Am 25.07.2010 14:36, schrieb Orchid XP v8:

> People have suggested that maybe somebody spiked my drink. All I can say
> is, if that was drugs, I'd like some more please! :-O Seriously, *is*
> there a chemical that makes you feel relaxed, happy, confident, excited
> and energetic? I rather doubt it.

Sounds like you're asking for endorphines. And guess what: They're 
legal, and for free :-)

> Is it normal for exercise to provoke these kinds of reactions??

Yes, especially condition training.

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.07.2010 21:02, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
>>> Is this the same adrenaline that causes rapid heartbeat, stomach cramps,
>>> axiety, profuse sweating, rage, depression and shortness of breath?
>>
>> Yep, it certainly is. It's responsible for a fair amount.
>
> Right. So.. .the adrenaline that makes you feel awful is also
> responsible for me feeling so mellowed out? How does *that* work??

I guess the difference is whether you "let it out": Adrenaline is meant 
to give an extra power boost to your body to either fight or run. If you 
fail to do either, it will kick your own ass.


Rapid heartbeat and shortness of breath: Preparation for increased 
oxygen demand.

Stomach cramps: Possibly preparation to literally drop some ballast.

Sweating: Preparation for increased heat production.

Rage: The emotional state associated with the decision to fight.

Anxiety: The emotional state associated with the decision to run.


Depression: The emotional state associated with being unable to either 
fight or run. The natural state of waiting for the jackals and vultures 
to come and get you, or a miracle to save you.

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.07.2010 12:14, schrieb Invisible:

> Bugger that. I'll stick to my dancing; it's probably just as good a
> workout, it's far more fun and it's drastically cheaper. :-P

Possibly so. The fun factor is especially valuable.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:26:49 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 26/07/2010 12:37 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> I've only been to the gym once since October....and I think I need to
>> start going again.
>>
>> Thing is, I actually can get a membership rate that's lower through my
>> insurance company, but I have to cancel my current membership, and
>> everything I've read says that doing so requires an act of $DEITY and
>> has all sorts of conditions tied to it.
>>
>> One of those may well be (and it isn't clear) that I can't come in as a
>> new member again, which is one of the caveats of getting the membership
>> through in insurance company.<sigh>
>>
>>
> Is there another gym you can go to?

There is, in fact the ins co covers multiple gyms, but I actually really 
like the one I'm at (but then again, it's the first one I've gone to, so 
going somewhere else might show me that I'm actually missing something).

> I suppose you've thought of that so please disregard.

:-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:14:20 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> I've only been to the gym once since October....and I think I need to
>> start going again.
> 
> I asked the local gym, but they want £52 *per month* just to give me the
> _option_ of going to the gym. Then when I actually go there's another
> fee on top of that.

That's crazy - a lot more than I currently pay (about $30/month).

> Bugger that. I'll stick to my dancing; it's probably just as good a
> workout, it's far more fun and it's drastically cheaper. :-P

Out of curiosity, are the leisure centers similarly equipped and is there 
a cost to go there?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > People have suggested that maybe somebody spiked my drink. All I can say
> > is, if that was drugs, I'd like some more please! :-O Seriously, *is*
> > there a chemical that makes you feel relaxed, happy, confident, excited
> > and energetic?

> Yes.  That's why they are illegal.  and expensive.

  I thought they are illegal because they have a very high risk of causing
heavy addiction, which not only has negative health effects but also has a
bunch of other negative side-effects (such as increasing crime rates because
many people can't afford the substances and thus have to steal in order to
get them).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 27/07/2010 7:08 AM, Warp wrote:
> nemesis<nam### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>> People have suggested that maybe somebody spiked my drink. All I can say
>>> is, if that was drugs, I'd like some more please! :-O Seriously, *is*
>>> there a chemical that makes you feel relaxed, happy, confident, excited
>>> and energetic?
>
>> Yes.  That's why they are illegal.  and expensive.
>
>    I thought they are illegal because they have a very high risk of causing
> heavy addiction, which not only has negative health effects but also has a
> bunch of other negative side-effects (such as increasing crime rates because
> many people can't afford the substances and thus have to steal in order to
> get them).
>


us than we do ourselves.

Bampots!

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:28:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> Nah! They are illegal because the “law makers” know what is better for
> us than we do ourselves.
> 
> Bampots!

