The Gaming Den

They won't tell you the secret ingredient, but worldwide purchasing of (secret ingredient) dropped by something like 50% when they switched to "new coke", then bounced back when they dropped "new coke" like a sack of bricks.

Figuring out what the secret ingredient actually was is left as an exercise to the reader.

Could you tell me what it is? I don't have enough internet time anymore to research anything.

I was addicted to painkillers after surgery last summer, mostly due to the chronic pain of a stab wound when not on them.
First it was something the doc gave, just some pills for a week or two, since common ones didn't do enough (I have that 'redhead gene' thing, MC1R, where it takes more than normal amount dosage to get a reduction in feeling) then I took up Ibuprofen after those ran out.
Then 2 months after surgery, when I realized that too much NSAID was killing my liver and other shit, backing off of them became hell.
In short, if you're on hardcore painkillers of any kind for a few days (morphine in the hospital, actually) you're going to have a damned hard of a time getting off of them.
Withdraw wasn't difficult due to any mental addiction or hearing voices or shaking violently or whatever happens with some other chemicals, but rather that the pain returns. Fast and hard.
And by the way I apologize for the wackiness last summer from altered mental states, for any of you bearing the brunt of some random and at times offensive rants....

Yep, nasty pain that actually doesn't exist. It's merely the impression of the previous pain recorded upon your neurons, with the volume turned all the way up because it had been depressed by the analgesic.

Narcotics, however, have even more nasty withdrawal effects, as they replace other neurotransmitters in your brain and then as your body copes without them creates havoc before the body (if ever) manages to remember how to make the ones that were replaced.

But none of that happens with the newest drugs made illegal.

-Crissa

And on the topic of the above, isn't it true that LSD can cause flash-back trips at any point down the line, completely randomly?

Not especially no.

-Username17

Koumei at [unixtime wrote:1201687585[/unixtime]]
(And on the topic of the above, isn't it true that LSD can cause flash-back trips at any point down the line, completely randomly? Or is all of the "It's like opening the bonnet to your mind and randomly bashing things with a hammer" talk scare-talk to get people to avoid it, merely making it sound cooler to a young and impressionable crowd?)

Well from what I hear people who have taken it alot do suffer problems down the line. I'm not sure of the nature, but they have a tendency to freak out and stuff. It really does screw with you.

RC, I've never heard of that.

You can go interview the creator of the drug (he's still alive) and most of the promoters. They aren't any more likely to die than anyone else their age.

There are new hallucinogens, and the way that our government bans things is not by effect but by chemical and physical form. So people make the newest ones that have been invented, or ship them under normal drug/dietary supplement rules until the police and anti-drug forces get a new law passed. Therefore, I'm not told the new drug, even if I've seen it. The chemists keep and track their names.

But I meant MDMA, which was the most recently classified 'illegal drug'. LSD is an okay example, as well.

LSD's long-term effects are greater creativity, memory, ability to remember dreams, and ability to remember or 'decode' things which have been seen while under the influence. People who already have seizures or psychotic episodes will have flashbacks, as so would those who have traumatic experiences while under the influence. LSD opens new neural pathways, loosening the brain and allowing greater learning at the same time as mixing up one's cognitive ability for a short period of time.

The ability to learn after taking LSD or a similar hallucinogen is increased. (Which is why the military was interested in it.) Some even have noted effects in boosting mathematical or spacial cognition over a period or time many times greater than the hallucinatory images.

-Crissa

PS: Anyhow, my wondering was why we made such an effort to make MDMA illegal, as an example. Peanut butter is probably more deadly to the general population than MDMA, so...

No, there's no studies involving THC and psychosis being induced. It's merely a weed (it grew in empty lots across the midwest) that grows a heck of alot better than tobacco and produces fibers better than wood. So of course it had to go.

Reaction time is slowed under the influence, but unlike alcohol, sense of time and confidence is also undermined. Compared to use, it's implicated in less auto accidents. (users tend to drive really slow.)

But I was more interested in the mechanics of making MDMA illegal. Why is it illegal and herbal stimulants aren't? It took longer to get ephedra banned.

-Crissa

The problem with marijuana is hemp. It's too damned useful. Just the other day, I learned that hemp fiber in paper doesn't degrade much when recycled, unlike wood pulp.

I'm hoping (though I doubt it will happen) that the economic and environmental value of hemp will eventually win out in the "war on drugs." The only things I find really annoying about marijuana are the smell and the drivers around here who go twenty under the limit while stoned.

In this case, we won't be talking about how to get illicit drugs, or hallucinogens, or whatever. Also, I personally advocate against the use of drugs for recreational reasons.

Still, the whole system of banning plants and substances is very haphazard. In most states, for instance, driving under the influence requires the police to determine what the driver had in their system at the time - not merely driving while otherwise unsafe to do so. Does that make any sense?

It also means that when laws are written - for instance, against huffing - that they're sometimes made strangely open. It's just as illegal to huff paint as it is to cut open a paint can to use in some sort of project.

