faustus

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

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!

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.

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?

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?