faustus

http://kronicstudy.net thoroughly recommend it online survey is open to australian residents who are users and non-users of synthetic cannabinoids. takes ~20mins to complete and is being conducted by monica barratt, who presented a lecture at EGA last weekend. i've chatted with her a few times about it, seems like it'll be a very interesting study. see description below * * * * * You're invited to participate in a study investigating the use of synthetic cannabis, otherwise known as Kronic, K2, Spice, Kaos, Northern Lights, Aussie Gold, Puff, Zeus, and many other brands... You DO NOT need to be a past or current user of synthetic cannabis to be eligible for this study, and we are especially interested in hearing from people with no prior use of these drugs. However, you DO need to be at least 18 years of age and an Australian resident in order to be eligible. Participation in this study involves completing an online survey lasting 20 minutes. It is entirely voluntary, completely anonymous and no identifying information will be collected. Visit the following URL to participate: http://kronicstudy.net For further information, contact Monica via email [email protected], twitter @monicabarratt, phone +61 407 778 938

as much as it would suck to have your collection racked, i can't help but note the irony at some of the more sulfurous suggestions for retribution here. "spirit plants" indeed.

i personally would find a lot of satisfaction from lancing that fucker. however,are you sure it's ready to get drained? sorry, i just couldn't help myself:

The Substance http://www.smh.com.a...ce-4262512.html By coincidence rather then by design, Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann made a sensational discovery in the spring of 1943. He realised that he is dealing with a powerful molecule that would have an impact on the entire world. He had discovered LSD. The Substance is an investigation into our troubled relation with the drug, told from its beginnings through to now. + this one's been up for a while but it's also worth checking out: Meth http://www.smh.com.a...th-4262204.html Meth explores the wave of crystal methamphetamine use in the gay population. Through the reflections of current and past users, this documentary explores the allure of the drug known to many as Tina. It features scenes of actual drug use and provides an unflinching look at the devastating effects of addiction.

hey centipede my MAOs are just jonesing for some backdoor action, any chance you still have the syrian rue seeds available? jah bless

about 10 years ago (LOL -- how i long for the naivete of adolescence) someone-who-isn't-me-but-it-really-doesn't-matter-cos-they-weren't-breaking-the-law ordered 50g of BP grade DXM powder from the good peoples of the US and A without any problem from customs.in fact, after they placed the order they started getting all sketch about things and even called customs up and recorded the details of the official with whom they spoke in order to be 100% that it was legal. from memory, "methorphan, but not dextromethorphan" was the official legislation. the company they order it from was hilarious - all they ever seemed to stock was caffeine and DXM powder! anyway, not sure if such jazz can be undertaken in here these most trying of times, but worth looking into. HOWEVER spice-of-life: it's really important for you to appreciate that the pharmacy restrictions are simply there to protect you from yourself... everybody knows that ketamine is by far the more superior antitussive agent

for me personally SAB and word of mouth have been fantastic sources for films, books, music and ideas that have made an impact on my life. we already have a youtube video clip recommendation thread, i think it'd be great to have a pinned thread where peeps can submit their recommendations about docos, films, books, music, etc on an ongoing basis. maybe this one should be about docos, and perhaps others on books, etc. so start submitting your recommendations here, but be sure to include a brief description of them. and they needn't have anything to do with drugs! here are some of my faves, : dark days an independent doco about a group of drug addicted and homeless people that live in abandoned underground subways in new york that's in complete darkness. very touching and won several sundance film festival awards king of kong all about these video game nerds attempting to break the world record for donkey kong. i originally thought it was a parody because it was so humourous in such a subtle way, but when i found it was completely real, then it sealed its fate as an absolute classic! fight science looks at different martial arts disciplines and pits them against crash-test dummy like scenarios where the force of impact and damage from a blow can be calculated. the hammer fist is one bad mother fucker of a punch the bridge about the golden gate bridge's notoriety as a suicide hotspot. so for a year or so a cameraman fixed his camera on the bridge and taped all suicides and suicide attempts. to vindicate himself of any moral responsibility, he would always report to the authorities people he suspected would kill themselves, but generally they wouldn't come in time. follows the stories behind some of the people who killed themselves, and quite an amazing one about one jumper who survived. make sure you watch this one in the right mood or it may just fuck with your head

