The drugs thread

whadabouchasir

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I would note that presumably the fact that they affect the CNS is what makes them a "high", and therefore to call them a similar high requires some other similarity.

"High" is really just a made up definition for a state of mind when one is on illegal drugs.It's not a classification for a substance at all.Heroin for example isn't classified as a high,it's a synthetic opiod.Also just because a drug affects the CNS,this does not mean that it has any sort of the same effects as an illegal recreational drug or that it causes a "high",e.g levodopa used to treat parkinsons.

Drugs that have the same targets however produce the same,or simlar effects e.g amphetamines and cocaine are both dopamine reuptake inhibitors and so produce similar effects.
So basically the effects that a drug has on the body depends on the target of that drug,among other things.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Oh, for a world of only maths students. *sigh* :P

Nah,Med students ftw:cool:

Smoking_Gun

whadabouchasir wrote: »

"High" is really just a made up definition for a state of mind when one is on illegal drugs.It's not a classification for a substance at all.Heroin for example isn't classified as a high,it's a synthetic opiod.Also just because a drug affects the CNS,this does not mean that it has any sort of the same effects as an illegal recreational drug or that it causes a "high",e.g levodopa used to treat parkinsons.

Drugs that have the same targets however produce the same,or simlar effects e.g amphetamines and cocaine are both dopamine reuptake inhibitors and so produce similar effects.
So basically the effects that a drug has on the body depends on the target of that drug,among other things.

Nah,Med students ftw:cool:

I understand almost none of that, but I just wanted to intercede with one point. Surely people refer to "getting high" when they take heroin? And if they do, surely that's the usage that fits this situation, as opposed to the technical meaning of the term?

Piste

I think your interpretation of the word "high" is slightly different to the popular use of the term as applied to drugs. As whatabouchasir pointed out, different drugs have different effect, for example a CNS depressent like Alcohol doesn't give a "high", it's more relaxed than that. The word to describe the effects of all drugs is just "intoxication". Some drugs can give an initial high and then a relaxed state, like cannabis (there's a difference between being high and being baked like a Dela Smith sponge) and heroin (initial euphoric "rush" and then a feeling of intense calm). While "high" is more used to refer to the euphoric aspects of intoxication, the highs elicited by different drugs can be very varied in their effects i.e. the high from E is not the same as the high from weed.

whadabouchasir

Smoking_Gun wrote: »

Surely people refer to "getting high" when they take heroin? And if they do, surely that's the usage that fits this situation, as opposed to the technical meaning of the term?

If we take "high" to mean an altered mental state then yes heroin does make you high.But if we take "high" to mean increased stimulation and alertness then Heroin does not make you high since it is a depressant.It can cause drowsiness as well as decreasing the breathing rate and causing muscular weakness.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I'd never refer to the effects of smoking weed as 'being high' because its not really a high when compared to other drugs.

Carl Sagan

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I'd never refer to the effects of smoking weed as 'being high' because its not really a high when compared to other drugs.

Being stoned is quite different from being high. In Amsterdam I pretty much exclusively smoked strains that got me high. In Ireland we seem to just have **** quality Indica strains that mostly cause that kind of lazy stoned feeling.

Just wondering if there's anything comparable to a hangover with other drugs? I know there is when a user is dependent on them, but have any people gotten something like that after doing them once off or every now and then?

I've recently taken a close personal interest in hangovers.

Pygmalion

Deleted User wrote: »

Just wondering if there's anything comparable to a hangover with other drugs? I know there is when a user is dependent on them, but have any people gotten something like that after doing them once off or every now and then?

I've recently taken a close personal interest in hangovers.

I've heard after the first couple of time you take Ecstasy you start getting horrible "hangovers", much worse than with alcohol.

Never done any though, so I wouldn't know.

sock puppet

Deleted User wrote: »

Just wondering if there's anything comparable to a hangover with other drugs? I know there is when a user is dependent on them, but have any people gotten something like that after doing them once off or every now and then?

I've recently taken a close personal interest in hangovers.

Comedowns are far, far worse than hangovers where pills/coke are concerned. You feel like absolute crap the next day if you overdo it. Depends on the drug. Some wouldn't really have any negative after-effects like weed or acid.

Pigwidgeon

Yeah several friends of mine have said the comedown or "scagging" is a hell of a lot worse than a hangover.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

You dont really get a skag the first time you take yokes but you will not be able to sleep. No matter how tired you feel you wont sleep for at least 24 hours after taking ecstasy.

Davidius

Deleted User wrote: »

That's debatable. When I try a new food I do not assume it to be unappealing, otherwise I would not try it. I think the point here is that, perhaps due to their illegality, illegal drugs may seem unappealing at first, due to prior reputation of being unappealing, in which case the rest of the argument still works as before.

I might be missing the difference between something being not appealing and unappealing. Something being appealing means that it shows some sort of attractive or interesting quality. In the case of the food I would assume the quality of unknown taste makes you curious about/interested in the food hence you probably find eating it at least a little bit appealing, you probably wouldn't eat it otherwise.

I don't see what's wrong with assuming something doesn't have those qualities until you observe otherwise.

amacachi

Pygmalion wrote: »

I've heard after the first couple of time you take Ecstasy you start getting horrible "hangovers", much worse than with alcohol.

Never done any though, so I wouldn't know.

I've heard that someone took it loads of times and never had a real scag off it.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

You dont really get a skag the first time you take yokes but you will not be able to sleep. No matter how tired you feel you wont sleep for at least 24 hours after taking ecstasy.

I've also heard that some people don't get the energetic/insomnia.

Ecstacy is very different for a lot of people, it's important not to generalise IMO.

whop

Used to be a big fan of headshops. It was an awful shame to see them go, despite the obvious selling of untested chemicals which were obviously for human consumption. I enjoyed them nevertheless.

Is anyone up to date on the intricacies of the ban? I remember reading the update of the misuse of drugs act and it was a bit too organic chemistry-ish for my understanding.

Davidius

Davidius wrote: »

I might be missing the difference between something being not appealing and unappealing. Something being appealing means that it shows some sort of attractive or interesting quality. In the case of the food I would assume the quality of unknown taste makes you curious about/interested in the food hence you probably find eating it at least a little bit appealing, you probably wouldn't eat it otherwise.

I don't see what's wrong with assuming something doesn't have those qualities until you observe otherwise.

I thought of unappealing as being something that you regard as having some sort of repellent quality. We were talking about different things, it seems.