And lastly, it means that most natural hallucinogens are not covered by any law, and are instead free and clear under the idea that most people don't know what toxins are in plants. With the loopholes in dietary supplements, that leads us to bad things - like ephedra - being openly available with no protections to the consumer.

It just all confuses me as to what we're actually trying to do.

-Crissa

PS: Even growing hemp, which does not necessarily contain THC - most fiber varieties have had it bred from them years ago - is subject to the same rules that blocks the plant that does produce THC.

At least concerning the US gov, entering the "Hemp Market" would be too late to profit from, given the prevalence of imports from South America.
It would be a loss of investments. And we all know how much corporate America loves that cash.
So, they ban it, knowing that hemp and marijuana will always remain an elusive target for taxation.
If you can't win the game, shut it down and jail the players, perhaps?

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1201827956[/unixtime]]
And lastly, it means that most natural hallucinogens are not covered by any law, and are instead free and clear under the idea that most people don't know what toxins are in plants.

Yeah, I know of a few. There's a mushroom called Amanita muscaria that you can find around here sometimes that's legal, and hallucinogenic.

The reason why it's legal is because it's very likely to make you seriously ill if you're not used to them.

Also, Salvia is legal, mostly because it's so unpleasant that very few people will enjoy it. (I know several people who have tried salvia, and they describe some pretty nightmarish trips.)

...I wasn't going to list the actual plants. Those are just the local ones, as opposed to what's available at various nurseries.

-Crissa

As a professional nurseryman I endorse the above message.

We grow at least three plants that seem to attract the wrong kind of crowd.

I could tell some stories.

God damn ethnobotanists.

Koumei wrote:Maj: Hemp is pretty useful for a lot of things not related to smoking it.

Isn't that what I said?

Koumei wrote:I understand why our admins get uneasy about talk of drugs and stuff. We sometimes make it seem as though we hate our governments, break laws as often as possible, and are planning a revolution.

The admin's job is to not only maintain the boards and keep order, but make sure every follows the rules set forth by our hosting company. One of those rules is that there is no discussion of illegal acts or promotion of illegal acts. The penalty for allowing such behavior on your messageboard is that your board is shut down.

The problem - especially with respect to drugs - is that the main office for the company that runs these boards is in the UK, the servers are in Canada, and the the techies that actually do the legwork on the boards are from the US. So figuring out what's illegal where and whether you can discuss it or not sometimes sucks major ass. I tried to get a clear answer from support on that point, but it never was well explained.

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1201742785[/unixtime]]No, there's no studies involving THC and psychosis being induced. It's merely a weed (it grew in empty lots across the midwest) that grows a heck of alot better than tobacco and produces fibers better than wood. So of course it had to go.

-Crissa

The BBC radio had a non quack on the other day (say 2 months ago?) with a fairly solid and recently completed study saying that smoking weed had adverse effects on your mental health, and they did appear to have controlled for other factors with some degree of reasonableness.

The quoted effects where depression and something else though, which I don;t think is psychosis. I was driving at the time so memory is hazy.

Basic googling fails to reveal the study though.

I for example, live in the Czech Republic. And smoking marijuana is completely legal here.

If I told people to smoke it, would I be encouraging people to break the law? What law? I have no idea. I don't know if anyone else does either.

---

As it happens, I don't specifically endorse pot smoking. I would rather that people smoked pot than cigarettes if for some reason that is the choice. But despite the fact that marijuana has some interesting effects as regards to cancer (smoking whole bud seems to have no cancer increasing tendency despite the facts that there are chemicals in the smoke which individually cause cancer); it still isn't actively good for you.

-Username17

Yes, depressants don't help depression. Reason #1 why I don't encourage regular consumption of alcohol, too.

Yes, taking inhalants, intoxicants, and stimulants can slowly degrade your brain chemistry as it will adapt to the presence of them.

So... Yeah. For the study to really be a valid comparison, you need to compare it to actions people already take.

Like I said, peanut butter wouldn't be allowed sale in the US if it had to pass testing now. Nevermind there are more people unable to eat milk products.

-Crissa

Frank wrote:If I told people to smoke it, would I be encouraging people to break the law? What law? I have no idea. I don't know if anyone else does either.

Yeah. In cases like that one, being an admin blows.

Frank wrote:(smoking whole bud seems to have no cancer increasing tendency despite the facts that there are chemicals in the smoke which individually cause cancer)

Interesting to note...

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1201997113[/unixtime]]
Like I said, peanut butter wouldn't be allowed sale in the US if it had to pass testing now. Nevermind there are more people unable to eat milk products.

Bull. I eat peanuts a lot. For people like me, it would be legal.. as long as we didn't eat it near allergic people.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but peanuts are not available on flights due to floating peanut dust from opening packages.

However, I am mildly lactose intolerant and allergic to wheat (drowsy, cramps from gut to butt, hayfever-like result)