Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
uziq
Member
+326|2175
you should microdose macb. way better for your health than marijuana and they are not ever going to test for it. i have a few friends, including a much overworked nurse/carer, who micro doses 5ug amounts of LSD a few times a week. apparently it just opens up your thinking, puts you in good spirits, makes you more thoughtful and receptive to conversation, etc. it sounds like it works as heavy daily regimes of SSRIs are supposed to work, tbh.

and if the tech geeks in silicon valley are doing it, leveraging the chemical to boost their KPIs, it can’t be too scary and counter-cultural.

never smoked a single solitary cigarette, here. nor weed for that matter. with tobacco the slight buzz and stress relief never seemed worth the catastrophic cons, even just the immediate ones like smelling awful and being a dirty sod. weed is the same, for me: just not worth the hassle of all the paraphernalia and constant ritual to feel mildly whacked out watching the simpsons and eating doritos.

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-03 13:52:01)

uziq
Member
+326|2175
ironically the 'top paper' in Australia today is talking about banning alcohol ... for aboriginals, of course. on the front page?
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation … 5f7db3c2e9

apparently murdoch's media cares more about the harms of alcohol than the bush fires!!!
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+383|2442

uziq wrote:

you should microdose macb. way better for your health than marijuana and they are not ever going to test for it. i have a few friends, including a much overworked nurse/carer, who micro doses 5ug amounts of LSD a few times a week. apparently it just opens up your thinking, puts you in good spirits, makes you more thoughtful and receptive to conversation, etc. it sounds like it works as heavy daily regimes of SSRIs are supposed to work, tbh.

and if the tech geeks in silicon valley are doing it, leveraging the chemical to boost their KPIs, it can’t be too scary and counter-cultural.

never smoked a single solitary cigarette, here. nor weed for that matter. with tobacco the slight buzz and stress relief never seemed worth the catastrophic cons, even just the immediate ones like smelling awful and being a dirty sod. weed is the same, for me: just not worth the hassle of all the paraphernalia and constant ritual to feel mildly whacked out watching the simpsons and eating doritos.
I did LSD back in 2013 or '14. It cured my depression but also made my eyesight weird ever since. I am on a handful of mental health medications which probably isn't surprising to anyone here. I don't touch cocaine, ecstasy, meth, or LSD because I don't want to fuck with my brain chemistry and become crazier. So I just smoke pot like a lot of other young teachers. I might take a oxycodone if someone handed it to me.

LSD was the best high I ever had though. You should try edible marijuana or vape marijuana.
uziq
Member
+326|2175
i would not take any drugs if you are on mental health medication. the drug interactions are manifold and really hard to predict.

marijuana has been directly tied to all sorts of schizoid and paranoiac illnesses. it really is not a safe drug to continue consuming when you are addressing your mental health. some people trigger episodes that last for life due to weed.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,702|4829|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

ironically the 'top paper' in Australia today is talking about banning alcohol ... for aboriginals, of course. on the front page?
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation … 5f7db3c2e9

apparently murdoch's media cares more about the harms of alcohol than the bush fires!!!
Many aboriginal areas have been dry on and off, if they can't get alcohol they inhale petrol so those areas have to be supplied with non-inhalable petrol, then they go on to glue and hairspray.
https://www.creativespirits.info/aborig … l-sniffing

There's not much helping them apparently.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-01-04 22:00:47)

Epstein didn't kill himself
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+383|2442

uziq wrote:

i would not take any drugs if you are on mental health medication. the drug interactions are manifold and really hard to predict.

marijuana has been directly tied to all sorts of schizoid and paranoiac illnesses. it really is not a safe drug to continue consuming when you are addressing your mental health. some people trigger episodes that last for life due to weed.
I don't smoke and take my medication at the same time. Same with alcohol.

My doctor's never flipped out when I told them I like to smoke pot occasionally. I have been ill since before I ever tried drugs after all.
uziq
Member
+326|2175
fair enough if you’ve mentioned it to your doc. it was the ‘other high school teachers do it’ line that had me scratching my head.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,702|4829|eXtreme to the maX
Beer strategy seems to be working, BP 120/75.
Epstein didn't kill himself
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,702|4829|eXtreme to the maX
Seems a pint of beer a day is fine, if anything it extends your life.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51036468
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+326|2175
which goes against the current scientific consensus and advice of the top public health official in the UK. you do understand how consensus works in the scientific community, right?

all of the large studies which point out alcohol’s harms explicitly say that the ‘low quantities can combat certain symptoms like blood pressure’ benefit is FAR outweighed by the long-term harm to your health. but keep conveniently ignoring that part.

