Some Can Use Of Substances And Retain A
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» beercrack a répondu le Sun 30 Oct, 2005 @ 10:14am |
this nbeeds obvious corrections but i post it as i wrote it cuz its kind of retarded
2005-10-30 01:05:07 - some can use of substances and retain a level of helath [ Edit ] drimking alcohol and taking drugs because of the load on your systems is much tend to make one hungry and according to on'e diet this can cause pathology especially seen in those not following a healthy regimen as evidenced in the fact that some can use of substances and retain a level of helath for example rich peopel having access to a richer variety of food sources as opposed to itinerants eating the processed low-cost low-health food available - more bad food makes more bad health not necessarily drugs or alcohol but the total view of diet and substance use and another determinant in health of the mental variety can be expressed in the preference of drug type for example psychedelic versus narcotic - illiterate itinerants prefering narcotics (eg. narcosis - death) - and culturally accepted intelligentsia prefering mind exxpanding drugs - in all evidence it is primary to have an excellent diet intake and guided consumption habits and most importanly meaningful relationships with one'S human family genus and proper for a deeper understand in how to creative a healthy balance in one's persoanl culture holistically speaking |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» madforbrad a répondu le Sun 30 Oct, 2005 @ 2:38pm |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Morphine a répondu le Mon 31 Oct, 2005 @ 10:28am |
fuckin hell........do us all a a favour and correct it before you post it next time. punctuation and grammar go a long way |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» beercrack a répondu le Mon 31 Oct, 2005 @ 9:32pm |
it'S actually meant to be a run on sentence
i wrote it while stoned so that's why it's retarded today i support the temperance movement |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» PitaGore a répondu le Thu 3 Nov, 2005 @ 10:10am |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer a répondu le Mon 7 Nov, 2005 @ 5:56am |
I think it's just that no one understands what he wrote.
"illiterate itinerants prefering narcotics (eg. narcosis - death) - and culturally accepted intelligentsia prefering mind exxpanding drugs " makes no sense.. cause all drugs are narcotics. Whatever he meant to say I probably don't agree though. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» trashandsuicide a répondu le Mon 7 Nov, 2005 @ 6:29am |
I think its TITS trying to be clever, see... when he was high he wrote this big long thing about how drugs aren't as bad as everyone says they are and then he spewed out a bunch of crap in what he thought was an iron-clad pro-drug argument. The next day however, he re-read it and realized he was an idiot and what he wrote made no sense. So, his "pro-drug" argument became "anti-drug" because the authour is clearly under the influence and not making sense. Am I right? |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» beercrack a répondu le Mon 7 Nov, 2005 @ 10:33am |
plus ou moin. not really trying to be pro-drug but it came out that way 'cuz i was high u know. yeah. haha. btw joints with salvia is MESSED UP. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» flo a répondu le Mon 7 Nov, 2005 @ 12:48pm |
Originally posted by MOONDANCER...
I think it's just that no one understands what he wrote. "illiterate itinerants prefering narcotics (eg. narcosis - death) - and culturally accepted intelligentsia prefering mind exxpanding drugs " makes no sense.. cause all drugs are narcotics. Whatever he meant to say I probably don't agree though. narcotics are drugs that provoke sleepy and soothed behaviour, whereas mind expanding drugs most often boost and energize. that's the same kind of difference that the one between 'indica' and 'sativa' cannabis. and i mostly agree with the quoted sentence. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Dark_Angel_2 a répondu le Mon 7 Nov, 2005 @ 2:33pm |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» flo a répondu le Mon 7 Nov, 2005 @ 4:16pm |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Dark_Angel_2 a répondu le Mon 7 Nov, 2005 @ 7:13pm |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» trashandsuicide a répondu le Mon 7 Nov, 2005 @ 11:47pm |
Originally posted by FLO...
Originally posted by moondancer...
I think it's just that no one understands what he wrote. "illiterate itinerants prefering narcotics (eg. narcosis - death) - and culturally accepted intelligentsia prefering mind exxpanding drugs " makes no sense.. cause all drugs are narcotics. Whatever he meant to say I probably don't agree though. nar·cot·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (när-ktk) n. An addictive drug, such as opium, that reduces pain, alters mood and behavior, and usually induces sleep or stupor. Natural and synthetic narcotics are used in medicine to control pain. A soothing, numbing agent or thing: “There was the blessed narcotic of bridge, at the Colony or at the home of friends” (Louis Auchincloss). narcotics are drugs that provoke sleepy and soothed behaviour, whereas mind expanding drugs most often boost and energize. that's the same kind of difference that the one between 'indica' and 'sativa' cannabis. and i mostly agree with the quoted sentence. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer a répondu le Tue 8 Nov, 2005 @ 12:06am |
well not quite, we have stimulant and depressant for that purpose.
That definition is the legal definition of narcotic; pharmacologically, narcotics are the class of drugs that have a depressive effect on the central nervous system. (Not marijuana for instance) Most are opioids such as heroin or morphine and make you sleepy, hence the root narco- as in narcolepsy. Cocaine, however, is for some reason classed pharmacologically as a narcotic, though I'm pretty sure its the only one that's more of an 'up' than a 'down'... |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer a répondu le Tue 8 Nov, 2005 @ 12:09am |
so you see a depressant is not necessarily a narcotic and a stimulant can also be a narcotic. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» flo a répondu le Tue 8 Nov, 2005 @ 2:46am |
cocaine classed as a narcotic ?! just weird...
anyway we weren't using the same definition but i guess we agree now. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer a répondu le Tue 8 Nov, 2005 @ 3:27am |
it makes perfect sense actually. If narcotics are drugs that have a depressive effect on the central nervous system.. well maybe the numbing effect of coke is a consequence of that depression on the central nervous system. Which would mostly explain why pot isn't a narcotic. We can argue it works for some pain, but just by simply smoking it and getting high, we can tell it's not working in the same way. It doesn't quite numb like that. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer a répondu le Tue 8 Nov, 2005 @ 3:39am |
so affecting your central nervous system seems to implicate a drug that is capable of numbing your actual skin. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» trashandsuicide a répondu le Tue 8 Nov, 2005 @ 4:06am |
It also has to do with brainwaves and the firing of synapses and so on... when you're "high" on pot, your brain activity isn't slowed at all, its just not neccesarily making much sense, on coke, your brain functions on a much more simple, straight forward path, actually synapses being fired are less then when you'r high.
Suffice it to say "Narcotics" seems to have morphed in modern language to mean "substances that fuck you up and aren't booze"... at least, in police speak anyhopw. |
Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer a répondu le Tue 8 Nov, 2005 @ 4:12am |
Some Can Use Of Substances And Retain A
[ Haut de la page ] |
Poster Une Réponse |
Vous devez être connecté pour soumettre une réponse.
[ Haut de la page ] |