EPTHigh Thread - Page 833
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Acertos
France852 Posts
| ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 10 2014 00:40 farvacola wrote: It isn't; placebo is a helluva drug. what if they take out 100% of your blood and cerebrospinal fluid, clean it to 100% free of THC + CBDs, then put it back in???? | ||
|
freewareplayer
Germany403 Posts
On March 10 2014 00:28 EngrishTeacher wrote: Wait what, could you elaborate further? I am aware of the benefits of regularly donating blood - it's good for your health as it stimulates your bone marrows and other systems to work harder and increase blood production. However, I can't for the life of me figure out how parting with ~500mL of your blood helps to combat MJ tolerance? Tolerance from MJ develops when the brain adapts to a prolonged period of bombardment from THC and other cannabinoids, so natural levels of dopamine production falls dramatically and cannabinoids receptors bind less efficiently with fake neurotransmitters from MJ through a variety of mechanisms. So how is donating blood relevant to any of this brain chemistry? I have no idea, just talking about experience here. I am a daily smoker myself, didnt have a tolerance break in ages, went to donate blood, smoked one an hour after and was absolutely shitfaced. The kind of stoned you simply dont get any more without a tolerance break. Did this about 3 times now, pretty much worked everytime ( if its also as longlasting as a complete t-break, i dunno, i havent really made accurate comparisons) On March 10 2014 00:40 farvacola wrote: It isn't; placebo is a helluva drug. Did you even try it? Im not excluding the possibility that somehow, some other factors which i did not consider made me feel consideribly higher everytime after smoking, the days after donating blood. Bit of a big coincidence tho and generally placebos dont do anything for me. How or why? I dont really care, it works for me, or has so far. If you tried it and it didnt do jack for you fair enough, but you sound like your bashing it without even trying it, your loss really. Not hard to find loads of people reporting the same experience on the internet, doesnt have to mean im right of course, could be a widespread placebo. But just cause it doesnt instantly make sense to you with your current knowledge, as good as that may be, doesnt have to mean it doesnt exist/work. | ||
|
Butterednuts
United States859 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
So how is donating blood relevant to any of this brain chemistry? Donating blood makes you feel light-headed, smoke some weed, you think it is getting you higher and I guess it is with the combination of the high and the light-headed feeling from losing some blood. How high someone gets is subjective so if you think it makes you feel higher, it does! My favorite right now is Blue Dream. Blue Dream is one of my favorites as well... I think my all-time favorite is White Widow. Jack Herer x Cheese is also very very good, there's a lot of Sour Diesel x whatever strains that came out last year that are also very very good. | ||
|
freewareplayer
Germany403 Posts
On March 12 2014 12:20 DeepElemBlues wrote: You're not really supposed to donate blood that's "dirtied" up with drugs in it... even if it's just some THC. But hey it isn't hurting anyone... probably. Actually where i donate blood, a local health company, you have to fill out a short survey everytime you donate. Drug wise it only asks if you snort and or inject drugs. The after products of thc in the blood are not dangerous at all health wise. Someone getting tested positively because of that blood is also practicly impossible. Thc doesnt last long in the blood, especially not if your not a regular smoker yourself. What are the odds of someone who needed a blood transfusion getting in a situation where hes forced to do a blood drug test within 6 days after recieving the blood in the hospital? Also not all of the blood gets used as transfusions. As long as your not high there, and maybe a day smokefree before your all good. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
a cultural difference | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On March 13 2014 03:25 DeepElemBlues wrote: ah well here in the USA i've been told don't donate blood if you have any of anything in there a cultural difference i googled and found this: Permanently disqualified from giving blood if you - Are a man or woman who has had sex for money or drugs any time since 1977 - Are a man who has had sex with another man since 1977, even once wtf thats in addition to all the HIV and other SDI tests you have to pass. How do they justify this? | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On March 13 2014 03:32 ComaDose wrote: i googled and found this: wtf thats in addition to all the HIV and other SDI tests you have to pass. How do they justify this? it's a public health measure to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and also hepatitis i'd imagine as for why it's still in place for the prostitutes there's obvious reasons as for gay men it should be modified back then HIV/AIDS was at truly epidemic levels in many parts of the gay community and is still pretty bad in some but saying none of them can seems excessive to me in 2014 there are millions of totally healthy gay men. i googled as well and in the official literature i found from places like johns hopkins university and blood drive organizations it differs. johns hopkins for example says no no THC while some blood drive organizations say recent marijuana or alcohol use may not necessarily disqualify you from giving blood, so it appears it is up to discretion. when i was in high school they told us no if you'd been drinking or doing any drugs so maybe it has changed since then or the organization that did the blood drives at my school made the decision to have it that way. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On March 13 2014 03:50 DeepElemBlues wrote: it's a public health measure to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and also hepatitis i'd imagine as for why it's still in place for the prostitutes there's obvious reasons as for gay men it should be modified back then HIV/AIDS was at truly epidemic levels in many parts of the gay community and is still pretty bad in some but saying none of them can seems excessive to me in 2014 there are millions of totally healthy gay men. i googled as well and in the official literature i found from places like johns hopkins university and blood drive organizations it differs. johns hopkins for example says no no THC while some blood drive organizations say recent marijuana or alcohol use may not necessarily disqualify you from giving blood, so it appears it is up to discretion. when i was in high school they told us no if you'd been drinking or doing any drugs so maybe it has changed since then or the organization that did the blood drives at my school made the decision to have it that way. but that's in addition to having no HIV/AIDS/STIs, you can test clean for all those things, but if you experimented with gay sex in 1978 you cant give blood to save lives. Also the reasons are not obvious to me why prostitutes shouldn't be allowed. Like you can have sex with 100 strangers if you don't charge for it but if you charge for it with one person once then your bloods bad. This doesn't seem to be a nation wide rule but it is brought up a fair bit. if you took your own blood while you were high. then put your blood back in later like blood doping or w.e. would you get high again? not as high obviously but would you feel it? stoner blood dopers hue. | ||
|
freewareplayer
Germany403 Posts
On March 13 2014 03:57 ComaDose wrote: if you took your own blood while you were high. then put your blood back in later like blood doping or w.e. would you get high again? not as high obviously but would you feel it? stoner blood dopers hue. I dont think thats possible. With the very best scnenario (obviously not health wise) you would donate right after smoking or even while, to not loose any thc. But even assuming the thc stays the same potency over the storage. no idea if it does, for 500 ml of high blood to matter you would probably have to be anorexic big time. | ||
|
chalice
United States1945 Posts
kind of amazing that you don't see the obvious value in erring on the side of caution when it comes to something like donating blood. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On March 13 2014 03:57 ComaDose wrote: but that's in addition to having no HIV/AIDS/STIs, you can test clean for all those things, but if you experimented with gay sex in 1978 you cant give blood to save lives. Also the reasons are not obvious to me why prostitutes shouldn't be allowed. Like you can have sex with 100 strangers if you don't charge for it but if you charge for it with one person once then your bloods bad. This doesn't seem to be a nation wide rule but it is brought up a fair bit. if you took your own blood while you were high. then put your blood back in later like blood doping or w.e. would you get high again? not as high obviously but would you feel it? stoner blood dopers hue. It's a somewhat antiquated rule, but there is some logical basis to its origin and perpetuate at least. I'd also be very surprised if you could "blood dope" with MJ. At least, not with unsafe levels of blood removal, and even then... Lol | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On March 13 2014 05:53 chalice wrote: it's called probability, there is window shortly after infection where HIV testing is ineffective and someone who has been a prostitute or had a dick in their butt is much more likely to contract HIV than someone who has never engaged in either of those activities. kind of amazing that you don't see the obvious value in erring on the side of caution when it comes to something like donating blood. what how is that true? pretty sure the only thing that increases your odds of having HIV is having sex with someone that has HIV. which is proportional only to the amount of partners, which is not one of the questions. You could make an argument that the gay community has higher HIV/person ratio or something. I agree that erring on the side of caution is good which is why the requirements should be related somehow at least imo. And if you had those kinds of sex once over 30 years ago you are disqualified which is the strangest bit of all. on another note i cant wait to get home out of this storm and smoke up a lot with a nice hot cup of tea while i defrost. | ||
|
freewareplayer
Germany403 Posts
On March 13 2014 06:16 ComaDose wrote: what how is that true? pretty sure the only thing that increases your odds of having HIV is having sex with someone that has HIV. which is proportional only to the amount of partners, which is not one of the questions. You could make an argument that the gay community has higher HIV/person ratio or something. I agree that erring on the side of caution is good which is why the requirements should be related somehow at least imo. And if you had those kinds of sex once over 30 years ago you are disqualified which is the strangest bit of all. Even if you have unprotected sex with someone who has HIV, you dont always get infected, the risk however increases much more if there are open wounds while the sex. An Asshole is much tighter than a Vagina, also dryer, therefore tiny ruptures/fissures are more likely, therefore easier to contract HIV. That they disqualify people who havent done any of the above in the last 6 month, i dont get either. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
AeroGear
Canada652 Posts
On March 13 2014 07:43 heliusx wrote: So why doesn't it say anything about women who receive anal and donate? HIV is statistically higher among the male homosexual population. Homosexual males are more prone to having multiple sex partners, trade safety for pleasure (no condom), etc... This is based upon numbers that are published. Obviously statistics change over time and large scale studies arent done on a yearly basis. | ||
|
SixStrings
Germany2046 Posts
On March 13 2014 08:37 AeroGear wrote: This is based upon numbers that are published. Obviously statistics change over time and large scale studies arent done on a yearly basis. It's also much more likely to get HIV from anal... And maybe it's a European thing, but I can't remember the last time a girl insisted on me wearing an anti-pleasure-bag. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
edit: compared to gen pop | ||
|
Bourneq
Sweden800 Posts
| ||
| ||
