|
On May 16 2012 03:49 Kazragore wrote:
What about swapping piss? If I can get someone who hasn't smoked in a while and will give me their piss, how would I go about getting his piss into the stall or whatever? Do they pat you down or some shit before you go into the bathroom? And I'd have to keep it warm too. . .
EDIT: Everything went off without a hitch. I put his urine in a condom and then tucked that in my underwear right near my sack to keep it nice and warm, no one ever suspected a thing. Now the only thing I have to worry about is whether or not his urine was 100% clean (I know he's smoked in the past, just not too recently hopefully).
lol good effort. Its kinda weird how you have drug tests in the USA, is it for every job or just done by state/ by the company?
In the uk I've never had to take a drugs test for any jobs, and never heard of it.
On topic: that crazy spiral shit fucked me up
|
On May 17 2012 06:21 TSBspartacus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 03:49 Kazragore wrote:
What about swapping piss? If I can get someone who hasn't smoked in a while and will give me their piss, how would I go about getting his piss into the stall or whatever? Do they pat you down or some shit before you go into the bathroom? And I'd have to keep it warm too. . .
EDIT: Everything went off without a hitch. I put his urine in a condom and then tucked that in my underwear right near my sack to keep it nice and warm, no one ever suspected a thing. Now the only thing I have to worry about is whether or not his urine was 100% clean (I know he's smoked in the past, just not too recently hopefully). lol good effort. Its kinda weird how you have drug tests in the USA, is it for every job or just done by state/ by the company? In the uk I've never had to take a drugs test for any jobs, and never heard of it. On topic: that crazy spiral shit fucked me up
Jobs for the state most likely test for drugs. But it's up to the employer whether they test. The army does.
What's messed up is that marijuanna shows on a simple urine test for up to a month, while cocaine would be out of your system within a couple days. etc etc. etc
|
I keep saying I'm going to quit smoking. But I just can't give up getting high and listening to some good music. That's gotta be one of my favorite things to do.
|
On May 17 2012 07:33 LambtrOn wrote:
I keep saying I'm going to quit smoking. But I just can't give up getting high and listening to some good music. That's gotta be one of my favorite things to do.
Try to keep it to nights only, be productive during the day.
|
On May 17 2012 06:12 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 05:28 Meeks wrote:On May 17 2012 05:12 BreakfastBurrito wrote:On May 16 2012 07:41 sam!zdat wrote:
Before you go, inject your friend's piss into your bladder with a syringe this made me lol so much i've heard some people say that they have smoked so many consecutive bowls that they just lose the high feeling, and i tend to not believe them. anyone have any experience with this? If you smoke bowl after bowl in one night, you eventually reach a point where you can't really get much higher. When these habits go on for a month or two, of constant smoking everyday, it really can become hard to get that high feeling. You have to start smoking through different methods, i.e. hash oil, gravs, vapes, etc. to mix things up. O freshman year of college.... Yeah, I smoke a vape regularly, and don't get super high with that. When I want to get really high I smoke a joint or a bong.
That's what I'm sayin, you need to switch up the methods of smoking that you use. As long as you do that, you won't notice the levels of tolerance you're at.
|
There's absolutely no reason that using different methods would help, why would it?
|
On May 17 2012 15:42 Silvertine wrote:
There's absolutely no reason that using different methods would help, why would it?
Because part of your tolerance is due to your brain recognizing that you're about to take the drug and compensating. So if you switch the input, and therefore switch the stimulus that your brain recognizes as the drug stimulus, you don't precipitate the compensation reaction to the same extent.
edit: this is why people tend to overdose on heroin in unfamiliar situations.
|
On May 17 2012 17:26 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 15:42 Silvertine wrote:
There's absolutely no reason that using different methods would help, why would it? Because part of your tolerance is due to your brain recognizing that you're about to take the drug and compensating. So if you switch the input, and therefore switch the stimulus that your brain recognizes as the drug stimulus, you don't precipitate the compensation reaction to the same extent. edit: this is why people tend to overdose on heroin in unfamiliar situations.