You took the words right out of my mouth.  I hope I didn't bite you. :-)

(Though I wouldn't have said 'lawmakers' but rather 'moral majority' here 
in the US)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7/27/2010 11:50 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:28:30 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Nah! They are illegal because the “law makers” know what is better for
>> us than we do ourselves.
>>
>> Bampots!
>
> You took the words right out of my mouth.  I hope I didn't bite you. :-)
>
> (Though I wouldn't have said 'lawmakers' but rather 'moral majority' here
> in the US)
>
> Jim
Oh, give me a break. Yeah, there are some "low level" things, like pot, 
for which this is a believable assertion. And, it doesn't follow that 
they can tell you that you "must" wire buildings a certain way, for 
public safety, and do so licensed, but they can't tell you that you are 
not allowed to do so why taking cocaine. Either there is a hazard, or 
their isn't. The problem, in a nutshell, is that a small number of 
purists think *everything* is a hazard, including, in some case, the one 
they tried to ban before, but now only keep people from buying, in some 
places, on Sundays, whether it qualifies or not.

I do, however, agree with the argument that it also costs the tax payer 
money to cover treatment for avoidable problems, from things like 
cigarettes, and that this *could be* a legitimate grounds to 
limits/curtail their use. Unless you are a Rethuglican, in which case 
pot is evil, but you should be allowed to smoke yourself to death, at a 
huge cost to the federal and state budgets, with impunity... lol

Nearly everything else *is* addictive, sometimes instantly, and 
permanently alters brain chemistry, such that you also have to keep 
trying to take more of it, to get the same result, not to mention 
placing most people that take them in a state of mind that they 
literally can't imagine doing anything to hurt anyone else, even while, 
in the case of the nastiest of them, they are running them over with a 
car. The drunk is similarly bad, but it takes way more to do that, and 
they are not going to be laughing their ass off, as they run you over, 
they just won't notice they hit you. That bars can have X drink 
minimums, but no means/attempt is made to try to keep people from going 
to 40 bars and buying the minimum 2 drinks at every damn one of them, is 
something I have thought is bloody assed stupid. Sure, the solution 
would be complicated, and some people would cheat, and some wackos would 
whine about the government "watching them", or some BS, if they had to 
have their ID scanned every time, and bars where networked to track that 
stuff. But, arresting 2% of all the idiots that get stinking drunk, 
hoping it will make the other 98% think twice? That is just flat out 
useless.

Mind, read an article recently about the other "you really don't want to 
take this recreationally, if you plan to do anything except sit around 
under its influence, class of psychedelics. One called Ibogaine has two 
interesting effects. Its psychedelic effect is a replay of past events 
in your life, and it seems to reset brain chemistry, eliminating all 
addiction to other substances. The problem is, its insanely easy to 
overdose on it, and the UK had a serious of deaths in the program they 
where testing it in.



-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:15:23 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Oh, give me a break. Yeah, there are some "low level" things, like pot,
> for which this is a believable assertion.

The people who are for the prohibition of drugs use the same logic that 
brought about alcohol prohibition in the 30's.  It's not about the costs 
to cover treatment and such - it's about it being "bad" for people to do 
that.  It's about one group of people asserting their sense of moral 
superiority.

Understand, I have never done drugs, I never intend to do drugs, and I 
have no desire to do them.  I personally wouldn't because I do think it 
would be bad for me (in a number of ways).  I come at this from a 
standpoint of not having experienced anything related to the types of 
drugs we're talking about (I once got pretty tripped out on Hydrocodone, 
which I react very badly to, but that's a slightly different story 
because it was something obtained with a prescription).

If someone wants to be addicted to cigarettes, pot, alcohol, etc - as 
long as they're not impacting me (through secondhand smoke, for example), 
I don't care.  They can knock themselves out.  Once it leaves them, just 
as with alcohol, then there are consequences and let the consequences be 
steep (as they are for DUI, for example).

Legalization can make those drugs a tax base (as with cigarettes and 
alcohol, and being in Utah, I know a thing or three about alcohol taxes 
because they're DAMNED high here) and legalization can turn it into an 
actual industry, with quality control and the like.  I don't think it's 
naive to think that - I think that's what we saw with alcohol when 
prohibition was repealed.  Sure, some people still make their own hooch 
at home (we've been known to make wine ourselves), but the vast majority 
comes from licensed establishments and sales venues, and there are pretty 
strict controls over the production of alcohol.

It's been done before, and the only thing stopping it from being done 
again is people who - as I said - try to assert that they have a moral 
imperative (and hence a moral superiority) to prohibit those substances, 
and I for one, thing that's total BS.

Jim

Post a reply to this message