Duck and Cover

It was the coffee.... the coffee all along...

I never had anything against pot myself. I just get realy disgusted with smoking in general.

Personally, I not only think marijuana should be legalized, but High-Schools should advocate it's use, and have it readily available on campus. I do more work when I'm high because I'm too busy flyin' to bitch about having to do something.

Smoking is bad for you. Quit please.

jiujitsu wrote:Smoking is bad for you. Quit please.

Nothing goes with a fine Brandy better, than a nice cuban cigar.

As if you've tried either.

I too always thought weed was a bad thing, and told my friends that it was bad. pot is made to be a dangerous drug, like those fucking commercials where a kid gets high, and they hit an old guy while driving or something. That shits retarded. Why would an old guy be walking in the middle of the street anyway in the middle of the night? But then when I tried smoiking it for the first time it was awesome. Just the other weeek someone told me I shouldnt smoke weed becayuse it could kill me, and I just felt sorry for them. It seems like the media is brainwashing people into thinking pot is as bad as heroin and stuff. This shit is nuts.

Though pot will really fuck you up the fist time (your perception of time will be demolished the first time you smoke), I dont see it as dangerous as alcohol. I would rather drive stoned than drunk any fucking day. The only thing that sucks about pot is that your body will develop a tolerance to it.


k thx bye

The first time I tried pot, nothing happened. I wasn't inhaling it right or something. Meanwhile, my friend got totally baked off the same joint. I thought there was something wrong with me.

The first time I smoked, was with 3 friends in a hot tub room think outside, we smoked 2 bowls, and it was madness. me and my friend were fooling around and I got jackied in the face and then I went after him. I was thinking "Im never going to smoke again" then the next night I got high as fuck too. I remember the first time, I would say something and not notice what I said, then remember saying it. It was an odd feeling. Then I went and watched this video : http://www.nata2.info/humor/flash/flashback.swf


I reccomend that video to anyone who is fucked up.

Subhuman wrote:As if you've tried either.

Funny, as I doubt YOU have tried either.
You couldn't handle inhaling a cigar that isn't pink, let alone drinking scotch/brandy straight.

mowgleh wrote:It seems like the media is brainwashing people into thinking pot is as bad as heroin and stuff. This shit is nuts.

Sounds like someone's been indulging in some counter brain washing . . .

I really can't be stuffed doing the seeking for you, but yes, there is concrete evidence that confirms marijuana can, and does, cause schizophrenia in certain predisposed individuals. Shockingly, they are not a minority. Further, it can kill. As the predisposition is to my knowledge effectively invisible, this means marijuana is as potentially dangerous and catastrophic as heroin, cocaine, magic mushrooms or any other such substance.

In doubt, O sceptic ? With patience and search engines of your choice, you can see.

Subhuman wrote:The first time I tried pot, nothing happened. I wasn't inhaling it right or something. Meanwhile, my friend got totally baked off the same joint. I thought there was something wrong with me.

Thus began the downward spiral to homosexuality and realy bad techno. It was inevitable. If only you two'd be doing cocaine this wouldn't be happening.

mowgleh wrote: I was thinking "Im never going to smoke again" then the next night I got high as fuck too.

You too? I told people I'm never going to touch it ever again, that it was just to see what happens, AND LOOK AT ME NOW MA! Growing.

Blargh wrote: there is concrete evidence that confirms marijuana can, and does, cause schizophrenia in certain predisposed individuals.

This is true.

Shockingly, they are not a minority.

This is new to me. Can you back that up?

Further, it can kill. As the predisposition is to my knowledge effectively invisible

I must confess I haven't the slightest idea what that sentence means. I'm taking a shot in the dark here : Are you saying that due to the fact that we're not quite fully knowledgable on it you can't over rule that it can be hazardous?

No, what he means is that since you can't predict on who(m?) pot might have dire effects and it's an (alleged) majority that could be afflicted, smoking up is not a safe bet.

Myself, I don't smoke, but it's more a lifestyle thing. Many of my friends do smoke and, well, they're all more or less doomed academically. Those friends of mine who do fine at school either never smoked in the first place, smoke very rarely if at all or chose to stop altogether so they could get on with important matters in life. I know school isn't necessarily the important thing in life for everyone, but is for me, so I'm not interested in drugs. You can say that weed isn't messing you up and all but... fuck you. The evidence that pot = bad is there in half the people I know who are my age. One of my friends is going to have to take at least an extra semester in college before he can go on to university, assuming he doesn't get kicked out of school altogether because he's already on academic probation. Another has already been kicked out of his own school for slacking off all the time. A third is a theater student, for chrissake. From what I've seen firsthand, smoking up just doesn't help things.

the guardian wrote:This is new to me. Can you back that up?

A significant stratum of the population have variable (often genetic) susceptibility towards mental illness, some minor, some catastrophic. It is not excessively uncommon, and some individuals remain perfectly healthy. If anything, the trend appears to be increasing. Google et al has what you are looking for, I hope you will forgive me for lacking the motivation to search for and post it here myself.

the guardian wrote:I must confess I haven't the slightest idea what that sentence means. I'm taking a shot in the dark here : Are you saying that due to the fact that we're not quite fully knowledgable on it you can't over rule that it can be hazardous?

