not much of anyone
wrote in
news:youdnWIYBL2lxeHVnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com:
> fanghorn wrote:
>> not much of anyone
wrote in
>> news:aKqdnRRd4a6-dvrVnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d@comcast.com: >>>>*Which* drugs? How long before death? It matters. Acid can last
>>>>years along with lots of chemicals. Pot is *very* different that
>>>>way.
>>>>
>
> I've heard of flashbacks - they're about as realistic as smoking
> banana peels to get high.
>
Irrelevant.
> I've taken enough LSD in my lifetime that I should be in a constant
> "flashback" and yet I've never experienced one.
>
Compared to who? The Archbishop of Canterbury or Sid Barret? Sorry
*saying* I'm wrong based on one persons subjective memory about
themselves and about an established fact means nothing.
>
>> LSD can be stored in cells for *years*,
>
>
> No, it can't be.
>
Ooo, Another *stunning* argument. Wrong again.
>
>> whereas THCs are stored in fat
>> cells and generally 6 months is about it.
>>
>
> Not that either - certain metabolites of THC can be stored in fat
> cells for a period of time - 6 months is a long estimate, but not
> unheard of (although highly suspect).
>
According to *who*? You're reneging *my* statements. Provide proof or
get off the pot. This has been agreed by long time posters here. Such as
me.
>>
>>>Acid lasts from about 6-12 hours and then it's gone.
>>
>> Only the trip. And that's a *low* figure.
>
> Well, depending on how you define the "trip"....admittedly the best
> trip I ever had lasted about 12 hours (and it peaked and went away)
> but the next evening I was still in a very good mood. If you count
> being in a good mood as part of a "trip", you must really live a sad
> life.
>
Again *your* subjective experience means *nothing* compared to
statistical information *I've* read.
>>
>>>I'm an organ donor and I think everyone else should be too.
>>>
>> That's hardly the point. There are medical reasons. Aids, Hepatitus
>> along with a host of other diseases which are stored in bodily fluids
>> which you wouldn't want your mother to get from you, so why should an
>> organ recipient?
>
> Well, if there aren't tests to filter diseased organs out in a timely
> manner, then that is a real problem.
>
Aids can really only be tested for once it activates. Surely you know
that. The virus, phage or whatever you want to call it stays dormant for
years sometimes. The reasoning behind injection users not being allowed
is that their rate of infection of that and things like the hepatitus
versions is *way* higher than the general population and their numbers
are a *very* small segment of the population, so excluding them is
statistically reasonable and not limiting the supply in any appreciable
manner.
> I'm no expert in that area, but I do know that I don't have any
> communicable diseases such as HIV or hepatitis (something you cannot
> even spell)
So I didn't spellcheck all my post. Geez, is that the *best* you can
come up with?
> and if I had a choice of dying from liver failure or
> taking a chance on a liver transplant, I'd take the chance - after
> all, MOST people do not have such diseases. That's not to say they
> are not a problem, but people with such diseases are a small part of
> the population.
>
*You* don't *get* that choice, except maybe in place like China where
you're more likely to die before you get out of the operating theatre.
The reason you don't is that you're not qualified to judge the risks,
and you don't know the medical guidelines/regulations.
>> Injection drug users have *way* higher infection rates
>> of these type of diseases than any other group.
>
> So? (checking newsgroup - yeah, this is still alt.drugs.pot.....how
> many people have you ever heard of who inject cannabis?)
>
Come on, you can't actually *believe* that's what I meant. The reasoning
is - short of any actual studies being done in an area the US govt. has
no will to do right now - that they are more likely to do both. Not an
unreasonable supposition without the aforementioned studies to find the
actual numbers.
>>
>>>Granted it's a choice, but just what are you planning for your organs
>>>after you die?
>>
>> Not your business even if you were my family doctor.
>
> Whoah - way too defensive there, buddy. I could very well have asked
> you if you preferred smoking out of a bong or smoking a blunt and that
> still wouldn't have been any of my business, but by participating in
> this newsgroup, you should expect such questions.
>
*Big* difference. If you can't see that, then you're just thick.
> I would have accepted the following answers:
>
> 1: I don't care and if they can help someone else, then I'm glad to
> donate them.
> 2: I believe I should be buried or cremated intact and no part of my
> body should be removed.
> 3: there is no number 3 - if you don't honestly believe in the 2nd
> option and don't subscribe to the 1st option then you are an asshole.
Or a Catholic. Or any other number of beliefs or ethical ideas which you
have no business saying are wrong. I'm not even saying if any apply.
That *too* is my business and affects the truth none.
4. *Any* of my medical information is none of your business full stop.
The reason I mentioned my doctor, is that I wouldn't want it interferred
with either way.
