Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

It's because they do dude.

I smoke some pot. I get light headed.

I smoke a cigarette. I get light headed.

I guess, it could be anything. But really, if I think it is so, then it might as well be so. Because as it has been said, being high is a state of mind.

And on the ecstasy, if it was caused entirely by the pill, it would effect everyone the same. It doesn't.

It's like saying, the reason michael phelps can swim fast is because of type of speedo he wears.

True, a clean speedo will make you more comfortable than a dirty one, but if you are not in the right state of mind it to begin with it won't matter. That's how people die. Because they think they aren't in control when they really really are.

You guys need to give the human brain more credit, seriously. And this is why I find this scenario ridiculous. It says that nicotine (if that is the substance chosen to be put into the food/drink watever) raises dopamine levels.

Regardless of what you want to call it, you're going to notice it.

They'd probably try to find out what it was. But the bigger question is, why would you sneak nicotine into someones food, it is kind of rude...

At 2/21/09 07:11 PM, Helicopterz wrote: Changing your state of mind via a substance*

What would you call that?

Because according to the information you posted about nicotine, it does affect your state of mind.

So is that all you call it?

It affects your state of mind, in a very subtle way. It's not like it's making you drunk, another name for a state of mind change via a substance.

I may have missed the point, but why have you brought another account in to post?

At 2/21/09 05:23 PM, Sensationalism wrote: They might crave water if that's what you were putting it in. But they'd definitely go int withdrawal without it. Interesting question, really.

Someone conduct an experiment please.

I would try it, anyone got some nicotine and some water?

At 2/21/09 07:22 PM, KartoTolmex wrote:
I may have missed the point, but why have you brought another account in to post?

Because I'm an impatient bastard.

All disagreement of semantics aside, I would like to see this experiment put into practice.

At 2/21/09 07:20 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

And on the ecstasy, if it was caused entirely by the pill, it would effect everyone the same. It doesn't.

It's like saying, the reason michael phelps can swim fast is because of type of speedo he wears.

True, a clean speedo will make you more comfortable than a dirty one, but if you are not in the right state of mind it to begin with it won't matter. That's how people die. Because they think they aren't in control when they really really are.

Explain to me why some people have allergies to nuts? It's caused entirely by the peanut, but it affects people differently. Same logic applies to ecstasy, the effects are caused entirely by the pill, but it's effect varies.

And I think swimming is leagues away from becoming high from nicotine, seeing as you're now comparing activities requiring physical exertion to events solely influenced by chemicals.

You guys need to give the human brain more credit, seriously. And this is why I find this scenario ridiculous. It says that nicotine (if that is the substance chosen to be put into the food/drink watever) raises dopamine levels.

Regardless of what you want to call it, you're going to notice it.

Noticing something isn't the same as becoming high from it. And it depends on what the concentration of the nicotine was, and how prolonged a period it was introduced.

How can you not see that the entire reason effects vary is because of the person not because of the pill?

Like. You just said, well we threw this ball into 4 fields, the last field made the ball explode, it must be the ball that caused that...

And I agree. Noticing something is different, but that is what I am interested in. I think I would be able to notice something funny in the water, but maybe I wouldn't.

So let's do it. You can buy nicotine gum/patches without prescriptions right? I could set this experiment up.

I should say, made the ball explode and set the field on fire.

It's simple logic I think. One variable is the same. The other (the person) isn't.

How can you say that it is not caused by the person?

At 2/21/09 07:34 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: How can you not see that the entire reason effects vary is because of the person not because of the pill?

Like. You just said, well we threw this ball into 4 fields, the last field made the ball explode, it must be the ball that caused that...

But without the ball there would be nothing to explode...

Head - Brick wall

And I agree. Noticing something is different, but that is what I am interested in. I think I would be able to notice something funny in the water, but maybe I wouldn't.

You wouldn't

Example:

"Pharmaceuticals including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilisers and sex hormones have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41m Americans, according to an investigation by the Associated Press."

Public didn't know about this, routine water PH levels etc found this out.

So let's do it. You can buy nicotine gum/patches without prescriptions right? I could set this experiment up.

I can guarantee now it won't make you high.

But it's also an experiment with more than one variable changed, which negates the findings.

Was the lack of breathing in that provided the results, or the lack of tobacco, or the lack of item association?

At 2/21/09 07:40 PM, KartoTolmex wrote:
But without the ball there would be nothing to explode...

But it didn't explode in the other fields, because they weren't sensitive to it.

Without that specific field nothing would be on fire, and the ball would be intact.

And yes an experiment of this nature would probably never be accurate because I would think that since addicting personality is unique to the person results would be all over the place.

At 2/21/09 07:29 PM, KartoTolmex wrote: Explain to me why some people have allergies to nuts? It's caused entirely by the peanut, but it affects people differently. Same logic applies to ecstasy, the effects are caused entirely by the pill, but it's effect varies.

It's not entirely the peanut, it's the body's reaction to the peanut. People react to things differently sometimes.

Like Red, ketamine did nothing for him, so he could eat handfuls of it with no effect. T

At 2/21/09 07:43 PM, Helicopterz wrote:

But it didn't explode in the other fields, because they weren't sensitive to it.

Without that specific field nothing would be on fire, and the ball would be intact.

But it's still the ball that was the catalyst, without the ball all the fields would be intact regardless

And yes an experiment of this nature would probably never be accurate because I would think that since addicting personality is unique to the person results would be all over the place.

I think it's time to let the argument go, for me anyway.

I've said my piece, I can offer no more, so I will leave it as is. A good discussion for the most part.

It's both! :P

You're a good sport.

Here's another question though, could nicotine still be addictive if it's levels were at an undetectable level?

(both mentally and physically)

Tis indeed a good argument whether nicotine makes you "high" as you put it, but using the same argument rgarding the release of dopamine, you may as well say chocolate makes you high. Having an orgasm makes you high. Etc etc etc. It all depends on someone's perception of high. Some people say they get high of life, no substances required.

I consider a "high" to be a significant alteration in my state of mind, however I do not include being drunk being high, despite falling into this category. When I have a cigarette sober, my cravings cease, and I feel relaxed. If I go weeks without a cigarette (as I currently am at the moment) and then have one, I feel a much stronger head rush than I would smoking frequently. Would I consider this a high? No. When I have a cigarette when I'm absolutely smashed off my face, it makes me considerably more drunk, for reasons completely unknown.

If I had a joint, yes, I would consider myself high, possibly because I have come to associate the feeling of smoking pot with being "high". I've experimented with hallucingenics aswell (thoroughly recommended if you're in a sound state of mind and with someone you can have a laugh with to trip with, you really discover a lot about yourself when you lose your inhibitions without being drunk), and while I would also consider this being high, I would describe it more as tripping, because thats what it is, a journey in which everything becomes fantastical and magical and every batshit insane thought that you or your mate comes out with seems to make perfect sense and you can easily spend half an hour watching graffiti melt off a wall before comparing crying windows to something out of silent hill. Oh and also being scared shitless of your friend who decided to dress in a hospital gown covered with blood. Fucking trippy shit, although I couldn't help laughing and wondering why nobody else was as scared as I was.

Oh dear I've strayed off the point quite considerably. FUCK IT. TRY SHROOMS. TRY LSD. TRY MAGICAL WINNIE THE POOH SHAPED CHOCOLATES A STRANGER SOLD YOU AND YOU STUPIDLY ATE THEM.

That is all.