Leave a comment

jealous_pirate April 22 2006, 12:46:06 UTC
Man, speaking of chameleons I was on the bus the other week and a guy actually had a chameleon with him on the bus. He was just there, standing in the aisle, with a chameleon crawling all over his arm/head.

You'd think some people might be grossed out, but it was actually pretty cool. He was the most popular guy on ths bus. Everyone was talking to him and askimg him questions about his Chameleon.

I think I should get a chameleon.

Marijuana & Alcohol = as long as you're not a chronic abuser, do literally no damage to your brain.

Reply

rykirk April 22 2006, 12:57:14 UTC
lawl he said chronic.

But tbh yarlly, so Hans stop being a pussy.

Reply

sir_hanzolot April 22 2006, 14:39:17 UTC
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

tbh, I don't even know where you're getting the pussy part from. Srsly. Just pointing out how stupid our drug laws currently are.

BUT COOL.

Reply

rykirk April 22 2006, 14:47:50 UTC
Mebbe the part where a random person writing alcohol and nicotine should be considered hard drugs followed by a big old 'CITATION NEEDED' on wikipedia changed into "Based on the current definition of a "hard drug", the only thing keeping both tobacco (nicotine) and alcohol from being a "hard drug" is the fact they're currently legal."

SOURCES PLZ>

Reply

sir_hanzolot April 22 2006, 15:23:04 UTC
You don't need sources for a definition ( ... )

Reply

rykirk April 22 2006, 15:31:41 UTC
Yarly, I realize that the drug laws are stupid. "Everyone knows that marijuana is just for darkies." We definitely need to legalize and start controlling things. But I think going so far as to call nicotine or alcohol a hard drug is a bit extreme ( ... )

Reply

sir_hanzolot April 22 2006, 15:52:09 UTC
I think I see food addiction in the same way you see nicotine addiction. We're pretty much predisposed to a food addiction, as it's sort of necessary to live. Nicotine's slightly different, as use of it starts a NEW addiction, which definitely isn't beneficial in any way to our survival ( ... )

Reply

rykirk April 22 2006, 19:45:18 UTC
tbh doesn't eating also stimulate pleasure centres in the brain?

Anyways, we're preprogrammed for nicotine too. It's the same sort of principal. We have those receptors in our brain already, we just start stimulating them more then we need to, then eventually it's like oh snap we need more. Over eating is similar, we need to eat, but then we start eating when we don't need to, all of a sudden our set point is higher then it should be and people feel the need to eat more.

Reply

sir_hanzolot April 22 2006, 22:15:35 UTC
Yes, it does, that's what dopamine was designed for in the first place. Telling us when things are good for us, aka food/sex (keep having offspring). It's just that drugs of abuse, well, abuse dopamine.

And, I don't know if eating works or not in the way you're talking about... I know it takes 7 minutes or something before your stomach realizes there's food in it, and stops making you feel hungry. So, if you give someone a huge plate of food, they could eat pretty much anything they wanted in that 7 minutes... but that just has to do with bigger portions, not the fact we eat more than we need to.

Aka, you're still going to get full from the same amount, it doesn't increase depending on how much you ate last time. That's how I thought it worked, anyway. I may be wrong.

Reply

rykirk April 23 2006, 03:28:08 UTC
Not sure of the accuracy, but according to our psych book and psych prof. the human body has a set point which is your average weight that the body attempts to maintain. It's why say if you ate a few extra ounces more then you needed each day your body doesn't gain dozens of pounds over time unless there's also a major change in lifestyle. Think about how much your food intake varies and how similar most people's weight stays. It's because your body purposely limits or expends energy to maintain that set point. Apparently though once you start overeating and you get obese your set point rises, hence why it's such a battle for people to drop weight. They need to hold it off until their homeostasis or set point switches back to a normal weight ( ... )

Reply

conniejean April 22 2006, 23:20:58 UTC
Interesting though not terribly relevant tidbit:
Did you know that prohibition included only 'hard' alcohol? Wine and beer didn't count.

Reply

sir_hanzolot April 22 2006, 23:25:54 UTC
Interesting. No, I didn't know that. I'd only seen the videos of them dumping all of the liquor onto the ground/into the water, I didn't know they made some sort of distinction between the two...

Thanks.

Reply

rykirk April 23 2006, 03:24:09 UTC
Definitely didn't know that.... kind of interesting though that people would get so worked up if they still had beer and wine. I guess everyone loves their rum though.

Reply

conniejean April 23 2006, 12:45:08 UTC
I think it had to do with the temperance movement. See, a big part of the movement was this idea that all these drunkard fathers were going off and spending money that should've been spend on food/clothing for their kids on liquor, then coming home and abusing their families in one way or another. Hard liquor was a lot more expensive than beer and wine.

Reply

sir_hanzolot April 22 2006, 14:36:03 UTC
tbh, very few drugs do long term damage... pretty sure ecstasy and acid are the only two that do (after using only once)

Reply

trickynickie April 22 2006, 14:43:44 UTC
Crystal Meththththhhhh? oui?

Reply


Leave a comment

Up