I admit the sentence may have been (probably was) poorly constructed. Reiterating - the proclivity towards substance triggered psychosis is not (yet) detectable. From my reading, while scientists do know that familial history of mental illness is a sign that descendents may be at risk of drug instigated mental disorder(s), they are uncertain of how specific a sign it may be/is, or just how much it can inform one of (i.e 'If I smoke five joints I'm alright, six and I'm utterly fucked').

Assuming these hypotheses and studies are accurate, marijuana (and likely other substances too) is a minefield. Draw your own conclusions.

Blargh wrote: A significant stratum of the population have variable (often genetic) susceptibility towards mental illness, some minor, some catastrophic. It is not excessively uncommon, and some individuals remain perfectly healthy. If anything, the trend appears to be increasing. Google et al has what you are looking for, I hope you will forgive me for lacking the motivation to search for and post it here myself.

I'm equally lazy, actually, due to the fact that I've read about the chances of smoking pot leading to an outbreak of schizophrenia and other mental diseases, but only in a small minority of cases. The thing is, maybe my source is biased, and equally, maybe YOUR source is biased... it's why I wanted to see where you drew your information, how controlled the study was, and was it just a one case scenario or was the statement backed several times.

I admit the sentence may have been (probably was) poorly constructed. Reiterating - the proclivity towards substance triggered psychosis is not (yet) detectable. From my reading, while scientists do know that familial history of mental illness is a sign that descendents may be at risk of drug instigated mental disorder(s), they are uncertain of how specific a sign it may be/is, or just how much it can inform one of (i.e 'If I smoke five joints I'm alright, six and I'm utterly fucked').

Assuming these hypotheses and studies are accurate, marijuana (and likely other substances too) is a minefield. Draw your own conclusions.

You realize that the same thing can equally be said about alcohol as well? And the research is a lot more through.

Still, if you claim this is a reality, all I can do is sigh in relief that I haven't woken up thinking I'm surrounded by monks who can see what I'm thinking and tell me to kill. Again, I mean. Gosh, this schizophrenia business sounds so much fun.

I made brownies with 1/2 ounce of high grade Canadian hydro on Friday. I proceeded to eat three and died. It was undoubtedly the greatest experience of my life, and my perception of time was beyond fucked up.

Supposedly smoking pot also contributes to psychosis later in life for some individuals, also. And, as for schizophrenia, I'm already a total schizo anyway, so no harm done?

Pot smoking has probably had bad effects on me as I've noticed myself becoming progressively lazier and lazier. But, I mean, who cares really? Plus I can go on cool drug-induced rants and stuff, and people now regard me as some crazy hippie or something. Like I said - no harm done.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-pot.html

All I need to stay.

the guardian wrote:I'm equally lazy, actually,

*laughs*

I can respect that.

the guardian wrote:The thing is, maybe my source is biased, and equally, maybe YOUR source is biased...

I try to vary my sources, but it is certainly possible.

the guardian wrote:it's why I wanted to see where you drew your information, how controlled the study was, and was it just a one case scenario or was the statement backed several times.

It's there, research projects, studies, surveys, clinical observation et al. Some potentially valid, some potentially bollocks. I . . . just can't be stuffed wrestling with the Internet any more than is absolutely necessary. If it were a recent uni topic, you would be looking at a different shade of luck.

the guardian wrote:You realize that the same thing can equally be said about alcohol as well? And the research is a lot more through.

That's one reason why I don't drink.

Yes, it can be said of alcohol. Yes, at this time the research on booze is generally more accessible, plentiful and thorough. That's changing, however.

the guardian wrote:Gosh, this schizophrenia business sounds so much fun.

Sarcasm aside, it's not. Waking at some awful, unmentionable hour to find a long dead relative talking to you with four different voices (not their own) might be seen as amusing or useful by some, actually, 'tis fucking awful. Once you detach yourself from the resurgence of grief, it becomes little more than a reminder of your own damage and pain. But one example. It doesn't exactly help that I consider the mental health sector, their diagnoses and usual 'treatments' inept, invalid and barbaric in that order.

Option A - grin and persevere with dead relatives and other fun things at any and all times.
Option B - Lose yourself to mind warping, mind destroying chemicals, shock treatment and the irritating, banal, gormless doctors.

Some choice, eh ?

kekeke

Blargh wrote: It's there, research projects, studies, surveys, clinical observation et al. Some potentially valid, some potentially bollocks. I . . . just can't be stuffed wrestling with the Internet any more than is absolutely necessary. If it were a recent uni topic, you would be looking at a different shade of luck.

I suppose I can relate.Then I'll take your word for it, and continue to beat the odds on the path to insanity. He's looking at you, kid.

That's one reason why I don't drink.

Is swimming in the sea of irony, strapped to a rock

And yet I'm curious. What's your escape, then? I don't mean to generalized, but everyone seem to find some sort of an easy escape from reality, this way or another, and a shot of whiskey works faster than a good book.