until you provide a source, i'm calling bullshit on your post
|
On May 17 2012 17:29 Piggiez wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 17:26 sam!zdat wrote:On May 17 2012 15:42 Silvertine wrote:
There's absolutely no reason that using different methods would help, why would it? Because part of your tolerance is due to your brain recognizing that you're about to take the drug and compensating. So if you switch the input, and therefore switch the stimulus that your brain recognizes as the drug stimulus, you don't precipitate the compensation reaction to the same extent. edit: this is why people tend to overdose on heroin in unfamiliar situations. until you provide a source, i'm calling bullshit on your post
Yeah that's nonsense.
|
Source is an academic researcher into substance use who came and talked to us during my freshman year at college. He ran a thing called "barlab" at I think UCLA. Also my ex is a psych student who works on substance use, and I'm pretty sure I talked about that with her as well. I'm about 90% confident on this, but you can go find a source yourself; I've got nothing to prove.
edit: maybe he was from UW.
edit edit:
until you provide a source, i'm calling bullshit on your post
Why such hostility? I'm not about to go digging around for a paper just to prove something to YOU. Anyway, what I said sounds pretty plausible to me.
|
On May 18 2012 02:17 sam!zdat wrote:
Why such hostility? I'm not about to go digging around for a paper just to prove something to YOU. Anyway, what I said sounds pretty plausible to me.
The fact that you don't have a source is irrelevant, what you said was just white noise anyway. There's absolutely no reason why using different methods would relate to tolerance in any way.
It's very simple: different methods will vary in how well they get you high. Vaporizers can be low quality, a bong generally delivers bigger hits than pipes, edibles are usually quite potent, etc. It has nothing to do with you becoming tolerant to a certain method.
|
On May 18 2012 02:41 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 02:17 sam!zdat wrote:
Why such hostility? I'm not about to go digging around for a paper just to prove something to YOU. Anyway, what I said sounds pretty plausible to me. There's absolutely no reason why using different methods would relate to tolerance in any way.
Why would you think this? Do you understand how tolerance works?
|
Here's something that suggests that environmental contexts do in fact play a role in response to drugs. This is just a 2 second google operation so w/e.
The effect of the environmental context in which rats received cocaine upon subsequent cocaine-induced hyperactivity and stereotypy was explored. “Cocaine test cage” animals were injected with cocaine in the test cage and then received saline upon leaving it 40 minutes later, while in the “saline test cage” group the injections, were in the reverse order. Thus, all animals had identical injections, handling, and environmental exposure, differing only in whether they received cocaine during or after their test cage experience. The cocaine test cage animals displayed increasing response (p < .001) to the 10 daily cocaine injections, i.e., behavioral sensitization. However, in contrast, the “saline-test cage” animals had significantly less cocaine-induced activation upon 2 of 3 challenges with cocaine and showed no significant evidence of behavioral sensitization even though they had received the same dose and number of previous cocaine injections in a different environment. Thus, this study reveals environment- specific drug effects and suggests that environmental context plays a role in the development and manifestation of behavioral sensitization to cocaine.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024320581901570
edit: I know it's not directly analogous. But saying things like "method of delivery can't possibly have anything to do with tolerance!!" with no reason for thinking that is kind of silly.
|
On May 18 2012 02:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 02:41 Silvertine wrote:On May 18 2012 02:17 sam!zdat wrote:
Why such hostility? I'm not about to go digging around for a paper just to prove something to YOU. Anyway, what I said sounds pretty plausible to me. There's absolutely no reason why using different methods would relate to tolerance in any way. Why would you think this? Do you understand how tolerance works?
You're the one proposing the baseless theory so the burden of proof is upon you. If you can't provide a single source or piece of evidence then the argument is settled.
On May 18 2012 02:47 sam!zdat wrote:Here's something that suggests that environmental contexts do in fact play a role in response to drugs. This is just a 2 second google operation so w/e. Show nested quote +
The effect of the environmental context in which rats received cocaine upon subsequent cocaine-induced hyperactivity and stereotypy was explored. “Cocaine test cage” animals were injected with cocaine in the test cage and then received saline upon leaving it 40 minutes later, while in the “saline test cage” group the injections, were in the reverse order. Thus, all animals had identical injections, handling, and environmental exposure, differing only in whether they received cocaine during or after their test cage experience. The cocaine test cage animals displayed increasing response (p < .001) to the 10 daily cocaine injections, i.e., behavioral sensitization. However, in contrast, the “saline-test cage” animals had significantly less cocaine-induced activation upon 2 of 3 challenges with cocaine and showed no significant evidence of behavioral sensitization even though they had received the same dose and number of previous cocaine injections in a different environment. Thus, this study reveals environment- specific drug effects and suggests that environmental context plays a role in the development and manifestation of behavioral sensitization to cocaine.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024320581901570
It seems like you're totally confused over the issue. That experiment has absolutely no relevancy at all to this discussion. The claim that was made is that switching methods to smoke cannabis helps reset your tolerance level. How does that do anything to substantiate that claim?