pwoah, what's going on wit all these drug articles? is the SMH online editor a tripping cunt or sumfin'? the PNAS study: Neural correlates of the psychedelic state as determined by fMRI studies with psilocybin Carhart-Harris et al (2012).pdf ****** Magic mushrooms may aid depression, study finds Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1kL3Qj6rL Psilocybin, the active ingredient in so-called magic mushrooms, may help people with depression, based on two studies that suggest that the drug could have an enduring effect on patients. In a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 30 healthy volunteers took psilocybin intravenously and had their brains observed with magnetic resonance imaging scanners. Activity in the medial prefrontal cortex, which is hyperactive in depression, was consistently lowered, according to the research led by David Nutt and Robin Carhart-Harris of Imperial College London. A second study, to be published January 26 in the British Journal of Psychiatry and conducted by the same researchers, found that psilocybin enhanced volunteers' recollections of positive personal memories, compared with those who took a placebo. “Our findings support the idea that psilocybin facilitates access to personal memories and emotions,” Carhart-Harris said in a statement. “This effect needs to be investigated further but it suggests that used in combination with psychotherapy, psilocybin might help people recall positive life events and reverse pessimistic mindsets.” Timothy Leary Magic mushrooms, also known as “'shrooms," have been used for centuries in healing ceremonies and were employed extensively in psychotherapy in the 1950s, according to Carhart-Harris. The fungi, favoured by former Harvard University psychologist Timothy Leary, who founded the Harvard Psilocybin Project, are typically eaten but can also be dried and smoked or made into a tea. Psilocybin mushrooms are a schedule I substance in the US, which means the government considers them to have a high potential for abuse and no legitimate medical purpose, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The findings provide support for further research, and Carhart-Harris plans to follow up with a controlled study of 60 patients with depression that may start by the end of this year, he said today in a briefing in London. As a treatment option, psilocybin may provide an “enduring benefit” after a single dosage, compared with expensive anti- depressant medications that need to be taken daily and have side effects, Nutt said. No negative effects were observed among the study participants, Carhart-Harris said. The authors cite a recent study by Roland Griffiths at Johns Hopkins University of Medicine in Baltimore, which found that depression scores in terminal cancer patients were significantly decreased six months after treatment with psilocybin. The research at Imperial College London was funded by the Oxford, England-based Beckley Foundation; the Neuropsychoanalysis Foundation in New York; the Santa Cruz, California-based Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies; and the Heffter Research Institute in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

hey thunder, will ya, for dear ole faustypoo?

PS here's the second paper that came out: full article: https://sites.google.com/site/806246/BJP-2011-103309.pdf

chemotherapy results in indescriminate death of dividing cells. SSRI antidepressants actually stimulate neurogenesis, i.e. neuronal growth. in fact, the antidepressant effects of SSRIs are dependent on its ability to stimulate brain-derived neurotrophic factor. so your analogy is totally chat and couldn't be further from the truth. you know very well that psychological teabagging is the more appropriate description for SSRIs.

SSRI antidepressants will kill the effects of serotonergic hallucinogens considerably. i can't remember who said it, but there was some cunt who decided to quit his antidepressants cos they were fucking with his visuals. now that's what i call dedication, biatchez!

http://media.smh.com.au/news/world-news/demis-911-call-released-shes-convulsing-2922080.html check it, there's a 911 call and they say "she's smoked something... not marijuana, but it's similar to incense" demi moore: dirty little spice fiend?

