you'll probably learn something interesting.

Thats my last word on this - you don't need to believe me. I don't ask you to. Check the evidence though.

Take a look at this:

http://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/nicotine/casedef.asp


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Witcher on August 21, 2008, 04:59:36 PM
Ok so back on topic which originally started...

My fav drugs are endorphins. They are fantastic. I love them. Can't get enough of them. Wish I could get more of them. Addicted and proud of it. I only ever use those I make myself however. Can't go around trusting others with this sort of thing.

 :17:


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Magna Carta on August 21, 2008, 09:11:38 PM
Nicotine is corrosive and affects the lungs helping to kill them. But yes, your right, its the tar that is worst. Its the bad guy breaking down the filters that normally keeps dust and other matter to enter the lungs. Youd be amazed if you knew what happens to a drowning person. She breaths water which literally tores the lungs apart. However a person drowning dont have enough ime to actually rip them to pieces. The same process happens when you smoke because the smoke allows stuff to easier enter the lungs. Not very nice and Ive not started to talk about cancer.

I have never seen anything related to nicotine being corrosive to lungs. Actually, since nicotine is not an acid, but a weak base (I've seen its pKa rated between 7.84 and 9), I hardly see how it could 'corrode' anything.

I should also add that nicotine has yet to be classified as carcinogenic. By itself, it neither causes nor promotes the development of cancers. Rather, it affects one of the main mechanisms by which cancers are eliminated before they have a chance to grow (apoptosis).

There is quite a bit of misleading information out there about cigarettes. I won't deny that they are unhealthy, but I have lost faith in most 'facts' which are presented in the media, or elsewhere for that matter. Most studies commissioned by the cigarette manufacturers are condemned as biased (which they very well might be), while those studies commissioned by pharmaceutical companies are taken at face value (because they show how 'bad' cigarettes 'really' are); it should be noted that those same pharmaceutical companies produce 'smoking cessation' products, ranging from 'nicotine replacement' (patches) to remarketed antidepressants (Zyban, which is the same drug as bupropion). In my opinion, this puts them in the very same position as the cigarette manufacturers.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on August 21, 2008, 09:51:18 PM
Yes yes back on topic, seeing Dent show his intelligence always gets my boxer-briefs in a bunch.

I'm a hallucinogenic fan myself, LSD probably being my favorite, but I haven't gotten around to finding mescaline/DMT. I'm also kinda prone to bad trips so I prefer to dose myself at home rather than a party.

Expand your mind. :3


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: ZacQuicksilver on August 21, 2008, 10:26:23 PM
Smoking is Strongly correlated to lung cancer.

Chewing tobacco has been correlated to various forms of oral cancer.

There is (possibly questionable) evidence that Cigarettes are highly addictive: something like a 90% chance of being addicted after one (I doubt this, but I have seen that number used).

That said, several Native American tribes smoked tobacco (not Cigarettes, but Tobacco leaves) for hundreds of years. If there was anything that hurt their survival, it should have killed them off. However, they didn't die off, so it appears that there is nothing in Tobacco that is harmful. Perhaps the lesson here is that the processing that turns Tobacco into Cigarettes is harmful to human health.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Witcher on August 22, 2008, 01:42:46 AM
Smoking is Strongly correlated to lung cancer.

There is the rub. There is a correlation - not proof of action. Correlation does not constitute proof in and of itself as it does not demonstrate a casuality link.

For lay people this is what it means in a few questions and answers:


Does nicotine cause cancer?

Maybe. We are not sure. All evidence points to the fact that it does cause cancer but evidence is not conclusive. (Note - it is *extremely* difficult to prove something actually causes cancer. This has only been proven with a mechanism for action and the whole shebang for very few substances, last time I checked 6 maybe now 10-20)

Does smoking cause cancer?

Yes. Unless you die of something else first or you have the perfect genes of the uberman or the luck of a leprechaun smoking will eventually cause cancer. We don't know exactly why (maybe its the nicotine, or the tar, or the heat from the cigarette smoke - we just don't know exactly why) but we are pretty sure it will happen. Eventually. (My apologies to Moen on this I hate to rub this sort of thing in)

There hope that helps.

One last thing because It's starting to irk:

Quote
@the chewing tobacco,
the nicotine travels with your spit down to your stomache, almost everything of it is destroyed by  the acid inside your stomache, so not mmuch harm caused..

And how is that different from swallowing a solution of nicotine? It still has to get through the stomach I believe.