|
On May 18 2012 02:48 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 02:43 sam!zdat wrote:On May 18 2012 02:41 Silvertine wrote:On May 18 2012 02:17 sam!zdat wrote:
Why such hostility? I'm not about to go digging around for a paper just to prove something to YOU. Anyway, what I said sounds pretty plausible to me. There's absolutely no reason why using different methods would relate to tolerance in any way. Why would you think this? Do you understand how tolerance works? You're the one proposing the baseless theory so the burden of proof is upon you. If you can't provide a single source or piece of evidence then the argument is settled.
You are not a very friendly person, are you?
You can win if you want. I was just having a conversation.
PM me your address and I'll mail you the trophy.
|
On May 18 2012 02:51 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 02:48 Silvertine wrote:On May 18 2012 02:43 sam!zdat wrote:On May 18 2012 02:41 Silvertine wrote:On May 18 2012 02:17 sam!zdat wrote:
Why such hostility? I'm not about to go digging around for a paper just to prove something to YOU. Anyway, what I said sounds pretty plausible to me. There's absolutely no reason why using different methods would relate to tolerance in any way. Why would you think this? Do you understand how tolerance works? You're the one proposing the baseless theory so the burden of proof is upon you. If you can't provide a single source or piece of evidence then the argument is settled. You are not a very friendly person, are you? You can win if you want. I was just having a conversation. PM me your address and I'll mail you the trophy.
I'm not friendly because I challenged the nonsense you presented?
|
On May 18 2012 02:48 Silvertine wrote:
It seems like you're totally confused over the issue. That experiment has absolutely no relevancy at all to this discussion. The claim that was made is that switching methods to smoke cannabis helps reset your tolerance level. How does that do anything to substantiate that claim?
Yeah, I know it's not analogous. But the point is that environmental cues can affect response to drugs. Method of delivery is an environmental cue. You can think about it as something like a pavlovian response if that helps.
|
On May 18 2012 02:53 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 02:51 sam!zdat wrote:On May 18 2012 02:48 Silvertine wrote:On May 18 2012 02:43 sam!zdat wrote:On May 18 2012 02:41 Silvertine wrote:On May 18 2012 02:17 sam!zdat wrote:
Why such hostility? I'm not about to go digging around for a paper just to prove something to YOU. Anyway, what I said sounds pretty plausible to me. There's absolutely no reason why using different methods would relate to tolerance in any way. Why would you think this? Do you understand how tolerance works? You're the one proposing the baseless theory so the burden of proof is upon you. If you can't provide a single source or piece of evidence then the argument is settled. You are not a very friendly person, are you? You can win if you want. I was just having a conversation. PM me your address and I'll mail you the trophy. I'm not friendly because I challenged the nonsense you presented?
No, you're not friendly because you're belligerent and unpleasant, and you seem to regard the "high thread" as a pissing contest.
|
Hey hey hey now gentlemen, let's just all get together and smoke a few, okay? Whatever method you want, with whatever placebo effect you choose? How's that sound? :D
|
Yeah, I know it's not analogous. But the point is that environmental cues can affect response to drugs. Method of delivery is an environmental cue. You can think about it as something like a pavlovian response if that helps.
Again, the discussion is whether or not those methods would help reset your tolerance level. There is zero evidence that that is the case.
This entire silly argument is based off of your misunderstanding of what the issue was. Then you got really defensive. The guy who brought the point up to begin with will probably just laugh at what it resulted in.
No, you're not friendly because you're belligerent and unpleasant, and you seem to regard the "high thread" as a pissing contest.
Point to what I said that was belligerent or unpleasant. It's not a "pissing contest" to merely challenge something you said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