there's something about branson that's always rubbed me the wrong way but the brutha is talking sense yo. check out the SMH poll too, 80% for decriminalisation! ********************** http://www.smh.com.a...1qem4.html#poll War on drugs a failure, decriminalise now: Branson The war on drugs has failed and it's time to decriminalise their use, billionaire British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson says. And he has been praised by Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith for speaking out on an issue on which "most people will say nothing". Sir Richard, who is due to appear at a British parliamentary inquiry into drug policy today, wrote in London's Daily Telegraph that political leaders needed to find the courage to speak out against current drug policies. "Over the past 50 years, more than $1 trillion has been spent fighting this battle, and all we have to show for it is increased drug use, overflowing jails, billions of pounds and dollars of taxpayers' money wasted, and thriving crime syndicates," he wrote. "It is time for a new approach." 'Alternatives available' His view is supported by Geoff Gallop, the former premier of Western Australia, who told smh.com.au the use of the words "war on drugs" gave it a military application that provided "a bad way of looking at this issue". "There are better ways of looking at it and decriminalising use, I think, would be a very good step forward, and then properly regulating supplying and distribution with a view to harm minimisation. "There is evidence now that alternatives are available which don't have the catastrophic consequences that the critics say and, in fact, have positive consequences in terms of people who abuse drugs and get addicted." Mr Smith, who said he had discussed this issue with Sir Richard in the past, told smh.com.au the Virgin boss would not have spoken out if he did not feel strongly about it. "I believe Richard Branson is a very decent person. He would not write that unless he has really thought about it," Mr Smith said. "And he realises there is downside as well as an upside. It's what you do on balance. Obviously what we are doing now is not succeeding. "I admire him because it is completely out of left field and he has no financial interest in this. He will be attacked and criticised. But he is saying it how it is. He is showing some real leadership in this matter and I think that's important." 'Cutting consumption and reducing harm' Sir Richard argued for a move away from prohibition and enforcement towards a focus on cutting consumption and reducing harm, saying that a study by the Global Commission for Drug Policy - which he was a part of - on international drug policies over the past 50 years revealed the failure of current measures. "First, prohibition and enforcement efforts have failed to dent the production and distribution of drugs in any part of the world. Second, the threat of arrest and punishment has had no significant deterrent effect on drug use. "We need a debate on how policy can cut consumption and reduce harm, rather than inflammatory scaremongering. It is not about supporting drug use; it is about solving a crisis." Sir Richard wrote that while it was not yet known which policies would work best, lawmakers all over the world should be encouraged to experiment with new policies, citing some steps taken by Switzerland and Portugal. "Following examples such as these and embracing a regulated drugs market that is tightly controlled and complemented by treatment - not incarceration - for those with drug problems will cost taxpayers a lot less." Sir Richard said the methods to evaluate such policies should also be radically changed - with the focus on outcomes instead of on arrests, prosecutions and drug seizures, "which turn out to have little impact on levels of drug use or crime". "We should instead measure the outcomes in the same way that a business would measure the results of a new ad campaign. "That means studying things like the number of victims of drug-related violence and intimidation, levels of corruption connected to the drug market, the amount of crime connected to drug use, and the prevalence of dependence, drug-related mortality and HIV infection." 'Political nervousness' Mr Smith said while he generally agreed with Sir Richard's opinions, he believed it would be almost impossible for people to change their views on the criminalisation of drug use. "I think he's probably right but I don't think it will happen. We all say, if drugs are illegal we should be able to stop them." But Dr Gallop said increased dialogue in civil society would help open up the debate. He said Australia had been taking some "forward steps", through measures such as needle exchange programs, methadone programs, and in moves towards the decriminalisation of cannabis. "But on the fundamental point of decriminalising use, there has been a hesitation and a political nervousness about it. "And so I think the argument needs to be had and politicians then can perhaps find a little more relaxed about changing the law and not suffering any political consequences. I think the case for reform needs more movement within civil society. "The public worry about these things. There are parents, they have cousins who are affected by it, so any government has to ensure people there are benefits and there's a lot of evidence to show that can happen."

christ, right you are! i'm such a dopey bogan cunt.

smoking doesn't "cause" lung cancer in the usual sense of the word. it's a risk factor whose exposure has been epidemiologically linked with an increased incidence of lung cancer in a dose-dependent fashion. why has the prevalence of lung cancer only occured in recent history, and not throughout the entirely of human consumption of tobacco for the past 3000 years? a few reasons might spring to mind: - increased life expectancy. the median age of lung cancer diagnosis is ~70 years. life expectancy in 1900 was ~50 years. for much of human history, infectious diseases were the leading cause of mortality, but have subsequently been superceded by the lifestyle diseases. i.e. people weren't given a chance to die of lung cancer because other diseases were killing them off before that. - smoking and lung cancer incidence occurs in a dose-dependent fashion. think of every cigarette that a person smokes as one lottery ticket in the "lung cancer sweepstakes" ... having a ticket doesn't guarantee that you'll "win" but with every ticket you possess you increase your chances ever so slightly. 3,000 years ago, were indian tribespeople really smoking the equivalent of 25 cigarettes a day for 10-20 years? probably not. brief exposure to smoke = smaller risk of lung cancer = lower incidence of cancer. only since the cigarette machine in the late 1800s has tobacco been consumed like a mother-fuck. - there's a latency between smoking exposure and subsequent development of lung cancer. as the study in the original post shows, the cellular changes associated with lung cancer occur rapidly. regardless, it usually takes several decades before these cellular changes manifest themselves as "cancerous". look at this figure which nicely demonstrates the concept of dose-dependency and latency: for your whole "chemical additive hypothesis" to hold true, additives must have been added right from the very beginning of mass tobacco consumption. but they weren't, they were added circa 1970. as you can see, there's a nice correlation between tobacco consumption and cancer incidence even well before this period. your conspiracy theory is inconsistent with the epidemiological data.

erotic ghost stories on late night SBS the swimsuit section of the target catalogue striptease in an era long before the internet brought us unlimited hardcore goatsex and brazilian fart porn, how quickly we forget the original jack-off classics. any cunt who hates on demi moore is just an ingrate who has forgotten her invaluable contribution to their adolescent masturbatorial repertoire. one million hand callouses to you! so apparently they reckon she was nanged out. i've actually witnessed this happen before. first time a friend took nitrous he had quite a violent seizure for like a minute. everyone in the room was quite shocked when it happened. never seen that happen to anybody since. a ketafiend i know from way back would have these really strange seizures when he was coming down on k. given that they're both NMDA antagonists, i have a feeling that it might be caused by some flood of glutamate excitation as the drugs are wearing off, but this is just me throwing ideas around.

i strongly believe in the concept of opposite attraction, but i add a qualifer... "opposites attract, but in a different way" ... the opposite of a lovely person is a cunt. the opposite of a right wing neo-con is a marxist cunt. although i'm sure it happens, i don't think couplings typically end up that way. i think it's similar interests, but different personality disposition. artist and scientist, but into the same things. i'm naturally drawn to arty types, cos i must've been dropped on that part of my head at birth. but they sure as hell have gotta be left wing libertarian. from memory, one of the best predictors of getting married to someone is simply how far away they live from you re: waking life, i don't see it as being about artist preference. it's more a presentation of a bunch of metaphysical, religious, political and scientific ideas and if at the end of the film, a girl was to say to me, "that film did absolutely nothing for me" then i don't think she could vaguely approach the core of who i am as a person. we could certainly be friends, but i don't think i'd want to insert my elephantine penis into her vagina. actually, i probably still would, but i sure as hell wouldn't snuggle afterwards. anyone heard of the door test?

care to stroke mine instead?

i think you misunderstand what it is that i'm skeptical about. it's a little like this: nope, i'm not skeptical of that. i'm skeptical of whether the ability to access positive memories from your past is something that would readily happen amongst depressed people, at least in a subgroup who have had a life filled with negative memories. i'm also skeptical about whether this would necessarily produce a statistically significant reduction in scores on measures of depression in a cohort of depressed individuals in a controlled study. what is the basis for my skepticism? they used healthy volunteers for their study, not depressed ones. negative life events (and therefore, the accumulation of more negative memories) are often the cause of depression, and that depressed people may have fewer positive memories to recall maybe instead of being able to recall positive memories, psilocybin allows one to simply recall any type of emotionally salient memory more vividly. it's no stretch of the imagination that the content of the type of memories that would be recalled might be markedly different between people who are happy and people who are depressed. the entire crux of it all: i'm skeptical about the generalisability of these findings from a small sample of healthy volunteers to the wider population of depressed people. this is a problem in all research. as an example, the majority of psychology research is done on undergrad students and several important studies have demonstrated that robust research findings don't necessarily apply when the sample is from the wider community. of relevance to the present stud, the notion that the effects of drugs differ as a function of mental state/illness isn't a very outrageous one. science bashing, indeed.

re: smoking mushrooms, is it possible that they've just confused amanita for psilocybin?

erm, no. it's about not making therapeutic claims above and beyond what the evidence indicates. it's reasonable to argue that psilocybin might help depressed cunts, and the findings of this study certainly justify that hypothesis. but it's just a hypothesis right now, and one that requires further empircal investigation. for example, i'm sure you're familiar with the antidepressant effects of ketamine yeah? every k-fiending cunt left, right and centre was using it to semi-justify their use of the drug. never mind that this only involved low-doses, not psychedelic doses, and subsequent research has demonstrated that the anti-depressant effects of k are short-lived, and the majority of patients will relapse after a couple weeks. the findings from the ketamine studies are extremely promising regardless, but my point is that there's a tendency for people to over-exaggerate the significance of psychedelic research because they feel drugs have been hard done by for so long. so no, my skepticism is entirely sound and borne from my understanding of the present study and the existing literature. when this study is done, it'll be more compelling evidence about the antidepressant properties of psilocybin. my point: until then, i don't think a bunch of burnt out hippies should get their pee-pees all stiff about this study.

well exactly, it's a bit of a stretch to assume that an effect observed with healthy people is going to also be matched in depressed cunts. i can say depressed cunts cos i am one, kinda like how black people can use the N word. this is all good, save for the fact that some depressed people actually have had shit lives.

well... stereotypes do tend to exist for a reason.

newtown? they sell them at both the franklins and foodworks. from urban dictionary: