Disappointed in "Hallucinatory Substances" thread

KushClouds420

KushClouds420

New Member
photo.jpg
Check it out. This is the Lemon Kush my buddy grew his last bit of it. Quarter pound right here. He grows all his strains indoor. The mans a fucking genius, starts off as a couch lock ends like a sativa high crazy cerebal high
 
Guccizillaa

Guccizillaa

Well-Known Member
Smoking on that fire, smoking on that fire
puffing on that dro, puffing on that dro
KUSH weed gets me higher, KUSH weed gets me higher
and the diesel gets me blowed, and the diesel gets me blowed
 
Guccizillaa

Guccizillaa

Well-Known Member
KushClouds420 said:
View attachment 2560454
Check it out. This is the Lemon Kush my buddy grew his last bit of it. Quarter pound right here. He grows all his strains indoor. The mans a fucking genius, starts off as a couch lock ends like a sativa high crazy cerebal high
Click to expand...
i could go for some lemon kush right now. Im working with what smells like some type of mango strain right now. Not the best, but certainly not the worst ive smoked on.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Guccizillaa said:
Lol well atleast you called the person asking about sniffing paint a fucktard. Maybe I'm the only one on RIU who has a problem with most drugs other then weed. I'm sorry but anything made by man (other then beer and booze) thats intent is to fuck you up is meh in my book. Like i said earlier though im very to each is own, if someone wants to do that shit its all them, just figured It'd be an interesting toke n talk. Some people just felt like it needed to be an argument instead of a discussion.
Click to expand...

But this post is an argument in itself. Essentialy what you are saying is a sort of drug bigotry. "my drug is better than your drug". "anything made by man", as though this has any difference at all, there are plenty of natural drugs oh, like morphine that sit upon the knife edge between very good and very bad. In your vista of "good drugs" and "Bad, man made drugs" where do you place LSD? which is pretty much a man made substance. I simply can't understand the emotionalism that surrounds what one tends to find enjoyable. One man likes to screw another man and it becomes a big deal for a third man. One guy wants to smoke a weed and it becomes a huge deal for somebody who things you should be reading a bible - and then, that guy who wants to be left alone to smoke that weed deigns to judge others for what THEY smoke or ingest.


Might you be able to explain this to me?
 
Guccizillaa

Guccizillaa

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
But this post is an argument in itself. Essentialy what you are saying is a sort of drug bigotry. "my drug is better than your drug". "anything made by man", as though this has any difference at all, there are plenty of natural drugs oh, like morphine that sit upon the knife edge between very good and very bad. In your vista of "good drugs" and "Bad, man made drugs" where do you place LSD? which is pretty much a man made substance. I simply can't understand the emotionalism that surrounds what one tends to find enjoyable. One man likes to screw another man and it becomes a big deal for a third man. One guy wants to smoke a weed and it becomes a huge deal for somebody who things you should be reading a bible - and then, that guy who wants to be left alone to smoke that weed deigns to judge others for what THEY smoke or ingest.


Might you be able to explain this to me?
Click to expand...
The argument in this post ended a while ago, your late. We all got high and started being nice. Like cannabineer said drugs bring people together.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Guccizillaa said:
The argument in this post ended a while ago, your late. We all got high and started being nice. Like cannabineer said drugs bring people together.
Click to expand...

So I noticed as I read on. But I want to argue, I like arguments especially when at the heart of the arguement is a fundamental agreement that we are all brothers in altered states.

Of course I have my rave points - those being "natural" vs "unnatural". What IS natural is he question, if we are of this earth and by being of this earth are natural as well then anything we make must by that reasoning be natural as well.


There is this notion that if it comes from a plant it can't be that bad for you but we all know that many plants are natural and, quite bad - foxglove, belladona, opiates, salvia, camphor, tobacco, datura to name just a very few. As far as the totaly sythisized chemicals, we know that some are quite decent and have helped us live better and stronger lives. My doctor reminded me that the two most wonderful drugs mankind has ever sytnthisized are those that control high blood pressure and (arguably) those statins that reduce our production of cholesterol. He maintains that these two substances have helped millions of people live longer lives without the same level of fear that we all have about heart disease, emobolisms, premature organ failure and the like. No, they don't have a psychoactive componenet but they are totaly man made and offer us an improved and lengthened existence.

A while ago I thanked this particular community for enabling me to tell stories that I would never be able to recount to most of my friends who see their drug past as a dark time for themselves - they see it that way many times because they are taught to see them that way. I know parents who keep their drug use a secret from their teenage children -- creating this false front for them that the parents never ever did anything that would be considered unethical or immoral. I remind them that it is entirely possible that their very children are doing the exact same thing and that there must surely be a barrier between them and their children - their children forced to learn the pitfalls of drug use from scratch while their parents look on, hiding their pipes and their pills in places separate from where their children hide theirs.