Right now who else enjoys endorphins???

 :mf_laughbounce2:



Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Adramalech on August 22, 2008, 06:34:30 AM
Quote
@the chewing tobacco,
the nicotine travels with your spit down to your stomache, almost everything of it is destroyed by  the acid inside your stomache, so not mmuch harm caused..

And how is that different from swallowing a solution of nicotine? It still has to get through the stomach I believe.
[/quote]

it isn't different with the swallowing a solution of nicotine, but different with smoking cigs.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Magna Carta on August 22, 2008, 06:57:26 AM
Smoking is Strongly correlated to lung cancer.

Chewing tobacco has been correlated to various forms of oral cancer.

There is (possibly questionable) evidence that Cigarettes are highly addictive: something like a 90% chance of being addicted after one (I doubt this, but I have seen that number used).

That said, several Native American tribes smoked tobacco (not Cigarettes, but Tobacco leaves) for hundreds of years. If there was anything that hurt their survival, it should have killed them off. However, they didn't die off, so it appears that there is nothing in Tobacco that is harmful. Perhaps the lesson here is that the processing that turns Tobacco into Cigarettes is harmful to human health.

About the addictiveness of cigarettes (nicotine is the more probable cause of this addictiveness), recent studies I have seen suggest that it is genetic in nature. Some people have 'genetically' wired brains that feel a positive experience when exposed to nicotine, while others do not. The first group are those who get addicted very rapidly, though I wouldn't go so far as saying with the first cigarette. The second group is much less likely to, but may still, be addicted, but after prolonged exposure (and feeling sick all the while).

As for the last point, you're jumping to a conclusion not warranted by the facts. Most cancers in smokers occur later in life, after one has produced offspring, and thus is no obstacle to the perpetuation of the species. I should add that, since they had a less than ideal access to proper medical care, cancer was probably not that important a cause of death, considering disease, starvation, accidents and wars.

If anything, the filters that are used on 'modern' cigarettes makes them much safer (eliminating a good part of the various carcinogenic and otherwise dangerous substances produced by the burning of tobacco), and the more stable (and higher) burning temperature of modern tobacco also reduces the amount of these unwanted substances. Although, that doesn't make them safe, not by a long shot.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on August 22, 2008, 08:12:04 AM
@Adralamech: The primary way nicotine enters your system with chewing tobacco is actually through absorption in your gums. The same reason why nicotine gums have you hold it in between your cheek and gums after you chew it the first couple times (my dad tried to use them to quit). The solution of nicotine was hypothetical, I don't think anyone actually does that on a regular basis. Also with the issue of dilution, concentration is somewhat a factor, especially when it is combined with an amount of food since nicotine is easily eliminated from the bloodstream.

@Magna: The filters do filter out some of the harmful chemicals, but cigarettes contain quite a few additives in them. The majority of carcinogenic substances are produced by burning these additives. Tar, which is a main factor in decreased lung function, is produced when tobacco is burned. So, the higher the temperature, the higher amount of tar you receive, which is why I prefer to use a hookah when with friends.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Andreas on August 22, 2008, 08:58:37 AM
Also with the issue of dilution, concentration is somewhat a factor, especially when it is combined with an amount of food since nicotine is easily eliminated from the bloodstream.

It was that I tried to say on the previous page but thanks for clearifying. My grammar isnt allways the best since Im not from an englishspeaking country.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Magna Carta on August 22, 2008, 09:38:41 AM
@Magna: The filters do filter out some of the harmful chemicals, but cigarettes contain quite a few additives in them. The majority of carcinogenic substances are produced by burning these additives. Tar, which is a main factor in decreased lung function, is produced when tobacco is burned. So, the higher the temperature, the higher amount of tar you receive, which is why I prefer to use a hookah when with friends.

Most carcinogenic substances, as well as CO, are produced by the incomplete combustion of tar and the additives contained in cigarettes. Granted, heating, rather than burning, tobacco, in order to deliver only nicotine and a few other substances would be 'safer', except that smokers find those kind of cigarettes unsatisfying.

As for the hookah, I have serious doubts as to its effectiveness. Again, a lower temperature means more 'unwanted' substances, because the combustion is incomplete, and the water is not an effective barrier to substances that are not, or weakly so, water-soluble, among them aromatic hydrocarbons, which are known carcinogens. Add to it the fact that most users inhale more deeply and may both inhale more smoke and hold it in their lungs longer, and you've got something that is potentially worse.

For that last point, I can send you links to the abstracts of two research studies on the use of hookah in smoking tobacco. I could find more if you wish.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Witcher on August 22, 2008, 11:51:16 AM
As for the hookah, I have serious doubts as to its effectiveness. Again, a lower temperature means more 'unwanted' substances, because the combustion is incomplete, and the water is not an effective barrier to substances that are not, or weakly so, water-soluble, among them aromatic hydrocarbons, which are known carcinogens. Add to it the fact that most users inhale more deeply and may both inhale more smoke and hold it in their lungs longer, and you've got something that is potentially worse.

 :21:

Hold on you have your argument backwards.

If something is NOT water soluble - that means it will NOT pass a water barrier. It cannot dissolve into the water therefore it will not go into the mixture which you inhale from the hookah which as far as I recall must go through water to get to your lungs.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on August 22, 2008, 02:48:38 PM
Most carcinogenic substances, as well as CO, are produced by the incomplete combustion of tar and the additives contained in cigarettes. Granted, heating, rather than burning, tobacco, in order to deliver only nicotine and a few other substances would be 'safer', except that smokers find those kind of cigarettes unsatisfying.

As for the hookah, I have serious doubts as to its effectiveness. Again, a lower temperature means more 'unwanted' substances, because the combustion is incomplete, and the water is not an effective barrier to substances that are not, or weakly so, water-soluble, among them aromatic hydrocarbons, which are known carcinogens. Add to it the fact that most users inhale more deeply and may both inhale more smoke and hold it in their lungs longer, and you've got something that is potentially worse.

For that last point, I can send you links to the abstracts of two research studies on the use of hookah in smoking tobacco. I could find more if you wish.

You're contradicting yourself here. First you say heating tobacco would produce less substance delivery, then you turn around and say lower temperatures using a hookah would produce more? Which is it?

Using a hookah bakes the tobacco, which is usually covered in molasses so that it is less prone to burning than dry tobacco. A correctly used hookah does not burn the tobacco. And as I said, tar is produced when tobacco is burnt, not heated to the usual temperature of 100-150C.

So the water doesn't trap any particles that aren't water soluble, what about the ones that are? Also the water, especially when chilled, cools the smoke down to a less harmful temperature. There's also the point that while a hookah does use a lot more tobacco per 'serving', and the method of inhalation may change, it's not as frequently used as cigarettes, and when it is used it is more likely in a social setting, which is the main reason I prefer it over cigarettes. Smoking hookah with my friends is my hobby, not my habit.

I'm not against the idea that smoking/drinking/whatever is bad for your health, but I believe in simple moderation, and if someone can't deal with that, then they shouldn't be allowed to indulge in a little vice.

@Witcher - If something is water soluable, then that means the substance does dissolve in water. Since aromatic hydrocarbons aren't water soluable, passing it through water does nothing to remove any of the hydrocarbons from the smoke before it reaches your lungs.

Also, does anyone have anything to contribute to the original topic? This was originally about sharing any drug experiences.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Magna Carta on August 22, 2008, 06:10:20 PM
You're contradicting yourself here. First you say heating tobacco would produce less substance delivery, then you turn around and say lower temperatures using a hookah would produce more? Which is it?

I have little to say about the rest of the post, so I left it out.

'Heating' the tobacco as opposed to 'burning' it. I don't see any contradiction here. Try heating bread, then try burning (toasting) it. Burning requires a higher temperature than simply heating it (tastes better too, but that's beside the point :16:).

I have to add one last thing, which is a common misconception. Tar is usually written as "tar" on the side of cigarette packs for a reason, i.e. it is not the same as tar used in road construction (or other miscellaneous but not unwholesome activities). Some say it stands for total aerosol residue, but I doubt it; still, it describes it pretty well. Most of the "tar" in cigarettes doesn't actually come from the burning (though the last draw on the cigarette may contain as much pre-smoking as post-smoking tar at that point), but from the tobacco curing process.

I have no idea what the original post was about though.  :laugh:


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on August 22, 2008, 09:11:31 PM
Quote
Granted, heating, rather than burning, tobacco, in order to deliver only nicotine and a few other substances would be 'safer', except that smokers find those kind of cigarettes unsatisfying.
Summary: Heating tobacco is less harmful than simply burning it.

Quote
As for the hookah, I have serious doubts as to its effectiveness. Again, a lower temperature means more 'unwanted' substances, because the combustion is incomplete, etc...
Summary: Hookah smoking is harmful because of low temperature combustion.
Problem: Hookahs slowly bake the tobacco, a.k.a. 'heating'. Only after an extended amount of time (~45 minutes) does it actually start to burn, and then it tastes and feels like smoking a cigarette.

L2read? Anyone?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Magna Carta on August 22, 2008, 10:08:19 PM
Quote
As for the hookah, I have serious doubts as to its effectiveness. Again, a lower temperature means more 'unwanted' substances, because the combustion is incomplete, etc...
Summary: Hookah smoking is harmful because of low temperature combustion.
Problem: Hookahs slowly bake the tobacco, a.k.a. 'heating'. Only after an extended amount of time (~45 minutes) does it actually start to burn, and then it tastes and feels like smoking a cigarette.

L2read? Anyone?

Problem: the only people I have seen use a hookah have usually been burning the tobacco (and a couple of other things as well, mind you).

But, I checked, and you make a valid point. As long as the temperature is kept low enough, little to no combustion takes place, making this a probably safer alternative to cigarette. I'll stick with my easier-to-carry tobacco-wrapped-in-paper nicotine delivery system though.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on August 22, 2008, 10:25:16 PM
Ah I see, they probably weren't doing it right. Usually when I use a hookah I wrap the bowl with foil then place a instant-light charcoal on top. It's usually fine for the first half hour or so then it starts to burn and it's really noticeable when it starts. The foil helps reduce the amount of heat that reaches the sheesha (tobacco) via insulation as well as elevating the coal a half inch or so if the foil is taut.

As for the 'other things' in a hookah, nice, but not an everyday thing. It just doesn't taste right. I demand that my hookah smoke taste like fruit d**nit!

Oh definitely cigarettes are the easier to transport item. I've been smoking them more often now that I've moved far from any of my friends. They're nice as a quick stim for when I'm tired (which is usually often), but I still can't get over the taste, even if I smoke menthol 100's and stop 3/4 of the way through. After I'm done I want to drink something strong and acidic to try and mask the flavor (soda). Maybe I'm just trying the wrong ones, any suggestions? I currently buy Marlboro Smooths 100's, just so I can avoid that last bit of extra tarry/nasty cigarette.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: The_Architect on August 27, 2008, 10:38:12 AM
you make your own cigarettes? What are you smoking?



Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Magna Carta on August 27, 2008, 11:10:11 AM
Oh definitely cigarettes are the easier to transport item. I've been smoking them more often now that I've moved far from any of my friends. They're nice as a quick stim for when I'm tired (which is usually often), but I still can't get over the taste, even if I smoke menthol 100's and stop 3/4 of the way through. After I'm done I want to drink something strong and acidic to try and mask the flavor (soda). Maybe I'm just trying the wrong ones, any suggestions? I currently buy Marlboro Smooths 100's, just so I can avoid that last bit of extra tarry/nasty cigarette.

Sorry for the late reply, didn't notice the post.

Menthol cigarettes are the worst. In my opinion, you're better off smoking a regular cigarette than chewing mint gum.

As for suggestions, since I'm Canadian, I usually smoke canadian cigarettes, which have a distinct taste from the american ones (though I enjoy a new flavour now and then). Hence, making suggestions would be difficult.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: The_Architect on August 27, 2008, 11:19:32 AM
you should go to china for your cigarettes, they go as low as $7(RMB, 7:1 compared to the dollar) in china, so that equates to around $1 american, and they have a better, smoother taste

go for the hard-packs, the softpacks can be 4 times more expensive

I don't smoke, but quite a number of my (right-wing) cousins like them better than the crap we have here (I think they make them just for the sake of smoking with no regard to satisfaction).


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on August 28, 2008, 08:55:14 AM
Yeah these cigarettes really are crap. My Japanese teacher had some ones from Japan and I thought they were pretty good compared to American ones. Problem is I don't care much for cigarettes anyway, they're really only for the phyisological effects. I've been cutting down on them even more the past couple days.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: GhostGate on October 03, 2008, 03:45:38 AM

im obsesive compulsive used to be computers when i was a kid
 then it was
- Vallium
- Heroin (in a spiked E)
- Prozac
- Hash
- Herbal
- Shrooms
- LSD (in a spiked E )
- Ecstacy (Mda and Mdma)
- Ketamine
- Cocaine
- Speed
- Salvia
now its computers again now i grew up lol


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Seb on October 03, 2008, 10:29:30 AM
.....3 is comin up..and GOD thats a lot of drugs? Where you loaded every day for like, a decade of your life?!


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Andreas on October 03, 2008, 10:49:45 AM
Isnt salvia a common spice? And both prozac and vallium is usually sold as medication.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Seb on October 03, 2008, 11:01:45 AM
Well, I wouldn't know... he has it on his list though :\


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: HJ on October 03, 2008, 11:29:24 AM
Salvia MAY be a common spice..in Sweden. It's a legal herb here in Canada, and smoking it garners hallucinogenic effects.

When I was a kid we called it a "10 minute acid (LSD) trip". You can buy it in corner stores.

Then again, here in Vancouver, there are smoke shops where you can smoke your marijuana :)


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Andreas on October 03, 2008, 11:36:57 AM
I looked it up in wikipedia and it turned out to exist several kinds of salvia and one of them is used as a spice (salvia officinalis) while another one is used to get a little trip (salvia divinorum). and ofcourse theres other kinds of salvia.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Seb on October 03, 2008, 11:54:35 AM
Lucky Vancouver residents >:|


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: HJ on October 12, 2008, 05:46:01 AM
Vancouver is the most beautiful city on earth.

(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/travel/properties/3212/vancouver-city-guide-ga-1d.jpg)


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Adramalech on October 12, 2008, 06:26:28 AM
ever been to Amsterdam?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Seb on October 12, 2008, 05:07:18 PM
my god that looks awesome.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Raistlin on October 22, 2008, 11:53:55 AM
In the interest of getting back to the original topic. . .

I just tried weed for the first time with a couple of friends, and we watched the newer Reefer Madness movie (the musical one). Now, I've got a lot of friends who smoke, so I know sort of what to expect, but one thing nobody told me was that when you are high, EVERYTHING IS DELICIOUS. Why did nobody tell me this?

Seriously, I had an oreo, and it was the BEST d**n OREO I'D EVER HAD. Ditto for the box of Trix we randomly decided to get from the store, ditto for the Burger King food, ditto . . . well, you get the point, and I could continue in that vein for another 3 or 4 lines. I think my new favorite thing is just eating random foods while stoned.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: HJ on October 22, 2008, 11:58:45 AM
Ahahahahaha, Greatttt.

Everything is indeed delicious.

WARNING: You will eat EVERYTHING in your house. Ensure that there are no small children involved, as you WILL starve the poor bastards.

You may spend hours looking at things like couches, thinking to yourself: Okay, I understand that thats a chair, and this is a couch, but why the hell do they call it a Love Seat?? I cant even sit in the d**n thing if Im not in love!


I am an avid pot smoker. All day every day if I could.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on October 22, 2008, 12:08:02 PM
The above is very true. The first time I did it I wound up eating all the leftover food in my fridge. An entire pack of Oreos or container of ice cream usually disappears every session.

I think one of the strangest ideas any of my friends have had was the idea of a subwoofer. Think of a submarine shaped like a dog going 'woof'. Also laughing for 5-10 minutes for little to no reason is acceptable too.

Too bad I've been clean 5 months now. Not my choice, just the area I'm in. Then it's more like once/twice a week on the weekends.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: HJ on October 22, 2008, 12:12:31 PM
It gets worse Moen Co. See if you can get this.

So theyre trying to splice raptor and chicken DNA to produce raptors in chicken eggs.

Isnt that just a dumb idea? Why wouldnt you start with something else, something that wont KILL YOU as soon as it is alive? Like a brontosaurus? Yeah! because they just eat trees!

We could start an organization too, like...support the brontosaurus! for just 3.99 a month (or a special 7.50 a month for 2!), you can sponsor a brontosaurus. All donations made go directly to the making of track suits for brontosauruses! Theyll never go cold again!

God..Those were the days..


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on October 22, 2008, 12:22:31 PM
Bwahaha. Man, what about the trees then? How do you think they'd feel about that? Their long dead nemesis back to hunt them to extinction. I'd be pissed if that happened.

That track suit idea is something else though.

Good times...good times.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: HJ on October 22, 2008, 12:23:36 PM
I think the trees should stop being jerks and share. I mean the Brontosaurus was EXTINCT and now the trees arent even going to give them a chance? Pfft.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Raistlin on October 22, 2008, 12:44:21 PM
Eh. I'm really dumb when stoned (I'm told that's pretty normal, heh), so I can only do it on weekends. Also, it leaves me feeling a little woozy the next day, so I can really only do it Friday and Saturday :(


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: HJ on October 22, 2008, 01:02:18 PM
Burnouts. Been there.

Heck we used to get stoned and then go back to school, back in the day. A few of us would get caught sleeping or acting stupid, but they were never concerned about any of us smoking pot.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Seb on October 22, 2008, 04:06:12 PM
you should DEVELOP a drug, now that'd be interesting.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: HJ on October 22, 2008, 04:23:57 PM
Marijuana is not a drug.

Marijuana comes from the ground, like many other herbs.

Heroin is a drug. Crack Cocaine is a drug. They are both made in labs.

Marijuana is grown.

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground everything that has the breath of life in it I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Genesis 1: 29 - 30


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Raistlin on October 22, 2008, 04:27:37 PM
Unfortunately for some of us, the US gov disagrees.

'Some governments define the term drug by law. In the United States, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act definition of "drug" includes "articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals" and "articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals."'

So it shouldn't be a drug, since it isn't chemical in nature, but the government has changed the definition of the word drug to make it one. :(


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Seb on October 22, 2008, 04:35:41 PM
Marijuana is not a drug.

Marijuana comes from the ground, like many other herbs.

Heroin is a drug. Crack Cocaine is a drug. They are both made in labs.

Marijuana is grown.

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground everything that has the breath of life in it I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Genesis 1: 29 - 30


There is a chemical in all of those that cause the trip, so it is a drug, in my opinion

Woot for that passage btw.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: HJ on October 22, 2008, 04:42:10 PM
And you're just going to let the U.S. Government tell you what to think?

You're just going to let the U.S. Government tell you what is what? You are weak!

Marijuana became illegal because of one simple reason - HEMP. The stem of the plant.
You can do ANYTHING with Hemp. Make Paper, medicine, clothing, plastic, seed oil, etc.
It's all bio-degradeable. The plant re-grows faster than trees. They are safe and natural.

In the World Wars, the U.S. Government (The same one telling you that Pot is a Drug) Ordered ALL farmers in the United States to grow HEMP in order to supply the soldiers with uniforms, parachutes, etc. The same parachutes that were used to drop the soldiers into battle. Now they call it a drug? Without that "drug", you wouldn't have won the war! There wouldn't BE a U.S. Government!

There is no convincing scientific evidence that marijuana causes psychological damage or mental illness in either teenagers or adults.
Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers.

It became illegal because when the big name companies that were already around (Namely paper companies) started to realize that Hemp can be used cheaper and easier to achieve the same results, and they put their foot down.

You tell yourself what you want to believe, Raistlin. Your government is lying to you.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Seb on October 22, 2008, 04:45:39 PM
Hmm, well, I'd be all well and good if the government took of the Mari ban, I've personally never smoked, but seeing what it's like would be...interesting. Now, I doubt that will ever happen, so the argument is moot, as long as I live here. [US]


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Raistlin on October 22, 2008, 04:49:32 PM
HJ, I think you've got me backwards. I've done my homework; I know that the prohibition of marijuana was largely the result of self-serving government organizations (the Bureau of Narcotics) and yellow journalism.  I'm against it being illegal, but I'm pointing out that the word "drug" has been redefined to encompass certain specific products, marijuana included.

To anyone interested in how weed became illegal, here's a link.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html (http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html)


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: HJ on October 22, 2008, 04:50:13 PM
Look at the Financial Crisis your country is currently in.


Marijuana is the UNITED STATES' LARGEST CASH CROP. Meaning people spend more money on Pot than Corn, wheat, etc.

Dont you think the profits from taxing Legalized Marijuana would help?

Dont you think all of the salary saved paying people that are arresting you for smoking a joint could help?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Seb on October 22, 2008, 04:51:55 PM
Look at the Financial Crisis your country is currently in.


Marijuana is the UNITED STATES' LARGEST CASH CROP. Meaning people spend more money on Pot than Corn, wheat, etc.

Dont you think the profits from taxing Legalized Marijuana would help?

Dont you think all of the salary saved paying people that are arresting you for smoking a joint could help?

Woah, we'd be richer then China :D


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Raistlin on October 22, 2008, 04:53:27 PM
Hate, seriously, you can't argue with me on this one; I LIKE POT.  I'm not gonna argue the other side just for fun.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: HJ on October 22, 2008, 04:54:49 PM
You've smoked it once and you like it already?

Good stuff. Come up and try the pot in British Columbia. Best in the world :P


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Seb on October 22, 2008, 05:48:41 PM
You've smoked it once and you like it already?

Good stuff. Come up and try the pot in British Columbia. Best in the world :P

lol.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Raistlin on October 22, 2008, 05:55:44 PM
Hahah. I'm working out of San Francisco; the pot here is pretty good, or so I'm told.

See, I live in the Haight. That may not mean anything to you, but you might have heard of the "Summer of Love"? The biggest hippie thing ever? Yeah, the center of that was about a block from my house, so we've still got literally dozens of hippies in a 10 block radius, all selling good stuff :)

EDIT: Also, technically I tried it twice. Me and a friend smoked most of Friday evening, then we did it with a group in the park for a lot of Saturday :) The cops don't even care; they'll come round and stop people from drinking or smoking cigarettes, but in the Haight, in Golden Gate Park, they won't stop you smoking weed, heh.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on October 22, 2008, 09:59:43 PM
This is why I would like to end up living in the San Fran area or Canada. Screw the rest of Dumbf**kistan. HP meetup anyone? har har.

P.S. The trees are in league with each other man, even with the bushes. If we went against the trees, the hemp plants would go on strike. They'd STARVE us into submission. Dwarves really are right, trees are out to conquer the world. First the dinosaurs, now us!


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Raistlin on October 23, 2008, 02:16:41 AM
They've got hundreds of limbs, and therefore hundreds of attacks per round?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on October 23, 2008, 07:14:22 AM
Och, aye! Their AC be in the stratosphere too! (Good to see a fellow reader)


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Adramalech on October 23, 2008, 11:20:43 AM
Quote
P.S. The trees are in league with each other man, even with the bushes. If we went against the trees, the hemp plants would go on strike. They'd STARVE us into submission. Dwarves really are right, trees are out to conquer the world. First the dinosaurs, now us!

er, how much did you smoke when you posted that?


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Raistlin on October 23, 2008, 11:25:22 AM
Adramalech, it's a reference to a webcomic, Order of the Stick. If you want to read it, it's at giantitp.com (http://giantitp.com). It's pretty funny, but you need a basic knowledge of D&D to get some of the jokes.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on October 23, 2008, 11:29:32 AM
If you don't have a basic knowledge of D&D, http://www.d20srd.org/ is a good place to look things up.

Also, the second part was the reference, the first part just led into it naturally, i had to throw it into there. Like I said, I've been clean about 5-6 months now.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Adramalech on October 23, 2008, 03:17:45 PM
ok :P


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Seb on October 23, 2008, 04:08:01 PM
They've got hundreds of limbs, and therefore hundreds of attacks per round?

ch, yah right. With debuffs from multiple hits, they'd never hit on 99% of those extras!


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Raistlin on October 23, 2008, 04:18:30 PM
You forget; they have to hit with about 5% of them. Nothing beats a natural 20.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Seb on October 23, 2008, 09:24:19 PM
I know THAT
but it's unlikely. 1/20, even with a hundred or so limbs.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on October 24, 2008, 10:29:04 AM
A hundred or so limbs, attacking you once every 6 seconds (definition of a round)? On average, about 5 hits per round. Which comes out to 50 hits a minute. Given the size of most full grown trees, that's enough to take anyone out.

Durgs.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Andreas on October 24, 2008, 11:22:52 AM
D&D freaks. Try Eon instead. As far as I know they are the leading rpg with the Ob feature. Imagine how much gold you could get by rolling 5ObD6! And try attacking with a sword and get 18 on 2ObD6 to luck (15)! Anything is possible there.

And what if you combined that feature with drugs?! It would result in lethal overdoses almost everywhere because of xObD6>resistance(3~18 on base rolls).
Eon might not be good for you after all if you continuing doing your drugs.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Seb on October 24, 2008, 04:25:05 PM
Sorry, D&D forevar!!!


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Raistlin on October 24, 2008, 04:26:48 PM
Sorry, D&D forevar!!!

I'd like to amend that to D&D&D.

Dungeons and Dragons, and Drugs.


Title: Re: Drugs
Post by: Moen Co. on October 24, 2008, 08:52:12 PM
D&D&D Forever!

That's almost good enough to make me want to give up my >20 character sig. Almost.

Durgs durgs durgs durgs durgs.