Sarcasm aside

Take my ovaries, why don't you.

it's not. Waking at some awful, unmentionable hour to find a long dead relative talking to you with four different voices (not their own) might be seen as amusing or useful by some, actually, 'tis fucking awful. Once you detach yourself from the resurgence of grief, it becomes little more than a reminder of your own damage and pain.

I realize it must be a serious pain, but I can't help but find humor in the disease. But, 'tis true, it's not a walk in the park. Still, some manage to live with it, even without medical treatment, by simply ignoring the hallucinations, voices, and so on. I'd still appreciate the innovation, you know? No day is boring, and I don't even need things and people to occupy my time... I'm a one-man-pandemonium seesaw, living on the edge that's in my mind. I'm sure that after a while I'll be begging for peace, but I suppose it's better than being at ease and begging for the disorder.

It doesn't exactly help that I consider the mental health sector, their diagnoses and usual 'treatments' inept, invalid and barbaric in that order.

That's a very general statement. Still, I accapt it as valid, but you have to agree that while there's plenty of mishaps, there are equally cases where assistance has improved the person's state. But I'm not speaking from experiance or from knowledge, so fuck me.

Option B - Lose yourself to mind warping, mind destroying chemicals, shock treatment and the irritating, banal, gormless doctors.

Most of us already lose ourselves to mind warping chemicals without disease treatment having anything to do with that (unless you include mild social anxiety in your list of problems ), watch TV(ye god, bring me back those brain cells from watching lame comedy shows... and look what it did to poor Subhuman), and licked batteries(and I'm rather sure they don't use shock treatment anymore... at least, not that often).
[/quote]

Some choice, eh ?

God wants you to have free will, after all. Well, he probably just wants a good laugh. He probably doesn't exist, too. Man I'm losing my arguement point here.

the guardian wrote:path to insanity.

What a fine path it is too.

the guardian wrote:He's looking at you, kid.

Really . . . Good thing I have a sharp stick on hand.

the guardian wrote:Is swimming in the sea of irony, strapped to a rock

It certainly is ironic, I don't even like swimming . . .

the guardian wrote:What's your escape, then?

Depraved, anonymous, excessively kinky group sex of course. Well, it was. Before things went pear shaped. No, my mind is my escape. It is after all easier to change your mind than your world. One reason why I prefer not to compromise it with anti-depressants, anti-psychotics or in this instance, alcohol.

the guardian wrote:I don't mean to generalized, but everyone seem to find some sort of an easy escape from reality, this way or another, and a shot of whiskey works faster than a good book.

You definitely have a point, exits are somewhat necessary for emotional and psychological health. Drinking isn't for me, aside from things like health risks and damage, the effects I experience aren't especially pleasant.

the guardian wrote:I can't help but find humor in the disease.

I hope to do so one day. Until then it will be a constant reminder of what was.

the guardian wrote:Still, some manage to live with it, even without medical treatment, by simply ignoring the hallucinations, voices, and so on.

That's fairly general, TG, but yes, many people manage without medical treatment. Then you just have to deal with the stigma.

the guardian wrote:I'd still appreciate the innovation, you know? No day is boring, and I don't even need things and people to occupy my time... I'm a one-man-pandemonium seesaw, living on the edge that's in my mind. I'm sure that after a while I'll be begging for peace, but I suppose it's better than being at ease and begging for the disorder.

Holy shite, you've converted me. Aside from the (in my opinion) rather artistic composition, 'tis certainly a interesting and fresh insight. Dealing with the disturbing mind fuckery takes the edge off of one's ability to see, and more importantly appreciate such things. So I find it, at least.

the guardian wrote:That's a very general statement.

Yes, it is, and while I have my reasons to be bitter, jaded and prejudiced, I acknowledge there are many good people in the sector, many of whom do good work and help a lot of people. Now I'd like to know where they are, as my experiences have been somewhat skewed.

the guardian wrote:Most of us already lose ourselves to mind warping chemicals without disease treatment having anything to do with that

Point(s) again, I simply resent the blithe judgement that one's mind is 'wrong', or 'ill', that you are a threat to yourself and/or others because so called experts 'see things' and 'understand what you're going through'. All these meaningless platitudes disguise the reality that as a mind in itself is unique, how can one know our knowledge of their workings will apply in every aspect without fault ? I do not believe you can standardise sentience, or average people. An entity that indulges self examination infrequently or not at all is a dangerous one, doubly so when some of the most vulnerable, marginalised members of society end up depending upon it.

the guardian wrote:(and I'm rather sure they don't use shock treatment anymore... at least, not that often).

Correct, not that often. And at least they do knock you out beforehand.

the guardian wrote:God wants you to have free will, after all.

Yes, from what I've read. The doctors tend to disagree, however.

the guardian wrote:Well, he probably just wants a good laugh.

I imagine he is well served in that area.

the guardian wrote:Man I'm losing my arguement point here.

*laughs*

I find that happens to me all too often, and not just arguments either. Fucking scary.