Hence this site, a place where some of us can come and share their knowlege, attempt to keep others from harm, offer advice that is untainted by society's supposed conventions - and possibly help some others attain the enlightenment that can, sometimes, on occasion be bestowed upon the common drug user no matter what the drug.


Some drugs offer far less in the way of learning except for what not to do, sometimes folks learn the art of moderation, of self examination, of the formulation of their own moral codes - these things can hardly be called bad.

Speed is about as useless as inhalents when it comes to enlightenment but even they have a part to play. Dissasociatives can offer much to the user and yes, even the opioids can affirm one's supposed place in their own lives.

I don't see pot as a great teacher but it can be used as a fine coach if used with that in mind.

Alcohol is still a decent social lubricant and so long as it is surrounded by the proper ritual and limitations, it can be a decent - though far from precise inebriant.

And of course the hallucinogens are all over the map - giving pleasure and introspection on the one hand and offering false religion on the other.



Just my rant is all, you can take it, leave it or argue with it as you wish.
 
Guccizillaa

Guccizillaa

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
So I noticed as I read on. But I want to argue, I like arguments especially when at the heart of the arguement is a fundamental agreement that we are all brothers in altered states.

Of course I have my rave points - those being "natural" vs "unnatural". What IS natural is he question, if we are of this earth and by being of this earth are natural as well then anything we make must by that reasoning be natural as well.


There is this notion that if it comes from a plant it can't be that bad for you but we all know that many plants are natural and, quite bad - foxglove, belladona, opiates, salvia, camphor, tobacco, datura to name just a very few. As far as the totaly sythisized chemicals, we know that some are quite decent and have helped us live better and stronger lives. My doctor reminded me that the two most wonderful drugs mankind has ever sytnthisized are those that control high blood pressure and (arguably) those statins that reduce our production of cholesterol. He maintains that these two substances have helped millions of people live longer lives without the same level of fear that we all have about heart disease, emobolisms, premature organ failure and the like. No, they don't have a psychoactive componenet but they are totaly man made and offer us an improved and lengthened existence.

A while ago I thanked this particular community for enabling me to tell stories that I would never be able to recount to most of my friends who see their drug past as a dark time for themselves - they see it that way many times because they are taught to see them that way. I know parents who keep their drug use a secret from their teenage children -- creating this false front for them that the parents never ever did anything that would be considered unethical or immoral. I remind them that it is entirely possible that their very children are doing the exact same thing and that there must surely be a barrier between them and their children - their children forced to learn the pitfalls of drug use from scratch while their parents look on, hiding their pipes and their pills in places separate from where their children hide theirs.

Hence this site, a place where some of us can come and share their knowlege, attempt to keep others from harm, offer advice that is untainted by society's supposed conventions - and possibly help some others attain the enlightenment that can, sometimes, on occasion be bestowed upon the common drug user no matter what the drug.


Some drugs offer far less in the way of learning except for what not to do, sometimes folks learn the art of moderation, of self examination, of the formulation of their own moral codes - these things can hardly be called bad.

Speed is about as useless as inhalents when it comes to enlightenment but even they have a part to play. Dissasociatives can offer much to the user and yes, even the opioids can affirm one's supposed place in their own lives.

I don't see pot as a great teacher but it can be used as a fine coach if used with that in mind.

Alcohol is still a decent social lubricant and so long as it is surrounded by the proper ritual and limitations, it can be a decent - though far from precise inebriant.

And of course the hallucinogens are all over the map - giving pleasure and introspection on the one hand and offering false religion on the other.



Just my rant is all, you can take it, leave it or argue with it as you wish.
Click to expand...
not gonna lie i only scimmed all that because it was alot, but i got the jist of it. My whole thing was I PREFER not to put anything in my body that has to be chemically altered to get you high. Which covers all pills, coke, molly and various other things. My notion isn't that natural equals healthy, cuz as you said there are plants out there that if you eat em you'll die, but when it comes to something im using to alter my state of mind, i'd like man to keep mans scientific nose out of it. Like i said though other then beer and booze haha.
 
KushClouds420

KushClouds420

New Member
It's a small world Dude Wheres my bong.
What's up with the User name? Can you really not find your bong? If so that really sux dude.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Guccizillaa said:
not gonna lie i only scimmed all that because it was alot, but i got the jist of it. My whole thing was I PREFER not to put anything in my body that has to be chemically altered to get you high. Which covers all pills, coke, molly and various other things. My notion isn't that natural equals healthy, cuz as you said there are plants out there that if you eat em you'll die, but when it comes to something im using to alter my state of mind, i'd like man to keep mans scientific nose out of it. Like i said though other then beer and booze haha.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you never smoke wax or oil? you never drink anything but beer or wine, you can eat opium without a problem but pot is chemicaly altered by the act of heating it, either as vapor or as smoke. People get off on coke without it ever being extracted from the leaf. Molly? well I have to agree with you there, I think it is wholely synthetic.

but you have another situation. May fully synthetic chemicals happen to have endogenic analogs, that is that the chemical may be completely synthetic but the chemical has receptors throughout the body. If there is a receptor in the body, that means that the body creates the drug itself. If that is the case, then one could easily say that even the completely synthetic drugs are simply re-built or constructed to mimic something that the body itself manufactures "naturaly". This puts DMT, opiates, and even speed in an acceptable category.


I don't think that K or PCP or many of the RCs out today have direct chemical receptors so those would obviously be out but some of the others might not be.


We commonly eat fully synthetic vitamin C or D and those are often synthisized from petrolium - so are they natural? do they fit within your set of rules and guidelines? I am only asking because I often see people composing such rules without really understanding what the processes are to begin with.


for example - my wife and I are on a strict no GMO diet. This is tough to do but the very act of attempting to do this tends to have us lose weight. The problem comes when she refuses to let us eat sugar that is refined from sugar beets. Now sugar beets are GMO products but refined sugar is a set chemical, it makes no difference where that refined sugar, that chemical comes from it is still simply sugar and I can't seem to get that through her head - there is no GMO sugar, sugar is a chemical that, unless is is not completely refined, brings with it no other non-sugar substances. Now I am not so sure about oils - soy oil is a complex of different lipids and I suspect that those lipids may carry residuals from GMO processes but I am not sure.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Guccizillaa said:
not gonna lie i only scimmed all that because it was alot, but i got the jist of it. My whole thing was I PREFER not to put anything in my body that has to be chemically altered to get you high. Which covers all pills, coke, molly and various other things. My notion isn't that natural equals healthy, cuz as you said there are plants out there that if you eat em you'll die, but when it comes to something im using to alter my state of mind, i'd like man to keep mans scientific nose out of it. Like i said though other then beer and booze haha.
Click to expand...
If I might somewhat restate what i think canndo's pont to be: you're not saying natural = healthy, but you imply that natural = (morally) better. Just like canndo, I don't see that that can be rationally argued. As a subjective and personal article of faith, it's a different thing ... but then doesn't lend itself to declaration without the qualification "I believe" or "to me".
I share canndo's pleasure in a good debate. It's not personal. cn
 
Guccizillaa

Guccizillaa

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Ok, so you never smoke wax or oil? you never drink anything but beer or wine, you can eat opium without a problem but pot is chemicaly altered by the act of heating it, either as vapor or as smoke. People get off on coke without it ever being extracted from the leaf. Molly? well I have to agree with you there, I think it is wholely synthetic.

but you have another situation. May fully synthetic chemicals happen to have endogenic analogs, that is that the chemical may be completely synthetic but the chemical has receptors throughout the body. If there is a receptor in the body, that means that the body creates the drug itself. If that is the case, then one could easily say that even the completely synthetic drugs are simply re-built or constructed to mimic something that the body itself manufactures "naturaly". This puts DMT, opiates, and even speed in an acceptable category.


I don't think that K or PCP or many of the RCs out today have direct chemical receptors so those would obviously be out but some of the others might not be.


We commonly eat fully synthetic vitamin C or D and those are often synthisized from petrolium - so are they natural? do they fit within your set of rules and guidelines? I am only asking because I often see people composing such rules without really understanding what the processes are to begin with.


for example - my wife and I are on a strict no GMO diet. This is tough to do but the very act of attempting to do this tends to have us lose weight. The problem comes when she refuses to let us eat sugar that is refined from sugar beets. Now sugar beets are GMO products but refined sugar is a set chemical, it makes no difference where that refined sugar, that chemical comes from it is still simply sugar and I can't seem to get that through her head - there is no GMO sugar, sugar is a chemical that, unless is is not completely refined, brings with it no other non-sugar substances. Now I am not so sure about oils - soy oil is a complex of different lipids and I suspect that those lipids may carry residuals from GMO processes but I am not sure.
Click to expand...
man your going into vitamins lol. "anything used to alter my state of mind" i prefer to be natural, and prefer doesn't mean always, my exceptions to that rule are, oil dabs, and alcohol. I don't use vitamins to get high :P
 
Guccizillaa

Guccizillaa

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
If I might somewhat restate what i think canndo's pont to be: you're not saying natural = healthy, but you imply that natural = (morally) better. Just like canndo, I don't see that that can be rationally argued. As a subjective and personal article of faith, it's a different thing ... but then doesn't lend itself to declaration without the qualification "I believe" or "to me".
I share canndo's pleasure in a good debate. It's not personal. cn
Click to expand...
I love how you type, i hope you talk like that because you'd be an eligible candidate for president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top