so bizarre that an article whose entire thrust is that negative habits like drinking and smoking must be CONTROLLED, to under one drink a day, is interpreted by you as ‘extends your life’. reading with blinkers on much? why would the rhetoric on these drinks be one of limited intake, control, cutting down, if they were beneficial? don’t you think it’s the rest of the article’s content, about, y’know, leading a healthy lifestyle that is the important takeaway there? oh yeah, alcohol can possibly extend your life if you drink ‘no more than ...’, oh and also eat a healthy balanced diet, run for 30 minutes a day, never smoke, clean your room, kiss your loved ones to sleep etc every night. i’m sure drinking beers in itself is magically extending your life, dilbert.

https://i.imgur.com/m9f68hN.jpg

well lookie here at what i found on my morning commute! very interesting essay on mescaline in the latest LRB.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n01 … ble-cactus

Last edited by uziq (2020-01-09 01:23:18)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+383|2442
Why do you have a paper subscription? I used to have a paper sub of NYT before going just digital. The paper edition is mostly fluff, and ads.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,702|4829|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

which goes against the current scientific consensus and advice of the top public health official in the UK. you do understand how consensus works in the scientific community, right?
I understand how groupthink works, all you seem to have is Nutt's bogus research referenced over and over.

The US research is based on 111,000 people tracked for more than 20 years.
Lets go with that, not some loon who excludes any data which doesn't support his agenda.

This article clearly says low-level drinking is not harmful, sorry.

In fact it says thats not even a pre-requisite.

What is a healthy lifestyle?
At the age of 50, study participants were asked if they met at least four of these five criteria:

never smoking
a healthy, balanced diet
30 minutes of moderate or vigorous activity every day
a body mass index (BMI) between 18.5 and 24.9
no more alcohol than a small glass of wine a day for women and a pint of beer for men
So long as you meet the first four then you can drink over the limit, doesn't sound so terrible.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-01-09 04:09:50)

Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+326|2175
you have systematically ignored every source i give your that isn’t david nutt. including said top officer. seems you’re good at excluding all the rest of the evidence to suit your narrow views (how anti-semitism fits like a cognitive glove!)

meanwhile you’re still not really even engaging with the thrust of the article, which is that alcohol intake should be minimised to ensure long life. i wonder why???
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,702|4829|eXtreme to the maX
I can't read the LRB article, is it another one which says a drug can have therapeutic use and you take that to mean it should be used recreationally by teenagers?

What 'top officer'? You've referenced articles I can't read, thats not much use.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-01-09 04:07:27)

Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+326|2175

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Why do you have a paper subscription? I used to have a paper sub of NYT before going just digital. The paper edition is mostly fluff, and ads.
because the NYRB isn’t full of ads, and the ads it does have are actually germane to my interests, like job postings in relevant industries and university presses’ latest book catalogues.
uziq
Member
+326|2175

Dilbert_X wrote:

I can't read the LRB article, is it another one which says a drug can have therapeutic use and you take that to mean it should be used recreationally by teenagers?
no it’s a long history of mescaline and how it has intersected at various times in the 19th and 20th c with ‘sober’ society and pharmaceutical/scientific interests. interestingly it was instrumental in getting native american religion(s) recognised as a church and given statutory rights, which is an interesting historical footnote.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,702|4829|eXtreme to the maX
OK but so what?
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+326|2175
these things are moving into the mainstream. scientific research, new serious books, serious discussion and reviews in the most reputable places. your scared hysterical approach is out of date, old boy. too bad.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+383|2442

uziq wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Why do you have a paper subscription? I used to have a paper sub of NYT before going just digital. The paper edition is mostly fluff, and ads.
because the NYRB isn’t full of ads, and the ads it does have are actually germane to my interests, like job postings in relevant industries and university presses’ latest book catalogues.
None of that stuff is online?

One thing I really resented about print NYT is how the ads were focused towards very upper income people. Like ads for Porsche, Rolex watches, exotic trips, Broadway plays etc. I know that is their target demographic and all but the NYT also likes to call themselves "the paper of record" and seem like a U.S. cultural institution even though their cultural taste are that of wealthy people in Manhattan. A very small group even by NYC standards.

Half the paper would also just be reviews of things like obscure off Broadway plays, independent art house films, bizarre fashion trends, and insignificant authors. Like I said a lot of fluff.
uziq
Member
+326|2175
no classifieds and academic/trade adverts aren’t online.

i work with text all day on a computer screen. subscribing to print puts a lot more money in the pockets of good ventures that i want to support. more money for good writing and good writers’ fees. what exactly is the problem here?
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+383|2442
Reviews of one man/woman/??? transgender coming of age plays.
uziq
Member
+326|2175
not sure what you’re referring to.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+383|2442
The NYT loves to fill their cultural section with reviews of LGBT stuff and it is annoying.
uziq
Member
+326|2175
the new york review of books is not the NYT. i think you’re confused. completely separate office and editorial staff. they do not have the same masthead.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+383|2442
I know

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard